Question on Gifts and Gender

One of the reasons I was confused when I first began to understand that many limit the types of spiritual ministry that men might receive from women due to certain passages of Scripture, was my understanding that I Corinthians 12 describes spiritual gifts as those given by God, via the Holy Spirit, to various members of Christ’s body for the good of the whole body, without specification of age, gender, education, etc. The gifts are given for “the common good,” v. 7. It does not say that some gifts are only given for some parts of the body and not others, only that not everyone receives the same gifts. But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. (vv.18-20)

It also says, And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.

So I am wondering, how do complementarians square the “limitation” verses with this passage? Any references to articles, etc. are much appreciated.

Why Arguments against Women in Ministry Aren’t Biblical, by BW3

Ben Witherington writes on this topic which has been near and dear to his heart for many years:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/2009/10/why-arguments-against-women-in-ministry-arent-biblical.html

Your responses to what he says are welcome here as comments.

What Women Want Now

A recent issue of Time magazine has an article asking “What Women Want Now” The article finds that both women and men are stressed today over employment, marriage, and gender roles.

What responses do you have to the article? Would everything be better if women would just “stay in the place” at home, raising their children? Would that be more biblical?

Feminism makes women unhappy?

Feminism makes women unhappy.

Here’s the article on CBMW: http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/NYT-Modern-Women-are-Unhappy

responding to this op-ed piece:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20dowd.html?_r=1

 

This was suggested by Joy.

Women as Leaders: Contemporary Perspectives on the Roles of Women in Messianic Judaism

Interesting article, published in Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol 6, No 1 (2009):

Women as Leaders: Contemporary Perspectives on the Roles of Women in Messianic Judaism

Comments welcome here.

HT: Eric Weiss

Bruce Ware and God’s image in ‘man’…

a quote from an old article on CBMW’s Gender Blog …

“The position Grudem and Ware hold is of course the position of CBMW and we believe it has considerable implications for gender issues. The doctrine of God, specifically the Trinity, is intrinsically important as a type of parallel to how we relate to both God and to each other. The relational structure within the Godhead is a pattern for those created in his image. Bruce Ware commenting on Genesis 1:26, writes:

“There is an intentionality expressed in these words indicating that man, more fully than any other part of creation, will reflect and represent what God is like. Although the heavens declare God’s glory (Psalm 19:1), only man is made in God’s image” (132).

He sums up his point nicely saying, “It is God-like to submit to rightful authority with joy and gladness as it is God-like to exert wise and beneficial rightful authority.” The next two posts will draw out more implications of the Trinity debate on gender issues for marriage, the family, and the Church.”

It really sounds like Bruce Ware is saying that only the male human is fully made in God’s image??? This is of some importance, since this is a basic doctrinal stance of CBMW. And I am of the opinion that most believers regardless of their views on gender consider both male and female to be in God’s image.

J.B. Starke from CBMW has clarified that “man” in the quote was intended to be understood in the inclusive sense, that is, as humans.

full article here…

http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Debating-the-Trinity-Part-I

Which is the birth that saves?

If, as John Piper says (thanks to Scot McKnight @ Beliefnet), the church is propagaged by spiritual rebirth and not physical birth, then what does this do to the complementarian plank based on I Timothy 2:15, that women are saved through childbearing? (And therefore women should get married and bear children, if they are able?)

(Not to mention what this would mean for the infertile — those who are “barren.”)

Driscoll not PG about Sex. Amen!

This post was originally on my blog and touches on the controversial pastor, Mark Driscoll, over whom I have been having an interesting exchange at Church Discipline.  I have observed that debate about him inevitably turns into comp-egal discussions, so I’m posting it here to get the blog rolling.

———-

Axiom: If you want to get conservative church folk really riled up, talk about s-e-x…out loud…on Sunday morning…in the sermon…and skip the metaphors. That’s the reaction pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle is getting from many prominent Christians in the evangelical world. In the latest iterations of protest against Driscoll, Bott Radio Network interrupted one of its programs midway and cancelled another program’s scheduled radio interview at the behest of the network’s founder, Dick Bott, just for featuring Driscoll. According to conservative publications and commentators, like the Baptist Press and others, Mark Driscoll is on a Christian no-no list for saying no-no things, if you get my drift. Among the adjectives used for his language are “vulgar”, “unwholesome,” “coarse,” “filthiness,” and so forth.

It is a fact that Driscoll offends conservative Christian sensibilities concerning sex talk with non-PG language. Now here’s a question that I have: Since when is sex ever rated PG? Sex is for the married. You can be married only if you are 18 (in most states). And, if you are over 18, what about talking about sex should really offend? Why should the fact that he says “sex” out loud and not “s-e-x” give adults with mature attitudes trouble, except if they are not so mature after all?

After reviewing several blog rants and even a four-part article dedicated to criticizing Driscoll’s sermons on the Song of Solomon (which quickly boil down to criticisms about his person and faith), I cannot help but become aware of the river of problems under the church running far deeper than the issue of Mark Driscoll’s mouth. For example, sex is almost always discussed negatively. Driscoll himself observes that the primary message sent to most church youth is that “sex is gross…it’s dirty, nasty, vile, and wrong, so save it for the one you love.” How many Christian couples suffer in silence over sexual issues because they’ve been conditioned to think that sex is too taboo to discuss at church and among believers? In response, some believers might consider the wisdom of the secular world and then struggle over appealing to a source that is so maligned within the church as well. Church, which should be the safest place on earth to talk about healthy sexuality, is sadly the most unsafe and the last place anyone dares talk about it.

I listened to a fair share of Driscoll’s sermons, especially the ones that relate to this topic. There could be the rare occasion that he gets graphic in such a way that might offend (but in listening to three+ hours–and counting–of sermons, I have yet to hear anything even close). I’ve come to the opinion that the messages he delivers are far more important to the listener than the concerns of his critics. He is neither vulgar nor treats sex in marriage as a joke. Vulgarity demeans and degrades people or actions. Driscoll is doing the opposite. He is trying to save marriages and relationships. Not only that, he is trying to save wedded bliss from being the stuff of fairytales and/or the first two weeks of marriage.

Marriage is sacred, which is exactly why Driscoll’s sex talk is badly needed in the evangelical world. Our churchgoers no longer know what the body is used for and how to enjoy it in the way we were created. We have allowed the ungodly secular world determine what is impermissible and “dirty” for believers instead of believers charging the world with its perversion and taking back sexual pleasure under the dominion of the kingdom of God.

Mark Driscoll in general makes people with conservative sensibilities uneasy and takes the fun out of being a liberal. I gotta say that I kind of like that.

——–

July 16, 2009: Comments are now closed on this post. (Wayne Leman)

Why do the New Calvinists insist on Complementarianism?

This question was asked by The Common Loon in his article Is There A Calvinist-Complementarian Connection? Kevin DeYoung interacts with this article in his own Why Do the New Calvinists Insist on Complementarianism?

DeYoung’s article reveals that he belongs to  a denomination which is Egalitarian, but which permits him to preach complementarian sermons and have a church that embraces complementarian principles. He goes on to say that he thinks it is possible to be a Calvinist and Egalitarian, but also says that he is happy that the New Calvinists also embrace Complementarianism. He gives several reasons for this, which include the following:

1. Historically, opening the door to egalitarianism in one generation leads to bigger errors in the next. I know slopes aren’t always slippery, but this one seems to be. Once your hermeneutic allows for egalitarianism, it becomes hard to stand firm on homosexuality. I’m not saying that all egalitarians believe homosexuality is acceptable, only that blurring gender roles and overstating the implications of Galatians 3:28 has often slid, over time, into an acceptance of sexual immorality.

2. Complementarianism tends to signify a number of other important convictions. I don’t know any complementarians who don’t also affirm inerrancy, penal substitution, and eternal punishment (I’m not counting Catholics because though they don’t ordain women, the reasoning has more to do with their view of the priesthood than a complementarian theology of manhood and womanhood). In other words, if someone is a Calvinist and a complementarian I can generally assume a lot about their theology. These are not the two most important issues of the faith, but they are two issues that if embraced in our day, almost always include a lot of other important theological beliefs.

3. Practically, it is very difficult for groups and organizations and movements to make both complementarians and egalitarians happy… It is simpler and better for the long-term peace of an organization to take a stand on this issue. Cross-denominational movements can allow for different views of baptism, because they don’t ever have to baptize anyone. But such movements will have to make decisions on leadership structures and speaking requests. So going one way or the other on the gender issue becomes a practical necessity.

Comments on DeYoung’s article are interesting, and include observations by Scot McKnight, Arthur Sido and The Common Loon himself.

If, Then…

The following is a slightly altered version of Rudyard Kipling’s famous poem.

What do you think? Does it work?

If…

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all [ ] doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream – and not make dreams your master;
If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves [wretches] to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
‘ Or walk with Kings [Queens] – nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And – which is more – you’ll be a [Woman], my [daughter]!