Create in me a new song – Part 9

(be sure to read “Does God Really Prefer Men?” by Leslie and Gary Johnson.  Download free and give to your friends to read.)

The woman who thinks she is equal in a church that doesn’t. 

One of my favorite websites showed 5 young men in rumpled clothes, bluejeans, and looking oh, so cool.

These pastors and music minister, and staff were really something else.  I just knew that if I visited that church that I could wear what I want, find instant friends, and be welcomed with open arms.

Because they were modern men, the ones in the know, the ones who were going to change the world for Christ.

But they didn’t , and they aren’t, and they won’t.

Because you see, at the top of their website was a button that you could click on and find out their beliefs, and those beliefs led you directly to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.  The statement that says that our men can welcome the 21st century, but our women can’t.

They were just The Boy’s Club.  Women – keep out! 

I know a woman who was the financial person for a Baptist association.  She had to leave the administrative meeting after the cake was served, and the men got down to business.  She could take care of the finances, but she couldn’t be a part of the planning team to discuss those finances.

Then there was another Baptist woman I know.  Everybody knew she had an important job at the church, but nobody quite knew what title to give her.  She acted as the associate pastor, but that was a no-no, so they had to come up with another name for her.  And then they didn’t know just how far to let her go in the staff meetings.  Eventually they let her go, ostensibly because of budget reasons, but actually because they got a new male pastor, and she had to give up part of her salary for his package.

Were these women equal?  Of course not.  They never thought they were, unlike the woman in our story.  The problem with the woman in our story is that she was not thinking.  She was hoping that she was equal, and because they treated her nice, she bought it.

All the while, they knew she wasn’t equal.  Nobody was ever going to ask a worship leader to be a deacon, so she was not ever going to face that.  They knew she would never create a fuss.  They knew she would never even use the word “equality.” 

What they all knew, but would not openly discuss, is that unless all women could possibly be a deacon (subject to spiritual considerations), then none are equal.

She cannot do anything to create equality for women in her church.

Do you know who can?

You can.  You can speak up.  I encourage you to speak up for women everywhere.  Not in her church, but in your own church where women are left out of meetings, where women are limited by their gender.

We keep our eyes closed to what is actually happening in our churches because we don’t want to know.  Because we are not going to speak up if we do know how our women staff and others are treated.

Let the men be cool – we will just be silent.

Create in me a new song where I will speak up and tell those in authority that women are equal and each woman should be considered for positions based on her qualifications, not on her gender.

Wednesday will conclude this series.

About bwebaptistwomenforequality

Shirley Taylor writes with humor and common sense, challenging the church body to reclaim equality for Christian women.
This entry was posted in A new song and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Create in me a new song – Part 9

  1. Daniel says:

    Is your goal to change the church culture? And, is your motivation the oppresion of men?


    • Welcome! Oh my goodness. There is not one sentence in my whole blog that would give you the idea that I want to oppress men. So why did you say that?


    • Equality doesn’t mean oppression.

      I’m confused. Does equality oppress people?


      • Mara says:


        Here is how Daniel comes to this.
        The only understanding he has of equality is socialism. And since socialism is “enforced” equality and has been shown to be a dismal failure, he concludes that all forms of equality would be dismal failures and all forms of equality must be enforced by someone.

        When the only equality men with darkened minds understand is socialism then the only conclusion they can come to is…

        wait for it…

        equality = oppression

        clear as mud?

        Sounds a bit like “1984” doesn’t it.
        But that’s what you get with CBMW doublespeak.

        Black means white and white means black.

        Equality means oppression to fearful men like Daniel.


  2. Mabel says:

    Can you put a “Share” link after each article so that I have the choice to post it on Facebook?


  3. Mara says:

    Concerning Daniel’s comment.

    Men have a tendancy toward ‘either/or’ thinking.

    Many men can only see, “If the man is not in charge then that means the woman is. Because somebody HAS to be in charge.” They can’t think in terms of partnership.

    And since you. Shirley, are advocating that maybe the Bible isn’t teaching that men are always in charge, that MUST mean you are advocating the women are the ones who are supposed to be in charge. And when women are in charge, that MUST mean that men are oppressed.

    The goofiest thing about Daniel’s misguided thought process and out-in-left-field comment is following it to it’s logical conclusions (which is really illogical since the premises are whacked to begin with):

    IF women being in charge means men are oppressed, then the opposite would be true. If men are in charge that MUST mean women are oppressed.
    Therefore anyone teaching male heirarchy in Christianity is automatically teaching that women are oppressed in Christianity.

    And they wonder why the women are complaining.


  4. Daniel says:

    “each woman should be considered for positions based on her qualifications, not on her gender.”

    Should women be equal in the pastorship as well? How far should this equality go?


    • EricW says:

      All the way. In Christ “there is not ‘male and female’.” There is nothing about what a pastor does that makes “pastorship” something thst only a male can do.


      • Daniel says:

        Then you must consider the current position of authority that men hold as the oppresion of women. They have kept women from occupying positions that they could accomplish easily just because they are women. You are frustrated with the male hierarchy. You can’t say then that the oppresion of men is not a motivation.


      • EricW says:

        Facts are stubborn things.

        Facts are facts.

        “The current position of authority that men hold” in patriarchal churches is indeed due to “the oppression of women,” if excluding women from equal positions of authority or leadership or Holy-Spirit operations is solely because of their sex.

        But you are wrong to say that because I believe this I am therefor “frustrated with the male hierarchy.” I’m not. It’s not an issue with me. I’m not in a church or organization or household that has a male hierarchy. If other men want to wear silly costumes or lord it over women just because they’re men and not women, that’s their problem. And if women want to subject themselves to that kind of foolishness and denial of their equal standing in Christ as children of God, that’s their problem.

        I am not “frustrated with the male hierarchy.” I just ignore it and refuse to support it.


  5. Daniel says:

    When someone uses gender and equality in the same article, sometimes they think of gender as a cultural invention. Most people will accept that there are two sexes, but many genders: male, female, gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender, etc.

    Do you think gender is a cultural invention?


  6. EricW says:

    Most people will accept that there are two sexes, but many genders: male, female, gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender, etc.

    “Transgender” by definition and usage means a person who changes their “gender” from male to female or vice-versa. That’s still just two “genders.” However, it seems to me that “transgender” is a misnomer and should be “transsexual,” esp. in light of the World Health Organization definitions for the terms:

    What do we mean by “sex” and “gender”?

    Sometimes it is hard to understand exactly what is meant by the term “gender”, and how it differs from the closely related term “sex”.

    “Sex” refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.

    “Gender” refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

    To put it another way:

    “Male” and “female” are sex categories, while “masculine” and “feminine” are gender categories.

    Aspects of sex will not vary substantially between different human societies, while aspects of gender may vary greatly.

    Some examples of sex characteristics :

    * Women menstruate while men do not
    * Men have testicles while women do not
    * Women have developed breasts that are usually capable of lactating, while men have not
    * Men generally have more massive bones than women

    Some examples of gender characteristics :

    * In the United States (and most other countries), women earn significantly less money than men for similar work
    * In Viet Nam, many more men than women smoke, as female smoking has not traditionally been considered appropriate
    * In Saudi Arabia men are allowed to drive cars while women are not
    * In most of the world, women do more housework than men


  7. Daniel says:

    “Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.”

    So, feminine and masculine behaviors are social constructs. In this I only partially agree. Human nature informs society. Men and women have specific gender behaviors based upon their sex and mental condition because of human nature. In other words, we are made this way. Human nature is the reason why men and women act differently. To change the culture according to feminist ideology is to work against human anture.


    • EricW says:

      Disagree with WHO all you want to. Why should we accept your definitions of and distinctions between “sex” and “gender” in lieu of WHO’s? You haven’t shown yourself to be an authority on the matter.


  8. Daniel says:

    “You haven’t shown yourself to be an authority on the matter.”

    Then prove me wrong. If you subscribe to WHO’s definition, which neglects to explain how human nature fits into the issue, you should be able to defend it.

    By the way, do you realize that you’re advocating a kind of totalitarian socialism in the church? The question of who is going to enforce this equality has to come up sooner or later. This is when equality oppresses people, Hannah Thomas. Eventually, people must be brought down to other people’s level. The battle cry for feminism isn’t just to bring women up, it’s to bring men down. The only motivation for this is envy.


    • Mara says:

      So what is the motivation for men to keep their position of authority in the churches?

      Say what you want. Use as flowery words as you like. Men defending their positions of authority is not motivated by anything honorable.

      You may also listen to the lies and the fear mongering that fearful men, afraid of losing their elevated positions use. Words like socialism and totalitarianism.

      Argue all you like. You only prove my point over and over.

      You can only think in an “either/or” manner. Either men are in charge or women are in charge. And since you are a man, women being in charge scares your boxers off.
      You, sir, are motivated by fear.

      Your problem is with your entire premise and the tradition of ignoring God’s original design and instructions given in Genesis.

      Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

      27 So God created mankind in his own image,
      in the image of God he created them;
      male and female he created them.

      28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

      From the beginning, God gave co-rulership to men and women together.
      Just because the fall occurred and men became fearful of women and used their superior size and lower levels of empathy to subdue women doesn’t make it right.

      Male authority was not God’s original intent.
      Men working overtime to try to prove that it was God’s intent cannot prove it because it is not provable.
      All they prove is that they are still fallen and subject to their fallen natures and are void of the perfect love of God which casts out all fear.

      You are a fearful man. And you live and learn among fearful men. Come out and be separate, like Eric has.

      Eric has my utmost respect because he has overcome this fear and calls me his sister, his co-equal and has no desire to rule over me.
      And guess-freaking-what? Shocker of all shockers?
      I have no desire to rule over him either.
      We do not live in the restrictive ‘either/or’ box. We have come out of it to find true freedom.

      If only you, Daniel, could walk free of fear, like your namesake who sat a night in the lion’s den. If only you could let God shut the lion’s mouth of fear in your life, then you could also walk free.

      Men bound up by fear do not know what freedom is.
      Daniel. You do not know what freedom is.
      You wrongly think your freedom and security lies in ruling another.

      Jesus came to set you free from that.


  9. EricW says:

    The question of who is going to enforce this equality has to come up sooner or later.

    “Enforce this equality”?


    The Head of the Church is fully capable of “enforc[ing] this equality.”


    Maybe you’re not in a church where men and women are submitted to the Spirit of God as equal members of the Body, each holding fast to the Head and building each other up into a Temple where the Lord can dwell by His Spirit.

    If you’re not, maybe you ought to look for such a gathering. Your questions and concerns seem ludicrous to those of us for whom they are ridiculous or not an issue.


    • EricW says:

      And the members can “enforce” it with their feet and pocketbooks.


      • Mara says:

        Enforce equality.
        Good point Eric.
        But I suspect the only equality Daniel can think of is socialism.
        He hasn’t a clue what Biblical equality looks like because men in his group are too busy pushing inequality as what the Bible teaches.


  10. Mabel says:

    What scares me is that there are way too many Daniels and not enough Erics in the church. Why? the leaders refuse to educate. All they care about is “Who is in charge?” It stems from arrogance coupled with insecurity. When a man cannot lead by being someone that others want to follow, he will lead by authoritarian means: you must let me lead because I am a man. Egalitarian means everyone is equal to serve if God so enable them to, so how can that be oppressive? what down side can possibly come of it? how threatening is that? that no one wants to Lord over others. Didn’t Jesus speak against those who want to be 1st?


  11. EricW says:

    There is no logic or sound spiritual basis for the claim or teaching that only males can be in positions of authority or leadership in the Kingdom of God/Body of Christ, or that any women in such positions must be subordinated to a man or men. That is so “old creation/old covenant” it’s not even funny. You can parse 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians every which way you want to till Sunday, but if that’s your conclusion, then your conclusion is wrong.


  12. Daniel says:


    You ignore Genesis 3:16

    “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

    and Ephesians 5:23

    “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”

    and I Tim 3:2

    “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”

    The church is not a secular workplace. Inequalites must exist. They empasize our diversity in gender and our roles. The gender roles in church are not a cultural invention. They are set up by God. Humanity’s constant desire to make equal things that are not is rebellion against God, especially if the desire is to straighten out the inequalities set up in God-given institutions like marriage and family and the church.

    I don’t think that you or the rest of the people here would have a problem with this “form” of church and family if it was not abused by men. You rightly blame men for the injustices they do, but do not blame the “form” or hierarchy. If done correctly, no injustice is found in the inequalities.


    • EricW says:



    • Mara says:

      No, I’m not ignoring them, Daniel.

      Your teachers have taught you that what God prophecied to Eve about men ruling over women was a command. It was not. It was a prophecy to the woman what the fall would cost her.
      Men would no longer want to partner.
      In their fallen degenerate nature, they would only want to rule.

      Also, the word ‘head’ in Greek does not have the ‘rulership’ qualities that it does in English. There is much scholarly work supporting this, but you and your teachers who love the best seats in the synogog refuse to acknowlege this.

      You want to rule and will translate and interpret the Bible in such a manner that will support your position totally IGNORING God’s original design and commands.

      The scipture you gave on bishops, you ignore that it goes on to instruct women who are to be bishops also.
      No woman had more than one husband.
      She did not need that extra instruction given to men in a polygamous society.

      God did not give us inequalities.
      It is the invention of men, starting at the fall and trickling down to us to this day.

      You can either continue to enforce the fallen nature, trickle down theory into our churches.
      You can get to the heart of Jesus who told His disciples to not seek positions of authority.

      You decide.

      You said: “The church is not a secular workplace. Inequalites must exist. They empasize our diversity in gender and our roles. The gender roles in church are not a cultural invention. They are set up by God.”

      True the church is not a secular work place.

      False, Inequalities must exist.

      God does not emphasize our diversity nor does He perscribe roles.
      In Ephesians 5 Paul speaks to the roles that already existed in that culture.
      He is not setting up new ones.

      You also said: “Humanity’s constant desire to make equal things that are not is rebellion against God, especially if the desire is to straighten out the inequalities set up in God-given institutions like marriage and family and the church.”

      You show you deep indoctrination in the traditions of men.

      First, humanity, for thousands of years, constantly worked against equality.
      Things like Kings and Tzars and Kaisars ruled.
      But men didn’t like that so they set up a democracy with checks and balances.
      Working toward equality is only a recent thing.
      Funny thing how men want it for themselves but cannot be gracious enough to give it to women, their partners in the home and church.

      Second, as I mentioned before. God did not set up inequalities between men and women.
      You are ignoring the origianl design and original instructions of God that I listed plainly in Genesis 1:26-28.
      And in it’s place you are putting a prophecy about the results of the fall and calling THAT God’s design. It’s not. It’s a sad, sad prophecy to the woman who was once equal that the fall would work to erode away her equality.
      Inequality is fallen man’s design.

      Proverbs 11:1 says the God abhors a false balance and differing weights and measures.

      By your insistence on inequalities you are holding to a false balance. One God never set up. It has been set up by men who want to rule, disobeying the very words of Jesus who warned them against it.

      You use the words of Paul to undermine the words of Jesus.
      You use the prophecy of God to undermine His original design, intent, and even command.


  13. Daniel says:

    Both 1 Timothy and Titus provide clearly for a hierarchical approach to church order in which men rather than women were to occupy that role.

    Some have pointed to Galatians 3:28 as justification for women serving as pastors. However, it is a misuse of Scripture to produce ecclesiastical patterns from soteriological passages! While Paul clearly affirms the equality of men and women in salvation, he equally and just as clearly affirms the priority of men in church leadership. There is no conflict. The contextual issue is crucial for an accurate understanding of this, as in all areas.

    What does the Bible say? There are three important observations: 1) there were no known women pastors in New Testament times; 2) none of the instructions regarding church order include instructions for women pastors; and 3) some texts on church order explicitly forbid women to occupy that role. Paul, in 1 Tim. 2:12, states, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” (NIV) . This verse is introduced by a statement that women should learn “in silence,” and it is followed by the statement that “she must be silent.” The word silence means being possessed by a calmness of spirit and peaceful disposition. It is set as the opposite to “teaching” and “having authority over a man.” Paul does not expect that women will not or can not learn or teach (compare with Titus 2:3-5 and 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14,15). He states that they cannot teach or have authority over men. Thus, they cannot have a pastoral position, or perform the pastoral function, for that puts them in authority over men.


    • EricW says:

      *double facepalm*

      John 11:35


    • EricW says:

      Now, is that because of the angels (don’t forget 1 Corinthians 11 in your catalog of spiritual anthropologetics (sic)), or because they are by nature in a state of transgression and can only be saved by having children?


    • Mara says:

      I Timothy 3 gives these instructions and translators say that verse 11 is talking about their wives but it could just as easily be translated, women, as in women elders.
      But because men don’t want it to say women elders, they translate it “wives” to put in place a man-made glass ceiling in the body of Christ.
      Shame on those translators. They have you all confused.

      Also Pheobe was a deacon as mentioned in Romans 16:1. But most translations refuse to translate the Greek word as deacon. They translate it as servant. But it is the exact same word that they translate as deacon when they are talking about men.

      Oh, and don’t forget Junia who was outstanding among the apostles.
      But comp teachers say she wasn’t an apostle, she was just respected by them. The plain reading of the text means she was an apostle. Comp doctrine just can’t accept it so they do a lot of Bible bending to make it say otherwise.

      And there were women who had house churches.
      But comp doctrine explains it away by saying that they weren’t the pastors/elder, but rather just the hostess while the men did the pastor/elder stuff.

      It’s all there Daniel.
      It has just been manipulated by translaters and Bible teachers who fear women and must uphold their false/pet doctrine of male heirarchy.


  14. Daniel says:

    “Men would no longer want to partner.
    In their fallen degenerate nature, they would only want to rule.”

    Eric, is this something you and other men would say accurately describes you?


    • EricW says:

      Regardless of how one interprets the Genesis 3:16 pronouncement, in Christ the relationship between people and between men and women has changed. Also re: Mara’s statement (which you quoted), I don’t take it as saying that this is and will be true of all men without exception. So if it doesn’t describe me, that doesn’t make it therefore incorrect.


      • Daniel says:

        How many exceptions are there? Her statement is dubious.


      • EricW says:

        And on that I will go have a doobie.


      • Mara says:

        Daniel, I would say it accuarately describes you.
        Otherwise, why the heck would you be so concerned about defending the inequalities between men and women to the point of misusing scripture calling such inequalities divine.

        Eric feels no insecurity with me because he knows that I know that he has let go of the privileges of this world in order to take his position of sonship in the adopted family of Christ.

        The problem with men who must defend the inequalities as divinely ordained it that they want to have their cake and eat it too. You want the privileges the world gives you and take it on into the Kingdom of God where it doesn’t belong like the rich man or the camel going through the eye of the needle.


  15. Mabel says:

    Are there known male “pastors” in the NT? Did Paul or anyone else ever call themselves a pastor or was called a pastor in the NT? Church tradition nowadays blind people just as much as the Pharasees were blinded by tradition to the point that they can see Lazarus being raised from the dead and STILL refuse to believe. Verses are taken completely out of context. Women must not be leaders is an issue that looms greater than all the rest of the Biblical teachings put together. Why?


  16. Daniel says:

    “You are ignoring the origianl design and original instructions of God that I listed plainly in Genesis 1:26-28.”

    I agree with you about the original design, but God clearly changed things after the fall. It was not that women were to struggle to keep their equality, it was that they had to acknowledge that the man was the head. Have no delusions, it was not an ego boost for Adam, it was extra responsibility because he was there when she took of the forbiden fruit and allowed it to happen. His was the chief sin.

    As far as women holding positions in the church, I see no problem for them to hold a position of authority as long as that authority is given to her by a senior male pastor. In some cases, if a church approved, it would be possible for a woman to occupy a position similar to assistant pastor if the senior pastor authorized it. The key is where the authority comes from.


    • Mara says:

      No, God didn’t rearrange it.
      He prophecied it would happen.
      But I do agree with you on one thing. Woman should not have to struggle for equality.
      Men should obey Jesus and the golden rule and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
      Equality is something men should give women because that is what men want to be given to themselves by each other.
      Men should stop struggling to keep women from fulfilling their gifts and callings.
      Men don’t want that done to them. Why do they think it’s their job to do it to women?

      Sometimes I think God allows some of this Bible bending to goes on in comp churches in order to judge the character of men. Will they really do unto their women as they would want done to them?
      Or will they prefer the traditions of men and translations of men to filter the Word to the male advantage?

      Men using the words of Paul to undo the words of Jesus is akin to the pharisees using the oral law to undermine the ten commandments.


  17. EricW says:

    “Senior male pastor.”


    How would you say that in Koinê Greek?

    The only “senior male pastor” I see in the New Testament is Jesus Himself, who is called τον ποιμενα των προβατων τον μεγαν.


  18. Kristen says:

    Why are all these texts always exalted above the Story of God’s redemption and the message of the Gospel as a whole?

    Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Would a man like it if he was the one being told to sit down, shut up and be ruled over?

    Apparently it’s offensive to some men that women even want equality, because equality means they have to give up their privileged position. And giving up privilege somehow becomes oppression.

    Jesus told a story about how when we walk into the banquet, we should take the lowest place, and that the master of the banquet would then tell us to go up higher. But so many men rush for the highest seats in the Kingdom and hold them against all comers. But Jesus said the ones who insisted on the highest seats would be told to give up their place, for “the last shall be first, and the first last.” I suppose this was “oppression” for those who had to give up their high seats?

    Women have always taken the lowest seats, when they could get them– but often they are denied even a place at the table. They have to wait for their betters to finish so they can get the leftovers. And we’re told to just be happy we even got into the banquet at all (that’s what those who say Galatians 3:28 is only about salvation are really doing). But read on into Galations 4, as it continues Paul’s thought. He says we all have the same status as adopted sons (that was a Greek term referring to adoption to the full status of a freeborn male citizen). There are no poor cousins at the banquet, hoping that if they wait tables they might get a bite to eat. We all have the same status in the Kindgom, Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female.

    Why are women faulted for daring to hope for something that men take for granted as their entitlement? Is an entitlement mentality part of what Christ preached– He who took off His garment and washed feet like a slave?


  19. EricW says:

    I just want to know what it is about having two x chromosomes, versus one x and one y chromosome, that makes a person by nature and definition subordinate in the Church or Kingdom of God? Does a y chromosome somehow cancel out the “in transgression” and “able to be deceived” nature of an x chromosome? I.e., do women start out with two (xx) strikes against them while men only have one (x)? “Y” is that?


  20. Mabel says:

    Eric, thank you so very much for commenting here. Egalitarian sisters can explain till they’re blue in the face, but just as the Jews in Jesus’ time refuse to take the witness from females, Christian men who are thoroughly indoctrinated in the hierarchical teachings will not listen to women. I am absolutely flabbergasted at some of Daniel’s reasonings, esp. his insistence on authority of the fleshly kind.


    • Wow! Daniel, thanks for stopping by on this blog. You are welcome to visit and to comment. This is a good discussion. You are not going to agree with what was said, but I want you to remember one thing: “The farthest thing from Saul’s mind as he walked down the road to Damascus, was that he might be wrong.”


  21. Daniel says:

    “It’s all there Daniel.
    It has just been manipulated by translaters and Bible teachers who fear women and must uphold their false/pet doctrine of male heirarchy.”

    Of course, you think I’ve been deceived! Everything that you and your “sisters” and the people who’ve been indoctrinated in feminism see is viewed through the lens of perpetual victimhood and male oppression.

    Your theism is viewed through your feminism. Even when faced with the plain facts of what the scripture says, you ignore them as male constructs. Are you not aware that you have redefined much of what the Bible says even so far as to re-explanation of the fall of man? How convenient that no one else except feminists can understand these things. More elitism. It’s a wonder that you stayed in religion at all and have not yet proclaimed them as tools of men to keep women in their place.


    • Mara says:

      Women have been letting men define God and the Bible for them for a couple thousand years.
      And this God and Bible as defined by men, through a decidedly male colored lens, has left women believing that God prefers men over women.
      And some women have left Christianity because men have so masculinized the concept of God, He is no longer relavant to the women who have been led to believe that He loves women less.
      They are running to the ‘goddess’.
      And if there is one thing you and I can agree on, the ‘goddess’ is unable to heal these wounded women. They need the God of the Bible. But they need the true God of the Bible. Not the God men present through their biased masculine lens.

      I’m a BTDT woman. I listened to Dobson back in the 80s. I believed what he said. I watch Pat Robertson and the 700 club. I vote for him in the freaking election he ran in.
      I believed what they said that if women would just submit then God would move in their lives and the lives of their families.
      I sent my husband to “Promise Keepers”.
      Like I said, BTDT got more tee-shirts than you would ever care to see.

      But guess what?
      When real life hits it can hit hard and the agendas of men fall away very quickly when a woman goes straight to the source of Life.
      And real life doesn’t fit into your little formula and hierarchy.

      There came a time when I needed to stop looking at and reading the Bible the way men tell women they are to read and look at the Bible without the male-colored lens/filter and just read it for what it is.

      And I did.

      And I started finding out that God is a whole lot different than what the men who like to be in charge say He is.

      So you see.
      The difference between you and I is that I have lived a bit in the real world and have seen both sides.

      You have only seen one side and have had others scare you to death over the other side.

      I challenge you to get a King James Bible and a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and look up the original Greek word for ‘servant’ used in Romans 16:1 (I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea;)

      Look it up for yourself rather than let your teachers tell you what it is.

      See if I’m lying about about whether or not it is the same Greek word translated deacon when it is used for men as in Philippians 1:1 and I Timothy 3:8&12.

      If you are intellectually honest, you will see that what I’m talking about is true.
      If you are dishonest, you’ll keep coming at me with the tired old arguements you’ve used up to now.
      This is a plain and observable example of a male construct in action in the Bible we have today. It exists whether you will admit it or not. And this is just one of them!

      It is the same word. diakonos (forgive me, Eric for butchering it)

      But because the church has turned the deacon into an office and because men want to hold those offices exclusively, most Bibles do not use the word as deacon in referring to phebe even though she is every bit a deacon as those mentioned in Philippians and Timothy.

      Do you homework and don’t talk to me again about perpetual victimhood and feminist indoctrination.

      Do not talk to me again until you do this little exercise and see the blatant proof I lay out before you of the subtle male manipulation of the Bible.


  22. EricW says:


    If you get a chance, I’d recommend you read:

    Man and Woman, One in Christ by Philip Barton Payne;
    The Word According to Eve by Cullen Murphy;
    Paul Among the People by Sarah Ruden; and
    Two Views on Women in Ministry by Linda L. Belleville, Craig L. Blomberg, Craig S. Keener and Thomas R. Schreiner.

    And then spend some time reading and studying the Greek texts of Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians and to Timothy and Titus.

    Tolle lege!


    • EricW says:

      You do read the Greek New Testament, don’t you? I mean, you’re not just taking what other people say about what Paul wrote and running with it or repeating it without checking it out for yourself, are you?


  23. Paula says:

    Mara, I’m thoroughly impressed with your comments here. Pearls are pearls, even when thrown before swine. 😉

    Eric, I share your facepalms. How many times must we repeat ourselves? Can’t these guys read the egal literature for themselves? Can’t we “enforce” a rule that they study elementary logic? Or Greek, so they can see what liars and cheats CBMW (and all that that implies) are?


    • Daniel says:

      I don’t agree with equality of outcomes (egalitarianism). I follow equality of opportunity.


      • Paula says:

        (I’ll do eyes rolling so as not to steal Eric’s facepalms)

        ::eyes rolling::

        Daniel, you do in fact agree with equality of outcome, because you demand male preeminence. Egal does NOT demand equality of outcome but of opportunity, and based not on the flesh but on the gifting of the spirit. I can hardly believe any sane person would bar half the human race from something and then say they “follow equality of opportunity”. Orwell would be proud.

        Now go read egal lit at CBE. There isn’t anything you can come up with that hasn’t been refuted already.


      • Daniel says:

        The church is not a secular workplace with free form. It has a designated form laid out in the scripture. If there was no designated form, I would have no problem with equality of opportunity in the church. I would still be opposed to equality of outcomes. I see no inherent evil in a chain of command. I see abuse by people at the top as evil. But abuse can happen whether the person in charge is male or female. The problem is not the hierarchy, it is the abuse. The church should put only qualified men in charge and encumber them with check and balances. If one man has complete power, the system will fail and abuse will happen.

        I do not, however, apply equality of opportunity to the church since it has a designated form.


      • Paula says:

        ” If there was no designated form, I would have no problem with equality of opportunity in the church.”

        Lulz… first you say equality of opportunity is a good thing that egals oppose, and now you say it’s a bad thing that egals want! You’re a hoot, Daniel! Thanks for the comic relief.

        But seriously folks, the NT NEVER uses a chain, an army, a business, or a government to model the Body of Christ. Get it? A BODY.

        “But Diotrephes, who loves to be first…”


    • EricW says:

      I was at the Evangelical Theological Society annual conference (San Antonio?) where and when the English Standard Version (ESV – Crossway Publishers) was unveiled/released/published/promoted, etc. All the biggies were saying how it was such a wonderful translation and the one for you to buy, etc. (excuse me while I stick my finger down my throat :)) FYI, the ESV basically took the RSV and updated it, but retained gender language wherever possible or (in their opinion) warranted; i.e., it was sort of a refutation of the gender-inclusive attempts of the NRSV.

      As you also probably know, both Wayne Grudem and Douglas Moo are complementarians/patriarchalists. Moo worked on the new 2010 NIV revision, and Grudem is connected with the ESV, either as a translator or a promoter, I think. Anyway, one of my traveling companions told me that during one session where Grudem was criticizing the NIV translation vis-a-vis the ESV, Moo stood up and told Grudem that he was being dishonest in what he was saying and that he knew he was being dishonest.

      Those who accuse Egalitarians of having an agenda sometimes don’t realize that some Complementarians also have an agenda and will act no differently than politicians when it comes to promoting and defending their cause.


      • Paula says:

        Absolutely, Eric. They’re deliberate in their agenda and don’t even hide it well. But it’s a time-honored one; not even the UBS are immune from such things as 50-year gender benders on poor Junia.


  24. Daniel says:


    No designated form? let’s see:

    But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. – I Cor 11:3

    For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. I Cor 11:8-9

    But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. I Cor 2:12

    Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity. I Tim 5:1-2

    There is a clear line of authority here. It is not for power, but for responsibility. The man answers to God for the actions of his wife and children. This is a punishment of man for the rebellion against God in the garden. Adam was right there with Eve when she took of the fruit, yet he said nothing. He exploited her to find out if he really needed God. Eve was the guinea pig. God punished Adam for his abuse and made him responsible for her actions just as if they were his. The same goes for the church. The pastor is responsible for the state of the congregation. It is not a place of power, but of servitude and grim responsibility. Yet, you envy this. Don’t let the fact that you feel abused by men be the cause of your rebellion against God. When you take a position that is not rightfully yours, you usurp authority and go against the order set up from the beginning.


    • Paula says:

      Head… body… see? THAT is the “designated form” you’re searching for, and it doesn’t have a chain of command between the various parts.

      As for 1 Tim., do read the literature. Here’s mine: . And if you want a study on hierarchy in general, try my book:

      No “clear line of authority” at all, unless you’re bent on seeing one. And besides, Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven is upside down: “not so among you”. You are not exempt when women are around.


    • Paula says:

      PS: “When you take a position that is not rightfully yours” applies to you and anyone who thinks God granted them privilege as if He is now “a respecter of persons” and changed His mind about “looking on the flesh”. Adam usurped God’s place in Eve’s life and now “Christian leaders” want to make it a virtue to repeat this idolatry.


    • EricW says:

      You can’t interpret and apply 1 Corinthians 11:3 apart from the rest of that pericope (11:1 or 11:2 – 11:16). Explain what Paul is saying, and why. What is he saying that women should do, and why? What is his final instruction or comment to the church? What is the basis for his argument? What kind of accusative is δια in 11:9? What is a women supposed to or not supposed to have on her head, and why? What is a man supposed to or not supposed to have on his head, and why? What does it mean to be the δοξα of someone or something? How does Paul here use κεφαλη versus his uses elsewhere, and does it matter?


    • EricW says:

      FWIW, Daniel – Did you know that F. F. Bruce was Egalitarian?


    • Oh, come now! You can’t let Daniel get away with this heresy “The man answers to God for the actions of his wife and children.” That would make man divine and the scriptures multiple theistic. God, Christ, Man.


  25. Mara says:

    Paula said: Mara, I’m thoroughly impressed with your comments here. Pearls are pearls, even when thrown before swine.”

    This is a true honor coming from you.


  26. Mara says:

    Eric, Shirley, and Paula.

    I’m going to be mostly away from my computer for the next 2-4 days.

    On the outside chance that Daniel takes me up on the challenge I issued and responds (sincerely doubt it, but, hey, he could surprise us all) I’m going to have to bow out and let you all, and whosoever else following this thread, answer him and talk about what he found.
    I can trust you three especially since you all have a far better grasp on the Bible languages than I do.

    Thanks gang,
    Mara who wishes work wouldn’t get in the way of the fun stuff, like debating with misguided comps on Shirley’s blog.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.