If a woman preaches I’ll walk out the door

“If a woman gets up to preach, I’ll get up and walk out the door.”   Those were the words I heard this weekend from a Church of Christ friend.  I was telling her about the CBE Conference we are having in Houston in April 2012. 

Too bad she will never hear the story of our conference coordinator, Ann.  Ann was ordained last month at her Church of Christ church in Houston.  This is her story.*

Thirty-four years ago, I attended a Women’s Day Conference in Minneapolis, MN that forever changed my life.

Twelve women gathered in a church basement, listening as Deborah opened up I Timothy 2:12 in language and context. I knew from then on that men and women are equally chosen to serve the Lord.  

From that one page outline, my friend Kathy and I spent a year researching and writing about the Biblical equality of women and men. We wrote two thirteen-week, in-depth Bible studies, with the idea we could unfold 2,000+ years of history, scripture, and theology. That was heroic, don’t you think?

Our church in Houston was supportive.  This fellowship of believers, after many years of Bible study and prayer, struck down all restrictions where historically women could not participate. In most Churches of Christ to this day, women are not visible at the front of the auditorium during the worship service. They do not lead congregational prayers or congregational singing. They cannot read Scripture to the congregation or serve communion. Still today in many places, women may not teach men in a Sunday school class. They may not teach High School boys if the boys have been baptized. They do not pass out visitor cards. For most congregations, women can’t serve in any leadership position unless their husbands serve with (over) them.

That is why this coming Sunday morning is such a day of rejoicing.

 Dr. Lynn E. Mitchell, Head of the Religious Studies Dept. University of Houston, and Pastor of the Heights Church of Christ, has graciously invited me to join him at Heights as co-pastor. I am more than honored to preach weekly at 10:00 services.  Lynn will teach at 11:00 AM in our intimate Sunday school setting. This highly respected man, with over 50 years of Church of Christ preaching and teaching, practices what he preaches: In Christ, we are all one. 

This Sunday, I will be ordained into service in this church. You are all invited to smile at 10:00 AM Sunday morning and praise God under your breath at your own church service. “This is a day that the Lord has made. I will rejoice and be glad in it.”

“I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service.”  (Paul, I Timothy 1:12) 

Have you, too, said “I don’t want to hear a woman preach?”  Have you considered that you are denying God and His power and His love to all His children? Have you considered that you might be wrong?

Most women are not called to preach, just like most men are not called to preach.  We just want to be able to walk into our church and not feel that our church holds it against us that we are women. Whether you know it or not, when you say “I don’t want to hear a woman preach” you have told all the women in your church that they do not measure up.

Will you examine what you and say, and how you say it, and if you are using discriminatory language against women, will you make a conscious choice to understand exactly what it is that you are saying?

Is this not, too, abuse of women?

*used by permission

Advertisements

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 Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

133 Responses to If a woman preaches I’ll walk out the door

  1. Mara says:

    I think hearing only male preachers all the time is very unbalanced.
    In fact, after a while, hearing male after male after male… They all sound the same.
    It’s nice to break it up with a fresh perspective, a female perspective.

    I remember my mom and her friends talking about how much they really appreciated a certain female speaker that come to their church. When they asked the men what they thought, the men were like, “Oh, she was all right.” It was then that they realize, women ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS have the hear the male point of view. ALWAYS. Why can’t (some) men EVER hear the female perspective. By never hearing the female perspective, they become unbalanced and it stunts their spiritual growth.
    Afterall, God created male and female in His image. It is the male and female together that reflect the image of God. Squashing half that image can do nothing but cripple the Body of Christ.

    Like

  2. Kristen says:

    Yes! I remember hearing a guy complain about having to sing under a female worship leader. He complained about the way the song wasn’t pitched for his vocal range. I said, “Welcome to my world. We women never get to sing in our own vocal range. You know what? We put on our big-girl panties and sing anyway!”

    Men complain about how not enough men go to church, compared to women. Maybe if the men had to face an eye-opener or a challenge occasionally, like hearing a sermon that wasn’t completely from their own perspective, more of them would go.

    Like

    • I have talked with many women, and men, too, who enjoy hearing a woman speak. I have also heard many women say that they feel a woman can understand them better than a woman. So why aren’t there more women preachers?

      Like

      • Michelle says:

        I’m just gonna say it:
        As so-called complementarianism dies out and we all are permitted to be more authentic, I’ll bet that women and men will be able to connect more as human beings and as image bearers than they can now, with all the work being put toward maintaining fences and walls of “complementarian” ideas of gender. This effort makes us more different–or SEEM more different–from each other than, in my experience with friends and colleagues of the opposite sex, we really are.

        Like

      • I often wonder if men complementarian restrictionists see themselves as better than their wives? Do they see themselves as better than one-half the population and do they ever wonder why they were graced with such a gift. No accountability, no earning – just grace for all men – atheists, non-Christians, you name it. Grace for men. Instead of grace for all.

        Like

  3. EricW says:

    There are reasons that on some days I come this close to asserting that Complementarianism is not simply a different understanding of the Gospel but is in fact a different Gospel, which is not “another Gospel”.

    Like

  4. These believers who would walk out from hearing a woman preaching are not discriminating. Yet, they are convinced that men and women have equality in value by different roles and are one in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Does God consider this equality when He created women to carry, bear, and nurse children and not men? Certainly, God gave women a role that men could not have and yet they are equal. Did Jesus not consider the equality of the value of men and women when He chose only men to be of His “twelve” Apostles or when He came as a man? This is not to argue for inequality or lack men and women being one in Christ. Was Christ’s Spirit incompetent to not discourage Paul’s words regarding a man having rights teach and lead by God’s creation (1 Tim. 2:11-14)? If husbands are to take a self-sacrificial role of cherishing and nurturing their wives, why can he not continue that role in his home and in the church without being oppressed under the slander of “inequality” for following Christ’s instruction? Why judge their convictions? Certainly, the Dionysius and Diana cults taught their women in Ephesus so much as not to even consider giving up their equality for any such submission. No wonder we follow Christ who knows man and women better than they know themselves. Are you not being very unfair and prejudice toward these believers and their faithful convictions? Don’t take me wrong. Should we not value Christian women who able to evangelize to men and women in ways that men cannot? Should we not respect our women who have taught women and children for without the Church would crumble? Lastly, should we pity or look down on women who choose to submit to their husbands and who have chosen by their free-will to not teach or have authority over their brothers in Christ? Absolutely, the words of Christ will judge us all (John 12:48).

    Like

    • Welcome, Scott! We are glad to have you join this discussion.

      God created women to bear a child, but that woman also gives one-half of her DNA to the child. Many men like to use this illustration of child-bearing as the standard of inequality. So let’s address this. I’ll let my other readers comment on the other portions of your letter.

      Men thought that women simply provided a womb for the next generation. They thought that their seed was complete. Like a bean seed, it had everything it needed and needed only the womb to provide the ‘ground.” Why do you think it is called the seed? That means they thought it was complete. It never occured to them that women were contributing one-half of the child, and providing one-half of her DNA to make this child. Neither could do it alone. The man was incomplete and the woman was incomplete. However, men thought they were complete, because of what they could see. It was not until 1928 (I think) that the first human ovum was seen, and men and women finally knew that the wife provided as much of herself to this new child as he man did.

      Believing that he was ‘complete,’ man did not see women as the value they had. You do, today. You say you do. But you, too, do not see woman for the complete value that she has. You have still chosen to make her an incomplete human being, because when you delegate roles such as those that you do, you decide what role she is to have, how she is to ‘complement’ you. All the roles you give woman are lesser than yours. You keep what you consider the best for yourself. That, for a husband who loves his wife, is demeaning. You have given her a child’s role with someone looking over her shoulder, leading her and limiting her.

      You demean the fullness of God’s gift to you when you say that she is to teach other women and children. You also demean the gospel when you say that a woman can give it to children and other women, but not to a man. Are they giving a lesser gospel? This is very insulting to God and to his creation. It is insulting to your wife. Jesus told us that people were more important than the law in Matt 23 and through all his works.

      Like

      • What?! I haven’t given my wife any roles. That statement matches the exact definition of prejudice. My wife has chosen to obey Christ without any provoking from any man. Are you including Jesus, His Apostles, prophets, ministers, and church elders in these changes? I didn’t say that a woman could not give the gospel to another man rather that she is not to teach another Christian man or have authority over him, because Christ’s Spirit instructed this based on the man’s “birthright” in the His Creation. This was all said contrary to the prominent leadership in the pagan world for both Artemis and Dionysus (cf. Everett Ferguson’s “Backgrounds of Early Christianity”).

        You did not address that women were created with a specific role in bearing children. This does not change any one’s value like one’s employment does not determine one’s value as a person being made in the image of God. Yet, you are demeaning the women who do choose to submit to their husbands as Christ’s Spirit commanded (Eph. 5:22). Yet, when a man submits to a woman, then that’s fine (Eph. 5:21). You are demeaning the women who do choose to obey Christ and teach other women and their children without speaking over men. If what you are saying is right and a doctrine of Christ, then shouldn’t these Christian women have spoken up and did what was right now and along time ago despite persecution for obeying God? Yet, a man given his role to lead his bride as Christ leads His Church is demeaning to you. Is Christ’s law without love when He taught men to lead in by speaking and teaching other men?

        Btw, the Bible also refers to man’s seed, but not with presumptions that you have applied.

        Like

      • Scott, I am a Baptist, not a Muslim.

        If your wife chooses to live under subjection, then that is her choice (and yours I presume). I suggest you read my post “Why we can’t win the war in Afghanistan.”

        Like

    • Mara says:

      You know, nothing Jesus did was without thought or purpose.
      This includes him appearing to Mary Magdelene first and sending her to the men to tell the good news.
      Those men did not physically turn their back or walk out on her and her message, but they did not believe her because of her gender and role in their society.

      Jesus rebuked those men strongly for not receiving the message from her.

      Do you think that Jesus will not rebuke those that refuse to hear His message through His daughters today because they are daughters rather than sons?

      If you think He won’t, you had better think it through again.

      Like

      • I absolutely agree with you on every point, but this does not address speaking in the Assembly or teaching men having authority over them. Such Biblical examples are very common and noted from Priscilla to Timothy’s mother and grandmother.

        Like

    • EricW says:

      14 ἡ γὰρ ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ συνέχει ἡμᾶς, κρίναντας τοῦτο, ὅτι εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν: ἄρα οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον: 15 καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν ἵνα οἱ ζῶντες μηκέτι ἑαυτοῖς ζῶσιν ἀλλὰ τῷ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀποθανόντι καὶ ἐγερθέντι. 16 Ὥστε ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐδένα οἴδαμεν κατὰ σάρκα: εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκομεν. 17 ὥστε εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ, καινὴ κτίσις: τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν, ἰδοὺ γέγονεν καινά:

      For Christ’s love has completely gotten ahold of us, having concluded this: One died for all, so all died. And He died for all so that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose for them. So we don’t any longer recognize someone according to human nature – even though we have known Christ that way, we now no longer know Him that way. When someone is in Christ it’s a New Creation! The old things have gone away! See! It’s become New!

      One day the church will begin operating from this understanding and wake up (as if from a deep or drunken sleep) to the fact that the old religious “roles” of male versus female, even if they were “Biblical,” are so “Old Creation” as to not even be funny and have no place in the New Creation and the New Hu(man) and the church.

      Like

  5. Kristen says:

    Scott– leaving aside the doctrinal arguments for a moment, I’d like to ask you this:

    If you were sitting in a service, and the man in the pulpit said or did something that went against a SECONDARY doctrine that you believed in, would you get up and walk out? Would you disrespect him in front of the whole congregation like that, over a doctrinal difference that is non-essential to the faith?

    If you would not do this, then why would you walk out– and why DO you make excuses for others who would walk out– on a woman in the pulpit, who believes the same primary doctrines that you do concerning Christ, but differs with you on what she believes God allows her to do as a woman?

    Whatever happened to “In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity”?

    Like

    • What is a secondary doctrine? I have none. My creed is Christ. I refuse to follow the doctrines of men as though they are doctrines of God.

      Kristen, would you have ever reconsider your position in light of Christ’s words? I will, have, and continue to. Yet, I will never compromise Jesus’ words no matter my gender. I will continue to submit to my fellow Christians and especially to my church elders who are leaders by age. We all submit to someone, and I must first submit to Christ.

      A woman speaking in the Assembly doesn’t believe in the primary doctrines of Christ but is mistaken accepting a perverted gospel. She does not respect God’s Creation, neither men’s role in the home, Christ’s coming in the flesh, His choosing of Apostles, or the Spirit’s appointment of men to be church elders/pastors? If she doesn’t listen to Christ concerning these, then she errs in other ways as well. First Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 still teach against women speaking in the Assembly, teaching over men, and having authority over men.

      Consider the roles of men and define them in Christ rather than undefining them for the sake of feminism over Christ. Does not God know men and women better than we know ourselves? Why can we not simply listen to Him?

      Like

      • EricW says:

        First Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 still teach against women speaking in the Assembly, teaching over men, and having authority over men.

        That is true for some translations and according to some commentaries and in some persons’ minds when these verses are divorced from the context and historical and textual and grammatical and syntactical issues related to these texts.

        Like

      • EricW says:

        A woman speaking in the Assembly doesn’t believe in the primary doctrines of Christ but is mistaken (sic) accepting a perverted gospel. She does not respect God’s Creation,

        Men forbidding a woman to speak or teach in the assembly don’t believe in the Pentecostal and New Covenant fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy in Acts 2 re: the giving of the Spirit, but are mistakenly accepting a perverted Gospel. They don’t respect God’s New Creation.

        Like

      • Listen I’m denying prophetesses, but that they did not publicly teach over the believing men. Certainly, women and men received the miraculous gifts of the Spirit.

        Like

      • I meant I’m not denying that there were teaching prophetesses who taught unbelieving men, all women, and children.

        Like

      • Scott, what is your definition of having authority over men, and what is your definition of women teaching men?

        Like

      • jonathanthehymnsinger says:

        “A woman speaking in the Assembly doesn’t believe in the primary doctrines of Christ but is mistaken accepting a perverted gospel.”

        This would be hilariously funny if it wasn’t so tragically misinformed and damaging.

        Like

      • Welcome Jonathan! We are so glad you joined the discussion. You are on the money with your comment. It is tragically misinformed and damaging. It is also such a common belief among many denominations. Jesus himself gave women the right to preach and we think we can take it away from her.

        Like

      • Mara says:

        Jonathan, seeing your quote from Scott just about got me going again. But then I saw that we’ve already been there, refuting his erroneous statement and there is not need. Especially since many of us repeated ourselves, repeated our proof, repeated each other’s proof ect…

        Scott’s complete ignorance the primary doctrines of Christ is both stunning and chilling.

        Thanks for chiming in.

        Like

  6. Mabel says:

    Thank you Eric. I was going to say something until I thought Scott, if he believes in woman not being able to teach anything to an adult man starting at a certain age (before that age, women can teach males) he would not want to learn anything from me or any other women. Luckily Apollo was not like that and he learned from Priscilla and Aquila; Israelites in Debra’s time was not like that, God spoke through Debra who had God’s authority; and the High Priest and high officials (all males) in 2 Kings 22:14 were not like that. God apparently had no trouble assigning women to teach men with authority. As long as God has no trouble with it, me neither. Jesus said we are not to have authority over each other. Luke 22:24-26. I believe in God’s creation :men and women created in the image of God. If a man fails to see God’s image in a woman, he does not know God’s creation. There should be neither feminism nor male supremacy over Christ. Neither women dominating men nor men dominating women is the Gospel. In Christ, there is no gender bias. Men’s role in the family is to love, nurture, sacrifice, same as women’s role in the family. Women have been loving,nurturing, sacrificing for their families same as, if not more than, men. Christ is the head of the family, not men. A man in the Assembly who seeks to prevent a woman in the Assembly from speaking God’s message simply because she is a woman does not see the Jesus Christ in that woman, and does not know Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 3: 12-18. I don’t see gender mentioned here.

    Like

    • Apollos being taught was was not public teaching or assembly speaking as mentioned in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14. Also, Christ’s Spirit said, “that the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.” That’s verbatim from the Greek NT. Even though we have different gifts or responsibility, this does not make one person greater than another or one gender better than another simply by having different roles established by Christ in the Creation.

      Other than this, I absolutely agree with you again. Jesus Christ is not in the woman who do love Christ enough to obey Him (John 14:21-24).

      Like

  7. Kristen says:

    If every doctrine you believe is a primary doctrine to you, Scott, then cease to have fellowship with any Christian who disagreees with you on any point. I think you will find yourself in very small company, not to mention in violation of Romans 14.

    I am always willing to reconsider my position. That is why I have ceased believing that the Bible says what you insist it does. Clear and convincing evidence has convinced me that the authorial intent of many of these verses is other than what you claim.

    Like

    • Romans 14 is about opinions and disputable matters, and not the words of Christ. What else can these verses teach without reading into them? I’m always willing to honestly reconsider. Yet, I’ve studied to prove your point, and there is no getting around what Jesus’ Spirit said in 1 Corinthians 14, Ephesians 5, and 1 Timothy 2.

      Like

  8. Mara says:

    Scott: “A woman speaking in the Assembly doesn’t believe in the primary doctrines of Christ but is mistaken accepting a perverted gospel.”

    This is rich. And so ridiculous it is laughable.
    Jesus Christ never mentions one thing about women speaking in the assembly.
    The primary doctrines of Jesus Christ as they are recording in the gospel, as coming out of His mouth, are these:

    Love the Lord your God with all your soul and all your strength.
    Love your neighbor as yourself.
    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
    If you would be great in God’s kingdom, then learn to be servant of all.

    There are more like these.
    The foolishness of men places the words of Paul or Peter ABOVE the words of Jesus, or worse yet, it takes instruction from Paul to specific churches dealing with specific problems that have been mis-translated by men with cultural bias to say things that Paul never intended and claim that those instructions from apostles translated so poorly ARE the word or teachings of Christ.

    Please, Scott, prove to me from the red letters in the gospels, where keeping women silent in the assembly is a primary teaching of Jesus Christ.

    Don’t give me mistranslated words from epistles to specific churches for specific reason and seasons from any of His disciples as evidence of the Primary Doctrines of Jesus Christ. Such evidence holds no water. They are corrections for situations, many of which are misunderstood by Western society.

    When Jesus was baptized and the heavens opened up and God told people to listen to HIM, which of the apostles did this also happen to that we can ever give their words equal footing with His in red?

    And just FYI, Scott, YOUR gospel is the perverted one because it knows men and women after the flesh rather than after the spirit. It puts more stock in fleshly things and body parts than in the eternal things of the Spirit. It claims order in areas that God never speaks of but that men assume because of their sinful and arrogant natures.

    Like

    • Mara says:

      I read my last line there about men assuming things because of their arrogant natures and I want to redefine that as SOME men assume because of their arrogant natures. Sorry for catagorizing all men by the actions of some. In my travels I have met the most wonderful, humble, and strong men who would never think of uttering such a crazed and ignorant and arrogant statement as…

      “A woman speaking in the Assembly doesn’t believe in the primary doctrines of Christ but is mistaken accepting a perverted gospel.”

      Like

    • Christ’s words continue from Christ through His Apostles and prophets. Jesus said, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come” (John 16:12-13). Jesus said that He gave His words to His Apostles (John 17:8) Those who listen to Christ will listen to His Apostles (John 15:20).

      The truth is that those who love Jesus will have His words and keep them (John 14:21).

      Like

      • “the Spirit of truth” is really hard to pin down. There are so many different denominations and non-denominations that teach salvation through Jesus Christ, and many of them do not agree on what is ‘truth.’ Many allow women deacons and pastors and they see that as truth. Many do not and they see that as truth.

        Like

      • Mara says:

        Scott, The strange gospel you keep insisting on is not based on the bedrock of Jesus nor the foundation of the apostles and the prophets.
        It is based on the bedrock of the traditions of men, that when the words of the apostles and prophets are built upon this bedrock of the traditions of men (aka sand), it builds a house never intended by Jesus.
        All the gender bias you bring to the table is based on traditions and misapplication of scripture and has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God Jesus came to declare.

        The Bedrock of the words of Jesus point away from roles and gender bias.
        Here is an example of His push away from gender roles, plain and clear, written in red.

        Luke 11:27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”

        The woman, bound by her culture and gender, cries out the highest blessing any woman could attain to. IF gender roles were as important and primary to Jesus as you and yours claim, Jesus WOULD NOT HAVE ANSWERED HER THE WAY HE DID. He would have used this very teachable moment, set up by this woman, to enforce, define, or at the very, very, very least, hint toward the gender roles teaching that you claim is His primary doctrine. It was a perfect moment. They so totally could have heard what He had to say.
        But He very specifically pointed AWAY from gender bias and roles.

        Whereas men and women point to the flesh and body parts, Jesus points away from the flesh and toward the Spirit. If gender roles had been primary to Him, He most certainly would have said so here. Men (and women) look on the flesh. Observing the flesh is the bedrock and foundation of complementarianism and it is a false gospel.

        Like

      • Mara,

        You don’t accept Jesus’ words about giving His words to His Apostles (John 15:20, 17:8)?

        Like

      • Mara says:

        I accept the words of Paul who said to follow him AS HE FOLLOWS CHRIST.

        Jesus Christ did not lead the way into gender hierarchy. Nor does Paul go there. He addresses the existing hierarchy that dominated the culture and tried to teach mutual submission in spite of the existing gender hierarchy. But men today take his words as teaching gender hierarchy because their foundation is not Jesus Christ. Their foundation is the traditions of men.

        Scott. Your foundation is not laid upon the bedrock and cornerstone of Jesus Christ. You reject the bedrock and chief cornerstone by embracing the traditions of men. You cling to the old wine saying it it better while rejecting the new wine.

        Like

  9. Estelle says:

    I don’t follow the logic that women should be not preach because men can’t fall pregnant or nurse an infant; that is like comparing apples with sea-cucumbers. Men’s inability to fall pregnant corresponds to women’s inability to father a child. Whether or not God is calling one to preach, is a different matter altogether.

    Like

    • There is no logic in his argument about women getting pregnant when men can’t, and I have heard this same so-called reasoning too many times from these complementarian restrictionists. They think they are cute and have a gotcha!

      Like

    • A woman has role that a man cannot have by God’s own Creation. The point is that men and women are of the same value being made in the image of God and one in Christ no matter their roles, gifts, or employment.

      Like

      • Scott, that is a strange statement, but one that is often used about women. If women are of the same value, then why can’t we fill the same roles? Why have men kept the juciest roles for themselves? Why have men placed a value on the roles – such as only men can teach another man. Talk about the blind leading the blind!

        I claim my new-birth right as a Christian. I flatly refute that men have a ‘birthright’ given to them at creation.

        Like

      • EricW says:

        Scott:

        Since your comments indicate you are a so-called “Complementarian” (whether you use that term for yourself or not), will you respond to these questions, please:

        http://theoblogoumena.blogspot.com/2010/10/quiz-for-complementarians.html

        Thanks!

        Like

      • EricW says:

        Scott:
        If you haven’t left, I’m still waiting for your responses here or on my blog to this Quiz for Complementarians I put together. At least that way we and you will know what you believe women may and may not do in church, and why.

        Like

      • Mara says:

        Eric,
        I think you scared him off.

        If it wasn’t because of your scary mask, then maybe it was because of your knowledge of the Bible languages.

        I kept waiting for him to respond too. But I just don’t think he can handle the truth. I think he felt comfortable in the false structures of comp doctrine.

        Like

      • EricW says:

        Guy Fawkes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes
        Hugo Weaving in V for Vendetta

        Like

  10. EricW says:

    So what is the “role” of a person with xxy chromosomes?

    Like

  11. Kristen says:

    Scott, your idea about men and women having different roles but still being equal, would hold a lot more water if you didn’t also insist that the roles themselves are unequal. To the men go all the leadership/authority “roles,” and to the women go all the follower/submission “roles.”
    You can’t say “equal but different” when the two different things are not equal. The segregation laws of the American South have shown us that.

    Like

    • I didn’t say that all the men are leaders and all the women must submit. The authority is in Christ through the man to the home. The same is true of Christ through the church elders (pastors) over the congregation. This isn’t civil rights. Do employers violate civil rights by having different jobs, different roles, and different pay? This is authority in Christ’s church and His institution of the home. In government, the workplace, and charities, there is some in charge. Is the President of the US more valuable than anyone else? Is the business owner greater than its workers in value before God? No. They are of equal value, but differing roles no matter their pay and their benefits. The Church and the Home are God’s organization and His institutions.

      Again, these are not my instructions but these are Christ’s, because otherwise I have no bias or partiality as God is witness to my heart, intentions, and diligent study of His Word.

      Like

      • Anne says:

        There’s a huge flaw in your comparison of gender roles with employment roles. People are given different employment roles based on how well they can do the job. Roles in the church are given based on whether they’re a man or not (primarily). If a woman happens to show better potential than a man, tough break, woman know thy place.

        If Christ gives authority through the man to the home, where does Christ fit in in the life of the wife and children? Does he sit in the passenger seat while the husband has the final say in the lives of his family? Why hasn’t anyone noticed that that the literal interpretation of this verse is flawed simply because it places the man as the woman’s leader, when Jesus is clearly the only leader of all Christians? There is no heirachy in the faith – we are all one in Christ, with no difference, and we are all under him and him alone. Where, WHERE are you getting the idea of roles from?

        Like

  12. A. Amos Love says:

    Scott

    From your comments, and quoting of scripture, you seem to be passionate…
    And it seems the Bible is an important standard for you.

    You write at – October 20, 2011 at 3:56 pm…
    “I refuse to follow *the doctrines of men* as though they are doctrines of God.”

    …“A woman speaking in the Assembly doesn’t believe in **the primary doctrines of Christ** but is mistaken accepting a perverted gospel. She does not respect God’s Creation, neither men’s role in the home, Christ’s coming in the flesh, His choosing of Apostles, or **the Spirit’s appointment of men to be church elders/pastors?** If she doesn’t listen to Christ concerning these, then she errs in other ways as well?”

    Was wondering… Could you show me – from the Bible…
    **the Spirit’s appointment of men to be church elders/pastors.**

    Jesus did warn us about “The Traditions of Men.” Oy Vey!!! 😦
    NOT – the traditions of women. 😉

    Mark 7:8
    For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold **the tradition of men,**
    as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

    Col 2:8
    Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,
    after **the tradition of men,**
    after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

    And – Are you known as, or consider yourself, an “elder,” or a “pastor?”

    Like

  13. EricW says:

    FWIW, both instances of “men” cited – i.e., Mark 7:8 and Col 2:8 – are translations of ανθρωπος, -οι, a common gender noun. I.e., it can refer to men or women. And the “any man” in Col 2:8 translates τις, which means “someone, anyone” (there is only one form for both masculine and feminine; the neuter is τι).

    Like

  14. A. Amos Love says:

    Eric

    Thanks for the input. And you can type in Greek – that’s really cool. 😉

    Didn’t you notice the smily face? After – “NOT the traditions of women?” 😉

    Seems to me – it’s the men – males – who – for 1700 years – have been making
    these atrocious *traditions* – and will ignore or twist the scriptures for gain –
    that effect both men and women *Today.*

    BUT… How about these verses where Jesus warned us about
    “Tradition” that “voids” the word of God? 🙂

    Mark 7:13
    KJV – Making the word of God of “none effect” through your tradition…
    ASV – Making “void” the word of God by your tradition…
    NIV – Thus you “nullify” the word of God by your tradition…

    Like

  15. A. Amos Love says:

    “inner Greek Geek” 😉 😉 😉

    Like

  16. A. Amos Love says:

    Scott

    Are you known as, or consider yourself, an “elder,” or a “pastor?”

    Like

  17. EricW says:

    Scott:

    Let’s leave aside the husband-wife relationship for now, especially since you are more discussing or objecting to the activities of women in the assembly rather than in the home. Let’s look at Matthew 23:1,8-11 where Jesus gives His primary doctrine on how His disciples are to relate to Him and to each other:

    Τότε ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐλάλησεν τοῖς ὄχλοις καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ λέγων·…ὑμεῖς δὲ μὴ κληθῆτε· Ῥαββί, εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ διδάσκαλος, πάντες δὲ ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοί ἐστε· καὶ πατέρα μὴ καλέσητε ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος· μηδὲ κληθῆτε καθηγηταί, ὅτι καθηγητὴς ὑμῶν ἐστιν εἷς ὁ χριστός· ὁ δὲ μείζων ὑμῶν ἔσται ὑμῶν διάκονος.

    Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples and said: “…But as for you all: Don’t have anyone1 address2 you as ‘Rabbi,’3 for you all have One Teacher, and all of you are brothers and sisters.4 And don’t call anyone1 on earth your ‘Father,’5 for you all have One Heavenly Father. Nor are you to be called ‘Instructors,’6 because you all have One Instructor,6 The Christ.7 [Unlike other religious leaders8], the one who is the greatest among you must be9 as your servant.”

    1 “anyone” is implied by the Greek.
    2 Or “call”.
    3 I.e., Master Teacher.
    4 Translating the common-gender noun ἀδελφοί.
    5 “Father” is emphasized in the Greek text, which is literally: “And ‘Father’ not you-should-call your on the earth….”
    6 “Instructor(s)” is used to differentiate this word (καθηγητής) from the word that is translated in this passage as “teacher” (διδάσκαλος).
    7 I.e., The Messiah.
    8 See Matthew 23:2-7.
    9 Translating the future as an imperative as the NLT does. See BDF §362. (Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (183). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.)

    In the Church, the Body of Christ, men and women are all ἀδελφοί of one another. There is no establishment of one gender over the other. All the members of the Body relate to and hold fast to the Head, Christ, the Bridegroom, with respect to whom all the members of the Body, whether male or female, are as the Bride.

    Like

    • I do not disagree that we are all brothers and sister submitting to one another (Eph. 5:21). This does not change our roles as Christ established nor exclude Christ being the head of man and man the head of woman (1 Cor. 11:3). “Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God” (1 Cor, 11:11-12).

      I can believe that man and woman are equally valuable and one in Christ, and yet submit to Christ’s words concerning authority in the Church and the home.

      Like

      • Anne says:

        Christ didn’t give those words! How many times must it be said? The only words that are the basis of the comp doctrine are, when you strip everything down to the bone: “helper”, “man the head of woman” “wives submit” and “do not permit a woman to have authority over a man”.

        Everything, every idea of authority/submission and role, hinges on those letters of the law and not the Spirit.

        Like

  18. “Scott, what is your definition of having authority over men, and what is your definition of women teaching men?”

    This “having authority over men” is teaching over Christian men (who are to be raising holy hands in prayer, 1 Tim. 2:8) and publicly speaking in the Assembly including prayer (1 Cor. 14:16ff) and teaching over men (1 Cor. 14:21ff). Women are to learn in quietness and peacefully, but not in “silence”. I do not believe in complete silence of anyone. The “silence” of 1 Tim. 2:11 is the same as in 1 Tim. 2:2 where all, men and women, are to live peaceably. A woman learning should be interactive. Yet, neither man nor woman can speak while another speaks in the Assembly for to keep decency and order (1 Cor. 14:21ff). Yet, men are to teach men, and not because women are not good teachers or can’t teach better than men. I believe my wife to be a better teacher and would be a better preacher than me. Still, in the Assembly, women or “wives” if you prefer are not to speak. Speaking means to speak openly in the Assembly by teaching in prophesying or speaking another tongue as seen by the context (1 Cor. 14:21ff) and seen by the Greek usage of “speaking”, laleo. This does not exclude women from saying “Amen” (1 Cor. 14:16) or singing (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16). Women are not to teach over men for the reasons as presented by Christ’s Spirit (1 Tim. 2:11-14). There is no misinterpretation here. The Greek text is clear. If this offends, then so does Jesus offend when He came in the flesh as a man claiming authority from “God the Father” teaching loving male-leadership by appointing His Apostles, loving fathers in the home, and establishing husbands to be church elders (1 Tim. 3:1-2). Listen, I have no personal reservation of my own against women. Yet, I solely am submitting to Jesus Christ in this. God is witness of my heart about this. If 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14, Ephesians 5, and like scriptures had not said these things, then I would have no reservation for women having authority over men because I have no personal bias or partiality concerning gender. I am purely and simply obeying Christ’s words delivered to His Apostles and prophets (John 15:20, 17:8, Eph. 3:3-5). By this, if you were to convince me and the like to change, you will simply have to present the scriptures more accurately. Yet, I have not seen this. I cannot and will not consider speculation or conjecture of the meaning of scripture. I will accept scripture interpreting scripture.

    I challenge both men and women to be submissive for this is Christian humility (1 Cor. 11:3, Eph. 5:21).

    “Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.”

    Like

    • Mara says:

      Again, not one, not one foundational or bedrock word from Christ Himself.

      You build your house on sand, taking the words of the apostles and building on traditions of men, not the bedrock of Jesus.

      You are denying the words of Jesus Christ.

      ~Love your neighbor as yourself
      ~Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
      ~If you would be great in God’s kingdom, learn to be servant of all (NOT SERVANT LEADER that is a blatant twist in order to support error.)
      ~Matthew 23:8-9 But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

      You build old world, old wine, traditions of men structures and search out scripture to support it, scripture that was used back in the day to fight AGAINST the traditions of men, the old wine and the old world of the flesh.

      You support what is fleshly and worldly rather than the Kingdom of God and what Jesus said and stood for. Stop calling something a primary doctrine of Jesus when what Jesus said is the opposite of what you claim.

      Like

      • Mara says:

        Just felt like giving more verses to Matthew 23

        Vs 6 They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues,
        Vs 7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8 But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.
        Vs 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
        Vs 10 Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.
        Vs 11 But the greatest among you shall be your servant.
        Vs 12 Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

        Comp doctrine causes men to disobey the words of Jesus.
        He said, “Do not be called leaders (vs 10)” Yet again and again Comp doctrine pushes men to take their rightful place of ‘leadership’ over their wives.
        If you’ll note, even Paul, in Ephesians five, doesn’t tell men to aspire to be leaders of their wives. He tells them to LOVE them, not lead them.
        Quit making Jesus say things He does not say and quit claiming something is His doctrine when it is not. Stop putting words in His mouth that He never spoke. It is a very dangerous thing to say “God has said,” when God has not said.
        You are playing with fire.

        Like

  19. “Why have men kept the juciest roles for themselves?” That’s prejudice. I wish that you wouldn’t blaspheme the Spirit. It is you who find certain role the “juiciest”. Your bias is toward the roles and not equality. Can such pride does not submit even to Christ? “But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ” (Rom. 14:10).

    Like

  20. Anne says:

    Scott:
    1) If you accept scripture interpreting scripture, why aren’t you interpreting whether women should be priests or not based on “Love each other as you love yourselves?” It is the second Greatest Command after all, and obeying it fulfils ALL law in the Bible.

    2) The Greek text is clear. The English translation isn’t. It’s the English translation that comps use, because of the egalitarian nature of the Greek text when PROPERLY translated. Hopefully EricW will come back and show you exactly what I mean.

    3) Jesus did not establish loving male-headship, he encouraged egalitarianism. He empowered women by giving them the privileges reserved for men at the time, AND he criticised the men that didn’t like it. The reason the Apostles were men was not because Jesus thought being male made them the most suitable for the role, but because the society around him did. Those men would later go out and preach the Gospel – if they were women they wouldn’t have been listened to. Please, please don’t quote 1 Tim. 2 11-14 as Jesus’ words. The letter to Timothy from Paul was BLATENTLY a letter addressing problems in the church. Paul says so right at the start. Stop ignoring the fact that those particular verses do not stand on their own without contradicting the rest of the Bible. If you read the whole book, it’s clear that 1 Tim 2. 11-14 verses are contextual and for a specific purpose. You don’t even have to look outside Scripture to know this. All you have to do is open your eyes.

    4) Your use of 1 Corinthians verses at the end of your post is ironic. Paul used those exact same words in response to their belief that women should be silent in the churches. He was simply repeating their idea and then refuting it with ‘Or did the Word of God come originally from you?’ Take a look, especially at the Greek text. It makes sense if you read the chapter as a whole, and not cherry-pick.

    Like

  21. 1) Both men and women are priests (1 Pet. 2:5, 9, Heb. 12:28, 13:15-16, Rev. 1:6, etc.). Your point is presumptuous.
    2) The Greek text is clear. There is a difference between men and women (1 Tim. 2, 1 Cor. 14). Though women have the role of bearing, nursing, and birthing children, this does not make one gender greater than the other in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Women are not better than men because of this.
    3) Why limit God? He could easily had women accepted by those who had honest hearts. First Timothy 2:11-14, “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” This was written to all (2 Pet. 3:15-16). These are the words of Christ (John 17:8, 2 Pet. 3:2). God desires that men being created first should teach and women should not have authority of them. Why would anyone submit to God’s roles when they don’t accept His Son?
    4) Don’t be so arrogant to assert that I haven’t read 1 Corinthians 14 more than I can count. “Let your women be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands [men] at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.”

    Use the scriptures to interpret the scripture. You don’t need to make assertions. You know that there is no authority in this. Refer to Jesus Christ and don’t limit His words to another culture, world, or generation. His words are for all generations.

    Like

    • Mara says:

      Scott, I AM QUOTING JESUS. You aren’t listening.
      You keep wanting to give MORE weight to what the apostles are saying than to the very words of OUR LORD HIMSELF.
      You keep trying to change what Jesus has said by interpreting Him through the words of the apostles when you should be interpreting the words of the apostles through the words of Jesus. You have it backwards.
      CBMW doctrine has it backwards and it is troubling many marriages and causing people to fall away.
      But you and CBMW insist on looking at things backwards because you like the old wine, the traditions of men that have always held women at a lower level than what God ever intended, CBMW included.

      Like

      • You don’t care what Jesus said.

        “If they kept My word, they will keep yours also” (Jn 15:20).
        “I still have many things to say to you [the Apostles], but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come” (Jn 16:12-13).
        “For I have given to them [the Apostles] the words which You have given Me; and they have received them” (Jn 17:8).

        Like

    • Anne says:

      1) What I meant by priests was leaders in the church, teachers over men, even equal partners in the home (and by that I mean equal authority and role). Full equality not just in worth but in treatment. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says a woman’s primary role is a homemaker, mother etc. This is tradition of men. Anyway, I repeat: why aren’t you interpreting the treatment of women with the Greatest Command, ‘Love thy neighbour’?

      2) What has instructions for churches got to do with the differences between men and women? Those verses refer to how to behave, not what the genders are like.

      3) Have you READ those 2 Peter verses? They say that some parts of the epistles are hard to understand, and untaught and unstable people twist them to their own destruction, along with the rest of the Scriptures. That’s EXACTLY what the hierachal position does. It takes verses that don’t seem to fit with the message of fairness and love, which was the REAL MESSAGE OF JESUS, and twists them while ignoring other parts of Scripture which would contradict their laws of ‘roles.’ They’re all guilty of parroting the same dozen verses over and over again – CBMW, Vision Forum, even you’re doing it. None of them take the Bible’s message as a whole. Their detailed way of life is not based on the Bible but their own version of the Bible, which is a fraction of the real thing.

      There is no basis for the ‘man was created first thus is in charge’ argument. What’s your proof that ‘helper’ doesn’t mean partner, but means ‘lesser role’ as you preach?

      4) If you knew the Greek text you’d see that after the bit on women being silent there is a punctuation symbol which translates into English as ‘Say what?’ or ‘No way!’ An expression of objection, in other words.

      Like

    • EricW says:

      Though women have the role of bearing, nursing, and birthing children, this does not make one gender greater than the other in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Women are not better than men because of this.

      And how/why does having a womb and breasts make a person unqualified to preach or teach or prophesy to others in the assembly, regardless of sex, or be a pastor or elder or deacon in the assembly?

      Like

      • Anne says:

        Not to mention it’s a pretty poor argument. “Don’t get upset over not being leaders or senior pastors, ladies! You get the privilege of feeling sick, cranky and fat for nine months, including the dozens of potential side effects that include migraines, twisted gut and internal haemorraging. Then you have the joyous role of spending hours in agony, followed by days of exhaustion. And as a cherry on the cake, you have to breastfeed your crying child in the night, every night, for months on end. Yes, this is a glorious role that we poor men can’t experience. See? You’re equal!”

        Like

      • It doesn’t. The fact that God created man and first and God gave man the responsibility to lead. Woman are to teach (prophesy). Haven’t you read of Philip’s daughters, Joel, or 1 Corinthians 11?

        You just don’t care about what Christ’s Spirit said in 1 Tim. 2-3.

        Like

      • This shows one thing. That man and women have different roles according to God’s Creation. That’s all.

        Like

      • Anne says:

        No. No they don’t. The idea of roles in Genesis is based on one word and one word only: helper. Everything on top of that is speculation. An assumption that ‘helper’ means ‘lesser role’ without any evidence. Order of creation does not mean they are made as differently as comps say, and for ‘different roles’.

        1 Tim. 2-3. Why, why are you not even considering that there is context involved? It was a letter, with the intention of correcting problems in the Ephesian church. Same with Corinthians. Because of this, context MUST be considered to be sure of what he was really talking about, to get the full picture. Otherwise, as 2 Peter 3 says, people who are ‘untaught’ will distort some of Paul’s words.

        It’s not just a case of reading as a Christian. With old letters like Paul’s, from another era and addressing a problem that he doesn’t really mention, reading like a historian is important too. Examine the context. Learn as much as you can about the timeframe in which Paul was speaking. It’s how to truly understand scripture because as much as Christ’s Spirit was with Paul when he wrote, Paul wasn’t addressing the whole world (nor Peter in 2 Peter 3) he was addressing specific people in specific places.

        There is much we can learn from his advice to them, yes. But to avoid being ‘untaught’ we must use both historical approaches AND letting the Holy Spirit interpret scripture for us.

        Like

    • EricW says:

      First Timothy 2:11-14, “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”

      IMO it’s not that simple, e.g.:
      a. Why does the writer refer to men/husbands and women/wives in 2:8-10, but then switches to the singular woman/wife and man/husband in 2:11-12?
      b. In 2:13 he mentions Adam and Eve, but in 2:14 he refers to Adam and “the woman/wife.” Is this still Eve? Or is the use of the article an anaphoric reference to perhaps a particular woman in 2:11-12?
      c. Why has the woman/wife in 2:14 come to be in a state of transgression, but Adam has not (after all, he sinned/fell, too, and it was Adam who YHWH Elohim banished from the Garden, not Eve http://theoblogoumena.blogspot.com/2011/06/was-eve-banished-from-eden.html )?
      d. How will this in-transgression-woman be saved by bearing children (2:15a)? What soteriological mechanism or doctrine or process is involved?
      e. Is he saying that even though women/wives (assuming he means all women/wives) are in a present state of being in transgression (vis-a-vis men, who apparently are not), they will at least be kept safe through the process of childbirth if they persevere in acting properly?
      f. Why does the author switch back to the plural women/wives in 2:15b?
      Etc.

      Like

      • Mara says:

        Scott, please read Eric’s word above concerning I Tim 2:11-14, the foundation and chief corner stone of comp doctrine that is used to subvert the words of Jesus and steal away the freedom He bought for His daughters through His own blood.

        Then if you have time read this post from my friend Waneta on how important the words of Jesus are to Paul and Paul’s warning against teaching ‘otherwise, and consent not to the wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ.’

        http://submissiontyranny.blogspot.com/2010/12/proud-bible-thumpers.html

        Like

      • a. Christ’s Spirit guides Paul in writing. The switch between plural and singular signifies nothing, which you should know this. Yet, you speculate that the singular rather than the possessive refers to spouses. If you know Greek, then you would know this as seen in 1 Cor. 11:3ff, which uses singular to refer all women and not just wives. You should also have checked 1 Cor. 14:34 where the plural women/wives would also contradict your assertions.
        b. Eve
        c. Adam was not deceived as Eve was (Gen. 3:12-13).
        d. Eve was commanded to bear children thus she was saved (Gen. 1:28, cf. 3:16-19).
        e. NA
        f. If you can read Greek, then you would know that this is neither feminine nor masculine being that the plural noun is found in the… You know, because you know Greek. This peaks of Adam and Eve and you would know this if while reading Greek, you also read the context.

        Like

      • EricW says:

        Scott:

        a. Christ’s Spirit guides Paul in writing. The switch between plural and singular signifies nothing, which you should know this. Yet, you speculate that the singular rather than the possessive refers to spouses. If you know Greek, then you would know this as seen in 1 Cor. 11:3ff, which uses singular to refer all women and not just wives. You should also have checked 1 Cor. 14:34 where the plural women/wives would also contradict your assertions.

        How do you know the switch between singular and plural here signifies nothing? In the context of the letter, and if he was referring to the actions of a particular women, the switch might indeed mean something.

        You misread me. I am not speculating that the singular refers to spouses, versus the plural (possessive?) referring to a man or a woman. I wrote “women/wives” and “woman/wife” and “men/husbands” because the Greek word γυνη can mean either woman or wife, depending on the context, and the Greek word ανηρ can mean either man or husband, depending on the context.

        b. Eve

        That’s your opinion. The text isn’t clear. Your eisegesis or deduction is no better than that of those who suspect it might not refer to Eve.

        c. Adam was not deceived as Eve was (Gen. 3:12-13).

        Do you mean that Adam was not deceived at all? Or that he was not deceived in the same manner as Eve was? I don’t know how you are meaning the word “as” in “…as Eve was.”

        d. Eve was commanded to bear children thus she was saved (Gen. 1:28, cf. 3:16-19).

        The command – or more likely blessing – to be fruitful and multiply was given to both male and female (Genesis 1:28), so if Eve’s salvation was based on having children, so was Adam’s.

        Genesis 3:16-19 was not a command.

        e. NA

        Don’t avoid the question.

        f. If you can read Greek, then you would know that this is neither feminine nor masculine being that the plural noun is found in the… You know, because you know Greek. This peaks of Adam and Eve and you would know this if while reading Greek, you also read the context.

        There is no plural noun in 1 Timothy 2:15. The subjectless “she will be saved” that begins the verse most likely has as its subject the noun subject of the preceding clause, γυνη. If the author had meant to refer to both Adam and Eve he would have used the plural verb form σωθησονται.

        Ερρωσο

        Like

      • a. “if he was referring to the actions of a particular women” Speculation? You can speculate away every command of God if you want.

        b. The antecedent of “the woman” (v14) is Eve (v13). Greek 101

        c. Eve was deceived as these women are.

        d. I didn’t say that Gen. 3:16-19 was a command.

        e. The question makes no sense. NA

        f. Nice. Refer to another word. “She” is singular referring to Eve. The plural in verse 15 is “they” referring to Adam and Eve. Again, where is the noun found? Do you know?

        Like

  22. Michelle says:

    And Jesus Christ never told a woman she couldn’t do anything.

    Perhaps an apostle did: Perhaps not.

    But the Christ Himself?
    Please cite. I’ll check for it in the red letters in my Bible.

    Like

  23. Michelle says:

    Matthew 28:
    Jesus tells some women to take news to the apostles themselves
    8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.” (NIV, via Bible Gateway.com)

    I’m curious: Since scripture is authoritative, and women, by the authority of scripture, are not authoritative, what do you do with this, in Luke? It is in scripture, but since it came from a woman….??

    46 And Mary said:

    “My soul glorifies the Lord
    47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
    48 for he has been mindful
    of the humble state of his servant.
    From now on all generations will call me blessed,
    49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
    holy is his name.
    50 His mercy extends to those who fear him,
    from generation to generation.
    51 He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
    he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
    52 He has brought down rulers from their thrones
    but has lifted up the humble.
    53 He has filled the hungry with good things
    but has sent the rich away empty.
    54 He has helped his servant Israel,
    remembering to be merciful
    55 to Abraham and his descendants forever,
    just as he promised our ancestors.”

    56 Mary stayed with Elizabeth for about three months and then returned home.

    No more time for now…..

    Like

    • Amen. We should look to “He”, Jesus Christ.

      Like

      • Michelle says:

        We are never instructed to worship Christ’s masculinity. We are never instructed to worship Christ *because of* his masculinity.

        You do not address any of my post. I suspect you are a troll.

        Like

      • Why would you worship Christ’s masculinity? He is the image of God in which both men and women were created (Gen. 1:27). Do you believe this or not? Do you believe that men were created first (1 Tim. 2:13) and then women were created being the glory of man (1 Cor. 11:7)? Both were created in God’s image, yet both were created differently. You cannot take the rights of men being created first and give that to women, then you are cannot take the glory in women and give that to men.

        Like

      • Michelle says:

        Thank you. That still leaves the issue of a woman, who by her nature is not authoritative, being quoted in scripture, which by its nature is authoritative. How do you view that?

        Like

      • Michelle says:

        It was your seeming to emphasize Christ’s being male that led me to the comment about worshipping masculinity. I have no cause to do so. When masculinity is viewed as the source of all power, I can see how it might become an idol for some.

        Like

  24. Anne says:

    While we’re quoting verses, here’s a doozy from James 2.

    1 My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. 2 Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. 3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
    5 Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?

    8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,”[a] you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

    Although Paul uses the example of rich and poor, the general message is the same, for churches and all of life. DO NOT TREAT ONE PERSON BETTER THAN ANOTHER.

    Like

    • Actually, you should respect all and love God by observing all His commands (Matt. 28:20). Therefore, men and women must submit to God the Father of the Word in Man, Jesus Christ.

      Like

      • Anne says:

        You’re missing the point by light years, and its right there in the verse. If you stick to the command of love thy neighbour and equal treatment, you are doing right. You are obeying all Biblical law. Paul says that above all things we must live a life of love.

        But treating men better than women breaks that law of love. Which, by the way, is the Golden Rule – why are you placing marriage advice over that of the love thy neighbour law?

        Like

      • Christ’s Spirit did not break the law of love by instructing that women are not to teach or have authority of a men.

        Like

      • Anne says:

        Yes it does. Because a man allowing a man to hold leadership positions while not allowing a woman, simply because she is a woman no matter how capable she is, is not treating her the same as he would treat himself.

        Like

      • Michelle says:

        Did Christ not break his own law against women having authority over men when he told Mary to tell the Apostles of his resurrection? Surely she was acting in authority when she told them this, which confirmed that Jesus was (is, of course) indeed the fulfillment of prophecy.

        Like

  25. Kristen says:

    Scott, your words here:

    “Speaking means to speak openly in the Assembly by teaching in prophesying or speaking another tongue as seen by the context (1 Cor. 14:21ff) and seen by the Greek usage of “speaking”, laleo”

    are directly contradicted by 1 Cor. 11:5, where Paul says a woman should cover her head when she prays or or prophesies. Also, as Peter preached in Acts 2, the prophet Joel specifically said God would pour out His Spirit on His “sons and daughters, and that they would prophesy. You cannot deny the gifts of the Spirit to women based on this passage. You are turning the good news of the kingdom of God, into bad news of new laws over women, more restrictive than the laws of the Old Covenant.

    Like

    • Women prophesy to who? Other women (Titus 2:3). 1 Cor .11:1-16 is not the Assembly (1 Cor. 14:34ff). You are wrong. Christ’s Spirit does not contradict itself in scripture.

      First Corinthians 11:3, “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”

      First Corinthians 11:7b, “woman is the glory of man”.

      Like

      • Kristen says:

        Quite right. Christ’s Spirit does not contract Himself in scripture. But don’t you see that what you are saying it means, is the contradiction? You are the one reading the English usage of “ruler/leader” for the Greek word “head.” If you don’t superimpose the English meaning onto the Greek word, you don’t end up with a contradiction. If you read head as “origin,” which was its most common meaning in the Greek, then verse 3 of 1 Cor 11 suddenly fits in with the context of the whole chapter 11, which is about origins, and how what you do reflects on your origin in the eyes of the honor-shame culture in which Paul was writing. That’s what that word “glory” is about in verse 7. It is the Greek word “doxa,” and one of the meanings of that word was “good reputation/good name.” It does not mean women don’t reflect the spiritual glory of God, because that kind of glory is spoken of clearly as being reflected by all the saints in 2 Cor. 3:18. Read in its historical and literary context, we see that the meaning intended by the author was that women’s behavior reflected upon their men, and men’s behavior reflected upon their God, in the eyes of the society of that time, so Christian women were the “glory” (good reputation) of their husbands, and Christian men were the “glory” (good reputation) of God.
        Reading 1 Cor 11:5 as if it were not about the assembly of the saints, is again a misunderstanding based on a lack of knowledge of how things were done in that time and place. Prophecy was a public event. It was not practiced by two or three people in a private setting. It was not something believers did to non-believers.

        Titus 2 says nothing whatsoever about prophecy. You are reading that in, in an attempt to explain away the inherent contradiction in your interpretation– and your interpretation flies in the face of the way Christians actually practiced worship at that time. Titus 2 is not about public meetings, where prophecy would have been practiced, but about how Titus is to teach the people of Crete to live their daily lives. Again, if Paul had in mind women only prophesying to other women in 1 Cor 11, he would not have talked about head coverings. Women did not wear head coverings when they met in private. And women did not even speak to men in public social settings, or on the street– their husbands could have divorced them for such lewd behavior! So this could not be about women covering their heads when they evangelized the lost.

        Our understanding of the scriptures must always be based on authorial intent. It means what Paul intended his original hearers to understand, not what it may seem like it means to us 2000 years and half the globe away. Seminaries used to teach this, and equip pastors to study and convey the authorial intent to their congregations. Nowadays some seminaries have departed from this truth in favor of “plain sense” understandings that tend to uphold pastoral power and male privilege. This is why lay people like me have learned to study and find out for myself what Paul really meant to say. And Paul upheld throughout his teachings the fundamental principle of the New Creation, “we no longer view anyone according to the flesh,” (2 Cor 5:16) and “in Christ there is not male and female. . . for we all have the adoption of sons” (Gal 3:28-4:5). “Adoption of sons” meant the full acceptance of an adoptee to the status of a freeborn male citizen, with all the rights and privileges pertaining to that status. And we are ALL “adopted sons,” with that status. There are no poor cousins in the kingdom who only get salvation and are supposed to be grateful for that, while others get the giftings that are denied them.

        Like

      • Ohh, Scott! Woman is the glory of man? Exactly what does that mean. Does it mean that man has no glory except when he has a woman? Now you and I both know that 1 Corinthians 11:3 gives man diety, so it has to be mistranslated. Read it this way: “but I want you to know that the head of everyone is Christ (it is much like the illustration I gave you of your marriage to help you understand) and Christ has this authority because his head is God.” In light of the scriptures, doesn’t that make more sense? Otherwise we have Christ being the head of men only, and we have inserted a husband between a woman and God, which is a distortion of the gospel.

        Like

      • By “head”, you are saying that Jesus was created by God and that He is not eternal?

        Is Jesus not “the head” of the Church (Eph. 1:22)? How is He “head over all” if head does not mean over another? Yet, Christ is the head having preeminence (Col 1:16). Christ is the head of all principality and power (Col. 2:10). If Christ is not the authority being the head, then how are some disconnected from Him by false worship (Col. 2:18ff)? Why are wives to submit to husbands being the head (Eph. 5:22ff)? Can you show any passage that shows “head” being used to mean origin or is this speculating for your own agenda? Why does it offend you to submit to someone else (Eph. 5:21)? Will you not submit to governing authorities who are men?

        Have you submitted to Christ that you have been raised with Him? Do you not know that one day you will be judged by God the Father? You like me will stand before God. What will you tell Him when you did not accept Jesus as the leader, the ruler, the head of Christ’s Church? What will you say when you do not submit to loving Christian men appointed by the Holy Spirit? Certainly, you must fear.

        Like

      • I have accepted Jesus as my savior, but not my husband as my head. I don’t think Jesus is going to ask me why I didn’t submit to some man here on earth.

        Like

      • Mara says:

        Scott: “What will you say when you do not submit to loving Christian men appointed by the Holy Spirit? Certainly, you must fear.”

        I fear for you, Scott. God opposes those who claim that He says things He has not said and this is what you do.
        ~By taking the words of mere men, apostles or not, and placing them above the words of Jesus
        ~Claiming that verses taken out of context from their specific letters written to specifide churches dealing with unique problems, piecing them together to form a web of lies and declaring that this web of words are for all people for all times.
        ~Preferring the biased translations of men with agendas and ignoring the original Greek
        ~Slavishly devoting yourself to a doctrine that teaches you to do the opposite of what Jesus actually did command us

        Yes, I fear greatly for you, for how much you love your idol, your pet doctrine, and place it above the commands of Jesus verbalized by Him in the gospels.
        I wish you had enough sense to fear for yourself rather than trying to control women through fear. Because when one begins to use fear to control others, it is no longer gospel. It becomes just as worthless as every other false religion ever created by men.

        Like

  26. 1 Cor. 11:5 is not in the assembly and not over men. See Titus 2:3.

    Like

    • Kristen says:

      Wrong. Prophecy was very much a public event practiced in the assembly. It was not a private thing. If the meetings in question were not public assemblies of the church, head coverings would not have been at issue. The whole head-covering issue was about the impact of Christian practice in church assemblies, on the witness of the church to the surrounding culture. Titus 2:3 has nothing to do with this. Women did not need to wear head coverings in private meetings of women only. It simply was not an issue in that context.

      Like

      • The covering is hair for which there are to be no contentions over. Can a woman not prophesy in evangelizing to the lost or to women? There is no indication that is an assembly. That is speculation. Paul addresses division first in the Assembly in 11:18 when he says, “For truly first, when you come together as a congregation, I hear that there are divisions among you…”

        Like

    • Kristen says:

      I can show plenty of passages where “head” means origin, but since you’re already convinced it means “ruler over,” you are not likely to accept it. It certainly means “origin” in 1 Cor 11, because the whole context of that chapter is about origins. Look at the rest of the chapter; it’s all about who comes from whom.
      But there is a difference between “head of” and “head over.” When the text says “head over,” it usually means “preeminent, the one on top.” This is still not the same thing as “ruler over,” however, because it refers to position, not authority. Ephesians 1:22 says Christ is “head over all things FOR the church.” This is a sort of play on words. Christ is “head of” the church, which is His body. v. 23. This is a picture of a head and a body– a metaphor of unity. The church is shown as seated BESIDE Christ in the heavenly places in Eph 2:6. The church is therefore NOT one of the things Christ is “head OVER,” used in the sense of “in the prominent position over.” Christ’s prominence is used FOR the church, not exercised OVER the church. Then in Eph. 4 we see the head-body metaphor repeated with Christ as the source/origin of provision and nourishment for the body, the church. Again, nothing about authority there. Finally, in Eph 5, we see that it is in the sense of being the “Savior,” not the “Lord,” that Christ is the “head of” the church. If this were about authority, wouldn’t it say, “As Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the ‘Lord’?” But v. 23 says “Savior” — a word that means source of salvation, provider, rescuer– not leader, authority or ruler.
      As I’ve been saying all along– if you don’t understand this in the context of a society in which husbands were indeed rulers over their wives by the law of the land, then you won’t get what Paul is doing. He’s telling husbands that Christian marriage is about laying down their earthly power and authority and raising their wives up as Christ raised up the church– that their marriages, which up to this point had been all about power, were now to be all about unity and mutual submission (v. 21).
      Those who want to establish husband-authority over wives in the 21st century are leading the church in the opposite direction of where the Spirit, through Paul, was leading the church in Ephesians. The Spirit was leading AWAY from a rule-based paradigm and TOWARDS a paradigm of humility and mutual service in unity.

      Like

  27. Answer my question. Why is it that you really don’t believe Jesus’ Spirit who spoke these words concerning the roles and leadership of men and women? It revealed in this question. When is a believer resurrected with Jesus through the Faith?

    Like

    • Kristen says:

      We do believe Jesus’ Spirit. What we don’t believe is your proof-texting, which lifts individual verses out of their literary and historical contexts in order to unfairly restrict women. This is not of the Spirit of Jesus.

      Like

    • Anne says:

      Answer my question too please Scott. Why are you placing the theory of authority/submission and leader/serving roles, the unequal treatment of women, above Christ’s Great Command of love each other as you love yourself? Because such treatment does not fulfil that law but break it.

      Like

      • How is it unloving for Christ’s Spirit to command a different role for women than men? Do you so desire preeminence in pride? What is wrong with submission and humility? Was Christ’s Spirit wrong to establish men to be elders and deacons (1 Tim. 3)?

        Like

      • Anne says:

        Because that ‘role’ means privileges for men that women don’t get, simply because of what’s between their legs. Her competency, enthusiasm and spiritual anointing are ignored in favour of her sex being the qualifying requirement. That is not love. That is restriction of freedom and discrimination. Christ came to make ALL of God’s children fully free.

        Nothing’s wrong with submission and humility, but the problem is that SBC churches preach that it’s limited to women only, and say that it HAS to be done ‘in order to be Godly’, which is a lie. Meanwhile, men should be manly men, apparently. They should lead and have the final say, even if they turn out to be terrible husbands and fathers they are still given absolute authority in the family. Jesus wanted ALL his disciples to be submissive and humble. This is made much, much harder to achieve when a man has it drummed into his head that God has “given” him the right to be the boss. Even if he’s also told he must be kind and sacrificial, he’s been given a trump card that holds far, far too much temptation to dominate. And I’m not saying that only men would do it. If the world was turned upside down and society was a matriarchy, women would do it too. I’m not trying to bash men here.

        Like

    • Yet, no one here seems to know when one is raised with Christ. When does someone have a new life in Christ? What happens? This shows corruption right here. You ask me many question, and I ask this one. Which of you has put of this life?

      Like

      • Michelle says:

        We have a life in Christ in the here and now. We pray for it to be on earth as it is in heaven, and so we are to work together, as the body of Christ, to overcome sin in practice as Christ has overcome it for us in terms of judgement, and in the example he provided on earth.

        Like

      • Kristen says:

        I assume you mean “put off this life.” Yes, when we give our lives to Christ, that’s when we are raised with him, and we put off the old life, as evidenced by our baptism. When we are in Christ, it is a New Creation (2 Cor 5) in which we no longer view anyone according to the flesh. This means we stop looking at whether someone is Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female.
        Any interpretation of Scripture that contradicts the nature of the New Creation and drags us back into the wordly way of viewing others according to whether they are Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female– that interpretation cannot be correct.

        Like

  28. EricW says:

    Here you are, Scott, at a woman-owned blog, where women are speaking from the authority they have in Christ and in the church, and are engaging with you in teaching and preaching the meaning and interpretation and application of the Scriptures. You’re not insisting on their silence, but are instead discussing and sharing the Scriptures with them, and dialoguing and preaching with and to each other as equals. There is no difference in what you’re doing here and how you should engage with women at your church and how you indeed can engage with women at your church. We Egalitarians aren’t asserting or demanding a woman’s right to lord things over a man. We’re saying to treat and accept women as full and equal partners in the Gospel and in the church and not let gender restrict what and to whom a person can teach and preach and do the ministry of Christ. Let women equally teach and preach and shepherd and serve in the church and you’ll find you have as much or more to learn and receive of Christ from and through their leadership and servantship and giftings as you think they do from y’all men.

    Like

    • Yet, they have not taught anything. If they like Priscilla which teach me like Apollos, then There is no error. If I teach as Paul taught the prominent women in Thessalonica and Berea, then there is no error.

      “We’re saying to treat and accept women as full and equal partners in the Gospel and in the church and not let gender restrict what and to whom a person can teach and preach and do the ministry of Christ.” This is not what you mean, because I have agreed in every point.

      We, Christians, disagree and must follow Christ. You are mistaken. The things that you are saying are evil.

      “Let women equally teach and preach and shepherd and serve in the church and you’ll find you have as much or more to learn and receive of Christ from and through their leadership and servantship and giftings as you think they do from y’all men.” Now, you say that women teach better than men rather than promoting your equality. Equality is not a virtue.

      Whether you like it or not, women and men were created in the image of God. Each having different roles and both being one in Christ (Gal. 3:28). God created woman in the glory of man (1 Cor. 11:7). That is not equal, but it does not degrade the value of men, since men were created first to be the head (1 Cor. 11:3) and women to be the glory (1 Cor. 11:7).

      Like

      • Anne says:

        1) To say women have not taught ‘anything’ is a sweeping assumption without evidence. Also, women largely haven’t been ALLOWED to teach in the first place, THAT’S why they may not have taught much in churches.

        2) “This is not what you mean, because I have agreed in every point.” – Scott

        You’ve haven’t agreed with our points on equal positions in the church at all. And your idea of ‘equality’ is severely different from ours. Ours means equality in all things, church, home, abilities. Yours means equality in appreciation, even though you still want to box men and women into ideas of what they’re supposed to exist as. Also, how is speaking out for equal treatment evil?!

        3) “Now, you say that women teach better than men rather than promoting your equality. Equality is not a virtue.” – Scott

        That’s not what’s being said at all. If you read again, Eric is saying that if you let a woman preach you can learn as much from her as you could a man, and maybe something new. Maybe something more. And what do you mean by ‘equality is not a virtue’?

        Like

      • Michelle says:

        So…what did folks do before New Testament time when they had Paul to clear up creation order? One account of creation says that God created “the human”. After that, male and female were distinguished from one another.

        If you read Genesis carefully, I believe you will see that there is not one instance of God respecting the human-created institution of first-born males receiving the family inheritance.

        Like

    • “Why doesn’t EricW say anything? Why doesn’t he reveal the Greek?”

      Like

  29. Kristen says:

    “Yet, you have yet to present one premise, one proof of lifting this from the context.”

    Scott, see my most recent comment below this one, for an analysis of 1 Cor 11 in context, and why your reading is not in context.

    Like

  30. Kristen says:

    “By ‘head’, you are saying that Jesus was created by God and that He is not eternal?”

    Scott, you do know Trinitiarian theology, don’t you? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:1-14, emphasis added. It is completely in line with Christ’s eternal, uncreated Being that He also “came from” the Father into the world as the Christ. God is the origin of Christ.

    Like

    • Anne says:

      Yes, and that doesn’t make Christ non-eternal. Remember that God, Jesus and the Spirit are beings of a realm COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to our own. They are a wholly seperate form to us. We humans have been made in God’s image, but we are nothing like God in identity, which is why it’s wrong to say that the husband should be like Jesus to his wife. Hubby is not Jesus, he is human. Don’t give him a role that belongs only to the Divine King.

      Like

  31. Kristen says:

    “How is it unloving for Christ’s Spirit to command a different role for women than men? Do you so desire preeminence in pride? What is wrong with submission and humility? Was Christ’s Spirit wrong to establish men to be elders and deacons (1 Tim. 3)?”

    The passage does not teach that only men can be elders and deacons. Phoebe was a deacon.

    It is unloving to give one group “roles” that are always subordinate and one group “roles” that are always authoritative. This is not “roles.” Roles are parts you play. You can step in and out of “roles.” But what you are talking about is position– permanent, unchanging subordinate position– and then calling it “roles” to soften it. And then finding fault with us for being unwilling to be always subordinated! Are you acting in submission and humility? There is nothing wrong with submission and humility, except when half the body of Christ is exempted from it– the male half!

    They used to tell African-Americans the same sorts of things, that God created them to serve whites– and they used plenty of proof-texts to back it up! — and then faulted them for rebellion when they didn’t like it!
    You are now calling our salvation into question and telling us we need to be in fear of God’s wrath. All because we read the scriptures differently from you.
    Shirley, I see no reason for you to permit this man to teach and usurp authority here. This is your blog. You can choose to not permit him, if you like– until he is willing to learn in quietness and submission. (grin)

    Like

  32. EricW says:

    until he is willing to learn in quietness and submission. (grin)

    οπου εαν πετοιντο οι χοιροι

    Like

  33. EricW says:

    If Scott is still here, this book might be worth a read:

    http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/11/01/as-christ-submits-to-the-church/

    (unless one has already made up one’s mind and is not interested in reading what sounds like a scholarly examination and critique of the complementarian position)

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s