Mark Driscoll vs. Bill Hybels

Mark Driscoll recently shot a video speaking on church planting. He was criticised by Bill Hybels for not including women as potential church planters. Read more and watch the video here.

Gender Neutral Trinity?

When you think of the Trinity do you think "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" or "Sun, Light, and Burning Ray?" Some churches and ministries are trying to take the masculine language out of their bibles, songs, and doctrinal statements. Read more here.

Complementarianism in Everyday Life

My family and I will be moving soon as we are completing our time at the Sovereign Grace Pastors College. A few weeks ago we went “house searching” to purchase our new home that we hope to live in for many years to come.

As we looked at homes it became clear that our search came down to choosing between two homes. They were both about the same price, but one would be a brand new home and the other would be a home that was about quite a few years older. At first, I really liked the idea of having a brand new home. It would be OUR home that we could decorate and design the way we wanted. I also knew that this house would appreciate quicker than the older home. The only problem with this house was that it did not have a very big yard, it was a little further from our church, and the kitchen was not the size we wanted. Everything else about the house was great.

As my wife and I discussed the situation, it was clear that my wife liked the older home better. We talked about how the older house would put her closer to friends in the church, it would give our daughters a place to play outside, and it would give her the kitchen that she had always wanted. The decision was pretty easy because purchasing a home is more about our family values and spiritual values than just about a real estate investment.

Many who would caricature my view of biblical manhood and womanhood (complementarianism) would say that in going house shopping I would make the decision when purchasing the house with little regard for my wife’s thoughts because I am the leader. They would probably say that I am the “dictator.” The complementarian view of manhood and womanhood is actually far different than sometimes assumed. My view is not trying to squash women, but trying to regard my wife and care for her in the most biblical possible way. This is lived out practically in the way we talk, the way we shop for houses, and the way we parent. Your view of the roles will be worked out in everyday life, so it’s an important issue to think through.

Somewhere Over Disney's Rainbow...

"Disney opens doors to same-sex ceremonies"

Tuesday, April 10th, 2007

by Baptist Press

Walt Disney Parks & Resorts announced April 6 it now will allow homosexual couples to exchange vows in its public wedding spots that previously were reserved for people with valid marriage licenses.

"Bottom line, our business is all about hospitality," Donn Walker, a spokesman for Disney, told the Orlando Sentinel. "Our commitment at Disney is to welcome all guests in an inclusive environment and to make them feel respected. We think this is consistent with that long-standing policy."

Disney hosts about 1,500 weddings each year, mostly through its Fairy Tale Wedding packages that include a ceremony at one of the parks' marriage pavilions, Disney costumed characters at the reception and a ride in a horse-drawn, glass-enclosed carriage through the Disney property. Such packages can cost tens of thousands of dollars, The Washington Post reported.
"I think for years, Disney has reflected the values of America," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said. "Now, I think it could be argued they are trying to shape those values in a very radical way."

Walker told the Sentinel that Disney's policy change was not the result of a campaign by homosexual activists but was spurred by one homosexual couple's request to purchase a wedding package.

"At the end of the day, they're in business to make money," Steve Smith, communications pastor at First Baptist Church in Orlando, told the Sentinel. "This is an untapped market for them, obviously. I'm not entirely surprised that Disney would make a fiduciary decision over a moral one."
With the $28,000 average cost of a Disney wedding, just one homosexual ceremony a week would earn Disney another $1.5 million a year, Bob Witeck of a Washington-based public relations firm catering to homosexuals told the Sentinel.
"It's a savvy business decision," Witeck said.

Because "gay marriage" is not legal in Florida and California, the homosexual events won't be marriage ceremonies but will be commitment ceremonies.

Disney has been considered a pioneer in the push to accept homosexuality in America, leading to an eight-year boycott by the Southern Baptist Convention that ended in 2005. The company began offering partner benefits to employees in 1996 and it has allowed thousands of homosexual tourists to mark Gay Days at its theme parks each spring.

(www.cbmw.org has this and other articles in their "Gender News")

An Open Letter To Egalitarians

Below a letter that Wayne Grudem wrote in 1998. For you intellectuals out there, it may clarify some of the questions that complementarians have for egalitarians. I know this is a bit longer than what I usually like to have in a post, but it is an interesting read.

An Open Letter To Egalitarians

Wayne Grudem

"Here Are Six Questions That Have Never Been Satisfactorily Answered"

Dear Egalitarian Friends,

We know that many of you within the evangelical world hold your views because you have been convinced that egalitarianism is what the Bible teaches. You tell us that our differences on male and female roles are just differences in interpretation, and that Biblebelieving Christians can honestly and fairly interpret the Bible to support complete equality in most or all roles for men and women in the family and the church. You say that you are sincere in adopting your views not because of modern cultural pressures but because you think that the Bible itself supports your position. In response to this, we want to say that we appreciate your sincerity in these matters and we believe that you are telling us the truth about your motives.
There are, nevertheless, certain questions of fact that come up frequently in your writings. We focus on these specific questions in this letter because they do not involve detailed arguments about interpretation, but involve only matters of factual data. We are simply asking to see the evidence that has convinced you about certain key interpretations of Scripture passages. If you can point out this evidence to us, then we will be able to understand more fully how you have come to your understanding of key passages. But if you cannot point out this evidence, and if no one among you can point out this evidence, then we respectfully ask that you reconsider your interpretations of these passages.

Here Are Our Questions:

1. kephalē: Where the Bible says that the husband is the “head’’ (kephalē) of the wife as Christ is the “head’’ (kephalē) of the church (Eph. 5:23), and that the head of the woman is the man (1 Cor. 11:3), you tell us that “head’’ here means “source’’ and not “person in authority over (someone).’’ In fact, as far as we can tell, your interpretation depends on the claim that kephalē means “source without the idea of authority.’’

But we have never been able to find any text in ancient Greek literature that gives support to your interpretation. Wherever one person is said to be the “head’’ of another person (or persons), the person who is called the “head’’ is always the one in authority (such as the general of an army, the Roman emperor, Christ, the heads of the tribes of Israel, David as head of the nations, etc.) Specifically, we cannot find any text where person A is called the “head’’ of person or persons B, and is not in a position of authority over that person or persons. So we find no evidence for your claim that “head’’ can mean “source without authority.’’

Does any such evidence exist? We would be happy to look at any Greek text that you could show us from the 8th century B.C. to the 4th century A.D. (a span of 12 centuries). In all of that literature, our question of fact is this: Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word for “head’’ (kephalē) is used to say that person A is the “head’’ of person or persons B, and means what you claim, namely, “non-authoritative source’’?
If you can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation further. But if you cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for your interpretation of these key verses, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if such factual basis existed. We would also respectfully ask that you also reconsider your understanding of these verses.

2. hypotassō: Where the Bible says that wives are to “be subject to’’ to their husbands (Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5; and implied in Eph. 5:22, 24), you tell us that the verb “be subject to’’ (hypotassō, passive) is a requirement for both husbands and wives—that just as wives are to be subject to their husbands, so husbands are to be subject to their wives, and that there is no unique authority that belongs to the husband. Rather, the biblical ideal is “mutual submission’’ according to Ephesians 5:21, “be subject to one another,’’ and therefore there is no idea of one-directional submission to the husband’s authority in these other verses (Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5; and Eph. 5:22, 24). But we have never been able to find any text in ancient Greek literature where hypotassō (passive) refers to a person or persons being “subject to’’ another person, and where the idea of submission to that person’s authority is absent. In every example we can find, when person A is said to “be subject to’’ person B, person B has a unique authority which person A does not have. In other words, hypotassō always implies a one-directional submission to someone in authority. So our question is this:
Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word for “be subject to’’ (hypotassō, passive) is used to refer to one person in relation to another and does not include the idea of one-directional submission to the other person’s authority?

If you can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation further. But if you cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for your interpretation of these key verses, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if you did, and that you also reconsider your understanding of these verses.

3. “or’’ (Greek ē): In 1 Corinthians 14:36, some of you argue that the Greek word ē (“or’’) shows that the preceding verses are a quotation from the Corinthian church which Paul denies. Therefore you say that Paul is not really telling the Corinthian church,
the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church (1 Cor. 14:34–35), but the Corinthians are saying those things, and Paul is just quoting them. You tell us that Paul’s response might be paraphrased as “Are you crazy?’’ This, you tell us, is the force of the tiny Greek word ē, which is usually translated “or.’’ You tell us that ē, “or,’’ is used in Greek to deny what went before it.

Our problem is that when we look at other examples of ē used in constructions like 1 Corinthians 14:36, where the following material is clearly false (that is, Paul and the Corinthians know that the word of God did not come from them), then “or’’ functions to show that the preceding material has to be true. This would mean that verses 34–35 are affirmed by Paul.

To put it another way, Paul is arguing:
You must do A.
Or: Is B true?
(No.)
Then you must do A.

This is just the opposite of what you claim. You claim that Paul uses “or’’ to deny A (verses 34–35). In fact, we can find no parallel examples where it is used to deny both what precedes and what follows. This is also what all the Greek lexicons tell us. So our question is this:
Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word for “or’’ (¯e) is used to introduce what the readers know to be false, so the author can deny both what goes before and what follows?

If you can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation further. But if you cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for your interpretation of this key verse, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if you did, and that you also reconsider your understanding of these verses.

4. authenteō: In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul writes, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men.’’ Many of you claim that the word translated “have authority’’ (authenteō) means “misuse authority’’ or “domineer’’ (or even “instigate violence’’) in this sentence, so that Paul is not prohibiting women from having authority over men, but he is prohibiting women from misusing authority or domineering over men.

Our problem is this: we have never seen any clear example in ancient Greek literature where authenteō must mean “domineer’’ or “misuse authority.’’ Whenever we have seen this verb occur, it takes a neutral sense, “have authority’’ or “exercise authority,’’ with no negative connotation attaching to the word itself. We are aware that a related noun, authent¯es, has several different meanings, but that is not the word Paul used, and we are interested in the word that Paul actually used. So our question is this: Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where the verb authenteō means what you claim, namely, “misuse authority or domineer’’ (or even “instigate violence’’)?

If you can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation further. But if you cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for your interpretation of this key verse, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if you did, and that you also reconsider your understanding of these verses.

5. “neither X nor Y’’: In 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man,’’ the grammatical structure in Greek takes the form, “neither + [verb 1] + nor + [verb 2].’’

Regarding this verse, many of you tell us that the phrase “to teach or to have authority’’ means “to teach in a domineering way,’’ or “to teach in a way that usurps authority.’’ You base your understanding on the idea (already mentioned above) that the verb authenteō has a negative sense such as “domineer’’ or “usurp authority.’’

But we have a second problem with this: when we look at other examples of this Greek construction, in the form “neither + [verb 1] + nor + [verb 2],’’ only two patterns occur: (a) verb 1 and verb 2 are activities or concepts that are both viewed positively, such as “neither sow nor reap,’’ or “neither eat nor drink,’’ or (b) verb 1 and verb 2 are activities or concepts that are both viewed negatively, such as “neither break in nor steal’’ or “neither leave nor forsake.’’ (In fact, Andreas Köstenberger’s research found 52 examples of this structure in the New Testament, and 48 more examples in Greek literature outside the New Testament, from 3rd century B.C. to 1st century A.D., and the pattern was the same in all 100 examples). So we wonder how your interpretation can claim that verb 1 (“teach’’) is a concept that is viewed positively but verb 2 (“have authority’’) is a negative concept (“domineer, usurp authority, or instigate violence’’). So our question is this: Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where the pattern “neither + [verb 1] + nor + [verb 2]’’ is used to refer to one action that is viewed positively and one action that is viewed negatively?

If you can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation further. But if you cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for your interpretation of this key verse, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if you did, and that you also reconsider your understanding of these verses.

6. Women teaching false doctrine at Ephesus: In 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man,’’ many of you say the reason for Paul’s prohibition is that women were teaching false doctrine in the church at Ephesus (the church to which 1 Timothy was written). Our problem in understanding the basis for your claim is that we see no evidence inside or outside the Bible that tells us that any women were teaching false doctrine in the church at Ephesus. More than that, since Paul’s prohibition applies to all women, it seems to us that your position really needs to show that all the women at Ephesus were teaching false doctrine. So we are wondering if there is any text that tells us that all (or any) Christian women were teaching false doctrine in the church at Ephesus.
We recognize that some women were gossiping at Ephesus (1 Tim. 5:13), but that is not the same as teaching false doctrine—we all know people who gossip but who don’t teach false doctrine! And we know that there were pagan religions in Ephesus where non-Christian men and women did a number of things that were not done by Christians—but to say that they did such things after becoming Christians just strikes us a speculation, not evidence.
In fact, we have read evidence in the Bible about people teaching false doctrine at Ephesus, but they are not women, they are men. So, for example, Paul talks about “Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. They are upsetting the faith of some’’ (2 Tim. 2:17–18). He also speaks of “Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme’’ (1 Tim. 1:20), but these are men, not women. Similarly, Paul warns the Ephesian elders, “from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them’’ (Acts 20:30), but here he says these false teachers will be men (Greek andrēs), not that they will be women.

So our question is this: Will you please show us one reference in all of ancient literature, whether inside or outside the Bible, that states that all the Christian women at Ephesus (or even that any Christian women at Ephesus) were teaching false doctrine?
If you can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation further. But if you cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for your interpretation of this key verse, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if you did, and that you also reconsider your understanding of these verses.
We know that there are many other questions of interpretation on which we may differ, and we realize that these matters do not solve all of those questions. But we thought that these matters might be the simplest to resolve, since they just involve questions of factual evidence.

Are there any real facts to support your claims?

Thank you for considering our questions. We look forward to hearing a response from you.

Sincerely yours,

Wayne Grudem, Ph.D.President, CBMW

Please send your responses to me via e-mail at: cbmwoffice@aol.com

Different by Design Audio Series

If you don't know much about "Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" (complementarianism), these audio messages would be a great place to start.

Last year's messages are by Wayne Grudem and C.J. Mahaney. This year's are by Russell Moore and Ligon Duncan.

The Outworking of Feminism...Homosexuality Being Okay

Linda Hirshman is a radical feminist voice in the United States and a few months ago pleaded with "stay-at-home" moms to quit "letting down the team" and get out into the work force. Now she takes her feminism one step further. She sees no difference between the roles of males and females, so she sees no difference in the genders. Thus she has no problem with homosexuality. Al Mohler has a good post about Hirshman's latest soapbox.