SBC Seminaries' First Ladies' Stern Warning About MVs

I agree.

The Bible gets a bad rap regarding women from people who don't actually know and understand the scripture. All they know is how "religious" men have misused women over the millennia because of the "hardness of their hearts," as Jesus put it.

A friend of mine, who happens to be a radical lesbian feminist that was raised in a fundamentalist congregation where women were treated as less valuable then men, has enormous issues which what she thinks the scripture says (based on the teaching she received growing up) rather than what is actually there. She has particular contempt for the writings of Paul because of the way his words have been twisted. We have had numerous lengthy conversations about Paul's writings and her views have softened toward him somewhat, but she is well-connected with a much larger community of people just like her, often with the same kind of religious background/baggage, who believe they are alienated from God.

That's one of the reasons that these issues are so important to me. It's easy to consider radical feminists, and/or gays and lesbians to be simply sinful people who have rejected God's authority in their lives... when in fact, for many of them (at least in my experience) are rejecting a messed up religious upbringing that offered no hope, help or grace to them when they needed it. That's why the church needs to be very careful how it talks about these issues, coming at them from a standpoint of humility, recognizing that what "we have always been taught" may not be completely accurate. Furthermore, when we are talking to people who have been hurt by someone who allegedly represents Christ and the discussion begins to get heated, to back off and say something along the lines of, "both you and I have strong opinions about this issue, and things are getting tense, so I'd rather back off from this discussion because I don't want you to forget that I love you, whether or not you agree with me, and I don't want to ruin this relationship."

I find that it usually changes the tone of the conversation immediately, and we can often continue to move forward without either one of us getting too defensive. Other times, we left things rest and I pray that the Spirit with continue to work in her life.

 

You should have asked if he was able to make better decisions than Margaret Thatcher.

 

I'm not sure he approved of Margaret Thatcher, but then again, I don't know. I don't want to assume too much.

He was very consistent about these things, except for the pass he gave to Betty Criswell (wife of W.A. Criswell) for teaching men in her FBC Dallas Sunday School class (which was also broadcast on the radio). When I asked him about that, he said it was okay because she was "under the authority of her husband." I asked, "Why do you assume that every other woman who teaches the Bible is not 'under the authority of her husband'?," but that just shifted him into a rant about radical feminism.

But he was not alone in that. When I was in the "conservative" camp, I heard many people complain privately about W.A. Criswell's inconsistency with his wife teaching the Bible, even though I personally had no real issues with it. I regularly defended it using the 'authority of her husband' shibboleth.

Please indulge me in this off-topic W.A. Criswell story:

I did not attend FBC Dallas, but I had a friend who was on staff at one very instrumental point toward the very end of Criswell's active vocational ministry there, and I was rushing through the maze of the building, trying to get inside the worship are before the evening service started when I turned a corner and nearly ran into W.A. Criswell himself. He grabbed my hand in both of his hands and shook it warmly, looked me in the eye and said with all sincerity and love, "I'm so glad you made it. May God bless you tonight."

While I disagreed with the man about a number of things, one thing I know for sure is that he was a very loving person and he was (at least as far as I could tell), absolutely sincere in his concern for others. I couldn't dislike the guy, even though had said many things over the years that made me cringe or that made my life difficult.

 

It is impossible for a single woman who teaches anywhere to be under the authority of her husband.

 

She would be "under the authority of her father" then.

Of course, that line of thinking is actually Gothardism, not solid Christian theology, so I don't put any stock in it.

 

I wonder if she was still considered to be "under the authority of her husband" after W.A. went to be with the Lord.

 

Amazing how many do not study and accept the theology of those they like to hear. Don't hear so much from Gothard since he got married.

 

Wild Bill's not married. And he's growing increasingly senile, from what I hear.

And women are not under any authority but the Holy Spirit. They're under no more authority than men.

 

So Christ has no more authority over the church than any of us believers? Cf. Eph 5:23. Doesn't make much sense, does it? I happen to believe that Christ is over the church in the same manner as a husband is to be over his wife.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

Christ is head over all, not just the church.

 

there are though under the headship of male authority, as per the Apostle paul and Jesus themselves!

the trinity is the best example of that truth, as within the Godhead is practiced both equality and subordiantion!

that was the treatise of my pastor NT Theology dissertation in the Gospel of John!

the other DRs of Theology gave him an "A" for the book !

 

That proves absolutely nothing. If it was a good school, that means he used good scholarly techniques. If it was a bad school, that means they liked him.

Many, many other evangelical scholars, including many of the best, would say differently.

 

Sure, but then why should Paul make the comparison he did in Eph 5:23?

 

Phil. 2:9-11, "For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Paul preceded verse 23 with verse 21 which is a transitional phrase that ties the previous passage to the following passage.

 

It's clear enough from Eph 5:22-24 that wives are to submit to their husbands, even in everything, just as the church so submits to Christ. Eph 5:21 is not speaking to the husband-wife relationship but to the church in general. Eph 5:22-24 is very specific. One can't escape it. To try to do so ist sehr unbaptistisch!

 

Eph. 5:21 is a transitional phrase tying the previous passage to the following passage.

 

So what?

JCB

 

Grammar is important.