I don’t know of many more controversial issues in the church than issues regarding women in ministry. It is not controversial whether or not women can do ministry or be effective in ministry, but whether or not they can teach and preside in positions of authority over men. The most controversial issue aspect of this issue, of course, is whether or not women can hold the position of head pastor or elder in a local church.
There are two primary positions in this debate; those who believe that women can teach men and hold positions of authority over men in the church and those that do not. Those that do, normally go by the name “Egalitarians.” Those that do not, go by the name “Complementarians.” I am a complementarian but I understand and appreciate the egalitarian position. In fact, the church I serve at most often is an egalitarian church. (However, I don’t want you to think that my complementarianism is not important to me. There is much more to complementarianism than whether or not a woman can preach!)
There are a lot of passages of Scripture which contribute to the debate, but one stands out more than all the others. 1 Tim. 2:11-15:
“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”
I don’t want to debate whether or not this passage teaches either position. I am simply going to assume the complementarian position and attempt to deal with the sting of “I don’t allow a woman to teach.” It does have quite a bit of sting.
I like to make the Scripture pragmatically understandable. In other words, I want to not only understand what it says, but to rationally understand why it says what it says. Why does God give this instruction or that? What practical rationale might be behind the instruction of God? I know that we cannot always find it and our obligation to obey transcends our understanding but, in my experience, more often than not, our understanding of the command can accompany our obedience so that we are not so blind.
“I do not allow a woman to teach.” We think of this as coming from God. God says, “I do not allow a woman to teach.” Teaching is something that requires _________ therefore, women are not qualified. You fill in the blank:
1. Intelligence
2. Wisdom
3. Love
4. Concern
5. Rational
6. Persuasiveness
While I think the sting of this passage assumes that Paul is speaking about one of these, I don’t choose any of them. I think Paul (and God) has something different in mind.
The other night, at 3am there was a sound in our living room. Kristie woke up, but I did not. She was looking out there and saw the lights go on. She got scared.
Pop quiz: What did she do next?
a. Got a bat and quietly tip toed out there to see who it was.
b. Got a gun and peeked around the corner.
c. Woke me up and had me go out there.
Those of you who choose “c” are both right and wise. You are right because that is what happened. (It was my 2 year old Zach who decided it was time to get up.) You are wise because that is what normally happens and is typically, for those of you who have a man in the house, the best move. Why? Because men are better equipped to deal with these sort of situations. There is an aggression that men have, both physical and mental, that is more able to handle situations that might become combative. That is the way we are made.
Now, let me give my short and sweet answer as to why Paul did not allow women to teach:
Paul did not let women teach due to the often aggressive and combative nature that teaching must entail concerning the confrontation of false doctrine. Men must be the teachers when combating false teaching. However, because the role of a teacher in the church is so often to combat false doctrine, and because false doctrine is always a problem, generally speaking, the principles are always applicable. The “exercising of authority” is inherently tied to teaching and its necessary condemnation of false doctrine.
The combative nature of teaching is particularly relevant to a broader understanding of the characteristics of men and women.
The best illustration in the real world that I could use to help you understand what I am saying is that of a military commander in charge of leading troops into battle. Of course there might be an exception here and there, but do a study and you will find that no matter what the time or culture, men are always leading here. Why? Because men are simply better equipped and more followed. There are certian areas where men and women have a unique stature. I believe, like in military, the position of head pastor is the same. Not only are they better equipped for the issues that will arise, but they are followed more readily.
Let me give you another example: Two years ago, my wife was confronted by another couple who did not believe that she was doing what was right. She used to do princess parties where she would dress up as a princess (Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty) and go to little girls’ homes and entertain them for an hour or so. She was really good at this. After we moved from Frisco to Oklahoma, she still had one party on the schedule. She called her boss and let her know that she could not do it since we had already moved. Her boss became very angry and began to threaten her. She also said that she was going to bring in her husband (who was a lawyer) and sue Kristie. Kristie became very scared and did not know how to handle this situation, especially since her boss was now using her husband as part of the threat. She told me about this and I told her not to speak to her boss anymore, but to let me handle it. I did. I stepped in and confronted both her boss and her husband’s threats concerning the issue. In the end, they backed off.
I felt that it was my duty and obligation to step in and be strong on behalf of my wife as the situation became confrontational. Kristie is both tender, gentle, and, in those situations, frightened. She was going to give in and travel back to Texas to perform this last party even though she would lose money in the gas it took to go there and back. Her boss refused to pay her mileage.
My point is that men are conditioned to handle confrontation better than women. It is not that Kristie could not have done the same thing as me, it is just that this was not her bent. Women, generally speaking, are not bent to deal with confrontation the same way as men. Teaching in the church involves, more often than not, confronting false understanding.
Can women teach? Absolutely! Can women understand and think as well as men? Most certainly. But the bent of a man is better able to handle the type of teaching that is always necessary in the church.
Would I let a woman teach from the pulpit from time to time? Yes. Paul is not restricting women teachers over men in the absolute sense. The infinitive here, “to teach” is in the present tense which suggests the perpetual role of teaching which exercises authority (confrontation).
The role of head pastor, I believe requires confrontation. That is not all there is, but it is there and it is very important. It is because of this, I believe, Paul said that women cannot teach or exercise authority over men.
See follow-up posts here and here.
Comments are open again. Be safe. Read the rules.
1,432 replies to "Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors"
EricW,
I think more abuse and damage have been done under the auspices of “touch not God’s anointed” than any other concept.
That was a shocking story, Eric, and one we see repeated far too often.
I liked what that one commenter said about it:
“This is what happens when men make much of themselves and make little of God. “He must increase and I must decrease”.”
Greed, unfortunately, has no gender. Some of the female ‘heads’ we see on TBN are just as guilty of going overboard as the men. Joyce Meyer is one who comes to mind as well. Her clothes budget is more than most people’s yearly income.
Lisa,
Speaking as one that has come out of the hypercharismatic movement, I have come to thoroughly dislike that phrase!
cherylu/Lisa:
In addition to the “touch not God’s anointed” mantra, this pastor believed in and taught the Bible School students the concept of “delegated authority” such that God has delegated His authority to the head pastor, giving him the vision for the church, and anyone who questions him is thereby questioning God Himself. We didn’t learn this until after we’d left the church, but it explained why hardly anyone in the church said a word in response to the issues and questions we raised which ultimately led to our leaving because they were never adequately addressed or resolved. After we left, the associate pastor warned those of us who were saying negative things about the church that we should look to the example of Korah’s rebellion re: what God does and thinks about people who mumble or grumble or complain or disagree with the leadership.
If I’m against the concept of “head pastor,” it’s not just because it’s not scriptural, but it’s also based on having experienced firsthand abuse by such persons or systems. How many corrupt popes and metropolitans and kings and pastors will it take before Protestants realize the fallacy of investing a person with the title and powers of “head honcho” as well as the idea of making such a distinction between the so-called “laity” and the so-called “clergy”?
(Puts on asbestos suit.)
Lisa,
A question for you, both as a woman and a theology student: What is your plan for ministry when you leave DTS? Would you accept a head pastor’s role if it were offered, or turn it down?
Just curious, because you do a lot of teaching articles on this theology blog, and very well thought out ones I might add.
Eric,
You wrote, I’m not so sure about that.
I can’t recall Jesus giving one set of instructions or commands to men or husbands who wanted to follow Him and serve Him and be His disciples, and a different set of instructions or commands to women or wives who wanted to follow Him and serve Him and be His disciples.
E.g., Mary Magdalene seems to fit right in with all the others who were following Jesus. (I loved the way that recent movie of The Gospel of John showed her with them all at the Last Supper and during His garden discourse.)
In my comments above I was referring to Paul’s instructions to the church, which the church has traditionally regarded as statements inspired by the Holy Spirit. Paul after all, is not writing on his own. What he says is what God says and is what Jesus says. Or in other words, what Paul says has equal weight and authority as if Jesus/God said it.
As for Jesus’ example, we see that although Jesus certainly had female followers, no women were part of the twelve Jesus handpicked to be the leaders and apostles of the church.
Jim,
You said, Is the discussion about women teaching men or more about who has more authority in the church?
If it is about authority then consider that the church is a body of believers( all equal) In most churches final decisions on really important matters is taken before the general congregation and ALL members share their views and vote accordingly. Thus, in essence women do participate to the same degree in the operation of a church and well they should.
If it is about women teaching men…I see this as a issue Paul was dealing with at that time….as for why mentioning Adam and Eve , I just don’t know…….I can just go with what I feel convicted of…. I have no problem with a woman teaching a man within the church.
I think the two things– teaching and authority– are related in Paul’s teaching. In church government today women are represented in decision-making but that is not the same issue as whether women should be teachers and/or elders. I think the fact that Paul brings the original Man and Woman- Adam and Eve- into his explanation of the differences in function between men and women in the church shows that his comments are not just a specific response to an immediate problem. He is talking about differences between Man and Woman in general and drawing conclusions on how the church should operate, based on those differences.
I suppose we all “go with what we feel convicted of” but conviction is only as good as the information/interpretation of Scripture one is working with. The fact that you have “no problem with” women teaching men in the church is not really relevant— what does the Bible teach on this topic and does your opinion square with what Scripture teaches.
Some commenters seem to be making an argument that since head pastors (who are usually male) may abuse their power then we shouldn’t have head pastors? Or we shouldn’t have male pastors? I don’t really follow the argument.
Michael in his original article didn’t define what he meant by head pastor. At my church we have many elders who also function in the role of pastor, in the sense that they teach and have recognized authority in the church as overseers for the spiritual welfare of those under them. But we do have a kind of head pastor who leads the other elders and is the main person who usually preaches, though he refers to himself as elder or pastor rather than as head pastor. Anyway I’m not sure about the biblical justification for the role of head pastor, but there is certainly biblical justification for male leadership and male teachers.
The fact that some men in positions of head pastor have abused their power/authority is not an argument against whether men in general should be and are called to be the leaders and teachers in the church.
I agree that there is much abuse, but I don’t think this has to do with males in power as it does with sinful men who are not leading in a biblical manner.
Alexander,
I don’t think anyone here, at least hopefully not, would disagree that the abuse by some male pastors of their position of headship doesn’t mean any male shouldn’t lead.
From my perspective at least, it just shows that even those appointed by God to lead can mislead if they do not have a heart to truly serve under Christ’s headship, rather than being self serving.
I’m wondering about something else. I just received an e-mail from a friend telling me that Benny Hinn and his wife of 33 years are divorcing.
In your view, what does this do to his head pastorship, according to scripture?
Mbaker,
Thanks so much for your kind words. Honestly, I would not take a position as “head pastor” not so much because I believe that authority of church governance resides with the male, which I do, but because I have no interest in running a church.
My ministry interests rests more outside the church. I hope to teach/train other leaders and help people think about their faith and how they are approaching the Bible. I’d do that for free but am hoping for employment. I am hoping to eventually get a PhD and I would like to teach at a Bible college and/or seminary. I also have an interest in writing books or other type of materials synthesizing important theological issues to a very, very lay audience. There might be other venues that I have not even thought of but probably not in a church setting. I say this flexibly because I am open to wherever God would utilize the gifts he has given me.
Now I do realize that given my doctrinal/theological orientation that some higher educational doors might be closed to me concerning the teaching part of my aspirations But I don’t sweat that because I trust that God will open the ones that need to be open.
Lisa Robinson: “Honestly, I would not take a position as “head pastor” not so much because I believe that authority of church governance resides with the male, which I do, but because I have no interest in running a church.”
Always nice to not have a desire that conflicts with God’s Timeless Word.
People please. Let’s stay with scripture and not simply repeat what we hear others say. This laziness has got to stop. Monkey see, monkey do has no place in God’s economy.
There is no reference to “lay” in scripture. ALL Christians are in full time ministry. Please stop implying that there are two classes of Christians. The only difference is the amount of responsibility you have. People are too hung up on titles. The main responsibility of an elder (including teaching elder i.e. pastor) is that of setting an example. Also, you cannot be part of the eldership having been divorced. The requirements for elders is easy to find in the NT and makes itself perfectly clear. But of course people do not accept God’s high standards especially if these standards exclude them from there own desires. So instead of serving God on His terms they serve God on their own terms and expect Him to accept that service. Be not deceived, God is not mocked. Dead works is an abomination to God. There should be nothing to discuss. The requirements for the eldership are clearly masculine (a husband of ONE wife – not meaning polygamy)
It’s easy folks. Just read the words on the page and allow the Spirit of Truth to reveal the meaning. All this debate is totally unnecessary and only brings confusion. If you are not willing to start with a clean slate but insist on your own agenda you will be deceived and teach others to do likewise. I hope I do not have to teach you the consequences of teaching doctrines of demons to others (death by drowning Mark 9:32).
Roger Allen: “Just read the words on the page and allow the Spirit of Truth to reveal the meaning. … If you are not willing to start with a clean slate but insist on your own agenda you will be deceived and teach others to do likewise. I hope I do not have to teach you the consequences of teaching doctrines of demons to others (death by drowning Mark 9:32).”
The timing of your comment is remarkable. I just read this short piece titled “Devoted to Destruction” and it syncs up well with you write, Roger.
“The fall from favor of Saul, the first king of Israel, is a vivid illustration of the consequences of rebellion and a typical human attempt to rationalize disobedience into obedience. In 1 Samuel 15, Samuel instructs Saul on behalf of the Lord, “Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (v. 3).
The instructions are clear. But Saul engages in one of the earliest recorded examples of hermeneutical gymnastics. “But Saul and the people spared Agag [king of Amalek] and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fattened calves and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them. All that was despised and worthless they devoted to destruction” (v. 9).
When confronted by Samuel about his failure to obey the Lord’s command, Saul denies that he has been disobedient. He says, “I have obeyed the voice of the LORD. I have gone on the mission on which the LORD sent me. I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have devoted the Amalekites to destruction. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the LORD your God in Gilgal” (vv. 20-21).
(Cont.)
Needless to say, neither Samuel nor the Lord is impressed with Saul’s creative interpretation of obedience. Even “the best of the things devoted to destruction” are still “devoted to destruction” and are, therefore, wholly unacceptable as a sacrifice to the Lord. What Saul and “the people” (upon whom he would apparently lay all blame for any deviation from the original plan while exonerating himself) would offer as a sacrifice is an utter abomination. That which is “devoted to destruction” is unholy and cannot be offered as a sacrifice to a holy God.
Whether it’s sheep and oxen under the Old Covenant or the living sacrifice of our very selves under the New Covenant, nothing unholy can be brought into the presence of God. That which is “devoted to destruction,” that is, the sin which enslaves us in rebellion and idolatry, must be utterly destroyed. To claim certain sinful inclinations are “gifts” to be celebrated within the worshiping community is a most abominable form of blasphemy, borne of a most arrogant presumption that rebellion against God can be rationalized into obedience by offenders who always seem to find clever ways of avoiding personal responsibility for their sinful actions.”
The concluding sentence reminds me of those arguments opposed to Biblical Patriarchy.
mbaker,
You asked what does Benny Hinn divorcing his wife do to his head pastorship, according to scripture?
You may have already partly answered the question yourself, “even those appointed by God to lead can mislead if they do not have a heart to truly serve under Christ’s headship, rather than being self serving.”
Now was Benny Hinn appointed by God to lead? That’s a question I can’t answer, but I can say that if one is teaching heretical doctrine and doesn’t model a Christian lifestyle, they biblically forfeit their right to lead.
As far as divorce, it is a very serious sin, according to Jesus’ teaching and Paul’s also. The question of whether an elder/pastor can be a divorced man is a serious one. Certainly divorce is not the unforgivable sin, but since Jesus’ teaching on remarriage is so strong and Paul seems to echo it, I’d like to study the issue further before giving an answer.
Just curious – can only a married man be an elder and hence a pastor?
(Which is what Roger seems to be implying if we are to apply scripture literally.)
Of course a married man can be an elder. You miss the point. The point is holy communion and righteousness. If you understand the relationship between man and woman in marriage and the relationship between Jesus Christ and His church you will understand why the Lord requires holiness and purity from His elders. Again, it’s all in scripture. Do not base your understanding on what others say. If you do you will be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. You will also become double-minded which will exclude you from receiving anything from God including understanding. God wants all His people to show themselves approved before God, rightly dividing the word of truth. Please make scripture study and prayer your main source of understanding and not blogs. Scripture interprets scripture and that the whole counsel of God not just preferred scriptures that meet with our approval. If you are lazy and have not put in the time seeking the Lord and His truth you are setting yourself up for deception. God knows who loves Him and seeks Him and who seek the easy way. It will not work. The reason so many struggle and get led into cults is becuase they listened to men rather than our Counselor, our Spirit of Truth. You have got to get serious with the Lord. To do otherwise is to invite destruction and misery.
Paul said he wished all could be as him (single). so they could devote themselves fully to the Lord. Being married brings about many worldly problems (how you may please your wife or your husband). In fact being single is the preferred way to serve as an elder but it is better to marry than to burn (with sexual desire). God is reasonable and God is good….all the time!
Eric, thanks for linking to my posts on this subject. I deliberately didn’t respond to this post as it “assumes the position that women cannot teach” and I don’t accept that assumption.
CORRECTION
In the post above the reference scripture should read Mark 9:42 and not Mark 9:32
My apologies to the brethern…..
Roger….
I was going to let it pass but could not in good conscience.
It was these comments:
“I hope I do not have to teach you the consequences of teaching doctrines of demons to others (death by drowning Mark 9:32).
My interpretaton of no big deal with a women teaching a man may not be yours. FINE!!! But in no way can you bridge that into the statement you gave above…. Let me be blunt, but I shall try to remain loving.
“I hope that you never have have to teach we anything scriptural with an attack like that” I do not teach doctrines of demons and you judge much too harshly…..I am glad you are not GOD!!
Sincerely in him.
Roger: “I hope I do not have to teach you the consequences of teaching doctrines of demons to others (death by drowning Mark 9:32).”
Egalitarianism is aberrant doctrine, wouldn’t you agree, Roger?
Incidentally, what do you think of this concluding sentence by the linked post above in #312 regarding Saul’s creative interpretation and hermeneutical gymnastics:
“To claim certain sinful inclinations are “gifts” to be celebrated within the worshiping community is a most abominable form of blasphemy, borne of a most arrogant presumption that rebellion against God can be rationalized into obedience by offenders who always seem to find clever ways of avoiding personal responsibility for their sinful actions.”
TUAD,
Is your conviction what you referred to above as “Biblical patriarchy or complementarianism?
Does that mean according to Roger’s calculations that anyone who is a Christian and drowns was teaching doctrines of demons? Certainly we know that is not a correct reading of scripture either.
I thought we were supposed to be discussing the qualifications of head pastor not pronouncing dire curses on other brothers and sisters in Christ.
Don’t think God would be too pleased with that line of thought either.
Roger,
Did you read the rules for this blog before commenting here?
You cannot please everyone.
Roger Allen: “You cannot please everyone.”
Pastor Tommy Nelson did not please everyone with the following:
http://www.dennyburk.com/tommy-nelson-on-biblical-manhood-womanhood/
Citing Wayne Grudem’s book, [Pastor Tommy] Nelson said that egalitarianism is the “new path to liberalism” because it effectively sets aside the authority of the Bible.
He said that the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church.
Pastor Nelson says that egalitarianism is “Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”
Sorry Roger, maybe I didn’t phrase my question clearly enough. Let me try again. By your reading of scripture, the only person able to be an elder (and, hence, pastor) is a married man – a literal reading of Paul.
So no single men, yes?
Sorry, forgot to say, TU..AD, meet Roger; Roger, meet TU..AD.
eHarmony strikes again.
Cherylu,
Yes, I did indeed read the rules for this blog before coming here. Thank you for asking.
Chery,
Do you understand that the natural person is not able to take in the things of the Spirit of God: for they seem foolish to them, and they are not able to have knowledge of them, because such knowledge comes only through the Spirit?
JohnO,
Are you a LibProt Anglican living in Europe somewhere? Was it England?
John,
Married men or single men may be an elder. There are many other qualities that a man must possess to be and remain an elder. They are all listed ijn the NT.
Roger Allen,
Nice to meet ya! And a hearty welcome to this blog! Your comments are well-reasoned and edifying.
Roger Allen,
You are right when you say:
“There are many other qualities that a man must possess to be and remain an elder. They are all listed ijn the NT”
That’s the point that comp/egals and egals try to make, that being male isn’t the ONLY requirement God has for leadership, yet that is the sole argument being used here by some of you.
Truth Unites… and Divides ,
Thank you kindly.
TU..AD
You may label me as you will. It makes no difference to me. But I will not accept English nationality… you can take a joke too far 😉
Roger,
Thank you for the clarification. I read Paul’s lists and they seem to read literally as requiring married status and children. But of course there are indeed examples of single men in positions of authority. Shame the women in similar positions crop up though, eh?
mbaker,
“being male isn’t the ONLY requirement God has for leadership, yet that is the sole argument being used here by some of you.”
I don’t think that is accurate. Comments I have read here on the pro-complementarian side, including myself, have said that being male is one of the requirements, though not the sole requirement, for leadership in the church.
JohnO,
Yeah, you’re a LibProt.
Anyways, I clicked on your name and discovered you’re with the Church of Scotland, not with the Church of England.
I think what Dr. Ligon Duncan has to say about the Church of Scotland is quite noteworthy:
“You can chart every denomination that has placed women in leadership in the last 120 years and you can chart their numerical decline in the western world and their theological decline. When our evangelical egalitarian friends whine that we are using an illegitimate slippery slope argument, this is not some sort of wild-haired spin theory that we are coming up with. It is a fact.
Just go look at the denominational statistics, look at the denominational histories of the last 120 years and you cannot find an exception to this trend. In the Church of Scotland in 1960 when they began hammering for women elders-the argument was “we don’t have enough elders in our churches, this will revitalize our churches to get women elders”-the Church of Scotland is on chart to cease to exist in 2034. Somewhere between 1964 and 1968 was when they brought in women elders and women ministers were not far following that.”
TU..AD,
Congratulations on the detective work. I’m impressed that you deigned to even bother checking up on your accusations. And thank you for bringing to my attention the predictions for my denomination. I should be retired by then but I shall certainly bring it to the attention of my younger colleagues so that they can find alternative employment – or maybe just being content with cooking and cleaning the house for their husband.
Alexander,
That’s the reason I said ‘some’. I appreciate your courtesy and the support of some others here. Sometimes we women feel as if we can’t do anything right between the secular world and the church. It is refreshing to hear a less judgmental point of view once in a while.
God bless.
mbaker says “I’m wondering about something else. I just received an e-mail from a friend telling me that Benny Hinn and his wife of 33 years are divorcing.”
Say it isn’t so! Benny Hinn divorcing? I bet I know what happened. He and Paula White, also divorced, are both name it and claim it folks. They saw each other across a crowded room, named it and then….. chose divorce in order to claim it! Think it will eventually be the new Paula Hinn or the new Benny White? Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
Hey JohnO,
I didn’t make an accusation. All I wrote was:
“Are you a LibProt Anglican living in Europe somewhere? Was it England?”
TU&D & Roger
Through God’s grace I shall pray that God will sow some gentle seed into your callous regard for God’s truth. I am quite certain all egalitarians are not demon worshippers, nor should this blog result to insulting another believer with quotes like the following,
“He said that the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church.
Pastor Nelson says that egalitarianism is “Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”
You will notice that a fairly large percentage of people participating in this blog are in disagreement. Only around 40% completely agree with you on women teaching men. And I am sure most of them don’t hold the critical view you have formed.
Rebecca,
Lol. Only a former charismatic like me can appreciate that kind of humor fully! In the words of the infamous cartoon character Leghorn Cleghorn:
“That’s the first time somebody else shot my mouth off! “
Jim: “I am quite certain all egalitarians are not demon worshippers…”.
Roger, Pastor Tommy Nelson, nor I ever said that.
You’re burning down your own strawman.
mbaker, I hope everyone here can find humor in it no matter what side. If not done maliciously, we can at least unitedly see the humor in it all.
TU..AD,
Maybe not a direct accusation, but rather than make a civilised enquiry you opted to throw some labels into the ring to begin with. You had already used said labels in a derogatory way earlier in this topic.
JohnO,
LibProt is just easy short hand for Liberal Protestant or Liberal Protestantism.
Re #339,
Sorry TUAD, that is not all you wrote. In #335 you said, “Yeah, you’re a LibProt.”
And re #340,
Although I generally consider myself a complimentarian, I agree that there really does need to be a bit more grace shown here by some of you that also claim to be complimentarians.
Regarding #342: TUAD says after a long list of accusations and posts from other sources:
“Jim: “I am quite certain all egalitarians are not demon worshippers…”.
Roger, Pastor Tommy Nelson, nor I ever said that.
You’re burning down your own strawman.”
Wouldn’t be necessary for anyone to reply to this stuff in the first place if you guys weren’t saying that anyone who disagrees with your narrow views are teaching:
“Doctines of Demons, and we would drown “(Roger)
And you were saying things in reply like:
“Egalitarianism is aberrant doctrine, wouldn’t you agree, Roger?”
Seems to me like you are trying to deliberately bait some of the rest of us here who are honestly trying to discuss this issue as CMP has presented it, and hijacking the blog.
Mbaker,
One could teach an aberrant doctrine without intending to be a demon worshipper, yes?
Similar to the idea that one could teach a “name it and claim it” charismatic doctrine without intending to be a demon worshipper.
Try to be more careful in your thinking.
TUAD,
“Try to be more careful in your thinking.”
And try to be less judgmental in your opinions if you want to be taken seriously.