I am saved…
by faith…
through my uterus…?
If you are interested in the topic of gender and faith, please join me at a group blog I am a member of, Complegalitarian, where I just posted on Ware’s recent proclamations about men and women.
Now that I’m totally depressed about the state of everything in the universe (after slogging through that drivel), I’m going to the movies with my kids and plan to drown my sorrows in a big tub of fattening buttery popcorn and frequent sideways glances at those delicious moments of wide-eyed childhood wonder.
PS. Thank you to Cindy Kunsman for the heads up. Much appreciated, friend. Tonight I’ll eat a Kit-Kat in your honor. (This is one of those moments where I enjoy the benefit of being skinny: you can binge without feeling bad about it in the morning).
Posted by E on June 27, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Frederica Mathewes-Green says to stay till the end of the credits of Wall-E.
http://www.frederica.com/writings/wall-e.html#entry1950254
Posted by E on June 27, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Oh, how cool is that! He said this at my old church, Denton Bible Church. Gee, if I’d known he was going to be speaking there, I’d have gone to hear him, and give him your regards, Molleth.
(I’d have to read the text of the whole sermon before judging what he said; I have learned from experience that even those sources you have come to trust can misrepresent things by only quoting excerpts of what people say.)
Posted by E on June 27, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Fundamentalism: Black and White Answers in a Gray Age.
Posted by Katherine Gunn on June 27, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Hmm… As I recall, after Adam and eve ate the fruit – disobeyed – sinned – whatever you want to call it, and God came to them and asked Adam (not Eve) what have you done? Adam blamed God and eve – “…this woman You gave me brought me the fruit and I ate…” While Eve said, “The snake tricked me and I ate.” Eve owned being deceived. Adam blamed God and Eve. It seems that men have been blaming their sin on women from the beginning.
And…
… the passage in 1 Timothy 2 says that eve was deceived and that Adam was not. Which is worse, to sin because of being deceived or to sin knowing what you are doing???!!!
“On the other hand, her childbearing brought about salvation, reversing Eve. But this salvation only comes to those who continue in faith, love, and holiness, gathering it all into maturity. You can depend on this.” 1 Timothy 2:15 (Message)
Through childbearing with the promise God gave Eve – the woman’s seed – bringing into the world in human form the Messiah, what EVE did was reversed.
That passage in Genesis 3:16 in which it is translated “a woman’s desire will be for her husband…” *sigh* The Hebrew word translated desire actually means turning or turning away. I.e., “A woman’s turning away will be toward her husband and he will lord it over her.” Hmm… to me, that seems to mean if we (women) turn away from God and put our husbands ahead of God, our husbands will lord that over us.
Okay, deep breath. I am calming down. This stuff gets me going sometimes.
Posted by Katherine Gunn on June 27, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Boy – I sure was having problems capitalizing Eve …
Posted by Andrea on June 27, 2008 at 8:05 pm
You think the Great Uterine Salvation Scheme is depressing, wait til you hear how many grams of fat there are in one tub of movie theatre popcorn . . .
Posted by E on June 27, 2008 at 8:29 pm
To end mankind’s doom
And bright’n Eden’s gloom
One from woman’s womb
Exited the tomb.
Posted by Katherine Gunn on June 27, 2008 at 8:52 pm
E~
Posted by Cally Tyrol on June 27, 2008 at 9:28 pm
My heart is really heavy at reading this. Is there a transcript or audio recording of the sermon available anywhere?
Posted by Cally Tyrol on June 27, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Nevermind- I found it. Will be listening asap and writing on WWF.
Posted by madame on June 27, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Groan….
Enjoy the popcorn and the Kit-Kat!
Posted by molleth on June 28, 2008 at 12:22 am
Madame, I did and we did.
Ahh, I feel better. Chalk it up to one husband who had the great idea in the first place.
E, you used to teach Greek at Denton Bible, didn’t you? That was a beautiful little stanza, btw. Oh, and I believe in Christian liberty and stuff, but if you step foot in that place again, take me off your Skype list, brotha! (joking, joking…but only through gritted teeth)…
Katherine, yeah, me too.
Cally, I’m looking forward to it.
I used to live in Denton, and drove past Denton Bible regularly. Don’t know why that matters, but I just thought I’d say it. As I processed Ware’s words, I kept picturing the faces of the people I used to know who went there, and, ugh, I started feeling so sad…
Posted by E on June 28, 2008 at 4:43 am
Molls:
Yes, I taught Greek at Denton Bible Church.
But … I am not a fundamentalist, and never have been.
Even though we went there for 5 years, it was more a reaction to leaving NCF and wanting to be in a relatively “safe” place where the Bible was preached and taught, and I didn’t have to worry about the pastor abusing his authority or manipulating the congregation or messing around with the women, than it was because I agreed with the church’s teachings. I was too charismatic and too non-dispensational to ever become a member. However, the “large” charismatic church in town, Glory of Zion, was and is so caught up in the crazy (to me) prophetic and apostolic thing that it wasn’t even an option. It took us several years before we settled again in a charismatic church, and that didn’t last even a year, IIRC.
Something like The Village Church would be more likely than a return to Denton Bible (plus, we don’t live in Denton anymore):
http://www.thevillagechurch.net/
Posted by E on June 28, 2008 at 4:45 am
Or Valley Creek, which is about as close, but we’ve been there:
http://www.valleycreek.org/
and … No, I don’t think so.
Posted by molleth on June 28, 2008 at 9:45 am
Posted by Sue on June 28, 2008 at 9:57 am
Cally,
What is WWF? I would like to read your reaction to the sermon.
Posted by molleth on June 28, 2008 at 10:12 am
White Washed Feminism.
It’s a term used in a book written by a patriarchy leaders, Stacy McDonald and Jennie Chancey’s (you can be leaders and be women, as long as you’re leading by promoting male rule–funny, isn’t it?). It’s been used to throw at conservative women who have concerns with aspects of patriarchal teaching. Sort of a way of saying you’re either with us (of Ware’s stripes, Vision Forum, etc) or you’re in the f-word (feminist) camp—-there is no middle ground.
So some of the women got a kick out of it and started a group blog discussing the teachings of these patriarchal leaders, titling their blog the White Washed Feminists.
You can get to it by clicking on the “white washed feminist league” pic on the left sidebar of my blog.
Posted by Cindy K on June 28, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I take no responsibility for the eating of chocolate. That’s thatmom’s department!
Posted by Hannah on June 28, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I listened to the whole thing, and I have to say I had to turn it off a couple of times before continuing.
This man is dangerous. Saying MEN have priority? Then to say that men can get abusive in reaction to how women are trying to upsurp them? How women don’t get saved the same way men do according to scripture?
I must say he likes to twist scripture just enough that his interruption of things makes perfect sense. To bad they really don’t make sense! I was like WOW he truly likes to take leaps doesn’t he?
Posted by molleth on June 28, 2008 at 8:48 pm
The sad thing is that he thinks he’s interpeting Scripture “plainly.” He and other leaders like him truly believe they are simply teaching what the Bible obviously and clearly teaches.
*sad shrug*
Posted by paisley3 on June 28, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Don’t read that stuff! NOT good for you or your soul. Don’t post it near you children’s photos!
Posted by molleth on June 28, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Well, I was kinda hoping that since I did pop out five babies, maybe if Ware is gaurding heaven’s gate, he’ll still let me in. You know, sort of like extra credit…
Posted by paisley3 on June 29, 2008 at 6:24 am
ha!!! sometimes I think they are all just jealous that this is one thing they have NO control over…they could never have babies. nope. So, you’ve got to put it down to build yourself up type of thing.
Different thought: if we take this to the logical conclusion, um, what does that mean for those women who can’t have any children or adopt?
Posted by Diane on June 29, 2008 at 9:37 am
or remain single and never have children….
Posted by molleth on June 29, 2008 at 10:03 am
Ware believes* that the childbirth text should be interpreted to mean an overall acceptance of a woman’s subordinate role in helping a man fulfill his calling. Therefore you are okay if you are single or childless, as long as you still fully believe that you are called of God to be submissive to men and are busying yourself in helping a male authority figure fulfill his agenda as opposed to gadding about doing something sinful, such as fulfilling your own.
Basically, women can be saved as long as they admit and act their submissive part.
For example, Ware says:
“God has
called men to serve as leaders in marriage and the church, and women to submit
themselves willingly to that leadership, as they labor together in their distinctive roles.
or this:
Christian community above, so also here in a similar way we must address the question
of exercising authority over men in the life of the Christian community. Any board or
committee in the local church or at other levels in the life of the church that exercises
authority over that body should consist, by definition, of men who are called on to give
leadership. Most denominations who hold this principle specify that the membership of
denominational boards will be made up of church officers only, i.e., men. Since
parachurch organizations (such as mission boards or campus ministries) and Christian
institutions (such as Christian colleges and seminaries) are also part of the church
universal, the body of Christ, it would seem that such restrictions should apply to their
governing boards as well. They are part of the church; why should they act as though
they were not?
http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw/family_and_church.pdf
Please note, I chose one of Ware’s “nicer” essays for use.
Posted by traveller on June 29, 2008 at 4:49 pm
As a man this makes me sad and ashamed. My heart breaks for the pain and hurt this causes women. It also makes me sad that in limiting women we are causing sorrow to the heart of God.
Posted by Maureen E on June 29, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Hey Molly, this has very little to do with the subject of this post, but I thought you might be interested in this, so I’m passing it along. While it can’t be taken as the “official opinion” of the Orthodox Church, from my experience it’s pretty typical.
Metropolitan Hilarion sends a greeting to the Ministry of Women conference.
I think it’s a good indication of the general stance of the O.C. on the position and ministry of women.
Posted by molleth on June 30, 2008 at 8:36 am
Thanks!
Great critique of Ware’s 10 points here:
http://www.fether.net/2008/06/29/be-ware-of-assertions/
Posted by molleth on June 30, 2008 at 8:50 am
http://www.worldofbruce.net/2008/06/29/why-christian-men-abuse-their-wives/
Wow. This is a great article.
Posted by People Speak Out About Bruce Ware’s Sermon « Because It Matters on June 30, 2008 at 10:22 am
[...] Adventures in Mercy [...]
Posted by Afraid To Sign My Name 'Cause I'll Get Beat Up (and I'm just joking) on June 30, 2008 at 11:04 am
Well, of course women’s job is to stay home and have babies. After all, that’s why she’s called “womb-man.”
Posted by molleth on June 30, 2008 at 11:10 am
Oooh, good point! Maybe we should add a “for” in there to make her role clear. No more of this feminist “woman,” business. True Christian females should start calling themselves “womb-fer-man.” (I like fer instead of for. Adds a nice touch of Southern charm).
Posted by Hannah on June 30, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I want to make my own conclusion from scripture NOW!
You can also logically conclude from Genesis 3 that men are naturally inclined to blame GOd and their wives for their sin!
I won’t stand by that, but it is humorous! How is that for literal, and with a good stretch!
Okay…….I’ll hush now.
Posted by MauraHennessey on July 1, 2008 at 10:48 am
Drat! I am beyond redemption. I had a hyster….
Posted by E on July 1, 2008 at 11:07 am
Then you should be less hysterical and more docile/compliant – i.e., the ideal woman/wife.
Posted by molleth on July 1, 2008 at 11:12 am
*grabs a soggy moose nugget and throws it Eric’s direction*
Posted by E on July 1, 2008 at 11:23 am
You do know that’s where the word “hysteria” => “hysterectomy” comes from, don’t you, Molls?
Posted by Katherine Gunn on July 1, 2008 at 11:34 am
Right – the idea being the the female anatomy was cause enough for hysteria – hysteria was considered a peculiarly feminine ailment. No wonder – with all the lording over – not to mention the corsets that made it impossible to breathe, causing women to ‘inexplicably’ faint here and there…
Posted by E on July 1, 2008 at 11:42 am
Yeah, between corsets here, foot-binding in China, female circumcision among Muslims and others, etc., to ask y’all to keep silent in church and/or never to “teach” men is like the icing on the cake and/or the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.
If the collective consciousness of women throughout history were ever funneled into each female brain, you’d rightfully turn into a horde of Lorena Bobbitts, and we men would be too scared to fall asleep in the same bed with you.
Posted by Katherine Gunn on July 1, 2008 at 11:43 am
LOL! If you don’t ‘Lord it over me,’ I won’t chase you. How’s that?
Posted by molleth on July 6, 2008 at 9:13 am
http://unrelatedramblings.blogspot.com/2008/07/shields-vs-ware-on-man-woman-in-genesis.html
Great post on this topic!
(thanks, Suzanne)…
Posted by E on August 23, 2008 at 6:48 am
Okay, I posted a blogpost on the latest episode in the North Texas “A Woman In The Pulpit: controversy:
http://waterandspirit.blogspot.com/2008/08/woman-in-pulpit-lions-and-tigers-and.html
Posted by molleth on August 23, 2008 at 9:18 am
Cool, E!
Posted by anon on February 24, 2009 at 3:22 pm
What Bruce Ware has just said is nothing more than Salvation by Works! Bruce Ware is teaching another Gospel! Paul the Apostle says let him be ANATHEMA MARANATHA! Amen, amen, and amen! I didn’t make this up! God said it in Galatians 1:8/9 —
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
I don’t have to take God’s name in vain or blaspheme in order to say it! The Bible already said it, and Bruce Ware already proved himself guilty by his own deeds.
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/search/label/sacerdotalism
<>
<>
Since Bruce Ware has taught all these popish heresies, he has damned all complementarians who accept his doctrine to HELL! The CBMW {Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood} has shown its complicity by failing to publicly lambaste and scold that Popish scalawag Bruce Ware!
Posted by anon on February 24, 2009 at 3:28 pm
What Bruce Ware has just said is nothing more than Salvation by Works! Bruce Ware is teaching another Gospel! Paul the Apostle says let him be ANATHEMA MARANATHA! Amen, amen, and amen! I didn’t make this up! God said it in Galatians 1:8/9 —
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
I don’t have to take God’s name in vain or blaspheme in order to declare this anathema against Bruce Ware! The Bible already said it, and Bruce Ware already proved himself guilty by his own deeds.
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/search/label/sacerdotalism
“Friday, June 27, 2008
A Wife Calls Abuse Down On Her Own Head? And “Spawn For Salvation” (Salvation Through the Womb And Not The Cross)
The other day, I received an email with a link to Denny Burk’s blog . I wish I were in a better place to be able to discuss this topic, but I am absorbed by another matter. Oddly, it is peripherally related to this subject, a topic also mentioned as an example by a very ignorant person offered in a comment to justify Ware. When I’m in a better frame of mind and reference, I may share my opinions and evaluation of this. I very well may not need to do so. The wise women who are responding to this on Burk ’s blog, a couple of whom I boast as dear friends, are doing a stellar job. Oh my! Women thinking again? I don’t think that the zealous, hard complementarians like that kind of thing too much. Skirts and theology don’t mix, and it’s taboo in some circles to suggest that committed, Bible-loving believing women can challenge a theology professor. (Where are all the qualified men who should be doing so?) The discussion there, when last I looked, concerned how a woman’s behavior calls down physical abuse on her own head, somehow making the man less culpable if not somewhat helpless against circumstances. And I cannot remotely begin to address this issue now. Feel free to read the trenchant discussion on that blog.
Bruce Ware has further delineated his ideas on the subject of women, submission in marriage and abuse. I’ve heard some similar ideas from Russell Moore, but the statements were not this straightforward. (It makes me wonder if the faculty at SBTS are even permitted to disagree with one another or whether they are all just required to read from the same, authorized script. This should never be confused with the “authorized verson.”) So it seems that my joking that I Timothy 2:15 would replace John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9 for women only was not so far from the truth.
I noted today that Bob Allen at Ethics Daily did take it on in his fashion, reporting the highlights of Bruce Ware’s sermon this past Sunday. I would just like to point out one of the quotes that he mentions specifically, as I have joked about this for some time. (Now I weep that this has come from the halls of a Baptist seminary by way of a church in Denton, TX.)
Ware also touched on a verse from First Timothy saying that women “shall be saved in childbearing,” by noting that the word translated as “saved” always refers to to eternal salvation.
“It means that a woman will demonstrate that she is in fact a Christian, that she has submitted to God’s ways by affirming and embracing her God-designed identity as — for the most part, generally this is true — as a wife and mother, rather than chafing against it, rather than bucking against it, rather than wanting to be a man, wanting to be in a man’s position, wanting to teach and exercise authority over men,” Ware said.
On this twist however, I will note a brief comment. This has many implications and many logical conclusions, some of which I will briefly and dispassionately attempt to enumerate.
1. Salvation by grace through faith that is God’s gift (Eph 2:8-9, a verse every Christian should know by heart) either means or can mean something very different for men than for women.
2. For women, interpreting I Timothy 2:15 in the manner Ware describes (apart from the full context of the verse, even withstanding previous complemenarian teachings) argues that God mediates salvation to women differently, through certain works in combination with faith. (Ware states that “saved” is always in reference to eternal salvation.)
I Tim 2:15 (KJV) – “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
3. Childbearing as an act of submission in combination with faith, charity, holiness and sobriety mediate eternal salvation for women (”for the most part, generally this is true”) because of the way he defines all New Testament usage and interpretation of “saved” as eternal.
4. It could be interpreted that he is arguing or providing the basis for arguing that there are two means by which a woman can be saved and receive eternal life. If the Timothy verse which does not discuss eternal salvation in context is relevant to how a woman receives eternal life, one could easily argue that salvation comes through works and may not require SAVING FAITH alone (in Christ), because it is partially shared with these specific works.
NOTE: Ware claims to be Reformed, embracing the “Five Solas.”
Make that six… Sola gravida
5. I suppose that his clause of “for the most part, generally this is true” provides him sufficient insulation against criticisms like mine which assert that he is preaching a Roman Catholic-like belief that eternal salvation is not by faith alone for women ONLY but requires a synergy of both faith and works. [This phrasing does not ameliorate the consequences of his germane point, for this is a pretty meager equivocation.]
6. My husband (who I study under in quiet submission, sitting here as I type) and I have discussed this, and though he states that I’m being more faithful to what Ware probably believes to be true, he believes that from these quotes, it also argues that women might actually have two means of achieving salvation. Either they can obtain salvation like a man does (”they can take it like a man”), or they can take the alternate path. One could argue that not knowing Christ at all, women can earn salvation through childbirth as a salvific act of submission to man in combination with basic virtue only. The basic virtue and childbirth are not separate from one another, as they are mediated through submission to man. Man becomes a woman’s obligatory savior.
7. I could go on and on finding indefinite numbers of logical conclusions to this illogical premise, such as childbirth that results from rape, etc. I can think of many.
Let me conclude this post with a statement from my husband, “steemed” (though esteemed) scientist, and former seminary professor:
“I think you [Cindy] are being far too gracious there [to Ware] in stating that what is clearly frank heresy as an only an “illogical premise.”
”
“Anyone who teaches that a husband is an intermediary for his wife in terms of her spiritual salvation or her spiritual sanctification preaches a different Gospel and seeks to set husbands up as demi-gods.”
‘To take Ephesians 5 and ascribe to it the meaning that man affects the holiness of any other person, a creature who, on his own, has no ability to gain right standing and holiness before God outside of union with Christ, amounts to usurping Christ as our Savior by replacing Him with a demi-god — a lesser god with no sanctifying or salvific power in himself. Husbands are not spiritual intermediaries or moral agents for their wives, but all come to Christ with their own sins upon their head only to account for those sins on their own. They are fully culpable for their own sins and not the sins of another. To claim that a man can work to affect holiness through actions advocates salvation by works. Roman Catholic Theology claims the opus operatum wherein works can impart grace to the inward man without faith, just by performing a sacrament. Salvation and grace come through works and need not require faith at all. Roman Catholic Theology also maintains that an earthly priest must participate in sacraments, standing in the place of Christ and serving as an intermediary for an individual follower to receive the salvific benefit of the sacrament. Thus, one could say that the idea that a husband works or governs or participates to spiritually sanctify his wife is doubly Roman Catholic. Rome believes that the priest is the necessary mediatory in the sacraments (what a Protestant believes to be standing in the place of Christ), but Rome does not teach that the wife needs two mediators, her husband and her priest.
Anyone who claims that a husband is a spiritual intercessor for his wife cannot, by definition, be Reformed by denying salvation by faith alone, both through the saving power of works and through a sacerdotal intermediary. This is closer to a Roman Catholic Theology but actually supersedes Catholicism’s belief and theology. We have no savior but Christ alone, by grace alone and through faith alone. Paul wrote no special addendum to Ephesians 2:8-9, stating that it applies only to men and offering special instruction to women. Paul does not even say this in Ephesians 5.’
Since Bruce Ware has taught all these popish heresies, he has damned all complementarians who accept his doctrine to HELL! The CBMW {Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood} has shown its complicity by failing to publicly lambaste and scold that Popish scalawag Bruce Ware!
Posted by Headless Unicorn Guy on June 8, 2009 at 9:41 am
Anon the Preacher:
“If you want to post a long sermon, get your own blog.”
– Paraphrase of several Internet Monk essays