Me lambasted for hypocrisy.

So in Warnock’s women | The Protestant Pub I am taken to task for my post 42: When did the practice of ordaining women begin?

I am afraid I have no idea who Sofyst is and whether they are male or female so am not sure what form of address to us. Is it less offensive to use she or he?

Anyway, some of the comments are worth looking at. The response to my correction about history is interesting.

Meh. Tomatoes tomatoes.


History is boring, Scripture is our aim.

H’mm. Do I dare quote George Santayana "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." or point out in a fairly obvious way that much of scripture is a history or God’s relationship with his people.

Now I know that I am a poor scholar of history and so frequently get it wrong, however, it seems odd that it seems so unimportant that a historical mistake that formed a significant part of the original argument can be dismissed so easily.


Even if one was to concede that being ‘of note among the apostles’
meant that this ‘noted’ one was one of them, we would then have Paul
put in a rather funny situation. Commending this Junias for her
apostleship and leadership within the church, and then turning right
around to Timothy telling him that no woman can lead within the church.
Bad, bad Paul.

My understanding from a number of articles on the subject is that the construction of the Greek leaves little doubt that Junia was considered an apostle by Paul.

So there is tension for complementarians between what Paul writes in Romans 16 and Galations 5:28 which clearly support equality in ministry and what is in 1 Timothy which is used to claim there is not equality. In this I would simply suggest

a) reading more widely that just your own tradition to see how others interpret these passages.

b) See Faith and Theology: Ten propositions on preaching  and note proposition 4. Paul was a highly intelligent man, hence his letters reflect both the context and his own faith journey. Remember also how he developed his thinking during his life. For example consider his eschatological understanding. Suddenly there is the possibility or even probability that what is in 1 Timothy is contextual.

And it is quite superfluous as to who the first evangelist was, we ALL
are evangelist. I had assumed we were speaking of women priest or
elders, why then are we drudging up the duty of evangelism?

Yes and no. In the case of John 4 the woman (who is the first to tell others of Christ in John’s gospel) tells everyone about Jesus. According to my understanding of complementarian thinking that is not acceptable. See "Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth" by Wayne Grudem p93-101 which I understand to not really support  not support this work by a women.

I do think it is highly significant that the first evangelist in John’s gospel is a woman. That stands significantly against the complementarian viewpoint.

No, the gospels may say nothing about women being ordained, but Paul sure says a lot.

Well no Paul does not. Our current understanding of ordination did not exist in Paul’s time. To apply Paul’s teaching to the modern church requires interpretation.

THERE WE GO! Theres that quotation of Paul. Naughty naughty on only using it when it is beneficial to you.

And your point is? I am trying to consider a wider view of Paul’s teaching rather than simply take a few verses from 1 Timothy and ignore their context. The complementarian position relies totally on taking isolated verses from the Epistles, ignoring context, ignoring the Gospels and ignoring the wider teaching by the same writers.

But let me try to understand this a little. Driscoll and Joshua make a
statement, a claim. Warnock then comes back and makes a counter-claim.
Warnock then charges Driscoll and Joshua with being unwilling to
recognize that they do not have a monopoly on truth?

I absolutely deny making any claim to have a monopoly on truth. For example I wrote

I suggest a small rewording to pay lip service to integrity and truth
for example "I am abreast enough on the interpretation of Scripture in
my tradition to know that we believe the issue of homosexuality and
female ordination was settled with the N.T."

This does not deny truth for other traditions than my own. It certainly does not claim sole truth. Indeed I also wrote

Only God is truth and Paul reminds us that we can see only dimly at the moment.

These do not sound like the words of someone claiming a monopoly on truth. Instead I have and will continue to argue against anyone who claims to have the whole truth and deny all other view points. That does not mean that truth is unimportant, merely that it is so important and so part of God’s nature that we cannot understand it fully. If we cannot understand it fully then to claim we have it all right is preposterous.

Or is such hypocrisy by Mr. Warnock acceptable given that the gospels never forbid ministers from being hypocritical?

Hypocrisy is quite hard to get past the teaching of Jesus. Both the two greatest commandments and his attitude to the Pharisees make that quite clear. At the moment though I do not understand the charge. Where am I being hypocritical? Or is it just that I disagree?


I should have said how much Sofyst’s title "Warnock’s women" amused me. It was the title that caught my eye when I was browsing technorati and it intrigued me. Still not sure of the relevance to the subject but it did get my attention.

13 thoughts on “Me lambasted for hypocrisy.

  1. sally

    Dave are you collecting women???
    I am sorry you were accused of hypocriacy- not a valid charge I feel, once again the alternative view is blasted and critisised by those who claim to be right!!!

  2. Glenn

    You said “According to my understanding of complementarian thinking that is not acceptable. See “Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth” by Wayne Grudem p93-101 which I understand to not really support not support this work by a women.”
    Then I suggest you alter your understanding because it is wrong. For example i have the book in question open in front of me and I have re-read p93-101 and I am completely unable to see how you got your conclusions from the pages in question, especially as there is a list on p96 which specifically lists Evangelistic activities as appropriate for men AND women.
    You also say “I do think it is highly significant that the first evangelist in John’s gospel is a woman. That stands significantly against the complementarian viewpoint.”
    In precisely what way does it go against the ‘complementarian viewpoint’?
    It is very easy to make such statements, but where is your proof?
    Your assessment of the veiwpoint in EFBT is easily disproven by reading the pages you refer to, so why should your other statement above be any more exceptable?
    If you are going to make pronouncemnts about what complementarians beleive then at least get it right.

  3. DaveW

    I did reread the pages when I wrote the statement. I have done so again. It appears that you are correct.
    It is interesting to note that in the discussion on this over at least 4 blogs that none of the other complementarians have noticed this mistake.
    I still believe that it is damaging to the complementarian view that this woman was an evangelist before any men.

  4. Glenn

    I still fail to see how “it is damaging to the complementarian view that this woman was an evangelist before any men.”
    Again, you make a statement, but you provide no explanation or logical argument to back it up.
    I would also point out that the first Christian Evangelist was John the Baptist (a man) who prepared the way for the Jesus (a man) who selected his team (all men) and the 70 who were sent out (all men) so to claim that Mary was an Evangelist before any men is stretching it a bit.
    Also, reporting to the disciples that Jesus had risen hardly qualifies as an act of evangelism.

  5. DaveW

    The woman at the well was the first evangelist in John’s gospel. I would describe John as a prophet, rather than evangelist as he was proclaiming one to come. I see that as damaging to the complementarian cause as it demonstrates (as do many other passages) that Jesus treated women in a way they had never been treated before. Schneider does an excellent study on this passage in “The Revelatory Text” I suggest you read that to see this argument.
    I did not claim Mary was an evangelist and I was referring to John’s gospel which does not have a sending out before chapter 4.
    The women at the tomb and hearing the announcement is important again because it shows that women (who could not give legal testimony at that time) were considered important enough to know about the resurrection first. I did not describe this as evangelism.

  6. Glenn

    You said “….was an evangelist before any men.”
    An Evangelist does Evangelism, if they don’t do Evangelism then they are not an Evangelist.
    I don’t think you can exclude the other 3 Gospels if you are going to make sweeping statements about who or what happened first in a sequence of events.

  7. Glenn

    Also, having established that your interpretation of Complementarian thought regarding evangelism & women was/is wrong then that would knock out any relevance to your continued attempt to assert that it might be “damaging to the complementarian view”

  8. DaveW

    Oh for crying out loud Glenn, why do you feel so threatened that you have to twist everything I say.
    I am not trying to build a timeline from all gospels. I mentioned within Johns gospel. That means John thought it important.

  9. J. Mel

    Here above, the women at the tomb , the lady at the well, and Junias are mentioned. The fact is that testimony of ALL of Scripture is overwhelmingly not compelmentarian but because of its thesis complementarianism must downplay, dissmiss or ignore NUMEROUS CLEAR PASSAGES that display women in action in non traditional roles.
    The complementarian thesis is that the essence of masculinity is to lead and the essence of femininity is to submit to men (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, by Piper and Grudem (p 35-36). It is on this basis that complementarians interpret a FEW difficult passages while working very hard to prove their thesis and dismiss any evidence that does not support their view.
    Lets move away from the NT for a moment and consider a “neutral” account concerning a woman’s actions in the OT. Clearly the complementarian thesis about “biblical femininity” does not fit this narrative. 

Take 2 Samuel 20. 
We should be able to agree that the person in question was -a woman -who influenced the course of history of her city by her actions – received a positive evaluation from the Scriptures for it. – And serves as positive role model for the reader of the Bible.
    Let us look at it closer:
    - This female felt she had the right to hold the future of the city in her hands and she took the initiative (v17)

    -No one questioned her right to do so but all clearly accepted her authority to speak on their behalf. 

    - This female was in fact the person of that city who placed herself at the head of danger and of a difficult situation to meet the official (general Joab) who besieged the city.(v16)

    - When this female learned of Sheba’s guilt of treason she felt completly free to pronounce the death sentence against the man (v21). 

    - This female did so without even considering the possibility of consulting any man (v21)
- This female came to to the people to simply inform them of the situation (v22).
    - This female did not feel the need to hand Sheba over to Joab as complementarians wish for women to do when there is a good man around.
-This female clearly had the backing of the citizenry to do so and the men in town obeyed and carried out the sentence (v22b). 

    Clearly this female’s way of carrying herself does not fit the image of femininity that complementarians try to create to support their interpretations of difficult passages. Note that this lady was given a positive evalution by the word of God. (v16, 19, 22)
    I will venture and say that if this leader had been a man, articles would be written of him as an exemple of a good mix and balance of wise and meek leadership that was not lacking in any way in great decisiveness.
    One must be carefull not to fall into the trap of proof texting things but to consider ALL of Scripture and then come up with a complete and harmonious view on women.
    J. Mel

  10. Glenn

    I don’t feel threatened by anything on this blog or anyone who frequents it.
    My responses are not coming from feeling threatened.
    I am just trying to get you to see that these sweeping statements you have been making are not accurate in regard to Complimentarianism.
    Also, whether you like it or not, just because something happens first in John 4 does not make it the first in regards to the actual sequence of events overall.
    Also there is no need to get tetchy, if you don’t want to be corrected then take more time to be accurate and to check your supposed ‘facts’.
    Also, I twisted nothing, I used your own words which I copy-pasted.
    Just remember that most of the people who comment here regularly would never check the veracity of a statement you make finding fault with Complimentarianism and therefore false statements are perpetuated unchecked, not a healthy state of affairs.

  11. Pam

    As I sat today among about 25 female Salvation Army officers listening to Mimi Haddad, President of Christians for Biblical Equality, I remembered that the Salvation Army – founded in the 19th century – has allowed women to be officers from it’s founding.
    Also, the United Methodist Church in the United States marked its Fiftieth Anniversary of the Ordination of Women this year.
    I’m not sure why the Episcopalian Church in the US is supposed to be the sina qua non of denominations?
    The complimentarians can argue that God incarnated himself and then became nothing on the cross to save us but that God wants men to have power over women. It just doesn’t fly as an argument. If men ruling over women were so important, wouldn’t Jesus have spent a lot of energy trying to drive that point home? If power over others were so important, wouldn’t Jesus have come as the ‘power over’ Messiah that everyone expected?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>