Replacement Teachers
Posted on June 4th, 2005 by catalyst into the PBC categoryI think I’ve found Larry and Ken’s replacement. This is from the City Bible Bulletin.
WOMEN AND MINISTRY
In Joel 2:28, God said that He would pour out His Spirit on all mankind. The purpose of this would be to empower His people so they might accomplish His work in the earth. This power was to be given to both male and female and would manifest itself in gifts and abilities from the Holy Spirit.
Sadly, the reality is that many churches don’t utilize the God-given gifts and skills that reside in the women of their congregations. As a result, many churches are not only deprived of a vast reserve of God’s grace resident in their female members, but the complexion of the churches lack the important contributions that will only come from their women. In the end, these churches attempt to accomplish the commission given to them with only part of the resources necessary to do it.
It is our responsibility to help the people of this church to understand the treasure that resides in the women of this congregation and to motivate us all to release more of those gifts to the Body of Christ. The Bible provides us with God’s original pattern for women harmoniously working alongside men.
It also gives guidelines to ensure this is done in a proper manner. Both the Old and New Testament work together to give us a clear understanding of what that is to look like. When Paul stated that the church is like a human body, in which every member contributes to the successful function of the whole, he definitely had in mind the female members of that body along with the male. As we move into the future, it is encouraging to see our women function in their God given gifts and calling.
Lanny Hubbard
Portland Bible College
Faculty Member
RSS feed for posts
June 4th, 2005 at 9:09 am
I’ve heard that they’re going to ordain Sharon Wagar and Glenda Malmin, so maybe CBC is finally stepping out of the dark ages when it comes to women in ministry.
June 4th, 2005 at 11:01 am
What do you do with this scipture?
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 -
34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the 80 Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
June 4th, 2005 at 11:19 am
And this one?
11 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.
June 4th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
It’s a classic case of a mega-church filtering the Bible through American culture.
It is nice to see CBC paving the way for future homosexual elders.
June 4th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
I’m glad to hear that I can pick and choose what scriptures I want to take as God’s word. Fornitcation here I come.
June 4th, 2005 at 4:07 pm
What bothers me is how they act like they are on the cutting edge of theology. They’re going to let women be leaders… Wow, how enlightening. Perhaps in fifty years they’ll let a black man be an elder. (fingers crossed)
June 4th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
What do you do with this scripture?
Malachi 3:8
8 Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How are we robbing thee?’ In your tithes and offerings. 9 You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me; the whole nation of you.
June 4th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
wow anonymous, you hold women in such high regard. i too am looking for verses on fornication, hypocrisy, bitterness and everything else imaginable so that i can interpret them to my own liking. and hey, when they get a gay or lesbian elder at CBC, i just might think about attending! you should be ashamed of yourself for speaking so hatefully towards women, homosexuals, black people and anyone who doesn’t fit the dominant white male (hank) prototype.
June 4th, 2005 at 7:46 pm
what do you do with this scripture
mmooooooooo?
June 4th, 2005 at 7:51 pm
Yep, the Bible is sure easy to quote at each other. I think I can pretty much prove anything I want by using the right verse.
It’s also pretty easy to write off certain scriptures due to the culture of the day or old testament law. (e.g. women in church, curse of Malachi, etc.)
What’s harder is actually listening to the voice of God for yourself. The Bible may have been divinely inspired, but it was still written by people like you and me.
Let’s all stop trying to justify our own agendas with scripture and surrender ourselves to God.
June 4th, 2005 at 7:55 pm
Let’s chat.
First of all, those words from 1 Corinthians and (I think) Titus are the words of the apostle Paul. Yes, they are in the Bible. But the question is: why? Why is the Bible the Bible? How did we get the Bible as it exists today? Did a bound copy of the King James Version fall out of heaven in a cowhide cover to be discovered by a chance passerby?
No.
The Bible was compiled by men. I’m not using the word “men” to mean “humans” here. I mean people with penises. Whether they were under the influence of the Holy Spirit or not, they were men, and they voted on what was in and what was out (and, before anyone gets upset about the fact that I’m saying people can make mistakes or follow selfish or inappropriate motivations when “under the influence,” let’s stop and think about all the examples we have in history and the contemporary era of exactly that). It is a well-acknowledged fact in educated circles that any gospel that included a depiction of women in non-subservient roles was systematically eliminated from the Bible as we know it. Why? I can’t say definitively, but here’s my best guess: fear.
Is there anything about having a particular genital configuration that makes one person more likely to hear from God than another?
Do we not believe that both men and women were made in God’s image? I suppose it depends on what version of the creation story one reads: Adam was made in God’s image and Eve was made from Adam’s rib (i.e. a copy of a copy is always a little less sharp) vs. so God created man in God’s own image, male and female…
Perhaps we’d all do well to think that one through.
Thank you, catalyst, for pointing out that women are not the only group of people repressed by CBC’s archaic attitudes. I do think that replacing Larry Taylor and Ken Ross with female teachers for purely demographic reasons is still a grave mistake. People should be teaching because they are educated, qualified, and motivated to guide others to not only learn, but to surpass their teachers in knowledge, wisdom, and discernment. The presence or absence of a Y-chromosome is truly inconsequential. If CBC is, at long last, seeing the error of their oppressive policies towards women, I’m happy for them and for women in general. However, if this is only another publicity stunt (i.e., look at us, we’re so enlightened, we have WOMEN teaching over here!), it’s more a step backward than forward. Particularly if more qualified people were jettisoned because they were men (and, conveniently, dissenting voices)…that’s still discrimination. If they’re giving up on discriminating against women (which I doubt, since I’ve been told by reliable sources that women at PBC are taught by one Glenda Malmin that it’s their job to satisfy their husbands’ sexual appetites regardless of their own inclinations) in favor of discriminating against the educated or the intellectually critical, the people worth having as teachers (both male and female) are still out.
As a teacher, this issue is close to my heart, and I will make noise about it with my dying breath. I will not stand for anyone to be made less because of their sex, or for any reason. We are all here together, and there is room enough for all of us. We are all called to do the most we can in the world, and there’s too much good that needs to be done to say only certain people are allowed to do it. The Apostle Paul also made a lot of commentary about not not getting in the way of other people fulfilling the dictates of their own consciences (not being a “stumbling block”), and even went so far as to say that the conscience is a higher authority than any law.
My conscience cries out for acceptance, freedom, and equality for all people.
As for me, I will live to make it so.
June 4th, 2005 at 9:06 pm
“the bible may have been divinely inspired, but it was still written by people like you and me.” and “whether they were under the influence of the holy spirit or not…”
is the bible authoritative or do we just believe bits and parts of it? either the writters were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the bible is to be trusted, or the writters were not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the bible is just another bool on par with any other book in the library. that is the question. then we can discuss the interpretationns and implications of its teachings.
if you leave up in the air the inspiration of the word of God, how can you surrender yourself to a God who might not be able to protect or make sure His special revelation to man? or should i say mankind
June 4th, 2005 at 10:35 pm
jiminy cricket, well said!
There are lots of hard parts in the bible that need closer examination and review in light of what we know about God’s character. Jesus certainly was quite the rebel to actually talk in public with women and even discuss spiritual matters with them.
I hope CBC is “ordaining women” because these women have been set apart by the Holy Spirit for church leadership and not just an affirmative action kind of thing. The reality of the attitude towards women in evangelical churches across the board warrant any church to have to issue a public statement to explain why they are ordaining women…there are a significant number of people who will freak out if a woman is in leadership (as the comments to this post have proven)
I know people who would leave their church if a woman was ordained. Hopefully CBC’s letter is to diffuse any backlash rather than exploit women in leadership.
(Recommended reading on women in leadership - Why Not Women? by Loren Cunningham…he tackles those hard passages and gives context both culturally and academically)
I still find it ridiculous to be having these kind of conversations. We Christians can be so uptight! God’s not that uptight!
June 4th, 2005 at 11:24 pm
Oh bravo, JiminyCricket–BRAVO! That speech was tearful and oozing with holy anger. I think I’m going to cry now. Do it again, will you? This time, plead for the cause of laboratory animals…
June 5th, 2005 at 12:30 am
Alright, anonymous, sarcasm only makes it harder for me to respect what you’re trying to say.
June 5th, 2005 at 12:53 am
“If you leave up in the air the inspiration of the word of God, how can you surrender yourself to a God who might not be able to protect or make sure His special revelation to man?”
Huh? There’s a huge difference between the Bible and God Himself. I personally believe the gap is almost as big as the one between God and His church. Last time I checked, neither one was part of the trinity. Sure the Bible’s an amazing source of doctrine and hope and inspiration and teaching etc, but my relationship with God is not built on it.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe in the Bible. But I don’t think it’s our responsibility to judge whether or not someone is surrendered to God.
June 5th, 2005 at 10:23 am
I just wanted to respond to one of the anonymous’ comments about CBC having a black elder in 50 years. For those of us who attended CBC in the 90’s, we will remember that Eric Knox was considered an elder for a very short time. It was during ‘94-’95 when they infiltrated the school and church with the inner-city kids and started Urban Progress. Does anyone remember this? Eric sat up on the stage with the other elders and was considered one of them, until he left to start his own church.
June 5th, 2005 at 10:28 am
I don’t think Erik was an elder. I think he was asked to sit up front for other purposes… but I could be wrong. Does anyone know for sure?
June 5th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
I’m dying about the Jiminy Cricket thing. DYING! Get a soapbox and some kleenex for the audience…
June 5th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
How come it has taken CBC/BT over 40 years to find this scripture that they are using to ordain women?
Many churches have done this for years… but does that make it right or wrong? Personally, I don’t think women are “ordainable.”
But, hey, if Wendell can do it (and CBC sure seems to be trying to keep pace with his church), then why not do it in Portland/Tigard/Vancouver also.
Why, in the 1970s CBC, aka BT, used to pay the women teachers in the school and PBC CONSIDERABLY less than their male counterparts… I think something about since the women were not head of households they did not need as much money. Never mind if they were more skilled and trained than their male counterparts. Never mind if they were single women and indeed head of their household.
One does need to realize that without the years spent at BT/CBC and some of the actually excellent Bible teaching and training we received, we would not be the Christians we are today. So there is something good came out of those years… no matter how small it may seem.
June 5th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
Women’s capacity for and “role” in ministry is certainly one of the most controversial, and not addressed easily (i.e., by quoting a few verses out of the context of the entirety of Scripture).
My opinion?
1. God calls women just as he calls men, per 1 Cor 12:27-28, to be pastors, apostles, teachers, healers, etc. God’s calling is irrelevant of gender (in the sense that one’s gender does not qualify or disqualify one, although God certainly uses one’s gender, as he uses other aspects of one’s life, in ministry).
2. God equips women (thus, they have the same capacity as men). How logical is it to deduct that women are less or differently capable than men?
3. The Bible nowhere lists “pastor’s wife” as a “calling.” How many times have we heard a woman prophesied over or counseled that “pastor’s wife” is her destiny?! Nonsense!!!
4. CBC should ordain qualified, called women, not just as a symbol of equality, but so that they can serve the body of Christ as He sees fit. Neither Sharon Wagar nor Glenda Malmin would be my top picks for ordination were it my decision (for a variety of reasons, namely that they both are ultra-legalistic Christians and that they are both fairly patriarchal in their philosophies about men’s & women’s roles).
Can you maybe tell I’m a woman? Maybe the only one who consistently blogs here? I’m pleased that most of you get that CBC and the church in general fails to handle women’s issues Biblically. Women’s roles in general & their roles in ministry are HUGE topics…and NOT addressed in the standard “equal value, different roles” that many Christians reductively conclude as the “answer.” Why is “role” usually interpreted to mean “division of labor?”
At any rate, this is an issue that we as a church should adequately address in order that the whole body of Christ may benefit from the rest of it in substantive ways.
I’m glad to see that Lanny is still “loving Jesus” and one of the sanest people at CBC. I appreciate his “article,” although my guess is that Lanny’s and I probably have very different definitions of these things he says the Bible gives us:
“God’s original pattern for women harmoniously working alongside men…”
“guidelines to ensure this is done in a proper manner…”
“a clear understanding of what that is to look like.”
Most Christians would say that the Bible lays the above issues out… the reality is that many disagree on what the Bible says about women. This is what we must wrestle with as a Body.
Anyway, enough for now.
FFTM
P.S. Eric Knox was never an elder at BT/CBC. He was on youth staff; once they heard he was planning to leave they dangled the actual “youth pastor” position in front of him, but he was smart enough to turn them down. He was their token black leader, but they never considered him “elder quality” (their loss, clearly).
June 5th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
FFTM: That’s a pretty good analysis, and I tend to agree with it. I think women should be leaders, because it’s the 21st century, and to deny them this role is sexist. But you make a good Biblical point as well.
And that’s what I thought about Eric.
June 5th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
To the several anonymi who seemed to find my commentary entertaining or ridiculous: perhaps you need to read it again. If I merely made an emotional appeal, it would seem that your respective responses would be appropriate instead of merely embarrassing for you. Yes, I feel passionately about the things I said. Your jadedness doesn’t make you clever, and neither does it make me a fool.
If you’d like to hear my opinions on lab animals, I’m happy to share them.
To the author of this statement:
“is the bible authoritative or do we just believe bits and parts of it? either the writters were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the bible is to be trusted, or the writters were not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the bible is just another bool on par with any other book in the library. that is the question. then we can discuss the interpretationns and implications of its teachings.”
Smells like a dualistic construction to me. Have you found no other occasion in your life where the possible answers were myriad? There is a huge spectrum of possibility between divine and mediocre. As another person who offered a rebuttal to your commentary said, the Bible is not in the Trinity. It’s a tool. It’s been around a long time. And I think I did say in my earlier post (anonymi, break out the kleenex if you think you’ll need it) that the Bible was compiled by fallible humans….more specifically, educated (and therefore, probably affluent) MALE ones. All I’m saying is that limits the perspective at the very least.
“if you leave up in the air the inspiration of the word of God, how can you surrender yourself to a God who might not be able to protect or make sure His special revelation to man? or should i say mankind”
First of all, you should say “humankind” — and that much is a compromise. It’s still organized around the word “man”.
God never takes away free choice. That’s the policy, from everything I can tell. That means we can always screw it up, and God chooses not to stop us. That means that everything we touch will be made of God and non-God elements, just as we ourselves are. For these reasons, we MUST be critical, we must be flexible, we must keep thinking and listening.
And to top it all off, we also have to care.
June 5th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
Cricket—
You are TOO verbose. You need to learn to speak precisely and in less than a few hundred words in your post…
And some thinks Hank’s sermons might be sleepers………. try and stay awake through one of Cricket’s ramblings..
June 5th, 2005 at 6:49 pm
Is Cricket related to Diotrophes?
June 5th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Yes, Cricket, YES… share your thoughts on lab animals. We’re on the edge of our seats, hanging on your every emotive cry for “acceptance, freedom, and equality for all people” revolution. Please, don’t make us wait another moment!
-Anonym(i)ous
June 6th, 2005 at 12:05 am
Hmmm, I think I would prefer wordy but sincere than short and sarcastic. Anyone else agree?
June 6th, 2005 at 12:05 am
Hmmm, I think I would prefer wordy but sincere than short and sarcastic. Anyone else agree?
June 6th, 2005 at 12:06 am
jiminy cricket, is the bible just a tool or is it truly living and alive sharper than any two edged sword? We are to be under the word of God not over it. God has exalted above all things His name and His word. All scripture is God breathed.
The bible is not going to be worshipped in heaven, but we are to test all things in light of it. Heaven and earth shall pass away but God’s word will not it does not return void, He has made a committment to it and will preserve His authoritative word.
June 6th, 2005 at 7:41 am
“Hmmm, I think I would prefer wordy but sincere than short and sarcastic. Anyone else agree?”
Absolutely. Good work Cricket.
June 6th, 2005 at 10:27 am
Why are women not required to wear head coverings anymore? Paul had toaddress many cultural issues, many of which are no longer relivent toour culture today. Women in ministry is no different. So, therefor howmany other issues addressed in the Old and New Testments were primarly based on trends of the day?
BTW, will a women be ordained at CBC if she single or if her husband is not ordained?
June 6th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
Diotrophes….nice trivia reference.
There was nothing malicious in what I said, I didn’t say not to receive anyone, and I didn’t cast anyone out of the church.
It is nice, though, to reference III John on the odd occasion, I suppose.
If you think I talk too much, there’s a simple solution. Don’t read my posts.
If you think what I said was imprecise, argue about it like a grownup. Making idle accusations is tantamount to calling me a poopyhead and threatening to tell your mommy on me. I think we’re all a little too smart for that sort of thing.
As for scripture being God-breathed, etc., I refer you to what I’ve said before. My question is not, “Did God breathe it?” My question is, “What happened in the concrete, physical world, and how should sensible people respond to that?” If you’re going to retreat into the doctrine you already know and parrot rather than using your head, the conversation is over because it never began.
June 6th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
I hope you learned something with the research Jiminy, however in this case, Diotrophes, is merely a previous commenter who was mocked for his length.
Sorry for the confusion.
June 7th, 2005 at 11:07 am
“mocked for his length”
Please keep this erotic content off the blog!
June 7th, 2005 at 6:43 pm
“mocked for his length”
So, what are you saying….?
:) ……I’ll be telling my friends…….
June 9th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
May I just say that I agree with those individuals that think women should be in leadership roles. And I agree with Jiminy in that the Bible was written by men and therefore is likely to have been manipulated out of selfishness and/or fear. What I find concerning is that a church who claims that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, would then move in a direction that seems to be in direct opposition to what the Bible says concerning women.
June 9th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
Most recent Anonymous:
Read Bob Hyatt’s linked article from his comment from the next posting. You might just change your mind in regards to women in leadership being unbiblical.
June 9th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
I am calling for a new updated Bible. One that we can actually trust and that isn’t sexist or homophobic. Here is a list of scripture type material.
Biblical Principles for becoming Debt Free
Biblical Principles for releasing Fincial Provision
Giving Receiving and Prospering
52 Offering Prayers & Scriptures (Included are 52 sets of scriptures and prayers to assist pastors and leaders in guiding their congregations in faithful giving.)
These books written by The Apostle of the City should be considered scripture.
June 9th, 2005 at 7:36 pm
I know this may be hard to believe but…
I didn’t post that last comment.
Well done. Well done.
June 9th, 2005 at 9:29 pm
The Bible, any book by Hank, hmmm…
Same thing.
-CBC attender
June 11th, 2005 at 10:37 pm
to the most recent anonymous,
it saddens me to think that you believe the bible and any book by hank to be synonymous (there’s a nice word for you to look up); perhaps you need to get out more. what a small, narrowed, sad world you must live in. with all of the wonderful books out there, i could name hundreds yet couldn’t tell you one title of a hank page-waster. so, if you need something to do on a nice, saturday afternoon, the multnomah county library on SW10th st. downtown is a wonderful place, maybe you could use a change of scenery from hankdom.
June 11th, 2005 at 11:22 pm
I was that recent anonymous,
And yes I was being sarcastic.
I know bigger words than “synonymous”,
for example “iconoclastic”.
(Which is actually a great definition of this blog.)
June 11th, 2005 at 11:54 pm
Actually, olie’s twin, I think you might have been attempting sarcasm as well. And thank you for the wonderful recommendation, I love libraries and I actually haven’t read a single one of PF’s books either.