The first female priests in the CofE were ordained in 1994.

They claimed these women served under the authority of the all-male episcopacy.

Then the first female bishop was installed in 2014.

Now this.

Egalitarian compromises never stop until all distinctions are removed. As a reminder, here's the basic biblical teaching on the office of elder / overseer / pastor, which the Lord has restricted to qualified men:

centerforbaptistleadership.org/pastors-are-el…

Anyone can become heretical and/or apostatize, but I’ve long noticed a higher-than-average rate of heresy and apostasy among the following groups:

Apologists
Professors
Worship leaders
Celebrities

Here's a short thread on what often goes wrong and what can be done about it 🧵 One of the cardinal dangers for apologists is that of accommodation, of changing the Christian faith to make it more palatable to Christian audiences.

Remember that the father of liberal theology, Friedrich Schleiermacher, began his journey into heresy with an attempt to save Christianity. That’s why he wrote On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers (AD 1799), in which he set out to defend the Christian faith against the skepticism of his contemporaries.

Schleiermacher believed that Enlightenment thinkers, especially Hume and Kant, had rendered the Christian faith impossible to believe. So he changed the essence of the Christian faith to produce something “sensible” that moderns could accept. Instead of saving Christianity, however, he simply “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). C. S. Lewis warns against this in his essay, “Christian Apologetics” (published God in the Dock). He writes, “Do not attempt to water Christianity down.”

The other cardinal danger for apologists is that they focus so much on arguments for the existence of God that they abandon intimacy with God himself.

Again, Lewis—something of an apologist himself—has a profound warning on this point: “I have found that nothing is more dangerous to one’s own faith than the work of an apologist. No doctrine of that faith seems to me so spectral, so unreal as the one that I have just successfully defended in a public debate. For a moment, you see, it has seemed to rest on oneself: as a result when you go away from the debate, it seems no stronger than that weak pillar. That is why we apologists take our lives in our hands and can be saved only by falling back continually from the web of our own arguments, as from our intellectual encounters, into the Reality—from Christian apologetics into Christ Himself.” —Lewis, “Christian Apologetics” (God in the Dock)

I regret to inform you that these slides are currently being presented to a room full of evangelical pastors who are eating this stuff up.

People who uncritically adopt AI with this enthusiasm either do not know human nature or do not know the spiritual nature of ministry.

Here's an alternative way to think about technology in general, and AI in particular, from a recent chapel message I gave a @grimkeseminary:

Southern Baptists (and Protestants who care about the health of the SBC) should be deeply concerned by this.

In this clip the president of Lifeway openly advocates for functional egalitarianism.

Here's why this is a serious error that threatens so many churches 🧵👇🏻 The basic problem is this: Ben Mandrell's position denigrates God's design of men and women.

He seems to think that complementarianism—which holds that men and women are equal in value yet differently designed for the distinct roles God has assigned to each—not only permits but requires that "high capacity women need to be in the room where it happens," by which Mandrell means "they need to be helping making [sic] the decisions."

This is leagues removed from how the apostles speak about men, women, and leadership in the church.

Paul said, "Women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says" (1 Cor. 14:33).

And again Paul writes, "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet" (1 Tim. 2:11–12).

We could add to these verses many others, which say that a pastor/elder should be "a husband of one wife" (1 Tim. 3:2) and a man who "must manage his household well" (1 Tim. 3:4).

In other words, the Lord has designed his household to be led by father-like elders/pastors/overseers (cf. 1 Cor. 4:15), that is, men who lead the church in a similar way that a husband is the head of his wife (Eph. 5:23). For while Christ is the church's true Head (Eph. 4:15) and Chief Shepherd (1 Pet. 5:4), pastors are representative heads and shepherds who serve on his behalf (1 Pet. 5:2; Heb. 13:7, 17).

Either the apostles were wrong when they said these things—which is blasphemous, since the Holy Spirit inspired their words (2 Pet. 1:21; 2 Tim. 3:16)—or they was right and Mandrell is undermining them, whether he intends to or not.

I've written at length on these kinds of problems here: americanreformer.org/2024/04/differ…

The egalitarian outlook of the West means that male-female distinctions ought to receive far more attention than they do in many circles.

To that end, here's a primer on the sexes, according to the Word of our Maker, who loves us and knows what men and women are for 🧵👇🏻 Q. What is Scripture’s basic teaching on the natural differences between men and women?

A: The basic scriptural teaching on the sexes is that God designed men and women in different ways and for different purposes.

To say this another way, the Bible teaches that:

(1) men and women are not the same,
(2) the differences between men and women are meaningful features of God’s design, and
(3) the failure to embrace divinely instituted sexual differences is therefore harmful to life and doctrine.

These teachings begin in the very beginning (Gen 1–3), where Moses records the origins of the first man and woman with careful detail, showing God’s deliberate creation of each sex.

The man is formed from the ground, named after the ground, commissioned as a royal priest, and connected with working the ground (Gen 2:7, 15, 20; 3:17–19). The woman is created for the man (to be his helper), built from the man, named after (and by) the man, and connected with her capacity for bearing children (Gen 2:18, 22–23; 3:16, 20).

There is significant asymmetry here, but also harmony [cbmw.org/journal/a-bibl…]. God not only made men and women different from each other but also different for each other, that is, with mutually beneficial complementarity.

In this way, God’s creation of men and women both precedes and explains the differing imperatives he gives to each. For “God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (1 Cor 14:33); therefore, there is consonance between what God created and what he commands.

This is why men may do some things and must do other things but cannot do all things. The same is true for women. Hence, while “there is no male and female” so far as access to the gospel is concerned (Gal 3:26–28), there is male and female in God’s design, and his design is “very good” (Gen 1:31).

I've spent several years researching and writing on the scriptural vision of the sexes.

Since finishing my doctoral thesis, I've been honored to write for a few organizations about this topic.

Here's a thread with some of those pieces, along with others I've found helpful 🧵👇🏻 The basic scriptural vision of the sexes is one of harmonious asymmetry. I've written on that for Eikon / @CBMWorg here:

cbmw.org/2024/06/10/a-b…

My wife once asked me, "Why did God have to become human in order to save us?"

It's the same question Athanasius addressed in On the Incarnation of the Word (ca. AD 319).

His answer is masterful, and it's one reason why I named my first son after him. 🧵👇🏻 Speaking on the occasion for the incarnation, Athanasius writes:

“[Humanity] went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright, coming under the law of death to live no longer in paradise but to die outside of it. This is why Holy Scripture says, proclaiming the command of God, ‘Of every tree that is in the garden you may surely eat, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you do eat, you shall surely die’ [Genesis 2:16–17].

It was our sorry cause that caused the Word of God to come down, our transgression that called out His love for us, so that He made haste to help us and to appear among us. It is we who were the cause of His taking human form, and for our salvation He was born in a human body. For this was the plight of men: turning from eternal things to things corruptible, by the counsel of the devil, they became the cause of their own corruption in death.

Thus, the law of death, which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape. It would have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word, such that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which one had shared the nature of the Word [i.e., the life and light of God] should perish and remain in the state of death and corruption.”

The Ten Commandments continue to be a source of great confusion to many people, which is a shame, as they were graciously given by the Lord to serve (in part) “as a rule of life” for believers (WCF 19.6 / LBCF 19.6).

Here's what I've learned after years of study 🧵👇🏻

https://twitter.com/dougponder/status/1834309704761434606

First, the Ten Commandments are more accurately called the Decalogue (from the Latin meaning “Ten Words” or “Ten Statements”). This reminds us that Exod. 20 and Deut. 5 contain more than commands, for they also give reasons for obeying them.

To be sure, they do contain ten imperatives, ten commands. But they contain more than this as well (like reasons for obeying and explanations or grounds given for the commands).

There is even a sense in which the Decalogue is both a statement of what is required from us and a promised-shaped picture of the kind of people God will sanctify us to become (thou shalt → thou will).

Think Phil. 1:6 + Phil. 2:13 and you've got the general idea.

There’s a lot of talk—esp. in election years—about Christians and the poor.

To be sure, God commands us to care for the needy (e.g., Ps. 82:3; Isa. 1:17; Jas. 1:27).

But the biblical teaching on poverty and wealth is more detailed, and we neglect it to the ruin of many 🧵👇🏻 The problem is this:

Ideas springing from Marxist thought have led many to think in simplistic terms about poverty and wealth.

In essence, we are taught that the poor are righteous and the wealthy are evil (unjust, greedy, etc.).

But the Bible teaches us to think differently.

I've received a lot of solid interaction on this post, but one of my favorite comments asked why the Holy Spirit might inspire an author to use different terms if he didn't intend to signal a change in meaning.

There's a good reason, and it helps us think well about language 👇🏻 I noticed the following when writing my doctoral thesis (which focused on the ways in which Gen. 1–3 establish a vision of the sexes that later biblical authors embrace and develop in various ways).

Look at how three NT authors cite Gen. 2:24 from the Septuagint (LXX):

Whenever I teach NT Greek, I walk my students through the use of ἀγαπάω (agapaō) and φιλέω (phileō) in John 21:15–17, showing them why I think the "common" (read: modern) interpretation of Jesus's words is probably wrong, and why it matters that we get it right 🧵👇🏻 Here's the passage in the ESV:

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love [ἀγαπᾷς] me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love [φιλῶ] you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love [ἀγαπᾷς] me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love [φιλῶ] you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love [φιλεῖς] me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love [φιλεῖς] me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love [φιλῶ] you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15–17)

As you can see, the words translated as "love" in English are different. Even beginning Greek students can see that. The problem is what people often do with these differences...

Many pastors feel such a burden to get The Correct™ meaning from a particular passage that they lose sight of what and why pastors are to preach in the first place.

Augustine of Hippo offers refreshing advice to preachers on this point 🧵👇🏻 In his classic work, On Christian Doctrine (aka De Doctrina Christiana), Augustine writes:

“That interpretation of Scripture which builds us up in love is not perniciously deceptive nor mendacious [i.e., untruthful], even though it be faulty.” (Augustine, DDC, Bk I: 36.40)

It would seem Augustine is much less worried about “preaching the right doctrine from the wrong text” than your seminary hermeneutics professor probably was.

Instead, there is a far worse error Augustine is keen to avoid:

Our monthly elder meetings consist of feasting together, praying for our people, and discussing helpful books (both ancient and modern).

Last night we talked about @joe_rigney's latest, Leadership and Emotional Sabotage, a short book worthy of a long thread 🧵👇🏻 Every elder at the meeting greatly appreciated the book.

The consensus was that Rigney has accurately diagnosed a widespread problem and given us specific steps we can take to remedy it.

IOW, he understands the times and knows what God's people ought to do (1 Chr. 12:32).

This thread has received a lot of praise, which is baffling to me, as most of his claims consist of contorted egalitarian arguments coupled with a seemingly poor understanding of complementarian arguments.

Here’s a point-by-point reply:

https://twitter.com/kenschenck/status/1803040079494942781

Schenck: “I affirm women in all roles of ministry leadership on the following basis:

1. Women arguably play every such role in Scripture except one. That's the OT priestly role that Hebrews 7 says is definitively fulfilled in Christ (so doesn't apply to this conversation).”

There are two claims here: (1) that women served in every ministry leadership role except one, and (2) that the one office that excluded them (the priesthood) was fulfilled in Christ and therefore no longer applies.

Let’s start with the second claim: There are several problems with the argument that Christ is the high priest who fulfills the Israelite priesthood and therefore all ministry positions are now open to women, but the main issue is that treats Christ’s priestly work as having fulfilled (and thus abrogated) *all* of the duties of the priest.

Yet the author of Hebrews clearly connects Christ’s priestly ministry to the offering of atoning sacrifices. But a close reading of the OT shows that priests in Israel had other responsibilities beyond this, including mercy ministries of healing (Lev. 13) that find an analog in the pastoral prayers and anointing for healing in James 5. Christ’s perpetual priesthood did not abolish the priestly work of pastoral prayer. Rather, it further confirms and establishes it (James 5:14).

Furthermore, the priests were the authoritative teachers in Israel (Deut. 31:9–13, Hos. 4:6; Mal. 2:7). In other words, in addition to offering sacrifices, it was their job to work/serve by giving instruction and to guard/keep Israel from sin and uncleanness.

Crucially, these two priestly functions predate sin and the sacrificial system—which means they are the sort of work that cannot be abrogated in the same way that the temporary and provisional sacrificial system could be.We see this in the work of Adam in the guard, the first priest, who is told to “work/serve” (עָבַד) and “keep/guard” (שָׁמַר) the garden sanctuary (Gen. 2:15). G. K. Beale has shown that these words, whenever used in conjunction, always refer to the duties of a priest (cf. Num. 3:7–8).

Significantly, Eve does not exist when Adam is given this commission from the Lord. Nor does she exist when Adam is to told not to eat from the tree of knowledge (Gen. 2:16–17). This points to differentiation in the sexes as regards their complementarity functions (Gen. 2:18). This also explains why, when Eve eats of the tree, nothing happens (Gen. 3:6a). But when Adam eats from the tree (Gen. 3:6b), “then the eyes of both were opened” (Gen. 3:7).

The Lord reinforces this distinction in Gen. 3:17, when he faults Adam for “listening to the voice of your wife” and for violating the command the Lord directly gave him (the verbs in Gen. 3:17 all have second person masculine singular subjects, indicating that the command not to eat from the tree was Adam’s responsibility).

The biblical authors are aware of these significant subtleties and make use of them in many places. (Another thread for another day.) But one clear example is seen in Malachi 2:7, where we are told that the duties of the priest are as follows; “The lips of a priest should guard [שָׁמַר] knowledge [same word used for the tree of “knowledge” in Gen. 2:9] and people should seek instruction [torah] from his mouth, for he is the messenger [angel] of the Lord of hosts.”

This is precisely the sort of duties that the officer of pastor / elder / overseer are entrusted with in the New Testament. Hence they must be “able to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2) and to “manage his own household” (1 Tim. 3:5)—echoes of Adam’s role in Eden—and he must “be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9). In other words, they are charged, like Timothy the pastor, to “guard the deposit” entrusted to them (1 Tim. 6:20).

So, then, the fact that Christ is our Great High Priest in no way means that pastors / elders / overseers are not to carry out the non-sacrificial aspects of the priesthood in the Old Testament. On the contrary, they are explicitly told to do so. Paul even makes reference to the garden, and to Adam’s unique responsibilities, in his infamous argument that a woman is not to teach or exercise authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11–15). Paul is not arguing from primogeniture, as some have erroneously thought, but from the typology of the priesthood, which he clearly understands to have important for how men and women conduct themselves in the household of God (1 Tim. 3:15).

It's no surprise to those who follow me that I was deeply disappointed the Law amendment (@sbcamendment) failed to pass at the #SBC this week.

There were many factors at play in this scenario, one of which is a deep confusion that's likely to get worse before it gets better 🧵👇🏻 The most pressing issue is ignored because many debates tend to be surface-level.

E.g., many debate whether a woman can preach or be a pastor without being an elder / overseer, failing to ask a more foundational question.

Let's trace the surface-level debates to the root issue:

I found this list of quotes that lend support to the Law amendment (@sbcamendment) 👇🏻

“The ocean of church autonomy stops at the shore of biblical authority. Local autonomy, without biblical authority, becomes spiritual anarchy.”

—James Merritt, SBC Presidential Address, 2001. “It is the height of spiritual cowardice and theological hypocrisy to hide behind the skirt of church autonomy, or the priesthood of the believer, while pretending that churches can do anything they want to do, or believe anything they want to believe, and still be Baptist.”

—James Merritt, SBC Presidential Address, 2001

Lots to consider in this graph on Persistent Sadness and Hopelessness (PSH) 👇🏻🧵 1. The most obvious fact is that LGBT teens are not doing well... despite increasing attention in media, news, etc., and expanded legal rights (Obergefell in 2015).

IOW, the rise in PSH doesn’t stem from oppression but from something else (like moral confusion & rebellion).

🏳️‍🌈/🏳️‍⚧️: "Why won't you attend my 'wedding'?"

⛪️: "The Man on the middle cross said I can't come." Based on the growing list of commenters, it would seem that detractors miss the point in one three ways:

1. The "gay marriage isn't sin" crowd.
2. The "Jesus ate with sinners" crowd.
3. The "You're being mean to Begg" crowd.

A response to each:

Too many complementarians rely on sparse proof texts for their understanding of the sexes, and this leaves them vulnerable to all kinds of threats, one of which @joe_rigney highlights here.

But the Scriptures everywhere assert the fundamental asymmetry of male and female. 🧵👇🏻 When it comes to a theology of the sexes, modern Westerners almost invariably begin in the wrong place.

That is, we tend to start with the equality of the sexes, but this overlooks the emphasis of the biblical authors, who stress the harmonious asymmetry of the sexes.

2/

Every semester I get questions about the biblical use of "pastor," "elder," and "overseer."

This is usually b/c a student's church is wondering whether women can serve as "pastors" without being "elders."

The short answer is "no."

The long answer starts with this graphic 👇🏻🧵 As the image above shows, the terms enjoy a significant level of overlap. Twice they are used synonymously in the very same paragraph:

In Acts 20:28, Paul exhorts the elders of Miletus (20:17) to pastor (ποιμαίνειν) the flock of God (τῷ ποιμνίῳ) as overseers (ἐπισκόπους).

2/

“We men may often make very bad priests. That is because we are insufficiently masculine. It is no cure to call in those who are not masculine at all.”

—C. S. Lewis, “Priestesses in the Church?” (1948) For further reflection:

The priests in Israel were tasked with working / serving (עָבַד) the altar, keeping / guarding (שָׁמַר) the sanctuary from unclean things and people (Num. 18:7), and instructing the people from God’s Word (Lev. 10:10).

Serve, guard, teach.

2/