Overview
Page 1 Explanatory Note – Pitfalls, fallacies and other errors.
The aim of this forward is to set the groundwork and the basis from which the paper “Errors of Inference” is written and to look in some detail at the pitfalls in reason and logic that lead to the misunderstanding of scriptural passages.
Page 3 Errors of inference
As an explanation of the types of fallacies we accept, I pose the following:
FACT Joe Bloggs is a doctor. Joe Bloggs lives in Dubbo. Sick people go to Dubbo to receive diagnosis from Joe Bloggs.
INFERENCE Joe Blogg’s practice is situated in Dubbo.
CONCLUSION Therefore Joe Bloggs doesn’t receive visits from people anywhere else but in Dubbo.
Note that the Fact does not say that sick people “only go to Dubbo”. The error with this type of reasoning is the assumption that he does not have a practice in any other town than where he lives. He may also have a practice in Tamworth and the fact that people choose to go to Dubbo does not mean that he never sees patients elsewhere. Therefore the conclusion drawn is not correct
Page 4 “Excellent woman” expectations
Or what about the woman who had the issue of blood and had spent ALL of her money on doctors? According to the qualification of the virtuous woman, she should have known better! She wasn’t buying property or sewing for the needy, but spent all her money on a cure. Did she get up early and “provide food for her household”, and did “her hands hold the distaff”, and “with the fruit of her hand” did she “plant a vineyard”? Or did she just struggle to get out of bed every day, but had faith that Jesus could heal?
Page 8 Deborah – judge or advisor?
The statement in slide 209 ”As a judge she decided cases of law in a private capacity, but there is no reference to her teaching in any assembled group” has no biblical support and contradicts the record that “the children of Israel came up to her for judgment”. It is like saying: “Joe is a judge. Joe handles individual private matters of law. Joe privately hands down his verdict on a matter. Therefore Joe has only been a judge in private matters, not matters involving the nation.” Does such a conclusion follow? Just because Joe privately hands down his verdict on private matters, that doesn’t mean he never judges matters involving the nation.
Page 13 Anna, Huldah and an argument on circumcision
Do the PowerPoint presenters find difficulty with Huldah the prophetess? Bro Michael Lewis writes, “Why a prophetess at that particular time? It is quite clear from the context that the nation had drifted completely away from God. … The very men who should have been spiritual leaders of the nation had neglected their task, and the fact that God spoke to them through a women was a rebuke in itself….” (Man and Woman, page 37). This is the old “Let’s use a woman…that’ll teach ’em!” routine. This is a gross error of reasoning and a slur upon the value of all female prophets. The record says no such thing. In fact the record details the work of many faithful men working extremely hard to restore worship in Jerusalem!
Page 14 Eve usurps? And Adam allows it? – WHAT!!
· Eve’s failure was in exercising authority over Adam, in becoming the ‘origin’ of events and the source of direction. Adam’s failing was to allow it to happen”. Man and Woman (page 68)
· Adam was not deceived; and had he retained his authority the fall would never have happened; instead he allowed Eve to take the lead. Man and Woman (page 95)
· Eve took the initiative over Adam … should not have. Powerpoint (slide 54)
· And so Eve bids Adam follow her example; and Adam, with no recorded remonstration or dissent, accepts her lead. The Christadelphian, 2008 (page 89)
These statements are being put forward by some, as truth, and I have chosen to highlight these as the basis of this next section. If we deduce that Eve usurped Adam by taking the leading role, then the rest of the argument is acceptable. What if we hold an alternative view?
Page 15 Eve – a liar, deceiver, murderer, usurper, temptress, antagonist, actress or activist?
Will the real Eve please stand up?!
It would appear that the brothers are trying to imply that the usurping, the getting Adam to eat, plus, the taking of the lead and not harkening to Adam are considered to be the REAL sin, rather than disobedience of the LAW. Further, they seem to be suggesting that it was a desire, without serpent prompting, that influenced Eve to supposedly usurp.
Page 20 First in, first served. True or false?
This slide is used to introduce a supposed a principle that order of reckoning and accountability is first to last. But in the passing of the sentence in Eden, God passes sentence on the serpent first, then the woman and finally the man. This proves nothing either way, unless it can be shown elsewhere. I think it is another case of, “If it is not true it ought to be.”
Page 21 To hearken or not to hearken? That is the question.
This slide is one of the main themes throughout this presentation and throughout bro Michael Lewis’ book. A great deal of importance is placed on men not hearkening to women. If you can build a case for men not listening to women, then this is the one! Not surprisingly, the slide presentation ignores Abraham and Sarah, David and Abigail, etc. So let’s test this “sinful” hearkening idea and see if it is a definitive truth throughout scripture....Looking at Abraham and Sarah.....Esther vs Jezebel.....Moses and Zipporah.....David and Abigail....Men hearkening to men
Page 23 Women Speaking? Is silence golden?
Is this “leadership” instruction given to the elect lady, the type that could (if she was to speak the message to her ecclesia), be called “usurping” or “taking the lead” or “teaching” – that women are instructed by Paul not to show? Or, will we make the assumption that the letter was written to a woman because there were no men showing leadership? Or, could we go so far and suggest that she wasn’t to speak the letter but to hand it to a man for him to speak the contents?
Page 26 Hannah’s leadership and initiative is accepted by her husband and God is well pleased!
Here was a faithful, barren woman in Israel, whose sorrow at the behaviour of the sons of Belial and their wickedness caused her heartache. Her desire was to bear a son for the express purpose of serving God: “I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life” (1 Sam 1:11 AV). This was a powerful expression of a faithful heart. Her prayer is one that shines from the pages of scripture as to the attitude she had for her maker. God saw into her heart, and in accordance to His will and purpose for Israel and His love for this faithful woman, He opened her womb.
Page 28 Prayer – The tangled web
This idea that women could have the gift of prophecy but were not permitted to communicate the prophecy or interpret it, is stretching credulity to breaking point. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that this was so and the conclusion has been made because the PowerPoint is trying to draw passages together and make them fit. The DVD and PowerPoint give the idea that sisters could be used as the vehicle for receiving but not for dispatching.
Page 30 Don’t do what we do; do what we say!
All of the above seems comical to outsiders and we surely wouldn’t be so bold to say that God is well pleased with these arrangements if the Headship principle is real. All are clever solutions to avoid the apparent command “Let women keep silent … and if they desire to learn anything (or ask a question), let them ask their own husbands at home for it is improper for a woman to speak in church” (1 Cor 14:34-35). I noted that the PowerPoint were reluctant to expand on this quote and it is conspicuous in its absence. A creative solution was once suggested by a brother when a Care Group activity was to be......
Page 31 Close the floodgates! What will be next?
So, should women only follow men who are sound or will any man do? What was the warning about brothers? What were the characteristics of these leaders in Timothy’s time: “lovers of their own selves, proud, … false accusers, … having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Tim 3:2-5)? Is this where the problem lies or was it the problem of the silly women – because they were led?
Page 32 The Baptist Minister – or how to adopt a “beguiling argument”
I was totally fascinated to discover that the arguments and wording of this PowerPoint seem to be very similar to a book put out under the editorship of two conservative evangelical theologians John Piper and Wayne Grudem. The book is called Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood – A response to Evangelical Feminism. John Piper is a Baptist Minister and Wayne Grudem is Associate Professor of Biblical and Systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Similar tones and words were used and in some cases direct quotes seem to have been plagiarized. Words in Red for comparison by the writer.
Has the presenter taken heed of his own advice? It would appear that he has taken the church view as being right and correct: BOTH COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION. The church writers in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood have different understandings from Christadelphians on almost every doctrine:
· THE NATURE OF MAN (“IMMORTAL SOUL”)
· SUBSTITUTIONARY VIEWS OF THE ATONEMENT
· HEAVEN FOR THE RIGHTEOUS AND HELL FOR THE WICKED
· A LITERAL SUPERNATURAL DEVIL – WITH SATAN USURPING GOD
· A TRINITARIAN CONCEPT OF THE GODHEAD
· CHRIST THE PRE-EXISTENT THIRD PERSON OF THE TRINITY
Yet these writers all can come up with the same conclusion as the presenters of the DVD. Please explain to me how this is possible?
Page 39 Spot the difference. YES MINISTER!
This next section has been inserted to highlight the similarity of thought and concepts, not direct quotes, which have influenced the brethren to write in the Christadelphian Magazine. While these work well for the Minister, when it comes to the brotherhood they are full of inference and supposition. Some are also truths with a twist.
Page 41 Feminism, Misogyny, Egalitarianism. Quick! Get the dictionary!
The argument that Adam supposedly used in Eden “the woman whom thou gavest to be with me” appears to still be the catch cry among leading brothers of our day. Very little is said in the DVD presentation about it being the responsibility of the brothers to nurture the environment where it could be said of our sisters, “the heart of the brethren trust in them that they will do good and not evil all the days of their lives” (Prov 31:11-12).
Page 43 Bring back the good old days! But what about Ecclesiastes 7:10?
We ask the question at this point: If the current thinking about women’s issues is being blamed on society for having impacted our perceptions on certain issues, could we also say that the thinking of our pioneer brethren on certain matters was influenced by society perceptions of their day? Have the advances of medical science changed our view on the popular belief held by bre Thomas and Roberts on phrenology? Did American society influence Dr Thomas’s views on slavery? Did bro Roberts’ racial views in The Blood of Christ reflect his feelings on “Indian half-castes?” We note that the Christadelphian view on this issue was not changed because we came to a better knowledge of the subject from reading scripture more thoroughly. Rather it came from society pressure, exerted on the brotherhood, to rewrite certain statements and pamphlets. Note bro Roberts’ different view on slavery was acknowledged by bro Roberts as being influenced, for the better, by reading Uncle Tom’s Cabin.
Page 46.......19th Century got it right? Maybe not from where I’m sitting.
English culture changed so much in a 50 year period (from 1848-1904) that bro Walker was drawn to adjust the writings of the founding fathers of our movement to better reflect the role of the male and female in the ecclesia and society. Is it not therefore appropriate that 100 years from the revisions that bro Walker made of Elpis Israel, that, if society’s change in thinking in relation to the English “class” structure has shifted, then the ecclesial world would adopt these more egalitarian attitudes? Many older brothers and sisters will remember the old days of English ecclesial life where the class structure was entrenched within the brotherhood.
Page 48.....Wish list – or hit list?
Australia, from its conception, did not adopt the class conscious ideals of the “old country” and as a result could have attributed to it the label of “Egalitarian Society”. Are we to suggest that the “label” of the egalitarian society that was adopted in those early years was to blame for “sisters speaking” creeping into our ecclesia as it has been portrayed in the PowerPoint presentation? Would we rather return to a non-egalitarian society where the child of a King had a “whipping boy” or the non-egalitarian society that operates in parts of India where the human rights of the very poor are violated every day based on their caste structure?
Page 49 Twists, turns and cultural bias
Just in case you believe I hold the position of absolute tolerance to a more liberal position, let me make it clear that I don’t. I find this subject very difficult. In having reviewed many documents and books regarding this subject, I have come to the conclusion that many writers, including the PowerPoint presentation, have not reflected the whole truth correctly and have, by misrepresentation of passages, inferences and conclusions, built an argument that is false in an effort to get the reader to align themselves to the writer’s position.
Page 50 Male leadership – or lack of it?
Leadership is no longer exhibited by tolerant discussion, or patient example. Leadership is not defined as “servitude” (servant leadership) or “laying down of self”. Leadership of meekness, gentleness and love has been seen as weakness, over-tolerance or sheer avoidance.
Page 52 Finally – what more can be said?
On the other hand Christ says, “But with you it is different”. If you want to be heralded by God as being great for Christ’s sake, then take on the role of a servant, for Christ came to serve and give HIS LIFE a ransom for many.
I would like to encourage you ,to get people like my self to think is a hard position to take on.I tend to read and agree with what I,v read and yes this can be a dangerous attitude.
Yaweh would like us to read his word and act independently as his son did and many other examples in Bible.
I can relate to your frustration on lack of Christ like Leader ship in the ecclessial world even though I firmly believe that Christ is in control and can be accessed through pray.This is what builds up our relationship with him.Our trials and frustrations are all worth it if and when we turn to our heavenly father and pray leaving our frustration and concerns with him.He will lead us into action if necessary or have us in patience waiting.
I have a voice and feel like it is heard that is enough for me for now.
I won't to finish in saying women are strong and the most important people in our lives now this Our Father in heaven and Chris...