Dear Janet,
We are not Southern Baptists, but since we do believe the Bible, we were likewise offended by your June 12th column in the Denton Record-Chronicle. We think we have lives and are sorry that you have such a low opinion of those who, unlike you, have faith in God and in His word.
The purpose of this letter is not to defend Southern Baptists or what they decided to do in their conventions; rather, it is to point out to you (and whoever else may read it) that the wisdom of God is higher than the wisdom of man–or woman (Isaiah 55:8-9).
Particularly offensive is your attack upon Paul and the validity of his writings. You wrote:
As far as these verses being commandments from God or teachings of Jesus worthy of recognition as a statement of faith, remember that this is Paul speaking, not God or Jesus directly.
This paragraph is absolutely incredible. No one who has studied the Scriptures could possibly write these words. In the first place, they imply that a Bible teaching is only valid if God or Jesus personally said something. So what did they personally say in the books of Acts, Romans, and all the other letters up to the book of Revelation? Paul wrote the bulk of the New Testament letters, but you have nullified the importance of all New Testament writers, including Peter, James, and Jude. These books comprise the basis of New Testament doctrine. Are they to be summarily dismissed?
Second, Paul and the others were inspired by the Holy Spirit in what they said and wrote. Jesus promised His apostles: “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come” (John 16:13). The apostles, then, did not invent teachings to suit themselves. They were only teaching the message that the Holy Spirit provided them.
Some might think they see a loophole here since Paul was not among the apostles when Jesus spoke these words. Such a notion, however, would be a mistake. Paul commented on the source of his doctrine:
But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came by the revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11-12).
Jesus selected Paul (Acts 9) as an apostle. When He sent Ananias to a now penitent Saul of Tarsus, He told him: “. . .he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel” (Acts 9:15). Just as Jesus selected all his other apostles, so He personally chose Saul. Paul also wrote:
If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37).
Janet, you may have unwittingly disqualified yourself from being a spiritual person, in light of your comments.
Paul also wrote:
For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe (1 Thess. 2:13).
These brethren apparently had little trouble believing that Paul taught them the inspired Word of God, yet you do. Perhaps their attitude might serve as an inspiration for you. Since the Bible is also referred to as the Holy Scriptures, perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider these words of Jesus’ apostle:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Theoretically, someone might object to all these passages of Scripture that Paul wrote about his own inspiration on the ground that he is bearing witness of himself and that therefore his testimony must be discounted. That would be a big mistake.
Certainly Paul, his apostleship, and his teachings are endorsed in the book of Acts. In an effort to negate the influence of Paul, one would need to attack Luke, also–thus destroying the only inspired history of the early church and in the process casting out all of the marvelous teachings of Jesus in the book of Luke (once Luke is discredited, his gospel account of Jesus’ life also becomes worthless).
Furthermore, Peter also endorsed the writings of Paul:
. . .as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16).
Jesus personally promised Peter that the Holy Spirit would guide him into all truth (John 16:13), and Peter bears witness to the fact that Paul wrote Scripture. Will you now find that Peter is suspect (especially since he shares Paul’s view of women, 1 Peter 3:1-7), along with John who recorded the promise of inspiration? Ms. McDaniel, your canon is shrinking fast.
Let’s face facts. Sooner or later, you will have to consider the possibility that Paul, Peter, Luke, and John are right about inspiration and women being submissive and that you are wrong. All of the New Testament writers are speaking and teaching what God has authorized them to say. Your real dissatisfaction is with God Himself.
Could you explain why it is “discrimination” for the husband to be the head of the wife and for her to submit to him? You don’t seem to have any problem understanding Ephesians 5:32-33; what is so different about verses 22-25? The husband is required to love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. Does this description sound tyrannical? Does the submission of a wife to her husband exclude a fair discussion in which the views of both are exchanged?
Granted, some issues may not be solved satisfactorily for all involved, but is it better to have constant bickering, open hostilities, and ruined marriages than for one partner to submit to the judgment (even if it is at times erroneous) of the other? There may be more wisdom in God’s system than you are willing to give Him credit for.
The assumption so many people make is that headship and submission imply superiority and inferiority. Such is not at all the case. Many wives are more spiritually-minded than their husbands. Even if the husband is willing to abdicate his spiritual leadership responsibilities, God has not authorized such a role reversal.
Frequently, wives are smarter than their husbands; they may also be more skilled. All these considerations, however, are beside the point. God still gave the headship in the home to men, just as he did in the church (1 Tim. 2:11-14).
The fact that God has assigned different roles to men and women has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. Anyone who doubts the truth of that statement (or God who originated it) should take a look at 1 Corinthians 11:3.
But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
First, please notice that man is not without his own head–Christ. Second, ask the question, “Is Christ inferior because the Father is His head?” How many times do the Scriptures show that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal (2 Cor. 13:14)? Yet, Jesus did not consider His equality with the Father as something that would prevent Him from submitting to Him. Even the message that He preached was not His own; He got it from the Father (John 12:48-50). If Jesus can submit to the Father and retain equality with Him, why is the same thing not possible between wives and husbands?
One more question that you might consider, Janet: Is “middle-class status” so sacred that the family relationships must suffer to obtain or retain it? What did Jesus teach about the vulnerability of material things to corruption or theft (Matt. 6:19-21)? What did He teach about God supplying our needs (Matt. 6:25-34)? Prosperity may make good political campaign rhetoric, but Christians ought to have a more spiritual emphasis.