"God has not called a female to the role of rebuking or correcting male leaders in the church in any way, especially in front of an entire class."
"A Christian woman has no right to oppose her husband or the male leadership of her church so long as these men are not asking her to sin. She does not have to agree with the counsel of her husband or her spiritual leaders, but she does have to submit to it."
-- Ed Dingess, on his blog, Reformed Reasons
This page is offered to issue a warning about Ed Dingess, an unconscionable bully who attempts to use power plays to disrupt ministries and express his personal fear of, and disdain for, sound scholarship. This page is also provided because Dingess has made it his business to "tattle" on those he perceives as threats, and presents one-sided stories of himself as an innocent victim who has the best interests of the church at heart; it is also provided because Dingess is an unconscionable misogynist who rejects sound scholarship in order to twist Scripture into supporting his bigoted attitudes towards women. Though he presents himself as an innocent victim, Dingess has only his own pride to defend, and childishly uses authoritarian tactics to get self-satisfaction. He may be convicted by his own words as a bully, hypocrite, and misogynist.
See responses to Dingess' vain self-defenses below. Also see full documentation offered on a forum thread here in which Dingess participated.
Over the years this site has deemed it necessary to use harsh language as a shaming device, in accord with indisputable Biblical principles. We reserve such harshness only for those who show themselves by their actions and words to be a demonstrably negative influence in or on the Body of Christ. In this case, Dingess, though professing to be a Christian, has exhibited behaviors and declarations that are:
Please note that 1) No less than three times, Dingess was made an offer to abandon his stalking behavior, and that in return, this warning page, along with (per his expressed desire) his TWeb postings, would be removed. He refused these offers, and so indicates that he had no interest in settling it, but would rather pridefully continue his crusade. 2) Dingess was directly told that his actions were causing undue stress on a third party, and his reply was that this third party should simply be kept in the dark about what he was doing!
Academic Fraudulence and Disdain
Fraudulent or Misleading Self-Claims
Despite the denigration of scholars above, Dingess attempts to present a front to others in which he poses as a scholar. He presents himself as having credentials in theology, proudly labelling hmself with a "Th. D." His "degree," however, is an academically worthless piece of paper from a non-accredited private institution, which his statements indicate is Tyndale Theological Seminary. That he does not admit this on his blog is a sign of rank dishonesty and indicates that he wishes to intimidate readers with his professed credentials.
He has claimed this his degree is not from this institution. However, in a 2008 comment on a discussion board, he said:
I am a doctoral student at Tyndale Theological Seminary and have been very disturbed by the imposition of the Mosiac Law on New Covenant believers.
In 2007, he had said on another blog, "I am finishing up at Tyndale Theological Seminary." So Dingess either withdrew from the Tyndale program (although he was "finishing up"!) and got his "doctorate" from some other unaccredited school which would accept Tyndale's credits, or did indeed get it from Tyndale -- and it is signifcant that he continually refuses to say what school he did get it from, if not Tyndale. Clearly Dingess is tying to pose himself as a credentialed commentator when he is not.
A survey of Tyndale staff reveals that it is hardly a credible institution. This information is accounted for below.
Update: We have discovered that while Dingess was being truthful about not getting his doctorate from Tyndale, the truth, as expected, is that he got it from another unaccredited school -- Louisiana Baptist Theological Seminary, and this only in April 2011!
Disdain for Scholars
Dingess heavy-handedly rejects the works of scholars who do not adhere to a sufficiently (in his view) conservative/evangelical view of Scripture. In particular, he rejects any claims of fact that disturb his understanding of Scripture as somehow "transcendant". This obscurantist attitude is reflected in the following set of comments by Dingess:
Social Science Criticism is best viewed as an interdisciplinary approach as opposed to Malina's desire to turn it into a model that even Scripture is subservient to. SSC as a critical tool is a naturalistic model/discipline built on naturalistic presuppositions. As such, it has significant limitations accounting for the overall nature, orgin, and purpose of Scripture. While it is highly useful in helping one understand the social context in which Scripture was written, its presuppositions preclude it from serving as a model or even primary discipline by which one investigates the text if one holds to the evangelical doctrine of Scripture. Evangelical readers that subscribe to the inerrancy, inspiration, and authority of Scripture must use SSC with caution and an ever critical eye.
This statement is obscurantist and misleading. There is no evidence that Malina or anyone else wants to make Scripture "subservient to" social science studies or criticism, any more than it could be said that eg, Dan Wallace wants to make Scripture "subservient to" lexical studies. Second, there is nothing particularly "naturalistic" about social science studies or criticism any more than there is anything naturalistic about linguistic studies. While of course both may be used by those with naturalist bent to force desired conclusions, that is obviously not a function of them as areas of study per se. Third, even if it did have inherent naturalist assumptions, that does not by any means render any of its findings false, or make them inapplicable to the purpose of interpreting Scripture, or its nature (in terms of forms of expression). It is not hostile to an "evangelical" interpretation of Scripture in any sense, though it is apparently in conflict at times with Dingess' interpretations. It is also absurd to suggest that social science studies and criticism might somehow be at odds with the "inerrancy, inspiration, and authority of Scripture". If anything, it has enabled several viable and solid defenses of the inerrancy of Scripture (and this, even though few who pursue it are interested in that subject or believe in inerrancy). It has also served to debunk the suppositions of many enemies of Scripture, ranging from hostile atheists to early critics like Rudolf Bultmann. Clearly when Dingess speaks of using social science with a "critical eye" he means nothing more than that one should watch out for anything from it that disagrees with his view of Scripture.
The most prominent adherents of SSC are not evangelical in theology. They do not hold to a high view of Scripture for the most part. In fact, unless the conversation is speaking directly about God, Malina wants the word "theology" replaced with ideology. This reflects his overly optimistic view of human reason and inflated confidence in social science in my opinion. Critical approaches to Scripture rest on a worldlview. The adherents bring with the approach a host of presuppositions. Those presuppositions must be measured against the truths revealed in Scripture to ensure they comport with Christian ethics. Not all critical approaches to the text are "redeemed." This should come as no surprise. Since much of the social sciences are constructed on the philosophical foundations of men like Marx, one would be well-served to take their assertions with a grain of salt and be a good Berean, measuring all things according to God's revelation.
In all of this, Dingess engages in extended ad hominem against scholars like Malina, delivering unwarranted and unsubstantiated assessments concerning their alleged biases. It should be noted that Dingess frequently appeals to a nebulous "Christian ethic" as his standard. This "ethic" amounts to Dingess' particular interpretations of Scripture, such that any finding that contradicts that "ethic" is automatically dismissed. Beyond this, the allusion to Marx is a non sequitur, and patently false: The social sciences are a very broad discipline with a variety of concerns; there is no relevance to or connection between Marx and such things as the agonistic (honor-shame) orientation of the New Testament world.
Despite his pretense towards scholarship, Dingess makes a wide vartiety of outlandish statements concerning Biblical studies. Here are some samples.
I think another good question would concern religious freedom and other freedoms in those societies. After all, collectivist cultures tend to communistic in economic philosophy.
This is patently false. Collectivist cultures have been and are even now everything from representative democracies with ample freedom (Japan) to theocracies with almost none (Iran). On the other hand, communism was the product of Marx, whose own motives were based on the reputed freedom of the individual worker. In reality, there is no connection between social collectivism and communism.
It is illegitimate praxis to deem one culture above another as if it is morally superior on the sole basis that it is the culture that Christ inhabited. That is a baseless assumption if ever there was one. In fact, one could argue that there was never a more hypocritical culture in the history of man than the one into which Christ was born.
This amazing statement contains innumerable errors. No one is professing that any culture is "morally superior" -- the point rather is that the actions and words of Jesus and other Biblical figures have to be understood within the contexts within which they were expressed. This is no more saying that that culture was "superior" than saying we have to learn Greek or Hebrew means those languages are "superior". Second, Dingess' statement about a "hypocritical culture" is remarkaby racist and bigoted in the way it denigrates first century Judaism. 95% of the people alive then were poor, rural farmers or artisans who were oppressed by the powers of the day. To make such bigoted judgments on the whole of that culture is shameful and disrespectful. Not only so, one may ask if Dingess has a chart for us showing that first century Judaea was indeed the most hypocritical culture to have existed. Many would be interested in that chart as we are sure it also placed eg, 5th century Feudal Japan somewhere on there, and historical statistics on hypocrisy are hard to come by.
Moreover, we are dealing with a matter that is in the distant past about which our understanding is quite imperfect. After all, we were not there. To adopt a dogmatic position on a subject such as this one may be more the result of prejudice than scholarship.
If this is so, why is Dingess studying Greek and Hebrew? Why study ancient languages, and express dogmatic positions about what they say, when they were in the distant past, your understanding is imperfect, and you were not there?
A final example: Dingess erroneously states that, "The idea that a man would remain single was unimaginable in Christ's day." This error is a monumental one that last received major coverage in Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code. Jesus was not married; nor was Paul, nor was John the Baptist. Outside of New Testament figures, the Essenes encouraged celibacy for at least some members, and the wilderness prophet Banus was unmarried. Clearly, though Dingess professes to have done serious study, and to own an extensive personal library, his use of such resources is apparently highly selective and irresponsible.
Denigration of a Specific Scholar
Dingess had replied to comments by us on Mike Licona's book on the Resurrection, and our analysis of Geisler (which consisted of postings found here) which we reprinted at Amazon Books. Dingess' first comment was as follows:
Geisler is absolutely correct on this account! The Caner controversy is irrelevant to this discussion. Your language betrays a personal hostility toward Dr. Geisler that appears to be somewhat less than charitable. I disagree with Geisler's view on the Caner situation and even on the Calvinism. However, his observations of Licona's method are spot on. I would love to see the two of you debate the inerrancy of Scripture. I am sure you have weaved together what might appear to be sophisticated arguments for your watered-down version. I would enjoy watching Norm Geisler explode them. Why shouldn't men have to sign the inerrancy statement in order to teach at evangelical seminaries? We already have too many false converts teaching in seminaries as it is. The more we can remove, the better we are. I like the Al Moehler model. Talk about cleaning house! Nothing like casting out demons to make one feel good about the SBC again.
Please note the following:
In light of such arrogant bullying and obscurantism, I considered it suitable to reply as follows on Amazon:
I didn't say that the Caner issue was relevant to this discussion, though it is very relevant to how Geisler (refuses to) face up to his errors. He has continued to evade my challenge, and has even removed a link to the challenge someone posted on his Facebook ministry page. Your confidence in him is grossly misplaced and your head is as deeply inserted into the sand as Geisler's and Mohler's.
Let's see YOU debate me -- theologyweb.com. See you there.
Dingess accepted this, and came to TWeb where he posted a commentary in which he claimed that he had "read Mohler’s, Geisler’s, and Holding’s response to Licona’s treatment of the passage." However, his commentary did nothing more than reiterate what had been said by Geisler and Mohler, and made no attempt to answer any of the points we had raised. Dingess also included a variety of highly obscurantist and judgmental statements, such as:
The temptation for each of us is to lean upon something other than Scripture to explain events or teachings in Scripture that threaten our highly prized trophies. For me, it seems the temptation for Dr. Licona is to find a solution to “the strange little text” in Matthew leaning “mostly” on his trophy of a purely historiographical method. I am not casting stones at the method at all. What I am saying is that this method also has an ethical component and since it is a Christian scholar employing it, he is obligated to subject even that method to the Christian ethic.
Here, "Christian ethic," again, means a very disjointed view of Scripture Dingess holds to in which it is assumed that his modern readings are what should govern the interpretation of the text. His readings, however, beg the question of interpretation. His further judgmental reference to "trophies" is an ad hominem attack against scholars and historians who refuse to bow to his misinformed readings.
Secondly, Licona seems to elevate historiography to a place he should not: a place where all historical narratives mentioned in Scripture must be provable using its methods to maintain fidelity. Otherwise, we may just have to abandon the grammatico-historical method for something that does not threaten our trophy. Just as the scientist refuses to believe what science cannot explain and the rationalist rejects anything that does not comport with his theoretical framework, the historian has trouble accepting anything that cannot be proven using the historical method. Scientists may worship the scientific method. Rationalists worship reason. Historians can be guilty of worshiping historical method. I am not saying that Licona is in fact guilty of this. However, I am saying that his language and method of interpreting this text run perilously close to that appearance.
In this last, it is clear that Dingess does wish to accuse Licona being guilty of "worshipping" (!) historical method, but wishes to do so in a way that allows him to make the insinuation while plausibly denying the accusation. Furthermore, Dingess here again simply begs the question of his own misinformed readings being correct.
Scripture was not simply written to provide us with a record of redemptive history. Even historical narrative serves to transform our hearts and renovate our philosophy and worldview. This event in Matt. 27:51-53 looks forward to a coming resurrection of all those who place their faith in Christ. Because he lives, we too shall live forevermore. Even historians should account for this purpose in the biblical text when seeking to harmonize historical narrative with historical method.
Dingess' account here is a naive one that verges on bibliolatry. There is no evidence that the whole of Scripture was designed to "transform our hearts and renovate our philosophy and worldview." This is simply a fanciful, modern construct. Beyond this, Licona's reading is hardly incongruent with the idea of the passage in question as a pointer to a future resurrection of all men, which, in fact, was already a given of the Jewish milieu in which Matthew was written.
Conversely, is it the Word of God because it is self-attesting, produced by God Himself? If we rely on anything other than the Word of God to demonstrate that the Bible is the Word of God, then authority necessary resides outside Scripture. The implications for inerrancy in this case are enormous.
Dingess is again remarkably naive in his assessment. Scripture is not "self-attesting" in the sense he describes because at the very least, one must learn Hebrew and Greek -- which we must learn from "outside Scripture" -- to interpret it. Dingess' argument is a self-refuting assertion designed to cordon off Scripture from interpretive contexts that he personally finds threatening to his contrived "ethic". Dingess was repeatedly told that his assertion in this regard was self-refuting, but refused to answer.
He also said:
Just because it was wrong in that culture doesn't make it wrong in my culture, does it? Just curious. Where is the mandate that my culture submit to this old, outdated, and distant culture?
Calling another culture "old" or "outdated," or making light of "distance," is chronological snobbery at best and bigotry at worst.
Finally, and peculiarly, though claiming depth education and study, Dingess shows a remarkable inability to spell certain simple English words (eg, "vipers," he spelled "vipors").
Hypocrisies, Self-contradictions, and Aberrant Beliefs
There are numerous examples of Dingess hypocritically using abusive language towards others even as he objects to it applied to himself. Dingess' hypocrisy within the thread on this matter is documented by this posting and this one in good measure. However, here are some other examples:
You seemingly seek to elevate yourself and you think you look clever because you have mastered the fine art of derision. Moreover, you use the poor folks who don't know any better than to follow you, to prop up your ego and convince yourself that you are somebody as opposed to, in your own words, nobody.
You cannot accomplish that by calling people stupid or referring to them as morons when they disagree with you. That is how a cult leader behaves. He bullies and intimidates people. He uses his position of power and privilege to manipulate others to do his bidding. Those who are good at this will have others thinking they are taking a stand for the kingdom! Of course, the lack of critical thinking skills makes it all the more easy for these hirelings to do their work.
He can trash me all he wants. He is only hurting himself and those few disciples who are not sound enough in their thinking to be more critical of his remarks and methods.
...the only people I know who would disagree with my view are those who follow Holding blindly as if he were a modern day messiah.
Ironically, Dingess himself admits that he was called down by a pastor for the very behavior he here decries -- and shows that he knows how to rationalize it:
I once had a pastor say to me that I say things “to cut” people. He was wrong! I say things to confront people with sin, especially if they have already been confronted and refuse to repent.
Apparently, Dingess is not charitable enough to suppose that when others call him down with harsh language, it is because he is being confronted with sin and refuses to repent. It is also of interest that Dingess admits to a much worse flaw himself, in which he wishes to do violence to others:
You know, where I come from, the challenge-riposte game works a little different. Where I come from, if someone calls you stupid to your face, in person, you must respond by smacking them on the mouth or you lost honor as a man. People lose respect for you. That knee-jerk reaction is still in me, even though I recognize the sinfulness of that desire.
Reversal on References
At one point early in October, Dingess said:
I will watch for JPH's responses to see if there is any hint of a retort worth responding to. When such is the case, I may respond from time to time. But I will not address him directly. My responses will treat his argument, if there is one, and do so in a generic tone, pointing out the fallacies and exposing the presuppositions that prop up his claims.
And yet, on October 21, Dingess posted in his blog a post titled, A Response to J P Holding's Review of John MacArthur’s “Slave” -- which was full of direct addresses to me.
Although Dingess objected to the use of the word "stupid" as a designation for him when he demonstrated palpable ignorance and bigotry, he freely used the word to designate others he disagreed with:
Ed Dingess commented: This is proof that evolution is false. Human beings are not evolving into more intelligent life forms. They are getting more stpuid by the second! Not even worth debating. That is how stupid this is.
Apparently, he objects to being termed "stupid" himself when he makes demonstrable errors, but has no problem broadly designating ALL human beings (including himself??) as "stupid" for the errors of a few!
Another member noted another aspect of his hypocrisy:
Why do you have Triablogue on your Blog list? They also use similar rhetoric to what JP uses? (Oh, and although they disagree with JP on some items, both they and JP regularly make reference to each other's work) Why do you have Pyromaniacs on your blog list? Or AOMin? neither of them are above using similiar rhetoric to that which JP uses (I know, I read their blogs regularly).
Rationalizations Regarding Jesus' Use of Riposte/Satire
In attempting to respond to material clearly showing that circumscribed use of riposte is indeed Biblical, Dingess has made clumsy attempts to misuse credentialed social-science sources as a refutation. Because he is an amateur in using these sources, he lacks a necessary full-orbed understanding of them, and so ends up using them selectively. In particular, he totally ignores the distinction between public and private relationships, and uses findings relating to the forbiddance of riposte in private exchanges to wrongly argue that it is thereby forbidden in public exchanges. For this reason, Dingess is unable to reconcile the use of riposte by Jesus in public settings with what he supposes to be the total forbiddance of it at all times, save by turning Jesus into a hypocritical bully himself, and by such rationalizations he offered as, "Jesus also healed people, but we can't. He's God and he can do what he wants!" As Douglas Wilson said of such tendentious reasoning:
Well, when someone says, “I’m just trying to imitate Jesus [by using satire],” the response is, “You’re not Jesus, pal! You don’t walk on water, either.” That shows how we are being arbitrary in our principles of selection. Someone says, “Well, Jesus did it perfectly. You’re not going to do it perfectly—therefore you ought not to try it at all.” So why don’t we apply that to other virtues? Jesus loved people perfectly, but I’m not going to love people perfectly—so why should I try it at all? There are certain virtues Christ exhibits that Christians insist we must imitate, however badly. But they don’t apply that to satire, even though satire is such an abundant presence throughout the whole Bible. Amos wrote an entire book making fun of things! Jesus does it; Paul does it–
Clearly, Dingess does not wish to answer such arguments because he is too prideful to consider that he may be in error. This much, however, is clear: Dingess hypocritically permits himself free reign to insinuate that others are false teachers, or inspired by demons, or are stupid, or to otherwise denigrate them, while objecting when the tables are turned on him with the same measure.
Accepting Atheist Testimony at Face Value
As a researcher, Dingess is clumsy and without discipline, jumping to conclusions without seriously considering sources of evidence carefully and refusing to admit error when called down on it. For example, though I legally changed my name in July 2007 to James Patrick Holding, Dingess took at face value the outdated reports of a hostile website, authored by an apostate atheist who makes it his goal to destroy Christian faith, that I currently still use that name as a pseudonym. From that he jumped a wide vareity of other conclusions, without consulting any other sources.
He was corrected on TWeb for this error, and admonished concerning the unreliability and hostility of this atheist source, by several members, but in all cases refused to acknowledge his error or any of the corrections.
Flippant Use of the Lord's Name in Oaths
Dingess makes use of the name of the Lord flippantly and then makes excuses when called down on it. Bearing false witness, he said several times on the thread that he was not returning, but returned anyway each time. In one case he said that it was his last time coming there, "Lord willing." In reality, Dingess' reneging on his own pledges shows that "the Lord" is just an excuse he uses so that he can flip flop at will. Dingess claimed: "My caveat for the last time I said I was leaving was, Lord willing." At another point he used this excuse: "I have learned not to pretend that I am sovereign." As one member replied:
So are you suggesting that God told you to come back to tWeb, or that it was his specific will that you do so (and I would like know how you discerned this)? Or are you of the belief that God's will is done no matter what and thus the phrase "Lord willing" becomes a meaningless catch-all justification for whatever it is you want to do?
By the way, do you know what it means to take the Lord's name in vain?
Needless to say, Dingess did not answer this question.
When subjected to riposte/satire, Dingess had the temerity to say that he was rejoicing in "that I am considered worthy to stand in Christ's place and suffer". Today in our world tens of thousands of Christians are being tortured and executed for their faith. For Dingess to put himself in that category is simply ludicrous and egomaniacal.
We have saved for last the most aberrant and shocking of Dingess' teachings, his views of women. In an email to an associate, Dingess referred to a husband as a wife's "custodian". This sort of terminology is used in other contexts to indicate total control over life and death and all personal affairs (as in the Teri Schiavo case), and also in Islam (!) to represent the martial relationship. While it is not necessarily the case that Dingess believes men should exert such extreme authority over women, his public statements come horrifyingly close to suggesting such a view, and speak for themselves:
Finally, the mandate given throughout Scripture that wives are to submit entirely and completely to their husbands as head of the home would be completely nullified. Paul would never extend permission for anyone to sin. This same Paul wrote, "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord." (Eph. 5:22) And again, "Wives be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." (Col. 3:18) "encourage the young women to love their husbands." (Tit. 2:4) "Be Subject to their own husbands." (Tit. 2:5) Peter wrote, "In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands." Peter actually added that wives should do this even if their husbands are disobedient to the word. Paul wrote once more, "A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. (1 Tim. 2:11) This same Paul wrote in this very same chapter in v 39, "A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord." Paul was so convinced of this that he repeated in elsewhere, saying, "For the Married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living." (Rom. 7:2) The idea that Paul is allowing a wife to separate from her husband against his will in this passage is contradictory to everything else Paul wrote about the role and disposition of the marital relationship. If a woman can ignore the binding nature of the marriage covenant in her submissiveness, then it would seem there are no limits to her libertarian freedom.
First, Paul says that a Christian woman and a Christian husband are NOT to divorce their spouse. That is a commandment. We also saw that the wife is commanded throughout Scripture to submit to her husband in all things. These are commandments.
I once had a woman who was taking counseling classes sign up for a class I was teaching on Hermeneutics. This was a very basic, undergraduate course that I taught at a Bible institute that I started at a church I use to attend. She was incensed after I devoted half a class walking through the entire chapter of Jeremiah 29 so that they could see the error of the current rage on Jer. 29:11. She was so distraught that she sent me a hand-written letter containing several derogatory remarks about “my” interpretive method. This was a person who hadn’t taken a course in theology, exegesis, or hermeneutics her entire life. I was a male leader in the church and she did not hesitate to correct me in the most unpleasant manner possible. I have even had women who were supposed godly, mature woman attempt to correct my teaching rudely, in front of an entire class I was teaching. God has not called a female to the role of rebuking or correcting male leaders in the church in any way, especially in front of an entire class. I am sure that if you were to observe these women, you would think that by all accounts, they are bible-believing, God-fearing, conservative Christians who would naturally reject feminist tendencies. And for the most part, they are. However, subtly, Satan has crept in and they have adopted some of the more nuanced ideas of feminist thinking.
God has not ordained wives to lead husbands and make the final decisions in the family. Yet many women only honor their husband’s leadership when they agree with it. Some women refuse to follow the husband when they do not agree with his decision. Again, the woman is created by God for God and God reserves the right to determine the role of women in the church. Many women, even in conservative churches fall prey to an egalitarian spirit without even realizing the sinfulness of such behavior. They set examples for their sons and daughters that are ungodly. The reject God’s expressed will for the family in preference for the desires of their own heart. Simply put, their agenda is not God's agenda and God's agenda is not their agenda. Some of these decisions are more serious than others, but nevertheless, the effects are still present. A woman should have the attitude that God is her God and that His will is her will regardless of how she feels about it. Her desire should be to please God with her behavior and to demonstrate that she accepts the fact that God is truly Lord over her life by doing what God instructs without question or hesitation. A slave has no right to refuse her Master’s beckoning. A Christian woman has no right to oppose her husband or the male leadership of her church so long as these men are not asking her to sin. She does not have to agree with the counsel of her husband or her spiritual leaders, but she does have to submit to it.
Today there are women in the church who refuse to follow the leadership of their husbands. They may see some of their decisions as minuscule and therefore inconsequential. Other women call into question everything the leadership in the church does. They feel free to challenge doctrinal teachings, strategic decisions, and a variety of other decisions that male leaders deem right and proper given their unique circumstances. Such behavior is unambiguously condemned in Scripture, and therefore condemned by God. Still some women not only refuse to follow their husbands, they refuse to follow their pastors. They have thrown off every piece of advice given to them by their husband and their pastors and have decided it right and proper to follow their own course as their heart so chooses. Such egregious error is a brazen demonstration of rebellion and if done publicly places the person in the position of creating a public scandal in the Christian community. This is the epitome of feminist philosophy expressed in the Christian community. However, far more often it is the little things that pass under the radar that create the most problems in the family and the church. The insistence on service times, music styles, and class offerings are the items that catch us off guard and cause us to sin.
Such extreme and obscurantist views of male authority are rejected across the board by a Biblical scholars as being incorrect and anachronistic readings of Biblical teachings.
In conclusion: Based on the above, Dingess has qualified himself as a dangerous false teacher upon whom the use of strong language is warranted. He deserves shame and scorn for his inconsistency, his behavior, and his misogynist viewpoints.
Appendix: Credibility of Tyndale Theological Seminary, Louisiana Baptist Seminary
While we do not doubt of necessity that TTS thinks it is giving student a quality education, it can hardly be argued that it is doing so to any respectable level. Among the faculty, only one person is a credible, well known scholar in Biblical studies: Arnold Fruchtenbaum. Several faculty members have doctoral degrees from other unaccredited schools (including Louisiana Baptist Theological Seminary, and Tyndale itself!). Only two other members at this writing have doctorates from credible institutions (Bryan Cone, philosophy, U. of North Texas; Paul Tan, Grace Seminary). We would have to place a burden on anyone who claims this is a place to get a quality education.
LBU is not much better off, or worse. Most of the faculty seem to be "homegrown" and it is also not an accredited school.
On Dingess' vain responses to the above.
Dingess' response that he is not anti-scholarship or obscurantist is proven patently false by his own commentary on scholars above. His further response in which he notes complicated scholarly theories by authors like Derrida and Bultmann does little more than further demonstrate his obscurantism and his inability to handle complex scholarship, which he apparently believes is best handled by making it go away, ignoring it, or dismissing it roughly as the work of Satan, the result of prideful and sinful minds, etc. Regardless of whether this is true or not, this sort of head-in-sand, authoritarian response is again only to the advantage of hyenas like Ehrman who will tear down such ridiculous notions with glee and ease.
Beyond this, Dingess points to how he has decried poor critical thinking in the church, criticized various movements like the emergent church, etc. This is beside the point and proves nothing. Even an elephant with brain damage could offer criticism of something, and trhe ideas of groups like the emergent church are so foolish that my own poodle could write a critique of their theology. His comments beyond that about the Context Group, in contrast, are precisely the sort of obscurantist attitude of which Dingess is repeatedly guilty. That they do not believe in inerrancy does not in the least affect their arguments on other topics.
This point, and Dingess' further attempt to drive a wedge beteween our comments and the CG, have been answered in the thread here, where Dingess has repeatedly ignored the points made that the CG members contacted about my material were given a distorted view of what I was saying and to whom I was saying it, and thus baited into offering an answer that was what the questioner (a hardcore atheist, incidentally) wanted them to say.
Again, these two points have been noted before, but because he is not able to answer these directly, Dingess prefers to only tell his (few) readers that nothing has been done except call him a bully. While it is indeed true that Dingess is a bully, and this has been repeatedly proven, criticism of and response to Dingess has been much greater than this. However, Dingess repeatedly ignored and even mischaracterized criticisms of him and questions put to him asking that he defend his views. It is clear that when something goes over Dingess' head, or poses too much of a challenge, he ignores it.
Regarding his authoritarian bullying, Dingess sickeningly tries to justify it with the point that "Scripture teaches us to submit to one another" (though he refuses repeatedly to submit to correction given to him). His further upset that he wishes to contact our church and debate me has been answered repeatedly in the thread above. In reality, we are under no obligation to submit to the "authority" of a stalker like Dingess who uses his own perverse notions of authority to justify his poor behavior. Scripture assumes that mutual submission will be done with responsibility and that authority will not be abused; when it is, Scripture counsels disobedience to authority. Dingess' demonstrated dishonesty indicates that he is not someone to whom we are obliged to responsibly defer.
Beyond this, his claim to have caused other ministries to cut ties to Tekton is seriously open to question. In several weeks we have not received a single message from any person or ministry about Dingess. We have checked our chief linking partners, and none have heard from Dingess. Finally, given Dingess' proclivity to report only the portions of the truth that serve his purposes, we have no guarantee that he has given any more complete or responsible an account to any person or ministry than the aforementioned atheist.
I should finally add that Dingess, though corrected on this, has continued to confuse two of my ministry partners: One a student at SES (Charlotte), and another local to me, both of whom I am accountable to. Dingess' claim that "[y]ou cannot be accountable for your ministry to the partner of your ministry" is utterly laughable; there is no such indication in Scripture (the Apostles were all in the same ministry; were they not accountable to one another?) and it is clearlya case of Dingess making up new rules when the ones available do not serve his purposes.
Regarding his misogynist views, Dingess claims to be mainstream, but this too is simply false. He can only count himself "in complete harmony with" various doctrinal statements by reading his specific views into the generality of the statements, just as cults read their Christology into the Nicaen Creed. We have also provided Dingess with arguments on these points, but again, he prefers to simply cast the sum of what has been done as name-calling.
Dingess says he "will not respond to future attacks from Tekton Apologetics." This comes from the same man who said he would never return to TheologyWeb, but did so repeatedly. Dingess is an obsessed individual, and it is doubtful he will be able to help himself.