And what's not to admire about this family? O, of course, they aren't perfect and who knows if Levi, the daughter's boyfriend, will prove worthy of the decision to marry the girl he impregnated? They are sure one handsome comple --and Sarah and husband as well.
And how cool to see Mr. Palin taking on the spouse's role, to make a speech, to wave and shake hands -just as political wives do. And yet, I don't get the sense that he is at all jealous of his wife or feeling sheepish about his secondary role in the political arena. What a guy!!
I see that CNN and CNBC's Olbermann and Maddow have started to mock Palin for being religious. Silly woman--praying for good things for America and Alaska and the people. Praying specifically about a pipeline Alaska wants and so on. No, no! Not a real evangelical --possibly inheriting the mantle of the presidency from an expired McCain someday! The Liberals must be beside themselves with horror and incredulity! How could this have happened! Where did this family come from!!!????
Who would have thought a Republican could have more charisma than Obama?? O, hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth as the snakes roil in their pits! See www.manwiththemuckrake.blogspot.com for an example!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
279 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 279 of 279Antipelagian said...
Crusader and Christian Apologist:
You're ignoring a verse Steve brought up a long while back and I've pointed back to it twice...
1 Cor 14:33-35,37 — Let your women keep silence...: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but THEY ARE COMMANDED TO BE UNDER OBEDIENCE, AS ALSO SAITH THE LAW. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that THE THINGS THAT I WRITE UNTO YOU ARE THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD.
Even if in 1 Tim Paul is simply spouting off mere opinion, he is speaking unequivocally on behalf of God in 1 Cor 14
First of all I wasnt ignoring the verse I was adressing the verse that has been used most.
As for the 1 Cor. verse you cut and pasted. I think it is important that you not take this thing out of context. The part about what he is writing being the very words of God may not really be applying to his statement about women remaining silent. Instead if we read the chapter as a whole it is talking about prophesy and the gift of tongues. The part about women being silent is tacked onto a long discussion about the proper ordering of prophesy and speaking in tongues during a church service.
For the part about women being silent Paul appeals to the Law. Which law is he appealing to here? Is it a Roman Law where women are not aloud to speak in public places? I dont remember anything in Mosaic Law about women having to remain silent. I will go back through it when I get a chance but I dont remember that section.
I think its more important here that neither of our churches operate in the gifts of the spirit described here. i.e. prophesy and speaking in tongues. Perhaps we should figure this problem out before we go telling women to be silent. You want to be legalistic on the thou shalt nots of 1 Corinthians but you completely ignore the implication that the church is not operating at all in the Holy Spirit.
Matt,
Sarcasm is really really hard to pull off in writen word. It relies heavily on voice inflections so while in your head the words you are writing sound sarcastic they rarely will come across that way on the computer monitor because the reader cant hear the inflection of your thoughts.
Matthew, I get your sarcasm, but you have to know that what it looks like is this: You can no longer effectively argue your point, so you're just going to belittle Barb and KateB (and I, as I share their view) until they/we feel dumb.
Do I think that all of the Bible is inspired and applicable to my life today? Yes. Do I think that is true for you too, Matthew? Yep. Do I think that everything in the Bible applies today the same way it did when it was written, in 1500, and now? Nope. And neither does most of modern Chrissendom, so don't think that we're the only ones. (I'm not, however, making the argument that because 'they' do it, it's okay, I'm just making the statement that we're not so far afield that no one is here with us).
The problem is not that I don't take the Bible and its instructions very seriously. I do. I believe that we are all called to lives of as much holiness as it is possible for sinful beings to accomplish. The issue is framework for how we read the Bible...
So I get the frusturation and the sarcasm. But, people who want to be taken seriously in debate don't belittle, they argue. They are logical and effective, but they don't pout and they aren't petulant.
p.s. to Barb:
Did you ever think that praising Sarah Palin would launch into this greater discussion of gender roles in the Chruch (we haven't even hardly touched on how that affects gender roles in secular society) and Biblical worldviews and end with personal attacks???
To those who wonder "why" I came into this discussion...I merely quoted a scripture with minimal commentary...let me reproduce it:
"Anon and Christian Apologist:
You're ignoring a verse Steve brought up a long while back and I've pointed back to it twice...
1 Cor 14:33-35,37 — Let your women keep silence...: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but THEY ARE COMMANDED TO BE UNDER OBEDIENCE, AS ALSO SAITH THE LAW. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that THE THINGS THAT I WRITE UNTO YOU ARE THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD.
Even if in 1 Tim Paul is simply spouting off mere opinion, he is speaking unequivocally on behalf of God in 1 Cor 14"
That was intended to be a post and run...I guess I mistakenly believed I was invited to make comments after reading this from an anonymous poster:
"My response to you is the same as the response to Matt in the I Timothy verse. Paul wrote these specific directions to a specific church at a specific time. In fact, Paul was talking to a church in trouble here... and the women were going to get them in trouble for speaking out of turn because it was socially unacceptable for them to do so. It would have drawn unnecessary and dangerous attention to have gatherings at which women spoke or preached.
But, sir, if you take this verse in the most literal sense, as you suggest I do, do your women in your church vote? Do they sing or pray or read scripture aloud? Do they speak in the church, even if it is only to other women? Because this is less of an issue regarding authority over men, and more of one simply of women being silent period. Is that the case where you worship?"
It makes no matter...as anon has stated, as well as KateB, no amount of Scripture can prove the validity of father-rule...and Matt agreed by pointing out what is obvious: the Bible was written to people we have no cultural connection with.
The only thing I wonder, though...is how everything but the message of salvation got mangled over the millenia? Heck, Jesus became incarnate 2,000 years ago...maybe He didn't make atonement for my "sins" (if you want to really call them that...what do my actions have to do with what was culturally innappropriate 2,000+ years ago? Sounds pretty mean, if you ask me...oh yeah, and narrow-minded)...I was born into a culture that repudiates federalism. Christ came to rescue those entrenched in a misognystic culture that believed their sin was causally linked to a male representative...so unfortunate were these people that they had violent symbols perpetuating that myth (like circumcision, sacrificing of animals, making women sit on buckets one week out of four).
Jesus didn't take away sins...He took away that nasty misogynistic culture by making Himself the commensurate fulfillment of peoplekind's misapprehension of gender role assignment.
I need to realize that I need to filter out the cultural baggage in the bible with another self-referrential cultural lens...of course, once my culture becomes nil, I'm not sure what the Bible will mean then...but this is what it means now.
Thank God He got rid of that nasty patriarchal culture...now I know my sins are non-existent. If federalism isn't true in the church, it isn't true in the family...if it isn't true there, sin is not a curse passed through fathers...if sin isn't federally linked, I have no need for a federal representative when it comes to salvation.
Now I know we are not actually unified in Christ...there's no communion of saints...we're all just a bunch of individuals. The only unity we have is cultural, not spiritual.
Since truth is culturally modified, in a sense, the Word of God does originate with us...We create God's Word and give it the meaning our culture allows. Underlying spiritual things are carnal things...we are the foundation. What would God do without us?
Do you dispute Christ's conduct? Really? Blasphemy?
Jesus Himself told a woman, Mary, to go preach the gospel to men.
Did He disobey His own command?
Jesus didn't have a problem with women preaching – and specifically preaching to men!
Jesus said, “...go to my brethren
and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God.” John 20:17
(Did Jesus violate a command that
women must be silent and not teach men?)
Jesus ministered to the woman at the well and she preached to all the men in her city... “she left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the
men, ‘Come see a man, which told me all things that ever I did; is not this the Christ?’” John 4:28-29 Talk about a lady preacher?
When this woman opened her mouth the entire city got saved!
These women are mentioned as church leaders in: Romans 16 - Phebe, Priscilla, Mary, Tryphena, Tryhosa, Persis, and Julia, Philippians 4:2 - Euodias and Syntyche.
Sorry that your beliefs have gotten in the way of the teachings of Jesus,,,,but I will go with his teachings. You have been mislead.
Crusader.....I just read your comment. You don't need to feel any believer could possibly be insulted by that post. Jesus said that we would be treated as such if we would go out and serve him. When I see things like this it just confirms my service.
Also who is serving the other side :-)
Last time I am going to post this. I am here as a servant and wish to pass the word to you. If you cannot accept the Word that God has offered you - this responsibility lays only with you.
You may be having a hard time accepting this, but Jesus was a living man. He walked on this earth, conducted activities and passed information. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only living Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made. He died and had to rise from his grave to overcome our sinful lives.
Before you were born God anticipated your sins and calculated that nothing less than the sacrifice of own beloved could save you. Render that before you attack another in his name again. I condemn and rebuke those in Jesus name.
I say again that Jesus was a living man, begotten by God. His conduct is the embodiment of God on earth.
You will NOT pass by the conduct of Jesus Christ to make your own argument outside of his own testimony through his life.
Any who refuse,(as we see here on this thread), or ignore or refute Jesus's words and teachings while he was among us are blasphemers.
I give you the gospel for the last time. Let him who has ears listen.
If you choose to ignore or deny the word of God and the life of Jesus - lost FOR YOU - you are lost.
Jesus Himself told a woman, Mary, to go preach the gospel to men.
Jesus said to a woman, “...go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God.” John 20:17
Jesus ministered to the woman at the well and she preached to all the men in her city... “she left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the
men, ‘Come see a man, which told me all things that ever I did; is not this the Christ?’” John 4:28-29
These women are mentioned as church leaders in: Romans 16 - Phebe, Priscilla, Mary, Tryphena, Tryhosa, Persis, and Julia, Philippians 4:2 - Euodias and Syntyche
Do still choose to ignore the nature and conduct of the Christ to further YOUR position? Isn't His position what you should be fighting for?
Seriously folks...look up some info on logic.
What you've read here is not mere sarcasm...it has been reductio ad absurdum at it's finest.
KateB...you equivocate between preaching and sharing information...and you prooftexted female leaders based on these verses?
Romans 14:1,2 1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; 2 that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.
&
Philippians 4:2 I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to live in harmony in the Lord.
Seriously? Being called out for fallaciously handling the Word of God is not you suffering for Christ...and you're not being persecuted. If it feels that way it is not my fault.
Neither you, nor anon have *argued* for your positions...some have said those defending father-rule are merely sarcastic and mean-spirited...that we have not used logic, etc.
Fact of the matter is we have used very logical arguments...and annihilated yours especially via reductio ad absurdum
Matthew you are absolutely correct.
God knows every thought and desire that we have. There are no secrets that we may keep from him. He is a vengeful and loving God.
He also knows when his word is being distorted to serve our own purposes.
Main Entry: mi·sog·y·ny Listen to the pronunciation of misogyny
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈsä-jə-nē\
a hatred of women
And really there is nothing we can do to help such as those....but we can pray for them.
Well Antipelagian, I have only replied to you with Christ's own actions and words from the Bible. You argue with this. You have an argument with Him.
I can't really help you with that. But I will be praying for you tonight. I am sorry for you. And I really hope that you can realize the peace that passes understanding and can become humble in the sight of the Lord.
I understand this is more difficult for men, but it can be done for I know many men who are now in service, most humbly, for Jesus. And not, ahem, for their own interests.
Craig,
You used the word federalism a lot in your silly reducto argument. I dont think that word means what you think it means.
from wiki:
Federalism also finds expression in ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). For example, presbyterian church governance resembles parliamentary republicanism (a form of political federalism) to a large extent. In Presbyterian denominations, the local church is ruled by elected elders, some of which are ministerial. Each church then sends representatives or commissioners to presbyteries and further to a general assembly. Each greater level of assembly has ruling authority over its constituent members. In this governmental structure, each component has some level of sovereignty over itself. As in political federalism, in presbyterian ecclesiology there is shared sovereignty.
Other ecclesiologies also have significant representational and federalistic components, including the more democratic congregational ecclesiology, and even in more hierarchical episcopal ecclesiology.
Some Christians argue that the earliest source of political federalism (or federalism in human institutions; in contrast to theological federalism) is the ecclesiastical federalism found in the Bible. They point to the structure of the early Christian Church as described (and to many, prescribed) in the New Testament. This is particularly demonstrated in the Council of Jerusalem, described in Acts chapter 15, where the Apostles and elders gathered together to govern the Church; the Apostles being representatives of the universal Church, and elders being such for the local church. To this day, elements of federalism can be found in almost every Christian denomination, some more than others.
Christian Apologist
You used the word federalism a lot in your silly reducto argument.
Yes, I did use federalism a lot in my reductio.
I dont think that word means what you think it means.
Obviously you are not certain of what I mean by federalism. Most people refer to a political form of representation when using the word "federalism"...and that's not untrue, but is incomplete. It is also incomplete if limited to church ecclesiology.
Federalism always has to do with "representation"...and *foundational* to that concept is the family ruled by the father: Patriarchy.
That's why representation (whether in Presbyterial government or political) had always filled offices with men. The only way a church ecclesiology or political federalism makes sense is if this order is part and parcel to our very existence...federalism is the teaching of the Bible.
So powerful is the teaching of federal representation that God would actually condemn all humanity on account of Adam. It is also why Paul went to great lengths to explain Christ is the 2nd Adam in Romans.
This why I've said before that patriarchy/federalism is the very economy of salvation.
Hopefully this will help others to see that Patriarchy is *not* a peripheral issue with "freedom" to disagree. So serious is this teaching that Paul appeals to the created order (that doesn't change), God's Law (unchanging), and says that those who disregard this teaching are to be *shunned*.
Not one person has stepped in to deal with the text, only to explain it away. When people refuse to actually grapple with the Word, and only discard it...I can only think of 2 ways to deal with that:
Use reductio ad absurdum...perhaps when they see the logical absurdity their arguments lead to, they'll back off.
Or
Ignore.
One has demonstrated being ignore-worthy. As much as some pretend to be reasonable and to be offering arguments, people who are on a basic familiarity with logic tend to feel embarrassed for this sort of person who fails to understand even the most rudimentary principles of logic.
KateB-
I think it's time to refill your Rx. I'm saying this in good faith...I find it difficult to believe someone can be as brazenly ignorant of the Bible, commit logical fallacies such as, non sequiturs, question begging, and equivocation (to name a few), in 3 paragraphs.
I can see why your anonymous friend finds your arguments compelling.
KateB,
You claim to have come here as a servant with the word of the Lord. You have called me a misogynist and a blasphemer while applauding yourself for being persecuted.
You are not persecuted. I have made it clear in this thread (which I doubt you've read much of) that I love women and believe God has given them equal standing before Him and called them to an important service in the church and home.
You've brought a "Word from God" to us that is antithetical to Scripture. You've trampled upon the Holy Spirit by making His words inferior to those of Christ.
Now I have a word from the Lord for you: Be silent!
Just quiet your angry tongue and submit to Jesus who gave His life for you.
My word, this has gotten messy.
Firstly, I am always and infintely annoyed with people who seem to have taken a Boolean logic class or two in college and want to be experts on logic and arguments. I'm sure your mothers are proud.
Secondly, even though he is ignoring me, so I trust he isn't bothering to read what I say, I am accused of being ignorant of the rules of logic. Quite the opposite is true, friend. And it is arrogant, rude, and inappropriate to assume that you can garner any little piece of real information in order to make such a claim from what I have said on a blog in the last five or so days. Really?
Lastly, I have better things to do and can no longer be bothered to deal with this conversation. For whatever reason what was once a nice exchange of ideas between a small group of us turned into name-calling and telling people to "be silent," and I think that it would be sinful for me to continue to waste my time here talking about this when there is work to be done. Good on all of you, though, if you'd like to argue like petulant college freshmen. I can't be bothered.
Matt, I'm glad we had conversation. I have some resources I wouldn't otherwise have and some things to prayerfully consider. I hope that we can discuss things in the future, if that opportunity arises.
Barb, sorry if my asking questions precipitated what has now spiralled into ridiculousness... I was just asking :)
And as to how this whole thing started: I'm still voting McCain/Palin in November, even if there's a woman on the ticket. I don't think that, even if women shouldn't be church leaders, that bars a woman from being VPotUS.
Crusader,
I, too, am sorry things have degenerated into this...
Remember, though, that there are thousands of words here written by mere men and women but some of the few words we can surely agree ARE from the Lord are "Be silent." KateB and Barb are talking back to the Holy Spirit in a holier than thou way which they will answer for. We'll all answer for every idle word we speak but I can honestly say that my conscience is clear in this matter. Sometimes harsh words need to be said and this should not be interpreted as a lack of love. It would be most definitely NOT LOVING to sit by while others plunge headlong into sin.
May God bless you as you consider these important scriptures and may God silence those who trample on His word. May He also forgive my sins, which surely taint everything I do.
Barb and KateB,
I bid you farewell since Crusader is not interested in continuing the discussion. I only remained here for so long because I appreciated her desire to follow Christ and I was hoping to help.
You two, however, should be ashamed of yourselves. I strung together the long list of your quotes hoping you would shrink back from them after seeing them all together. Maybe, I hoped, you wrote some of it in a moment of fury and didn't mean what you said.
If you stand by those alarming words, though, I have nothing more to say to you.
I believe that the root of the problem and the reason why the Calvinists here think this issue is so important has more to do with their underlying view on sovereignty than anything else. Since they believe that God has control of everything that happens, when they find in scripture that they have some authority they hold on to it with clenched fists.
I wish to discuss the underlying problem of armenianism vs calvinism but not here. I have opened up a topic for this discussion on my blog and I invite matt and craig to come on over and discuss it with me.
220 comments --I've been busy today, so am just seeing the deterioration of the discussion--not that it wasn't already on its way!
Sarcasm doesn't become the Bro's --or the brotherhood. It has such a strong undercurrent of hostility.
We do not interpret scriptures the same. I don't see the Calvinism in much Scripture; you fellows don't see the egalitarianism in Christ's treatment of women that we women see.
I already explained that I don't "get" or understand Paul about salvation being secured through childbirth in light of other salvation scriptures and I don't understand how Adam ate the fruit while believing it would kill them. Seems obvious and logical to me that Adam saw that Eve didn't die --and assumed (was deceived into thinking )that he would not die either if he partook. Paul certainly has a point that the woman listened first to the deceiver/tempter. And she did pull Adam into her disobedience.
But of course, their mortality would be manifest later, not immediately as they probably had thought. So the wiley ol' devil certainly would SEEM to have tricked both of them with his assurances that they would only gain knowledge, not death.
So, I just don't understand Paul at this point if His every statement in every letter He wrote is inspired directly from the Mind of God --and no one has really explained it particularly well --because that would be VERY hard to do! Paul is a giant of the New Testament -- you suggest his every utterance if it made the canon is on a par with every utterance of JEsus --even if they seem a bit contradictory.
Jesus is the Word Incarnate --We worship Him --not the Written Word. He trumped the OT when He said "you have heard it said of old, eye for an eye....." But I give you a new commandment..."
I still wonder if your church has the women wearing hats and being absolutely silent during services. Do they raise their voices in worshipful song with the men? For, in addition to women speaking, Paul did not allow even worship singing by women in churches HE was in if his command to "silence" is absolute.
Would your wives feel sinful if they braided their hair (or their daughters') or wore expensive jewelry? Paul says women were to be unbraided, without jewelry, heads covered like Middle-eastern women, and absolutely silent, in all the church gatherings.
It was elder brother who out of the blue scolded me in the church about something we weren't even talking about. What would possess a man to do that after a concert? If not a type of mysogeny--at least toward women not in HIS idea of compliance with Paul's command to silence. To be a guest in someone's church and rebuke them in the aisle after the service --did I ever get an apology for that rude act? It doesn't matter now; I did not forget it, however, as it is history --and I only point it out to demonstrate what extremes of rudeness this topic leads some men to manifest.
I don't say this to make anyone mad --it was a long time ago --well, within 6 years I guess-- I use it as an illustration that there is more behind the defense of Paul on women --than defense of Paul on women. There seems to be a desire to hit women over the head with it.
I think Kateb has brought up interesting ideas --about Jesus giving women a role to tell men about Him. That is what women speaking in church would be doing today --if they were pastors or teachers or otherwise making a testimony among the body of believers --telling forth the Word about Jesus --prophesying (telling forth the Word) by inspiration of the Holy Spirit who Paul said would come over both the men and women, giving them BOTH utterance in the last days, a contradiction to his command to silence.
It does take very smart, educated people to appreciate the intellectual, verbal gymnastics and all the technical mumbo jumbo from theology and philosophy --all the terminology of high level scholars. It helps folks do "oneupmanship" if they can sling around the rules of logic or whatever and sound smart and learned.
I just read, think and keep it simple because I don't remember much from the two philos courses I took. I personally don't think we need this ivory tower, rather elitist approach to Biblical understanding --where we have to be extreme philosophers and scholars or we can't understand the Scriptures and what they plainly say. They plainly contradict aspects of Calvinism--and yes, they plainly, in the case of Paul, forbid women to go to church and speak, teach men, wear braids and jewelry, and come without head coverings.
Have you fellows answered that question yet about your churches and the hats, the braids, the jewelry? I didn't see an answer...and I do wonder, if the women do NOT wear hats in the church, why not?
Christian Apologist, et all:
I believe that the root of the problem and the reason why the Calvinists here think this issue is so important has more to do with their underlying view on sovereignty than anything else. Since they believe that God has control of everything that happens, when they find in scripture that they have some authority they hold on to it with clenched fists.
This is an ideal example of a non argument...whereas I will use Scripture and argue from the text, others feel they ought to psychologize about how they feel I come to my conclusions. This is really just a form of ad hominem.
What if I said:
I believe that the root of the problem and the reason why the Egalitarians here think this issue is so unimportant has more to do with their underlying view on God's non-sovereignty than anything else. Since they believe that God doesn't control everything that happens, when they find in scripture that God expresses His rule through Fatherhood, they run away from it with their fingers in their ears.
I really didn't say anything, did I? Respectfully, I'm saying this has zero to do with anything, is mere speculation on your part, has no logical relevance to the discussion, and is a personal statement that will put the other on the defensive.
Notice across the board here that my motives have been called into question and I'm labeled as condescending. Certain persons here seem to think they have the Holy Spirit 411 on the hearts of Calvinists...some think saying libelous things about my church is "A-Okay".
Please, don't feel you must respond to this...as noted, things have gotten out of hand. Also, I'm using your comment as a spring board...I'm not saying you are the worst offender (the exact opposite, really. You've been the most reasonable of the lot of egalitarians).
It is important to point out that the only unbridled sin falls on the laps of those spreading lies, gossiping, pretending to have secret knowledge of other's hearts, and abusing God's Word.
It's amazing what passes for "rational" discourse amongst Christians. We rush headlong into all of the above sins and blush when someone argues forcefully for their position and, heaven forbid, uses sarcasm by way of reductio ad absurdum.
If anyone claims to want to follow a reasonable discussion, then basic laws of logic ought to be recognized. This is not ivory tower stuff...I haven't studied logic formally...I'm self-learned, and a neophyte at that.
I encourage Barb to delete her libel. I encourage you all to argue your positions and not pretend to have prophetic knowledge via information pixelated across your screens.
As much as I would like to discuss Reformed theology with you Christian Apologist, I find it difficult to believe a valuable discussion could be had. If you were to agree to a Biblical and logical discussion without psychoanaysis...I would consider it.
Above all...I blame my brother for telling me Barb has a blog :)
As much as I would like to discuss Reformed theology with you Christian Apologist, I find it difficult to believe a valuable discussion could be had. If you were to agree to a Biblical and logical discussion without psychoanaysis...I would consider it.
go here for this debate
Antipelagian, I merely quoted history from the Bible regarding Jesus own conduct of using women in ministry.
If you have such venomous feelings toward Jesus's conduct, you need not attack me. I'm just the messenger. I am sorry you feel the need to be attacking and divisive. I have every reason to believe you have had testimony as required and when I encounter a true unbeliever such as yourself, I am instructed by my Lord to shake the dirt off my shoes and move on.
How I could have called Matthew a misogynist is an impossibility since we have never even had a discussion. Ever.
There's something very wrong going on with the conduct of these two men. They are dishonest and misrepresent the living word of God in an effort to meet their own purposes.
Therefor it will be a simple matter for us to ignore each other and work for better purposes than one party attacking and another defending. That's ridiculous and a waste of time and opportunity for honest dialogue.
And back on topic....I absolutely will be voting for McCain and the last deciding factor was his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate.
I just read, think and keep it simple because I don't remember much from the two philos courses I took. I personally don't think we need this ivory tower, rather elitist approach to Biblical understanding --where we have to be extreme philosophers and scholars or we can't understand the Scriptures and what they plainly say. They plainly contradict aspects of Calvinism--and yes, they plainly, in the case of Paul, forbid women to go to church and speak, teach men, wear braids and jewelry, and come without head coverings.
Aaaaaaagh....put a pillow over my head and smother me. One of the biggest problems I see with the modern church is that it has thrown its intellectuals out into the cold with nary a blanket to keep them warm. Here we are having a debate about the role of women in the church and we cant come to a reasonable consensus. We need intellectuals in the church to help explain these difficult points of theology to us. Do you really think that the God who created the heavens and the earth can be easily explained or understood by our fallible minds? Understanding the mind of God is a difficult thing to do and requires study and patience.
The 'plain reading' of scripture has led to more heresy in the history of the church than has any other cause.
C.A. I like you. I agree that it's sad a consensus can't be reached but it takes honest dialogue to reach a consensus - on those rare times that happens between people.
A large part of me thinks that issues such as these are distractions from our interaction with God and a relationship with Jesus. Jesus' take on things was rather simple - he taught through stories and mandated nothing. Only that we would love him for loves sake and accept the gift that he gave us. He wanted to do away with all the old rituals and rules so that we could be joyful and love each other.
I think I'll hold onto his teachings and read and remember how he lived his life and go by this :-)
A large part of me thinks that issues such as these are distractions from our interaction with God and a relationship with Jesus. Jesus' take on things was rather simple - he taught through stories and mandated nothing.
Matthew 5:17-19
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
John 3:21 "But he who *practices the truth* comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."
As much as people like to think Jesus spoke in stories to make His message more understandable...Jesus said otherwise:
Matthew 13:13-14
I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
14"In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
'YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND;
YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE
KateB said
There's something very wrong going on with the conduct of these two men. They are dishonest and misrepresent the living word of God in an effort to meet their own purposes.
I am a sinner...I know that...but I am not being dishonest. I never said you called me a misogynist, either. You act as if you're bringing the Word of God...but you mishandle it time and again...with the most rudimentary mistakes. After doing this, you jump to conclusions that you are persecuted and immediately decide I'm being dishonest. Sanctified ignorance is not winning you brownie points.
yes, Matt, we get the point, but the problem is that there is no reason to think that scripture is homogenous on the contextual issue. Scripture isn't homogenous period. It is a highly complex document and it shouldn't surprise us in the least bit that something that applies in one place in scripture (towards the end of understanding it and applying it wisely) doesn't apply elsewhere. Just because one item is limited or expanded via the context doesn't mean that everything else has to be in the same manner. Furthermore, something that should have been said is that just because something in scripture was intended for a specific context and situation doesn't mean that it doesn't have a lesson for us today once it is understood as to how it applies.
An easy example for instance is the idea of plowing the fields while leaving boundaries unplowed. What was the purpose of this? It was to leave something for the poor to harvest. But we are not an agricultural society and this practice would do the poor no good especially when so many live in urban areas and don't have any skills. And of course, this is part of the old covenent anyhow which has been fulfilled. But are their no lessons for us to learn from this old testament law? Now that we understand how the law functioned, we can take a lesson from it, that while we (many of us, political conservatives) recognize the problems associated with handouts, there is a compassion here in providing the poor not only a means for resources such as food, but also a means to work for it and earn it.
As for 1st Corinthians 14:33b and on, I found some very interesting comments in the NET bible hosted at Bible.org. The NET bible is a fasinating project where NET has a double meaning, as the internet Bible and the New English Translation. The goal is for this bible to be the most heavily foot noted bible so that the reader gets a greater glimpse into the world of the issues that translators deal with and at the same time, it's primary home on the internet allows it to be updated instantaneously.
For one, in the foot notes, it is noted that the phrase "as in all the churches" does not necessarily apply to vs 34 and on but could be understood as applying to what was said immeadiately before at the beginning of vs. 33. Thus it could be rendered "for God is not characterized by disorder but by peace as in all the churches of the saints.
Secondly, there is evidence that this scripture may have been a later addition.
I'll post the note on this because it is a dozy.
"Some scholars have argued that vv. 34-35 should be excised from the text (principally G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 697-710; P. B. Payne, “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5,” NTS 41 [1995]: 240-262). This is because the Western witnesses (D F G ar b vgms Ambst) have these verses after v. 40, while the rest of the tradition retains them here. There are no mss that omit the verses. Why, then, would some scholars wish to excise the verses? Because they believe that this best explains how they could end up in two different locations, that is to say, that the verses got into the text by way of a very early gloss added in the margin. Most scribes put the gloss after v. 33; others, not knowing where they should go, put them at the end of the chapter. Fee points out that “Those who wish to maintain the authenticity of these verses must at least offer an adequate answer as to how this arrangement came into existence if Paul wrote them originally as our vv. 34-35” (First Corinthians [NICNT], 700). In a footnote he adds, “The point is that if it were already in the text after v. 33, there is no reason for a copyist to make such a radical transposition.” Although it is not our intention to interact with proponents of the shorter text in any detail here, a couple of points ought to be made. (1) Since these verses occur in all witnesses to 1 Corinthians, to argue that they are not original means that they must have crept into the text at the earliest stage of transmission. How early? Earlier than when the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) made its way into the text (late 2nd, early 3rd century?), earlier than the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20) was produced (early 2nd century?), and earlier than even “in Ephesus” was added to Eph 1:1 (upon reception of the letter by the first church to which it came, the church at Ephesus) – because in these other, similar places, the earliest witnesses do not add the words. This text thus stands as remarkable, unique. Indeed, since all the witnesses have the words, the evidence points to them as having been inserted into the original document. Who would have done such a thing? And, further, why would scribes have regarded it as original since it was obviously added in the margin? This leads to our second point. (2) Following a suggestion made by E. E. Ellis (“The Silenced Wives of Corinth (I Cor. 14:34-5),” New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, 213-20 [the suggestion comes at the end of the article, almost as an afterthought]), it is likely that Paul himself added the words in the margin. Since it was so much material to add, Paul could have squelched any suspicions by indicating that the words were his (e.g., by adding his name or some other means [cf. 2 Thess 3:17]). This way no scribe would think that the material was inauthentic. (Incidentally, this is unlike the textual problem at Rom 5:1, for there only one letter was at stake; hence, scribes would easily have thought that the “text” reading was original. And Paul would hardly be expected to add his signature for one letter.) (3) What then is to account for the uniform Western tradition of having the verses at the end of the chapter? Our conjecture (and that is all it is) is that the scribe of the Western Vorlage could no longer read where the verses were to be added (any marginal arrows or other directional device could have been smudged), but, recognizing that this was part of the original text, felt compelled to put it somewhere. The least offensive place would have been at the end of the material on church conduct (end of chapter 14), before the instructions about the resurrection began. Although there were no chapter divisions in the earliest period of copying, scribes could still detect thought breaks (note the usage in the earliest papyri). (4) The very location of the verses in the Western tradition argues strongly that Paul both authored vv. 34-35 and that they were originally part of the margin of the text. Otherwise, one has a difficulty explaining why no scribe seemed to have hinted that these verses might be inauthentic (the scribal sigla of codex B, as noticed by Payne, can be interpreted otherwise than as an indication of inauthenticity [cf. J. E. Miller, “Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35,” JSNT 26 [2003]: 217-36.). There are apparently no mss that have an asterisk or obelisk in the margin. Yet in other places in the NT where scribes doubted the authenticity of the clauses before them, they often noted their protest with an asterisk or obelisk. We are thus compelled to regard the words as original, and as belonging where they are in the text above.
So while the translators have concluded that they think the text is in the proper place, it is nevertheless important to point out that there are reasons that other biblical scholars have found compelling to suggest that vs. 34-35 are additions to scripture. Secondly, even if they are not additions, it is not clear that they are in the right place, and not only might these vs be in the wrong place, even if they were penned by Paul himself, it is quite possible that they were originally in the margin. That's kind of ironic given the discussion here on whether the topic is "marginal" or not and it turns out that these verses in question may literally have been marginal themselves!
Oh, I didn't know blogger did pages. But why should I. not many blogs go beyond 200 coments. My comment was meant to follow matts comment at the very bottom of the first page.
If you have such venomous feelings toward Jesus's conduct, you need not attack me.
Kateb, I appreciate some of your early contributions to this discussion and I understand how the brothers here can come across as abrasive, but I think some of your accusations are not fair. With this one, I don't think it's clear at all that antipelegian reviles Jesus' conduct. He just doesn't agree with you on their implications. Whether he is right or wrong, I don't believe that some of you're comments here are helpful.
But again, thank you for contributing and I hope you continue to show you're brain around here.
Craigert, the problem with your reductio ad absurdem, is that there is not enough reductio and there is too much ad absurdem. Either that, or your reduction is done to an absurd extent such that the view criticized doesn't represent ours. I'm just not confident that it would prove to be deductively valid. I believe the essence of the reason for this is explained in my note above to matt.
And crusader, I have had one class in logic, got a B, and my mother is proud.
I had been hoping that KateB was finished.
What you are saying is ridiculous. I really don't know where to begin. Please spare the church your anti-Holy-Spirit-just-listen-to-Jesus nonsense and be quiet.
I know... I'm so harsh and unloving. Actually the paragraph above is motivated by love. Love for God, love for His word, love for His church. I have no love for her twisting of Scripture to suit her ends, though.
I know that oftentimes people are annoyed by links in comments. But you several of you have seemed receptive to them so let me offer one more.
This one really is great. It was just posted yesterday by the pastor of a non-denominational church in Bloomington, Indiana. He says what I have been trying to say but much better.
It's kind of long, but not too long. Really worth your time. Please pay particular attention to two comments: the one posted on 9/24 @ 6:40 p.m. and the one posted on 9/24 @ 11:04 p.m.
Roberto,
I appreciate your response to KateB...there's also something to be said for not trying to argue around what Paul says in 1 Cor 14:34-35 by discarding it. Clearly, if that is an inscripturated passage, then it contradicts Egalitarianism. There really is no other way to read it as I argued already.
I did some background research on Gordon Fee's scholarly approach to 1 Cor 14:34-35 (as that is what your footnote is primarily referring to). Here's what I've found. The first one disagreeing with Fee in a gracious manner, the rest dealing with Gordon Fee's baseless assumptions.
There is no easy solution to this problem and Fee is to be commended for his recognition of both the internal tension that these verses place upon the context and the weaknesses inherent in the common replies to the problem. All this notwithstanding, one ought to be very cautious, however, when deeming certain texts spurious on the basis of transcriptional probability and internal difficulties when there is no substantial external data to lend support to such an hypothesis. In the end, the verses should be permitted to remain in the text (after verse 33) due to excellent manuscript support*
*See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 565. See also C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Harper's New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968), 332, states concerning the theory of interpolation: "There is much to be said for this view, especially since the language of these verses can be explained as based upon I Tim. ii. 11f., but the textual evidence is not quite strong enough to make it compelling . . . If any significant MS. omitted the verses all together it would probably be right to follow it."
Taken from Bible.org
Interesting tid bits from Matthew R. Malcolm's blog (Malcom is a Ph.D student specializing in the book of 1 Corinthians:
J. Kloha has argued that dislocation of passages in the bilingual manuscripts of Paul is not uncommon, and is not a reliable sign of interpolation.
And
E. Randolph Richards has demonstrated that ancient letter writers such as Paul wrote in the context of community, utilised the skills of professional secretaries, went through drafts and revisions, and made use of pre-formed materials. In particular, Paul’s letters often involve co-senders - such as Timothy or Silvanus. These co-senders are not simply the same as those who send their greetings in the letter endings, indicating that they had some involvement in the authoring of the letter. 1 Corinthians is from Paul “and Sosthenes the brother”. Richards reasons that if this Sosthenes is the one known to us in Acts, then he was the ruler of a synagogue, and thus familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as conceivably able to carry some weight in the (relatively lengthy) letter-writing process alongside Paul.
All of these sorts of issues urge a caution: Material that (from a literary point of view) doesn’t appear to fit smoothly should not automatically be considered a “post-Pauline interpolation”. A passage that is somewhat ill-fitting may be a piece of pre-formed material (such as from a previous letter by Paul, or from a sermon by Sosthenes) - or it may indicate the diversity of emphasis within the authorial team (undoubtedly under the leadership of Paul, but surely with the possibility of genuine contribution from Sosthenes). Alternatively, an ill-fitting passage may simply be an addition late in the editing process, but still by Paul/Sosthenes.
Fee's position relies heavily on statistical probability...and he seems to be selective when it comes to this passage versus others in Paul's writings where placement of passages varies between manuscripts. Earliest versions of 1 Corinthians include the passage Fee would prefer to discard...his solution to this? Well, then that simply means the error happened at the earliest of times. Amazingly, most evangelical scholars would tend to believe manuscripts from earliest periods lends credibility to passages being authentic.
Further, the content is not out of place in v34-35...so the evidence points to this being original and it textually it fits within the larger context. Some scholars may disagree...but not very convincingly. It is also worthy of pointing out that Fee is a leading scholar when it comes to promoting Egalitarianism.
Lastly, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church offers a response on it's website
Advocates of women speaking in church have one final way to get rid of our passage: declare it inauthentic. But there is very little evidence that supports such a drastic solution.
All known manuscripts of 1 Corinthians contain 14:33b-36. However, a few manuscripts in the "Western" textual tradition place verses 34-35 after verse 40, where they obviously don't belong. Ordinarily, no one would suggest that this dislocation in the Western text (which is otherwise known for its sloppiness) casts any serious doubt upon the authenticity of the passage, since it is uniformly attested by both the Alexandrian and the Byzantine textual traditions (see my article on texts and translations in the June 1995 New Horizons).
However, some have seized upon this textual "problem" as evidence that the two verses are inauthentic. The Pentecostal scholar Gordon D. Fee, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians (Eerdmans, 1987, pp. 699-708), argues that a nefarious interpolator wrote verses 34-35 in the margin of a very early manuscript, which copyists then inserted in two different places. But this would mean that all known manuscripts of 1 Corinthians are descended from this one corrupt copy, which is highly unlikely. More likely, an early copyist in the West accidentally skipped verses 34-35 and a corrector then wrote them in the margin, which the next copyist understood as belonging after verse 40. Or, the first copyist may have realized his mistake a few verses down, and decided just to stick the skipped verses back in after verse 40. (Others have suggested that the verses were moved deliberately.)
However the dislocation arose, verses 34-35 must be authentic because verse 36 makes no sense coming after verse 33. As we have already seen, verse 33b is half of a comparison, and only verse 34 supplies the other half of it—not verse 33a and certainly not verse 36. The authenticity of verse 33b confirms the overwhelming textual evidence that verses 34-35 are original right where they are.
Speaking of Gordon Fee, he was one of my profs at seminary and, one day, we spoke privately about sexuality and authority. He had just debated a man on the subject at an all-campus gathering and the conversation came afterward as we walked back to the library.
I asked him, "Dr. Fee, what did Paul men when he said, 'Adam was created first, and then Eve'?"
He responded simply, "I don't know."
I simply repeated the question: "Come on, Dr. Fee; what did Paul mean when he said, 'Adam was created first, and then Eve'?"
He said, again: "I don't know."
So I pushed him harder: "But Dr. Fee, you are a professor of New Testament exegesis specializing in the Pauline literature, and I'm paying you tuition; you don't have the option of saying you don't know. What did Paul mean?"
Finally, he 'fessed up: "Paul was just being rabbinical."
"That's right, Dr. Fee; throw away Scripture. Why do you do that?"
He responded, "Tim, I grew in a church where husbands abused their wives, and we must do something about that."
"Dr. Fee, Elton Trueblood in "The Company of the Committed says that it's the mark of wisdom to fight the battles of today rather than the battles of yesterday. And I can tell you that the battles all of us are fighting down in married student housing are not nearly as tied to abuse and authoritarianism as abdication and rebellion. It's the absence and rejection of authority that's tearing up my generation's marriages."
Dr. Fee and I were somewhat close at the time. The conversation wasn't hostile at all since we'd worked together on a pastoral matter with another student who'd fallen into sin. I appreciated Dr. Fee a great deal in his teaching, particularly his fierce opposition to "name it and claim it" charismatic heresies.
But here in this conversation (which I've recorded almost verbatim) I learned my final lesson about all the feminist biblical scholarship. Dr. Fee was really honest with me, and I respected that (and still do).
But at the end of the day, long after all the talk of textual problems and word meanings and context are over, the truth about it all is that you can't be a feminist and honor the Word of God.
Dr. Fee has gone on to Regent and there served on the Committee on Bible Translation for the TNIV where he's produced a new translation of the Bible that replaces hundreds and hundreds of words the Holy Spirit inspired with other words more palatable to our day: You know, the Hebrew word 'adam' used throughout the Old Testament as the name of the race is replaced with 'human beings' or simply 'they.' Such bowdlerization is done all over Scripture, yet it's called a "translation."
So what? So we turn our backs on God and seek the approval of the world claiming our purpose is high-minded and compassionate. Evangelistic, even.
From seminary, I went into a church where women had been serving as elders for decades. I worked with them and loved them. (My son is now married to the daughter of one of them and she and her husband will be visiting with us this weekend.)
After a time, the women of one of my two churches (I served a yoked parish) decided they preferred to have their husbands serve as elders, so one of them resigned from the elders board and the rest of them stopped allowing their names to be placed on the ballot.
Presbytery disciplined our church for this (we were in the mainline PC(USA), but these godly women refused to give in to the pressure. And as I worked with them and their husbands, God brought me to repentance on the issue. I had known better, but for the sake of security, I'd gone into a denomination where I thought I'd be able to get a job. Sin, isn't it?
After a few years, our church allowed presbytery to confiscate all our property and bank accounts and we transferred into the biblical Presbyterian Church in America where men only are pastors and elders, as Scripture commands. What joy that was!
When I was examined for transfer, the PCA brothers asked me what I believed about ordaining women to the pastorate and eldership?
I responded, "I've done it, and I was wrong. I repent."
God has blessed that church very much due through those godly women's willingness to wait for their husbands (and pastor) to lead by faith according to the Word of God.
That's all. Just a short story. Love in Christ.
Rob, I was not directing my comment at you, the one about logic classes. I just don't appreciate antipelagian telling me that he feels sorry for me because I know nothing about logic... I've no beef with you on that front! Good job on that B though :) That's what I got in my very first logic class too!!!
antipelagian --I didn't commit any libel. Libel is a lie. Your elder really did ride up the aisle with his horse pacing the floor and nostrils flaring (the horse) and said,"Seize her! Burn her at the stake! A witch!"
No, really, I think he called me a Jezebel--all I really remember is that he brought up --out of the blue without provocative context -- my teaching of adults including men and told me I was at least unscriptural, unsubmissive, out of order, disobedient to God or words to that effect. He felt called to indict me on the spot. It was not a gentle approach but a harsh and unfriendly rebuke --not the sort of thing to win friends and influence people.
He was on God's errand, he thought.
My kids, by the way, would never do this to their friends' parents for any reason in any context, no matter what they thought about them. I've always sort of been the rodney dangerfield type! "I get no respect." ba da BING! (applause)
It's possible he apologized in our subsequent email dialogue but I don't remember --he should remind me if he ever did apologize and I will then apologize for bringing it up here--though I do think it appropriately and accurately illustrates the extreme priority he and you place on this issue--to the point that it becomes merely obnoxious and lacking in Christian charity--a bigger focus than it needs to be.
by the way there is no quibble with the "Fatherhood of God" or however you put it. Nor with the headship of men in families. And even though our denomination allows for the possibility of women in the highest offices of the church (bishop) it has never been so as we just haven't voted for women in these roles. Right now, we have few women on our local board and none on the pastor's cabinet --but we aren't forbidden to elect a woman. If it does happen that a woman should be bishop, it will be Ohio's Brenda young. And she probably ought to remain as a minister because she is very effective there.
I'm not sure Bro' M. thinks what he did at that time, in our church aisle, was rude and unloving. He seemed to be identifying with St. Paul, thinking it was his duty to attempt to cleanse our church by rebuking the sinners--and it WAS Paul's duty to call people to account --and if M. were in my church, he could have such a duty concerning teachers like me--except the silent church woman is not my church's position for the church today. New wine of the Spirit for New wineskins --without changing any of the essential truths of salvation and discipleship, God's will for all believers, or definitions of sin and righteousness.
I truly was never influenced in my Bible-believing, fundamentalist, evangelical background, to this concern for women to be silent and to have no roles that could be called leadership authority "over men" (not in the church of my upbringing, the college church of the U.B.'s --nor in my college's church, the FM's.) Though the leadership of these denominations is mostly male. The prohibitions of women in certain roles was new to me for evangelicals when I came to Toledo --and encountered the Gothards. I didn't encounter any concern for this issue at my FM college.
to me, it was obvious that the less Biblical churches, the mainlines and liberals, were the ones who would not ordain women. women in those churches seem like mere liberal feminists in their desires for authority. However, In the fundamentalist holiness and pentecostal churches, who really believed and tried to apply the Bible from their beginnings, women never had to "grasp" to act on their callings --the barrier wasn't there in these churches that emphasize the sanctifying work and freedom of the Holy Spirit.
I've told you before, that I do wear the mantle of leadership lightly and try to do it as a helpmeet, as a servant, as a facilitator who makes others' jobs work better in the church. I certainly am mindful that women who are bossy and self-conscious about authority, eager to usurp it and wield it, are just as obnoxious and destructive and ineffectual as men who do the same thing. We had a guy like that in music once; ironically, he left us because his wife was not given the job she wanted to do because the man who held it was no longer able to do it well due to his job obligations, but hanging on to it nevertheless. She did want to usurp his authority because she had ideas for the important ministry he wasn't doing. Her feelings were hurt because the nom. comm. didn't even consider her or tell her why --so that was one reason why they left our congregation. I think they weren't sure her ideas would pass muster --and then they'd be in a pickel for not affirming and using her ideas.
I had been in her position before when we had the Gothard legalism prevailing in our church --I had ideas for outreach and closing the open backdoor of the church --through which people would come and go without us even knowing who they were -- I had ideas for outreach and follow-up and church growth policy and implementation of it , but the men under Gothard influence instead of FM influence went through this 20- year-phase of wanting men in charge of everything.
The new male music director was a musical man who didn't want to be in charge of anything that would take time --he wouldn't direct the choir or the worship music, e.g., he would just be authoritative over those ministries -- he took the job to head the music committee --and criticized me who had held the role because I only had one comm. meeting in a year --and then when HE got the job, he held NO committee meetings. He gave the post up later to non-musician male to head worship. We had a super talented lady pianist who believed as your church --and so she tried to prop up the non-musically trained and equipped worship director until he quit practicing with her --which made it difficult for her to pretend she wasn't really the musical brains behind the team which she was-- Then we had a leader for a number of years in Ike --he was a musical person, good with people , a servant leader-type, though not a trained musician per se and limited in being able to solve musical problems we would have--and we did as best as we could in those years. There was no one else who wanted the immense responsibility of choosing all the music every week and prepping the team. I was not qualified in the team concept or with that music --and the way they used to do it, made it more work. Ike was faithful and hard-working, improved our tech aspect and procured equipment, used our budget --and chose good music --but there was an improvement in the music sound when Paul or Steph held the reigns because they were trained musically --to be professionals --and gave the vocalists music to read instead of lyric sheets and that made an improvement --less false starts because they could see where the pianist was --Paul was phenomenal in creative variety with musical proficiency and Steph made a noticeable improvement in the vocals as well. Granted, some days are better than others; some vocal combinations stronger than others. but generally, our services are consistently inspirational and never boring and the music quality is fine with its current woman in charge. But she doesn't wield authority like one whose enjoyment is the authority. She is called and equipped --as your other brother is. We don't have ANY man in music now who could take her place --and I don't know that any man would do better than she does --considering we can afford to pay nothing.
She went to W.C. you know, and was choir president there and honor choral director--a woman--in an evangelical college that does also lean Calvinist, I believe. She learned how to lead with a light, but competent, guiding hand. There were no restrictions on women there. She does this with the support and blessing of her husband --as I always did my jobs also.
CA --I'm not poo-poohing intellectualism or scholarship, really.
I am certainly not one who believes in checking our brains at the door of the church in the name of submission or spirituality. that's how cults take advantage.
By the way, Cedar Creek says there are only 60 signed up (5 from our church) and you need to be there at 9 AM --as the broadcast starts at 9:30 and arriving then will be disruptive. I'm sure Rob will want to ride with you guys, one or both. free snacks in am and afternoon -- 1 hour lunch on your own.
I just think it takes a very convoluted thought process to conclude Calvinism from scripture --and that the Calvinists do seem self-consciously proud of what I think they believe to be superior intellectual capabilities. If you can't play the language game, you lose points. reducto absurdium? what was that?
Tim --As for the failure of marriage to day--it is a failure to believe the Bible as God's Word, to believe in God and His authority --to believe that Jesus is the Son of God who came and told us to marry person of opposite sex and stay married --because this is God's intention.
It is less about women not knowing their place (though domineering women are unappealing, even to me--and I believe most women like a man who can "take charge" and be the "head.") I think marital breakdown today is more about men claiming their place with beer in front of the tv and the computer porn and video games. And The general lack of Christian forgiveness and unselfishness needed to make a good marriage.
A father who helps his wife in supper clean-up, bath ritual and putting kids to bed will do his marriage and kids loads of good.
I do think that TV and movies have had a terrible effect on both men and women --as have secular uni's when they set out to undermine religious faith and free exercise.
The poor character, cattiness, self-interest, etc. of reality show persons is a terrible influence on impressionable youth.
A fellow was telling me the other day that his teen daughter had two girlfriends who liked to act lesbian in public.
Our teens do need more church, more supervision, less access to alone-time with the opposite sex, especially when they have a date life. However, just delaying the dating age isn't the panacea for marriage prep. I observed many who didn't date early--who got into immorality when they started to see men in their 20's --getting pregnant and aborting then.
If all women were chaste, then men would have no choice but to be similarly virtuous --right? And they'd pursue marriage sooner in many cases.
But as our minister says --we sin because we are sinners with a sin nature. We need conversion --transformation by the renewal of our minds --and the cleansing of our hearts.
ON that, I bet we all agree?
Tim --I certainly believe Adam was made first. And that Eve was made to be his helpmeet. I like the plan. I don't like the curse on mankind --and so we do resist pestilence, death, hard labor, disease and pain in childbirth --with God's blessing that we do resist the curse in those areas. And so, why not resist the curse in the subjugation of women--
I've no problem with the idea of women as helpmeets who sometimes are equipped to give leadership in their helpmeet role --as an adjunct to the work of men in the church.
Women being silent in church--I keep asking --do they also wear head coverings in your church?
I do not beleive there was anything in the commentary that Rob posted that presumed that the part about silent women was not written by Pauls hand. But it does make a certain amount of sense that the problematic paragraph was added in the margins as an afterthought. Thus applying verses 36, and 37 to 33b-35 may not be honest to the original intent of the letter.
Furthermore it is very confusing as to why Paul here is appealing to the Law in his argument. The same Paul who wrote:
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."[c] Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."[d] The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."[e] 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[f] He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
I take Pauls whole stance in the same way I take him when he says that he becomes all things to all men in order to bring them to the truth of the gospel.
In the end this is a disputable matter and has absolutely no bearing on my relationship with Christ. Unless you can show me that it is somehow important I see little point in discussing this further.
CA-
Paul was not throwing the Law out the window...Paul said All who rely on observing the law are under a curse... Those that rely on the Law...in what sense? In the sense that some were relying on their observance of Law to be justified. That's why Paul says to Timothy 8But we know that (C)the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully...
There is a lawful use and an unlawful use of Law.
As Christ repudiated the false righteousness of the Pharisees, He was also able to say "If you love me you will keep my commands"...He didn't repudiate the moral aspects of the Law, either...He was able to sum them up in two (which is why we look at the decalogue as being 2 "tables").
So the problem is not with Paul appealing to Law...it would only be a problem if he did so unlawfully.
In the end this is a disputable matter and has absolutely no bearing on my relationship with Christ.
On the contrary, it does affect it. I'm not saying you're an unbeliever, but it changes your approach to God and the way you live your life...as I've mentioned before: this is the economy of Salvation.
I do not beleive there was anything in the commentary that Rob posted that presumed that the part about silent women was not written by Pauls hand.
Then one wonders why Rob would point to a footnote that makes mention of Gordon Fee...the footnote itself affirms the passage comes from Paul, yet Rob sees the fact some scholars find it disputable, it therefore may not be Scripture...after all, Rob did say:
So while the translators have concluded that they think the text is in the proper place, it is nevertheless important to point out that there are reasons that other biblical scholars have found compelling to suggest that vs. 34-35 are additions to scripture.
Barb,
Your recounting of the event after my brother's concert is not accurate. I initiated a conversation to catch up on things with him. After a while I asked him if it was true that he had embraced open theism and inclusivism (which he had, and does).
You came into the conversation at one point or other and together we continued the discussion. Rob departed and you and I were left to keep talking. You, in an attempt to defend your son (which is admirable) said some crazy things: God doesn't know the future. God's creation is out of His control. Some people of the Muslim faith may go to heaven.
That's when I expressed disgust that you could potentially be teaching people in my family this garbage. This, then, led to me reminding you that you shouldn't be teaching men anything, let alone heretical things.
I didn't exactly seek out a confrontation with you, but
I'm sorry I raised my voice.
I don't think I called you a Jezebel. Actually, I'm sure I didn't. I know I said the men in your church should be protecting the sheep from wolves.
As far as the rest... if you think you remember me saying that you were behaving in an unscriptural, unsubmissive, out of order and disobedient way then you are recalling the main points accurately.
On the contrary, it does affect it. I'm not saying you're an unbeliever, but it changes your approach to God and the way you live your life...as I've mentioned before: this is the economy of Salvation.
How so? How does my attitude towards women in this regard effect my approach to God? God is still my sovereign and my savior. Nor does it effect the way I live my life as I am not married.
CA
How so?
This is a bunny trail...so let me list a few items:
People that accept father-rule operate under robustly Trinitarian view of God. This is not to say you're not a Trinitarian...from what I can tell, you hold orthodox views. I'd recommend Rushdoony's The One and the Many for a discussion this.
Father-rule is a covenental understanding of God's operations in Salvation. How you approach a woman for marriage would be different...not that you would do so sinfully, but it would be different.
Sons, when they understand a biblical view of father-rule, would honor their father and mother.
Egalitarianism tends to produce a radically individual view of man such that disorder becomes the norm...it is no mistake that Paul mentions women are to be submissive in the context of church order.
Words like "submission", "obedience", and authority are not cringe-worthy in biblical patriarchy.
If fathers were biblically patriarchal, they would spend less time online, less time watching sports, and more time loving their wives and children. Patriarchy is the antidote to the problem facing men in our society: they won't grow up, grow out of love with their wives, and grow more infatuated with worldliness than the Word.
The ramifications of father-rule affect home life, eccelsiology, and politics. I can't think of much that is unaffected by father-rule.
To be clear:
I'm not saying you are in any particular sin...I'm saying the ramifications of patriarchy are innumerable.
Rob, I was not directing my comment at you, the one about logic classes.
I know, but you must understand that I can be a bit flip and tongue in cheek and that was one of those moments.
anti-p
I agree with you a lot on what you said. I believe men should be the head of the household, and be responsible for a lot of things. I simply disagree with the reverse interpretation that says women should be ruled over.
God created women be a companion and helper to men. Men ruling over women is actually one of the parts of the curse of the fall. thus when we subjegate women we are not carrying out Gods' redemption but his curse.
CA-
It's been nearly 250 comments...and I think we've come around full circle :)
In essence, we're at the beginning again. You said:
I agree with you a lot on what you said. I believe men should be the head of the household, and be responsible for a lot of things. I simply disagree with the reverse interpretation that says women should be ruled over.
I'm not sure what you mean by "ruled over". Father-rule has to do with different spheres of leadership. I am not to rule over any woman that has made a comment on this blog, for instance. Neither do I have authority over any ol' woman. My authority is in my home over my family.
Likewise: other women's husbands have no authority over my wife or daughter.
God created women be a companion and helper to men. Men ruling over women is actually one of the parts of the curse of the fall. thus when we subjegate women we are not carrying out Gods' redemption but his curse.
Again, I doubt we are even talking about the same thing. After all, you seem to agree that man is the head of his household. If you have no beef with that, and you recognize when I speak of patriarchy I'm speaking of federal representation and loving one's wife as Christ loves the Church, then there's nothing sinful about that...quite the contrary: it is redemptive.
This is where we come full circle again. Father-rule is the economy of salvation. As Christ loves the Church, so am I to love my wife. Paul says women do not hold authority because man was created first...here we have teaching that appeals to the created order, and we also have the example of Christ loving the Church to demonstrate husbandly love.
All of this is to simply say: as with Christ and the Church, so it is in the family. As the the Son submits to the Father, so it is in the family unit.
As with the economy of the God-head, so with the family. As with Christ to the church, so it is with the family. As it is with the created order, so it is with the Church. As Christ is our authority, so has he designated authority within the Church.
This is why I keep pointing to the fact that father-rule plays redemptive role.
Strange again Matthew....that you would attribute to me something that I never said and never felt, like ever in my life. Anti Holy Spirit indeed.
You folks just make up anything you want to. Didn't you ever hear that you are not supposed to tell lies?
You're so dishonest,exasperating and irrational it's hard to find a place to even start to address it.
So I won't.
I also think that AP should use spell check.
From Merriam Webster:
Main Entry:
1Pe·la·gian
: one agreeing with Pelagius in denying original sin and consequently in holding that individuals have perfect freedom to do either right or wrong.
If you want to be 'anti' something - you should probably know how to spell it.
And Matthew, no - nobody thought you were being sarcastic. You were being rude and mean. I don't know what AP and your relationships are with Barb as I do not know her - but you have come onto her site and been very poorly behaved.
This is why I keep pointing to the fact that father-rule plays redemptive role.
no, no, no, no.
You are bordering on outright heresy friend. there is only one route to redemption and that is through belief in the name of Jesus Christ and by loving God, and our neighbors, with all our hearts souls and minds. And this is only possible through Gods grace.
Thus father rule is something that falls into the secondary catagory of things we do because we have been redeemed.
CA-
I didn't say father-rule is our redemption.
I said it plays a redemptive role...why would Paul say that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church and to wash them with the Word?
I'm simply saying that father-rule is analogous to the economy of God, not that it is our salvation. I'm not conflating the finished work of Christ and salvation by grace alone through faith alone with father-rule. You've completely misunderstood me if that's what you're thinking.
Craig.
Can you please define what you mean by:
Federal representation
redemptive role
economy of god
thanks.
CA
Can you please define what you mean
Sure.
Federalism: I am using this word theologically. As it pertains to the discussion, it has to do with our Fall, and Redemption: In Adam's Fall, sinned we all...Christ is the Second Adam: we are identified in Him.
This also has application to patriarchy when it comes to family/church.
Redemptive Role: I mean this in two ways, primarily.
Father-rule is Redemptive in that it is inherently Federal in nature...and our Redemption is secured in our Federal Head: Christ. Federalism in the home is redemptive in that fathers use their role as a means of demonstrating God's love and discipline...Fathers are to reflect this economy as God has shown it within Himself and also in His salvific action in Christ. In this sense, father-rule is redemptive by way of analogy, and also a means by which God ordinarily brings people to Christ. Father-rule is covenantal by definition...it is why we baptize our children and raise them in such a way that they will not depart from God.
I no more save my family than an evangelist saves men that convert upon hearing the gospel...but the evangelist is certainly a means by which God redeems sinners.
Economy of God: I am speaking of the economic Trinity which describes the activities of each member of the God-Head in our redemption. There is the economic relationship within where Jesus is subject to the Father, for example, and also Christ placing His name on those that trust in Him.
As God relates Himself to His creation, there is a heirarchy to the God-Head, and a heirarchy in how He redeems us through Christ by way or representation...all of this is a robustly Trinitarian approach as well as distinctly Protestant as federalism (theologically speaking) is absolutely necessary to have things like "imputaion" hold significance (such as Christ's righteousness being imputed to us while our sins have been imputed to Him on the cross).
Hopefully that helps :)
WOWza what an interesting post. I find it interesting that I have been referenced in this blog as a former musician at HFMC, and I left HFMC four years ago to attend Crossroads Community Church, a Free Methodist Church in Michigan.
I am thankful that I am part of a loving church, and not the hatefullness that I hear on here. It makes me wonder if you will all get along when you get to Heaven?
Today, our pastor, Dean Angell, shared about some of his darkest times in his life as being leader and pastor of the church. He talked about how his wife carried him and his family for over a year. He taught that there is a give and take in marriage, and that his wife had to lead. He talked about true love, not submission. He talked about being dependent on her and God when he was at a very low point.
I am so glad God has brought this type of man to lead our church. No wonder why Crossroads is growing and over 2,000 in worship on a Sunday morning, and other churches remain stagnant.
I pray for God's blessing and love on you all. This will be my first and last post on this blog. I do not have the time for this pettiness.
Tim
Tim,
Saying that true love is not submission might be the dumbest thing yet said in this thread.
timber - really glad to hear it. My daughter found a church and we went together this morning for the first time. It was a really welcoming experience. It also turned out to be children's Sunday so we had a really good time.
Sometimes you have to kiss a few toads, y'know?
:-)
Kateb - Glad your daughter found a great church! Sometimes they are hard to find! Especially with all of this religious mumbo jumbo. I could chat and argue with them all from either side of the coin, but I prefer to be in God's great arms of forgiveness and love that I don't need to build my ego. I just hope they have fun in Heaven arguing while I am worshipping God and singing praises to Him!
God Bless,
Tim
Dear Tim,
Nice job with the holier-than-thou stuff.
I get pretty annoyed when people pull out the judge not lest ye be judged passage but this is actually a good place for it. We are commanded to judge what we see. Things like willful rejection of Scripture and women exercising authority over men. Don't you know that we will judge angels? This stuff we are commanded to judge.
But you've gone ahead and judged what only God can see. You've assumed you know that ego is driving the bus.
I know you weren't brought up to believe this but guarding the flock is hard work and it has been entrusted to faithful men who must be willing to say difficult things. We can't all spend our lives snuggled on Oprah's couch with people like KateB and Barb.
We will worship God together in heaven someday but that is no excuse to act like a woman here on earth.
Sincerely,
Matthew French
Matt said of me and the infamous encounter in the church aisle after his bro's concert: "You, in an attempt to defend your son (which is admirable) said some crazy things: 'God doesn't know the future. God's creation is out of His control. Some people of the Muslim faith may go to heaven.'"
I would not have said these things per se as you recall them. Because I don't know if God chooses to know everything that we will do with free will --I would teach that He is omniscient --but ponder in private conversations with people like yourself who are discussing some of the ideas that Rob talks about concerning our free will and the fact that the Bible said in at least one instance that God changed His mind/plans on something because the Jews didn't do what He thought they would do.
I know God has a plan for the universe and a time for Christ's return and Jesus has prepared a place for us --and God will take care of Satan and bring about His kingdom with the return of Christ. There is still much about the future to debate -- the Rapture, e.g. Scriptures are subject to study and interpretation and we DO look to language experts and scholars to illuminate some of the passages which seem mysterious or ponderable. And the many denominations are indicative sometimes (not always) of differences in emphases and interp.
Jesus certainly showed how God causes things to happen--like the preparation of the donkey for His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. There had to be foreknowledge and God's manipulation of those events.
God is all powerful--and because He is, He may save a Muslim who never hears the truth about Christ if He wishes --but will He? I don't find that likely. If it happened it would be through Christ and His atonement that it were possible --but unlikely because it is impossible to please God through works --and yet some individuals in Biblical history DID please God through their faith in Him --and perhaps because they had compassionate hearts.
Rahab is counted as a hero of the faith --a prostitute --because she helped the Hebrews. If God wants to save someone for any reason, He can and He may.
But what do we preach? that Christ is the doorway--and it doesn't change that truth if God brings a Muslim through the door.
But will He? I sure wouldn't be giving them hope of that --
But it is a little hard to witness to Muslims at a funeral and suggest their loved ones didn't have a prayer because they were Muslim. You'll notice that at funerals of unbelievers that Christian ministers focus on God's mercy --rather than God's conditions for salvation, suggesting that the dearly departed has gone to Hell.
They focus on the Gospel, that Christ has died for our sins and if we put our trust in Him and His sacrifice, we can be counted as "children of God."
there is a time and place for Hellfire preaching --but it may not be when dealing with people who cannot bear the thought that their ancestors went to Hell. We do well to leave the ancestors' fate to God and Christ who will judge.
As for the statement you attribute to me that "God's Creation is out of control."
Those would not be my words but your interp of my words.
But I do think that people have free will and some of them lack self-control and God is not going to impose His control over their free will. He will call them to repentance and urge them to believe in His son and urge them to run the race to its completion --not falling back, not giving in to the Temptor.
Also, I don't teach garbage to anyone. I haven't called your Calvinism garbage --but I wouldn't teach it either.
Say Tim, welcome to the blog anyway --though you consider the discussion petty.
As for a mention of you somewhere on the blog --did I name you? You were one of our very best musicians, wonderful for W.T. flow and background music -- but you were never part of the issue of whether a male or female would lead music. I think you would have been great if given authority to lead --hated to lose your outstanding piano playing --the best --well, I'd be hard pressed to compare you and Sharon who moved away, of course. I thought she was great, also. You were probably going to beat our piano to a pulp because of the strength you put behind your playing! no offense intended. I'm not sure it was built sturdy enough for your power. You know, we DID get all new pegs for the German piano.as they were slipping badly. So it holds tune better. We are still pleased with it and I remember your miraculous role in helping us get it.
I can't help it that some of these men on this discussion get contentious and sarcastic and obnoxious and petty! To them, the petty is important. They think God needs them to do this to bring us gals around--only it ain't workin'!
But when I see these guys--or yourself--I'm always delighted to see you all --and that's what Heaven will be about --the differences will fall away if they really are less important than the love among the brethren and the sistern--as I suspect they are.
I think some issues of contention are very important to God --like abortion and marital chastity --and they affect the whole culture when we start to say that wrong is right, and evil is good. The role of women is important --but there are godly women who are good mothers and good wives and not contributing to society's dysfunction just because they hold a leadership position --or even pastor a church.
I and the Bro's would agree that marriage, family, male-female relationships, proper child-rearing --are all very important and God has a Plan for these which affects our personal happiness and our culture's well-being, economic, physical, emotional --AND spiritual health.
Our church had several battering rams in its history that make it unusual:
starting with the Gothard home-school "Basic youth Conflicts" influence embraced by church leadership for too long --yet, we had a lot of growth and good fellowship during those years --but ultimately the Gothard doctrines would clash with FM and those people fell away and splintered into many different churches.
during that time we lost some fine young people to Calvinist influence.
both of these groups were hyper concerned about women's roles.
We weathered the Pentecostal influence because the Pentecostals we had were very good people --but they ultimately went to Pentecostal Churches.
And we've lost some just to career moves.
We are now a more cohesive body without many of those stresses and strains that typically challenge a church. The church board is the most relaxed and congenial we have EVER had. In part because our young minister has a gift for leadership --a really humble young man with great gifts.
I predict that we will continue to see an influx of new people who will take hold as part of our local body.
Barb said:
I can't help it that some of these men on this discussion get contentious and sarcastic and obnoxious and petty! To them, the petty is important. They think God needs them to do this to bring us gals around--only it ain't workin'!
Unless I'm mistaken...this is directed toward myself and my brother.
I've scanned through the majority of my comments here, and can only find one comment that could be construed as contentious.
It continues to amaze me, as I've mentioned before, that Christians think slander, gossip, and personal "revelation" of the hearts of others have a "sanctifying" influence.
You even say bad things about people who have left HFM...Barb, this is quintisentially gossip and contentious to boot. I had no idea of what was going on when I was younger (I think that's when Gothard was in his hey-day)...but I remember close fellowship back then.
While I'm no Gothardite, I'm relatively certain there is more to the story than what has been relayed...heck, there may be less.
But when I see these guys--or yourself--I'm always delighted to see you all
I couldn't agree more. That's why it galls me to read the things you'll publish online for anyone to read.
Go ahead and be galled, Antipelagian--if ya think about it, you've just left a post that seems rather contentious to me --denying that you are contentious while calling my history notes "gossip." That's your negative opinion and I don't agree. Ignoring history and its lessons is a sorry tendency --though it does beat going for the jugular. I intend to do neither.
To me, history is truth and we should learn from it, rather than preferring our fantasy memories. To me, The past proves both the errors and the strengths of what some see as fundamentalist legalism -- I don't care who sees the posts I write --including those who were steeped in the Gothard movement --which wasn't all bad but very legalistic. I think they got some of it right by even the FM and UB churches' view of things --like concerns for salvation, holiness, modesty, worship, worldliness, the importance of fathers, parenting, clean lifestyles, abstinence from alcohol, etc.
Gothard followers were like devout Catholics in their view of making as many babies as God would give them. (This is fine --more pro-life Republicans.) they were into Little-House on the prairie dress for the women and looked lovely and wholesome that way.
But those Gothards in our church did come to frown on a very spiritual minister's wife who was given the podium by her husband, who was asked by him to teach adults about the spiritual things she was experiencing; they frowned on mothers who worked outside the home (ask those working mothers who felt it) --and it was easy to get the impression that they thought everyone should be in the Gothard movement, home schooling and home birthing as they urged us all to attend the annual seminars in ARchbold. I was asked many times why I didn't go. If I would only go, I would surely see everything as they did. I admired them for their devotion to the family --but I was no less devoted to mine. I could not admire a father who forbade his musical family to be in church choir cantata some years because he didn't want to be the baby-sitter --didn't want the night out for the older singers in the family--yet, they were home all day --and could have considered church cantata their once a week music class. To me the Daddy First emphasis bordered on selfish. OK, that's a judgment --but it may be accurate. Something for present day fathers to consider.
Perhaps you didn't realize that Gothards were even wary of the influence of youth leaders, youth groups, CLC, the non-Gothard friends their children might meet in youth group and so they didn't participate. It's true that some kids get friends even in church who have a bad influence on them ----and TCS and church kids are capable of giving into temptation to do that which all their parents do not want them doing --drinking, porn and premarital sex, e.g. The power of peer pressure from kids raised in ANY homes, any churches, any schools --can be a detrimental influence. The Devil can find an inroad, despite the best efforts of parents. They also didn't like Christian rock and the fact that the youth director might expose their kids to it.
Gothards did engineer the departure of a fine minister and wife before they were ready to go --when their ministry was for the
2nd time in the ascendency with the church experiencing much new growth. That's just fact. They gave that ministerial couple much to forgive. All over the women's issue--and you would surely agree with them on that --that a woman who was inspired to prophesy (tell forth the Word) by the Holy Spirit as Paul said they would be in the last days, should be silent in the church.
The irony was that the minister's wife's female confronter, sent by the Gothard men, was a woman who spoke out lengthily in adult S.S. class herself. This is a "judge not because you do the very same things" illustration. Instructive truth from the past.
They did believe that their chosen lifestyle ways weren't just right for them but God's way for all.
I'm that way about some lifestyle choices that I (and many churches) consider bibically- based also. I agree with my church that no one should smoke --and that alcohol should be minimally indulged if at all. I was raised to believe that if you stayed away from alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling, you'd never have those as problems --and that teaching has saved my extended family much misery and expense, I'm sure. there are enough problems, addictions or habits that are inevitable to face without asking for more.
No, I wasn't just talking about your and your brother as the contentious ones--look at all the posts --I contend for my point of view, too, but I really don't mean to go for the jugular with the ad hominem attack, belittling your Christianity or your intellect and skills of reasoning --referring to reducto absurdium, etc. But I do tell you that I don't think sarcasm and hostility are friendly styles of debate --unless it's undeniably funny. I have a sense of humor; I can take good natured ribbing, I think. Maybe if I knew what reducto absurdium was, I'd say it back to you! I can guess, but it is a new phrase to me.
I think I'm more easy-going about our differences --where the Calvinists' differences and the women's role issue are essentials of Christianity to you. I've been told by your bro' that Arminians are just plainly unscriptural., but I've said before, I think the Calvinists torture scriptures to make them fit. So we mutually disagree about which view is the more scripturally valid.
And so be it.
There is nothing new under the sun--especially not between the Calvinists and the Arminians.
I hear that I'm to stay off of CA's blog as Matt doesn't want me to comment on Calvinism over there? I believe that's because an unopposed Calvinist believes he can persuade others to his view --as he was once persuaded. He wouldn't want the confusion of Arminian perspective? Actually, I suspect CA knows why he believes what he believes and won't be vulnerable.
If Matt's reason is just that I waste space on a forum, that's not very nice to say, is it? People can always skip over and ignore what I write and save time.
KATE B --you and Crusader have seemed dismayed at the tone of the argument here --but despite the contention, you ain't seen nothing until you see a Christian attacked on a liberal's forum. This is Heaven, comparatively (sad to say!) Hopefully, we'll all stop "seeing through a glass darkly" when we get to Heaven and "see Him face to face" --and there won't be anything to argue about.
Imagine that! Just worship and loving? Enjoying? learning and doing art maybe? Making music, surely!
by the way, singers are wanted for our musical production, "Joy, Joy, Joy" --So Christians in search of a church or even "seekers" in search of a church --who sing, may want to join in the inspirational project of our annual cantata.
Barb,
Could you please e-mail me at a.patchett@plastictechnologies.com
I have something I want to talk to you about but do not wish to do it on the forum.
I hear that I'm to stay off of CA's blog as Matt doesn't want me to comment on Calvinism over there? I believe that's because an unopposed Calvinist believes he can persuade others to his view --as he was once persuaded. He wouldn't want the confusion of Arminian perspective? Actually, I suspect CA knows why he believes what he believes and won't be vulnerable.
Barb, that's really not it at all. As I said over there it's because of a long history of fruitless debate between us. That, and your tendency to be so loquacious. It's just too time consuming.
Barb,
Ask Aaron if he thought our church was oppressive to women. He visited a couple of times recently.
I would hope oppression wouldn't show up in your services. Do your church women wear hats --and if not, why not? And I don't object to it --but I think I saw a photo on a facebook of couples at your church with women's heads bared. In fact, hats were worn in the FM and UB church through the 50's --and then we began to see it as a legalistic hold-over from mideastern culture, apparently. My mother wouldn't let me get an Easter bonnet at a certain point --because church hats weren't to contribute to vaingloriousness. We went un-hatted. But my grandmother and mother did own lots of hats for church.
I also think that a church with really proficient, admirable male leadership, will be fine with women--including me. Problems come when churches lack men to proficiently lead in every area of the church's mission-- and they ignore the people who have solutions to suggest or skills which could meet their needs and solve their problems --just because they are women.
I was never in a church until we moved here that was so self-conscious about the female role --and that came not through Free methodism but relatively new converts proof-texting and the Gothard teaching. The church became focused on everyone labeling their spiritual gifts, also, through the Gothard teaching --and so we had a lot of self-proclaimed male exhorters and prophets and teachers with puffed up chests.
I believe people will act out of their gifts without having to label themselves and seeming to get all puffed up about their gifts.
If your Christianity doesn't make you a lover, a friendly person, who says, "Suffer the children --and the sinners to come unto me" -- if it makes us think we are better than each other, there is something wrong with it.
Golly--I probably wouldn't have even looked at CA's blog for this discussion--now i'll have to peek in!
Truly, any time someone's post is too long and irrelevant for you, matt, just don't read it!
I confess to skimming over some loquacious posts of others!
Men love to call me long-winded --but I've seen men go on and on as well. And I don't tell them they are too loquacious --so why is it they think they can insult me? It's the curiosity of my life --why people think they have a license to insult --me, in particular
Barb,
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm not insulting you for being long-winded, I'm just saying I don't have time for it.
Your longwindedness has nothing to do with your gender, either. I never said that.
Sarah points out, for instance, that I spend more time on the phone than she does.
You simply have a lot to say. Embrace the fact and proclaim it from the rooftops.
Matthew said...
Barb,
Ask Aaron if he thought our church was oppressive to women. He visited a couple of times recently.
I didnt find anything overtly offensive or strange about Christ the Word. The only criticism I might have is That I think the public prayer is a bit loquacious.
:)
The prayer of confession or the pastoral one?
The one where everyone kneels.
Its probably personal. I have a hard time praying when someone else is praying. I feel like Im butting in on a conversation. On the other hand Christ does say that we should keep public prayers short and to the point.
I attended a church yesterday that was in keeping with Christ's ministry and is producing works in the community.
This is something to be thankful for!
chuckle --yes, a lot to say --from the rooftops! Only death will slow me down, i suspect.
KateB --as you visit different churches, have you been to ours?
We have a Cherry Street mission ministry by men, a Christian Life Club ministry that reaches out to all kids, plus the children of Habitat neighborhood who come to our Wed. night program and our VBS --shoebox ministry for Operation Christmas Child --that gives Christmas gifts to children around the world with the Gospel --and we've made several significant mission trips like Katrina relief -- (one group cleaned up a head start school --others have worked on houses for the needy in the disaster area) -- we support missionaries and the children respond to charity projects for needy people on the mission field --our denominational missions support hospital work in Africa with AIDS victims, rice fund and children's hostels in India, orphans in Africa, the poverty-stricken in Haiti and churches in the Dominican Republic --Compassion, Int'l and their school and food projects for kids through child sponsorship,--an ophanage in Romania. We are collecting food and goods and cash for same for Christmas baskets to the elderly and needy known to our church.
and this Christmas cantata needing singers is a holiday entertainment for the community --entertaining, uplifting and faith-building with the truth of Christmas.
The Kurdish gov't in Iraq gave our denomination land for a church --to my amazement. That was this year, I believe.
FM missions have been so successful that their membership out of USA is as big as in.
We have the Angel Food ministry at our church which has quite an outreach. Anyone is elegible to buy this monthly bundle of food at a cheap price --this is a national ministry that several churches are participating in. People have to place an order with the church office and pick up the food on one Sat per month. it helps us rub elbows with people we might not otherwise get to know, many who are needy and unchurched.
And there is ministry within the church to widows and other needy folks who worship with us.
Our church folks support many ministries with their money and deeds.
But of course, some are more active that way than others. Opportunities for service abound. We need more people for our kids' program on Wed. Right now, I'm looking for hall monitors as some kids go to the R.R. and I'm uneasy as to that time of lack of supervision as some of our kids have been acting rather wild this year and we need some firm supervision.
The preaching has been superb and I think our music is good, too.
I've heard some good things about your church Barb. It's such a blessing to have a place to worship and organize your efforts with other believers.
Of course these places are primary targets for the devil and he plants alot of people to interfere. I've seen that in successful churches over the years.
Right now, since I've been without a church family for a while I'm working on a couple of things I probably wouldn't have even known about. There are some international efforts, Leprosy Missions (truthfully I didn't even know the disease still existed), Operation Smile and two childrens' initiatives.
I was honored to be a board member for a mission for hopelessly drug addicted men until it moved to Adrian last year. It's thriving there. Toledo wasn't very hospitable - but it's just so easy to refuse to acknowledge a problem that big.
Anyway - I'm looking forward to having a place to attend services again. A little afraid - this is the second time I was really attached to a church and then had to leave. The first time was after we moved away but this last time was sad. The church leadership responded in a very un-Christian like way to a situation. As did the diocese office and the interim Pastor. It was awful. They made up stories about people in the church - gossiped in the church - it was just evil. And painful to watch.
So - I'm praying that I can get past the things I have experienced. I know I should - I'm just alone, kids grown up and my husband decided a long time ago he'd rather date than be married - so these relationships mean alot to me.
Feel welcome to visit us, kateB.
Thanks Barb - I appreciate it.
Post a Comment