“IN ESSENTIALS UNITY, IN NON-ESSENTIALS LIBERTY, IN ALL THINGS CHARITY”
I have enormous respect for Calvinists; however, I cannot suffer the Calvinistas. “Calvinista” is a term coined here at The Wartburg Watch, which connotes those Calvinists who believe not only that they are 100% right but imply with less than subtle innuendo that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is (choose one or all) Biblically illiterate, theologically challenged, a baby Christian, self-glorifying, God demeaning, and maybe not saved.
I have been blessed to be in churches that, with the overwhelming exception of one, have subscribed to the above quote. Most Calvinists I have known through the years have been engaging and self-effacing; yet, I do remember one comment from a Calvinist that was shocking. A man approached me fifteen years ago (while I was doing a stint during children’s Sunday school) and stated his belief that all babies who die before the age of reason are not saved and will go to hell. I raised my eyebrows, muttered something inconsequential, and had to bite my tongue not to ask the man to seek psychiatric intervention. (Until recently, Dee attempted to be “nice”). “Poor man”, I thought, “he has so much inner anger.”
However, the comment stayed in the back of my mind and resurfaced about five years ago. I decided to read all I could on Calvinism – both for and against. I was determined to make a list of the pros and cons on Calvinism and non-Calvinism. I read Calvin, Sproul, White, Geisler, Grudem, and others. The study was illuminating and helped me to understand the various sides of the issue. But, to my mind, there was one overwhelming sense I got while reading the Calvinists. The Calvinists came across as arrogant and angry. I tired of the arguments and was left with a profound “why.” Why the arrogance and why the anger? I was terribly perplexed by all the brouhaha over Calvinism.
I decided that I was neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. In fact, I’m not sure exactly what I am. I found an amusing quote from Jill Briscoe that gave me a sense of the conflict. Briscoe said something along these lines: “When I am witnessing to someone , I am a Arminian. When the plane develops engine trouble and is making an emergency landing, I am an Calvinist”. (Forgive me if I this isn’t an exact quote).
Calvinism’s basic tenets can be remembered by the acronym TULIP. Here’s a description of each letter of the acronym:
“T”otal Depravity: Man is so lost in his sin that he is incapable of even knowing he needs God. God must first “do a work” in the man’s heart in order for him to find God. Man is so depraved that he doesn’t deserve God’s grace, and God is under no obligation to save anyone. We should rejoice that God desires to save anyone.
“U”nconditional Election: Man is saved by grace alone and not by any good works.
“L”imited Atonement: Jesus died ONLY for those whom He “elects”. Jesus does not save everybody lest everyone would be in heaven.
“I”rresistible Grace: Once God has done the work in a person’s heart, that person will be overwhelmed by God’s grace and cannot resist becoming a Christian.
“P”erseverance of the Saints: This essentially means “once save, always saved”. It is thought that God would be less than God if He could not protect those who have turned to Him from losing their faith.
Here is the main sticking point. Calvinists believe that man is so totally depraved that only God can make a person come to a saving knowledge of Him. Therefore, God must pick and choose in whom He will do His work since not all men are saved. God has elected some to be saved and others to be condemned. Since God is under no obligation to save anyone, we should rejoice that He saves some.
Many have argued that God looks down the corridor of time and elects those He knows would have chosen Him. To Calvinists, this is not theologically viable because man’s election is unconditional and is not based on any good works. Also, man cannot choose God without God first choosing him.
Others have argued that choosing God is not an act that connotes goodness in an individual. It is merely a desperate reaching out to a Savior. Once again, Calvinism negates this by countering that man is incapable of choosing God without God first choosing the person.
Here is how this armchair theologian views this matter. Recently, I went to a folk art museum in North Carolina. I was awestruck by a beautiful, multicolored vase. Yet, I did not praise the vase itself for being beautiful. I thought about the creator of the vase and knew that he was the one to praise for such beauty. C.S. Lewis lamented that many people just get stuck on the end point and not the beginning. He talked of the beauty of a sunbeam in the forest. He then said: “One’s mind runs back up the sunbeam to the sun.” Lewis believed in worshipping the Creator of the creation.
Blaise Pascal said that every man is created with a God-shaped vacuum. I think he has a point. God, as our Creator, may have graciously given each of us the ability to seek for God and even to reject and choose Him. This in no way dishonors God. It is only by God’s grace that He created us with the ability to make this choice. It does not proclaim righteousness on the part of the person. Just as the beautiful vase causes me to praise the man who created it, my salvation can only cause a person to look for and praise the author of my salvation since I am clearly unable to produce the means of my salvation. God is glorified, not me the helpless one. Once again, one might look at the choice as a gift of grace from the Father. It also clearly demonstrates a God who wishes “that none may perish.”
A Chatty Cathy doll speaks only when you pull its string. Unlike the Calvinistas, I do not believe that God treats us as a Chatty Cathy doll, nor do I believe that God created Satan specifically to be Satan. God created the heavens and the earth and allowed his special created beings — man and angels — two choices. He created the potential for evil by allowing a choice “not for God” as well as a choice “for God.” This choice was given to both humans and angelic beings.Once again, the choice was given by God and in no way glorifies man or angels. We glorify the Author of the choice.
In the end, one might ask, “Are you sure you are right?” My answer is easy, “Of course not!” In fact, I think this whole argument stems from a desire on all sides to “know God.” But for many knowing God means to put Him in a box so that we can say that we fully know God and what He wants. Yet, in many ways, we can’t fully know or understand God. He is omniscient; I’m not. He is omnipotent; I’m not. I know what the Bible tells me. But great theologians are divided on Calvinism, creationism, gender roles, and so on. Perhaps there is not agreement because the issue is far more complex and, as our President once quipped, above our pay grade.
However, I shall continue to read and listen. My mind is not made up. Perhaps that’s a good thing. There is so little I know that, on things that are not clearly spelled out, I need to continue to read and pray and also admit that I may never clearly understand this issue. And for some strange reason, I find this comforting. Why? Well, I shall never be bored exploring the complexities of my Father and His creation. I also experience peace as I rest in the arms of an everlasting Father who promises me peace as I follow and grow in His way. Remember being a child and being afraid of something like thunder? I remember my father scooping me up and telling me not to worry. I didn’t understand the thunder at the young age. Yet, I knew he did and I could rest knowing that he was in charge. I believe that there is much that we don’t understand but it is comforting to know that He does and that He is in charge. How sad it is that so many people want to put God in some nice, neat easy to understand box. He’s far more interesting when we allow Him to be God.
And that brings me to the Calvinistas. Here’s the problem with this crowd. They know exactly what God means, and we’d better listen! They go beyond the five tenets of Calvinism and add new rules. The Bible “clearly” shows that the earth is 6,000 years old. The Bible “clearly” defines gender roles. In fact, some Calvinista leaders are so sure of certain tenets that they do not trust seminaries and have started their own “boutique” seminaries, I guess so they can teach their clear understanding of everything. John Piper has one. So does the self-aggrandized Apostle C.J. Mahaney as well as Mark Driscoll.
Many Calvinistas are hyper-authoritarian, often dictating rigid discipline and enforcement of “must dos”. These mandates might include such things as forcing a person to attend an assigned group (since for some strange reason they cannot choose their own group) on a regular basis (with “church discipline” being applied if the person misses one too many). The list goes on, and we will share some of these “extra-biblical” rules in upcoming posts. Calvinista leaders ignore the “priesthood of the believer” and rarely seek congregational input, believing that God has put them in authority over their flock. In their minds, church members exist to serve their rigid agenda.
I have theory regarding this upsurge in authoritarian reformers. They see their children falling away from God and atheism gaining strength throughout the world. They want to stop these things from happening. So, they have “rules”. They are not unlike the prohibitionists of the last century who believed ” if only we outlaw alcohol, there will not be any drunkenness or alcoholism”. They believe they have found the answer to just about every problem out there. If only the sheep would listen to them, everything would be just fine. And surely God is on their side. God must know how great their theological interpretation is! It also sounds a little like the Third Reich with their pure race. It is far easier to serve a God that you (the Calvinistas) have defined than a God that, as C.S.Lewis would say, “is not a tame lion.”
Why are the Calvinistas angry? Perhaps they don’t understand why the world isn’t listening to them. One only needs to go to the various Sovereign Grace survivor websites to read tale after tale of manipulation and control. (sgmsurvivors.com and sgmrefuge.com). The Calvinista leaders are angry because people will not submit to them. And, they believe their followers should submit to them because they have read the Bible and know exactly what God wants. This is arrogance at its worst.
Our bottom line is this. We respect the traditional Calvinists who have “graciously” agreed to disagree with brothers and sisters in Christ who are not “reformed”. We can find no reason to respect the hard core Calvinistas. We predict that this movement will soon fizzle out because it is based on man glorifying himself to such an extent that some men believe they have the knowledge and power to run everyone else’s life. And guess what? They have been around long enough that we can now examine the results. As you will see in upcoming posts, they do it very, very badly!!!
I don’t know that “Calvinistas” is quite the right term to describe the men (and occasionally women) you’re describing. Why? Because some of them would swear to God and on the Holy Bible that they’re no follower of Calvin. They conflate Calvin with the Presbyterians (some of whom, I’m finding, are far from the Calvinista type that you’re defining here). Most of them are what the world would call “Fundamentalists”, a word that has lost much of its original meaning–believing in the most basic fundamentals of the faith–and has come to mean narrow-minded, works-driven, militant, vengeful followers of whatever religious system you can name.
Having come from a Fundamentalist background myself (independent, Bob Jones University-orbit Baptist church), I see a lot of what you’re describing as “Calvinista” behavior in the preachers, teachers, and pastors of that particular sect. I see Southern Baptists trying to load up their flocks with more rules, sending them back to the law and making adherence to these rules a measure of obedience and love to God. But dare to say they follow Calvin or his teachings? They’d be appalled and outraged that they were tarred with that particular ideological brush.
I think there has to be a word that encompasses the behavior without tying it to any particular man or his stated tenets.
Tikatu,
Great to hear from you! Sounds like the legalists are all over the place within Christendom! No wonder Jesus treated the Pharisees so harshly. They are a tremendous hindrance to the Gospel.
I think you might have the term right here, Deb. Legalist… or perhaps even ultra-legalist. Someone so involved in works-based salvation/sanctification (and adding, as the Apostles refrained from doing, the tenets of the law to simple faith) that they’ve almost entirely forgotten what God’s Grace is.
We are saved by His Grace, we walk by faith in his Grace, and nothing we can do here on earth will merit favor in His eyes… including those “acts of obedience” set before us by the “shepherds”. Christ came to fulfill the Law–ALL of it, not just selected portions thereof.
I cuncur with Tikatu that the tendency toward hyper-authoritarianism, hyper-legalism, and narrow-mindedness (unwillingness to condede the possiblity of being wrong, elevation of tertiary doctrines to primary status. etc.) is not exclusive to the Calvinistas. But there are indeed far too many within the so-called Reformed camp who wear their 5-pointed tin star like a wild-west sherrif, posing as judge, jury, and executioner for any hapless Christian who may dare to disagree with their self-righteous pronouncements. I love the term “Calvinistas”; I think it captures perfectly their provencial arrogance and readiness to do battle with other Christians.
Junkster,
Can I borrow this statement you made?
“But there are indeed far too many within the so-called Reformed camp who wear their 5-pointed tin star like a wild-west sherrif, posing as judge, jury, and executioner for any hapless Christian who may dare to disagree with their self-righteous pronouncements.”
LOVE IT! LOVE IT! LOVE IT!!!!!!
I’ll definitely give you credit if I quote you.
Imagine my surprise to read the first reply being nearly identical to what I was going to say. When you look at the various branches of Christianity – Calvinist, Armenian, or whatever, you should be looking for those things which point to the Creator. In Calvin I find a very high view of God. In these days when so many people want to enclose God in a small box, knowing everything that God has done, does, and will do, Calvin’s view of God was very very much beyond that. While those you regard as Calvinistas may actually have a limited view, though they may try hard to make and “follow the rules”. Thus in the same way way that the many of the pharasees could not be considered sons of Abraham, the calvinistas are not necessarily good followers of Calvin.
So I recommend that you concentrate on the best of Calvin rather than the worst of the rule making that came out of it. And don’t denegrate Calvin in calling these twerps Calvinistas. They neither deserve the name nor does Calvin deserve it…
ACalvinistsays
Thank you for your comments. I admire Calvin as I do Wesley, Luther and other great theologians. I learn wonderful things from all of them. However, I worry when folks quote Calvin more than Jesus.But what concerns me even more, is when folks attribute things to Calvin that Calvin didn’t even espouse. Thank you for your thoughts.
Junkster
As usual, I love what you wrote. Could we quote you tomorrow?
Of course, use it if it is helpful. No credit necessary.
Sure, no problem. Sorry I didn’t spond sooner, Ive actually been offline for a few days (very unusual for me, just on a short vacation).
” decided that I was neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. In fact, I’m not sure exactly what I am.”
Me too! As a friend of mine said when he went to work at SBTS and EVERYONE on staff asked him if he was a Calvinist or Arminian he simply replied: I am a Jesusists. :o)
What I’ll never understand is why they get angry at all. Aren’t we all powerless to do anything without God causing it? Then shouldn’t they be angry with God for making us non-Calvinists? Is God forcing them to be angry? Is He forcing us to irritate His elect?
Questions, questions…
Paula,
You are made some excellent points. The Calvinistas seem overly concerned with control over their own lives and the lives of others. I thought God was sovereignly in control.
Tanx Deb! And those questions could be aimed at patriarchy as well. If women are by nature incapable of leading, then what are they afraid of?
Also, I’d like to ask you something privately but I don’t see a contact form. Could you possibly email me? It’s okay if you’d rather not.
The real question is: If this doctrine is truly what scripture teaches then why do they call it by a human’s name? Why give Calvin the credit for what belongs to Christ?
Lydia
I was talking about you at lunch after church today. I told some of my friends that you have a great handle on these issues. Once again, your Calvin comment is spot on. I frankly get tired of the “Calvinistas” and agree that they appear to use his name more than Jesus.
Paula
Contact us at
deb@thewartburgwatch.com
dee@the wartburgwatch.com
Dee (or Deb – I assume that’s the same person and may be wrong in that assumption. if so, I’m sorry. My response is to the person who made the main posting).
Your presentation of the TULIP “definition” of Calvinism is actually based on something that was developed during the Synod of Dordt what was called to deal with the five points of the Remonstrants. Since then it has been taken as a fair representation of Calvinisms and so I would like to make some corrections in the interests of accuracy.
Total Depravity: The key is that sin has affected the whole of man’s being. We can neither know what is the truth, determine to obey God nor desire to please him without the effects of sin destroying the worth of our behavior in God’s sight. It’s really an abbreviation of the idea that the heart of man is evil and turns what can be known of God into a lie, worshiping and serving the created rather than the creator.
While what you say about no one deserving to be saved is true and while Calvinists do rejoice in the fact that God deigns to save anyone it is not a part of the formulation of the doctrine called total depravity.
Unconditional Election: The key here is election to salvation is not based on the idea of foreseen merit (of any sort). The key passage is in Romans 9:11 where, speaking of Jacob’s election and Esau’s rejection he says Jacob was chosen and Esau rejected before they were even born so “that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth.” There are other places in Scripture where the same concept is spelled out and where the thrust of the whole section teaches the point. God chooses, without regard to the person’s worthiness according to heritage or works or even (Romans 9:11 implies) whether they have faith or not.
Limited Atonement: This is not the best expression of the doctrine – Particular Atonement might be better but TUPIP is not as easily remembered as TULIP – especially in Holland. It refers to the idea that Christ’s atonement was for particular people and not the general mass of mankind. Think of Christ’s prayer in John 17. All the way through this prayer it is plain that Christ is making a distinction between those that the Father had given him and those who did not belong to him. That’s the idea: Christ died to ensure the salvation of his sheep (whoever, wherever and whenever they might be) not anyone else. Your addition “lest everyone be saved” is not the Calvinists view of the intent. That would have been better expressed (as I imagine you meant it): “If he had died for everyone then everyone would certainly be saved.”
Irresistible Grace: Your explanation is clear. It really needs no additional comment
Perseverance of the Saints: I am tempted to say nothing on this either but since “once saved, always saved” means something to one person and another to someone else it would probably be more correct to shorten the idea to “those who become Christian continue in their profession until they die.” In contrast to John’s saying in his letter “They went out from among us that it might be manifest that they were not all of us.”
I can see that you have given this study some consideration and, accept that there are some of us who (in their zeal) give the impression that in order to be saved you need to follow all sorts of additional prescriptions. Actually, as I understand it, TULIP is supposed to only give an easy way to sum up the distinctive differences between Calvin’s teaching on the “way of salvation” when contrasted with that of Arminius. Were we to be talking about other false teachings (like those claims of the Church of Rome) we would find a very different set of distinctions.
I would hesitate to speak for the men you quote (Piper et al) but I can imagine that, were we to be talking about a different, but common tendency in modern Churches we might sound a little like them. Some Churches teach that all a person needs to do in order to be saved (another variant on the once saved always saved idea), is pray a prescribed prayer and state publicly that they have “given their lives to Christ.” From that point on they are to be considered as Christian even if there seems to be no change in their behavior.
James says that if we have faith it should lead to works, no works means no faith. Now, suppose the person who has prayed the prayer and made the claim says: “How do I show I am saved?” Would we be wrong to show them some things that should be different in the life of a Christian (when compared to the life of an unbeliever)? Of course the things one person points to will be different from the things another might (we learn our faith at different rates after all) but they might sound to the less informed like prescriptions for salvation. That we should be very careful to make sure people don’t think that’s what we’re doing is important – but sometimes we might not be as clear about that as we should. We’re still sinful human beings even if we are saved 🙂
I hope this clarifies the few areas which seemed a little unclear in what was (otherwise) a fine posting.
Thanks! Will do.
The quick and simple answer to this question is: To claim to find in Scripture a system of doctrine which you have learned from another without acknowledging his role as your teacher is Plagiarism. I find that Calvin’s formulation of the teaching of the Bible sets out most clearly and consistently what I believe it teaches.
As a Presbyterian I also accept the Westminster Confession of Faith as a summary of my beliefs but that document is based (also) on Calvin’s teachings. So, as a shortcut, I acknowledge the source of my understanding of the Bible to come from Calvin in the name “Calvinist,” rather than saying “I’m a Westminster Confessionist.”
As for giving Calvin credit for what belongs to Christ? Calvin did not die on my behalf, Calvin did not send me the Holy Spirit that I might come to know the one true God, Calvin did not ascend on high to live and make intercession on my behalf. I don’t know any Calvinist either who believes he did any of these things – but these are all the things which Christ has done for me and for every believer whether their system of belief is consistent or not. I will grant you that sometimes, in their enthusiasm or when they get a bit carried away you might wonder … but I have met followers of local preachers and authors who do the same.
As one who is enthusiastic about Paul’s teaching, it’s good that you remind me to listen to him when he says: “Who is Paul and who Appollos but servants through whom you believed. I planted and Appollos watered but it was GOD who gave the increase.” May we ever praise and glorify him because he is the fairest of ten thousand!!
I do like that response. Mine is usually “I’m a sinner who loves and is loved by God.” His is shorter and possibly more to the point 🙂
SBTS? I don’t know that abbreviation.
K
…contrasted with that of Arminius. Were we to be talking about other false teachings
Please tell me you aren’t classifying non-Calvinism as a “false teaching”, because that would be saying Calvinism is in fact a required belief for salvation. I’m hoping this is just a matter of clarifying.
” To claim to find in Scripture a system of doctrine which you have learned from another without acknowledging his role as your teacher is Plagiarism. I find that Calvin’s formulation of the teaching of the Bible sets out most clearly and consistently what I believe it teaches. ”
I do not mean any disrespect, but I would hope the Holy Spirit would would get the credit because He is the best teacher. I am afraid I shy away from ST. Students on our seminary campi know Wayne Grudem better than they know scripture.
As one who believes in election and predestination but is not a Calvinist, I would like to qualify what Total Depravity means to a “Calvinist”. It means “total inability”. All true believers agree with the doctrine of total depravity because they have experienced that truth in order to be saved.
“Synod of Dordt”
Which we know was more about political allegiances since they were dealing in a state/church mentality at the time. Most creeds come from that viewpoint.
I was talking about you at lunch after church today. I told some of my friends that you have a great handle on these issues. Once again, your Calvin comment is spot on. I frankly get tired of the “Calvinistas” and agree that they appear to use his name more than Jesus.
Thanks Dee! This is why I am neither a Calvinist or Arminian. It can only be Jesus Christ. No man deserves any credit
Kaitiaki,
Thanks for your informative comment. Dee and I are indeed two different individuals and the bestest of friends! It is a joy to work with her here at The Wartburg Watch.
I would add that plagiarism is defined as passing off someone else’s ideas as your own, which in this case would have to mean that someone other than Calvin were to steal Calvin’s writings and claim them as originating from them instead. This is hardly the situation with objecting to Calvin being cited as the end-all be-all of interpretation of scripture. Many went before him as well, and he himself credits Augustine with the bulk of his insights. Historians, from various things I’ve read, concur that Calvin only refined and expanded the teachings of Augustine. In that light, the charge of plagiarism could be rightly laid at the feet of Calvin.
Just sayin’. 😉
Amen, Lydia!
I refuse to label myself in this divisive way. I have tremendous difficulty with the “L” and the “I” in “TULIP”.
How foolish to spend so much energy arguing when we should be focusing on the Great Commission.
Kaitiki
I am going to answer your post at 4:23. SBTS is Southern Baptist Theological Seminary which is the flagstaff seminary for the SBC and home to what we at TWW call the Calvinista movement.
Now, I have a question for you. I have seen the emphasis on “sin” within Calvinism. At times, I think the resurrection takes a back seat. How do you feel about saying “I am a FORGIVEN sinner who loves and is loved by Jesus.
Deb is also my bestest friend and we are two!
Kaitiki
Now on to your thoughtful explanation of Calvinism. I have said it here and I know that other theologians agree with me… What exactly is the problem with God creating us with an ability to choose for or against? The idea of total depravity makes us unable to even consider God as an alternative. Yet, if God HImself imbued us with this ability, it does not take away from our inability to choose for God. It is still Him, and only Him, that has given us this choice, and the ability to make this choice. So, there is no glory given to the one who chooses God since it is God HImself that makes it possible. This in no way diminishes God or exalts us.
Kaitiki
Finally, thank you for your thoughts. There is a difference with the
new Calvinists” and the old ones. The old ones did not add anything to the 5 points. Today, there are those who add a certain view of the age of the earth, a certain view of the role of men/women, a certain view on pastoral authority, a certain view on church discipline, innuendos about the theological stupidity of those who don’t march lockstep, innuendos about issues of salvation,and on and on. I am exhausted with keeping up with them.
As a nonCalvinist (and a non Arminianist) I, too, do not buy the quick prayer and “Boom” you are a Christian. In fact, I think the early church had a good idea about spending a year in study prior to making a full commitment to the faith. I am as concerned as any Calvinist and have spent years teaching inside the church “equipping the saints”. Calvinism has no lock on that concern.
I believe that old Calvinists and non Calvinists can work well together. I do not think the same of the new “Calvinistas” who I believe are destroying the unity of the church.By the way, your post did not exhibit the arrogance typically seen in a Calvinista type post and, for that, I thank you.
What I think Dee meant to write was “flagship seminary”, but I’m sure ya’ll know that!
Deb,
As for having to spend a year in study prior to making a full commitment to the faith is a good idea. The question then begs how long did Jesus spend in study prior to Him making a full commitment to His fathers work?
Also, as to the roles for men/woman, it seems that this has been established by God and verified by Jesus.
Mortal
Jesus began his main ministry (with the exception of the Temple incident) in his 30s. And Jesus had a bit more understanding the the rest of us schlocks.
If gender roles are so clearly established, then why is there disagreement within the evangelical crowd?
If gender roles are so clearly established, then why is there disagreement within the evangelical crowd?
Even the comps cannot agree to the degree of roles rules for women. Then you have the patriarches. This is why they had to have a Talmud like site over at CBMW.
BTW: McGregor Wright drove mac truck holes through the Danvers statement from scripture since there was not a lot of scripture in the statement to begin with.
Mortal: Jesus was God in the flesh. He did not need to study. He already knew it. Remember the passage about him being lost but found in the Temple at 12?
Deb,
Your statement is very insightful statement
“If gender roles are so clearly established, then why is there disagreement within the evangelical crowd?”
Perhaps there is disagreement in the evangelical crowd for the same reason some people in our society has a real issue accepting this fact:
“Up to the time of sexual differentiation the sex template for all fetus (baby) is male”.
There are many people who take real issue with this fact. Some just can not accept that women come from the male template.
I pray that this still can be considered gentle and acceptable point.
Deb,
Just wanted to add another comment to your statement
“If gender roles are so clearly established, then why is there disagreement within the evangelical crowd?”
The evangelical crowd who disagrees with the male role versus the female role in the church, might want to be reminded that all babies that were announced to the parents before the child was conceived were males.
I am not aware of any female births being announced this far in advance.
Also, God has elevated the female above the male. Jesus refers to His church as His Bride. Men are to leave their families and cleave to their wife. The mans family hardly ever see him and the wife’s family can not get him to stop coming to visit.
The Orthodox Jewish man signs a contract at his wedding which requires that every Friday, and just before dinner, he is to get on his knees and give his wife a gift, and praise her and thank her for being his wife and all she does for him and the family. If he does not do this, he is found in violation of the marriage contract.
If I did this to my wife, she would wonder what it was I did wrong and was trying to hide. And probably throw the gift at me and run out of the room.
God has elevated the worth and glory of the woman over the man. The man leaves his family, he will defend her to the death, he provides love and honor to her, he puts her on a pedestal, (at least in the society in which I was raised).
All men are born brain damaged. If the fetus is to be a male, the brain of the male produces a special protein solution that soaks the brain for about six weeks, this shrinks the right hemisphere, expands the left, and disconnects a large number of connections between the hemispheres. The short of it all is — “all males are born brain damaged”.
The female fetus brain is not altered in the womb. So now we know why men do not know why they act the way they do, never ask for directios, switch channels on the TV in a constant motion, and need the female to tell them why! It is because we are all born brain damaged from birth!!!
So why is the male versus female role such a problem?
Mortal
I don;t mind the comment.However, here is some further info to contemplate.
“In the first six weeks of development after conception, or the first eight weeks of the pregnancy, the fetus is neither expressly female nor male. However, the genetic material necessary to create either of the two reproductive systems exists in the form of indifferent gonads, which become ovaries or testicles around the sixth week of gestation. The gonads are also responsible for producing the hormones androgen for male babies and estrogen for female babies. These hormones are imperative in the creation of the reproductive system. At the same time that the gonads are developing, a different set of cells are producing gametes, which will eventually generate egg or sperm cells”.
Could you please tell me where you heard your comment? It is quite interesting.
Mortal,
I have lived a traditional life, staying at home to raise my children. I have other Christian friends who have job shared things like a dental practice so one parent was always home. I have another friend who is a family doctor and her husband stayed at home, raised the kids and started a computer company on the side. I have another friend who is a pediatric specialist who practices on weekends and once a week at night while her husband specialists remains at home.
I have developed a two year course on church history and taught it in two different churches. From my observation, no male was seriously harmed in his Christian walk by my class. In fact, there were more men than women in on church.I have a unique understanding due to a lifelong love affair with church history and was fortunate to encounter Pete Briscoe, son of Jill and Stuart Briscoe who asked me to do this. And, because he convinced me I did.
My experiences and understanding contribute to the church because God has given me a love and interest this way.
All of the folks I mentioned, as well as me, have seen their children grow up and love the Lord and be very involved in conservative churches. One of my daughters developed a special needs program for seriously ill children at a large, Southern nondenominational church.
This Sunday I shall teach a class, in the absence of a well known male teacher, on the conflicts in creationism. My question-is this a problem?
Deb,
When I was in Biology at Ohio State were we taught the knowledge that is passed on in my comments.
I always liked biology and the way we develop our bodies and now learning about our brain development by working with Duke Medical Center. This has always interested me. Even though my professional life has been invovled with computer technology and use.
Thank you for providing the clarification and detail correction on the male template fact as it is important that we get our facts correct. This really helps me.
Also, there is no problem with me on the topic your are to cover this coming week.
Thanks you
Russ
Deb,
I have done a bit more research and now know exactly where my statement that the male template is the model comes from the following.
The first sentence says that during development it is the absence testosterone (and not the presence of estrogen or any other substance) that feminizes females.
I think my teachers at Ohio State interpreted this to mean that it is male unless the absence of testosterone is present.
Thereby assuming that the template for the fetus is male and turns into female.
This is all I will comment on this, and will still accept your input as your knowledge is by far the more accurate.
Below is the information and links to the study.
Thank you for your valuable input.
Russ
REVIEW OF SEXUAL DIFFERENTIATION
As you go through this review, keep in mind that:
During development it is the absence of testosterone (and not the presence of estrogen or any other substance) that feminizes females. Also keep in mind that the only way you can prevent a male from developing male structures is to deprive him of testosterone or its effects. Giving him estrogen will not make him female.
Sexual differentiation is an example of how hormones can play an organizational (rather than activating) effect. Activating effects of hormones concern their influence on behavior, not structure, and include hormonal control of sexual and parental behaviors (for example).
Source is http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/HomePage/Class/Psy308/Humm/ReviewofSexualDifferentiation
From Google.com search female fetus gonads.
link in the list of returns is this one:
Review of Sexual Differentiation – 2:14pmWhen H-Y antigen secretion begins, the primordial gonads become testes. If there is no Y chromosome (thus, the fetus is a genetic female) then there is no …
homepage.psy.utexas.edu/…/Class/…/ReviewofSexualDifferentiation I have done a bit more research and now know exactly where my statement that the male template is the model comes from the following.
The first sentence say that during development it is the absence testosterone (and not the presence of estrogen or any other substance) that feminizes females.
I think my teachers at Ohio State interpreted this to mean that it is male unless the absence of testosterone is present.
Thereby assuming that the template for the fetus is male and turns into female.
This is all I will comment on this, and will still accept your input as your knowledge is by far the more accurate.
REVIEW OF SEXUAL DIFFERENTIATION
As you go through this review, keep in mind that:
During development it is the absence of testosterone (and not the presence of estrogen or any other substance) that feminizes females. Also keep in mind that the only way you can prevent a male from developing male structures is to deprive him of testosterone or its effects. Giving him estrogen will not make him female.
Sexual differentiation is an example of how hormones can play an organizational (rather than activating) effect. Activating effects of hormones concern their influence on behavior, not structure, and include hormonal control of sexual and parental behaviors (for example).
Source is http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/HomePage/Class/Psy308/Humm/ReviewofSexualDifferentiation
From Google.com search female fetus gonads.
link in the list of returns is this one:
Review of Sexual Differentiation – 2:14pmWhen H-Y antigen secretion begins, the primordial gonads become testes. If there is no Y chromosome (thus, the fetus is a genetic female) then there is no …
homepage.psy.utexas.edu/…/Class/…/ReviewofSexualDifferentiation
Mortal,
Great name! Actually, Dee and I are two separate and distinct individuals, although we are best friends. Just want you to know that you are, in fact, communicating with Dee. I’m not nearly as informed as Dee on the matters you are discussing.
Thanks for commenting!
Deb,
I also have not been harmed by being taught by women in church, and I accepted Jesus as my Savior at 12 and my faith has grown from the teachings of women in the Methodist and other churchs.
I am not sure what our discussion is suppose to center around, is it what we think the role of man should be versus that of a female?
There are some that believe that women should have a limited role in the church, but this is not my belief. I believe that if God has given them a great teaching gift then they should be allowed to use their gift for the benefit of the Church. Or any other gift they may have been blessed with by God. Males do not have a reserved set of gifts that are not also given to women by God.
Russ
Deb and Dee,
Please accept my sincere apology for not being able to read the name on the message that my reply goes to, and thank you for letting me know of my mistake,
But being blind in one eye and not able to see out of the other does this to me (just kidding).
Thanks
Dee,
Just one more observation about the issue with the discussion of the role of men versus women in the Church.
Jesus worked in a culture a lot different than we have today in our country.
One difference is the people who left home to work and those people who stayed home. The person who left the home to work were referred to as a “Boy” and the person who stayed at home were referred to as a “Girl”. The gender was not associated with either boy or girl, until after 1500 AD.
In 1500 AD, someone just happened to note that the gender of those that left home to work were mostly males, and those who stayed home were mostly females. So the male became associated with the “Boy” and the female gender become associated with the “Girl”.
Since in the early days of the Church it was the males who did all the work and the women served or stayed home, it could be easy for someone in later years to assume that Jesus only wanted the men to do the Church leadership work and so forth, and the women to do the serving type of work.
Maybe this is why the role discussion has become such an intense discussion. Could our misunderstanding of the social norms in the days of Jesus and the early Church be a reason for this.
Mortal,
You are too funny!
Lydia,
You input reminds me of the firefly’s that are seen on a summer evening.
They fly and blink and what do we think? There are blinking firefly’s in the air and if you look closely you may see firefly’s blinking on the ground. I am willing to bet that not many people have ever noticed the blinking firefly on the ground.
And there are two species of firefly in the air and on the ground.
Do we know what is really going on with the blinking firefly’s and what role each is responsible?
Are we so out of touch in our own back yard that amazing things are happening, and that these amazing things mimic the behavior of human male and female interactions and responsibilities?
Have you ever thought of the roles of the male firefly, the one in the air blinking his little heart out, is like that of the male human? Or the role of the female firefly is like that of the human female, just waiting for the right blinking male firefly to pass by. And when they see him they blink a special coded blink to let the male know he has been selected?
We are so busy in our own worlds, with our own bias that we do not even see that nature has mimicked, to some degree, our relationship and responsibilities in our male and female relationships!
If the firefly can be happy, how can we humans not understand our roles and responsibilities of our relationships. And this carries over to our roles and relationships in the Church?
Just something to think about!
Also, Jesus says that God does not respect some over others. If He created men with talents, He would create women with the same talents. We all have our gifts and we need to use them to the maximum. Just like that firefly in the air and on the ground. They are using their gifts to the maximum.
CJ and SGM are a hindrance to the Love of God reaching people.
I came from that Church, I should know
Sean,
Thanks for your comment with which I wholeheartedly agree. You may be interested to know that next week we will be discussing “Modesty” and in particular “Mahaney’s teaching on “The Soul of Modesty”. I can assure you it will be an interesting post, so stay tuned!
Mortal
I have never heard that. You have given me something to look into. Thank you so much.
Dee,
While working for Xerox in Rochester, NY they presented college courses during the lunch and learn program. I took the course that taught us how to read the symbols of the old temples and walls in Egypt. These were holographs and it was important to know what the symbol for the “Boy” and for “Girl” meant while reading them. If you thought it was gender then you would misunderstand the topic or story being told.
The meaning of words are very important when reading the bible, they might not mean what we think based upon our current cultures and meanings.
I’ve often wondered about this. In a largely agrarian society, how likely is it that anyone leaves home to work–boy or girl? Isn’t this big divide between home and work largely a product of the industrial revolution?
Acme,
Well maybe, but the industrial revolution is a fairly recent experience, the subject being discussed was cultures prior to 1500 AD,
I understand that–your definitions of boy (one who leaves home to work) and girl (one who stays home) don’t seem to fit a pre-industrial model. Where do you get these definitions?
Acme,
See my response above to Dee, when I worked at Xerox, in Rochester NY. Xerox paid for professors to come into the company and put on college courses in their Learn and Lunch program. The professors were from Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) and the University of Rochester.
Hope this helps.
Dee or Deb,
I would like to have a gentle conversation about what Revelation Chapter 20 verse 3 regarding Satan and his power to create nations being bound for a thousand years.
“And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season”.
It would be interesting to hear what the participates think in terms of this event happening after 79 AD. The Roman Empire collapsed, the dark ages were ushered in, and there were no new nations formed for a thousand years. After the dark ages, nations did start to form.
Does this mean that this has been fulfilled? Or is this a “to be event in the future”?
Thanks
Mortal,
Give me another day and I will respond. Busy weekend. BTW, I did the Executive MBA at U of Rochester. Had some Xerox execs in my class.
OK,
This is important for me to understand as it involves a study that I am involved in, my own study, topic
Mysteries of the Kingdom of God.
Thanks, take your time,
Mortal
We are thinking about putting this up as a post for discussion for the blog, maybe tomorrow.
Dee,
This is great, thank you it really helps!!