Should You Allow Someone to Be *In Authority* Over You in Matters of Doctrine?

You can judge the quality of their faith from the way they behave. Discipline is an index to doctrine.-Tertullian link

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=54439&picture=hand-with-pointing-finger
Link  Whose wrong?

A few years back, I wrote Mark Driscoll: He Ain’t No Captain Sullenberger. Driscoll had come out with another one of his odd  pronouncements, comparing himself to a skilled pilot. The audacity of his statement left me cold.

“Assume that they have way more data and training than you. Assume they see stuff out of their window you don’t see out of yours. Assume they did the right thing, even if you are wearing your drink, your luggage came flying out of the overhead bin, and you need to buy new underwear to replace the ones you were wearing. Just maybe the pilots saved your life and spared you from a less disruptive turn that would have ended in a fiery crash you never saw coming.”

Who is most likely to trust the pilots? Frequent fliers, those who have been on board long enough to have survived hard banked turns before. And former pilots who have themselves sat in the cockpit of an organization and had to make the same kind of tough decisions.

Who is least likely to trust the pilots? First-time fliers, those who are new to leadership and/or new to the organization and subsequently lack the experience to simply buckle up and ride it out. Also fans of flying who have studied flight and/or visited the cockpit to peer over the pilots' shoulder enough to maintain an illusion that they know how to fly and could do a better job themselves, even though they have no hours in the pilots' chair.”

Read that first paragraph carefully. He is comparing himself to a highly skilled pilot who can see "a fiery crash" coming and who saves the lives of those on the plane. In that post, I compared the training and actions of a real pilot, Captain "We'll be in the Hudson" Sullenberger to the training and actions of Mark Driscoll. Needless to say, Driscoll did not come out smelling like a rose. In fact, he sounds rather weird.

Driscoll likens himself to an airline pilot who, because he is upfront in the cockpit, sees what is going on. His church attendees are the uninformed passengers who cannot see what is coming.

To explain this, he launches into an explanation of bank turns that airliners have to take.

25–30 degrees: 1.1–1.2 g-force on the body, most people won't feel a thing.

45 degrees: 1.5 g-force, people start to feel it

 60 degrees: 2-2.5 g-force, people really feel it and start to freak out.

70–80 degrees: Around 5 g-force, people start getting tunnel vision as the blood rushes out of their eyes.

He then goes on to pontificate that an experienced pilot might be forced to make one of those significant turns. He likens himself to that pilot-the guy who has to save the lives of his people. He fusses that, when such a sharp turn is necessary, many people freak out, storm the cabin and trash the pilot after they have, get this, “Landed safely.’

I do not know what newspaper Driscoll has been reading but, when a pilot makes an emergency turn, and lives are saved, the passengers usually give him a standing ovation. You know why? They know it! He has informed them and they clearly see it. This whole analogy is not making sense . But, Driscoll rarely makes sense to me.

So who is in authority over you and what do they have the authority to do or say? Grace to You, John MacArthur's blog, had a post answering the question What is the pastor’s responsibility, besides preaching and studying?I think most people would agree that he represents the thinking of many of today's gospel™ crowd.

Shepherds Are Protectors 

Sheep are almost entirely defenseless–they can't kick, scratch, bite, jump, or run. When attacked by a predator, they huddle together rather than running away. That makes them easy prey. Sheep need a protective shepherd in order to survive.

Christians need similar protection from error and those who spread it. Pastors guard their spiritual sheep from going astray and defend them against the savage wolves that would ravage them. Paul admonished the pastors at Ephesus to stay alert and to protect the churches under their care:

(Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them (Acts 20:28-30).)

Are you really being taught correct™ doctrine by your authority driven pastors?

So, one of the functions to the authority driven ministry is to protect people from incorrect teaching.This sounds really good, doesn't it? It makes you feel really safe. The question is, "Are you actually safe and is what you are being taught correct?" This is where it gets sticky. 

Today I read an excellent article, Setting the Record Straight, by Neil at the Godless in Dixie blog on Patheos. In this post, he looks at the beliefs and actions of those who would be recognized by many to be Christian leaders, meaning they were "in authority." 

The word *Christian* is rather difficult to define.

Neil considers the word *Christian* to be a *slippery label.* (I rather like that.)

It is rather convenient that over the last half century so many members of this faith have come to speak of the Christian religion as if it were a single, unified, monolithic thing.  The reality is that there isn’t really one single Christianity, but many “christianities,” each one picking fights with the others over matters they swear are so important that thinking differently on those things is tantamount to betraying the gospel itself. Those divisions render them unable to worship under the same roof, unable to train at the same seminaries, and unwilling to share funds for joint mission efforts, property holdings, or sometimes even for local charitable causes.

There once was a time when, if you asked Christians to what religion they belonged, they would reply with the names of their denominations.  My Presbyterian grandmother used to speak of Methodists like they belonged to an entirely different religion, and Roman Catholics were most definitely not real Christians. Once upon a time, intermarriage between denominations raised an eyebrow, whereas now it’s a mundane thing—a move which hardly inspires any social commentary. 

Christians and the abolition of slavery

In this post, Neil is discussing Tom Keller's book, The Reason for God. He quotes Keller who contends that Christians were leaders in abolishing slavery.

Even though slavery in some form was virtually universal in every human culture over the centuries, it was Christians who first came to the conclusion that it was wrong…[It] was abolished because it was wrong, and Christians were the leaders in saying so. (p.64-65)

He then contends that it isn't as cut and dried as Keller contends.

It appears that both Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield were slave owners. Not only that but Whitfield led the fight to legalize slavery in Georgia.

But hold on a second. Christians were also the leaders in perpetuating this inhumane institution.  It was churches that validated, protected, and enshrined the practice of owning other human beings long past the time in which industrial innovation provided a way out of such a heavy dependence on human labor.

One need look no further than to the testimony of Frederick Douglass, who was a former slave, a tireless proponent of the Abolition movement, and a bitter critic of the church’s place in supporting this institution.

Revivals in religion, and revivals in the slave trade, go hand in hand together. The church-going bell and the auctioneer’s bell chime in with each other; the pulpit and the auctioneer’s block stand in the same neighborhood…We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support missionaries, and babies sold to buy bibles and communion services for the churches.[1]

As it turns out, both of the most famous Reformed evangelists of the First Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, were slave owners. In fact, not only were they both slave owners, but George Whitefield was himself instrumental in legalizing slavery in the Georgia colony in 1751.[2] Previous to that time, there was a colony-wide ban on slavery, but Whitefield wanted to make his orphanage in Savannah financially self-sufficient, and it was plain to him that such an end could not be achieved until the trustees of the colony agreed to reverse their policy.

Fast forward to the Jim Crow era.

How many of you are aware of the Memphis Kneel Ins? This was an effort to desegregate the Southern Christian churches.

In his book The Last Segregated Hour, Stephen R. Haynes tells of a series of “kneel-ins” meant to expose the resistance of white evangelical churches to the racial integration of their congregations, starting with the Second Presbyterian Church of Memphis, TN.

Joe Purdy (a black student at Memphis State University) and Jim Bullock (a white Southwesterner) attempted to worship at (SPC) in suburban East Memphis. Fearing that the congregation might be targeted for interracial visits, the SPC session had arranged for several men to stand guard. As the students approached the church’s main entrance, Purdy was asked if he was “African.” When he answered, “No. I’m an American, but I’m black,” Purdy and Bullock were told they could not enter the sanctuary…Seeing their path blocked by men in suits and police approaching from the rear, they knelt to pray.[5]

Gender politics and NeoCalvinism

A few years back, we posted a story about about the well known Calvinist, Andy Davis, of First Baptist Church Durham. In that post, FBC Durham’s Andy Davis: Electing a Woman Deacon Is “Wicked”, we covered a number of issues. However, the core issue was that Andy Davis purportedly, prior to his coming, stated he would not change certain things within the church, including the fact that women could be deacons.

Three years after his hire, Davis reportedly changed his mind and called the church to repentance because, get this, they elected a woman deacon over his dead body.

The church membership disobeyed Davis and elected a woman deacon! 

They not only elected a woman but they did so over Davis’ vehement objections. Here is what Davis says.

“I began corporate worship at First Baptist Church (FBC) Durham by calling on the members of the church to repent. The church had just elected a woman deacon for the first time in its history, and deacons in our church’s polity were treated as spiritual leaders with shepherding responsibility for the flock. I had been teaching the congregation that Scripture reserves spiritual leadership to men, and I had made private efforts to forestall this result. Still, the church voted in a woman as an authoritative spiritual leader.”

Here is what he had to say about the church members, two of whom I know very well. They are godly, committed wonderful people who serve God in prisons, missions, etc.

“My call was an object of horror to many of the members of the church. They were outraged. In their minds, repentance was something you do at the beginning of the Christian life and then never need to do again. For them, it was as if I were saying, “Because you voted for a woman as a deacon, you are not Christians.”

The problem with authority and doctrine

One of our readers, Anonymous, made a good point today.

The NT does not give us specific guidance in the organizational details of the church or how churches relate to one another. Paul could, and did, command that churches obey what he said. The democratic results at Corinth resulted in a decision to ignore a terrible moral situation.

Paul was even more concerned about the theology behind the moral difficulty. The members of the church were proud that they allowed this supposed "freedom in Christ" within the midst. It is obvious that they did not understand what "freedom in Christ" entailed.

 And you are proud!  (1Cor5:2 NIV Bible Gateway)

Most would agree that the moral situation in Corinth was pretty cut and dried. Not only that, but Paul was a unique apostle tasked by Jesus to grow the beginning church. But is every leader like Paul? Is today's church really in the same situation as the 1st century.

What is the difference between Paul and today's celebrity Christian leaders?

I would contend that there is a significant difference between the role of Paul and the role of today's Christian leaders. The nascent church was exceedingly vulnerable since the councils which agreed upon the doctrine were merely beginning. Yes, there were letters being passed around. However, there was no Prime Membership for Free Two Day Shipping of Paul's letters. 

Paul was fighting real heresy like "sin more in order for God's grace to be revealed more." Paul was listened to very carefully. I believe that God worked in the lives of Paul and the apostles to be sure that the basics of the faith were understood an delineated.

The early church had its hands full in dealing with serious doctrinal issues that were debated at councils, etc. Getting the word out was not easy, in spite of the Pax Romana. Things got even worse as the Empire declined and the people of God scattered throughout the known world. As time went on, the core beliefs of the faith were codified in various forms such as the Nicene Creed.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Once the codification of the core beliefs was finished, the hard work of getting the New Testament and Old Testament into written form and widely disseminated began. We have the many nameless monks in cloistered communities a debt of gratitude for spending their entire lives making copies of the Scriptures. We have the Scriptures, an understanding of the core beliefs of the faith which have stood throughout the millennia, and the writings of many of the early church leaders.

The secondary doctrine wars begin

Throughout the ages church leaders and reformers sought to add their favorite doctrine du jour to the basic faith. Slowly, the belief  in *Sola Christus* was eroded. Soon it became Sola Christus+belief in….the sun revolving around the earth; a 6,000 year earth, transubstantiation vs symbolic  vs sacramental union in communion; election vs Arminianism, the number of sacraments, should you imbibe alcohol or not; etc.

This is where we are today. We have thousands of denominations with a variety of widely held beliefs and most of the leaders in these church believe that they are 100% correct. If the average person disagrees with them, charges of heresy arise and threats of church discipline and excommunication become commonplace.

We are very quick to excuse our ancestors who held slaves, voted for segregation, etc. However, if one dares to mention they believe in an old earth, charges of serious sin abound. Think about Todd Wilhelm. His former church, UCCD and its leaders voted to discipline him (he was put on the infamous *care* list) because he dared to disagree with their decision to sell books by CJ Mahaney and resigned from the church. This, amongst free men, is considered a right of conscience. He didn't join a new church right away and that is not allowed. UCCD believes that one's very salvation is dependent on being under the authority of pastors in a church at all times. Yet the name of their church is The United Christian Church of Dubai. It is almost laughable that they use the name "united." United? Really?

Here is the problem for all of us. The men who assume their authority over us in matters of doctrine cannot even agree amongst themselves what they believe. For example, 9 Marks' Mark Dever will not led his buddy Ligon Duncan take communion at CHBC because Duncan believes in pedobaptism. 

Look at the examples that I gave of the historical authority figures of the church.They held slaves. They were against integration of the church. They jailed Galileo for believing the earth revolves around the sun. And they would have taught us to do the same.

Look at our debates on doctrine: divorce, baptism, tongues, whether women can teach men, birth control, eschatology, etc. Then we have men like John Piper who says women should not be muscular because it leads to violent sex. We have leaders who say 9/11 happened because we took prayer out of the schools. Then there are those who said Hurricane Katrina happened because of gay marriage. Tim Challies does not believe a woman should read Scripture out loud in church.

What's my bottom line? There are far too many examples of stupid doctrinal beliefs proposed by leaders for me to be comfortable that a senior pastor is somehow in authority over me in the area of doctrine. However, I plan to look at the notion of authority over church members on other issues in future posts.

I leave you with this comment written by one of our readers, Nick Bulbeck. He was responding to Somewhereintime who is an ardent believer in young earth creationism. Somewhere made some pretty strong statements and Nick responded. This exchange represents why I am wary of those who are *in authority* in areas of doctrine.

*************

Somewhereintime wrote:

Also, do you still believe the earth to be flat?

Nancy2 was not, of course, claiming the earth to be flat. Quite the reverse: she was pointing out that a plain reading of scripture would support this belief. To be honest, I don’t think her broader point escaped you either: that each and every fragment of scripture must be interpreted before it is accepted, and everybody who reads the bible does this. Everyone makes a choice, subconscious or otherwise, about whether they will take a given fragment of scripture as being standalone and/or “literal”, or metaphorical, or something else.

Whilst I appreciate your warning:

Continue to believe in evolution. That’s your prerogative. But realize that there is a cost in misapplying/misusing scripture to suit ones own personal bias.

… I cannot help but reciprocate, because I hope you are aware of the danger you are flirting with. This statement is a ringing accusation, of a very serious nature. Misapplying or misusing scripture to suit one’s own personal bias is a contemptuous act of rebellion against God. If, then, you are guilty of the same thing, you will be judged according to the measure with which you judge.

Every single scripture-fragment of which you are aware, but which you do not obey to the strict letter in as literal a sense as you interpret Genesis, will stand as a potential testimony against you. Why didn’t you obey it literally? Could it have been to suit your own personal bias? If not, and you are to be allowed to interpret it as you see fit (or, if you prefer, as seems obvious to you), why did you not extend that same grace to your fellow-believers?

Everyone who has ever read the bible – you and me included – has made a whole lot of decisions on how to obey it. The Creation Museum does not, for instance, have a Healing Section in which any visitors who are ill are healed, thereby proving the currently-applicable truth of scripture. Despite the many clear statements in the NT about the miraculous, many creationists are also – inexplicably – cessationists.

Evidently, Somewhereintime, you are not one: I cannot believe you would dare to be so liberal with NT scripture at the same time as making the accusation I cited above. Much less would you be steered towards such a conclusion simply by observing a lack of miracles in the church – that would be to allow scientific observation to over-rule God’s word. But I equally can’t believe you are the first believer ever to come to a reading of scripture that is free of personal bias. For your own good: please, please, think very carefully before you decide we choose doctrines simply because we want to.

Comments

Should You Allow Someone to Be *In Authority* Over You in Matters of Doctrine? — 376 Comments

  1. Personally I have found that when reading anything, what I get out of it is very dependent on where I am at the time…..so I guess that makes me an existentialist (I know a heretical word in Evangelical circles) I believe it allows the spirit to also inspire how it impacts me at that time…..which makes it all fresh and new. It also has caused me to stop highlighting, as I will go back another time and something else will jump at me, and I will scratch my head and think hmmmm why did I highlight that other part before?

    I find the comments regarding ignorant sheep insulting and of the utmost arrogance, and frankly I find quite a bit of the apologetics used by many Evangelicals to be about junior high level, and I am well past junior high. And ultimately my walk reflects the deeper relationship as a result

  2. dee wrote:

    You are as quick as a Southern woman getting to the grocery store when she hears a prediction of snow.

    …to stock up on RC Cola and Moon Pies.

  3. So to me inspiration not only happened when written – but also as we read – and why critical thinking is so important, which scripture refers to as discernment…….

    Besides, more training (seminary and the like) only means you may be more well-versed in that particular line of thinking (denomination). For me, there is no way I can feel more secure or trusting in God when taking a Calvinistic approach, in fact just the opposite, but and a big but, I know some folks (based on where they are at) it does make them feel more secure, so who am I to question their faith.

  4. A Christian show from the UK also covered this topic awhile back:

    Can Christianity be true if Christians can’t agree on doctrine?
    http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Can-Christianity-be-true-if-Christians-can-t-agree-on-doctrine-Andrew-Whyte-vs-Nabeel-Qureshi

    That show has two guests and a host. One of the guests is a Christian, the other used to be one.

    The ex-Christian guy has a channel on You Tube called “Christian Diversity” where he documents all the conflicting beliefs Christians hold on anything and everything.

    Re: “Can Christianity be true if Christians can’t agree on doctrine?”

    I have wondered that myself.

  5. Mike wrote:

    Besides, more training (seminary and the like) only means you may be more well-versed in that particular line of thinking (denomination).

    I apologize if this goes slightly off topic, but I read in a book that Christians who do more Bible reading and Bible study tend to have worse problems with mental health than Christians who don’t read/study it as much. I think this was in a book by a Christian psychologist.

    I think the author was saying that people who read/study the Bible more have more weird or incorrect ideas about how to get their mental health problems treated than ones who don’t read/study as much.

  6. Let’s put it this way….I pick my shepherds CAREFULLY.

    At my small church, our pastor tells us that if we think he is wrong on some point, to speak up. He is very willing to listen, and he also trusts us to keep HIM accountable.

    Therefore, I am able to trust him to help keep me accountable as well.

    Interestingly it is amazing how much spiritual growth happens at our little fellowship….:D

  7. Mike wrote:

    We collectively like to add too much to 1) Love God and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself!

    Mm-hmm, yes. I remember saying on Julie Anne’s blog just about a couple of months ago that I sometimes find the extreme nit picking, intense debating, and theological navel gazing by some Christians to be a turn off, and it makes the faith look too hard or unappealing.

    I do enjoy learning. I do sometimes fall into that trap of liking to read web page after web page (or book after book) about theology, but I find it usually depresses me.

    As I was saying on Julie Anne’s blog awhile back, my mother used to sing the song “Jesus Loves Me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so” to me when I was a kid.
    That is probably my favorite understanding of the faith, and the most comforting. I think it boils the faith down the the very essentials.

  8. Mom! I am so grateful you read Neil Carter’s blog. I love what he writes and use it regularly. More Christians need to read atheist blogs they would be amazed as to what they can learn.

  9. Here’s the latest post I got up. Its about movies and theology. I saw the movie Concussion about NFL and brain damage. I realized in the movie that modern evangelicalism is acting like the NFL.

    The system must be protected and Pharisees are at the helm. In the end its about money just like the NFL, the system attacks. From my false accusation to Rob Smith, Paul Petry to those who stood up against SGM.

    https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/01/21/movies-theology-concussion-when-religion-acts-like-the-nfl-and-spiritually-kills/

  10. Driscoll likens himself to an airline pilot
    Nope. More like a high jacker.
    and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them
    Maybe men like John MacArthur? And, Andy Davis: please note that this passage says, “men will arise ……… “, not women!!!! Ha!

  11. dee wrote:

    @ Eeyore:
    You are as quick as a Southern woman getting to the grocery store when she hears a prediction of snow.

    Bwaaaaaa haaaaaaa haaaaaaaa!

  12. Somewhere, lost among the constant “shepherd” metaphors, is the fact that shepherds keep sheep for their own gain, and not for the sheep’s — shearing them for wool or slaughtering them for meat.

  13. A question I am now wrestling with: Did the authoritarian problem in the church start when some in the early church took on airs of authority to combat heresy and by taking on that authority did they committed the greater heresy?

  14. thank you, dee. such a great piece of synthesis & analysis.

    the secondary doctrine wars…. ugh… it’s all so meaningless. warring for and against secondary doctrines. it’s a full time job — perhaps that’s the point. keeping people focussed on these secondary things keeps an industry running. but it is an end in itself. you know, headless’ “purity of doctrine, comrade” thing.

    if individuals could simply focus on making the world a kinder, cleaner, more healed place because we were here — and bringing God/Jesus/Holy Spirit into our project for his interjection of wisdom, power, and for the fun of the sheer companionship of it — well, how great that would be. how truly productive. and how irrelevant the secondary doctrinaires would become. (i mean, they’re already irrelevant — they just don’t know it yet)

    and what a pleasure to watch the industry of the secondary doctrine wars come tumbling down.

  15. ION: Australian Open tennis

    Thanks to Rafa’s shock first-round defeat, the only big name in the mens’ draw in action so far today has been Andy Murray, who had a surprisingly easy win over big-serving Sam Groth. Groth failed to serve a single ace in a first-set bagel and lost his first four service games.

    Speaking of big names, though, 6th seed David Ferrer and local favourite Lleyton Hewitt, playing his final Australian Open, have just appeared at the Rod Laver Arena. Welsh readers will have noted the spelling of “Lleyton” and observed that it is properly pronounced as in “Llanrwst”. Early days in that match – one game all in the opening set as I write.

    IHTIH

  16. IFON:

    Astronomers at Cal Tech have claimed reasonably strong evidence for either a ninth or a tenth planet, depending on whether you consider Pluto to be a planet or not. The as-yet-unobserved body is thought to be significantly massive – around ten times the mass of the earth – and is mooted by the Cal Tech team as the best explanation for the interesting orbits of a number of known Kuyper Belt Objects.

    IHT, too, IH

  17. Then we have men like John Piper who says women should not be muscular

    If he objects to body-building for women, I agree with him. However, in that regard I am a card-carrying egalitarian!

    A good wife who can find? (I have an answer for that!)

    … with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
    She girds her loins with strength and makes her arms strong.

    I wonder what the literal Hebrew for ‘makes her arms strong’ is.

    Now I have every respect for John Piper arguing for what he thinks the will of God is as revealed in scripture, even if it is politically incorrect, but I do wish he could relax a bit more and not be so hung up about things like this.

  18. The former dudebro pastor whose name rhymes with “friskle” actually flew MH into a cliff, and he didn’t see that coming.

    He also didn’t see his “church discipline” coming, I’m convinced that he would have resigned a lot earlier otherwise.

    How come all these oh-so-countercultural pastors want to completely conform to the world in an age where authoritarianism is on the rise again, where democracy has become endangered again in countries where you wouldn’t have thought such a swift veer possible.

    This is also the age of the cult of the CEO, of CEO worship and idolatry. The guy from village church in his rant against the “narcissistic zero” (not himself, I must add), started this by addressing himself to all those macho CEOs in his congregation, and boasted that his church was also a large business with lots of personnel and decisions to make.

    Counter-cultural, my a**!

  19. On a more serious note, all authority in heaven and on earth belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ. That is mediated to us through his word, the NT writings stemming from the apostles.

    Beneath the word are pastors and teachers. Now we are to respect them for their learning, and teaching is a gift of the Spirit that some people have. (Seminary is no substitute.) The scripture itself tells us to yield and submit to them. What is doesn’t do is absolve us of the responsibility to learn for ourselves, to exercise discernment, or to become followers of other followers of Jesus rather than being disciples of Christ himself direct. Teachers yes, intermediaries between us and God, no.

    This is the crucial safely check against any abuse of authority. Any pastor or teacher or big name ministry or board of elders does not have more authority than the word of God, so if they go off the rails or exceed their authority in trying to be control-freaks for example, or trying to silence church members from reporting crimes, not only do we not have to obey them, we shouldn’t. We are to obey God rather than man if there is a clash.

    There is a difficult balancing act between avoiding obeying eldership group-think and an excessive individualism where we won’t submit to anybody but ourselves or those we already agree with.

  20. Kevin wrote:

    Should You Allow Someone to Be *In Authority* Over You in Matters of Doctrine?
    NO!

    I’m going to answer the question with YES. But before you choke on your coffee, let me change the emphasis: Should YOU let others in in authority over your doctrine?

    This is not something someone else with an ecclesiastical title has a right to demand, it is something you in your descretion can give, and, depending on the circumstances, should. In other words, submission here is, as paradoxically it always is, voluntary.

  21. dee wrote:

    @ Eeyore:
    You are as quick as a Southern woman getting to the grocery store when she hears a prediction of snow.

    Now THAT is quick. Fortunately for us, we already have milk and TP supplies in abundance. 🙂

  22. @ Gus:

    Funny how their words don’t line up with their actions sometimes. I once attended (for a short while) a church that claimed to stand against legalism…then I found that they stocked a book by Bill Gothard in their sales stall and when I pointed out all the problems with his doctrine they refused to take it out. “We choose to still abide by the Old Testament” they said, which didn’t really address my concerns in the first place.

    I threw in the towel when, in the same vein, the pastor led a sermon saying that to be Truly Godly we must only listen to music that can be danced to with twirling. She based this on a verse that described the Israelites having a party and twirling to music. That was my “I’m done” moment.

  23. elastigirl wrote:

    if individuals could simply focus on making the world a kinder, cleaner, more healed place because we were here — and bringing God/Jesus/Holy Spirit into our project for his interjection of wisdom, power, and for the fun of the sheer companionship of it — well, how great that would be.

    This, time a thousand. I am a “probably done,” and this is exactly where I’m at in my journey.

  24. For me the whole “spiritual authority” issue is moot.

    Why?

    Because:

    (1) The organization(s) we culturally and traditionally understand as “church” didn’t even exist at the time the Bible was written. It was invented by Constantine after his alleged conversion to Christianity. His reason for inventing the “Church” was to have total authority over the people both politically and spiritually. (Hmmm… That sounds familiar.)

    (2)The Greek word “ekklesia” should never have been translated as “church”. “Ekkleisa” is a “called-out assembly” or “gathering.” The Geneva Bible translated “ekklesia” as “congregation”. King James VI didn’t like the Geneva Bible, because it didn’t give him the “divine authority” he desired. He ordered the KJV translators to deliberately mistranslate “ekklesia” as “church”. He saw himself as the head of the Church as well as the head of the government. (Sadly, most all English Bibles continue with this unfortunate mistranslation.)

    So I’m not personally concerned with false “authority” or how church clubs are governed.

  25. Anne wrote:

    I am instantly wary of a “shepherd” that makes an almost literal comparison of his congregation to sheep.

    Have they ever heard of Bighorn sheep?
    Sheep are dumb because people domesticated them and bred the sense out of them!Anne wrote:

    “We choose to still abide by the Old Testament” they said

    Well!!! So much for Jesus, huh?

  26. Eeyore wrote:

    Now THAT is quick. Fortunately for us, we already have milk and TP supplies in abundance.

    And flour and coffee and cornmeal and dog food and ……

  27. Seriously, this whole authority debate from the Gospel TM crowd makes me more and more convinced that the entire “Christian” diaspora has been influenced by corporate american culture. Think about church-planting for the sake of having your “brand” of church present (it’s like building a Starbucks, a Second Cup and a Tim Hortons all within a 2 block radius of each other). Furthermore, the term servant-leadership is a corporate invention. That’s right, and the Gospel TM crowd keeps going on about “culture wars”. Seems to me like we’ve all be influenced (by American business culture and other sources) more than we would like to admit…

  28. dee wrote:

    @ Eeyore:
    You are as quick as a Southern woman getting to the grocery store when she hears a prediction of snow.

    Or in our part of the world a hurricane….:)

  29. Eeyore wrote:

    dee wrote:
    @ Eeyore:
    You are as quick as a Southern woman getting to the grocery store when she hears a prediction of snow.
    Now THAT is quick. Fortunately for us, we already have milk and TP supplies in abundance.

    And why do they always buy the milk? The first thing that goes out is the lights and thus, the refridgerator

  30. Leila wrote:

    elastigirl wrote:
    if individuals could simply focus on making the world a kinder, cleaner, more healed place because we were here — and bringing God/Jesus/Holy Spirit into our project for his interjection of wisdom, power, and for the fun of the sheer companionship of it — well, how great that would be.
    This, time a thousand. I am a “probably done,” and this is exactly where I’m at in my journey.

    Come on in, the water’s fine….look, I went to seminary. I trust these guys in the pulpit as far as I can throw them. My soul, my doctrine, my relation with God, in the end is on me. Not some cool Neo-Cal or cool Pentecostal hipster with an untucked shirt and a soul patch….

  31. Nancy2 wrote:

    Anne wrote:

    I am instantly wary of a “shepherd” that makes an almost literal comparison of his congregation to sheep.

    Have they ever heard of Bighorn sheep?
    Sheep are dumb because people domesticated them and bred the sense out of them!Anne wrote:

    “We choose to still abide by the Old Testament” they said

    Well!!! So much for Jesus, huh?

    Yeah… Their basis was “Remember that Jesus said he would fulfil the law, not abolish it” and a couple other bits from Paul in his letters, cherry picked stuff of course. Even though they made noises like “well its a free choice, you don’t have to” they did make it otherwise sound that doing things like not eating ham and, well whatever other Mosaic laws they liked was what Good Christians Do. “Free choice”, but with the implication that you’re practising the faith wrong if you don’t.

    For the record I made it sound in my last post like I am a Done. I’m not, I attend a different church irregularly, but I keep a sense of objectivism towards all the sermons. I don’t really get involved much in churchy stuff, basically, but I haven’t abandoned it either.

  32. Daisy wrote:

    I apologize if this goes slightly off topic, but I read in a book that Christians who do more Bible reading and Bible study tend to have worse problems with mental health than Christians who don’t read/study it as much. I think this was in a book by a Christian psychologist.

    I think the author was saying that people who read/study the Bible more have more weird or incorrect ideas about how to get their mental health problems treated than ones who don’t read/study as much.

    Another factor in play might be trying to self-medicate where either there is NO such thing as a mental health problem (it’s all Spiritual) or “SCRIPTURE will Fix Anything!” Both of these tie in to the Christianese hostility towards SECULAR(TM) mental health, as has been covered many-many times on this and other blogs.

  33. Anne wrote:

    Even though they made noises like “well its a free choice, you don’t have to” they did make it otherwise sound that doing things like not eating ham and, well whatever other Mosaic laws they liked was what Good Christians Do. “Free choice”, but with the implication that you’re practising the faith wrong if you don’t.

    And any counselor with experience in Abuse Victims about the concept of “Bounded Choice”.

  34. Anne wrote:

    I threw in the towel when, in the same vein, the pastor led a sermon saying that to be Truly Godly we must only listen to music that can be danced to with twirling. She based this on a verse that described the Israelites having a party and twirling to music.

    Check out Mrs Wakeman & The Antichrist by Robert Damon Schneck sometime for some REAL Cult weirdness.

  35. K.D. wrote:

    And why do they always buy the milk? The first thing that goes out is the lights and thus, the refridgerator

    If it’s cold enough for snow or ice to knock the electricity out, it’s cold enough to put the refrigerated items in a box on the porch. Believe me, I know – ice storms of ’94 and ’09!

  36. Anne wrote:

    @ Paul D.:

    I am instantly wary of a “shepherd” that makes an almost literal comparison of his congregation to sheep.

    Especially when (like so many) his mouth waters for the taste of fresh juicy mutton.

    At least the wolves coming in to pick off the stragglers are HONEST predators.

  37. Nancy2 wrote:

    K.D. wrote:
    And why do they always buy the milk? The first thing that goes out is the lights and thus, the refridgerator
    If it’s cold enough for snow or ice to knock the electricity out, it’s cold enough to put the refrigerated items in a box on the porch. Believe me, I know – ice storms of ’94 and ’09!

    Not after a hurricane….no lights and 95F afterwards….and the first thing off the grocery shelves? Milk.

  38. Alert! Alert! Dee has quoted Nick for his excellent remarks. However, Nick has identified himself as an anglican of some sort over there, so beware of heresy, apostasy, liberalism, having a social conscience, having some individual ideas from an informed moral conscience and allowing others to do so also and even possibly being charismatic (gasp). He might even be from one or more segments of a certain suspect educational, social, cultural and even economic stratum of society in some respects. Just saying.

    You go, Dee. Great post. Great research and great thinking.

    You go, Nick. Amen, brother. Well reasoned and well expressed and totally biblical.

    I just could not pass up this opportunity.

  39. okrapod wrote:

    Alert! Alert! Dee has quoted Nick for his excellent remarks. However, Nick has identified himself as an anglican of some sort over there, so beware of heresy, apostasy, liberalism, having a social conscience, having some individual ideas from an informed moral conscience and allowing others to do so also and even possibly being charismatic (gasp). He might even be from one or more segments of a certain suspect educational, social, cultural and even economic stratum of society in some respects. Just saying.
    You go, Dee. Great post. Great research and great thinking.
    You go, Nick. Amen, brother. Well reasoned and well expressed and totally biblical.
    I just could not pass up this opportunity.

    Be somewhat an Anglophile and whatever the term is for being pro- Scottish, I love Nick. His doctrine, his additions on UK sports….next time I go to Edinburgh, I must meet him for a cuppa.

  40. K.D. wrote:

    And why do they always buy the milk? The first thing that goes out is the lights and thus, the refridgerator

    We are expecting an ice storm. That is the worst kind for bringing down the trees. I have shelf stable milk and milk substitutes, three big pans of chocolate fudge brownies, several 100% wool throws from Pendleton Mills, and kerosene with gadgets to burn it. Also LED this and that with plenty of batteries and even a rocket stove for heating water and cooking (outside the door of course.) But I miss the excitement of going to the grocery store. It is like going to the mall before Christmas-a real community activity.

  41. Such an interesting topic. Why IS everyone so obsessed with authority? I think deep down people are afraid of the freedom they, but mostly others, have in Christ. It’s not unlike the Israelites wanting a King to be like the other nations. NT Christianity has too few rules for most people’s comfort level. So now, we’ve made the Bible into an idol, interpreting Paul’s commentary into mandates that make us feel like we understand how “to do” this Christian life. Which is sad because I believe it was always supposed to be a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants adventure with Jesus.

    But I’m a rebel and a thinker by nature. Sadly, many of my dear friends and family are rule followers by nature and they just cannot comprehend a Christianity where things aren’t black and white. They WANT to be told what to do; they find it easier than having to think through everything themselves. It’s sad to me, but I kind of get it. Which is why I come here. I don’t feel weird here.

  42. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

    The primary reason that church folks get tripped up on false doctrine and counterfeit authoritarian ministers/ministries, is that they don’t read the Word as they ought. The average Christian in America spends very little time in personal Bible study and prayer; thus, they are easy pickins’ for a “man of God” and his “thus saith the Lord.”

    Several years ago (when Southern Baptists were still called a people of the Word), SBC leadership got into a raging debate over the question of where ultimate authority rested: in the Word or Jesus? Last time I looked, Jesus is the Word! If we don’t develop a disciplined study of the Word and get to know Jesus through it, a variety of teachings and traditions of men will jump in to fill the void (e.g., New Calvinism). Allowing the Truth to work in you and through you begins with a desire to read the Word … which leads to a discipline to study it … which leads to a delight in it. It is really your only test on matters of doctrine … your plumb line to evaluate the belief and practice of ministries you may expose yourself to … and your legitimate route of escape to exit places which preach and teach contrary to Scripture as revealed to you from your personal study of it.

    “Someone” should never be in authority over you in matters of doctrine …. “Something” should – and that something is called Scripture. If you are fortunate to have found a ministry where that someone and something come into agreement, you are blessed indeed.

  43. “Many zipper sun gods” is a phrase that came to mind with Driscoll’s pilot reference. An air force chaplain offered this phrase about talking to fighter pilots who are rather “confident” about their mad “skills.” It is a reference to their flight suits.

  44. “We have thousands of denominations with a variety of widely held beliefs and most of the leaders in these church believe that they are 100% correct.”

    And that has been one of my core struggles ever since I left the movement I was part of.

  45. okrapod wrote:

    K.D. wrote:
    And why do they always buy the milk? The first thing that goes out is the lights and thus, the refridgerator
    We are expecting an ice storm. That is the worst kind for bringing down the trees. I have shelf stable milk and milk substitutes, three big pans of chocolate fudge brownies, several 100% wool throws from Pendleton Mills, and kerosene with gadgets to burn it. Also LED this and that with plenty of batteries and even a rocket stove for heating water and cooking (outside the door of course.) But I miss the excitement of going to the grocery store. It is like going to the mall before Christmas-a real community activity.

    Chocolate fudge brownies! Yum!

  46. He (Driscoll) is comparing himself to a highly skilled pilot who can see “a fiery crash” coming and who saves the lives of those on the plane. In that post, I compared the training and actions of a real pilot, Captain “We’ll be in the Hudson” Sullenberger to the training and actions of Mark Driscoll. Needless to say, Driscoll did not come out smelling like a rose.

    In retrospect, knowing what we all now know, Driscoll’s “piloting” of Mars Hill was nothing like the heroic Sullenberger. It was instead that of the rank amateur who’s incompetence is, not surprisingly, surpassed only by his peacock pride (common malady of the not-quite-capable). Blinded by his own incompetence, he ignored the pleas of passengers who all saw the oncoming “fiery crash” and tried in vain to storm the cockpit and save the plane–but the pilot, seeing the mountain range loom up, grabbed a chute and left the passengers on their own.

  47. Amen… The genersl pew sitter gets what they sre looking for… And there are pletty out there ready to give it to them

    @ Kemi:

  48. Bill M wrote:

    Did the authoritarian problem in the church start when some in the early church took on airs of authority to combat heresy and by taking on that authority did they committed the greater heresy?

    No. When you look at what some of the ‘heresies’ were they could not have been ignored. There are abuses of authority, certainly, but ignoring the early and really awful heresies was not an option.

  49. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Another factor in play might be trying to self-medicate where either there is NO such thing as a mental health problem (it’s all Spiritual) or “SCRIPTURE will Fix Anything!” Both of these tie in to the Christianese hostility towards SECULAR(TM) mental health, as has been covered many-many times on this and other blogs.

    Yeah, I think the point the author was trying to get at is that the Christians who read way more Scripture than those who do not are not as open to using regular, normal types of treatment.

    If I’m understanding what the author was getting across, he was trying to say that the people who study the Bible more often tend to be suspicious of stuff like using medication, or visiting psychiatrists, or going to group therapy, or just talking through their problems with friends.

    They think the Bible is saying the only God-approved (and hence appropriate, “Christian”) way of being treated for any problems is prayer, Bible reading, going to church, and faith.

    And as the book gets into, for a lot of problems in life, that is simply not going to work for depression, anxiety, or whatever.
    Repressing pain and denying problems actually prolongs your pain and won’t resolve things. Bible reading and church attendance isn’t going to conquer most issues most of the time.

    I come from a family that is big time into believing you should repress pain, problems, live in denial about them.

    Although it’s not due to way too much Bible reading on their part, it’s just some weird mentality they have that it’s considered disgraceful to be weak or admit weakness to others. (I’m not like that myself. I think it’s OK to admit to hurting or being weak to trusted friends.)

  50. Divorce Minister wrote:

    “Many zipper sun gods” is a phrase that came to mind with Driscoll’s pilot reference.

    From Driscoll’s subordinate view of women and their role, his brain is obviously stuck in his zipper!

    (I’m sorry that this doesn’t sound as spiritual as my usual comments, but I’m really getting tired of both Driscoll and the version of “church” which continues to endorse the potty-mouth preacher).

  51. Max wrote:

    M

    Meh, Max, I do agree potty mouths shouldn’t be in the pulpit. However, they can be good on occasion.

    Nadia Bolz-Weber is a favorite of mine and she swears quite a bit.

  52. ^Whoops, sorry about that, Max! I thought hitting “quote” would quote your above post! Guess not.

  53. Dee wrote “The early church had its hands full in dealing with serious doctrinal issues that were debated at councils, etc.”

    I suppose this was a healthy exercise as the fledgling Church came to grips with the Kingdom of God that had come to earth. But things made a drastic turn when Roman Catholicism imposed “This is the way it will be” on the masses. While the reformation brought some relief to authoritarian oppression, it was just a matter of time before new authorities would be set up under Protestantism … with Calvin being the worst abuser of the free church which was beginning to emerge. Five hundred years later, we have 40,000 Christian denominations and para-church organizations on planet earth … each believing they have a corner on the truth. Lost in all the noise is Jesus’ sweeping assertion that “ALL authority has been given unto me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). The history of religion is a record of mere men trying to strip authority away from Jesus! The 21st century church is so far afield that it has lost a clear understanding of Christ’s intent for His Church … the Kingdom of Heaven is here and now, but most who are called by His name don’t understand how to operate in it, nor how to recognize counterfeit authority when it comes knocking.

  54. Another massive difference between Paul and other leaders of the early church and leaders today (at least in much of the world), is that to identify one’s self as a Christian leader back then meant relative poverty, shunning by family members, persecution, torture and in many cases, death–no one in their right mind, other than one who was genuinely more concerned with the needs of others than their own, would have stepped up to identify themselves as a leader in the church.

    What a contrast to so many of the leaders today, greedy for fame and money and worshipful followers. What a bunch of cowards such leaders would show themselves to be should they ever experience even a bit of what Peter, John, Paul and the others endured.

  55. Daisy wrote:

    A Christian show from the UK also covered this topic awhile back:
    Can Christianity be true if Christians can’t agree on doctrine?
    http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Can-Christianity-be-true-if-Christians-can-t-agree-on-doctrine-Andrew-Whyte-vs-Nabeel-Qureshi
    That show has two guests and a host. One of the guests is a Christian, the other used to be one.
    The ex-Christian guy has a channel on You Tube called “Christian Diversity” where he documents all the conflicting beliefs Christians hold on anything and everything.
    Re: “Can Christianity be true if Christians can’t agree on doctrine?”
    I have wondered that myself.

    Sure Christianity can be true, it can be true regardless. There’s great disagreement among scholars and experts in everything, particularly the details, but that has no bearing on whether or not something is true. Those hosts need to brush up on their logic, they present a non-sequitur, because a diversity of beliefs and disagreement simply does not mean there isn’t an absolute truth.

  56. @ Max:

    It’s not that I’m disagreeing with you per se, I’m just wanting to toss in a few words of caution or giving my two cents.

    I do think Christians can benefit from reading the Bible more, certainly. I do think a lot of them are hood-winked by unscrupulous preachers because they are so biblically illiterate.

    However, I don’t know if Bible reading is a panacea, either.

    I was just saying to HUG that I’ve read a book by a Christian psychiatrist who says the Christians who tend to be more damaged, who refuse to seek normal medical treatment for mental health problems, are the ones who study the Bible more than those who do not.
    They get weird ideas about when, if, and how to seek medical treatment, all due to their misunderstandings of what the Bible is saying.

    Christians are all reading the same book (the Bible) but arriving at different conclusions as to what it means, which can lead to all sorts of problems. That was something I discussed in a post higher on this page.

    Some guy ended up leaving the Christian faith over it, and he has his own You Tube channel, “Christian Diversity,”
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC46_vlosspJ-yLFqEK9j8LQ

    You have Christians that use, or have used, the Bible to excuse or justify things such as slavery or sexism (under the “gender complementarianism” label).

    Some Christians know the Bible backwards and forwards but don’t do what it says. I think even the NT has a verse that says “Put the Scriptures down and go DO what it says, don’t just sit and read the book all day.”

    Jesus said don’t just listen to his words but put them into practice.

    Jesus had this to say to some Pharisees:

    You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. (John 5:39)

    Those guys knew the Old Testament (their Bible) very well but did not recognize Jesus as their Messiah.

    Some of the biggest Christian jerks I’ve ever known online (and a small number in real life) are the ones who know the Bible very well, but they are very judgmental or condescending.

    They can quote the Bible expertly but don’t generally show much love and compassion to other people.

    I’m not against Christians reading their Bibles or learning more about it, but I think there is a danger that they at times misunderstand, distort, or misapply what it says – and other people have been hurt in the process.

    I don’t mean to attack your post (or you), your post just got me to thinking of other, related things. 🙂

  57. Then we have men like John Piper who says women should not be muscular

    My wife could probably take Piper pretty quickly in a wrestling match. She’s a former college athlete not much short of 6′ tall. Why on earth would anyone think that there’s anything wrong with a woman having muscles? Where, oh where is that in the Bible? When I see people making pronouncements with what they think is the authority of God and they stray farther and farther from what God has said, I just wonder what it is that inspires them to run so far and fast from what the Lord has said.

  58. Daisy wrote:

    Some of the biggest Christian jerks I’ve ever known online (and a small number in real life) are the ones who know the Bible very well, but they are very judgmental or condescending.

    🙂

  59. Daisy wrote:

    They think the Bible is saying the only God-approved (and hence appropriate, “Christian”) way of being treated for any problems is prayer, Bible reading, going to church, and faith.
    And as the book gets into, for a lot of problems in life, that is simply not going to work for depression, anxiety, or whatever.

    You’re right, certainly the Bible doesn’t claim it is the only method for treating problems. However, God can do anything He pleases and could heal anything at all, brain chemistry imbalances, what have you–about as difficult for the creator of the Universe as bending His little finger. So prayer ought to be the first step, but the problem lies in the notion that it ought to necessarily end there. God never said that, never implied it. Surely as He did His construction work Jesus didn’t just stand there and pray, He surely put shoulders into the work and fixed the problem.

  60. I will be an outlier here, I guess.

    Background: I am in the tradition of C.S.Lewis’s “Mere Christianity.” I came to the faith with a Protestant “take” on things and have always attended evangelical “low” churches. I
    think that each major branch of the church: Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant has some blind spots as well as some areas of specific insight that could benefit the other branches. We need each other! The three branches tend to agree on the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, and agree that “Loving God with one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength, and loving one’s neighbor as oneself (or going further and loving others as Christ has loved us) sums up what our lives should look like.

    The Orthodox and Catholic Churches have recognized that Scripture does require interpretation. They recognize that while a person can read scripture on their own, and understand it and apply it, that that is not the same thing as a single person flying solo and declaring that he has the one and only correct interpretation or that “the plain teaching of Scripture is _____.” They at least recognize that we do, in fact, interpret Scripture. it is a blot on Christianity that we have many “christianities” yet Protestants manufacture new denominations at an impressive rate.

    There is a need for authority in many areas of life. It doesn’t need to be a dirty word, though its abuse can make it seem like authority itself is inherently evil. We have authority over us in government in the creation of our laws and in our court system; we have authority over us in our places of business; parents assume authority over their children; professors have authority over students. With the absence of authority, there would be chaos. So imo, the issue is not whether I will allow someone to have spiritual authority over me, but how we define that authority, and what checks and balances there are so that the temptation to use authority wrongly can be countered.

  61. @ Daisy:
    Daisy, I’m actually in agreement with you on the issues you raise. There is a vast difference between studying the Scriptures by intellect vs. the Spirit. Education does not produce one ounce of revelation. Some of the most intellectual folks in Christendom have been caught up in New Calvinism … really smart guys who just don’t get it! Jesus said He was sending the Holy Spirit who would lead us into Truth. If we are not allowing the Holy Spirit to teach us, rather than men, we can be led astray. The Word (Truth) + Holy Spirit (Spirit of Truth) = Revealed Truth. I’m just saying that we, as individuals, need to position our lives to receive the Holy Spirit, rather than grieve Him by our disobedience, sin and rebellion … so that the Spirit of Truth can lead us as we study Scripture, rather than relying on the interpretations of men. If the church leadership we submit ourselves to understand this and are also seeking God’s face, we will be doing church with God … rather than without Him.

  62. okrapod wrote:

    No. When you look at what some of the ‘heresies’ were they could not have been ignored. There are abuses of authority, certainly, but ignoring the early and really awful heresies was not an option.

    I agree the heresies were real but the choice was not binary, between a few elevating themselves with authority versus doing nothing. While it was expedient to use authority to quell dissent in the early church the historical record does not indicate a resounding success that followed. Authority stemming from an institutional church has a troublesome track record.

    It can be argued that non authoritarian means existed. To me it parallels the time of the Judges in Israel, they wanted a king to solve their problems. Sure they got their king but they got the whole package. Compare God’s warning of the abuses they would get from the king they wanted, then compare that with Jesus report of the abuses from the Pharisees.

    ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
    They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’

    The passage from Isiah that Jesus quotes can easily be levied at church “leaders” today.

  63. Florence in KY wrote:

    Daisy, I don’t care for Moon Pies and RCcolas but do like sweetened ice tea.

    I hope you liked fried okra. I do. If it’s cooked right, it’s good. Most chain restaurants cook it wrong, though. 🙂

  64. From original post: “I would contend that there is a significant difference between the role of Paul and the role of today’s Christian leaders.”

    And, for Paul, Jesus Christ was not an after thought it was his first thought. “I was determined to know one thing, Jesus Christ and him crucified.”

  65. dee wrote:

    You are as quick as a Southern woman getting to the grocery store when she hears a prediction of snow.

    As a Southern woman, I resemble that comment.

  66. Daisy wrote:

    Re: “Can Christianity be true if Christians can’t agree on doctrine?”
    I have wondered that myself.

    I don’t think there’s a religion where all the members agree on every point.

  67. dee wrote:

    You are as quick as a Southern woman getting to the grocery store when she hears a prediction of snow.

    Or as quick as some Southern gals are to slap down an impertinent Yankee who dares to disagree with them…
    (tongue in cheek, all in good fun dee, all in good fun!)

  68. @ Ken:
    concerning ‘Piper’ and people (men and women) who object to women getting stronger by working out, I can tell you that there are times when it’s a necessary part of life for a woman to make the effort to ‘get stronger’ . . . my son was born with disabilities and did not walk for years, so I carried him and lifted him as needed. . . in those days, I was on the thin side of my years and not as strong as I needed to be for the circumstances of our family. . . I was able to go to a gym three times a week and after about two months, I began to notice it was easier for me to lift my son (less back pain).

    I don’t know who ‘Piper’ is, but if his wife were in certain circumstances having to lift a disabled child, would he still try to micro-manage the lives of faithful women in such a silly way? Women ARE strong people and a lot of that strength is that, when their children need them, these women will go to hell and back to help their children. I guess Piper would like the ‘hell’ part for such women, but I have a feeling that Our Lord would understand that love asks more of us women than just pandering to the egos of pitiful patriarchal men.

    Did I ‘bulk up’ from working out? No.
    Did our family life get a little more manageable? Yes. It did. 🙂

  69. Daisy wrote:

    I was just saying to HUG that I’ve read a book by a Christian psychiatrist who says the Christians who tend to be more damaged, who refuse to seek normal medical treatment for mental health problems, are the ones who study the Bible more than those who do not.
    They get weird ideas about when, if, and how to seek medical treatment, all due to their misunderstandings of what the Bible is saying.

    A lot of people get weird ideas too when they just lift the verses off of the page and don’t consider the context: the surrounding verses, the culture, things that were understood without being specified by the original readers, etc. Certain Christians are really bad about proof-texting and can come up with some crazy stuff.

  70. Abi Miah wrote:

    I will be an outlier here, I guess.
    Background: I am in the tradition of C.S.Lewis’s “Mere Christianity.” I came to the faith with a Protestant “take” on things and have always attended evangelical “low” churches. I
    think that each major branch of the church: Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant has some blind spots as well as some areas of specific insight that could benefit the other branches. We need each other! The three branches tend to agree on the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, and agree that “Loving God with one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength, and loving one’s neighbor as oneself (or going further and loving others as Christ has loved us) sums up what our lives should look like.
    The Orthodox and Catholic Churches have recognized that Scripture does require interpretation. They recognize that while a person can read scripture on their own, and understand it and apply it, that that is not the same thing as a single person flying solo and declaring that he has the one and only correct interpretation or that “the plain teaching of Scripture is _____.” They at least recognize that we do, in fact, interpret Scripture. it is a blot on Christianity that we have many “christianities” yet Protestants manufacture new denominations at an impressive rate.
    There is a need for authority in many areas of life. It doesn’t need to be a dirty word, though its abuse can make it seem like authority itself is inherently evil. We have authority over us in government in the creation of our laws and in our court system; we have authority over us in our places of business; parents assume authority over their children; professors have authority over students. With the absence of authority, there would be chaos. So imo, the issue is not whether I will allow someone to have spiritual authority over me, but how we define that authority, and what checks and balances there are so that the temptation to use authority wrongly can be countered.

    The problem is in the paradigm.

    The idea that one person has authority over another, as opposed to mutual submission within a church context, in the sense that it is put in these churches, is distinctly unbiblical. It is, I believe, antichrist in its approach, because a very fallible human being (maybe worse than the average person on the streets, a recent academic study put the likelihood of a pastor being a conscienceless narcissist at roughly 10 times average) is placed in the position of Christ; it creates an invalid, unbiblical intermediary between God and man who’s name is not “Jesus”. This is why I call this paradigm antichrist.

    The word used to describe earthly authority and its relationship to Christians is far stronger than the word used in Hebrews 13:17 to describe authority by church leaders (“pithos”, meaning, more or less, church members are to not throw things back in leader’s faces, to consider what they say, to be persuadable). That’s it: be persuadable by the examples of people who are specifically told to be the least and the last, the servant of all, by people who are specifically told that they are not allowed to lead by compulsion ever but by godly example alone, by people who are older, have been around, and are no longer full of self and ambition. There is simply no room in that biblical paradigm for a thirtysomething guy in tight pants and hipster hair, husband of all of five years, father of a couple small children, to assert his authority over anyone in the church. The types of people drawn to such positions under those circumstances are almost invariably either imbeciles or malignant narcissists or both.

    That’s it, that’s all. All else is a lie, and an enormously harmful one.

  71. I think the core sin of authoritarian ministries is pride. It’s often well disguised, but that’s what it comes down to ultimately. And pride drives out love. And that is an incalculable loss for the church.

  72. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    Florence in KY wrote:
    I don’t care for Moon Pies and RCcolas but do like sweetened ice tea.
    Mmmmmmmmm. Sweet tea. The house wine of the South.

    Sweet iced tea and hot coffee – my beverages of choice!
    I know a wife of a missionary who ordered tea at a cafe in Hong Kong. She was served Long Island Iced Tea — got so drunk she couldn’t remember how to get back to the parsonage. Her story was hilarious. Of course she told it to about 20 ladies, and only 2 of us knew what Long Island Iced Tea is – we were laughing long before everyone else.

  73. Law Prof wrote:

    Where, oh where is that in the Bible?

    It’s not. It’s derived from a particular reading of Scripture. Now comes the slap-down:
    Just like the Trinity. And if you don’t believe as I believe, then you don’t believe the Bible.

  74. Daisy wrote:

    I hope you liked fried okra. I do. If it’s cooked right, it’s good. Most chain restaurants cook it wrong, though.

    Daisy, fried okra and fried green tomatoes are some of my favs.

  75. Nancy2 wrote:

    Sweet iced tea and hot coffee – my beverages of choice!

    Served with cornbread seasoned with bacon grease.

  76. Muff Potter wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    Where, oh where is that in the Bible?
    It’s not. It’s derived from a particular reading of Scripture. Now comes the slap-down:
    Just like the Trinity. And if you don’t believe as I believe, then you don’t believe the Bible.

    Agreed, Muff. Would sure like to know that reading of Piper’s (or whomever he’s referencing or stealing it from), where it comes from. Because Piper’s paradigm on this sounds like that which exits the lee side of a bull.

  77. John wrote:

    I think the core sin of authoritarian ministries is pride. It’s often well disguised, but that’s what it comes down to ultimately. And pride drives out love. And that is an incalculable loss for the church.

    Yes, nailed it (now don’t get prideful that I said that)

  78. Max wrote:

    “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

    One of thee most favored clobber verses too. The irony is rich no? Again, if you don’t believe as I believe, then you don’t believe the Bible.

  79. Florence in KY wrote:

    Served with cornbread seasoned with bacon grease.

    A Yankee (Potter) who used to fry fresh caught Lake Michigan perch in bacon fat after dredging with flour can’t be all bad huh?

  80. Has there been some discussion about how authoritarian and authoritative are similar and how different, and did I miss the discussion? I think that sometimes there may be some confusion about that as related to ‘the church.’ Are people objecting, for example, to a church having a statement of belief or are they just objecting to somebody who has turned bully and is bossing people around, or something in between or both?

  81. Law Prof wrote:

    a diversity of beliefs and disagreement simply does not mean there isn’t an absolute truth.

    I guess if I believe the Bible was written by God, I would expect to see more agreement about what it says among those who believe in it than I do. I think that was also the point the ex Christian guy on the show was saying.

  82. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    Which hasn’t got a drop of tea in it! How did she not notice?

    She said it tasted “weird”, but she thought the Chinese just didn’t know how to make iced tea properly. She was thirsty, so she drank it, rather quickly!

  83. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “SCRIPTURE will Fix Anything!” Both of these tie in to the Christianese hostility towards SECULAR(TM) mental health,

    Scripture. ……… Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Wasn’t Luke a physician?

  84. Patriciamc wrote:

    Certain Christians are really bad about proof-texting and can come up with some crazy stuff.

    Check out the title section of a book called Mrs Wakeman and The Antichrist by a Robert Damon Shneck for the kind of crazy stuff they can come up with.

  85. Law Prof wrote:

    So prayer ought to be the first step, but the problem lies in the notion that it ought to necessarily end there. God never said that, never implied it.

    Mary Baker Eddy did.

  86. Law Prof wrote:

    My wife could probably take Piper pretty quickly in a wrestling match. She’s a former college athlete not much short of 6′ tall. Why on earth would anyone think that there’s anything wrong with a woman having muscles?

    Former boxer married to an Amazon — you are one interesting law professor.

  87. Ken wrote:

    Any pastor or teacher or big name ministry or board of elders does not have more authority than the word of God, so if they go off the rails or exceed their authority in trying to be control-freaks for example, or trying to silence church members from reporting crimes, not only do we not have to obey them, we shouldn’t. We are to obey God rather than man if there is a clash.

    Many Christians have been duped into believing that the Bible teaches God places pastors, deacons, elders, or other individuals in the church “over” the flock of Christ, similar to a Chief Executive Officer rules “over” a corporation, or a board rules “over” a company, etc…

    You may be interested in reading Wade’s take on “The Bible and Church Authority: Who Rules Over Us? ”

    http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/09/the-bible-and-church-authority-who.html

  88. Ken wrote:

    Beneath the word are pastors and teachers. Now we are to respect them for their learning, and teaching is a gift of the Spirit that some people have. (Seminary is no substitute.) The scripture itself tells us to yield and submit to them.

    So, Whitfield had the gift of teaching. But, he was utterly wrong in advocating for slavery-an evil institution. And because he was a good teacher, people obeyed him and perhaps supported him more for his take on slavery.

    Did the Holy Spirit convict Whitfield about slavery? I say that it did and Whitfield, Edwards and many others led their people down the road of human trafficking.

    If I had been in Whitfield’s church along with you, would you have urged me to submit to Whitfield because he could preach a good sermon?

  89. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    My wife could probably take Piper pretty quickly in a wrestling match. She’s a former college athlete not much short of 6′ tall. Why on earth would anyone think that there’s anything wrong with a woman having muscles?
    Former boxer married to an Amazon — you are one interesting law professor.

    I like to think I’m interesting, except that I’m not, really. It can be frightfully dull hearing my stories for the umpteenth time.

    Incidentally, wife can kick my butt, intellectually, and is pretty much an even match physically–I have her in the upper body strength, but can’t match her lower body strength. We occasionally used to wrestle back when we were young (actual wrestling, no hanky-panky associated, just out of youthful tomfoolery) and there were times I’d pin her, and times, I must admit, where she’d pin me. If we were to try that same bit of hijinks today, in our middle age, we’d probably have to be wheeled to the ambulance on a gurney!

  90. Ken wrote:

    There is a difficult balancing act between avoiding obeying eldership group-think and an excessive individualism where we won’t submit to anybody but ourselves or those we already agree with.

    My guess is that you pick and choose your pastors based upon what you agree with. I bet everyone out their in church land is doing the same thing.

    I have learned to trust folks who preached a long time ago and who are dead. Their thoughts and teachings have been thoroughly vetted. I doubt there are few individuals living today who can give a unique spin on things.Its all been said and done.

    My individualism is not excessive if I say that I agree with the Council at Jerusalem and Nicea and I disagree with the Danvers statement.

  91. Ken wrote:

    On a more serious note, all authority in heaven and on earth belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ. That is mediated to us through his word, the NT writings stemming from the apostles.
    Beneath the word are pastors and teachers.

    What does the Bible say about “pastor”? What is that? Are they the next step down from Jesus? Where does anyone get that from? Hint: Not the Bible.

  92. I recently visited a church an acquaintance is starting. I read their constitution and statement of faith and one of the things that popped out to me, besides the hyper-calvinism, was this statement – “the pastor and elder board are the final authority on all doctrine”. When you consider the fact that church membership is pretty much mandatory you can see that they do believe they have authority over you in matters of doctrine. Seems disagreement over doctrine would lead to church discipline.

    That’s one reason I like dogma, it lets you know what the held beliefs are upfront.

  93. Daisy wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    a diversity of beliefs and disagreement simply does not mean there isn’t an absolute truth.
    I guess if I believe the Bible was written by God, I would expect to see more agreement about what it says among those who believe in it than I do. I think that was also the point the ex Christian guy on the show was saying.

    I do believe the Bible was inspired by God (though not written by Him, of course). Given what I’ve learned about people in five decades, I’d very much expect them to go running off in all directions in terms of belief without regard to what it says in context, because people can be rather self-serving pigs. I’ve found this to be particularly true of many who think they have the God-granted responsibility to tell everyone what the Bible means.

    But, if you want to talk about Christianity, there is general agreement on the basics: Jesus is God, He loves us, we’re to love Him, we can’t work our way up to the approval of God by tugging on our own bootstraps, we’re to treat other people kindly, the way we’d want to be treated. There are others, but pretty much anyone fitting the category of Christian would agree to each of these. If people want to waste their time debating baptism methods or polity or whatever, that’s just more proof that Christians are not immune from being petty and pedantic.

  94. Q wrote:

    I recently visited a church an acquaintance is starting. I read their constitution and statement of faith and one of the things that popped out to me, besides the hyper-calvinism, was this statement – “the pastor and elder board are the final authority on all doctrine”. When you consider the fact that church membership is pretty much mandatory you can see that they do believe they have authority over you in matters of doctrine. Seems disagreement over doctrine would lead to church discipline.
    That’s one reason I like dogma, it lets you know what the held beliefs are upfront.

    At least they are honest in their dishonest treatment of the Bible.

  95. Law Prof wrote:

    If people want to waste their time debating baptism methods or polity or whatever, that’s just more proof that Christians are not immune from being petty and pedantic.

    Actually, I guess I think polity is fair game for much debate–I think the wrong-headedness of many on this matter has led to a lot of abuse. But that said, it sure isn’t sine qua non to calling one’s self a Christian.

  96. Ken wrote:

    Beneath the word are pastors and teachers

    Unless you’re in a Five Fold Ministry church. There apostles, prophets, and evangelists come between Jesus and pastors and teachers.

  97. Pilot Mark jumped out of the plane with a golden parachute and left the passengers to fend for themselves.

  98. Q wrote:

    Pilot Mark jumped out of the plane with a golden parachute and left the passengers to fend for themselves.

    Doesn’t it say somewhere “The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.”?

  99. Ken wrote:

    Beneath the word are pastors and teachers. Now we are to respect them for their learning, and teaching is a gift of the Spirit that some people have. (Seminary is no substitute.) The scripture itself tells us to yield and submit to them.

    What passages do you refer to in order to get here?

  100. @ Max:
    I will take it a bit farther – if it doesn’t change your life – then the studying is fruitless and far too often that is what Christians do.

    Memorizing verses – great, if what that means is you apply it to your life, otherwise it is like memorizing any other insignificant facts or figures. Too often it is gathering “facts” to “defend the faith” as opposed to living it out.

    I read a few books on Native American spirituality, and one had quotes from Native American leaders regarding interactions with the settlers, philosophies and the like. One story I found quite interesting – many Native Americans referred to the Christian settlers as “the people of the book” – one leader who was speaking to a missionary said (paraphrased) “You (white missionaries) tell us we need to change our ways and live by the book, but you don’t live it by it yourselves, you live by it, then maybe we will consider it” – pretty sad commentary, and frankly I don’t think much has changed

    Now, even reading that type of material, per my upbringing, was, and I quote “Letting the Devil in”…..but it actually had a positive effect (no, I am not a follower of Native American spirituality) – the Plains view was this – Great Spirit (Creator), the buffalo – who gives his life for the Indian to provide food, clothing, shelter, tools, utensils – everything needed to live and was an intermediary through which they could communicate with the Great Spirit, and the eagle who serves by carrying prayers to the Great Spirit. To me it sure sounds similar in concept to the basics surrounding Christianity – using symbolism they understood – and the thing is they lived it, and could see that just “knowing the book” was of no value…..

    Just something that struck me – and me view my own walk differently.

  101. Law Prof wrote:

    What does the Bible say about “pastor”? What is that? Are they the next step down from Jesus? Where does anyone get that from? Hint: Not the Bible.

    One doesn’t have to reach to take the whole of the New Testament and come to the understanding that there is some local authority/accountability. If everyone is their own authority and accountable only to themselves then large portions of Scripture are deemed irrelevant.

    Matthew 18, Eph 4:10-13, 1Ti 3:1-12 (and the rest of the verses regarding the qualifications of pastors/elders/overseers), 1Ti 5:17-20, Jam 3:1, etc.

    James 3:1, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.”

    If there is teaching without authority then why the greater strictness in judging? If every believer is accountable to themselves then the believer themself is responsible for listening to or rejecting a particular teacher. Why would the teacher be held accountable? If they teach error, the believer would simply reject them. No harm no foul.

    And what do you do with 1 Peter 5:1-3?

    I understand that people get hurt by church leadership. Leadership that is sinful and contradicts Scripture has disqualified themselves but their behavior does NOT invalidate what God’s Word says. But I understand that my view is not popular.

  102. WillysJeepMan wrote:

    If there is teaching without authority then why the greater strictness in judging? If every believer is accountable to themselves then the believer themself is responsible for listening to or rejecting a particular teacher. Why would the teacher be held accountable? If they teach error, the believer would simply reject them. No harm no foul.

    Look at it from a different perspective.

    Instead of viewing teaching through a lens of authority, view it through a lens of responsibility.

    Jesus didn’t rebuke those who heard the Pharisees for their lack of respect for authority. He rebuked the Pharisees for teaching with no sense of responsibility.

  103. WillysJeepMan wrote:

    there is some local authority/accountability

    Accountability when? In “the sweet by and by?” The authoritarian leaders I knew took no responsibility when a train jumped the tracks upon following their counsel. Sure, maybe they’ll get their comeuppance in the life to come, but scores of people are eating dirt in this life thanks to them.

  104. BL wrote:

    no sense of responsibility

    This has been my experience with authoritarian church leadership. They will pass that buck like a hot potato when things go south. No responsibility whatsoever.

  105. WillysJeepMan wrote:

    But I understand that my view is not popular.

    I just want to follow the view that’s correct and biblical, I don’t care about popularity.

    Of course no one is a law unto themselves.

    We’re all responsible for each other.

    We’re to submit one to another–includes everyone.

    Leaders are to lead only by godly example–never dictat.

    No one is even to call themselves father, teacher, etc.

    Leaders are to be the least and the last.

    At most, “obeying” a leader means being persuadable based on their example.

    It’s just Biblical.

  106. @ WillysJeepMan:

    My response to Ken was about the imbuing of the word “pastor” with the one-step-under-Jesus meaning. It cannot be found in the NT. In fact, “pastor” can hardly at all be found in the NT. Eph 4:11 is the only time it appears in the NT in the singular–and of course there, there’s no description, and it isn’t even a fait accompli based on a plain language reading of that verse that it even describes a title, much less the title of one who runs the church like a CEO backed up by a small group of elders who function as a board of directors at best, collection of robotic “yes men” at worst. It could just as easily be the description of a gifting that could be shared by many within a given body of believers, none of them “elders” in the biblical sense. But what a pastor is, exactly, is a bit hard to discern from the NT text, inasmuch as unlike elder, there’s no set of qualifications and no description of duties (then again, there’s not much of a description of duties even of elders).

    So my point is not that no one is to be a leader, it’s just that there’s no indication whatsoever that that person is to be called or given the title of “pastor”. And in any event, as you point out, 1 Pet 5:3 is a wonderful verse, nailing down everything else Jesus said (what little He said) about leadership.

  107. WillysJeepMan wrote:

    If there is teaching without authority then why the greater strictness in judging?

    The teaching can be bad with or without ‘authority.’ Either way the teaching can be harmful to believers if it is in error.

  108. Law Prof wrote:

    At most, “obeying” a leader means being persuadable based on their example.

    This has always been my perspective. Haven’t met many leaders that take this view though.

  109. seems like a lot of ‘neo’ folks make up doctrine as they go along, which is fine until they get to the part where women’s tongues need to be removed and nailed to the Church door before they can enter the sanctuary premises . . . that bit about Challies not permitting a woman to read sacred Scripture aloud in Church seems pointless when you have to have a male basso profundo or baritone attempting to read the soaring Marian canticle of the Magnificat . . . or the words of Mary to the Angel Gabriel at the moment of her ‘fiat’.

    I would think that these ‘neos’ might want the voices of the women of sacred Scripture also to be stilled in their ‘neo’ Churches, so as not to ‘pollute’ these palaces of male idolatry, but I guess it hasn’t come to that yet . . . will it? well, in order to change ‘Doctrine’ in the SBC, the position of Our Lord as the ‘lens’ through which all sacred Scripture is to be discerned, that position was set aside, so now ANYTHING is possible, I suppose in a world where Our Lord can be dismissed in that way . . . and we ARE seeing ‘anything’ happening out there, aren’t we?

    Fundamentalism ain’t ‘orthodoxy’ . . . it’s just plain ‘ole fundamentalism.

  110. Christiane wrote:

    . that bit about Challies not permitting a woman to read sacred Scripture aloud in Church seems pointless when you have to have a male basso profundo or baritone attempting to read the soaring Marian canticle of the Magnificat . . . or the words of Mary to the Angel Gabriel at the moment of her ‘fiat’.

    That’s the reason behind making Castratos:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato

  111. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    The authoritarian leaders I knew took no responsibility when a train jumped the tracks upon following their counsel. Sure, maybe they’ll get their comeuppance in the life to come, but scores of people are eating dirt in this life thanks to them.

    “In the Sweet By-and-By,
    You’ll get Pie in the Sky when you Die…”
    — “The Preacher and the Slave”, old Wobbly march song on that very subject

  112. Law Prof wrote:

    My response to Ken was about the imbuing of the word “pastor” with the one-step-under-Jesus meaning.

    “Under”?

  113. Like Daisy, I to0 suffer from a mental health problem. I have a major chemical imbalance and have been on medications for it over 20 yrs now. When this first happened to me, various friends and family members told me to just pray harder and God will heal you. Don’t go to any psychiatrists. Who knows what they will tell you. Thank God I didn’t listen to them. I believe God gave medical doctors the tools to develop the medication that keeps me alive today. I don’t know if anyone watched a show called “Code Black ” last night on tv. A teenager came in with a super bad injury to her leg. Before getting her to surgery her “Christian” father said absolutely no way. God would heal her, and they just had to pray. As the show progressed, her dad called in more members of the church to pray for her. She got worse by the minute. If no surgery was performed she would lose her leg. They finally did the surgery when dad and his cronies had stepped outside. The girl’s life was saved. I know this is just a tv show, but too many of us have seen the very same thing happen in the Pentecostal World that I grew up in. I got news for people, prayer doesn’t always heal people. It gives us the grace to get thru it. We don’t need dictator type pastors who teach from the pulpit that if you see a doctor you will go to hell. Just listen and do as I say to do. My God isn’t like that. He is a loving God. I am here today because of his love for me and his grace. When my illness was first diagnosed, I felt directed by God to go to the scripture verse where Jesus cast out demons from the man. He told him this illness wasn’t unto death but to show the Glory of God. I truly believe that and will believe it to my dying day.

  114. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Astronomers at Cal Tech have claimed reasonably strong evidence for either a ninth or a tenth planet, depending on whether you consider Pluto to be a planet or not. The as-yet-unobserved body is thought to be significantly massive – around ten times the mass of the earth – and is mooted by the Cal Tech team as the best explanation for the interesting orbits of a number of known Kuyper Belt Objects.

    Tenth planet. Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto the hard way: he stayed up all night with the telescope, taking photographic plates, then put his exposed plates in the blink comparator in the morning and looked for movement between the plates. I’ve sat at Tombaugh’s blink comparator at Lowell Observatory (which, by the way, if you have a few hours in Flagstaff, AZ, is a lovely place to visit and learn).

    I do have to admit that “Planet Nine From Outer Space” does give me the giggles. (Someone suggested calling it Planet EdWood. Now I’m in the weeds.) Seriously, it’s *amazing* the things astronomers are discovering these days. The third closest objects to us are a pair of brown dwarfs called Luhman 16 A and B discovered in 2013. They’re not properly stars as they don’t do regular fusion like the Sun and other stars do. They shine in the infrared. But (for objects) they’re very close and we didn’t know they were there until three years ago. I figured something like this would come along, and it’s interesting, but I’ll wait for the photographic proof.

  115. The “pastor” / “sheep” thing is just a metaphor. For another biblical model of governance, I direct your attention to the Unjust Steward.

  116. Q wrote:

    Pilot Mark jumped out of the plane with a golden parachute and left the passengers to fend for themselves.

    Yeah, and he’s landed in my area and is about to pilot another plane into the ground.

    Wish I knew where the crash is going to be so I can be about warning people.

  117. Zla’od wrote:

    The “pastor” / “sheep” thing is just a metaphor. For another biblical model of governance, I direct your attention to the Unjust Steward.

    In chapter 21 of the Gospel According to John, Jesus appeared to 7 disciples, one of them being Peter. Jesus spoke to Peter, saying repeatedly, ” Peter, if you love me, feed my sheep.”
    Feed my sheep – not control my sheep. Feed people the Word of God; teach, testify, ~~~~~ nothing about insisting on controlling, limiting, or punishing people!

  118. mirele wrote:

    Q wrote:
    Pilot Mark jumped out of the plane with a golden parachute and left the passengers to fend for themselves.
    Yeah, and he’s landed in my area and is about to pilot another plane into the ground.
    Wish I knew where the crash is going to be so I can be about warning people.

    I think he’s looking for a bigger and more prosperous plane.

  119. “and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them (Acts 20:28-30).)”

    Isn’t Mark Driscoll and example of this? That is isn’t Mark Driscoll one of the ones that Paul warned us about who will try and draw disciples after them? It sure sounds like it to me.

  120. Steve240 wrote:

    “and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them (Acts 20:28-30).)”
    Isn’t Mark Driscoll and example of this?

    Again, yes!!!

  121. Steve240 wrote:

    “and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them (Acts 20:28-30).)”
    Isn’t Mark Driscoll and example of this?

    Just to be clear, yes!!!

    Mark and avoid.

  122. @ mirele:
    Plan 9: how about the guy scratching his temple with the barrel of his deadly rsy gun?!

    I like the, err, “special effects,” fiery paper plates and all. Not dure, though, if it’s thr worst movie I’ve ever seen. I think the award goes to “Spitfire,” starring Katharine Hepbutn as Trigger Hicks, a TN mountain girl/faith healer, who is misled by one of those city slickers who designed dams for the TVA. Hepburn’s accent gets an award all on its own… i really wish i could find a copy of this thing, but it seems to be n.a. in any and evety video format known to man.

  123. I probably wasn’t clear enough –

    Mark Driscoll is a false teacher who only cares about himself and we should try to rescue believers from him and Satan.

    Hope that is clear.

  124. Harley,
    Thank you for telling some of your story here. It sounds like you have been through a lot. I wish more Christians understood how imperative it is to get medical help for mental illness. I’ve been on meds for anxiety for years, and could not do without them. My prescription for many Christians in the new Millennium: prayer and medication.:)

  125. mirele wrote:

    Yeah, and he’s landed in my area and is about to pilot another plane into the ground.
    Wish I knew where the crash is going to be so I can be about warning people.

    Maybe we can get MD to go to the Proving Ground in Yuma to see if he can make it through Jump Master training in one piece.

  126. I shocked friends a few years ago when my church was undergoing a kerfuffle caused by the pastor twisting arms to get the elders to agree to some new decisions, which many were in disagreement with. We had joined this church after months of attendance, observation, and conversations with various members and elders. We even bluntly asked the pastor and several elders (and other members, all separately) if it was truly an elder led church as they claimed, or if the elders just approved whatever the pastor wanted. That was the situation at a previous church: advertised as elder led but actually run completely by the pastor. We didn’t want to be at another Pastor Is King church. This one turned out to be Pastor Thinks He Is King. Making a long sad story short, there was a lot of heated talk among members and in church meetings about Pastor Is Our Spiritual Authority. Pastor Is Our Vision Caster. Pastor Is God’s Annointed Everything. Blah, blah, blah. Been there, done that, not doing it again. I witnessed one young man say in a congregational meeting, “Pastor started this church and it’s his church–we must support him in his decisions.” Now I am not publicly vocal in large meetings, but I can be pretty blunt in small groups. Many is the time that I shocked friends by firmly declaring, “My pastor is not my spiritual authority. My elders are not my spiritual authority. My husband is not my spiritual authority. Jesus Christ is my ONLY spiritual authority.”

    Pastor Who Thinks He Is King suddenly remembered that he is really a Church Planter At Heart, and abruptly trotted off to “plant” a church in another city, one of the wealthier areas with many churches already. He had a nice boost form a church planting network. Some of his grown children work in “his” church, which is what caused the kerfuffle to begin with. Hiring your own family members in ministry positions over the objections of many members and the elder board was, I am glad to say, the straw that broke The Would Be King’s back.

    And that is a primary reason why I am quick to declare, when the spiritual authority subject arises, “I will give particular consideration to the teachings and opinions of certain persons I especially respect, but NO human is my spiritual authority. That authority is reserved for Jesus Christ alone.”

  127. A side note: we never called our pastor by the title of “pastor”, “brother”, “Reverend”. We have always called our pastors and elders by their first name because they said they wanted all of us to remember we are all equal before Christ. It just turned out that one privately believed he was “more equal than others.” (To borrow the Orwellian phrase that HUG often uses.)

  128. Bridget wrote:

    What passages do you refer to in order to get here? [sumission to pastor-teachers]

    Two come to mind.

    But we beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work.

    Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith. … Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account RSV

    I’m aware of the nuances of the Greek in the second quotation from Hebrews. The NIV adds the word authority – Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority interestingly enough. Dodgy imo.

    The leaders to whom we are to submit are those who spoke the word of God. The authority is more located in the word they bring rather than omething ‘delegated’ to them as people. The text assumes they will live out what they say, since they should be imitated.

    The obedience or submission required is not absolute. cf Paul in Galatians

    But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage — to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

  129. CRICKET ALERT

    WARTBURGERS WHO ARE SENSITIVE TO CRICKET ARE ADVISED TO SKIP THIS POST

    The final Test has begun; South Africa have yet again won the toss. (I think we should be told…) Early days at the time of writing; 17 without loss after 5 overs.

    Stephen Cook opened the batting for the hosts; Alastair Cook will do so for England. This is, according to the Beeb, the fifth occasion in the history of Test Cricket on which the opposing openers have shared the same surname.

    IHTIH.

    END OF CRICKET ALERT

  130. Law Prof wrote:

    What does the Bible say about “pastor”? What is that? Are they the next step down from Jesus? Where does anyone get that from?

    Well, they are under-shepherds if you like:

    So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder … Tend/shepherd the flock of God that is your charge … (how it is to be done] … And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory.

    To clarify my point about pastors being beneath the word. They are themselves subject to God and his word, the NT writings. The word out-ranks them. So it follows that although we are to submit to leaders as in the post above, if there is a clash between what leaders say or claim or demand and what the word says, we are to follow the word.

    For example, child abuse is discovered and the church leaders attempt to keep it quiet and forbid those involved to report the crime to the authorities. They may abuse Heb 13 to do this. However, we are told to submit to the governing authorities in Rom 13, rulers are the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. This apostolic teaching outranks the authority of church leaders. To obey God, who is the highest authority, may involve disobeying men. The church can deal with sin; God has instituted human government to deal with crime.

    Moreover, a failure to report a crime of this nature is itself sinful, will incur the judgement of God. This ought to be a very liberating truth for anyone who has had to report a crime against the wishes of a church leadership.

    Or to use Dee’s example, Whitfield may preach a sermon on slavery, but the question is ‘what does the bible teach about slavery’. That outranks sermons. Of course this presupposes we have studied the bible sufficiently to be able to say what it says about slavery and to have an informed opinion.

    I wish I had knowm more clearly this principle earlier on in my Christian experience. It is terribly easy to allow yourself to be dominated by what other men say.

  131. Tree wrote:

    “My pastor is not my spiritual authority. My elders are not my spiritual authority. My husband is not my spiritual authority. Jesus Christ is my ONLY spiritual authority.”

    Well said Tree!

    Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers, but whose delight is in the law of the LORD, and who meditates on his law day and night. That person is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither— whatever they do prospers.
    Psaslm 1;1-3

  132. okrapod wrote:

    However, Nick has identified himself as an anglican of some sort over there, so beware of heresy, apostasy, liberalism, having a social conscience, having some individual ideas from an informed moral conscience and allowing others to do so also and even possibly being charismatic (gasp).

    Guilty on all counts! Despite the fact that “charismatic” is a largely meaningless loanword and means very different things on either side of the Pond, “charismatic” looks like “charismania” which looks like “mania” and in any case some charismatics have shared platforms with a heretic who eats babies, so you can only conclude that I am a lunatic who barks at the moon, eats babies and personally destroyed Mother Theresa, and you should never trust any statement I make, ever, including this one.

    Joking aside, I don’t believe in the sufficiency of scribsher. I believe scribsher is necessary, but insufficient. In particular, I believe it is utterly and eternally inferior and subordinate to the Holy Spirit who inspired it. It is one, and not the only, means by which he takes what belongs to Jesus and gives it to us; and it should never have been allowed to replace or supplant him. (It sometimes reminds me of Jesus’ comment: Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?)

    The vital necessity of the Holy Spirit is the often-missing link in the authority discussion. I must beg to differ with Flag Ken on this point: if I correctly understand Jesus’ statements at his final Passover meal, his authority over the church is mediated by the Holy Spirit and not scribsher. The rouble is that a large part of protestantism can’t, or won’t, understand that this does not mean “rejecting scribsher”.

    Replacing the authority of scribsher with the authority of the Holy Spirit does not solve all our problems at a stroke, of course. It replaces a book that can’t talk with a God we can’t physically see, and therefore have to learn to hear and understand (both individually and together). In many ways that’s harder and more challenging. But I believe it is the right challenge.

  133. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    WARTBURGERS WHO ARE SENSITIVE TO CRICKET ARE ADVISED TO SKIP THIS POST

    … I meant to say “COMMENT”, not “POST”, of course. Advising you all to skip Dee’s post rather exceeds my authority as a regular Wartburger!

  134. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    It would be an honour!

    … er, I meant for me, obviously.

    I should probably check my blood sugar and get on with some Actual_Work.

  135. Short answer regarding the original question: No; Hell no!

    Check your belief conformity to the orthodox, historical church creeds–if you are in agreement with the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed, your belief structures for issues that are at best considered secondary are a matter of personal conscience.

    In 1977, I left for 2 years in Germany as a free-will, pre-tribulation rapturist, dispensationalist, futurist. I returned in 1979 as none of those. As I get older, aside from what the creeds state, I have come to see evidence of Jesus more in the behavior of Christians than their doctrine. I have little use for Christians who are ‘theologically rich’ and act in abusive, small ways.

  136. Short answer regarding the original question: No; Hell no!

    Check your belief conformity to the orthodox, historical church creeds–if you are in agreement with the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed, your belief structures for issues that are at best considered secondary are a matter of personal conscience.

    In 1977, I left for 2 years in Germany as a free-will, pre-tribulation rapturist, dispensationalist, futurist. I returned in 1979 as none of those. As I get older, aside from what the creeds state, I have come to see evidence of Jesus more in the behavior of Christians than their doctrine. I have little use for Christians who are ‘theologically rich’ and act in abusive, small ways.

    If leadership has any vision other than praying for and seeing Christ formed in His people, I tend to check out on them.

  137. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    The vital necessity of the Holy Spirit is the often-missing link in the authority discussion. I must beg to differ with Flag Ken on this point

    There is no need to beg! 🙂

    And I agree with you on this. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly and be filled with the Spirit.

    Both are needed. The strong tendency of charismatics to go into doctrinal and behavioural error by neglecting the word – the canon or measuring rod of the Spirit’s promptings – serves as a warning. Extra-biblical nonsense.

    On the other hand, having the word minus the experiences that the word describes is also rather pointless. Seeking an experimental faith is bordering on anathema to some evangelicals, who only seem to want a ‘mental’ faith!

  138. Interesting post….

    Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

    Short answer regarding the original question: No; Hell no!

    Check your belief conformity to the orthodox, historical church creeds–if you are in agreement with the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed, your belief structures for issues that are at best considered secondary are a matter of personal conscience.

    In 1977, I left for 2 years in Germany as a free-will, pre-tribulation rapturist, dispensationalist, futurist. I returned in 1979 as none of those. As I get older, aside from what the creeds state, I have come to see evidence of Jesus more in the behavior of Christians than their doctrine. I have little use for Christians who are ‘theologically rich’ and act in abusive, small ways.

    If leadership has any vision other than praying for and seeing Christ formed in His people, I tend to check out on them.

  139. Nancy2 wrote:

    Maybe we can get MD to go to the Proving Ground in Yuma to see if he can make it through Jump Master training in one piece.

    Or mail him to Yuma.
    Someone traced the addresses of his newly-planted Church and associated Organizations.
    They’re mail-drop boxes in a UPS store in a suburban Phoenix mall.

  140. Uncle Dad wrote:

    For me the whole “spiritual authority” issue is moot.

    Why?

    Because:

    {snip}

    (2)The Greek word “ekklesia” should never have been translated as “church”. “Ekkleisa” is a “called-out assembly” or “gathering.” The Geneva Bible translated “ekklesia” as “congregation”. King James VI didn’t like the Geneva Bible, because it didn’t give him the “divine authority” he desired. He ordered the KJV translators to deliberately mistranslate “ekklesia” as “church”. He saw himself as the head of the Church as well as the head of the government. (Sadly, most all English Bibles continue with this unfortunate mistranslation.)
    .

    You do realize that the sounds you hear are the Spanish Inquisition, right? (And NOBODY expects the 🙂 Spanish Inquisition!!!)

  141. Eeyore wrote:

    dee wrote:

    @ Eeyore:
    You are as quick as a Southern woman getting to the grocery store when she hears a prediction of snow.

    Now THAT is quick. Fortunately for us, we already have milk and TP supplies in abundance.

    Around here [Upstate NY], everyone I know runs to the store to buy bacon & eggs. I am always mystified, becasue one the power goes out, there you sit. In the cold. In the dark. Eating raw bacon & raw eggs………
    Blecchhh!!!!

  142. Law Prof wrote:

    My wife could probably take Piper pretty quickly in a wrestling match. She’s a former college athlete not much short of 6′ tall.

    How much would we have to pay her to have a go at it??? ‘Cuz I, for one, have been waiting impatiently for this moment to arrive!!

  143. Ken wrote:

    But we beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work.

    This is not submission. It is love, respect and esteem.

    Ken wrote:

    Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith. … Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account RSV

    I believe there is some question as to the translation in this section as well. My understanding is that it should read “be persuaded by” instead of “obey.”

    In all honesty, the people who impacted me most are those who first shared Jesus with me and expounded scripture for understanding. This mainly happened in the first 3-5 of my Christian walk. Since that time, I would say more harm than good has been done by the weekly one hour sermons I have listened to. They have done more to harm my faith in God/Jesus/Holy Spirit than to build into those relationships. So, I don’t submit (honor, esteem, or love) a man or woman just because they are in a position to preach at people on Sunday morning. There are hundreds of thousands of those men and women around. Many of them are no example to follow either.

  144. K.D. wrote:

    Leila wrote:
    elastigirl wrote:
    if individuals could simply focus on making the world a kinder, cleaner, more healed place because we were here — and bringing God/Jesus/Holy Spirit into our project for his interjection of wisdom, power, and for the fun of the sheer companionship of it — well, how great that would be.
    This, time a thousand. I am a “probably done,” and this is exactly where I’m at in my journey.
    Come on in, the water’s fine….look, I went to seminary. I trust these guys in the pulpit as far as I can throw them. My soul, my doctrine, my relation with God, in the end is on me. Not some cool Neo-Cal or cool Pentecostal hipster with an untucked shirt and a soul patch….

    K.D.

    Do you mind sharing what seminary you attended, and during what years?

    Was there anything in particular about your seminary experience that you feel turned you away?

  145. Middle 1980s. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Ft Worth, TX…( BTW we LOVED Ft Worth…its a town that couldn’t at the time decide if it was John Wayne or Cary Grant…still sort of that way….and our son was born there.)

    I met people who are now ministers who were involved with fornication, drugs, lust of money….I have seen seminarians cut each other’s throats to get a church position. ….I have seen guys whose doctrine has changed with where the money is…..speak of, there was a lust of money there. So many of these guys wanted to live lives that their congregants can’t afford, but they expect a tithe….

  146. @ K.D.:

    I heard basically the same thing from a man who had been in a pre-ministerial program at Baylor in the 1950s. What you said and also there was something about the infamous weekend evangelistic teams of young wannabe preacher boys going around to churches ripping off clueless little old ladies for their last dollar in order to spend the money on luxuries and worse.

  147. @ Florence in KY:

    “Served with cornbread seasoned with bacon grease.”
    ++++++++++++++

    bacon grease… not part of my cooking repertoire. what do you do with it? do you add a bit to the batter? how much?

  148. elastigirl wrote:

    bacon grease… not part of my cooking repertoire. what do you do with it? do you add a bit to the batter? how much?

    Oh, Honey! Where you from? You grease your cast iron skillet with the bacon grease!

  149. Okay. If Nick can do cricket updates, so can I. Wednesday, we accumulated 3″ of snow. Early this morning, we had 1 1/2″ of sleet fall on the pre-existing snow. We have since accumulated another 5 1/2″ more snow, and it is still snowing hard! This kind of weather is big trouble for Kentucky and Tennessee! Interstate 65 north of Bowling Green, Ky is closed due to impassable ice on the road. Interstate 24 going from Kentucky to Nashville, TN is a parking lot. It appears that Nashville is one big auto salvage yard. I know this because I am watching TV. I’m stocked up and hunkered down!

    The crickets ain’t chirpin’ here. It’s too cold for ’em …. 25 degrees F and dropping!

  150. Daisy wrote:

    Becky Garrison: Mark Driscoll’s New Church in a P.O. Box
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2016/01/18/mark-driscolls-new-church-in-a-p-o-box/

    Yeah, it’s in Desert Ridge Market Place. I am thinking he’s probably scouting around for a school to rent for starters, before moving up to a former grocery or furniture store space. And yes, I’ll admit going through Scottsdale building permits to see if he’s got something going (so far not yet, that I can tell).

  151. @ Bridget:

    “In all honesty, the people who impacted me most are those who first shared Jesus with me and expounded scripture for understanding. This mainly happened in the first 3-5 of my Christian walk. Since that time, I would say more harm than good has been done by the weekly one hour sermons I have listened to. They have done more to harm my faith in God/Jesus/Holy Spirit than to build into those relationships. So, I don’t submit (honor, esteem, or love) a man or woman just because they are in a position to preach at people on Sunday morning.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    oh my goodness, the inflated notion of the sermon…. after a hard week’s work, who wants to or is even able to pay attention to one (man’s) voice for that long? 10 minutes after it’s all over I couldn’t tell you what it was about. a very silly exercise in religiosity.

    the people who impact me the most are those who are simply kind and selfless with regard to their fellow human beings in their midst. who choose kindness at their own expense. nothing’s in it for them. they are everywhere, really.

    (travelling in far away places is a great opportunity to see how much goodness is in human beings everywhere. it is so heart-warming.)

  152. okrapod wrote:

    @ K.D.:
    I heard basically the same thing from a man who had been in a pre-ministerial program at Baylor in the 1950s. What you said and also there was something about the infamous weekend evangelistic teams of young wannabe preacher boys going around to churches ripping off clueless little old ladies for their last dollar in order to spend the money on luxuries and worse.

    Have a former student who works in the hotel industry. She has a degree from UH in the field. She was managing a Marriott Hotel in the 90s before Internet and the SBC state conference was held in a center next to her hotel. She was amazed at the porn PPVcharges after the preachers had eaten supper and returned to their rooms. She said the PPV for dirty films was at 70%. ( She is still in the hotel industry, different chain, you should hear some of her stories….but she is now with the headquarters of that hotel…and the stories continue to filter up to the main office.)

  153. bacon grease… not part of my cooking repertoire. what do you do with it? do you add a bit to the batter? how much?

    Use it in the batter in stead of called for salad oil. Some folk grease the pan with it, but I use spray oil for that.

  154. Lots of snow here in SE KY. Had a good lunch of potato soup, cooked greens, pinto beans and cornbread (flavored with bacon drippings).

  155. seems like a lot of ‘neo’ folks make up doctrine as they go along, which is fine until they get to the part where women’s tongues need to be removed and nailed to the Church door before they can enter the sanctuary premises

    Christiane, it’s good to read your comments. Thanks.

  156. Bridget wrote:

    I believe there is some question as to the translation in this section as well. My understanding is that it should read “be persuaded by” instead of “obey.”

    Exactly what it means.

    Bridget wrote:

    In all honesty, the people who impacted me most are those who first shared Jesus with me and expounded scripture for understanding. This mainly happened in the first 3-5 of my Christian walk. Since that time, I would say more harm than good has been done by the weekly one hour sermons I have listened to.

    Quite possibly why John said clearly that Christians were not in need of teachers, as they had the Holy Spirit to teach them. Of course people who don’t know the Lord need the basics explained, of course newer Christians need things explained. But as people get more mature in their faith, it should be a matter of mutual submission, everyone who knows Christ (called explicitly a royal priesthood, each of them being priests) being equal in the sense of learning from and teaching each other by example, exhortation, etc.

    That is the Christian life, what these preachers who love to tell everyone about their “calling” are proposing is the same sort of arrangement that Jesus so decried when He told His disciples not to do it like the gentiles.

  157. K.D. wrote:

    She was amazed at the porn PPVcharges after the preachers had eaten supper and returned to their rooms.

    Over the years, I’ve had several SBC pastors confess to me that they were “struggling with pornography.” New Calvinism, with its emphasis on being “culturally-relevant” and “tolerant”, is a good breeding ground for the young and reformed “struggling” with the same sin. Church plants with 20-30 year old “lead pastors” and their 20-30 year “elder” teams are good hiding places for these strugglers. An emphasis on “grace” in New Calvinist ranks does not cover preachers habitually hooked on pornography, no matter how you spin it … it’s a grace message gone amiss. Although, there are plenty of older “traditional” SBC pastors also preaching one thing, but living another. Good Lord, whatever happened to “When the Son sets you free, you are free indeed!” But these folks will not get free of such sin as long as they feed their flesh and not their spirit. The organized church is a mess because its leadership is. And then comes along Driscoll, with his porno marriage book. When will this madness in the pulpit end?!

  158. Bridget wrote:

    I believe there is some question as to the translation in this section as well. My understanding is that it should read “be persuaded by” instead of “obey.”

    Exactly what it means.

    Bridget wrote:

    In all honesty, the people who impacted me most are those who first shared Jesus with me and expounded scripture for understanding. This mainly happened in the first 3-5 of my Christian walk. Since that time, I would say more harm than good has been done by the weekly one hour sermons I have listened to.

    Quite possibly why John said clearly that Christians were not in need of teachers, as they had the Holy Spirit to teach them. Of course people who don’t know the Lord need the basics explained, of course newer Christians need things explained. But as people get more mature in their faith, it should be a matter of mutual submission, everyone who knows Christ (called explicitly a royal priesthood, each of them being priests) being equal in the sense of learning from and teaching each other by example, exhortation, etc.

    That is the Christian life, what these preachers who love to tell everyone about their “calling” are proposing is the same sort of arrangement that Jesus so decried when He told His disciples not to do it like the gentiles.Ken wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    What passages do you refer to in order to get here? [sumission to pastor-teachers]
    Two come to mind.
    But we beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work.
    Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith. … Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account RSV
    I’m aware of the nuances of the Greek in the second quotation from Hebrews. The NIV adds the word authority – Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority interestingly enough. Dodgy imo.
    The leaders to whom we are to submit are those who spoke the word of God. The authority is more located in the word they bring rather than omething ‘delegated’ to them as people. The text assumes they will live out what they say, since they should be imitated.
    The obedience or submission required is not absolute. cf Paul in Galatians
    But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage — to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

    Again, I’m wondering where you derive the notion that this is a single person to whom submission (in the form of being persuadable and only by following another’s example, the Biblical standard, by the way) is to be given is called a “pastor” and that said person is the main leader of the church.

    You must point me to that in the Bible. Otherwise, I’m going to tell you you’re just following the doctrines of men, and for that matter, men who quite possibly care nothing about Jesus except to resent Him and seek to undermine His authority in favor of their own.

    Again, where do you get this “pastor” thing as the leader?

  159. Dee/Deb – I somehow botched my last comment and it ended up with the previous comment included. I know not why.

  160. @ Ken:

    Ken, are you aware that the word unfortunately translated as “obey” in Heb 13:17 actually means, loosely, “allow one’s self to be persuaded by”? How nicely the proper meaning of that word obey (pithos) fits within the other admonitions made by Jesus regarding the authority His disciples were to exercise and within the words of I Peter, where it is clearly stated that leaders were to lead by EXAMPLE ALONE and NEVER BY COMPULSION. Are you aware of how very poorly the word “obey” in Heb 13:17 fits within what Jesus said to His disciples and what Peter said about leadership and what we know about the Greek word “pithos”?

    Ken, it fits what people on this forum are saying, it stands in stark contradiction to what these thugs, many of them populating pulpits, say about their own authority. They’re wrong, Ken–dead wrong.

  161. Florence in KY wrote:

    pinto beans and cornbread (flavored with bacon drippings)

    Oh yes, the preferred food of all Americans living south of the Mason-Dixon line! If you don’t eat this at least once per month, you don’t have Southern ancestry. While beans and cornbread are off the blog topic, I must ask if you put sugar in your cornbread? However, to bring it back on topic, I’m almost certain that Christians who dine on pinto beans and cornbread cooked with bacon grease are less susceptible to falling victim to authoritarian charlatans in the pulpit.

  162. elastigirl wrote:

    Oh yes, the preferred food of all Americans living south of the Mason-Dixon line! If you don’t eat this at least once per month, you don’t have Southern ancestry. While beans and cornbread are off the blog topic, I must ask if you put sugar in your cornbread? However, to bring it back on topic, I’m almost certain that Christians who dine on pinto beans and cornbread cooked with bacon grease are less susceptible to falling victim to authoritarian charlatans in the pulpit.

    And either green onions or ripe tomato relish – some times both!

  163. Nancy2 wrote:

    Okay. If Nick can do cricket updates, so can I. Wednesday, we accumulated 3″ of snow.

    It’s hard to imagine two more contrasting paradigms.

    IHTIH.

  164. @ elastigirl:
    From my Southern upbringing, “real” cornbread is not sweet. Sweetened cornbread is more akin to cake.

    To make sure we stay on topic with this thread, you would be better off skipping church to eat beans and cornbread than allow someone to be in authority over you in matters of doctrine.

  165. Max wrote:

    I must ask if you put sugar in your cornbread?

    I don’t think real Christians put sugar in their cornbread. It’s in the Bible somewhere.

  166. This topic reminds me of the saying “to sit under.” Apparently, this term is popular in certain Christian circles. At my church, one of the campus ministers noted that we’re really lucky to sit under our head minister and learn from him. I can’t stand that saying, and I know it’s taken from sitting under a rabbi and learning from him, but I don’t blindly follow what anyone says. No matter how great our minister is, and he really is the best I’ve heard, he can’t dictate what I believe. Yes, he and the church leadership have the responsibility to make sure the church as a corporate body teaches true beliefs (beliefs as stated in the Apostles Creed and similar creeds), and the minister can tell me not to run in the halls at church or color on the walls (bummer), but no one has the authority to tell me what to believe. I listen to the minister and consider what he says, but then I decide, hopefully with help from the Holy Spirit, what to believe.

  167. Patriciamc wrote:

    I don’t think real Christians put sugar in their cornbread. It’s in the Bible somewhere.

    I can in fact give you chapter and verse:

    1 Ignatz 12-13

    12 And so, my beloved, when thou preparedst thy cornbread, thou shalt by no means corrupt it with the addition of sweet things. For the broad road to perdition is set about with temptations of sugary delights. 13 Just sayin’.

  168. roebuck wrote:

    I can in fact give you chapter and verse:
    1 Ignatz 12-13
    12 And so, my beloved, when thou preparedst thy cornbread, thou shalt by no means corrupt it with the addition of sweet things. For the broad road to perdition is set about with temptations of sugary delights. 13 Just sayin’.

    You are good! It pays to know your Bible.

  169. @ roebuck:
    I think there somethin’ in there somewhere forbidding us to preparedst our cornbread in anything other than cast iron, too, isn’t there?

  170. Patriciamc wrote:

    roebuck wrote:
    I can in fact give you chapter and verse:
    1 Ignatz 12-13
    12 And so, my beloved, when thou preparedst thy cornbread, thou shalt by no means corrupt it with the addition of sweet things. For the broad road to perdition is set about with temptations of sugary delights. 13 Just sayin’.
    You are good! It pays to know your Bible.

    Hey, if you can’t find a good proof-text, make one up!

  171. elastigirl wrote:

    molasses instead of sugar?

    Molasses go with biscuits. You pour the molasses on your plate, mix a little butter in it, and then sop them up with homemade biscuits.

  172. I have put all sorts of things in the cornbread from time to time. Chopped onions, previously cooked to mellow light yellow. Green and/or hot peppers. A dash of Texas Pete. Finely chopped ham bits and of course crisp crumbled bacon. Even actual corn kernels.

    Also meat loaf. Throw bits of it all in there-just not too much, mostly the tablespoonful of some leftover because we all know it is a mortal sin to throw out food. Waste not want not. Well, maybe not squash.

    It helps if you grew up kind of poor.

  173. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ roebuck:
    I think there somethin’ in there somewhere forbidding us to preparedst our cornbread in anything other than cast iron, too, isn’t there?

    That would be earlier, verses 10-11. Not that anyone would even consider making cornbread in anything other than cast iron, but it’s there…

  174. Nancy2 wrote:

    Molasses go with biscuits.

    Honey. I use honey. There was a place in L’sville back when, I think called Pryor’s?, that served biscuits with honey like Red Lobster serves garlic biscuits. Deliciousl

  175. roebuck wrote:

    Not that anyone would even consider making cornbread in anything other than cast iron, but it’s there…

    That was only written because of the local culture of the target audience. They were so glad to get out of the bronze age that they used iron for everything possible. I do not take that as a mandate for today.
    The true cornbread lover will take it any way they can get it, always giving thanks of course.

  176. okrapod wrote:

    Honey. I use honey. There was a place in L’sville back when, I think called Pryor’s?, that served biscuits with honey like Red Lobster serves garlic biscuits. Deliciousl

    Biscuits are the best with the honey, especially when the honey comes from a wild hive – way better than store-bought! Hey, Sampson didn’t buy honey at Walmart!
    The Red Lobster in Evansville, IN is THE BEST! They even have a very large picture (4′ x 8′) of Portland Head lighthouse on the wall!
    For the record, I believe only Yankees put molasses and cornmeal together in a bread – Anadama bread.

  177. okrapod wrote:

    roebuck wrote:
    Not that anyone would even consider making cornbread in anything other than cast iron, but it’s there…
    That was only written because of the local culture of the target audience. They were so glad to get out of the bronze age that they used iron for everything possible. I do not take that as a mandate for today.
    The true cornbread lover will take it any way they can get it, always giving thanks of course.

    Of course we must always interpret skripture with an understanding of the cultural realities of the day. That said, what could you even make cornbread in besides cast iron? It would never occur to me to use anything else, and I’m a bacon-loving Yankee for cryin’ out loud!

  178. roebuck wrote:

    Of course we must always interpret skripture with an understanding of the cultural realities of the day. That said, what could you even make cornbread in besides cast iron? It would never occur to me to use anything else, and I’m a bacon-loving Yankee for cryin’ out loud!

    I have cast iron that is made specifically for cornbread: 2 round skillets, each divided into 8 sections to make single serving size with lots of crust (my Yankee husband bought those); 2 rectangular pans shaped like little ears of corn; and one pan shaped like fishes – 5 fishes (my Yankee mil gave me that one for Christmas one year).
    So, instead of 5 loaves and 2 fishes, I can have 5 little loaves shaped like fishes!
    Is that close enough to biblical?
    Besides, if I can’t use my voice in church, I want to keep plenty of cast iron handy, to use as teaching tools!

  179. RPatriciamc wrote:

    Max wrote:
    I must ask if you put sugar in your cornbread?
    I don’t think real Christians put sugar in their cornbread. It’s in the Bible somewhere.

    Yankees put sugar in their cornbread….How does a Texan from the southern part of the state define a Yankee? Ask this question….” Does it ever snow there?”

  180. Nancy2 wrote:

    2 rectangular pans shaped like little ears of corn;

    I have one of those, too! Don’t have the fishes one – will be on the lookout…

    By my overwhelming and overweening authority, I proclaim that any cornbread cooked in any cast iron contrivance is totally biblical. Because, you know, authority… 😉

  181. K.D. wrote:

    Yankees put sugar in their cornbread….

    None that I know of. Maybe I just hang out with a select group 😉

  182. Max wrote:

    Florence in KY wrote:
    pinto beans and cornbread (flavored with bacon drippings)
    Oh yes, the preferred food of all Americans living south of the Mason-Dixon line! If you don’t eat this at least once per month, you don’t have Southern ancestry. While beans and cornbread are off the blog topic, I must ask if you put sugar in your cornbread? However, to bring it back on topic, I’m almost certain that Christians who dine on pinto beans and cornbread cooked with bacon grease are less susceptible to falling victim to authoritarian charlatans in the pulpit.

    I put very little sugar–maybe a teaspoon in cornbread. No eggs. Use buttermilk. Pinto beans cooked with a little bit of ham or salt pork. Sprinkle a few chopped onions atop.

    Right you are about falling victim, etc. to authoritarian kinds. I’m an “independent” church member with the ideal, non-authoritian pastor. Paint me a free and faithful Baptist to the core. I don’t consider myself SBC–more like CBF which helped to preserve my sanity since 1990. Our church cooperates with both–no problem.

  183. Sufi saying: “He who has no sheikh (spiritual guide, lit. “old man”), has Satan as his sheikh.”

    A parallel Orthodox Christian saying substitutes “staretz” or “gerontas” (both mean “elder”) for “sheikh.”

    (Of course, Satan would be an improvement over some of the characters I’ve read about here.)

  184. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ roebuck:
    I think there somethin’ in there somewhere forbidding us to preparedst our cornbread in anything other than cast iron, too, isn’t there?

    Cast iron, for sure. It must be in the good book somewhere.

  185. okrapod wrote:

    I have put all sorts of things in the cornbread from time to time. Chopped onions, previously cooked to mellow light yellow. Green and/or hot peppers. A dash of Texas Pete. Finely chopped ham bits and of course crisp crumbled bacon. Even actual corn kernels.

    I’m usually on the side of cornbread being a savory food, but the Nordstrom cafe does have an excellent sweet cornbread made with peppers and honey.

  186. okrapod wrote:

    That was only written because of the local culture of the target audience. They were so glad to get out of the bronze age that they used iron for everything possible. I do not take that as a mandate for today.
    The true cornbread lover will take it any way they can get it, always giving thanks of course.

    *gasp* Sounds like you’re letting the culture of today influence your view of Scripture! I must report you to your male covering.

  187. Nancy2 wrote:

    I have cast iron that is made specifically for cornbread: 2 round skillets, each divided into 8 sections to make single serving size with lots of crust (my Yankee husband bought those); 2 rectangular pans shaped like little ears of corn; and one pan shaped like fishes – 5 fishes (my Yankee mil gave me that one for Christmas one year).
    So, instead of 5 loaves and 2 fishes, I can have 5 little loaves shaped like fishes!
    Is that close enough to biblical?

    I grew up with cornbread shaped like little ears of corn. Now, don’t tell the elder board, but my mother was a pagan because she used a mix for her cornbread. White Lily actually.

  188. Florence in KY wrote:

    Right you are about falling victim, etc. to authoritarian kinds. I’m an “independent” church member with the ideal, non-authoritian pastor. Paint me a free and faithful Baptist to the core. I don’t consider myself SBC–more like CBF which helped to preserve my sanity since 1990. Our church cooperates with both–no problem.

    Butter milk in cornbread is excellent. I’ve also thrown in a heaping tablespoon of sour cream.

    The Baptist church near where I grew up is SBC but also joined the CBF. They also boldly state on their website that they’re egalitarian. If they get any hassle, I think they’ll tell the SBC to go jump.

  189. patriciamc wrote:

    I grew up with cornbread shaped like little ears of corn. Now, don’t tell the elder board, but my mother was a pagan because she used a mix for her cornbread. White Lily actually.

    I don’t do the mix, but White Lily cornmeal and flours ( all-purpose, self-rising, and bread flour) are da best. On those rare occasions when I have to settle for another brand, my husband knows as soon as he bites into the bread ~~~ he says, “This isn’t White Lily, is it”.
    Anybody that uses White Lily cannot possibly be a pagan ~~ too smart for that!
    And I’ll confess, sometimes I put a spoon of sugar in my cornbread ~ depends on what kind of mood I’m in. About 1 1/2 c. s-r cornmeal, about 1/2 c. s-r flour, 1 egg, and enough milk to make a thick batter. Before I start mixing the batter, I put lard or bacon grease in the skillet and heat the skillet until it almost smokes. Bake at 450.
    When I make cornbread salad, I put a little sugar and a can of green chili peppers in the cornbread batter.

  190. Patriciamc wrote:

    Max wrote:

    I have a granddaughter in Charleston, SC who tells me that people there tell here they were raised on Sweet tea and Jesus. I would have hoped for Jesus and sweet tea.

  191. I made cornbread once. We tried to eat it but wisely let it alone. I gave it to the dogs who carried it around for a week wondering what to do with it.

  192. “One of our readers, Anonymous, made a good point today.

    The NT does not give us specific guidance in the organizational details of the church or how churches relate to one another. Paul could, and did, command that churches obey what he said. The democratic results at Corinth resulted in a decision to ignore a terrible moral situation.”

    I would like to present another view on this. Anonymous says that Paul “could and did command that churches obey what he said”.

    Sure, there are places Paul commands something. But lets back it up a minute and look at the overall context.

    First of all Pauls spends much more time pleading, begging and persuading than he ever commands. My favorite example of this is Philemon.

    But how could he command them to “obey” him? We are not talking about a perfumed prince elder or pastor of an “institution” in an expensive suit. We are talking about a loose movement of former Pagans and converted Jews.

    Where on earth did Paul get the gravitas to “command” anything? For one thing, his life not only after conversion but after Barnabas plucked him from self imposed exile in Tauras, was what? Like the perfumed princes of evangelicalism today? Of course not. It was rugged, exhausting, sweaty, hungry and suffering. He made tents to not be a burden. He went to prison. He was shipwrecked and so on and on and on.

    And word got out. Paul was the real thing. He suffers. He is not like the frauds we have seen. He takes up collections for us when needy (The Jerusalem persecution)

    HE LIVED IT. It was his ACTIONS which gave him gravitas to “command” anything. And not because he was conferred some title by some institutional leaders.

    I get weary of people trotting out Paul to try and make some point about leaders having authority to command and other obey because they obeyed Paul. Or that democratic governance of the Body of Christ is a problem when we all know it has to be better than a few who hold the keys. What? All members cannot have the same Holy Spirit? I would rather it be more like making sausage than blindly following a few humans.

    You would think that we could get this 2000 years later.

  193. Lydia wrote:

    I would like to present another view on this. Anonymous says that Paul “could and did command that churches obey what he said”.
    Sure, there are places Paul commands something. But lets back it up a minute and look at the overall context.
    First of all Pauls spends much more time pleading, begging and persuading than he ever commands. My favorite example of this is Philemon.
    But how could he command them to “obey” him? We are not talking about a perfumed prince elder or pastor of an “institution” in an expensive suit. We are talking about a loose movement of former Pagans and converted Jews.
    Where on earth did Paul get the gravitas to “command” anything? For one thing, his life not only after conversion but after Barnabas plucked him from self imposed exile in Tauras, was what? Like the perfumed princes of evangelicalism today? Of course not. It was rugged, exhausting, sweaty, hungry and suffering. He made tents to not be a burden. He went to prison. He was shipwrecked and so on and on and on.
    And word got out. Paul was the real thing. He suffers. He is not like the frauds we have seen. He takes up collections for us when needy (The Jerusalem persecution)
    HE LIVED IT. It was his ACTIONS which gave him gravitas to “command” anything. And not because he was conferred some title by some institutional leaders.
    I get weary of people trotting out Paul to try and make some point about leaders having authority to command and other obey because they obeyed Paul. Or that democratic governance of the Body of Christ is a problem when we all know it has to be better than a few who hold the keys. What? All members cannot have the same Holy Spirit?

    I so agree with this, Lydia. It goes along with persuading by example as opposed to telling others to obey because someone has the title LEADER. I believe Anonymous is reading current “leader, pastor, elder” scenarios back into the text of the NT.

  194. Lydia wrote:

    ]You would think that we could get this 2000 years later.

    You would, but today, just like back then, there are people with consciences seared who want to use Jesus to enrich themselves and abuse others. Not one bit different from the superapostles whom Paul shredded.

  195. Florence in KY wrote:

    Cast iron, for sure. It must be in the good book somewhere.

    Just so long as y’all (you Southern Belles) don’t use titanium cookware. Titanium is a tool of Satan, an’ I can prove it with skripsher!

  196. Lydia wrote:

    I get weary of people trotting out Paul to try and make some point about leaders having authority to command and other obey because they obeyed Paul. Or that democratic governance of the Body of Christ is a problem when we all know it has to be better than a few who hold the keys.

    I get double weary Lyds and your comment is right on the money. I’ve argued here (as have others) and elsewhere that Christianity is still reeling from the impact of the Enlightenment. An inconvenient truth is that much of Paul’s writing was done at a time when there was no such thing as The Rights of Man, and many of his alleged ‘commands’ were probably for the intended audience of his day. Don’t get me wrong, Paul is also a treasure trove of practical goodness found in no other holy book on the planet.

  197. @ Max:

    “To make sure we stay on topic with this thread, you would be better off skipping church to eat beans and cornbread than allow someone to be in authority over you in matters of doctrine.”
    +++++++++++++++++++

    I think a cornbread tangent is forgivable.

  198. @ patriciamc:

    “The Baptist church near where I grew up is SBC but also joined the CBF. They also boldly state on their website that they’re egalitarian. If they get any hassle, I think they’ll tell the SBC to go jump.”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    and perhaps a newspaper, to shine more light on how petty SBC & the like have become.

  199. @ Nancy2:

    “When I make cornbread salad,…
    ++++++++++

    time out, time out…. cornbread salad? how much more don’t I know about cornbread? someone bring me into the cornbread universe so I can be a full-fledged citizen.

  200. elastigirl wrote:

    time out, time out…. cornbread salad? how much more don’t I know about cornbread? someone bring me into the cornbread universe so I can be a full-fledged citizen.

    Ah, elastigirl. You don’t know what you’re a missin’!!!

  201. elastigirl wrote:

    @ patriciamc:
    “The Baptist church near where I grew up is SBC but also joined the CBF. They also boldly state on their website that they’re egalitarian. If they get any hassle, I think they’ll tell the SBC to go jump.”
    ++++++++++++++++++
    and perhaps a newspaper, to shine more light on how petty SBC & the like have become.

    They’d blame Satan for the newspaper article rather than trying to redeem themselves…

  202. patriciamc wrote:

    The Baptist church near where I grew up is SBC but also joined the CBF. They also boldly state on their website that they’re egalitarian. If they get any hassle, I think they’ll tell the SBC to go jump.

    Sounds like a winner. We got thrown out of the association when we elected a woman deacon in 1990.
    No big deal. Good move all the way around. However we do get along well with churches in the association.

  203. @ K.D.:

    “They’d blame Satan for the newspaper article rather than trying to redeem themselves…”
    ++++++++++++++++

    overspiritualizing is to be expected by those kinds of people. the court of public opinion is what I was counting on. & consumer power. they are not immune to those things.

  204. Lydia and Bridget:

    Thanks for your thoughts.

    I am not suggesting that there are any modern day “Pauls”.

    I agree with you. I do not believe in authoritarianism.

    And I am serious when I say that the NT does not prescribe any particular form of governance.

    The citation to Paul (whether Galatians or Corinthians) is a reminder that the NT does stand for the proposition that NT churches must be governed by a “one person, one vote” type of democracy.

    Churches that operate on that basis can be every bit as harmful to people as other systems.

    I am not saying that a church cannot decide to operate that way if it chooses to do so. Again, the Bible does not prohibit that type of organization.

    But the Bible does not recommend or prescribe it either.

    I started out suggesting that each of us can choose attending a church that has whatever form of church government we believe to be correct. That is why I can affirm you both in your attendance at a church that operates on a one person one vote system.

    Each form of church government has its strengths and weaknesses. That’s why I advocate that each of us might look for the weaknesses in the system that we like and work to make sure that there is a check or balance to address those weaknesses.

  205. Lydia wrote:

    HE LIVED IT. It was his ACTIONS which gave him gravitas to “command” anything. And not because he was conferred some title by some institutional leaders.

    That is one way to look at it. But and also Paul kept emphasizing that he was an apostle, and basically bragging that he did not learn from the other apostles but went off by himself and that what he learned was by revelation. And yes I know that there may be some conflict between the way that Luke tells the story and the way that Paul tells the story as to whether or not he went to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles after his conversion, but none the less when Paul defended his apostleship one thing he brought up is that he did not (or so it seems.) Along that line, he concluded that his thorn in the flesh was intended to keep him humble(?) as as offset for the revelations he had seen/received.

    So Paul defended his own authority not just by his life but also by his claims of one-on-one theological training as it were by none other than a man he never met prior to his conversion, Jesus.

    My point being, that he seems to have felt that his authority derived at least in part from his apostleship. He did say, I think, follow me as I follow Christ, (I am working from memory here and may be wrong) so he did utilize his own lifestyle in his message and ministry also. It just was not the only thing.

  206. okrapod wrote:

    My point being, that he seems to have felt that his authority derived at least in part from his apostleship. He did say, I think, follow me as I follow Christ, (I am working from memory here and may be wrong) so he did utilize his own lifestyle in his message and ministry also. It just was not the only thing.

    I wonder if the fact that Paul was a very well educated Pharisee before the conversion maight have had some bearing on it???

  207. Here is another thought that may open up for further discussion, but it is an important one to ponder.

    Someone is in Authority over us in matters of doctrine.

    Jesus. No one disagrees with that.

    But also, Jesus’ appointed apostles who wrote the NT. The NT is the beginning and end of our doctrine as it relates to God, Jesus, the Church etc.

    We may argue about what various passages mean and their application, but we all start with a received text that governs the parameters of our discussion.

    There are groups who would disagree with this – Liberals (who would reserve the right to essentially right new Scripture or include with the NT the writings of other religions or inspirational writings of people who are not religious) and those who believe that the church is given authority to not only interpret the NT but who also believe the church can establish doctrine that is on par with scriptural revelation. The later group would include groups such as Catholics or Mormons, who believe in later day revelation.

    It is really odd to contemplate, but those who argue for great authority for church leaders in doctrine are actually close to the Catholic position, though they disagree with that aspect of Catholicism, which is very interesting to contemplate.

  208. @ okrapod:

    I have to wonder how much influence his claims would have had long term if he had failed to live them out in the manner he did despite his prolific letter writing.

    But another idea to interject is the authoritarian backdrop of all Paul wrote as Muff pointed out. Juxtaposed on that Paul comes off a bit radical for his time.

    The timeline of his self imposed exile in Tarsus is interesting. Some scholars say it might have been anywhere from 10 to 14 years. It is an interesting perspective as we often tend to read scripture as if it all happened in a short time span. I have never been able to buy into any sort of Apostolic succession view. I don’t really view the big A Apostles as those with lofty titles that gave them special status. I view it as a descriptor they actually lived out learning from our human Lord as in “sent ones”. Being a big A Apostle was not glamorous but quite dangerous. That is why I get a bit of a chuckle when some perfumed elder quotes Paul to suggest since he commanded people in what passed as churches during that time that has something to do with their man conferred title in an institution with a tax exempt status.

    Anyway, My hope is that people will only interpret Paul through a Jesus filter. One can hope. :o)

  209. Anonymous wrote:

    Here is another thought that may open up for further discussion, but it is an important one to ponder.
    Someone is in Authority over us in matters of doctrine.
    Jesus. No one disagrees with that.
    But also, Jesus’ appointed apostles who wrote the NT. The NT is the beginning and end of our doctrine as it relates to God, Jesus, the Church etc.
    We may argue about what various passages mean and their application, but we all start with a received text that governs the parameters of our discussion.
    There are groups who would disagree with this – Liberals (who would reserve the right to essentially right new Scripture

    What is interesting about this view is that, if true, believers would never have been involved with the Founding of America. After all, if the NT writers could not envision the rights of an individual and earthly justice in that sense then what should we think? Surely you believe that our progression in the rights of individuals is a good thing? But, That would make the founders “liberals” in your dichotomy. I sometimes think church elders/pastors want their cake and eat it, too. :o)

  210. Lydia wrote:

    Anyway, My hope is that people will only interpret Paul through a Jesus filter.

    It would be my hope too, but sadly? Ain’t gonna happen anytime soon. Fundagelicalism is built on the premise that Paul is Jesus’ official mouthpiece. You cannot ‘know’ or ‘grow’ in the Lord unless it’s through Paul’s ‘filter’.

  211. @ Lydia:

    The only things that we know about what Jesus said and did are what some of the BigA told us. Jesus did not write anything down. If we believe in Jesus it is because we believe the gospels, which are the literary work of some Big As based on first hand experience or else the research results which somebody claims as based on the evidence of the day (Luke).

    But here is the thing. How does it make any sense to say that we will ‘believe’ what some BigA (let us say Matthew) said in the gospel according to Matthew but will not believe what some BigA (let us say Peter) said in his letters when and if what Peter was saying agreed with something Paul had said and which we find does not fit well into our culture or our preferences? Where is the evidence that the writings of some BigA can be accepted in one place and rejected in another place?

    I think that pitting Paul and Jesus as opponents cannot be true if (1) all scripture is inspired by God and (2) there were living BigA who could have jerked a knot in Paul at the time and (3) one BigA (Peter) eye witness gave his stamp of approval on Paul’s writings, while noting that some of it was difficult to understand. The only thing we have is our thinking that the alleged eye witness testimony of the time is accurate. We believe scripture/the gospels because we believe the testimony of the BigA at the time.

    Now approaching scripture as needing to be seen through the eyes of the cultures and religions of the time and place of origin, that is a different thing. But thinking that the scripture writers were not in a position to know more about the mind of Christ under those circumstance, and apparently leaving out the inspiration of the Spirit in the process–that is where I cannot go in my thinking.

    Don’t redirect this into anything about ‘succession’ because I am talking about the NT writings, their origins and whether they can be accepted as valid. The issues involved in ‘now what’ are different issues.

  212. I often think that if the founders of the USA had truly submitted to authority, we Yanks would be singing God Save the Queen before cricket matches. Which might not be so bad really ( he said, as he poured his second cup of Earl Grey).

  213. @ okrapod:
    For me it has nothing to do with believing what was written down by Paul and others or not. But what it means within the context as in 1) who is speaking, 2) what is the occassion and 3) who is the audience.

    That might mean what Paul says in 1 Tim (the context is false teachers btw) about women being saved in childbearing has a cultural context or it has to be a work of salvation for women. It can’t be both. And one negates the work of Christ. So it is tweaked to mean she stays in her “role” so it now becomes sorta kinda about sanctification. See the problem? How could such understanding be from the Holy Spirit as it does not even fit with Jesus Christ.

    See, it is not about believing what is written but understanding it within its context. People tend to hate this. It is easier just to go and have someone tell you what it means.

    For me, reading what was written about Jesus as in what He said or did not say, what he modeled or did not model …..has great influence on how we interpret the letters. Ex, Do you not see some tension between what Paul and James write as is interpreted by so many?

    I believe that they were inspired to write it down. I don’t believe God forced them to use specific words. I believe humans chose the canon. The letter to Laodicea was lost?

    The idea that you think I am pitting Paul and Jesus against one another saddens me beyond measure. I was attempting to put Paul in his more rightful place. Paul did not die to conquer death nor did he resurrect to shoe new life. I think Paul, himself, would be appalled at the way he has been elevated on par with Christ.

  214. Muff Potter wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    Anyway, My hope is that people will only interpret Paul through a Jesus filter.
    It would be my hope too, but sadly? Ain’t gonna happen anytime soon. Fundagelicalism is built on the premise that Paul is Jesus’ official mouthpiece. You cannot ‘know’ or ‘grow’ in the Lord unless it’s through Paul’s ‘filter’.

    They say they worship Jesus, but in their actions, they worship Paul, even if they’re not aware of it. They’ve made Jesus to be the John the Baptist person and Paul to be the messiah. I still think that only Jesus can create doctrine. All the others, Peter, Paul, etc. can explain and show how to implement the doctrine, but they can’t create it.

    But then again, I’m a woman and therefore am easily deceived (snark, snark).

  215. @ GSD:

    Well… South Africa are in a very strong position in the Fourth Test. You might need a lot of Earl Grey.

  216. Patriciamc wrote:

    They say they worship Jesus, but in their actions, they worship Paul, even if they’re not aware of it. They’ve made Jesus to be the John the Baptist person and Paul to be the messiah.

    They have made Paul into Mohammed, the Final Prophet after Jesus.

  217. GSD wrote:

    I often think that if the founders of the USA had truly submitted to authority, we Yanks would be singing God Save the Queen before cricket matches. Which might not be so bad really (he said, as he poured his second cup of Earl Grey).

    There’s been a lot of alternate-history SF on just that subject, almost as much as on “Germany Won WW2” or “The Confederacy Won the American Civil War”.

  218. Anonymous wrote:

    It is really odd to contemplate, but those who argue for great authority for church leaders in doctrine are actually close to the Catholic position, though they disagree with that aspect of Catholicism, which is very interesting to contemplate.

    Not so difficult.
    THEY want to be the Pope in Rome, decreeing Dogma Ex Cathedra from the Chair of Peter with NO restrictions. And with a REAL Inquisition to enforce their decrees. All in the name of a God who always agrees 110% with them.

    Game of (Eccelesiatical) Thrones and all that.

  219. Nancy2 wrote:

    Molasses go with biscuits. You pour the molasses on your plate, mix a little butter in it, and then sop them up with homemade biscuits.

    Molasses makes a fine sweetener in just about everything, from biscuits to coffee.
    Very mellow sweetness compared to refined sugar.

    Don’t know about “Yankees”, though. Molasses is more associated with the Former Confederate States.

    Though to someone from Redding (near Mount Shasta), even San Francisco is Southern California…

  220. okrapod wrote:

    I think that pitting Paul and Jesus as opponents cannot be true

    I’d agree, I don’t think it could be done unless you admit some of the bible is wrong. That may be the case for some although I don’t think that is being espoused when I hear someone use the term “Jesus filter”. I have only recently adopted this approach myself. Jesus spoke often in terms of basic principles and attitudes so when I see a specific by Paul or Peter that appears to contradict Jesus attitudes then I go looking for better understanding or set it aside till I can understand it. My understanding of authority is a good example of one such subject that I have recently overhauled by concentrating on the gospels.

  221. Why do we always pray for our leadership and their families in our church congregations. I have yet to hear a shout out prayer for the lower laity and their families. After all, we’re the ones paying for their nice salaries, their insurance benefits, their gas money, their fun/visitation money, in some cases, their jet liners, and more often than not, the leadership lives much better than the rest of us.

    Surely, would not the corporate church desire to pray for it’s lesser laity? And surely, did not the Apostle Paul still work hard with his hands in providing a living for himself so as to not burden the lower laity?

    Seems to me Jesus spoke of those individuals who love to lord it over people….think I’ll keep following the Savior, Jesus.

  222. Anonymous wrote:

    It is really odd to contemplate, but those who argue for great authority for church leaders in doctrine are actually close to the Catholic position, though they disagree with that aspect of Catholicism, which is very interesting to contemplate.

    Oddly enough, and it’s truly hard to reconcile (and I think it’s great!), but Roman Catholics put a high premium on freedom of conscience. I think it was okrapod who pointed this out over on the free thread?
    American Protestant fundagelicalism might give a kind of tacit lip service to it (freedom of conscience) but when it comes right down to it, no such thing exists in their religion.

  223. @ Muff Potter:

    I am trying to understand this freedom of conscience Catholic belief in light of an international problem with child molestation that went on for years. With thousands of victims, This is not a put down as evangelicals are just as bad. But I still don’t get it.

  224. Patriciamc wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    They have made Paul into Mohammed, the Final Prophet after Jesus.
    Yep.

    So is it any surprise that these guys and their Perfect Theology/Ideology show the same symptoms as the Mullahs of the Taliban and ISIS?

    I’ve heard it said that “Calvin Islamized the Reformation” with his emphasis on Omnipotence/Predestination and his micromanaging detail. I’ve also heard it said that “Islam emphasizes the Omnipotent POWER of God, Christianity emphasizes the loving NATURE of God.” And under that definition Calvin’s fanboys come down solid on the Islamic end of the divide. A God who is Omnipotent but NOT Benevolent.

  225. Muff Potter wrote:

    I think it was okrapod who pointed this out over on the free thread?

    One of the catholic commenters mentioned about the catholic understanding of informed conscience. I think that any comments of mine on this should be evaluated for accuracy by comparison with the comment from the actual catholic. But yes, this was discussed by the catechists in RCIA. We were told in confirmation class that The Episcopal Church has a similar thinking.

    The alleged Baptist idea of conscience was discussed in my youth. The predominant idea that I heard at that time was that yes the catholics used the term and took it into consideration but that we baptists did not, the reason being that man did not have a conscience which could be relied on-only a sin nature at that level.

    Here I think is one difference. The question is: what about the image of God in man and how was it affected by the fall? Was it marred or was it completely destroyed? If it was only marred then there is still in man something which speaks to him about right and wrong. A conscience. If it was completely destroyed then the only thing that man can do is meticulously follow scripture because anything else could well be error. You can see where this thinking, i e total depravity, would lead. Rigid sola scriptura style protestant fundamentalism.

    At least this was how I understood the issue at the time.

  226. Law Prof wrote:

    Ken, are you aware that the word unfortunately translated as “obey” in Heb 13:17 actually means, loosely, “allow one’s self to be persuaded by”?

    Yes, I’m aware of the nuances of the Greek. The pre-shepherding era RSV uses ‘obey’ here.

    I have never learnt Greek, but I do translation for a living. My hesitation in commenting on this translation is that although the word might have connotations of being persuaded, the precise translation can only be determined in the specific context. (There is a load of nonsense talked about Kephale on a similar basis, where you cannot transfer metaphors into a target language. It’s a warning to be careful if you have never learnt a language.)

    I’m not sure obey is actually false, although the potential for the abuse of the word if the obedience is transferred from the Lord himself to men as ‘leaders’ is obvious. ‘Obey’ is by far the majority translation of this verse.

    I always link the leaders in Heb 13 to being those who brought the word of God. Now in teaching the word, they can rightly expect you to obey it. Their keeping guard against diverse and strange teachings needs to be respected.

    At the end of the day there is still a submission required of the ‘flock’, but like all cases of submission there are checks and balances and in no way is this absolute.

    Pastors or whatever you want to call them will one day have to give an account for what they have done. You would think that that might concentrate some minds, although all too often it doesn’t seem to!

  227. Sorry y’all. The very best cornbread I ever had was at a mom and pop restaurant in Orregon that made an absolutely Devine cornbread with blueberries in it. I found a place on line that sells their own version and I’ve tried making it myself, but no one will ever top the original mom n pop restaurant version.

  228. On topic, I am a done because of the authority abuse nonsense being preached inthe church. Been told too many times I need to be under a male authority and the pastor is to be obeyed.

  229. Niteowl wrote:

    On topic, I am a done because of the authority abuse nonsense being preached inthe church. Been told too many times I need to be under a male authority and the pastor is to be obeyed.

    I promise, there are many churches out there who don’t believe this nonsense. I think the Christians for Biblical Equality site has a list of egalitarian denominations, or they used to.

  230. Ken wrote:

    At the end of the day there is still a submission required of the ‘flock’, but like all cases of submission there are checks and balances and in no way is this

    So, you are part of a flock and submit to church leaders in matters of doctrine?

  231. Nancy2 wrote:

    So, you are part of a flock and submit to church leaders in matters of doctrine?

    If you want an honest answer, I’ve not ‘officially’ been part of a church for some time, except on a somewhat ad hoc basis. I’ve become increasingly convicted that this is not right, and a more definite commitment to a local body again is the right thing to go for.

    I have been attending the one we left years ago to try the temperature. (There have been some changes.)

    The bottom line for me is that as an absolute minimum, if you go to a church where you have misgivings about what is taught or with the leadership, you should not try to undermine that leadership. Especially not to foment unrest or gossip or be a shadow diaconate. The leadership of a church has enough on its plate without that burden being added.

    In any church you have got to spit the pips out with things you don’t like. The problem is judging how many pips may be reasonable.

    As regards submitting to church leaders in doctrine, I’ve already spelled out what I think on this in enough detail already.

  232. Nancy2 wrote:

    submit to church leaders in matters of doctrine?

    I can’t speak for Ken but I’m no longer capable of the mental gymnastics required to square submitting to church leaders with Jesus’ description of our relationship with other believers.

    But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

  233. @ Law Prof:

    Good question…
    “What does the Bible say about “pastor”?”

    Pastors, is only ONE time in the NT. Eph 4:11. Greek, Poimen = shepherd.
    Pastors, is EIGHT times in the OT. All in Jeremiah. Hebrew, ra`ah = shepherd
    Six times in Jeremiah God is NOT happy with *The Pastors.*

    Here are some verses WE, His Sheep, His Disciples, His Ekklesia, are NOT likely to hear…
    From Paid, Professional, Pastors, in Pulpits, Preaching, to People, in Pews.

    Jeremiah 2:8 KJV
    …”The Pastors” also transgressed against me,
    and the prophets prophesied by Baal,
    and walked after things that do NOT profit.

    Jeremiah 10:21 KJV
    For ”The Pastors” are become brutish, ( beastly, carnal )
    and have NOT sought the LORD: therefore they shall NOT prosper,
    and all their flocks shall be scattered.

    Jeremiah 12:10 KJV
    Many “Pastors” have destroyed my vineyard,
    they have trodden my portion under foot,
    they have made my pleasant portion a desolate wilderness.

    Jeremiah 22:22 KJV
    The *wind shall eat up ALL “Thy Pastors,” (*wind = ruwach = breath, mind, spirit.)
    and thy lovers shall go into captivity:
    surely then shalt thou be ashamed
    and confounded for all thy wickedness.

    Jeremiah 23:1 KJV
    Woe be unto ”The Pastors” that destroy
    and scatter the sheep of my pasture!

    Jeremiah 23:2 KJV
    …thus saith the LORD God of Israel
    against ”The Pastors” that feed my people;
    Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away,
    and have NOT visited them: behold,
    **I will visit upon you the evil of your doings,**
    saith the LORD.
    ———-

    And, This has been my experience…
    My “shepherds,” THEIR “shepherds,” have caused His Sheep to *go astray.*

    Jer 50:6 KJV
    “My people” hath been “lost sheep:”
    **THEIR shepherds** have caused them to *go astray,*

    1 Pet 2:25 KJV
    For ye were as *sheep going astray;*
    BUT are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

  234. Ken wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    Ken, are you aware that the word unfortunately translated as “obey” in Heb 13:17 actually means, loosely, “allow one’s self to be persuaded by”?
    Yes, I’m aware of the nuances of the Greek. The pre-shepherding era RSV uses ‘obey’ here.
    I have never learnt Greek, but I do translation for a living.
    At the end of the day there is still a submission required of the ‘flock’, but like all cases of submission there are checks and balances and in no way is this absolute.
    Pastors or whatever you want to call them will one day have to give an account for what they have done. You would think that that might concentrate some minds, although all too often it doesn’t seem to!

    Might I suggest you do some more homework? RSV pre shepherding? Please. All of our translations come out of a state church mentality where the monarch (elector/princes/etc) is the ruler of the church. If you think this did not influence word choices and additions, you are naive. There are more examples than we have space for.

    “Obey” is absolute. And trying to spin it otherwise is silly because taking in other teaching of the NT totally negates your position and makes it untenable. And dualisti which means one mist accept cognitive dissonance and ignore the Holy Spirit. No thanks.

    I read translation blogs for several years and came away with the belief that translations are best done by linguists and ancient historians. They have less of an agenda than theologians.

    Here is something to consider on Hebrews. It might not fit your agenda, though:http://www.theexaminer.org/volume2/number4/rule.htm

  235. Lydia wrote:

    I am trying to understand this freedom of conscience Catholic belief in light of an international problem with child molestation that went on for years. With thousands of victims, This is not a put down as evangelicals are just as bad. But I still don’t get it.

    I think it’s important to remember that it wasn’t the rank and file Catholics (or fundagelical sheeple for that matter), Jack, Jill and Wendy, who willingly enabled these awful things against kids, they were done under the aegis of their institutional hierarchies.
    In my opinion, conscience is an entity which exists in humans independently of any religion, creed, or belief system. Lincoln referred to it as The Better Angels of Our Nature. Whether or not we obey it instead of our ‘sin nature’ is our own affair entirely. Some versions of Christianity maintain that ‘sin’ is always one’s default condition, a view that I can no longer sign onto because of my innate sense of right and wrong.
    Anyway, my previous comment having to do with the impact of the Enlightenment on the Christian religion, is further examined by Roger Olson at his blog.
    Here’s the link:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2016/01/is-modern-unbelief-rooted-in-christianity/

  236. @ Bill M:

    Here is my view:

    26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him. 1 John 2

    We can learn from others who have studied or lived out their beliefs but all believers are anointed with the Holy Spirit. It is up to each one of us to pursue that. That is my plea to folks. The perfumed princes on stages with their personal agendas are a dead end.

  237. @ Muff Potter:

    Maybe my confusion came from not being raised in a hierarchical church tradition. Things have changed drastically from those days. I assumed the hierarchical tradition of Catholicism was part of the problem with reporting. No one questions the priest, bishop or pope. We see the same thing happening in evangelicalism as it became more and more hierarchical. Where I come from the pastor was an employee.

  238. “In my opinion, conscience is an entity which exists in humans independently of any religion, creed, or belief system. Lincoln referred to it as The Better Angels of Our Nature. Whether or not we obey it instead of our ‘sin nature’ is our own affair entirely. Some versions of Christianity maintain that ‘sin’ is always one’s default condition, a view that I can no longer sign onto because of my innate sense of right and wrong.”

    Totally agree. I will go a step farther and say, the more we do what is right and good, the more human we are. The more we do evil to others and/or promote ourselves over others, the less human we are. Being human is supposed to be good. Christianity took a very wrong turn early on promoting hopelessness and death instead of resurrection and new life here and now.

  239. Lydia wrote:

    “Obey” is absolute. And trying to spin it otherwise is silly because taking in other teaching of the NT totally negates your position and makes it untenable. And dualisti which means one mist accept cognitive dissonance and ignore the Holy Spirit. No thanks.

    I do not see ‘obey’ as an absolute. Obey permits the person to do something while still maintaining their own intellectual integrity about the thing. I found that concept good in childrearing. I told my children that they were entitled to their own opinions but that their behaviors in certain areas belonged to me. I got into a bit of a dustup with one scout leader who was adamant that I convince my child that he (the scout leader) was correct. I refused, but said that the kid would conform because I was about to demand it of him. The kid did conform, and at the same time was able to maintain his own faith in his own judgment.

    To let oneself be convinced/ persuaded however is far more radical. It includes to deny one’s former opinions and understandings and accept that the other person is correct. This is a form of intellectual repentance (change of mind) and strikes at the very heart of the individual’s thinking processes. There is a place for this, and also a place for the other.

    To ‘obey’ without full agreement does not have anything to do with the Holy Spirit unless one assumes that whatever the individual happens to think is de facto the thinking of the Spirit, and that is simply a false assumption.

  240. In answer to the article’s title, I believe only the scriptures are in authority over each one of us as far as defining doctrine, and that each of us is given freedom in Christ to follow what we understand the scriptures to be saying. Being as we are all imperfect and limited in our humanity, our understanding will be imperfect as well.

    We must extend grace to others who understand things differently from us but I also believe that mutually respectful conversation and debate are worthwhile in terms of coming to better understandings. And then there comes a point where peoples’ misunderstandings are egregiously wrong and must be addressed directly. Isn’t that a big part of what this blog is doing? Different people will draw this line in different places.

    I think it’s obvious from the scriptures that many areas have been left open to personal conscience, dogmatic statements can’t be made in these areas. It also appears to me that God has spoken ambiguously about many subjects and sometimes I wonder if this was done purposely to reveal our own hearts to us, in which way we go with it.

    Now, on the subject of young vs old earth which came up in your example, I am not aware of scripture that teaches the earth to be flat? Can someone point it out to me? I am aware of scriptures in Job and Proverbs which seem to speak of the earth being circular.

  241. On the “YEC” thread, somewhereintime wrote:
    “the bible CLEARLY states that the world is ROUND in Isaiah 40:22 ” it is He that sits upon the circle of the earth”.
    I simply made the point that circles are actually flat. So if we take all scripture to be “plainly written”, would that mean that the earth is a flat circle, and not a sphere?

    siteseer wrote:

    Now, on the subject of young vs old earth which came up in your example, I am not aware of scripture that teaches the earth to be flat? Can someone point it out to me? I am aware of scriptures in Job and Proverbs which seem to speak of the earth being circular.

  242. okrapod wrote:

    To ‘obey’ without full agreement does not have anything to do with the Holy Spirit unless one assumes that whatever the individual happens to think is de facto the thinking of the Spirit, and that is simply a false assumption.

    Boy is that true. I stay away from parent/ child illustrations when it comes to “obeying” other adult leaders or husbands. It just does not fit adult relationships. Even work relationships are more contractural. However, it fits with our Holy Father quite well. :o)

  243. @ siteseer:

    “It also appears to me that God has spoken ambiguously about many subjects and sometimes I wonder if this was done purposely to reveal our own hearts to us, in which way we go with it.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    maybe it’s loosely like the slumber party game of telephone — 1st person tells 2nd person something, they hear it, pass it on to the next person. Through a number of iterations (which don’t preclude editing on purpose), the something is spit out the other end a bit mangled.

    the thought of God using ambiguity/contradiction to elicit a certain kind of response from people doesn’t compute with me.

    I think he is easily findable by anyone/everyone. I don’t think the way, the method is specific, and I don’t think the experience of finding God is specific. I don’t think it’s this big, convoluted algebraically specific system and if you don’t do it & experience it EXACTLY LIKE THIS it’s curtains! or at least a series of curtains behind which are grand prizes and lesser prizes.

    I think simple observation indicates this. So many different denominations, interpretations, methods, emphases, requirements, contradictions….. and yet clearly people from all these opposing factions have found God, and wondrously so — enough to engender the conviction “you must do it just like I did, so you can find God like I did!” (and then the attendant tightening of control, of course)

  244. The question depends on someone’s background. If someone comes from a magesterial Presbyterian or Lutherian or Anglican or Roman Catholic Church, churches that place emphasis on pastoral authority and structure of church offices, then the answer may be “yes.” Certainly a pastor has a responsibility in expounding sound doctrine. The bar is whether this doctrine can have some allowances for non essential issues and diversity of opinion. Women deacons would be nonessential as far as I am concerned, but the bar in some church may view this as incorrect teaching. I maybe a liberal democrat in Robert Jeffress’s church. Would I be viewed as suspect for being politically left of center? Just depends on what is considered essential, and tolerance for diversity within a communion.

  245. Lydia wrote:

    26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him. 1 John 2

    We can learn from others who have studied or lived out their beliefs but all believers are anointed with the Holy Spirit. It is up to each one of us to pursue that.

    Your point on teaching reminds me of my quest ten years ago to find a different doctor when my former doctor prescribed medication I though dangerous and had waved off my question on side effects. My present doctor refers to himself as a consultant and does not see his role as telling me what to do but to offer information, advice, and occasionally suggest a second opinion. He is not threatened by my independent research and insists that I be in charge of my health decisions.

    The analogy fails in one regard. While I have only one primary care physician I do not have one primary teacher nor would I recommend it, especially if you sit under that same teacher droning on for decades.

  246. @ Bill M:

    You went from medical paternalism to patient autonomy, a type of shared decision making. This is the trend in medicine now. It has a lot of advantages. Both of these approaches require the participation of a trained health care professional. And in each situation the health care professional may or may not be proficient, and the patient may or may not either cooperate or make good decisions.

    Another approach to health care is when the sick person does not go to the doctor/ PA/ nurse practitioner at all but rather looks up his symptoms on the internet and then visits the health foods and alternative medicines store and both diagnoses and treats himself. The advantages to this include that it is cheaper. The disadvantages are the dangers of diagnostic and therapeutic error.

    Needless to say I see some analogies here with some of the current approaches to religion.

  247. does it goes without saying that you’ll never ‘sit under’ any human being, nor should anyone? and the nitwit who coined that phrase should bake us home-made pies every-other-day for decades?

  248. @ Bill M:

    does it goes without saying that you’ll never ‘sit under’ any human being, nor should anyone? and the nitwit who coined that phrase should bake us home-made pies every-other-day for decades?

  249. elastigirl wrote:

    never ‘sit under’ any human being, nor should anyone? and the nitwit who coined that phrase should bake us home-made pies every-other-day for decades?

    Agreed with one alteration, make it a plate of chocolate chip cookies. (dark chocolate)

  250. @ Bill M:

    no warm blueberry pie? a tart cherry? not even a chocolate custard with a layer of hard (dark) chocolate on top of the crust and homemade whipped cream and chocolate chips on top?

  251. @ elastigirl:
    Yum, very enticing,
    “I think it pisses God off if you walk by the color purple in a field somewhere and don’t notice it. People think pleasing God is all God cares about. But any fool living in the world can see it always trying to please us back.”
    ― Alice Walker, The Color Purple

  252. what a great thought. just found another alice walker quote:

    “the most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.”

  253. Lydia wrote:

    All of our translations come out of a state church mentality where the monarch (elector/princes/etc) is the ruler of the church

    I have enough Anglican blood in me to be aware of the influence of the Church of England on the KJV, for example, baptise instead of dip, Easter, and the word bishop.

    I think you missed the point of what I was getting at. Without a thorough hard-won knowledge of the original languages, it isn’t possible to say much about how a word should be translated, especially in any one context. Googling a Greek interlinear can be useful but is no substitute for acquiring the language, grammar vocabulary and syntax, and a little knowledge can be dangerous. Same is true of Vine’s Expository Dictionary.

    So I agree that linguists should decide how to translate the bible, though for good or ill most who are capable of doing this will have a theological education as well. The sheer number of EN versions at least means we can guard against theological or denominational bias creeping in. This is true of some evangelical versions which occasionally try to smooth out difficulties.

    It’s a moot point whether translation is a science or an art.

    This is the background to my caution above about changing Heb 13 : 17 away from obey. German versions have the word too!

    So I think it is best to accept the majority rendition of the underlying Greek word as obey, and then go on to ask how this is to be applied, or how it relates to the rest of the NT. And no, I don’t think it is absolute when applied to men, but it is absolute when it comes to NT instructions on how we should live. You know, ‘why do you call me Lord Lord and do not do what I tell you’ etc.

  254. @ Mark:
    I guess my question would be how would one know if they are being taught “sound doctrine” unless they were Bereans?

    It goes back to what exactly is Christianity?

  255. @ Ken:
    Ken, linguists must take into consideration historical context. The other problem with your insistence on that word is that it not only negates the words of our Lord written elsewhere but in other letters, too. I would think almost 2000 years of bloody evil church history would make the point concerning the problem of “obeying” church titles.

  256. Ken wrote:

    And no, I don’t think it is absolute when applied to men, but it is absolute when it comes to NT instructions on how we should live.

    Here you go again. That is not how it was translated. It was translated as absolute. It was translated as obeying those who have rule over you. And tyrants like CJ quoted it all the time. Now you are claiming it means something else entirely…. but believe the bad translation. This is part of the “cake and eat it too” problem.

  257. Ken wrote:

    And no, I don’t think it is absolute when applied to men, but it is absolute when it comes to NT instructions on how we should live. You know, ‘why do you call me Lord Lord and do not do what I tell you’ etc.

    Then you also teach women that they are saved by bearing children? You’ve explained that to your daughters? (BTW I actually hope you haven’t.)

  258. I totally do not see what is wrong with people reading several translations to get a birds eye view of something and then themselves getting a feel for what seems to make the most sense to them, especially when that ‘feel’ may well be larger than any single word and how it may be translated. And then why not make peace with the idea that not everybody sees things the same way.

    I totally do not see what is wrong if people defer to the experts in some field, especially when the differences of opinion among said experts can be compared, rather than trying to second guess every detail for themselves. How can people decry the massive diversity of denominations while at the same time approaching christianity as though it were an each man for himself and devil take the hindmost sort of pursuit?

    I totally do not see what is wrong with looking at some total picture, like western civilization and the influence of christianity on it, noting some good and some bad, and just leaving it at that, as opposed to either accepting or rejecting things in toto. Why assume that the totality of anything would be or could be either pure evil or pure good or for that matter that humanity would even recognize goods and evils when they saw them. Life is not like that. This is not the kingdom. This is the world.

    And why on earth would somebody read the scriptural admonitions as to how the leaders/leadership should conduct themselves and what they should and should not do and declare this to be evidence that in fact there should be no leadership/ function/ office at all?

  259. Mark

    I have some questions when you write…
    “Certainly a pastor has a responsibility in expounding sound doctrine.”

    That sounds real good – But, is that in the Bible?
    In the Bible, can anyone find, “a pastor… expounding sound doctrine?”
    In the Bible, can anyone find, a pastor/leader, like we see today?
    In the 501 (c) 3, Non-Profit, Tax Deductible, Religious Corporations…
    That the IRS calls church?

    Seems, anyone who calls themself, or has the “Title,” pastor…
    Or shepherd. Or leader. Or reverend…

    Is already, by example, NOT “expounding sound doctrine,”
    And is leading His Sheep, His Ekklesia, His Servants, astray.

    Because, a quick check of the NT will show you…

    Not one of His Disciples called them self pastor.
    Or shepherd. Or leader. Or reverend.

    Not one of His Disciples called another Disciple, pastor.
    Or shepherd. Or leader. Or reverend.

    Not one of His Disciples took the “Title/Postion,” pastor.
    Or shepherd. Or leader. Or reverend.

    Not one of His Disciples was Hired or fired as a pastor.
    Or shepherd. Or leader. Or reverend.

    Jer 50:6
    “My people” hath been “lost sheep:”
    **THEIR shepherds** have caused them to *go astray,*

    1 Pet 2:25
    For ye were as *sheep going astray;*
    BUT are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

  260. Lydia wrote:

    It was translated as obeying

    By the vast majority of translators with the necessary qualification for doing so frpm a wide range of backgrounds. You almost appear to be saying the translation should be changed because it can be misused by those seeking to build an authoritarian empire.

    I’m simply not qualified to say whether the translation is too strong and should be softened somewhat, and google cannot make up the deficiency.

    But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage — to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

    This automatically qualifies the obedience that Hebrews is talking about.

    What about obedience and submitting to church leaders who are the real thing? They are not all seeking power and status. Far from it. And it’s a difficult enough task sometimes without bolshy members doing their own thing, and who make serving a church a cause of endless grief and discouragement.

  261. okrapod wrote:

    And why on earth would somebody read the scriptural admonitions as to how the leaders/leadership should conduct themselves and what they should and should not do and declare this to be evidence that in fact there should be no leadership/ function/ office at all?

    I get where you are coming from and if we were discussing how leaders behave i would agree with you to a certain extent. I dont define NT leader in the same way we understand it today.

    from the OT prophets to the NT, there isn’t much glamour or or comfy life to what passed as “leader” save some Kings who abused their position. It was an “in the trenches” lifestyle to be a “leader”. Diotrephes doesnt count. :o)

    I think it is healthy to discuss the differences. Especially when folks trot out Hebrews 13:17.

  262. Bridget wrote:

    Then you also teach women that they are saved by bearing children?

    I’m afraid so. There is no point dodging the last verse of 1 Tim 2. The information provided was:

    i) This does not mean childbirth is a means of becoming a Christian.

    ii) Nor does it refer to the birth of the child = messiah.

    iii) I understand it to mean ‘salvation’ from the temptation to get into what Paul forbids by a commitment to family life, linking it with 1 Tim 5 11 – 15.

    It’s hardly decisive for trying to understand the previous few verses. It does entail a high view of family life, and the incalculable influence for good that a mother can have on her children. More than being a bible teacher, not that I would want to set these against each other.

    Probably more important than the precise application of this verse is to take on board that we need to go on being saved by continuing in the faith, rather than take it all for granted or assuming that falling away is an absolute impossibility. Calvinism can arguably be a danger here.

  263. A. Amos Love wrote:

    1 Pet 2:25
    For ye were as *sheep going astray;*
    BUT are now returned to the Shepherd
    and Bishop of your souls.
    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

    Amen, A. Amos Love!!

    Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord….

  264. Ken wrote:

    iii) I understand it to mean ‘salvation’ from the temptation to get into what Paul forbids by a commitment to family life, linking it with 1 Tim 5 11 – 15.

    My goodness! That is a very liberal interpretation of that section and certainly not the plain reading that you advocated for earlier.

  265. Ken wrote:

    I think you missed the point of what I was getting at. Without a thorough hard-won knowledge of the original languages, it isn’t possible to say much about how a word should be translated, especially in any one context.

    Googling a Greek interlinear can be useful but is no substitute for acquiring the language, grammar vocabulary and syntax, and a little knowledge can be dangerous. Same is true of Vine’s Expository Dictionary.

    So I agree that linguists should decide how to translate the bible, though for good or ill most who are capable of doing this will have a theological education as well.

    You certainly do pick and choose when to use “extra biblical” means to gain a greater understanding of the Bible.

    In other threads, when others point to studies of literature outside the Bible to help in understanding the Bible, you have referred to this as being a “liberal” practice and hence one that should be distrusted and / or avoided (although plenty of conservative Christians do this all the time).

    In this post, though, you seem fine and dandy with people using extra biblical sources to understand something about the Bible… because doing so helps support your position?

    Why do you deny a practice to others (ie, citing extra biblical resources) who disagree with you but reserve the right to use it for your own position?

  266. Ken wrote:

    iii) I understand it to mean ‘salvation’ from the temptation to get into what Paul forbids by a commitment to family life, linking it with 1 Tim 5 11 – 15.
    It’s hardly decisive for trying to understand the previous few verses. It does entail a high view of family life, and the incalculable influence for good that a mother can have on her children.

    The Bible has a high view of singleness and celibacy.

    You’ve apparently twisted the Bible to make something more of the nuclear family and marriage than it should be. God does not command or insist that everyone marry and have children.

    Your views are also very insulting to women and men who are unable to marry and/or have kids for whatever reason.

    Some people have health issues that lead them to being infertile, so they cannot have kids. Some simply don’t want to have kids, which is fine, too. Some people want to marry but cannot find a compatible partner.

    The Bible isn’t actually as pro-family and pro-marriage as you make it sound.

    “Who is my mother and who are my brothers?”

    http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/who-my-mother-and-who-are-my-brothers?page=show

    Luke 14 [quoting Jesus Christ]:
    If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

    1 Corinthians 7
    7 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
    Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do
    But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

    Matthew 19:12
    For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” ~Jesus

  267. Bridget wrote:

    My goodness! That is a very liberal interpretation of that section and certainly not the plain reading that you advocated for earlier.

    I’ve never advocated any other understanding of this verse. I think you must be confusing me with someone else.

    I certainly think someone might come up with a better explanation that amends or replaces the one above.

    I am generally in favour of plain reading, but in Paul there are places hard to understand, and this is one of them!

  268. Hi Victorious

    Always good to hear from you.

    Be blessed. And continue to be a blessing…❤️

  269. Daisy wrote:

    The Bible has a high view of singleness and celibacy.
    You’ve apparently twisted the Bible to make something more of the nuclear family and marriage than it should be. God does not command or insist that everyone marry and have children.
    Your views are also very insulting to women and men who are unable to marry and/or have kids for whatever reason

    You are illustrating the lack of communication I talked about earlier.

    I have never commented on celebacy as far as I recall.

    I have never said God commands everyone to marry and reproduce, let alone twisted scripture to achieve this. Saying motherhood is high calling does not denigrate anyone else who is not a mother. This didn’t remotely enter my mind. It’s not even implied

    Consequently, I’m not setting out to insult anyone, and there is nothing in my post that is insulting.

    You keep imagining things that I’m not saying. You don’t seem to be able to read anything I write without relating it to yourself and your personal circumstances. I wasn’t talking about you, not trying to stir you up, only dealing with an interpretation of a particularly difficult bible verse. Personal comments or criticism is out of order.

    I do feel a need to reduce the posting here.

    I will make one small personal comment though despite what I have just said. I wish you could obtain a level of contentment in being single in the way my sister has. She didn’t want it either, she is a lot older than you. Seeing me get married and have a family must have rubbed it in a bit – and I thought I might end up staying single. But God doesn’t love anyone any more if they are married or any less if they are not.

  270. @ Ken:
    Ken, this is all over the board. If Paul is not making a play on words using the fertility cult teaching concerning their fears of dying in childbirth by referring to THE CHILDBEARING of Messiah which saves, you have a huge problem. Saved is saved. Rescue. You can’t just turn saved into “role”.

    You try to use a lot of mental gymnastics to not turn CHILDBEARING into a work of salvation for women. But you cant unless folks are willing to check their brains at the door.

    You turn the Good News into something else entirely. You use a tactic called scripture stacking to read into the passage what is not there. This is so you can ignore historical context, grammar and the true meaning of salvation …. and teach another Gospel for women only.

    Your big arguments for this are:

    It is not popular so we just don’t like it. (Salvation by works)
    We are selfish for not believing this work of salvation for women.

    Yet you refuse to consider historical context. There are lots of people out there who have a need for scripture to be a manual and they feel pious for following what they view as directions of the manual for everyday life in the 21st Century. (Of course they pick and choose!) They miss the more beautiful and larger meaning that is for all time.

  271. @ Ken:
    One more thing, 1 Timothy 1 tells us the main reason for the letter: False teaching.

    Paul has 2 categories. Those who are deceived out of ignorance and those who deceive on purpose. He puts himself in the first category and encourages mercy. That is why he says later of “A” woman: Let her learn. Check the grammar, it is singular.

    For those who deceive on purpose, he names names such as Hy and Al.

    The theme is dealing with false teaching. And Ephesus was a hot bed of it with the huge temple cult.

    The theme of 1 Tim is often ignored to prop up the false Gospel of salvation in roles.

  272. Lydia wrote:

    If Paul is not making a play on words using the fertility cult teaching concerning their fears of dying in childbirth by referring to THE CHILDBEARING of Messiah which saves, you have a huge problem. Saved is saved. Rescue. You can’t just turn saved into “role”. ( and in the next comment) You try to use a lot of mental gymnastics to not turn CHILDBEARING into a work of salvation for women. But you cant unless folks are willing to check their brains at the door.

    Ummm. Women are not saved by works, though the role of works can be debated in the areas between the extreme positions on works. But basically, nobody is saying that, and Ken is not saying that. This verse does raise the issue for debate as to whether once saved always saved is correct and whether what one does contributes to one’s own sanctification–two related but separate issues.

    However, since I just checked with The Great Google on this, the actual opinion that Ken expressed can be traced back at least as far as Origen and St. John Chrystom, so ‘brains at the door’ may not be a realistic accusation.

    I do not think that the ideas about this referring to the birth of the messiah and to the Ephesian religion can possibly be correct. If we say that work are necessary for spiritual salvation we have left out grace and basically indicated that people can be saved by works alone. Nobody says that. Paul did not say that. If Paul was saying that the birth of the messiah would furnish women safe physical delivery of actual children, that is that they would be saved during the process of parturition, he was teaching error because that does not happen. If Paul was teaching that safety in parturition could be achieved by a combination of the birth of the messiah and works which they ‘continue in’ then he was teaching double error because nothing of the sort actually makes childbirth safe-either then or now.

    If Paul was doing what you say he was doing he was guilty of teaching error and was not better than some of the false teachers of the day. And to think that he might have done this because of the competition from the Artemis Cult, that he may have known good and well that he was teaching error and done it anyway…surely not. Why would he think he could offer false reassurance to pregnant women for any reason? They would know it was not true the minute they noted women dying in childbirth at the same rate as everybody else. They would run him out of town.

    There are a lot of ideas about this, so The Great Google tells me, but promising a safe obstetrical experience is not among the best or the most popular ideas.

  273. @ okrapod:

    I don’t think that’s what Ken’s opponents are getting at here, I haven’t seen anyone suggest salvation literally comes via childbirth or suggest that Ken believes that. What they’re saying is that Ken picks and chooses, without apparent merit or consistent principle, which method of Biblical analysis to apply to a given verse, and that when he claims he’s standing on the clear truth of God, because by gosh that’s what it says, black and white, without apparent regard for cultural and historical context, that he’s being inconsistent.

    I think many here believe that Ken pretty much parrots what he’s learned in the sort of churches he attends, that he accepts that as the clear truth of the matter, and that he’s being at least in some cases misled. I think many here also believe that since he’s curious enough to come here and continue engaging with his opposition, that he’s sincere and perhaps open to other perspectives. Were he pure troll, no one would engage him for long. Even though I think he’s wrong-headed, he seems thoughtful and capable of introspection.

  274. @ Law Prof:

    I am not opposed to Ken’s opponents as some default position. Neither am I opposed to Ken. I am thinking that they have misunderstood him at times, but not always. I agree with Ken sometimes and sometimes not. Ken is not my issue.

    I am opposed to the idea that the birth of Jesus makes for a safe physical delivery of a child, and I am opposed to the idea of saying somebody has left their brains at the door is they do not agree that this was what Paul was saying. Paul was not such a crazy, and none of us who disagree with such as that have left our brains at the door. If people want to believe that for their own reasons they are at liberty to do so, but they need to lay off the insults.

    And I am opposed to the idea of leaving out the ‘if they continue…’ issue as though it were not there. It is part of the concept and cannot just be ignored in the discussion of the text since they significantly impact whatever it was that Paul was trying to say. That is to say impact the understanding of where he may have been headed with this. Again, people can do what they want with this, but those of us who end up with other ideas than Paul selling false hope to pregnant women have not done so in order to persecute or enslave? women -or whatever it is that I seem to keep hearing.

    Thinking that Paul might have been saying that childbearing and rearing ‘if they continue..’ has spiritual value has long been thought in christianity-and still is. That some people take it too far does not negate the core value of the idea. The excesses are wrong, but the idea that women are valuable as mothers is not wrong. And the idea that this may have played into Paul’s thinking, that he may actually have valued women as mothers, that is not some crazy off the chart idea either.

    There are some really good discussions of various ideas about this text on line. Some are wacko in my opinion if I understand what is being said, but some are well thought out and well reasoned. More than one of the ideas are worth consideration.

  275. okrapod wrote:

    However, since I just checked with The Great Google on this, the actual opinion that Ken expressed can be traced back at least as far as Origen and St. John Chrystom, so ‘brains at the door’ may not be a realistic accusation.

    Just to note, the notorious word “authenteo” that is used to prop up Ken’s interpretation was used by Chrysostom, in I think it was Homily 10, where he said “husbands should not authenteo their wives”. So it is a bad thing men can do to women. And Chrysostom was no supporter of women functioning with their gifts in the Body.

    It is interesting he did not catch his own contradiction. I never buy into tradition as a go to for truth although it can be.

  276. okrapod wrote:

    Again, people can do what they want with this, but those of us who end up with other ideas than Paul selling false hope to pregnant women have not done so in order to persecute or enslave? women -or whatever it is that I seem to keep hearing.

    I am confused by this? What is the false hope about the birth of Messiah? The point is we all die a physical death but the Messiah conquered death if we are believers.

  277. @ okrapod:
    The problem is in the grammar. CHILDBEARING is used as a noun. As in “the childbearing”. The other grammar problem is the passage refers to A woman. The ” she and they” is “gune and aner” which is often translated husband/wife or man/woman.

  278. @ okrapod:

    I wonder if it wasn’t some idiom of the time that the audience receiving the letter would’ve understood immediately. I have a friend with a PhD in the hard sciences who took her scientific bent of mind into the study of Christianity and ancient cultures and now writes books on this subject for a living (about the only kind of Christian books I can pick up and stomach reading), who is convinced that many of the difficulties we have in understanding particularly many of the things that Jesus said has to do with this very thing.

  279. Lydia wrote:

    What is the false hope about the birth of Messiah? The point is we all die a physical death but the Messiah conquered death if we are believers.

    I am fairly certain that you have read the counter arguments as to whether that is what Paul was referring to. I am not going to debate that here, since The Great Google is easy enough to tap into on all these issues. Including the ‘a’ woman issue. I am quite confident you have probably read all the arguments, good and bad, about everything involved in this text. I certainly have made a stab at it. I am not going to be lured into useless debate when all the arguments are readily available on line and said better than I could say much of anything.

    My point is and has been and continues to be that people who come to other conclusions that what you have concluded on this issue are not brainless wonders who have left their brains at the door. You are certainly constrained as are we all to arrive at whatever conclusions are most convincing to you, but that highway goes both ways. And people who may disagree, especially if what they think is one (of perhaps several) common understandings of something, do not deserve to be treated with disdain. Regardless.

  280. @ Law Prof:

    Perhaps. That certainly sounds quite likely in fact.

    In the meantime I think I notice the ever present assumptions that people do not question while building a structure of thinking on those assumptions. In this particular issue, and if one checks on line and tries to read what some catholic(s) say about this text and what some protestants say about this text it seems pretty apparent that the issue of assumptions which are not directly mentioned in the text come into play. Like the assumption about what ‘saved’ means. Even if one sees it in the spiritual sense (go to heaven when you die) the assumptions behind what that means and entails are significantly different. At this point everybody assumes the validity of their own doctrinal position and proceeds to try to understand what Paul was saying while at the same time not going beyond what their doctrinal beliefs and assumptions already are about ‘saved.’

    Now we can’t all be right, but we can all be informed of the other potential positions and we can all treat each other with respect, varying ideas or not.

  281. @ okrapod:
    I would not accept the argument/interpretation if it constituted some work of salvation for men and limited their functioning in the Body.

    This passage was rarely referenced growing up. I was told it was a local issue and we only had one side of the convo. Then, it started to be quoted and taught all over the place. About 15 years ago, I dove in. Yes, read everything I could get my hands on concerning the context and the Greek. It affected me as a woman to understand it based on what I was hearing that just made no sense when it came to our Lord.

    And yes it was a local issue but more importantly it uses “save” as in salvation, rescue. How is a woman rescued in bearing children? Are men rescued in seminating an egg which makes them a father? And their father “role” sanctifime, them?

    I don’t think others who disagree are brainless. They might be deceived or have an agenda to make it into something it is not. Who knows. But I cannot accept that there is a work of salvation in women bearing children. Or that it is even necessary for sanctification.

    Being barren back then was a horror for women, a sad state of affairs given the culture. There is nothing to indicate it is about sanctification in mothering as that seems cruel, anyway, if barren. The letter’s theme is false teaching.

    So no. I cannot accept those arguments. I am wondering why making a case is such a bad thing? I have not met a comp or patriarchal type who agreed with me, yet. :o) I am ok with that.

  282. @ Law Prof:
    It is not unlike Paul as in him saying he wished those teaching circumcision, “emasculate” themselves. He played off concepts/words. I think he was doing that in 1 Corin 11 with head and here in 1 Tim concerning the fertility cult and childbearing.

  283. @ okrapod:
    How is it disrespectful to disagree with: you don’t like it because it is not popular? Or those who don’t accept it are selfish? Or that it is traditional teaching and that must carry some weight? I don’t get these sorts of arguments. I can only go by what the entire pericope (what would contradict what in the NT), the Greek and context. So what would women be saved from if they bear a child, for example? You are right the word can be used in another context like saving Paul from the mob, etc. But in this context, what would it mean that makes sense?

    My problem has always been the “why”. :o)

  284. Lydia wrote:

    So what would women be saved from if they bear a child, for example?

    This page mentions that:

    Chastity, Salvation, and 1 Timothy 2:15
    http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/chastity-salvation-1-timothy-215/

    If I am remembering that page right, there was some pagan belief that being celibate and childless was more holy, godly, and/or safer than fooling around and having kids.

    Or, it was thought having a kid was too dangerous (women died in childbirth), so some couples swore off fooling around, having kids.

    The thought then goes Paul was reassuring women who do want to have a kid that God would not let them pass away due to child birth complications.

    I might be misunderstanding things, though, but that is what I took away from that page. I would have to go back and re-read it more slowly.

  285. @ Daisy:

    P.S. I just re-read bits of that page, and there was also an element of salvation involved, in that some of the pagans in that area of that church to whom Paul wrote, thought that fooling around and/or having a kid could result in loss of salvation.

    He was reassuring them that no, they would not lose their salvation if they stopped being celibate and/or had a baby.

  286. Lydia wrote:

    How is it disrespectful to disagree with: you don’t like it because it is not popular? Or those who don’t accept it are selfish? Or that it is traditional teaching and that must carry some weight? I don’t get these sorts of arguments.

    Now those issues I will talk about-the why as you say.

    I do not think it is disrespectful to disagree, only to disagree disrespectfully. I do think that I have made that about as clear as I can.

    As to not popular, I get the impression that it is popular but I also get the impression that its popularity may be partly because it fits in with certain doctrinal and even political ideas and that is disturbing to me in some areas. People need to acknowledge understanding of other people’s and their own doctrinal biases (even while disagreeing with them perhaps) in oder to maintain ideas based on more than popularity or lack of it. And the issue of modern cultural bias has to be minimized; if the culture of then affected what one is to understand about something even so the culture of now has to be taken into consideration if one is committed to objectivity. In short, I hold popularity suspect either way. And I do not think that you are swayed by popularity either.

    As to tradition, I do not think that the calendar date on which something was said has a direct correlation with whether or not it is either true or valuable. On the one hand some old stuff, however, has survived all sorts of ideas and debates and conditions for a long time and the very fact that it has survived makes it worth looking into since there may be value and perhaps even truth there. I was however raised in a religious tradition which seemed to think that anything prior to the reformation was of the devil, that one should avoid the creeds, that Constantine was the antichrist who caused the demise of true christianity and that ‘tradition’ was automatically heretical. I do not now believe that, and in fact never really did believe that.

    As an aside I think that my thinking may be more nuanced than some, less either/or. I do think automatically in the same manner as one establishes a diagnosis. You observe then make a list of possible explanations in descending order of probability (a differential diagnosis) and then settle on some answer. If in the long run that answer does not prove to have been the whole answer then there is always the evidence that ‘I see that at one time we did consider the possibility of…Let’s take another look in that direction.’ I do this in religious issues also. Because, one day we talk about what some word means in the original language and then somebody locates it in some other obscure writings and we have to say well maybe not so much. We think we know what has been determined by historical research methods until the next historical finding surfaces, either in more manuscripts or in something somebody dig out of the ground, and ideas get modified. So no, I do not hold explanations based on the current evidence of what we know about ancient cultures in the same esteem as some do. I am very comfortable with words like perhaps, there is some evidence to suggest, based on the evidence at hand at this time.

    So, popularity is a no go. Bias is the dangerous snake in the grass. Tradition may be worth taking a look at. Iron clad conclusions based on current evidence are on shaky ground.

  287. @ okrapod:
    Does it count I was in comp churches for 20 years and surrounded by it? So yes, I suppose I do have a bias after being around it for so many years and seeing it become part of the “Gospel”. I am certainly familiar with most aspects of the doctrine, its interpretive choices, its best scholars (I am surrounded by them here and they speak in churches all the time) and its historical progression from Genesis. I facilitated many conferences with well known comp speakers from years ago and saw things that made me question their insistence on interpretation with reality behind the stage. Those sorts of conferences made huge money for years.

    Most Christians in my circle spout comp doctrine at church and live in mutualistic marriages, btw. :o) And I love them.

  288. Ken wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    All of our translations come out of a state church mentality where the monarch (elector/princes/etc) is the ruler of the church

    I have enough Anglican blood in me to be aware of the influence of the Church of England on the KJV, for example, baptise instead of dip, Easter, and the word bishop.

    I think you missed the point of what I was getting at. Without a thorough hard-won knowledge of the original languages, it isn’t possible to say much about how a word should be translated, especially in any one context. Googling a Greek interlinear can be useful but is no substitute for acquiring the language, grammar vocabulary and syntax, and a little knowledge can be dangerous. Same is true of Vine’s Expository Dictionary.

    So I agree that linguists should decide how to translate the bible, though for good or ill most who are capable of doing this will have a theological education as well. The sheer number of EN versions at least means we can guard against theological or denominational bias creeping in. This is true of some evangelical versions which occasionally try to smooth out difficulties.

    It’s a moot point whether translation is a science or an art.

    This is the background to my caution above about changing Heb 13 : 17 away from obey. German versions have the word too!

    So I think it is best to accept the majority rendition of the underlying Greek word as obey, and then go on to ask how this is to be applied, or how it relates to the rest of the NT. And no, I don’t think it is absolute when applied to men, but it is absolute when it comes to NT instructions on how we should live. You know, ‘why do you call me Lord Lord and do not do what I tell you’ etc.

    Ken, your observations about education and translation are spot on.

    I also believe this to be an application issue.

  289. Ken wrote:

    Daisy wrote:

    The Bible has a high view of singleness and celibacy.
    You’ve apparently twisted the Bible to make something more of the nuclear family and marriage than it should be. God does not command or insist that everyone marry and have children.
    Your views are also very insulting to women and men who are unable to marry and/or have kids for whatever reason

    You are illustrating the lack of communication I talked about earlier.

    I have never commented on celebacy as far as I recall.

    I have never said God commands everyone to marry and reproduce, let alone twisted scripture to achieve this. Saying motherhood is high calling does not denigrate anyone else who is not a mother. This didn’t remotely enter my mind. It’s not even implied

    Consequently, I’m not setting out to insult anyone, and there is nothing in my post that is insulting.

    You keep imagining things that I’m not saying. You don’t seem to be able to read anything I write without relating it to yourself and your personal circumstances. I wasn’t talking about you, not trying to stir you up, only dealing with an interpretation of a particularly difficult bible verse. Personal comments or criticism is out of order.

    I do feel a need to reduce the posting here.

    I will make one small personal comment though despite what I have just said. I wish you could obtain a level of contentment in being single in the way my sister has. She didn’t want it either, she is a lot older than you. Seeing me get married and have a family must have rubbed it in a bit – and I thought I might end up staying single. But God doesn’t love anyone any more if they are married or any less if they are not.

    Ken,

    Come on now.

    We cannot let accuracy about what you are alleged to have said at some other time play a role here!

    What would blogging be without the misrepresentation of others’ views to make a point – for the greater good, of course.

  290. Ken wrote:

    I’ve never advocated any other understanding of this verse. I think you must be confusing me with someone else.

    This is a confusing paragraph??? I don’t believe I said anything about you advocating a different understanding. I don’t think I’m confusing you with someone else either. I actually quoted your comment

  291. okrapod wrote:

    @ Law Prof:

    I am not opposed to Ken’s opponents as some default position. Neither am I opposed to Ken. I am thinking that they have misunderstood him at times, but not always. I agree with Ken sometimes and sometimes not. Ken is not my issue.

    I am opposed to the idea that the birth of Jesus makes for a safe physical delivery of a child, and I am opposed to the idea of saying somebody has left their brains at the door is they do not agree that this was what Paul was saying. Paul was not such a crazy, and none of us who disagree with such as that have left our brains at the door. If people want to believe that for their own reasons they are at liberty to do so, but they need to lay off the insults.

    And I am opposed to the idea of leaving out the ‘if they continue…’ issue as though it were not there. It is part of the concept and cannot just be ignored in the discussion of the text since they significantly impact whatever it was that Paul was trying to say. That is to say impact the understanding of where he may have been headed with this. Again, people can do what they want with this, but those of us who end up with other ideas than Paul selling false hope to pregnant women have not done so in order to persecute or enslave? women -or whatever it is that I seem to keep hearing.

    Thinking that Paul might have been saying that childbearing and rearing ‘if they continue..’ has spiritual value has long been thought in christianity-and still is. That some people take it too far does not negate the core value of the idea. The excesses are wrong, but the idea that women are valuable as mothers is not wrong. And the idea that this may have played into Paul’s thinking, that he may actually have valued women as mothers, that is not some crazy off the chart idea either.

    There are some really good discussions of various ideas about this text on line. Some are wacko in my opinion if I understand what is being said, but some are well thought out and well reasoned. More than one of the ideas are worth consideration.

    Lay off the insults? Hey, this is a blog. A Christian blog at that. So it is a given that there are going to be insults – more so than on non-Chritian blogs.

    Kind of like church league softball is the most dangerous sport in the U.S.

    My nephew graduated from an Ivy League university last year. He picked up a double major in Philosophy. He has told me that the fun thing about philosophical debates, as opposed to theological debates, is that disagreement is expected and is handled with a professional attitude. He notes that theological debates most often turn ugly very quickly, with the chief problem being the misrepresentation of another’s views, and then arguing from that position.

  292. Anonymous wrote:

    What would blogging be without the misrepresentation of others’ views to make a point – for the greater good, of course.

    What a rude thing to say. I don’t believe anyone is purposefully misrepresenting anyone’s views.

  293. Bridget:

    I said it because it is true. I have been away from this topic for a few days, thankfully.

    I did not really keep score on who said what about Ken above, but it was insulting. It did not even need to be.

  294. Bridget:

    I am signing off and will not be back to look at this again.

    So I will leave you the last word – for good or whatever you want to say. I hope those who misrepresented Ken, whether intentionally or not, will apologize to him.

  295. Anonymous wrote:

    We cannot let accuracy about what you are alleged to have said at some other time play a role here!
    What would blogging be without the misrepresentation of others’ views to make a point – for the greater good, of course.

    I can only take it you’ve never actually read back and forth exchanges between Ken, myself, and several others here?

  296. @ Ken:

    Ken, as I’ve said on other posts in another thread or two, you are inconsistent in some of your views and/or in how you argue those views; you often back track on what you said earlier, etc.

    You waffle at times on your views, you will say ‘X’ but when later pressed on ‘X,’ you deny you ever said X.

    I’m not the only one who sees problems in how you communicate – others have seen the same things I have, and they’ve posted as much on other threads about it.

    Ken said,

    You don’t seem to be able to read anything I write without relating it to yourself and your personal circumstances.

    You do this as well at times. You say one big reason you are opposed to any and all women preaching or leading is that you consider women more prone to spiritual deception in turn because you saw some women at your last church whose doctrine you disagreed with.

    Ken said,

    I will make one small personal comment though despite what I have just said. I wish you could obtain a level of contentment in being single in the way my sister has. She didn’t want it either, she is a lot older than you.
    Seeing me get married and have a family must have rubbed it in a bit – and I thought I might end up staying single.
    But God doesn’t love anyone any more if they are married or any less if they are not.

    At times I am totally content with being single. (I was engaged for a few years but dumped the guy, so I know what a serious relationship is about.)

    As I’m getting older, the idea of marriage is looking less appealing to me, especially given all the abusive (and sexist) men I read about on these blogs.

    If your comments here (that I copied in my post) were meant to be a comfort(?), they actually came across as very condescending and as a veiled put down.

    My problem is not so much being single, but seeing so many other Christians marginalize, exclude, or mistreat singles (and diminish celibacy and being childless), and make marriage and family into little deities they worship.

    You have gone on in this thread or others, or mentioned in passing, about how vaunted marriage and family is, how women ought to all marry and have children….

    And you have said some comments, quite frankly, that sounded rude or dismissive about folks who are single, and who chose to skip motherhood or marriage (or who find themselves single against their choice), as though these are selfish, horrible, evil people, who are not living up to some supposed God-given command to marry and reproduce.

    God, on the other hand, is all well and good with singleness and people being childless.

  297. Law Prof wrote:

    I don’t think that’s what Ken’s opponents are getting at here, I haven’t seen anyone suggest salvation literally comes via childbirth or suggest that Ken believes that. What they’re saying is that Ken picks and chooses, without apparent merit or consistent principle, which method of Biblical analysis to apply to a given verse, and that when he claims he’s standing on the clear truth of God, because by gosh that’s what it says, black and white, without apparent regard for cultural and historical context, that he’s being inconsistent.

    Yes, that is my position.

    I do not think that the Bible teaches women are saved via childbirth, but to someone like Ken, who insists in this very wooden literal across the board approach to Scripture, he is very inconsistent on that.

    He picks and chooses when to be hyper wooden literal and insist such rules apply to all believers for all time, but in other instances, he’ll take a similar passage and qualify it to say “it’s not applicable to everyone today, or not to all people” etc.

  298. okrapod wrote:

    My point is and has been and continues to be that people who come to other conclusions that what you have concluded on this issue are not brainless wonders who have left their brains at the door. You are certainly constrained as are we all to arrive at whatever conclusions are most convincing to you, but that highway goes both ways.

    The thing is, though, Lydia’s understanding of these Pauline passages, from what I’ve seen of her posts the past year or two, is not being filtered through a sexist lens to find excuses to prohibit women from being given equal opportunities to men based on their gender.

    Doing that would be the gender- complementarian- Ken like guys who are doing that.

    The gender complementarians may not tell those of us who disagree with their interpretations we have “checked our brains at the door,”

    But I’ve been across enough of them over the years who don’t hesitate to accuse us of stuff like being selfish, we don’t take the Bible seriously or literally, we have been too influenced by secular feminism, etc.

    Why, Ken (who is a gender complementarian), was just informing us on an older thread that all or most women are, supposedly, more easily spiritually deceived than men, only due to having been born women.

  299. Lydia wrote:

    Does it count I was in comp churches for 20 years and surrounded by it?

    I was brought up in a gender complementarian family.

    My parents used to take me to churches that believe all the gender complementarian stuff, about men should be the head of the household, only men should be preachers, and so forth.

    Going further, my mother told me a few times my father does not believe women are as intelligent as men, and she did not believe that women should be politicians or leaders.

    My Mom never really explained why she felt that way in full, and I did not ask, because I was saddened and shocked to find out she felt that way. I didn’t want to hear anymore than I had.

    I grew up reading Christian magazines and literature that espoused Christian complementarianism, and I tried very hard from my childhood, teen years, and into adulthood to see it as true and believe it-

    However, I saw too many other examples in the Bible that contradicted what gender comps claim the Bible is saying about women, men, marriage, etc.

  300. okrapod wrote:

    Neither am I opposed to Ken.

    Well I’m glad soomebody isn’t! 🙂

    It might interest you a midwife in David Pawson’s church thought the meaning of this verse obvious. She said many women cry out to God in the agonies of giving birth (and I reckon many husbands who otherwise don’t believe find themselves praying the God will keep their wife safe). All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved. Nevertheless, this only continues to be effective if they continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

    Interesting, makes sense, but I’m not convinced. But isn’t this your area of expertise, and what do you make of it?

    What I do like about it is it paints a picture of a God who is willing to include people rather than exclude them, any turning towards him he will take seriously, even though he requires continuation in faith if any salvation he is willing to give is to be genuinely appropriated.

  301. Sorry Okrapod, the verse is the end of 1 Tim 2, and they continue, not they continues. I’m starting to sound like Gollum.

  302. Law Prof wrote:

    I think many here also believe that since he’s curious enough to come here and continue engaging with his opposition, that he’s sincere and perhaps open to other perspectives.

    I appreciate that coming from you, as you think we are different ends of a theological spectrum. I reckon in reality we are not, and have far more in common than you might suppose.

    I can hardly be accused of being unwilling to my views on this subject to criticism! They stem from a stream of conservative evangelical thinking that is not patriarchal, nor afraid of women, nor trying to prop up male privilege. They are, for want of a better term, moderate. They have evolved up to a point over the years.

    As for being inconsistent, I did, for example, botch a post to Daisy that gave the impression I don’t care about the historical and cultural context of Paul’s epistles. It was badly phrased. So I clarified it later. I don’t regard that as being inconsistent, and I don’t and never have claimed to have all the loose ends tied up on this theme.

    I do usually read the links to egalitarian sites, and have read some very articulate arguments in favour of that understanding. But just because someone posts a link to CBE does not obligate me to change my mind unless I find their version to be more compelling.

    Wade Burleson is obviously entitled to expound his view on silent women in the other current thread on this subject, but if you read it you will find some commentators who accept this version without question. I don’t think that is ever healthy. In other words, the danger of believing what you want to believe runs across the board on this issue.

    It’s also true that both sides can be guilty of pursuing an agenda different from getting at what apostolic teaching on this subject really is, and putting that into practice. And both sides need to be prepared to amend of change their views.

  303. Daisy wrote:

    Why, Ken (who is a gender complementarian), was just informing us on an older thread that all or most women are, supposedly, more easily spiritually deceived than men, only due to having been born women.

    I’m not going to get into an argument over this, Daisy, but I’ve said I don’t believe ‘women are more easily deceived than men’ so many times now, you have no excuse to keep repeating this. See my comment at Ken GERMANY on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 12:46 PM said: on the other thread for a detailed refutation of this over-simplification.

    Your post above also contains accusations of my putting down single women. You are imagining this, Daisy. It’s fiction.

    There is no communication going on here, and you really ought to stop saying ‘what Ken says’. It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks of my views, they are free to disregard them entirely, I don’t feel a need to have to justify them, but it is unhealthy for you to keep misrepresenting them.

    It may well be fair criticism I have pontificated on this subject more than a bit too often, though I am not alone in this!

    I may have communicated badly at times, but I’m not that bad.

  304. Ken wrote:

    what do you make of it?

    Somewhere years ago I read that this was an idea in Judaism-that women in labor might blaspheme God and that a method of forgiveness for this sin was in order. At the time they were talking about Jewish ideas regarding childbirth and post-childbirth ritual cleansing practices. No mention of any relationship to this verse however. If that is the case then I suppose Paul might have been addressing that issue, but we don’t usually see him justifying Jewish religions practices in that manner. And it seems out of place within the general intent of the larger passage. So, I don’t know what was going on in his mind, but I think this cannot be ruled out as a possibility, but it is not at the top of my list of possible explanations.

  305. okrapod wrote:

    I am opposed to the idea that the birth of Jesus makes for a safe physical delivery of a child, and I am opposed to the idea of saying somebody has left their brains at the door is they do not agree that this was what Paul was saying.

    Oh my goodness; if that is what I have communicated, then shame on me!

    Yes, lots of women died in childbirth. And they would continue to die in childbirth as believers, too. The difference is because of the birth of Messiah, they will live again.

    They would be “saved” in the childbearing of Messiah because believers only die a physical death if they continue to believe and not follow after Pagan god’s to protect them.

    So yes they die but their hope is now in Messiah, Jesus, Who conquered death for us.

    I hope that clears up my view.

  306. Anonymous wrote:

    Ken wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    All of our translations come out of a state church mentality where the monarch (elector/princes/etc) is the ruler of the church

    I have enough Anglican blood in me to be aware of the influence of the Church of England on the KJV, for example, baptise instead of dip, Easter, and the word bishop.

    I think you missed the point of what I was getting at. Without a thorough hard-won knowledge of the original languages, it isn’t possible to say much about how a word should be translated, especially in any one context. Googling a Greek interlinear can be useful but is no substitute for acquiring the language, grammar vocabulary and syntax, and a little knowledge can be dangerous. Same is true of Vine’s Expository Dictionary.

    So I agree that linguists should decide how to translate the bible, though for good or ill most who are capable of doing this will have a theological education as well. The sheer number of EN versions at least means we can guard against theological or denominational bias creeping in. This is true of some evangelical versions which occasionally try to smooth out difficulties.

    It’s a moot point whether translation is a science or an art.

    This is the background to my caution above about changing Heb 13 : 17 away from obey. German versions have the word too!

    So I think it is best to accept the majority rendition of the underlying Greek word as obey, and then go on to ask how this is to be applied, or how it relates to the rest of the NT. And no, I don’t think it is absolute when applied to men, but it is absolute when it comes to NT instructions on how we should live. You know, ‘why do you call me Lord Lord and do not do what I tell you’ etc.

    Ken, your observations about education and translation are spot on.

    I also believe this to be an application issue.

    Even if the translation contradicts the inspired words of Jesus penned elsewhere? This is something I will never understand.

  307. @ Ken:
    In this day and time, They might want to try an epidural. :o) Orthodixy and Tradition tried to make relieving pain in chilbirth a sin against God.

  308. Ken wrote:

    I’m not going to get into an argument over this, Daisy, but I’ve said I don’t believe ‘women are more easily deceived than men’ so many times now, you have no excuse to keep repeating this.

    I an sorry Ken but you have implied that here many times in many threads. Over and over.

  309. GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:

    Daisy and Ken
    Take a time out on the gender comp issue for a few days.

    And everyone else.

    All positions have been stated. Many times over for some of them.

    Let’s drop it for a while.

  310. @ Lydia:

    Entonox is the answer. A development of laughing gas. It takes you out of the pain, whilst leaving you with it enough to do what the midwife says. My wife swears by it. And it also allows enriched oxygen to the mother whilst the baby is being born that is healthy for both.

    The Germans think this is something from the middle ages, but it has virtually no risks or side effects, so for once the British healthcare system is better!

  311. Lydia wrote:

    In this day and time, They might want to try an epidural. :o) Orthodixy and Tradition tried to make relieving pain in chilbirth a sin against God.

    And also in this day and time we have women who voluntarily forgo pain med of any kind during childbirth in order to do the ‘natural’ thing. And then brag about it later. I ran into this over in the labor and delivery suite when one of my grandkids was born. Both the OB and the anesthesia people made sure that the option of going natural had been thoroughly considered by the patient. Who would have thought. So I am saying that not everything can be blamed on religious orthodoxy or on tradition. There are a lot of ideas and philosophies out there that wind up in the same place.

  312. GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:

    Take a time out on the gender comp issue for a few days.

    I’m more than happy with this.

    What was a healthy discussion has started to become a treadmill, and I’m glad to get off it – and I appreciate the gentle shove! Sometimes it’s difficult to stop when you know you ought to.

  313. @ GBTC

    Got it. But I do not think this text is about gender comp but rather about something else entirely. I would like to post my idea in response to @ Lydia: over on the ODP if that is OK with you.

    Maybe you could read my response first and see if I can proceed down that lane or not.

    Thanks.

  314. Lydia wrote:

    Even if the translation contradicts the inspired words of Jesus penned elsewhere?

    I assume you mean about not lording it over the flock. We all agree that this is obligatory for all Christians, and especially leaders as the ‘successors’ to the apostles to whom the words were addressed.

    Providing they do this, doesn’t this make it safe to obey and submit to your leaders, whether garnished with the Greek nuances or not? And isn’t the submitting more a corporate/collective thing rather than each member submitting their life to a pastor? The general direction of the church rather than where you are going on holiday? And if they do want to know our holiday or living room redecoration plans without due reason, shouldn’t we – in love – tell them to get lost?

    I don’t see any need to reconcile Heb with the words of Jesus, because they are already friends!

  315. Ken wrote:

    I don’t see any need to reconcile Heb with the words of Jesus, because they are already friends!

    The current state of much of Evangelical Christianity begs to differ.

  316. Ken wrote:

    I assume you mean about not lording it over the flock. We all agree that this is obligatory for all Christians, and especially leaders as the ‘successors’ to the apostles to whom the words were addressed.

    I mean much more than that. Each believer has access to the same Holy Spirit. Each believer can have anointing. Each believer is responsible and accountable for who they listen to and who they follow. We are all to be Bereans. It is a good thing.

    It is worrisome that some focus on submission so much.

  317. Ken wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    I think many here also believe that since he’s curious enough to come here and continue engaging with his opposition, that he’s sincere and perhaps open to other perspectives.
    I appreciate that coming from you, as you think we are different ends of a theological spectrum. I reckon in reality we are not, and have far more in common than you might suppose.

    I agree, I sincerely doubt we come from different ends of the spectrum. I believe Jesus is Lord and God, the only way to Heaven, that our own righteousness is worthless, that the Bible is inspired by God, that it represents historical truth. I’m a conservative Christian, bet we agree on each of those points. But I also believe a certain ugliness has infiltrated the church, that at bottom it’s man-centric and dims the light on Jesus. It manifests itself in church hierarchies that are not biblical, in excessive attention to details that are not central to the faith, such as neocalvinist doctrines of grace or eternal subordination of the Son or baptism methods or modes of dress or umbrellas of covering and other such nonsense. A lot of Christians who ought to know better fall into this trap for a time, sometimes a lifetime. Thus, it is extremely dangerous.

  318. Max wrote:

    Florence in KY wrote:

    pinto beans and cornbread (flavored with bacon drippings)

    Oh yes, the preferred food of all Americans living south of the Mason-Dixon line! If you don’t eat this at least once per month, you don’t have Southern ancestry. While beans and cornbread are off the blog topic, I must ask if you put sugar in your cornbread? However, to bring it back on topic, I’m almost certain that Christians who dine on pinto beans and cornbread cooked with bacon grease are less susceptible to falling victim to authoritarian charlatans in the pulpit.

    NEVER put sugar in cornbread!! Sweetened cornbread is an abomination.
    So there.

  319. GSD wrote:

    I often think that if the founders of the USA had truly submitted to authority, we Yanks would be singing God Save the Queen before cricket matches. Which might not be so bad really ( he said, as he poured his second cup of Earl Grey).

    I wouldn’t sing God Save the Queen if you paid me. There is NO QUEEN. (I know, I get a wee bit radical on this subject. Blame my Irish ancestors.)

  320. zooey111 wrote:

    I wouldn’t sing God Save the Queen if you paid me.

    Could you not copyright the tune under My Country Tis of Thee, thereby giving us an excuse to have a decent British anthem? This dirge was ironically an anthem of the States until 1931, and the same tune was used by the Germans until the end of WW1.

  321. @ Law Prof:
    Yes, there is a lot of agreement!

    I don’t think there are secondary doctrines in the bible in the sense we are free to ignore them, but very definitely there are different priorities. There is an irreducible minimum without which there is no meaningful concept of being a Christian. But you are right that it is possible to elevate something of low priority and make it the be all and end all.

    It’s also possible to take on a particular doctrinal stance as a reaction against something. Sadly it is only too true about a man-centric approach to church life, and this goes way beyond church growth gurus. Adopting neo-calvinism or being attracted to reformed theology is sometimes a reaction against thinking that puts man in control of the salvation process or in some other way play fast and loose with the bible, with the attendent danger of swinging from one illegitimate extreme to the other.

  322. Ken wrote:

    zooey111 wrote:

    I wouldn’t sing God Save the Queen if you paid me.

    Could you not copyright the tune under My Country Tis of Thee, thereby giving us an excuse to have a decent British anthem? This dirge was ironically an anthem of the States until 1931, and the same tune was used by the Germans until the end of WW1.

    You all have a p#*! poor anthem IMO.
    It can’t be copyrighted at all, because it is too old (at least here in the US, we put a limit on how long people can copyright things; God alone knows what you do over there).
    And I repeat: there is no one on this earth who has the right to call herself a “queen”, just as there is no one qualified to call himslef “king”. There is one King, & He is the King of Heaven & Earth. I can’t help it. I am probably being contrary, like my mother, who, God bless her,was led (of God) to refuse to get an M.A. because “there is only one Master”. (She made up for it by accumulating enough hours for 3 doctorates, & a bit over….. We are a strong-minded lot; my grandmother spent her first election day as a voter by ushering other women into the polls as protection against rotten eggs & more than a few rocks).

  323. zooey111 wrote:

    NEVER put sugar in cornbread!! Sweetened cornbread is an abomination.
    So there.

    CORNBREAD ALERT: for years, my daughter has looked for a round cornbread skillet that is divided into 8 triangles (wedges). My husband had to go to .rural King Store in Muhlenburg County day before yesterday, so I asked him to look there. He found one! I have to go to the town my daughter lives in today and I am taking the skillet to her. She will have good cornbread tonight!
    Fare at my house tonight will be North meets South – Yankee beans (Jacob’s Cattle Beans) with cornbread and pork tenderloin!

  324. Nancy2 wrote:

    zooey111 wrote:

    NEVER put sugar in cornbread!! Sweetened cornbread is an abomination.
    So there.

    CORNBREAD ALERT: for years, my daughter has looked for a round cornbread skillet that is divided into 8 triangles (wedges). My husband had to go to .rural King Store in Muhlenburg County day before yesterday, so I asked him to look there. He found one! I have to go to the town my daughter lives in today and I am taking the skillet to her. She will have good cornbread tonight!
    Fare at my house tonight will be North meets South – Yankee beans (Jacob’s Cattle Beans) with cornbread and pork tenderloin!

    You should have mentioned this sooner. They are made by the Lodge Cast Iron people.

    OK:
    That came out wrong. Feel free to laugh at all the iron folks.

  325. Ken wrote:

    @ Law Prof:
    Yes, there is a lot of agreement!
    I don’t think there are secondary doctrines in the bible in the sense we are free to ignore them, but very definitely there are different priorities. There is an irreducible minimum without which there is no meaningful concept of being a Christian. But you are right that it is possible to elevate something of low priority and make it the be all and end all.

    Right, and there are things in the Bible that may have been meant for a particular audience at a particular time, or that are descriptive rather than prescriptive, or that apply to a given situation and we should follow the spirit but not the letter, e.g., “slaves obey your masters”. Of course, nothing is to be ignored, all’s God-breathed, but not everything is to be followed–such as the Moses Model of leadership, which probably became defunct with the death of Moses, and certainly became defunct upon the Holy Spirit dwelling in each believer.

    The biggest issue I have is not with someone saying “Nothing in the Bible should be ignored”, because I whole-heartedly agree, but when people take their interpretation of a given verse or passage on a secondary matter, often arguably out of context, then insist upon their particular take on that secondary matter being an essential. And that is the primary problem I have with the gang that is so often exposed on TWW, they major in minors, and too often, one can make the argument that they’re not even getting those minor issues quite right.