Open Discussion Page

Most comment policies for the blog are in effect on this page as well. However, we will not monitor the length of comments (unless some wise guy plays a game), the direction of the discussions or the relevance of the discussions. The Deebs may or may not participate in the discussion, depending on busyness of the current posts. In other words, go for it. This page is subject to change as we work out the inevitable issues.

Please note that the usual restrictions on personal attacks and other rude behavior still apply here.

Update: 660 comments in 3 weeks. Not bad. Since infinite is a bad idea in how big a page can be on a web site I’m changing things so comments are split into pages of 500 per page. Nothing is gone. Just click on the link for older comments. (GBTC)

Comments

Open Discussion Page — 6,803 Comments

  1. refugee wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    Ken wrote:
    There are duties placed on the husband that are not placed on the wife.
    Still wondering what these are.
    I guess he would answer “loving your wife as Christ loves the church”

    So what would that have meant to a 1st century Ephesian audience? That is the question. Jesus Christ refers to those who belong to Him (church) in interesting ways. We are His children, His Siblings, His Family, Saints, etc. He is the “kephale” as in “source” for sustaining the Body. Kens favorite clobber passage is not about authority. It is about being filled with the Holy Spirit. People who are filled with the HS submit to one another.

  2. Ken wrote:

    worked out in the love, cherishing, nourishing, being considerate and bestowing honour. This is not an instruction intended for the wife.

    An instruction not intended for the wife?????
    So, God never intended for wives to love, cherish, be considerate to, or bestow honor on their husbands. These are “duties” assigned only to husbands.

  3. Muff Potter wrote:

    Let’s face it, a lot of this stuff is derived in a roundabout way from the text and is simply not there even with the so-called perspicuity many exegetes claim.
    I have come to the same conclusions about ‘spiritual death’, ‘separation from God’, ‘broken fellowship’, and ‘Adam’s rebellion’. They are not there, and must be helicoptered into the text in order to buttress the whole of Augustine’s theology.

    I agree and each concept you mention would make great discussion topics!

  4. refugee wrote:

    she respects him, but he doesn’t respect her? He doesn’t have to treat her with respect, just love. Hmmm. Makes the wife sound like a child, a pet, or a teddy bear.

    My granddaddy had an eerily similar relationship with his mules.

  5. @ Nancy2:
    That sounded too weird. I guess I’d better expand. My granddaddy took good care of his mules. He treated them in a lovingly authoritative manner. He fed them, groomed them, and housed them. They didn’t have to love him, they just had to “submit” to his leadership.

  6. Ken wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    Wonder no longer!
    The husband has to be what the word ‘head’ means, worked out in the love, cherishing, nourishing, being considerate and bestowing honour. This is not an instruction intended for the wife. The duties to use an old-fashioned word are not mutual. The submission in this context is also not mutual, it is only explicitly directed to wives.
    If you want this fleshed out, this is where it gets harder imo. We need to think about this, but not come up with legalistic rules. If a wife is to ‘submit’, what exactly does she do or not do?
    It should result in an incredible unity, husband and wife becoming closer than blood-relatives, and complementing each other.

    So you would actually tell a 21st century Christian wife she is not to love, cherish, nourish or honor her husband? That is only for the husband? (Do you think the husbands in Philippi knew this? Hee)

    But the wife should also “phobeo” her husband in that passage. It is where we get the word phobia. The Greek says it means fear, terrified, frighten. It is ironically translated as “respect”. (It can also mean to take flight)

    Why would Paul tell 1st Century wives in the body of Christ to live in fear of their husbands?

  7. Lydia wrote:

    Jesus Christ refers to those who belong to Him (church) in interesting ways. We are His children, His Siblings, His Family, Saints, etc. He is the “kephale” as in “source” for sustaining the Body. Kens favorite clobber passage is not about authority.

    Do you actually think that Jesus was mistaken in thinking that ‘all authority’ had been given to him? What you have said here sounds too close to saying that Jesus is not authority in relation to us.

    I know you all have this particular understanding of kephale, but it can perhaps be carried too far sometimes.

  8. okrapod wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    Jesus Christ refers to those who belong to Him (church) in interesting ways. We are His children, His Siblings, His Family, Saints, etc. He is the “kephale” as in “source” for sustaining the Body. Kens favorite clobber passage is not about authority.
    Do you actually think that Jesus was mistaken in thinking that ‘all authority’ had been given to him? What you have said here sounds too close to saying that Jesus is not authority in relation to us.
    I know you all have this particular understanding of kephale, but it can perhaps be carried too far sometimes.

    Of course I don’t think Jesus was mistaken in that all authority had been given to Him. He is/was God in the Flesh. The question is how He lived out that “authority and power” as the Incarnate God in the Flesh.

    I do get your concern as I have heard this many times before and we do tend to think in terms of power/authority in most of our relationships. Why do we revert to that?

    The irony is Jesus had all power/authority He did not use the way we (and them at the time) understand its use. (Phil 2 speaks to this)

    In the Ephesian passage the theme is not about power at all. It is not about Jesus having power over us and passing down some of that power to husbands for the earthly realm. It is about being children of light and being filled with the Holy Spirit and how that might work out in 1st Century Ephesus.

    The entire Incarnation was one that did not make sense to them at that time and perhaps it still does not to us. God came as a lowly human with no earthly power or wealth… Yet, He owned it all. He could command 10,000 angels but did not. He told the earthly Jewish authorities to tear this “Temple” down and He would raise it up in 3 days. And He did.

    He used His power and authority to heal the sick and feed thousands.

    I think there is a take away for all of us there…..:o)

  9. Ken wrote:

    It should result in an incredible unity, husband and wife becoming closer than blood-relatives, and complementing each other.

    Yeah. A wife doesn’t really need to love her husband in order for a marriage to be a close, incredible union. Whether or not the wife loves the husband is completely irrelevant in a good marriage.

  10. Lydia wrote:

    okrapod wrote:
    I know you all have this particular understanding of kephale, but it can perhaps be carried too far sometimes.

    Oops. Hit send too soon. I get where you are coming from. It gets a bit tricky. In the 1st Century the husband was the “source” for the wife because of the Paterfamilias code. The “head” was the “source” for the body to sustain it. That is metaphorical when it comes to Jesus Christ…He is our sustainer and provider of life.

    Women were not running down to the Ephesus women’s shelter when they were abused or neglected. They lived with it. They were not going to the Ephesus community college for skills to become independent. When read in that context, it is easier to understand Paul was being a bit radical when he dared to write that believers in the Body were to submit to one another. Unthinkable in that day and time.

    It gets even more interesting how they viewed the “head”. As in literal “head” on the shoulders. It was not the source for thinking or decisions. The heart was thought to be the source for thinking and making decisions. (You see that referred to all the time in scripture) They believed the heart is where thoughts came from. Not the head (brain)

    There was nothing worse for a poor woman in the 1st Century than not to have a male protector whether father or husband. It was simply how life worked. He was her source for everything: Food,shelter, protection, etc.

    All this makes the women mentioned in Luke 8 very interesting, indeed.

  11. Another thing I find curious within the whole comp doctrine construct is very little mention of the married Apostles who were not cherishing, nourishing, their wives but were gone all the time. Even traveling with married and single women who were supporting them! From what we can gather Peter’s wife was living with her parents.

    Some scholars speculate that Paul had been married but perhaps she died. It was very rare for a man of his standing and education in that world not to be married.

  12. @ Lydia:

    I got that, but then you got into what sounded like Jesus is not ‘authority’ himself. Perhaps you did not mean it to sound like that. Perhaps you meant something like ‘in this instance’ or ‘considering the circumstances’ but that is not what I read in what you said. You sounded like you were saying that Jesus is not authority because of the use of the word kephale. Now, from previous conversations I spent more time on this that was worth it, but those two ideas do not need to bleed onto each other.

    We all know who likes ‘source’ and who likes ‘authority’ and why–about five minutes on google will settle that issue. But when a ‘source’ advocate goes so far as to say that kephale cannot mean authority even when it refers to Jesus because, apparently, Jesus is not like that, well, oops and oops on that. And that is what you seemed to me to be saying. I am saying that Jesus is like that. He called it correct to call him lord and master. He spoke of his commandments. And there is always the father and I are one. He just has authority written all over him, regardless of what word is used and where.

    Now if you all want to say that yes he does but that is not what the conversation was about that Paul was into, that is one thing. To say that Jesus is not like that is a different issue.

  13. Nancy, I get it now. Sorry. Yes, when authority is being communicated there are very clear Greek words for it such as exousia and archon. Ironically, the only place “authority” is used in a passage about marriage is in 1 Corin 7. :o)

  14. Ken wrote:

    So I’m not saying a wife = child = slave. But we’ve done all this before!

    Yet you use the reference to masters/slaves and parents/children to bolster your notion that the marital relationship is not mutual. Your arguments are not consistent, and that is why we keep going around in circles. If you want to say that the marital relationship cannot be mutual because the other relationships are not mutual, then you are saying that a married woman stands in the same relationship to her husband WRT subordination that a slave or child does to his/her master or parent.

  15. Victorious wrote:

    it seems the concrete answers are still nowhere to be found.

    It takes a lot of words to explain how God said something he never actually said but which certain individuals believe that he should have said and what he actually meant by what he did not ever actually say. That sentence is every bit as clear as any you will find in RBMW.

  16. okrapod wrote:

    We all know who likes ‘source’ and who likes ‘authority’ and why–about five minutes on google will settle that issue. But when a ‘source’ advocate goes so far as to say that kephale cannot mean authority even when it refers to Jesus because, apparently, Jesus is not like that, well, oops and oops on that. And that is what you seemed to me to be saying.

    I don’t feel the need to say that when the passage itself is not communicating that particular characteristic of Jesus Christ. However, perhaps I should always have a disclaimer for those who think I am promoting a wimpy Jesus? :o)

  17. okrapod wrote:

    What you have said here sounds too close to saying that Jesus is not authority in relation to us.

    I know you all have this particular understanding of kephale, but it can perhaps be carried too far sometimes.

    In the immediate context of the Christ/Church metaphor, the Paul describes exactly what he means by “head.” Self-sacrificial love and provision. There is no mention of authority of Christ over the Church in that text. That does not mean that, therefore, Christ does not have authority over the Church. It does mean that the idea of a husband having authority over his wife because Christ has authority over the Church is foreign to the actual information we have in the actual text about what Paul meant by the metaphor. In other words, while Christ has authority, his authority is not the topic Paul is discussing.

  18. @ Lydia:
    Sorry, I should have been more clear. I know you were talking about Eph. 5, but okrapod was referring to Matt. 28.

  19. Lydia wrote:

    So what would that have meant to a 1st century Ephesian audience? That is the question. Jesus Christ refers to those who belong to Him (church) in interesting ways. We are His children, His Siblings, His Family, Saints, etc. He is the “kephale” as in “source” for sustaining the Body. Kens favorite clobber passage is not about authority. It is about being filled with the Holy Spirit. People who are filled with the HS submit to one another.

    Gram3 wrote:

    There is no mention of authority of Christ over the Church in that text.

    That authority over the church exists whether or not it is mentioned every time. It seems impossible to me to think that the Ephesians were so poorly catechized that they would not know this. If the conversation includes what would the Ephesians be thinking, surely they were also thinking this.

  20. Lydia wrote:

    So what does “head” mean? Have you studied the usage of kephale in other Ancient Greek texts?

    Ken said on another thread that he thinks that people studying stuff outside the Bible, and/or using “extra biblical texts,” is a “liberal” practice, and so, it seems, should not be done.

    I addressed that here (which contains a link back to his post where he explains his view about how to study the Bible):
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/10/09/al-mohler-adds-another-volume-to-his-impressive-stack-of-books-guest-post-by-todd-wilhelm/comment-page-1/#comment-224928

    So, I would guess he would probably not be in favor of anyone doing studies of ancient Greek to understand what “kephale” means, and certainly not to understand how the cultures in which the Bible, and their audience, would understand it.

    I guess you are supposed to be like a KJV Onlyist and assume that the English translations of the Bible fell out of the sky magically, with no context or history, and were written only for English readers of the 17th century and beyond, readers in the UK and the USA?

    Apostle Paul was not a Jewish guy who lived about 2,000 years ago writing to Gentiles and Jews of the Middle East or ancient Rome, but was, rather, a Southern Baptist from Alabama in 1994 writing only to Americans. Or something.

  21. Lydia wrote:

    But the wife should also “phobeo” her husband in that passage. It is where we get the word phobia. The Greek says it means fear, terrified, frighten. It is ironically translated as “respect”. (It can also mean to take flight)

    This talk of the original languages of the New Testament reminds me of this page (this is page 2, I believe the link to page 1 is on page 2, if you’d like to see page 1)
    Ken also needs to read stuff like this to see how sexism taints Bible translating:

    Will A Truly Honest Bible Translation for Women Ever Be Made?
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/will-truly-honest-bible-translation-women-ever-be-made-part-2?page=show

  22. @ okrapod:
    Jesus told his followers not to lord authority over one another, but gender comps continually seek out authority, and preach that men should be in authority over women. That is the pertinent issue.

    Also, Lydia is correct that while Jesus had authority, he did not boss other people around with it, like gender comps want to do towards women.

  23. okrapod wrote:

    That authority over the church exists whether or not it is mentioned every time.

    It does not conclude from this, however, that the Ephesians (or other passages) are saying that husbands have “boss like” authority over their spouses.

  24. @ Daisy:

    Here is one problem with the whole argument on both sides. I think the kephale as source argument can end up with seeing a Jesus who is not authoritative and seeing church as just one big group hug, but the kephale as authority argument can end up with Jesus passing his own authority down to every male on the planet. Neither of these conclusions is satisfactory. But when one is dealing with bullies and tyrants, which is what people both male and female easily become, then it becomes difficult to address the issue.

    We must not forget that the gentle Jesus meek and mild view, while itself a legitimate view, is also the Jesus of the letters to the seven churches who basically did not hesitate to jerk some knots where needed. We just really, IMO, must not lose site of either view of Jesus.

  25. okrapod wrote:

    f the conversation includes what would the Ephesians be thinking, surely they were also thinking this.

    You know it just dawned on me that I totally miscommunicated. I hope I was not claiming to know what the Ephesian hearers were “thinking”. All I can do is study the cultural context and see how they might have understood certain concepts. “Head” has been used as a club so I thought it important to do some study.

    As I mentioned earlier the terms exousia and/or archon would have communicated power and authority to them but most likely kephale would not. The closest I could find to that meaning was “first among equals” used in conjunction with some earthly rulers in secular Greek.

    And this head/body metaphor mapped to Christ was included in a letter that communicated His power/authority early on. From what I have gathered they communicated a lot more in metaphors and other devices than we do. We tend to be much more literal— from what I can gather in my limited scholarly attempts. Some scholars are into showing the chiasm in Ephesians where the central point is in the middle. Makes it even more interesting.

    Here is one example:

    http://www.valdes.titech.ac.jp/~h_murai/bible/49_Ephesians_pericope_e.html

  26. okrapod wrote:

    Here is one problem with the whole argument on both sides. I think the kephale as source argument can end up with seeing a Jesus who is not authoritative and seeing church as just one big group hug, but the kephale as authority argument can end up with Jesus passing his own authority down to every male on the planet. Neither of these conclusions is satisfactory. But when one is dealing with bullies and tyrants, which is what people both male and female easily become, then it becomes difficult to address the issue.
    We must not forget that the gentle Jesus meek and mild view, while itself a legitimate view, is also the Jesus of the letters to the seven churches who basically did not hesitate to jerk some knots where needed. We just really, IMO, must not lose site of either view of Jesus.

    I’m no longer codependent, so believe me, I already get this more than you know.

    I myself have said either on this blog or JA’s in the past that Christians either present a
    1. Tough Guy Jesus or a
    2. Meek, Mild, unthreatening Jesus.

    The truth is Jesus was both those things, both points 1 and 2, and he was everything in between. And men and women are to emulate ALL those qualities, all of Jesus.

    I have said on here in the past on older threads that there is not a pink, sweet, passive Jesus for girls to emulate, and a blue, tough Jesus for the boys to emulate.

    I was raised by a gender comp mother. Gender comp is the same as codependency, so I was presented with this view of Jesus that he is this super gentle, wimpy type of guy.

    I was also raised to think that was the appropriate way for Christian women to be – passive, unassertive, always sweet and agreeable. So my mother brought me up to think I should be a very passive, un-assertive doormat.

    I get that Jesus could be a tough guy at times and that he had authority.
    However, I don’t see how disputing the gender comp understanding of certain passages entails the idea that Jesus automatically becomes a wimpy wimp, or that I myself must believe that Jesus was a powerless wimp.

    I don’t believe Jesus was a wimp.

    Jesus voluntarily laid aside his authority at times (to accomplish tasks here on earth the Father sent him to do), he did not abuse his authority or position, or scream at followers to submit.

    Jesus asked, pleaded, “if you love me, obey me.” He did not shout it, demand it, etc, as gender comps do towards women.

  27. I think this applies to Christian gender complementarianism and sexism:

    “Nominal Christians are becoming more secular, and that’s creating a startling change for the U.S.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11/04/nominal-christians-becoming-more-secular-and-thats-creating-a-startling-change-for-the-u-s/

    The relevant snippet:

    by Ed Stetzer

    And Christians have not always used influence well. The 1950s may have been a time when Christian religiosity peaked in 20th-century America, but it is not a golden era to be recaptured. Ask any African American who lived through that time. Many Christians, to our shame, used religion as a justification for racism, not a mandate to advocate for justice.

  28. Daisy wrote:

    by Ed Stetzer
    And Christians have not always used influence well. The 1950s may have been a time when Christian religiosity peaked in 20th-century America, but it is not a golden era to be recaptured. Ask any African American who lived through that time. Many Christians, to our shame, used religion as a justification for racism, not a mandate to advocate for justice.

    Mr. Ed is clearly referring to MALE African Americans!

  29. @ okrapod:
    The point is what is meant by “head” in that text, and in that text the meaning of “head” is not authority. Those who want to maintain male “headship” in the sense of authority are importing a meaning into the text which is not there. Certainly the Ephesians knew that Christ has absolute authority. The question we are considering, however, is what is the extent of the analogy of Christ to the husband? We can be certain that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between Christ and the husband, and we can also be certain that “authority” is and was not the only meaning of kephale. It is the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy, but no one will call them on it because female subordination is dogma. I am arguing for a consistent hermeneutic.

  30. Daisy wrote:

    Ken said on another thread that he thinks that people studying stuff outside the Bible, and/or using “extra biblical texts,” is a “liberal” practice, and so, it seems, should not be done.

    Then we should not use any lexicons, any translations, and not much of anything at all except the original manuscripts. Oops. Even the most conservative inerrantist knows that we do not have the original manuscripts, so we are out of luck, it seems.

  31. okrapod wrote:

    We just really, IMO, must not lose site of either view of Jesus.

    Yes, and we must also not forget that Jesus is unique and his power and glory is not transferable to other men. Or women. No patriarchy and no matriarchy, either. One in Christ.

  32. ISTM that the CBMW, T4G, the Gospel Coalition, the SBC’s BF&M 2000, and men like Ken make it sound like salvation for a married couple hinges on “loving headship” by the husband and “joyful submission” by the wife.
    If you’re not married. …. Oh, well. We’ll figure something out. Columns on dating advice, maybe?

  33. Nancy2 wrote:

    ISTM that the CBMW, T4G, the Gospel Coalition, the SBC’s BF&M 2000, and men like Ken make it sound like salvation for a married couple hinges on “loving headship” by the husband and “joyful submission” by the wife.

    Some have done to marriage what the Pharisees did to the Sabbath. They arbitrarily added so many prohibitions that it became burdensome rather than the day of rest, worship and refreshment it was meant to be. Jesus had to remind them that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

    Some have imposed heavy restrictions and prohibitions that have made marriage burdensome rather than the joyful, mutually beneficial relationship it was meant to be.

    Call them Pharisees.

  34. Ken wrote:

    The husband has to be what the word ‘head’ means, worked out in the love, cherishing, nourishing, being considerate and bestowing honour. This is not an instruction intended for the wife. The duties to use an old-fashioned word are not mutual. The submission in this context is also not mutual, it is only explicitly directed to wives.

    Thanks for the response. I just don’t see it though. There is not one item appropriated to the husband that is not also appropriated to the wife in the sense of the couple being fellow believers in Christ.

  35. Ken wrote:

    The duties to use an old-fashioned word are not mutual. The submission in this context is also not mutual, it is only explicitly directed to wives.

    Snippet:

    Peter likewise addresses the same societal situations writing, “Yea all of you be subject to another, and be clothed with humility” (I Peter 5:5).
    Being subject to or subjecting oneself to another deals with mutual respect one for the other, and it should not convey the loss of one’s right to make choices.
    It should not be taught as an attitude or action required only for women in relation to husbands or any male figure.

    Source:
    http://www.godswordtowomen.org/submission.htm

    Another snippet, same page:

    This term “head” is consistently misunderstood today. First, let us understand that the term is non-hierarchical. Paul is elucidating the point of origin for each. His purpose is to address disorder in worship within the Church. Were he setting up a hierarchy, God would not be listed last.

  36. @ okrapod:
    I wonder if the Jesus depicted in that section of Revelations has anything at all to do with the Jesus of the Gospels. Honestly, it is such a difficult book, being apocalyptic and therefore full of strange symbolism, cryptic statements and rather (to me) unhinged-sounding visions of war, chaos and death.

    The Eastetn Orthodox churches tend to stay pretty far away from this book, even though it’s still part of their canon, due to some pretty awful past invidents (including a mass suicide in Russia several centuries ago) due to misinterpretation. I so wish American Protestants would

    a) Learn about the literary genres used in both the OT and NT

    b) quit treating one book of the Bible as a template for the future

    c) focus primarily on the Gospels

    d) fall out of love with this book, period

    Now, i probably sound too extreme here, and i do see some good things in parts of the book, but evangelicals are the latest in a long, long line of people who have become overly fixated on trying to make *literal* sense of tjisntext (decode the imagery and so on). I don’t see a single thing about that thst is good or positive, and kind of like the idea (proposed by a number of people during the Reformation, and, iirc, before that) that this book would be better off out of the canon altogether. (Not as radical as it sounds; some of the books and letters that were widely read snd used like scripture during the 1st few centuries of the church didn’t make the cut per the canon. They’re not “bad” book/letters by any means.)

  37. Gram3 wrote:

    Then we should not use any lexicons, any translations, and not much of anything at all except the original manuscripts

    Daisy said this before, I clarified what I meant (yes, I do believe we should use everything at our disposal to help understand the text with a verbatim quotation), she really shouldn’t still be saying this.

  38. @ numo:

    A lot of people think that, but I think the letters to the churches are almost like a whole separate thing. Perhaps next time I make the same point about Jesus I will need to quote from illustrations in the gospels. That is a bit more labored approach but it can be done.

    Either way, the letters in Rev do show some early thinking about Jesus. So as long as the conversations revolve around what people were thinking back when, and what something might have meant back when, and the current focus on trying to replicate the early church ideas and procedures (and or drop certain ideas as being culture bound to cultures now gone) then the Rev letter are part of the conversation if for nothing else an insight into back then.

  39. @ Gram3:

    I certainly agree with you. Sometimes, however, people seem to argue backwards in that passage. Thusly. Since the relationship between husband and wife is not one of master and servant much less owner and slave, then the relationship between Christ and the church is not one of master and servant much less owner and slave. Then sometimes people wander off into how Jesus is none of that-based on the person and character of Jesus. However, master and servant (also translated as slave) are ideas used in scripture to describe Jesus and the relationship between us and Christ. It is not the only descriptive terminology or analogy, but it has a distinct presence in scripture.

    This is what my issue is–not marriage or marital relationships. I don’t know how I can be more clear, but if I knew how I would.

  40. @ okrapod:
    When Paul wrote those letters, wives were completely dependant on their husbands. Their survival meant relying on their husbands.
    We are completely dependant on Jesus, but not in the same way. The “survival” of our eternal souls are completely dependant upon Him.

  41. Nancy2 wrote:

    We are completely dependant on Jesus, but not in the same way. The “survival” of our eternal souls are completely dependant upon Him.

    I think we are dependent for more than just our souls, but that is not the issue and I hear what you are saying. The stewardship committee just tried to get more money out of all of us by saying that we need to be trusting god and therefore basically bankrupting ourselves by giving to the church. That approach did now work, but limiting dependency on God to just our souls is too far on the other end also IMO.

    But listen to what else you said through my ears. You said ” When Paul wrote those letters, wives were completely dependant on their husbands. Their survival meant relying on their husbands.” Certainly, but I hear people arguing that use of the word ‘head’ in that context would not mean that the people hearing ‘head’ would associate it with authority. Maybe I am dense, but why on earth in that culture and context would they not associate ‘head’ with authority? And I am thinking authority which carried with it responsibility. Where would they get the idea that Paul was not saying that?

    Let me say here, because I don’t know if you were here when we had this conversation in the past, but I do not have a dog in this translation issue because I (and my ilk) have a very different idea of the role and function of scripture. I have nothing to lose personally which ever way the argument goes, because I do not think our understanding needs to be limited to the concept of verbal plenary inerrant infallible solo scriptura. I am concerned however about what we the church (inclusively) believe about Jesus. I get hives over ESS just like I get hives over seeing Jesus as only a warm fuzzy teddy bear.

  42. Daisy wrote:

    Peter likewise addresses the same societal situations writing, “Yea all of you be subject to another, and be clothed with humility” (I Peter 5:5).

    Look it up, Daisy.

  43. Bridget wrote:

    There is not one item appropriated to the husband that is not also appropriated to the wife in the sense of the couple being fellow believers in Christ.

    I think there is something sad when the discussion of this starts going in the direction of because you (or to be more precise, I) think there is differentiation of role within a marriage I am kind of outlawing any reciprocity. Yet this shouldn’t be used to negate the general principle.

    When Paul addresses a wife, or a husband, or a child, or a servant or elders … he not simultaneously addressing everyone else. There are loads of things we should all do, but some things only specific people are required to do. Is is really that complex, like the proverbial rocket science?!

  44. @ okrapod:
    Good points all around. I have become increasingly uneasy at what uses people make of this book, as well as disturbed by passages like the one in which the martyrs cry out for blood.

    So please understand that my comment is more about the struggle I’m experiencing than it is about anything else. I grabbed the bsll and ran off in a whole other direction.

  45. @ Lydia:
    Kephale is most commonly the noun for the part of the body we know as a head. Two metaphorical uses are ‘source/origin’ and ‘top-most/prominent’ none of which had a connotation of authority at the time. 1 cor. 11 uses both the noun and a metaphorical use of the word. English was predisposed to connecting head with authority so much so that it is difficult for us how how head could mean something other than authority. We know that the ancient world saw the heart as the center of emotion and source of reason, so if Paul wanted to use a part of the body with authority, he would have to use the heart and not the head.

  46. Ken wrote:

    I clarified what I meant (yes, I do believe we should use everything at our disposal to help understand the text

    With the exception of knowledge of the cultural context into which Ephesians, 1 Timothy, and the rest of the Bible was written? Because IIRC you objected to considering the Ephesian Artemis cult as a meaningful consideration in the interpretation of Paul’s words. I assume that you would also reject the Greco-Roman ideas regarding household structure and operations. What are your criteria for including and excluding extra-Biblical sources of information in order to interpret the actual text? And why?

  47. @ okrapod:
    I’ve been in exclusively conservative churches, so I haven’t seen that argument. I have heard of things which are similarly unhelpful, however, like the Re-imagining Conference. IMO the best way to look at that entire thing is to frankly acknowledge two things first: the husband was the undisputed ruler of the household and Christ is the undisputed ruler of the Church. The point which Christ makes over and over again in the Gospels is that power is not something to be grasped but something to be either set aside or used for the benefit of others. So, with those things in mind, to me it makes sense that much of what Paul says about human relationships includes a frank acknowledgement of the way things are along with a description of the way things should be among the household of faith. That accounts for the analogies and the disanalogies between Christ/Church and husband/wife. And I believe it also accounts for the reason that Paul used kephale rather than a word which explicitly confers power and authority of the husband over the wife. The husband is not to act as absolute ruler–though he had the right to do that under the culture–but is rather to serve and love and sacrifice for his wife. Just as Christ has the absolute right to rule over his Church but rather chooses to use that power to love and serve the Church and sacrifice himself for her. That is the explanation which Paul provides for his use of kephale, and I think we should listen to Paul’s own explanation rather than importing an idea about Christ which, though true, has nothing to do with the husband. And I think it accords much more with the topic under discussion in Ephesians as well.

    Let me add that I always profit from our exchanges because your comments make me think through some things which I’ve not heard or thought of before.

  48. I realise the discussion on headship / gender roles / authority / kephale / encephalography is now many comments long, and this isn’t a response to any particular comment but a personal observation. Or two.

    Observation 1 of 2

    Some very silly things have been said by individuals and, especially, consortia purporting to represent “biblical” gender-roles with all manner of extra-biblical, unbiblical and counter-biblical fictions. These people identify “complementarianism” with “the gospel”. But “complementarian” is a broad label (like “charismatic”, “American”, “British” or “Christian”). I don’t share Flag Ken’s take on the topic, but I don’t hold him answerable for the comical pronouncements of John Bagpipes or Bert Premolar, or their ilk.

    Observation 2 of 2

    The lingering problem I have with complementarianism is its tendency, in practice, to infantilise women and render them passive and dependent. At the very least, it tends rather to curtail and restrain women, setting out lists (however short) of things they may not do, regardless of how gifted they may be. E.g., stealing is wrong regardless of how good at it you may be and nobody is commended in scribsher for aspiring to it. By contrast: preaching the word to the assembly of believers is not in itself wrong, but a woman is not – under complementarianism – to aspire to it. And I read words like “protect”, “cherish” and “nurture” in the context of husband/wife relationships.

    But consider: husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church. Well, how did Christ love the church? As the Father sent me, so I send you – “you” being the Church. He clothed her with power from on high; he sent her out to make disciples of all nations, baptising them and teaching them. He gave her authority and declared that her members would do greater things than he had. He will ultimately present her, holy and without blemish: like himself. But whilst holiness was a fragile thing in the Old Testament, easily broken and lost, Jesus manifested a very different kind of holiness. The only truly holy man who ever lived was also the most compellingly attractive to sinners. He grasped lepers and touched corpses, and didn’t catch disease or death from them – quite the reverse, they caught health or life from him. True holiness is robust and contagious.

    The bride of Christ, “holy and without blemish”, is not pampered and cosseted. She is his co-heir, his co-labourer who completes his work, and his army. As a result of his love and sacrifice for her, she is not a precious flower, timid and fragile. She becomes more than she could ever have been without him – not less.

    So I could support complementarianism that patterned this. But it’s late here in Blighty and Lesley and I have a big day tomorrow – she has an important interview for a significant, high-level job in local government, and we’ve been working together on her application together for quite some time. If she gets the job, she’ll be in a role more senior than I can ever envisage having, and earning more than I’m ever likely to. But she’ll be in a role she wants and will absolutely revel in. And she’ll be on an upward trajectory to still higher-level jobs. Which is where my “headship” comes in; because there are times when I believe in her more than she does.

  49. @ Gram3:
    I feel a need to mention one thing: Jesus’ version of being a “ruler” is absolutely nothing like the ones we know (including all the refs to kings, querns, emperors, tetrarchs, etc. within the tects of the OT and NT).

    I know that you know that; i guess I’m trying to remind myself, because i tend to revert to a “top down” conceptualization myself. It is pervasive, if only because i have never bern part of any kind of governmrnt, on any level. (Apart from being a federal worker, but i didn’t exactly do work that had anything to do eith governing the country. Archival work is a world of its oen.)

  50. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    But “complementarian” is a broad label (like “charismatic”, “American”, “British” or “Christian”). I don’t share Flag Ken’s take on the topic, but I don’t hold him answerable for the comical pronouncements of John Bagpipes or Bert Premolar, or their ilk.

    I appreciated this comment!

    i) I’m not sure we would differ on this subject as much as you might think. I think we need to be careful not to create a situation of besides a great chasm has been fixed between us on this, even if in the end thesis, antithesis leading to synthesis isn’t possible just as it isn’t for predestination and freewill.

    ii) I reckon – and I must be mad to be talking thus – that my take on this is more likely to undermine the errors of ‘extreme’ complementarians than many of the arguments of egalitarians. Your friend John MacArthur is never going to persuade charismatics deceived by the chalatans and money-grabbing showmen that they are in error with his dogmatic cessationalism, not least because there is most likely another agenda going on in addition to a legitimate discussion of ‘what the bible teaches’. It just might be some capital “P” Patriarchs who may visit need to see you can have a complementarian view and not want to lord it over anyone, and that their creation of a doormat wife is an extremely serious sin in the eyes of God.

    iii) Engaging with the text and differing understanding of it is a good thing, but I fear the danger of ‘vain discussions’ in some cases that Paul warned us to avoid, much as can also happen over Calvinism and Arminianism.

    I don’t wish you luck with the job, because I don’t believe in luck. Instead, Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers. 🙂

  51. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    The bride of Christ, “holy and without blemish”, is not pampered and cosseted. She is his co-heir, his co-labourer who completes his work, and his army. As a result of his love and sacrifice for her, she is not a precious flower, timid and fragile. She becomes more than she could ever have been without him – not less.

    Beautiful. The “head” empowers.

  52. Ken wrote:

    Daisy said this before, I clarified what I meant (yes, I do believe we should use everything at our disposal to help understand the text with a verbatim quotation), she really shouldn’t still be saying this.

    You said on the older thread that using “extra Biblical” material was “liberal” – as though it’s wrong to use “extra Biblical” material, but conservative scholars do so all the time when studying or commenting on the Bible.

  53. Ken wrote:

    Look it up, Daisy.

    I’m not sure what you are referring to there.

    The quote you provided is not about Christians behaving like cultural warriors, if that was the point you were addressing.

  54. Gram3 wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    I clarified what I meant (yes, I do believe we should use everything at our disposal to help understand the text

    —–By Gram 3:
    With the exception of knowledge of the cultural context into which Ephesians, 1 Timothy, and the rest of the Bible was written? Because IIRC you objected to considering the Ephesian Artemis cult as a meaningful consideration in the interpretation of Paul’s words. I assume that you would also reject the Greco-Roman ideas regarding household structure and operations. What are your criteria for including and excluding extra-Biblical sources of information in order to interpret the actual text? And why?

    If you’d like the link again back to Ken’s original comment about how it is supposedly “liberal” for anyone to use “extra biblical” content to shed light on biblical passages or culture, here it is…
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/10/09/al-mohler-adds-another-volume-to-his-impressive-stack-of-books-guest-post-by-todd-wilhelm/comment-page-1/#comment-224784

    Here is one snippet by Ken from that post, where he is talking about Nate’s post:

    …he [Nate] has a standard liberal theological view of the OT, uses extra-biblical information to bolster his egalitarianism in the home (Roman tradition) and church (cult of Artimis).

  55. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I don’t share Flag Ken’s take on the topic, but I don’t hold him answerable for the comical pronouncements of John Bagpipes or Bert Premolar, or their ilk.

    Can there really be such a thing as “biblical” (and/or “complementarian”) gender roles when those who walk under the umbrella of “complementarianism” cannot even agree on what it is exactly, or cannot advise people on how to live it out in a practical way?

    Some comps in “Church A” may be fine with grown women teaching mixed gender Sunday School classes of 14 year olds, and other churches, say Church B, would say “no.”

    Some churches, like Church A, would be okay with a woman announcing bulletins during Sunday morning worship services, other comp churches, like a Church B, no.

    So, if Ken belongs to church A, maybe I cannot hold him responsible for church B’s views or practices, but this is still problematic for him.

    I’ve actually run into complementarians on social media who are equating complementarianism to the Gospel; they’ve told me there can be no Gospel without strict gender roles (complementarianism). I think that is seriously messed up.

    Now, Ken himself may not feel that comp = Gospel, but I still see this as being a problem for him anyhow.

    Ken, IMO, should certainly re-examine any allegiance at all to complementarianism, even his purportedly warm and fuzzy, gentler type of comp*, when his comp brothers are producing such nonsense under a type of banner of complementarianism.
    ———-
    *(which is what I was raised up under, bt – the warm and gentle fuzzy sweet type of gener comp, and it stillcreated all sorts of problems for me which weren’t AS obvious to me until I got into adulthood)

  56. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    I don’t share Flag Ken’s take on the topic, but I don’t hold him answerable for the comical pronouncements of John Bagpipes or Bert Premolar, or their ilk.

    Post Script.
    I think I usually have dealt with Ken’s comments about gender comp/ marriage in and of themselves.

    I don’t recall off hand making Ken call to account for comp comments by Piper or Driscoll.

    Any time I have cited a Piper or whomever to Ken, it’s to make him connect the dots. I don’t think Ken fully appreciates WHERE his views on dating/ women/ marriage, etc, can lead logically.

    Also, I find it helpful to point Ken to web pages by others who critique comp views held by Driscolls, Pipers, etc, because some of Ken’s views, or rationales for WHY he feels as he does, are similar to theirs.

    To me, that is not necessarily the same as me holding him accountable for every thing Driscoll or Famous Preacher Joe Blow teaches.

    At times, some complementarians, when they see how far-other and wacko other comps go with their gender doctrines, when they finally begin to see where comp logically leads (to very sexist and/or absurd ends)-

    They are dumb founded and embarrassed by it, maybe start to see the implications of it, such as this page by Carl Trueman, the complementarian author in regards to Piper’s ridiculous “women shouldn’t really be police officers” essay:
    http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/an-accidental-feminist#.VjzQtNKrSmU

    Some complementarians are actually wanting other comps to drop the pretense of calling comp comp and instead refer to it as “patriarchy.”

    Some Complementarians see that mutualists and egalitarians have made inroads, this upsets them, and they think Christians should become even MORE limiting for women, even more sexist.

    You can find one admission of that on the Bayly blog under the headingm “Russel Moore: “I hate the term ‘complementarian’…” (he says on that page he prefers the word and concept “patriarchy”)

  57. Daisy wrote:

    warm and gentle fuzzy sweet type of gener comp

    It may be the warm and gentle fuzzy sweet type, but the men still roam free and the women are still kept in cages.

  58. Gram3 wrote:

    With the exception of knowledge of the cultural context into which Ephesians, 1 Timothy, and the rest of the Bible was written? Because IIRC you objected to considering the Ephesian Artemis cult as a meaningful consideration in the interpretation of Paul’s words.

    The way I see it is this. The understanding of 1 Tim must come primarily from reading the text itself, and discerning what the underlying problem was Paul was instructing Timothy to correct. It’s reasonably easy to discern this, although care needs to be taken in getting too dogmatic. Secondly, what light does the rest of the NT shed on this? Now it is legitimate to include Artemis as a consideration, this being mentioned in Act 19f. Scripture interpreting scripture.

    Now Artemis may shed some light as to the nature of the deception going on in Ephesus, certainly this can be good background knowledge. What I object to is making this determine the meaning of chapter two, and this seems all too often the case in egalitarian understanding of this passage, who never seem to discuss this without reference to Artemis.

    Further, Paul himself never mentions Artemis in 1 Tim, this ought to be a reason for caution. It is also clear that the problem was coming from male false teachers, wolves. They were of bad character, causing the same mayhem that their modern counterparts do. They needed replacing with men who had the character qualifications of chapter 3. The instruction to the women to learn quietly may have been to counteract the local pagan religion, but Paul grounds this in the OT, ‘as the law also says’ being parallel in 1 Cor. It seems to me that Paul is using a timeless principle to deal with a local problem, the wrong relationship in Genesis leading to the fall. Adam had the ‘word’, but abdicated responsibility: Eve was deceived.

    It’s worth reiterating that the restriction is very limited. Not very many are usually called to be elders/overseers (although the NT doesn’t specify how many per congregation), and few ought to take up a teaching responsibility whether as an elder or not, and those who do will be judged more strictly. It’s not so much restricting women as placing a burden on some men.

    I don’t see any other restrictions and churches should make sure they do not impose any either based on the misuse of this passage or having a one-man band ministry set up. However, on the precautionary principle I would opt for keeping the one in 1 Tim, all the more so as the reasons given are not based on culture.

  59. @ Ken:
    If you want to disregard the Artemis cult at Ephesus, then you need to come up with a plausible explanation of Paul’s argument that does not violate other portions of his writing and the rest of the NT. You must also find a grounding for the supposed Order of Creation argument for female subordination in the Genesis narrative. Otherwise, you will make Paul’s argument circular. I think it unlikely that Paul is unable to make a coherent argument. You must also make sense of 1 Timothy 2:15 using the same “plain sense” hermeneutic you insist upon for the preceding verses *which are integrally connected* to verse 15 by the grammar of the text. You must disregard Paul’s invocation of Eve’s example in 2 Corinthians to describe the consequence of being deceived *regardless of gender.* In other words, to make your “plain sense” reading of Paul’s argument seem plausible, you must do some very odd things for a conservative exegete to do.

    There is no reference in the OT to a woman being disallowed from speaking. You might by interested in Philip Barton Payne’s study of 1 Corinthians 14. He is a conservative scholar who deconverted from “complementarianism” due to his study of the relevant textual material and not due to cultural pressure or anything like that. He has paid a price for his change of position, including being vilified by little men like Grudem who cannot touch his scholarship.

  60. Ken wrote:

    Further, Paul himself never mentions Artemis in 1 Tim, this ought to be a reason for caution.

    Let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s say you intended to write instructions after A.D. 800 to a church planter in Mecca. You know said church planter very well, having spent a lot of time working side by side with him in Mecca. Would you find it necessary to reference the local religion and culture and its distinctives? Or would it be background information which both of you would already know and which therefore you could reasonably leave out of your very costly letter to the church planter? Would you spend a lot of time saying things he already would have known, such as males being in authority over females at all times?

    If you don’t care for the Mecca example, then substitute Mumbai or Vatican City. Same principles apply. People who know one another well do not waste scarce resources spelling out things that they already understand about one another and any situations they are discussing. Timothy was not an idiot who needed to be told women are subordinate (if they are), and Paul knew how to construct an argument, even if the esteemed “scholars” in RBMW cannot.

  61. Ken wrote:

    Paul is using a timeless principle to deal with a local problem, the wrong relationship in Genesis leading to the fall. Adam had the ‘word’, but abdicated responsibility: Eve was deceived.

    That is an inference which cannot be supported by the material in the text without assuming additional data which we do not have. I believe that we can say that, based on the entirety of the text, people should not teach before they have learned, and everyone should have a teachable attitude while also being a Berean. I think we can conclude that no one is entitled to seize/usurp positions for which they are unqualified. I believe that people who are untaught are more susceptible to deception, regardless of sex. Those are the timeless principles that are supportable from the entirety of the canon.

  62. Ken wrote:

    The instruction to the women to learn quietly may have been to counteract the local pagan religion, but Paul grounds this in the OT, ‘as the law also says’ being parallel in 1 Cor. It seems to me that Paul is using a timeless principle to deal with a local problem, the wrong relationship in Genesis leading to the fall. Adam had the ‘word’, but abdicated responsibility: Eve was deceived.

    Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is there any such ‘law’ which muzzles women. I defy anyone to come up with chapter and verse to ‘prove’ otherwise.
    Even the best that Dr. Grudem can come up with in his tome Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth is a place where he states that when Paul says ‘law’, he is referring to the OT as a whole, which amounts to special pleading with no concrete evidence like say, ‘thou shalt not murder’.

  63. Gram3 wrote:

    He is a conservative scholar who deconverted from “complementarianism” due to his study of the relevant textual material and not due to cultural pressure or anything like that. He has paid a price for his chang

    It is sad to me that most women who are not scholars are branded as conforming to culteral pressures as well. They have no scholarship to fall back to and are simply dismissed.

  64. Bridget wrote:

    It is sad to me that most women who are not scholars are branded as conforming to culteral pressures as well. They have no scholarship to fall back to and are simply dismissed.

    I tend to see this differently, Bridget. Scholarship or not, women’s voices are being heard and refusing to adhere to the teaching of complementarianism. I see a sense of frustration and desperation in their efforts to convey the subordination of women in the “manufacturing” of flowery but ineffective use of words to convince women. In other words, “me thinks they protest too much.” 🙂

  65. I believe that gender complementarianism is similar to American racism against black persons,

    and the same or similar rationales used to defend 18th century slavery by (white American) Christians is akin to what American (and other) gender complementarians do in regards to gender.

    So I found this relevant to that point:

    Religious children meaner than agnostic and atheist kids, study finds
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/religious-children-meaner-than-agnostic-and-atheist-kids-study-finds/story-e6frg6so-1227597959661

    Snippet:

    (by John Ross, November 6, 2015)

    Dr Decety, who identifies as a secular Jew, said the team’s findings [that ‘Religious children are meaner than agnostic and atheist kids’] supported “solid” sociological and historical evidence that religious people were not necessarily more moral than disbelievers.
    He said most white opponents of America’s civil rights movement had been ­religious, while most white supporters had not.

    The same applied to South ­Africa’s apartheid regime, which was supported by devout Christians and Jews and opposed by atheists.

  66. Daisy wrote:

    18th century slavery

    Dang it, I meant 19th, but my finger always goes to the number 8 key when I type that out!

  67. Ken wrote:

    The instruction to the women to learn quietly may have been to counteract the local pagan religion, but Paul grounds this in the OT, ‘as the law also says’ being parallel in 1 Cor. It seems to me that Paul is using a timeless principle to deal with a local problem, the wrong relationship in Genesis leading to the fall.

    Show me the “law” from the OT Paul was referencing in 1 Corin 14. God is very forthright about His Law to the Isrealites.

  68. According to Ken, Deborah and Huldah broke Gods Law he is referencing from 1 Corin 14 that supposedly came from Torah.

  69. Lydia wrote:

    Show me the “law” from the OT Paul was referencing in 1 Corin 14.

    Yep…thee is no such OT law. Obviously, this was one of those things the Corinthian converts had written to Paul and he was answering.

    His reply reflects his astonishment at their suggestion…

    WHAT? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

  70. Muff Potter wrote:

    Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is there any such ‘law’ which muzzles women. I defy anyone to come up with chapter and verse to ‘prove’ otherwise.

    Right. It is not there. Yes there is plenty of bad patriarchal behavior but not a “law” given by God prohibiting women from teaching or even leading men.

    One of the comp arguments is very deterministic as in if God allowed patriarchy then He approved. Same argument used by some for premeditated murder, polygamy and all sorts of vile behaviors.

  71. I read recently, but I can’t remember where, that there are several such references to supposedly OT statements which cannot be found in the available OT documents, including some reference or other apparently to an entire book which is missing. We apparently either have to think that the NT is in error or else we have to think that there are missing parts of the OT.

  72. @ Victorious:
    Yes. Pauls reaction to the question is key to the absurdity of it all. The Greek word for silence means not one sound as was the synagogue tradition for women. That would mean women could not even sing at church.

    The question might have come from a Jewish convert because the “law” referenced in the question is the traditional oral law. We now think of it as the Talmud/Mishna. That is where you will find that “law” taught.

    Does Ken realize what he is really promoting? Even as a timeless principle?

  73. @ okrapod:

    Correction. I believe that the reference to the missing OT book is in the OT itself. If I can find this information I will furnish the reference.

  74. @ Lydia:

    Well, google just gave me what appears to be a muslim website which lists 22 books listed in the OT which are not there. Not sure if they are all totally missing or what. I kind of hesitate to furnish the link lest somebody get out of sorts about it, but it popped right up on google.

  75. Ken wrote:

    Adam had the ‘word’, but abdicated responsibility: Eve was deceived.

    Wouldn’t this mean that Adam is responsible for the fall????

  76. @ Nancy2:

    Well, if we take Kens interpretation to its logical conclusion it works out like this: Adam sinned on purpose and blamed God and Eve for it….therefore God maintained that Patriarchy was best. Eve was deceived and admitted it so God maintained all women be easily deceived and needed the “sinning on purpose blame shifting males” to lead them.

    Makes perfect sense, right? Actually, it rather paints God as ridiculous.

  77. @ numo:
    Or are, in some cases, part of the OT canon, but which (might) have different titles now. (Cf. the differences in titles and order of books in the Hebrew Bible vs. as ordered snd named in the xtian OT.)

  78. Lydia wrote:

    Well, if we take Kens interpretation to its logical conclusion it works out like this: Adam sinned on purpose and blamed God and Eve for it….therefore God maintained that Patriarchy was best. Eve was deceived and admitted it so God maintained all women be easily deceived and needed the “sinning on purpose blame shifting males” to lead them.

    Excellent! Why can’t comps see how absolutely absurd this reasoning is?

  79. Nancy2 wrote:

    Wouldn’t this mean that Adam is responsible for the fall????

    Whereas by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin…

  80. Lydia wrote:

    Show me the “law” from the OT Paul was referencing in 1 Corin 14. God is very forthright about His Law to the Isrealites.

    Not to mention the grammatical disjunction which indicates that he is rejecting their notion of such “law” rather than affirming it.

  81. @ Lydia:
    Just like Galatians 3:28 is Paul’s refutation of the prayer of thanksgiving that a Jewish man was not born a Gentile, a slave, or a woman. The point is that our status is not deterimined by our circumstances of birth or inheritance but by our relationship to the Son.

  82. Victorious wrote:

    Excellent! Why can’t comps see how absolutely absurd this reasoning is?

    The only thing I’ve ever received from them is the narrative about the Woman leaving her God-ordained place and the Man abdicating his position as Leader by allowing her to usurp his position. Those who are more prone to the Berean persuasion see that this begs the question and is nowhere in the text. But it is the Narrative carefully crafted to try to make their ridiculous reasoning seem plausible because the Answer that must be derived by any means is Male Authority. Everything takes the value necessary to yield Male Authority, with consistency not required nor desired.

  83. People used to say that male supremacy was part of the curse and therefore ordained by God. I don’t remember talk about order of creature back when. They also used to say that Adam’s sin was worse since he knew full well what he was doing but Eve was deceived, thus it made Eve look rather simple but it also assigned most of the blame to Adam.

    Strangely enough I do not think the order of creation argument would have been as strong, because we were taught in school a variant of evolution beginning in the fourth grade, and I don’t remember anybody having a problem with that. But we were SBC so maybe some others had a problem, I wouldn’t know. The current fracas about YEC and order of creation and let’s blame it all on Eve was just not there back when in the same way it is now, at least if it was a lot of us missed it.

    I kind of got the picture that the Adam and Eve of the bible, if they actually existed as individuals, were intellectually limited cave dwellers probably named yap-yap and moo-moo or something, like in our school books. I don’t know why that did not bother me/us all that much in the fourth grade, but it did not.

    All of which makes me think that there are empires to build and money to accumulate by fueling these fires now.

  84. Victorious wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    Well, if we take Kens interpretation to its logical conclusion it works out like this: Adam sinned on purpose and blamed God and Eve for it….therefore God maintained that Patriarchy was best. Eve was deceived and admitted it so God maintained all women be easily deceived and needed the “sinning on purpose blame shifting males” to lead them.

    Excellent! Why can’t comps see how absolutely absurd this reasoning is?

    What the comps/pats have told me is that it is God’s created order/design and no matter how absurd it sounds we must accept it as such and not question God. I don’t question God, I question their view of Him and of scripture.

  85. Gram3 wrote:

    The point is that our status is not deterimined by our circumstances of birth or inheritance but by our relationship to the Son.

    Which is the major theme of the Good News! Even for Gentiles!

  86. @ okrapod:

    From what I can ascertain, the creation order argument became popular in segments of Christian academia through George Knight’s book in the 70’s. I had never heard of creation order growing up in the SBC with close ties to SBTS back then. It simply wasn’t a doctrinal position.

    Knight’s book was titled: “The Role Relationship of Men and Women: New Testament Teaching.” Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ 1977.

    He also argued in this book that gender roles mapped to the Trinity and therefore the subordination of the Son to the Father. A pecking order in creation order and a pecking order in the Trinity.

    I was not aware of how much influence his book had on certain segments of Christian Academia until about 2004 when I really started researching ESS. Creation order is needed to prop up ESS.

    He was Orthodox Presbyterian and a NT Scholar who taught at Knox and a former president of ETS.

    I am simply amazed at how his views spread to be somewhat ingrained in SBC seminaries within 15-20 years.

    There might have been others propagating this doctrinal stance but his name and books kept coming up as the go to source.

  87. okrapod wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:

    Wouldn’t this mean that Adam is responsible for the fall????

    Whereas by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin…

    If we want to get technical and read Genesis literally, I always feel the need to point out that Eve admitted she was deceived. Adam blamed God for Eve. So how that plays into “by one man sin entered into the world”, I am not sure but it seems relevant.

  88. Lydia wrote:

    What the comps/pats have told me is that it is God’s created order/design and no matter how absurd it sounds we must accept it as such and not question God.

    Of course the “created order” theory enables them to overlook the fact that nowhere is any man ever told to assume authority over their wives or anyone else for that matter.

    The other overlooked fact is that all the prophetic words by God are negative, adverse conditions rather than commands. Most have been overcome over time and the one about eating plants/herbs rescinded by God Himself after the flood. (Gen. 9:3) If Adam was commanded to toil by the sweat of his brow and that is interpreted as a “forever” command, then men today must work in the field of agriculture and have no access to air-conditioning. And we must allow the ground to produce thorns and thistles rather than using weed killers in our gardens.

    Sounds silly, but comps use of Gen. 3:16 or the “creation order” as evidence and support for male entitlement just doesn’t hold water. Context (and common sense) is so important.

  89. Lydia wrote:

    If we want to get technical and read Genesis literally, I always feel the need to point out that Eve admitted she was deceived. Adam blamed God for Eve.

    Yes, good point. And she literally exposed the serpent as the deceiver…hence the enmity between the woman and the serpent prophesied by God.

    So how that plays into “by one man sin entered into the world”, I am not sure but it seems relevant.

    I see it as the difference between intentional, deliberate sin and unintentional sin. God clearly differentiates between the two in the Mosaic Law.

  90. @ Victorious:

    And even worse, they won’t even acknowledge the cross/resurrection as a corrective to their sinful position. Their Jesus has no power for women to overcome being easily deceived! She is stuck there negating the Cross/resurrection in her life. That is not Good News for women. Remember, she is “saved” by having children according to their interpretation of 1 Tim but even then she cannot overcome being easily deceived. All they have to do is simply categorize it as created order and their “God ordained” status over women cannot be a sin. Viola!

    It really is amazing what they are actually teaching when you take the time to analyze it. It is creepy and makes Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection of New Life a cruel joke for women.

    This is not something to be angry about. This is something to pity them for as they are missing out on the biggest blessing out there. Carolyn Custis James calls Christ centered male/female relationships the “blessed alliance” which I think hits the nail on the head. But, they hang onto “tradition” saying it is of God. Who else did this? :o)

  91. Victorious wrote:

    see it as the difference between intentional, deliberate sin and unintentional sin. God clearly differentiates between the two in the Mosaic Law.

    And Paul speaks to this very thing in 1 Tim 1! Those who deceive on purpose and those who are deceived out of ignorance. He puts himself in the latter category and later declares: Permit them to learn!

  92. Lydia wrote:

    I don’t question God, I question their view of Him and of scripture.

    It’s also quite possible (in their view*) that you don’t ‘know the Lord’ or have a ‘relationship’ with Jesus. Because if you did, you’d accept God’s divine blueprint for gender roles without question and not listen to the serpent hissing in your ear:
    …Hath God said?…

    * I just heard a well-known Calvary Chapel pastor ‘teach’ on this very subject, assuring his listeners that Eve’s intent was to usurp Adam’s authority over her, all under the Devil’s aegis of course.

  93. Muff Potter wrote:

    * I just heard a well-known Calvary Chapel pastor ‘teach’ on this very subject, assuring his listeners that Eve’s intent was to usurp Adam’s authority over her, all under the Devil’s aegis of course.

    Wow. This would suggest that Jesus died and was resurrected, at least in part, to restore man’s authority over woman.
    Twisted!!!

  94. Muff Potter wrote:

    …Hath God said?…
    * I just heard a well-known Calvary Chapel pastor ‘teach’ on this very subject, assuring his listeners that Eve’s intent was to usurp Adam’s authority over her, all under the Devil’s aegis of course.

    Sounds to me like the Calvary Chapel preacher is listening to some ‘Hath God said.’ 😉

  95. Muff Potter wrote:

    It’s also quite possible (in their view*) that you don’t ‘know the Lord’ or have a ‘relationship’ with Jesus. Because if you did, you’d accept God’s divine blueprint for gender roles without question

    Or, that woman cannot have a direct relationship with the Lord, for gender roles demands that man is her direct authority and it is man’s duty to tell woman God’s intent for her.

  96. Nancy2 wrote:

    Or, that woman cannot have a direct relationship with the Lord, for gender roles demands that man is her direct authority and it is man’s duty to tell woman God’s intent for her.

    This kind of horse poo-poo is not confined to just Anglo-Saxon based fundagelicalism. I once heard a Messianic Jew say that Esther (Hadassah) could not have done what she did without Mordecai as her ‘covering’.

  97. Muff Potter wrote:

    I once heard a Messianic Jew say that Esther (Hadassah) could not have done what she did without Mordecai as her ‘covering’.

    I wonder if this Messianic Jew ever thought about what would have become of his people had it not been for Esther putting her own life on the line? She kept the noose from going around Mordecai’s neck and prevented the wholesale slaughter of the nation of Israel.
    Looks to me like Esther covered Mordecai there, along with a several thousand more men.

    Did this MJ say who Deborah’s “covering” was???

  98. Nancy2 wrote:

    Did this MJ say who Deborah’s “covering” was???

    You might find the description of Deborah in the OT interesting. I don’t think her husband’s name was Torches, though that is possible. IOW, I think Deborah took care of business when it needed to be taken care of, and the people recognized that and described her appropriately. “Woman” and “wife” are the same word in the Hebrew, or so I’ve heard. Either Deborah was a Woman of Torches or her husband, Torches, told her what to do and say (or else failed to tell her what to do and say to the nation of Israel.) I wonder why they didn’t just ask Torches himself and cut out the middlewoman?

  99. Muff Potter wrote:

    * I just heard a well-known Calvary Chapel pastor ‘teach’ on this very subject, assuring his listeners that Eve’s intent was to usurp Adam’s authority over her, all under the Devil’s aegis of course.

    of course, this one is older than the hills. If that daggone Monk Pagnino had not translated teshuqa as “desire” we might have realized that the original translation of “turning” up to about the 1300’s, actually communicated that since Eve was wishy washy “turning” to Adam instead of to God and because of that, Adam would rule over her. Description not prescription. Eve wanted to please Adam not God.

    So they are teaching sin as virtue. Boggles the mind.

  100. Gram3 wrote:

    I don’t think her husband’s name was Torches,

    I love it! I had heard that since there were NO “real” men at the time, God was forced to use Deborah. Barak was a sniveling coward, btw. And so it goes.

  101. Gram3 wrote:

    I don’t think her husband’s name was Torches,

    Lapidoth can also be interpreted as “of torches” (indicating having a fiery spirit), or ” enlightened”. At any rate, she judged Israel. When she called, men came. Not only was she a prophetess; she managed the legal and military aspects of the nation.

  102. Lydia wrote:

    I love it! I had heard that since there were NO “real” men at the time, God was forced to use Deborah. Barak was a sniveling coward, btw. And so it goes.

    Real men! How many fighting men follwed her orders?

  103. Lydia wrote:

    I love it! I had heard that since there were NO “real” men at the time, God was forced to use Deborah.

    ….but scripture says God Himself raised up the Judges.

    Jdg 2:16 Then the LORD raised up judges who delivered them from the hands of those who plundered them.

    So they conveniently ignore that fact.

  104. @ Victorious Exactly. : and in other scenerios they conveniently ignore that God was angry the Isrealites demanded a king. He was their King. But He gave them kings.

  105. These types of views sound ridiculous today as this commercial shows, but a lot of gender complementarians still want to act as though this is 1950s America.

    Man in commercial:
    “Women don’t have jobs!” “Where is your husband?”

    Progressive Insurance Commercial:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST0cR2-JcZ0

    The lady’s reaction to that:
    “Is this guy for real??”

  106. Daisy wrote:

    Can there really be such a thing as “biblical” (and/or “complementarian”) gender roles when those who walk under the umbrella of “complementarianism” cannot even agree on what it is exactly, or cannot advise people on how to live it out in a practical way?

    I both do, and don’t, agree with this. (I hope, as they say, this is helpful…)

    I don’t see how we can demand that “Complementarianism” create itself as a uniform denomination in which everyone believes exactly the same about men and women. (For a start, that denomination would need the power to expel anyone who held the “wrong” doctrine – and I don’t like where that ends up. How would it work, anyway?) As I said, the same might be said – indeed, it often is – about “Christians”. What the f*** do they believe, anyway? They certainly can’t agree on what that absurd “bible” of theirs is for, or on what their “god” does or doesn’t love or hate, or on who (if anyone) is going to “hell” (or “heaven”) or indeed on anything else. There’s no issue so trivial that some christians, somewhere, won’t fight a war over it.

    On the other hand, I don’t believe in gender role limitations – that is, things that a person may be practically capable of doing to a high standard, but is forbidden from doing because they are the wrong gender. That doesn’t mean I believe “a woman” can do anything “a man” can do. It means I believe any believer can do anything the Holy Spirit enables them to do.

  107. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    As Deb and Dee did a post on about a month or two ago, this is even more problematic, because some gender comps are equating gender comp to salvation/ the Gospel itself.

    Just the other day I had a guy tell me on social media that gender comp is vital to the Gospel. I got tired of bickering with him and blocked him, though.

    Ideas have consequences. Sometimes awful, horrible consequences. And that applies to gender comp.

    You have women being told they have to remain in abusive marriages because of gender comp teachings from Christian pastors, churches and Christian speakers/ authors.

    You have women like me who have been set back in other ways due to gender comp.

  108. Are Men Accountable for their Wives’ Actions?
    http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/men-accountable-for-wives/

    A snippet from that page:

    But, immediately after the Fall and before patriarchy took hold, God spoke to the man and to the woman individually and held each accountable for their own disobedient actions of eating the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3:9-19). The text nowhere indicates that the man was held responsible for his wife’s actions.
    Both were culpable and received a punishment, and would experience the consequences, for their sins. Each would die, and each would experience “painful, sorrowful toil” (itstsabon עִצָּבוֹן) in life (Gen. 3:16, 17).

  109. @ Daisy:
    A friend went to some sort of conference at the SBC seminary, Mid West, and was astonished to find many young male students at the conference honestly believed they would be judged for their wives behavior and beliefs. And this was 10 years ago.

  110. Victorious wrote:

    So they conveniently ignore that fact.

    Of course they do. Everything must take the value that yields Male Authority and Priority. If that means changing texts, ignoring texts, or inserting “facts” into the text, then that is OK as long as you get to Male Authority and Priority somehow. If you are called on it, then all you have to do is shout “liberal” or “feminist” and all will be well. That is what Grudem calls scholarship, by the way.

  111. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    On the other hand, I don’t believe in gender role limitations – that is, things that a person may be practically capable of doing to a high standard, but is forbidden from doing because they are the wrong gender. That doesn’t mean I believe “a woman” can do anything “a man” can do. It means I believe any believer can do anything the Holy Spirit enables them to do.

    Just want to say that your opinion is way, way too sensible for lots of people. Neither PC enough for some brands of feminists nor bibley enough for the Council on Bibley Manhood and Womanhood. And, IMO, you have also pointed out the fallacy of radical egalitarianism.

  112. Gram3 wrote:

    And, IMO, you have also pointed out the fallacy of radical egalitarianism.

    Never heard of “radical egalitarianism.” Curious as to what you mean by this.

  113. Gram3 wrote:

    Just want to say that your opinion is way, way too sensible for lots of people. Neither PC enough for some brands of feminists nor bibley enough for the Council on Bibley Manhood and Womanhood.

    That is for sure!

  114. Bridget wrote:

    Never heard of “radical egalitarianism.” Curious as to what you mean by this.

    From what I’ve read in Christian egalitarian blogs, forums, and a few books, Christian egalitarians do acknowledge that there are some differences between men and women.

    It’s often a strawman argument erected by gender comps that Christain egalitarians think or teach that the genders are 100% identical, so that the egals used to have to spend quite a bit of time years ago debunking that in their blogs and books.

    I think it’s generally very far left wing, secular feminists who think that men and women are 100% identical at everything across the board and gender should never, ever play a role at anything at all, and/or who will downplay any biological differences between the genders.

  115. I went back to that site and just saw this (I think this was being discussed on this thread?)

    Is Adam solely responsible for the first sin?
    http://newlife.id.au/christian-theology/is-adam-solely-responsible-for-the-first-sin/

    Snippet:
    Their point is that since Romans 5:12-21 says Adam is the first human being through whom sin entered the world this indicates that God holds Adam ultimately responsible and accountable for the first sin.[1]
    This is despite the fact that Eve was the first to eat the forbidden fruit. The Köstenbergers use their interpretation of Romans 5 to claim that God gave Adam authority over Eve.

  116. @ Bridget:
    People who think that there are or should be no differences whatsoever between the sexes (or other classes of people) and we must never say anything counter to that ideology. Or that rules should be changed due solely to gender or some other criterion. Or that people do not have different capabilities and interests or different character traits or who make different choices which might influence various outcomes but where the outcomes must be equalized. In other words, ideological egalitarianism that is not rooted in the realities of human beings. Not sure if that was helpful, but that’s what I had in mind.

  117. @ Daisy:

    Oh hey, there is this interesting tid bit on that page:

    “Interestingly, Jesus is rarely referred to in the Greek New Testament as an anēr (i.e. an adult male person); he is most commonly referred to as an anthrōpos (i.e. a human being).”

  118. Lydia wrote:

    I love it! I had heard that since there were NO “real” men at the time, God was forced to use Deborah. Barak was a sniveling coward, btw. And so it goes.

    Moses wasn’t exactly anybody to brag about, but God called him anyway.

  119. Hi All. This is a very diverse group of Christians so I thought I would bring my question to this forum. I’ve been on a yo-yo when it comes to belief in God. Sometimes I feel it, for long stretches I haven’t. I came from a liberal church attending household. When it came to questions regarding the bible (like Genesis vs. what I learned in school), my parents would simply state that the bible was written in a time before people had learned what we know today. Needless to say we weren’t biblical literalists. I was raised in the Anglican tradition. I attended regularly until my early teens, went back to attendance in my early twenties, went to an evangelical church after I married in my early thirties and each time ceased attending. I’m thinking about going back again but I can’t fake towing the line so to speak. I enjoy the fellowship but I think the theory of evolution and natural selection does explain how we got here, I accept the evidence that the universe is 15 billion years old, I don’t think that homosexuality is sinful, I firmly assert that women and men are equal in every way (yes I know about the whole birth thing, I’ve got kids and maybe that makes women more equal than men :-), and to top it off, I’ve been infant baptized. So, that being said, and asking for honest opinions, is there any point to me giving this religion another go round or should I just jettison it once and for all. What church would accept the honest me?

  120. Jack wrote:

    is there any point to me giving this religion another go round or should I just jettison it once and for all. What church would accept the honest me?

    Is it religion you want to return to or Jesus Christ?

  121. @ Lydia:

    curiously, Barry Webb’s commentary on Judges in the NICOT series crushes that supposition about Deborah having to be judge because there weren’t any “real men” around. Webb pointed out there’s nothing at all in the text or any words to indicate a subtext that Deborah was who God had to settle for. There’s textual evidence that Jephthah was the first judge not directly appointed by God in anyway but the manly man warrior who was nominated by popular vote and we all know what he did.

  122. @ WenatcheeTheHatchet:

    Maybe this is not an issue. Does the text say that Deborah was appointed by God specifically, or does this come under the genre of historical narrative, merely noting that Deborah was a judge? In other words, do we know from one judge to the next how they all got to be judges, and if so what is the deal with Deborah?

  123. @ Daisy:
    For clarification, you wrote Yea all of you be subject to another, and be clothed with humility” (I Peter 5:5). I said to look it up, because the text itself reads – having given the job elders have to do – Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, … where there is no mutuality in the submission; this is something you have added. Responsibility or oversight for the elders, submission or deference from the younger, and humility for everyone. Submitting to one another is not always mutual but all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind is for everyone.

    And to clear up the liberalism, you wrote quoting my post he [Nate] has a standard liberal theological view of the OT, uses extra-biblical information to bolster his egalitarianism in the home (Roman tradition) and church (cult of Artimis).

    Nate’s views on the OT are in line with standard liberal thinking, for example the books of Moses originally being composite compilations put together during the exile etc. I did some of this stuff at university. This is OT; as far as the NT is concerned, he bases his understanding on extra-biblical information, namely the Roman household or Artemis religion. This isn’t liberalism as such, most conservatives would value knowledge of social customs and general history; the objection is in making these so essential that you cannot understand the text at all without them. I don’t think that is true, and this is a presupposition of mine when reading the text of the NT. Helpful, yes, essential no.

    Sometimes a passage is clearly rooted in a particular cultural expression. The question then is ‘what is the underlying principle, and how, if at all, can this be lived out in our particular culture’?

  124. @ Jack:
    All “religions” have problems. The big question is not, “Do I agree with a particular religion 100%?” The most important question is, “Am I a child of God ~ Have I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior?” I think very few of us can find a church with which we agree 100%. I am not going to throw away the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and my salvation just because of minor disagreements on secondary issues. For most of us who attend church regularly, we just find a best-fit church.
    Jack wrote:

    What church would accept the honest me?

    A true church will welcome you. The members will share beliefs and discuss/debate beliefs with you without trying to force their beliefs on you. If the differences are too much, they may not allow you to become a member, but they will not shut you out all together. If you look for a church home, it may take several tries before you find one in which you are comfortable.

  125. Ken wrote:

    Sometimes a passage is clearly rooted in a particular cultural expression. The question then is ‘what is the underlying principle, and how, if at all, can this be lived out in our particul

    So in Cor. 11, do you believe Paul is saying that each woman needs to wear a head covering, or that each woman needs to be “covered” by a man? What does Paul mean when he says woman ought to have a “power on her head”?

  126. Ken wrote:

    Point 1.
    where there is no mutuality in the submission; this is something you have added. Responsibility or oversight for the elders, submission or deference from the younger, and humility for everyone. Submitting to one another is not always mutual but all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind is for everyone.

    Point 2.
    And to clear up the liberalism, you wrote quoting my post he [Nate] has a standard liberal theological view of the OT, uses extra-biblical information to bolster his egalitarianism in the home (Roman tradition) and church (cult of Artimis).
    Nate’s views on the OT are in line with standard liberal thinking, for example the books of Moses originally being composite compilations put together during the exile etc. I did some of this stuff at university. This is OT; as far as the NT is concerned, he bases his understanding on extra-biblical information, namely the Roman household or Artemis religion. This isn’t liberalism as such, most conservatives would value knowledge of social customs and general history; the objection is in making these so essential that you cannot understand the text at all without them. I don’t think that is true, and this is a presupposition of mine when reading the text of the NT. Helpful, yes, essential no.
    Sometimes a passage is clearly rooted in a particular cultural expression. The question then is ‘what is the underlying principle, and how, if at all, can this be lived out in our particular culture’?

    Point 1. All the New Testament teaches mutual submission.

    Christ said to his followers – all of them – not to lord authority over one another.

    Eph 5.21 speaks of mutual submission, all to all, and it applies to husbands as well not only wives or women. There is simply no exception for husbands in Eph 5.21.

    Point 2.
    Conservative scholars and theologians take the culture, original author intent, time of writing, etc, into account when trying to understand a passage, and/or its underlying principle.

    So there is nothing ‘liberal’ or wrong with Nate’s approach – you just don’t like the conclusions that he and others draw from the approach.

    I’m a conservative and don’t see anything “liberal” about Nate’s approach to that text.

    Lastly, even if you wish to argue that the NT was teaching wifely submission, it does not follow God intended that to be true for all time and for all societies, but was rather a cultural concession for the time period in which it was written.

    Wifely submission in the ancient world was like slavery – what was once accepted in the ancient world, so as not to bring reproach on the Gospel among pagans, but which God wanted to ultimately, in time, to be done away with.

    God does not intend for any one group to be in power or control over another, whether it be male over female, slave over free, Jew over Gentile, pastors over pew potatos, etc.

    One over- arching principle of the New Testament is the equality of all persons (and at that in Christ), not groups seeking to control other groups, and defending that status quo of one group controlling or having authority over another –
    yet that is what you are arguing for, the very thing Christ came to un-do.

    *For more on this concept that what may have been okay 2,000 years ago was to progressively diminish and halt, as it was not God’s intent for all time, see this page:
    Proposed Model for Egalitarians: An Honest Tension
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/10/27/a-proposed-model-for-egalitarians/

    That is another way of approaching the texts.

  127. Nancy2 wrote:

    Adam had the ‘word’, but abdicated responsibility: Eve was deceived.
    Wouldn’t this mean that Adam is responsible for the fall????

    Yes it does. I think this is clear from Romans 5. Eve was deceived but still broke God’s law in the form of the commandment not to eat, whereas Adam knew what he was doing and broke this law quite deliberately. He is the head and representative of the race, when he fell, we fell.

  128. Daisy wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck:

    Regarding Nick B’s point there that I should not expect consistency from gender complementarianism.

    It may be an apples and oranges thing to compare a narrow slice of Christian doctrine, gender comp, to the whole of the faith, as Nick was doing. I don’t know about that.

    Another reason I feel the inconsistency of how gender comp is taught and/or applied by various gender comps is not only that some of them insist that gender comp is NECESSARY to the Gospel (yes, I’ve had some of them maintain this on social media), but-

    Many Gender Comps (especially of the American variety, of which I was raised and am very familiar) suggest, or seem to feel, that Gender Comp is the cure for cultural issues they perceive as being problematic.

    Gender comps really seem to think if everyone (or at least Christians?) abide by gender comp views and practicees, it will put a stop to things such as the legalization of homosexual marriage, abortion, divorce, transgenderism, and other things that concern them.

    That’s a pretty huge claim to make or belief to hold.

    If you’re going to tell people, or imply, that if only everyone would return to living by 1950s secular, American gender role ideals (which they laughably feel is biblical – they really don’t base their views on the Bible alone but tend to be blind to this), you would think they could offer society a consistent, coherent set of rules and gender principles, every one can live by.

    But they cannot and do not.

    Gender comps disagree among themselves just how much women may do and when and where and how.

    Some gender comps, the real extreme ones, I’ve read, would love to out-law women holding secular jobs, never mind also insisting women not be allowed to preach or do other things in churches.

    (But note that the extreme expressions of Gender Comp are under-girded by the same beliefs and cherry picked Bible passages that softer, gentler, Ken-esque gender comps believe in: some gender comps just take gender comp out to its full, logical conclusion more so than others.)

    I don’t remember the Bible saying following and accepting certain gender roles, or forcing others to live by them, will “save” anyone, revolutionize culture, or eradicate sin.

    Jesus Christ taught that sin comes from within a person, and the only way for a person to truly change would be to accept Jesus as Savior.

    The Bible says nothing about God wanting to change people or save them through gender complementarianism.
    (Unless gender comps want to get super literal about the “women will be saved through child birth” type verses?)

    The Bible also isn’t obsessed with changing culture.

    We don’t have examples of Apostle Paul complaining about the hedonism and sexual sin of the cultures in which the churches were that he was writing to and telling them to combat it by preaching the supposed wonders of complementarian gender roles to each other or to the cultures around them.

    Paul actually told the churches he wrote to to critique their own church members and to leave judgement of the wider (unsaved) culture up to God.

    Gender comps are the opposite in this matter. They are fixated on rescuing culture, criticizing how the unsaved live their lives (gender comps never stop complaining about feminism, for instance).

    I believe is you are pretty much presenting gender comp as a cure for all that ails the church and culture you should be able to present a consistent set of rules for how to live it out, but gender comps clash on this very thing.

    I still find it amusing the some gender comps are starting to realize how far out and bizarre other gender comps are, and how they are going overboard with the emphasis on gender comp, such as Carl Trueman’s critique of John Piper’s “should women be police officers” column.

    An Accidental Feminist – written by a gender complementarian, Trueman, who is critiquing another gender comp’s views
    http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/an-accidental-feminist#.VkDAKdKrSmU

    If only Trueman will only keep re-examining gender comp, he will see it’s rotten all the way to the core, not just in Piper’s particular expression of it.

  129. @ Ken:
    “…standard liberal thinking, for example the books of Moses originally being composite compilations put together during the exile etc.”

    May I just say: it isn’t “liberal” anything; it is textual scholarship. You seem to be opposed t the study of the actual history of the text themselves – including manuscripts. How is that “liberal”? Objects – very much including the scriptures of all religions that have them – have histories. So do manuscripts.

    I cannot imagine why you would see this as outside the purview of what you believe to be the proper form of Christianity (and, for that matter, Judaism). Are we not “meant” to study the histories and developments of our religions?

  130. @ Ken:
    The thing is, if you exempt the actual texts of Scripture from this kind of study, you are, in fact, treating it very much like the Qur’an is treated in many forms of Islam – dictated by God directly to a prophet and therefore exempt from any kind of textual study, other than interpretation of exactly what is there.

    I beg to differ. You make the Bible itself the center of the faith in so doing, not God, and certainly not Christ.

    I am not necessarily saying that you *do* this, but your writing in this comment would lead people who aren’t familiar with your views to think exactly this. Sometimes I wonder if you actually see the ramifications of many of the things you post. This is a prime example.

  131. Gram3 wrote:

    Just want to say that your opinion is way, way too sensible for lots of people. Neither PC enough for some brands of feminists nor bibley enough for the Council on Bibley Manhood and Womanhood. And, IMO, you have also pointed out the fallacy of radical egalitarianism.

    I take all of that as a compliment (with an i)… for which, thanks!

    Oddly enough, I do consider myself complementarian (with an e). That is, I believe that men and women have different and mutually beneficial approaches and strengths – provided you consider statistically significant populations. I don’t believe it is right to constrain an individual based on archetypes – however well-founded – relating to their gender.

    Trivial example: height. On average, men are taller than women. This is easily and irrefutably shown, and is undeniable. Just as easy to prove is that, at the same time, there are tall women and short men. So, 5’9″ is the average height for a man in most ethnic groups, as against 5’3″ for the average woman. But 5’9″ is not a “male” height – that’s plain silly. It’s just a height.

    Contentious example: collaboration. The following appeared in the Guardian newspaper on 14th May 2014:

    Losing women before they reach the upper echelons of technology companies is detrimental to good leadership, Nunno said [Tina Nunno is a vice-president of the respected Gartner research firm].

    “Technology leaders often need the ability to work and collaborate across the organisation with people that they do not directly manage or have power over – something women are generally better at, according to recent research around organisational politics.”

    Whether the research Tina Nunno cited is accurate or not, I can’t be certain; but the point is, she obviously considers it to be plausible and she is neither a fictional parody created by “men” to discredit women by calling them “feminists”, nor a less-than-representative shrieking beserker from the lunatic fringe. In other words, there are genuinely- and thoughtfully-held mainstream beliefs around basic differences between men and women. I’m persuaded that there are, and that a properly representative sample of human abilities therefore needs to contain a mix of both genders.

    This is a long comment, so a secondary one will address my theology of women in leadership.

  132. Nancy2 wrote:

    So in Cor. 11, do you believe Paul is saying that each woman needs to wear a head covering, or that each woman needs to be “covered” by a man? What does Paul mean when he says woman ought to have a “power on her head”?

    You ain’t going to like this but:

    I was in an outfit that wanted women to wear headscarves, and I spent for too much time in 1 Cor 11 because I just couldn’t see the justification for this. It struck me as missing the point, and although I have no problem with women wearing hats or scarves in their freewill and Christian liberty, I see this more in terms of needing to express a cultural sign with a modern equivalent. I’m afraid headscarves used to make me think of milkmaids!

    In no sense whatsowever is a man or husband ever a woman’s or wife’s ‘covering’ anywhere in the bible. This was shepherding/discipleship fayre, and 100% false. The potential for its misuse – “do as I say or you will lose your covering” – is all too obvious. It is extraordinary how widespread this error was amongst charismatics a few years ago, including being covered by ‘apostolic teams’ or elders.

    fwiw, the authority on a woman’s head when she prays or prophesies is intended as authority – the right if you like to do these things – rather than a sign of submission to her husband or other men, though you could be forgiven for thinking this the way some men have casually (mis)used this verse. Whilst I wouldn’t say the outward sign is unimportant, God can see right through to an insubordinate heart and the outward appearances can be deceptive!

  133. Ken wrote:

    Adam knew what he was doing and broke this law quite deliberately. He is the head and representative of the race, when he fell, we fell.

    Is Adam solely responsible for the first sin?
    http://newlife.id.au/christian-theology/is-adam-solely-responsible-for-the-first-sin/

    And also, women to this day are held accountable for their own sins.
    When or if I stand before God in the afterlife (assuming there is a God), he will take me to task for MY sins.
    There will be no man before me accepting responsibility on my behalf.

    Bible says Jesus Christ is the ONLY high priest. He is the only interceder, not earthy husbands or men.

  134. numo wrote:

    May I just say: it isn’t “liberal” anything; it is textual scholarship. You seem to be opposed t the study of the actual history of the text themselves – including manuscripts. How is that “liberal”?

    It really is not a liberal practice.

    I spent ten or more years studying the textual transmission of the Bible, and how we got English Bible translations initially because I ended up getting into debates about this stuff with other Christians.
    I read up on a lot of works by conservative Christian scholars, and their summaries and refutations of liberal scholar positions and methods.

    In Ken’s universe, it’s okay and dandy for pro-gender complementarian conservatives to use lower textual criticism and historical-critical method to arrive at understandings of conclusions of the biblical text, but not okay for critics of gender comp to use the same approach, is what it really comes down to.

  135. numo wrote:

    Sometimes I wonder if you actually see the ramifications of many of the things you post.

    You and me both.

    BTW, his take on this, and maybe he’s not even aware of it?, is very similar to how Independent Fundamentalist Baptist King James Version Onlyists view the Bible (IFB / KJVO).

    A lot of KJVOs, as they are called, don’t believe it’s godly, acceptable, or whatever you wish to call it, to use the same methods of study on the KJV (or other Bibles) that scholars use on other books.

    They think rejecting secular, or even conservative Christian textual methods, is a more godly or whatever approach, but it actually creates other problems or feeds further into biases that non-Christians already have with the Bible.

    To be totally fair, there are some KJVOs who do recognize stuff like manuscripts and texts exist, but they want to argue that the TR and later mss are more accurate than the earlier mss, etc, but it seems to me that most KJVOs have a superstitious view of biblical text formation and study, like what Ken seems to be putting forth in this thread.)

  136. @ numo:
    🙂
    I don’t know why I continue to respond to Ken’s posts about these topics. I should probably just look away, and scroll on by sans comment, but I sometimes feel compelled to reply.

  137. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Oddly enough, I do consider myself complementarian (with an e).

    Gramp3 and I do, as well. We are two very different individuals who, together, make a great team that is more than the sum of its parts. That is the main reason we paid no attention to the term “Complementarian” when it came up, foolishly thinking they were using the standard definition. I asked a guy who was promoting this if he was not, in fact, misrepresenting what he was promoting because there is nothing in complementary that necessitates or even implies hierarchy between the complements. He denied misleading and refused to point me to any other place where “complement” means “hierarchically ordered.” But that is what one should expect from an ideological parrot who cannot think and does not find it particularly useful to think.

  138. Daisy wrote:

    I don’t know why I continue to respond to Ken’s posts about these topics. I should probably just look away, and scroll on by sans comment, but I sometimes feel compelled to reply.

    Same here.
    I can’t figure out why Ken bothers to communicate with us, anyway. You, Numo, me — well, we women, so we don’t really matter, anyway. He should really be talking to our menfolk for failing to step up and take responsibility for our misguided souls.

  139. Ken wrote:

    This isn’t liberalism as such, most conservatives would value knowledge of social customs and general history; the objection is in making these so essential that you cannot understand the text at all without them. I don’t think that is true, and this is a presupposition of mine when reading the text of the NT.

    Yet you have not explained using the actual texts how Paul’s argument makes any sense or where it is grounded in the Genesis account. You have not given a coherent and consistent explanation of the meaning of 2:15. So, your model of only using the texts without considering background material makes Paul ignorant of the the Genesis narrative and illogical and someone who says women are saved through childbearing. All of that, I think, is very unlikely.

  140. Ken wrote:

    Sometimes a passage is clearly rooted in a particular cultural expression.

    What makes such a passage appear to be clearly rooted in a particular cultural expression? How do you discern the difference between those and the ones that are universal?

  141. Ken wrote:

    Yes it does. I think this is clear from Romans 5. Eve was deceived but still broke God’s law in the form of the commandment not to eat, whereas Adam knew what he was doing and broke this law quite deliberately. He is the head and representative of the race, when he fell, we fell.

    1.) 1 Cor. 11:28 “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
    2.) 1 Cor. 12:7 “But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man …”
    Given your understanding of Romans 5:12, do you believe:
    1.) Only men should partake in the Lord’s Supper, or only men should examine themselves before partaking?
    2.) the manifestation of the Spirit is only given to men?

  142. Ken wrote:

    He is the head and representative of the race, when he fell, we fell.

    this is Federal Head stuff. Where is Eve being deceived even mentioned in Romans 5? The focus is not on who did what but the fact that they chose sin and explaining how that worked out in the Jew/Gentile dichotomy that is Romans. Federal Head stuff is right out of Doug Wilson.

    For that matter, one could argue that since Adam means human we could go that route, too.

    Still, I don’t find sinning on purpose a good argument for putting men in charge of women. :o)

  143. Lydia wrote:

    Still, I don’t find sinning on purpose a good argument for putting men in charge of women. :o)

    Especially since, if the first man was really put in charge of woman he royally messed it up!

  144. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Trivial example: height. On average, men are taller than women. This is easily and irrefutably shown, and is undeniable. Just as easy to prove is that, at the same time, there are tall women and short men. So, 5’9″ is the average height for a man in most ethnic groups, as against 5’3″ for the average woman. But 5’9″ is not a “male” height – that’s plain silly. It’s just a height.

    Some of my British friends were visiting a few summers ago and we had a very interesting discussion on this concerning male height during the 40’s and 50’s when there was so much rationing in Britain compared to average male height in the US where proteins were not as hard to procure. One of the visitors was born in 1943 and sent out of London with his mum because of the bombing. He swears up and down he would much taller than 5’6 if not for the rationing while he was growing up. :o)

  145. Nancy2 wrote:

    Especially since, if the first man was really put in charge of woman he royally messed it up!

    Yes the doctrine of creation ordered hierarchy simply paints God as illogical and arbitrary.

  146. Lydia wrote:

    this is Federal Head stuff. Where is Eve being deceived even mentioned in Romans 5?

    Still, I don’t find sinning on purpose a good argument for putting men in charge of women.

    I’ll never understand how comps use Romans 5 to support Adam as “head” or even worse, “federal head.” They use the term as if it’s a title for Adam and then take it further to ordain men with an office or position that is completely foreign to the text.

    Romans 5 is quite simply a contrast. It contrasts the one who brought sin and death by his disobedience with the One who brought the free gift of grace, justification and righteousness. The obvious One we should all emulate and identify with is Jesus, not the one who is the very opposite. I cannot understand why men want to use Adam as some badge of courage or symbol of entitlement. It’s beyond me.

  147. @ Victorious:
    Here’s what the Thomas Nelson King James Study Bible says in the notes on Rom. 5:12:
    “Adam, the federal head of the human race, was also the seminal head. The word seminal (seed) implies that everyone existed in seed form within Adam, …….”

    Where they get that, I don’t know, but it certainly would explain how someone like Nancy Wilson could come up with the notion of a wife being a husband’s “garden”. After all, the seed is in man. He just needs to find soil in which to to plant his seed!
    Many study guides regulate women to second class status. I think some men cooked up this “ontologically equal but functionally subordinate” baloney because they thought it would satisfy and shut up the “dumb ewes” in the fold.

  148. Nancy2 wrote:

    Adam, the federal head of the human race, was also the seminal head. The word seminal (seed) implies that everyone existed in seed form within Adam, …….”

    Except that ignores the Word of God that it’s the seed of the woman that’s spoken of. Nothing about Adam’s seed, seminal or otherwise. Right?

    And again, the term federal head is nowhere to be found in Romans 5 or elsewhere. Right? And even if it was, it should not be viewed as a positive or good thing with entitlement attached to it. Right?

    I’m seeing a lot of stretching regarding Adam that is not supported in scripture and it’s evidently stretched in order to give men some kind of status they are not entitled to.

    Correct me if I’m wrong. 🙂

  149. Nancy2 wrote:

    I think some men cooked up this “ontologically equal but functionally subordinate” baloney because they thought it would satisfy and shut up the “dumb ewes” in the fold

    …it’s not working… 🙂

  150. Not only do gender complementarians lack consistency on when, where, and just how their glorious gender rules and roles should play out in real life (which I think is one indication of its falsehood)*, but also, as this guy writes:

    “Complementarianism is bankrupt because it has no coherent biblical foundation.”
    https://thisbrother.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/the-complementarian-emperor-is-shamefully-underdressed/

    —-
    * I think about the only point(s) gender comps all agree on is that women should not be preachers, and men should be in rule over women.
    Other than that, they differ on details and implementation.

  151. Nancy2 wrote:

    Where they get that, I don’t know, but it certainly would explain how someone like Nancy Wilson could come up with the notion of a wife being a husband’s “garden”.

    Carry this out to the gender complementarian logic of how women who never marry (or who divorce or are widowed) are worthless.

    Such women are not a garden, because they don’t belong to a man or have a man. They’re more akin to a desert wasteland (in gender comp thinking), or maybe a grassy, weedy, unkempt yard that is filled with litter.

  152. Daisy wrote:

    Such women are not a garden, because they don’t belong to a man or have a man. They’re more akin to a desert wasteland (in gender comp thinking), or maybe a grassy, weedy, unkempt yard that is filled with litter.

    I would think the same thing could be said for those of us who are past childbearing age, or infertile. Why bother with a garden if nothing will grow in it? Some man may own the property, but it’s just a vacant lot!

  153. Victorious wrote:

    Except that ignores the Word of God that it’s the seed of the woman that’s spoken of. Nothing about Adam’s seed, seminal or otherwise. Right?

    Gen. 3:14-15: And the Lord God said unto the serpent …….. I will put enmity between thee and the women, and between thy seed and her seed …..”

  154. @ Nancy2:

    I’m aware of that scripture and it speaks of the woman’s seed. So where does the this come from? “Adam, the federal head of the human race, was also the seminal head. The word seminal (seed) implies that everyone existed in seed form within Adam…”

    Where does scripture speak of everyone existing in Adam’s “seminal seed?”

  155. Gram3 wrote:

    What makes such a passage appear to be clearly rooted in a particular cultural expression? How do you discern the difference between those and the ones that are universal?

    I’m hoping to hear an answer to this excellent question.

  156. Victorious wrote:

    Where does scripture speak of everyone existing in Adam’s “seminal seed?”

    AFAIK, there is no mention of this. The study bible I quoted from refers back to Gen. 2:24. HA!
    There is mention of Abraham’s seed, which is the same as the seed of Eve – Jesus.

  157. @ Bridget:
    That’s a great question. If you mean, the personal relationship, I would be open to it but I haven’t felt that whenever I’ve tried to meditate on the word of God alone or even with a small group. For my wife, going to church does that for her, she feels the presence. So I’m thinking trying a more traditional church service – closer to what I was raised in. The AofG church my wife attends has such a service. I just can’t be quite as passive when faced with some of the bigotry I’ve previously encountered there (“the homosexual agenda” and some of the “women are submissive” crap). Can you separate Jesus from the religion? – I mean all of Christianity, not any particular denomination.

  158. okrapod wrote:

    @ Jack:
    It depends. Are you speaking just for yourself or are there a wife and kids still in the picture?

    Wife and kids are definitely in the picture. My wife does understand where I come from. Kids are a little too young for theological discussions.

  159. Nancy2 wrote:

    A true church will welcome you. The members will share beliefs and discuss/debate beliefs with you without trying to force their beliefs on you. If the differences are too much, they may not allow you to become a member, but they will not shut you out all together. If you look for a church home, it may take several tries before you find one in which you are comfortable

    Thank you for your insight. Much appreciated. Membership may not be my style. I just want the freedom to be left with my own understanding of the world without having to believe in a certain form of creationism or that some folks are less equal than others but still enjoy a form of communion. I’ve never really cottoned onto the whole “unbeliever” and “unchurched” designation – when used in a certain tone.

  160. Nancy2 wrote:

    Victorious wrote:
    Where does scripture speak of everyone existing in Adam’s “seminal seed?”
    AFAIK, there is no mention of this. The study bible I quoted from refers back to Gen. 2:24. HA!
    There is mention of Abraham’s seed, which is the same as the seed of Eve – Jesus.

    So we can confidently discount any mention of Adam’s seminal seed imo. It’s one of those scriptures erroneously interpreted to support an agenda. Nothing more.

    What scripture says (and it’s too lengthy a topic for this blog I’m afraid) is God said:

    1) “you will bring forth children” – to Eve Gen. 3:16
    2) Adam called Eve “mother of all the living”
    3) Eve gave birth to Cain Gen. 4:1
    4) Eve gave birth to Abel Gen. 4:2
    5) Cain’s wife gave birth to Enoch Gen. 4:17
    6) Adah gave birth to Jabal Gen. 4:20
    7) Zillah gave birth to Tubal-Cain
    8) Eve gave birth to Seth Gen.4:25

    Up until this point, it is Eve’s seed that is recorded in scripture and she sees the genealogy as fulfillment of God’s prophetic words: “….she said, “God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him.”

    If you do a study on the words “his mother’s name was….” you will find that it was normal to trace the lineage through the woman who gives birth. Up until (I believe) men began to take women as spoils of war which removed them from their tribes in direct contradiction to the command “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife”. We erroneously interpret this to mean both should leave their parents, but that’s not what it says.

    I’m of the belief that the lineage was supposed to be through the woman in fulfillment of Eve’s seed. That’s why we find 4 women in the lineage of Jesus in the gospel of Matthew.

    Just some food for thought.

  161. Victorious wrote:

    I’m of the belief that the lineage was supposed to be through the woman in fulfillment of Eve’s seed. That’s why we find 4 women in the lineage of Jesus in the gospel of Matthew.

    The Hebrews traditionally recorded lineage through the males. It was very rare for the lineage through the women to be recorded. Knowing that, I think it speaks volumes that 4 female ancestors of Jesus were recorded in the Bible as part of Jesus’s lineage.
    ***Tamar – pretended to be a prostitute and had twins by her father-in-law, Judah.
    ***Rahab – the Canaanite harlot who cut a deal with the Israelite spies and save not only herself, but her family, also – males included, brethern and father.
    ***Ruth – the Moabite widow who left her homeland (Whither thou goest I will follow; thy people will be my people, and thy God is my God) uncovered Boaz’s “feet”.
    ***Bathsheeba – wife of King David as a result of adultery and murder, and 2 of the sons of David and. Bathsheeba are part of Jesus’ lineage.

    4 women. All sinners with different backgrounds. I’m not sure what Tamar and Bathseeba were, but Rahab and Ruth were definitely not of God’s ” chosen people”, yet they are all 4 were included prominently in Jesus’ matrial lineage.
    We all matter to God …. both sexes, all backgrounds and races.

  162. Jack wrote:

    That’s a great question. If you mean, the personal relationship, I would be open to it but I haven’t felt that whenever I’ve tried to meditate on the word of God alone or even with a small group.

    Speak to Jesus, the Word made flesh. Meditating on scripture is not the same thing.

    Jack wrote:

    I just can’t be quite as passive when faced with some of the bigotry I’ve previously encountered there (“the homosexual agenda” and some of the “women are submissive” crap).

    I can understand that completely. It is hard to sit and pretend agreement when people are being maligned.

    Jack wrote:

    Can you separate Jesus from the religion? – I mean all of Christianity, not any particular denomination.

    Yes. I think we can very easily confuse Jesus with religion. Jesus seems to always get the back seat. As for me, I don’t think they are one and the same.

  163. numo wrote:

    You make the Bible itself the center of the faith in so doing, not God, and certainly not Christ.

    It has been an observation of mine that ‘classic’ evangelicals think because they have the word for a thing, they have the thing itself. It’s a widespread piece of deception. The purpose of bible study is imo to ‘promote the knowledge of all the good that is ours in Christ’. What is the use of having a perfect doctrine of the Holy Spirit, but never to have been filled with the Spirit in experience, for example?

    There is a lovely sentence in the RSV introduction worth quoting:

    The Bible is more than a historical document to be preserved. And it is more than a classic of English literature to be cherished and admired. It is a record of God’s dealing with men, of God’s revelation of Himself and His will. It records the life and work of Him in whom the Word of God became flesh and dwelt among men. The Bible carries its full message, not to those who regard it simply as a heritage of the past or praise its literary style, but to those who read it that they may discern and understand God’s Word to men. That Word must not be disguised in phrases that are no longer clear, or hidden under words that have changed or lost their meaning.

    Eternal life is in Christ himself, not the bible. We need to go to him. We are supposed to have fellowship with God, not just know about fellowship with God. But our knowledge of God is rooted in the bible – objectively – to prevent subjective experience being our guide to truth.

    In my time I’ve been disillusioned with both charismatics and evangelicals, but where you have attempted charismatic experience coupled with liberal theology (the bible is advice but nothing more) it leads in short order to disaster.

    So we do need to read the bible to discern God’s word to men, which will mean studying it and arguing the meaning, after which, hopefuly, we will do what it says!

    The older I get, the more I find the bible makes sense, and what I see around me so much utter foolishness, and I have come to appreciate the scriptures more.

  164. Daisy wrote:

    I don’t know why I continue to respond to Ken’s posts about these topics. I should probably just look away, and scroll on by sans comment, but I sometimes feel compelled to reply.

    Well we have something in common! You don’t have to read my posts nor reply. You’ve beaten me to it, but I was going to say we are not going to agree on mutual submission. You could argue a different understanding, and if you convinced me you were right, I would amend what I think. But you assert this without argument. You aré not obliged to argue the point, and you may well be fed up with the whole thing, but at present this is merely going round in circles.

    There are serveral people on here who ask me to justify what I believe on this topic. I feel compelled to reply, it being rude not to, but I’ve not always got time nor the inclination to think about this as though this is the sole purpose of Christianity.

    It’s never a bad thing to rethink your views on NT teaching, but this applies equally (sorry!) to egalitarians.

    If I had one complaint, it would be the stereotyping – being lumped in with the worst exponents of American complementarianism. You really do make an awful lot of unwarranted assumptions about me.

    There are a couple of questions outstanding I will have a go at later, but I also need a breather! 🙂

  165. Nancy2 wrote:

    The Hebrews traditionally recorded lineage through the males. It was very rare for the lineage through the women to be recorded.

    Yes, as was polygamy, concubinage, and “putting away” women Hebrew traditions throughout scripture. But those traditions were violations of God’s plan.

    In case you’re interested, Kathryn Bushnell covers the topic of Kinship Reckoned Through Women here:

    http://godswordtowomen.org/lesson_61.htm

    And the Transition to Male Kinship here:

    http://godswordtowomen.org/lesson_62.htm

  166. Jack wrote:

    Wife and kids are definitely in the picture. My wife does understand where I come from. Kids are a little too young for theological discussions.

    Well then, one idea is to pick a church that teaches what you want your children to learn, even if it means that you have to downplay some of your own ideas and compromise on what would be best if it were just you in the picture.

  167. Lydia wrote:

    Federal Head stuff is right out of Doug Wilson.

    Wilson is into the federal vision, of which I know little and am perfectly content to remain in blissful ignorance.

    Adam as head of the human race comes from bible studies 30 years ago – I’ve not been in a church since then that really cared what Paul taught in Romans in the sense of going throught the whole book. This is nothing to do with the usual arguments about head!

  168. Daisy wrote:

    Regarding Nick B’s point there that I should not expect consistency from gender complementarianism.
    It may be an apples and oranges thing to compare a narrow slice of Christian doctrine, gender comp, to the whole of the faith, as Nick was doing.

    No, Nick wasn’t. But I’ve made that point as clearly as I can, and as far as it in particular is concerned, we’re only talking past one another now.

  169. Ken wrote:

    It’s never a bad thing to rethink your views on NT teaching, but this applies equally (sorry!) to egalitarians.

    Ken, I used to be a complementarian myself.

    I realized it’s an un-biblical position, so I am no longer a comp.

    And, btw, rejecting gender comp (contrary to what many gender comps teach) does not turn a person into a secular, liberal or a secular feminist, nor a supporter of abortion and homosexuality.
    I rejected gender comp but remain a social conservative and a right winger who still has traditional values.

    Related to what I was telling you before, but this guy does a better job explaining it:
    Gender in the American Church: Why the Racial Past Matters
    https://thisbrother.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/gender-in-the-american-church-why-the-racial-past-matters/

  170. @ JeffT:
    Speaking of Kevin Swanson…

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2015/11/09/ted-cruz-bobby-jindal-and-mike-huckabee-and-the-alternative-reality-conference/

    On the one hand, I wish people like Kevin Swanson would stop spreading harmful, deceitful rhetoric. On the other hand, I take a small amount of comfort in the fact that the more he and his friends do so, the faster equality and fair treatment for everyone will spread as the average person realizes how bat guano insane people like Kevin Swanson are.

  171. Lydia wrote:

    Show me the “law” from the OT Paul was referencing in 1 Corin 14. God is very forthright about His Law to the Isrealites

    Firstly the law here refers to subordination rather than speaking. Paul as already quoted the law earlier on re: tongues, and I take this usage in the ‘silent women’ verses to refer to the OT as the law. Specifically, the creation order, paralleling Adam was formed first … in 1 Tim, and following what he has said about this in chapter 11 with its balanced teaching. Some take law in chapter 14 to include Gen 3 : 16, which is still in force. That appears as a cross reference.

    There is a striking resemblance to tongues speaking, where the speaker must remain silent in church if there is no interpreter and use the gift at privately at home – speaking to himself and God. So here, the speaking that would be insubordinate in church is in my understanding linked with the judging of prophecies. Whatever the exact problem going on here, they were to ask their husbands at home about it.

    Against this is the fact the silent verses don’t at first sight seem very closely linked to the weighing of prophecies. It does mean though that the silence is not absolute, it is linked to a particular set of circumstances in the meeting.

    The alternatives to this understanding are i) the traditional MacArthur-type line, where all spoken contributions in church are to be from men; and I’m afraid he an makes a very strong case for this. It certainly makes sense. ii) The other alternative is the one Victorius mentions, Paul is answering a question posed by the Corinthians about an extra-biblical law. Against this is no translation I know of puts this in quotation marks, and even if plausible, there are insufficient grounds to insist this view is correct.

    I reckon MacArthur would see my view as reflecting the culture of the modern charismatic movement (perhaps he’s right!), and the extra-biblical law interpretation as reflecting modern culture that finds the teaching too hard to stomach.

    It’s not always easy to try to approach this subject objectively rather than letting what you want to believe or don’t want to believe be the deciding factor. In my case I don’t want to believe MacAthurville, I find it too restrictive, but that is no reason not to give it serious consideration.

  172. I do think one reason I keep responding to Ken’s post on this stuff is that I want other women who are still trapped in it (and consequently, trapped in abusive marriages, or feel that God doesn’t love them as much as a male – some of which are the consequences of gender comp teaching), is to let them know there is a way out.

    You don’t have to be a gender comp. There is a conservative, biblical hermeneutic that offers alternatives to gender complementarianis, ones which underscore your value, worth, and equality.

    You don’t have to feel shame for being a woman, stay in an abusive marriage, or keep your talents and skills buried, don’t have to feel like a second class citizen (all of which is what gender comp teaches).

    You don’t have to be a man to be loved by God, or valued or used.

    You don’t have to fit a cookie cutter assembly line that gender comps say is necessary, so if you aren’t married with children, or aren’t interested in stereotypical “feminine” pursuits like baking, needle point, or whatever (that gender comps insist you MUST be into if you are a lady), God still loves you and can use you.

    You can be outspoken, daring, bold, opinionated, loud, have “tom boyish” hobbies, and God still loves you and can use you.

    You don’t have to be the quiet, passive, soft spoken little doormat that gender comps encourage women to be.

  173. Ken wrote:

    It’s not always easy to try to approach this subject objectively rather than letting what you want to believe or don’t want to believe be the deciding factor.

    You often accuse those who disagree with gender comp of doing this, but it appears to me you are guilty of this yourself.

    I don’t like gender comp, but for years, I tried my hardest to believe in it anyhow, and go along with it, despite the fact I found it gross and sexist.

    I was taught from childhood and older by Christians that GC was absolutely biblical and to reject it meant I was allowing my feelings or secular feminism to taint my thinking or how I read the biblical text (never mind I am very right wing and normally disagree with most of secular feminism).

    I finally took an objective look at GC (gender comp), though, and saw that the proofs offered up for GC don’t match up with the rest of the Bible.

    For the two or three measly verses you can toss my way about “I forbid a woman to teach”….

    I can point you to another chapter by the same author where he says women will prophesy, where he commends women for being teachers and apostles to men and women, etc., and the examples in Old and New Testaments of women leading and teaching men.

    You’ve indicated before one reason you don’t like more egalitarian churches or whatever is that you have been burned or turned off by churches that had lady leaders or lady pastors, IIRC.

    So it looks to me that you may be guilty of the thing you are accusing non-GCs of being – allowing your personal likes and dislikes to color your view of women, egalitarianism, and the GC topic.

  174. @ Daisy:
    That’s the insidious nature of this idea: women can’t think about gender complementarianism without a man to help them, because their own bias colors their thinking on the matter. Obviously, I disagree, just as much as I disagree with the notion popular in conservative evangelical circles that non-straight or non-cisgender people can’t be trusted to think for themselves. Now, I don’t expect widespread agreement on this topic, given what I’ve seen from various commenters here in the past, but it’s exactly the same logic. I also realize that I’ve given Ken ammunition to say “See? There’s a slippery slope from egalitarianism to the ‘you-know-what agenda’!” which if he’s smart, he’ll realize is a logically fallacious argument before he makes it, but I’m not holding my breath, and since it’s a baseless argument anyway, it doesn’t bother me one way or the other.

  175. Ken wrote:

    Firstly the law here refers to subordination rather than speaking. Paul as already quoted the law earlier on re: tongues, and I take this usage in the ‘silent women’ verses to refer to the OT as the law. Specifically, the creation order, paralleling Adam was formed first … in 1 Tim, and following what he has said about this in chapter 11 with its balanced teaching. Some take law in chapter 14 to include Gen 3 : 16, which is still in force. That appears as a cross reference.

    This makes no sense to me, and seems like the circular argument about creation order all over again. Where does the OT say that a woman is to remain silent and ask her husband about anything occurring at the assembly at home? I think it is much more likely that this is Paul doing what Jesus did when he said things like, “You have heard it said…, but I tell you that…” when speaking of erroneous interpretations of the OT or of additions to the OT which the scribes and Pharisees had made to the Law. The Oral Law was not God’s Law.

  176. Ken wrote:

    Some take law in chapter 14 to include Gen 3 : 16, which is still in force. That appears as a cross reference.

    Are you saying that you believe that Genesis 3:16 is a commandment of God for men to rule over their wives?

  177. Ken wrote:

    the extra-biblical law interpretation as reflecting modern culture that finds the teaching too hard to stomach.

    Nonsense. There were no punctuation marks in the NT or the OT. Every translation is an interpretation, and no interpretation is privileged over another. Rather, each must be weighed according to the evidence. You say Paul was addressing a real Law, but you cannot show where that Law was ever given. How is that a plausible understanding?

  178. Daisy wrote:

    I do think one reason I keep responding to Ken’s post on this stuff is that I want other women who are still trapped in it (and consequently, trapped in abusive marriages, or feel that God doesn’t love them as much as a male – some of which are the consequences of gender comp teaching), is to let them know there is a way out.

    Yeah. What you said.
    Complementarian says that women are second-rate. We forget about God and obey men, unless men are leading us into something that is blatantly, intentionally sinful. We are not chosen by God for anything. Only men can be called, and everything women has to be ordered or approved by the men. God has no direct use for us. We are at the disposal of men. In a marriage, the man determines how much freedom and influence his wife has.
    Marriage = man acquires a servant with whom it is biblically acceptable to use for procreation. Husband is the master, wife is the servant.
    In Eph. 5, from comp. sermons that I have heard, what Paul says about wives could be compares to what PETA says about pets. Love them, feed them, shelter them, don’t be too harsh with them, and so on.

    Nick B made some great points about the power, authority, and responsibility bestowed on the church in comparison to what Paul said in Eph. 5.

    As I thought through what Nick said, it occurred to me that in Matt. 24, Jesus said, “They shall deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.”
    I wonder what the staunch comps would say about this verse in relation to Paul using the [church is to Christ] as [wife is to husband] metaphor?

  179. Gram3 wrote:

    You say Paul was addressing a real Law, but you cannot show where that Law was ever given.

    What is an unreal law? I have some problem here because when I was talking about Samuel and David and God’s attitude toward David and how what Luke wrote that Paul said does not exactly jibe with the OT texts which we have, some of you folk jumped right in there declaring that perhaps Paul had access to some OT texts which are now gone. I was wanting to say that either Luke or Paul might be in error, but you all were having none of it. However, I now think that in this case you all were correct.

    But now that plays into this. So, if Paul quoted correctly in one instance even though that cannot be exactly corroborated with today’s texts, why would we assume that he was not also correct in another instance with similar circumstances, current available evidence or not.

    And what ‘law’ was he talking about, the Torah or the oral traditions?

  180. I found an article about this, and I know where Ken’s thinking is coming from, and the article I think pretty well represented what seems to be gram3s thinking. That said, there is no resolving this between the two lines of thinking.

    However, I am uncomfortable with saying that Paul did not know a law when he saw one, be it Torah or commentary or missing texts or whatever he called law. He is bound to have been talking within the understanding of his day, and I see no good grounds for thinking otherwise.

    BTW, I took the hermeneutics quiz from christianity today yesterday, and I am no where close to a ‘conservative hermeneutic’ but I fell short of my goal of being a wild eyed radical. So there that is. It is interesting however that IMO it takes a progressive hermeneutic to arrive at the conservative position on this issue. Imagine that.

  181. @ Ken:
    The fact is that all of the text are documents with histories, individual and collective. This is me with my *historian’s* hat on; not my “Bible” hat.

    I’m not certain I’m getting through to you; best to let it drop.

  182. @ Gram3:
    Reading the tests of Scripture in the original languages is also interpretation, because of

    a) vowel markings in Hebrew can be intepreted/read in different ways

    b) all reading is interpretation, whether we realize it or not. It is all filtered through our individual brains, after all. Even a group consensus on X is still going to be something that is interpreted by that group of people, each with their own individual interpretations of whatever it is they’ve read. (Except maybe for ingredients lists on cereal boxes.)

  183. okrapod wrote:

    It is interesting however that IMO it takes a progressive hermeneutic to arrive at the conservative position on this issue. Imagine that.

    😉

  184. @ okrapod:
    Apologies, but I don’t remember the discussion about David. Was it the one about David being a man after God’s own heart?

    If Paul is referring to an actual law of God, we would expect to find that recorded in the OT texts. We find no such law in the written texts, therefore, Paul’s instructions cannot be grounded in God’s law. If, however, we consider the actual grammar, we see that Paul is not commanding a woman’s silence and is rebuking them for their “law” which I take to be an oral tradition rather than God’s law.

    This is basically the argument I have with the circular Order of Creation interpretation for 1 Timothy 2. It is merely assumed and cannot be shown in the actual Genesis narrative. Since Paul was a student of Gamaliel, I think we can safely assume he had that narrative memorized six ways to Sabbath.

  185. @ Ken:
    I am ready to throw in the towel, Ken. Just tired of trying to discuss things with you, because I feel like you come across as someone who already knows everything.

    Is there any subject discussed on these pages on which you have doubts, like, you know, the rest of us folks out here? Do you struggle with questions, or do you have all the answers already? The latter is how it appears to me (rightly or wrongly), because you always have stock replies ready for everything anyone asks you or tries to discuss with you.

    Discussion is not saying “I know the truth; let me show you it.”

    I know this sounds harsh, and probably it is too blunt, but I am just weary of the back and forth.

  186. okrapod wrote:

    It is interesting however that IMO it takes a progressive hermeneutic to arrive at the conservative position on this issue.

    I have a very conservative hermeneutic, but I do not include a conservative “interpretation” as part of that hermeneutic. Where I diverge from other “conservatives” who reach other conclusions is that I think we need to play by reasonably consistent rules and make principled hermeneutical decisions rather than ad hoc ones.

  187. @ numo:
    Those are both certainly true. I like to think of Biblical interpretation as a forensic exercise which it seems to me to be. A jury makes a decision based on evidence which not all jurors see the same way. However, they are supposed to make those decisions based on the same rules and the same evidence. They discuss their different views and hopefully reach a consensus. But not always. If you have noticed, my main quarrel is not with “progressives” but with “conservatives” who use anything but a conservative hermeneutic.

    I could open a whole nuther can of worms about the nature of inspiration here and the nature of the inspired text itself, but not today.

    Regarding the punctuation thing specifically, Ken’s basic argument (if I am understanding him correctly) is that the English translations we have are more likely to be accurate than not. I think that is largely true, but where there is a huge dispute like this, it is not sufficient to just dismiss the other position as being driven by supposed motivations without submitting our pet hypothesis to testing by presenting evidence for our position. The translations we have incorporate presuppositions. We need to expose those and test them. The dismissive approach which Ken exemplified above, ISTM, is just another version of ad hominem.

  188. I Ken wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    Federal Head stuff is right out of Doug Wilson.
    Wilson is into the federal vision, of which I know little and am perfectly content to remain in blissful ignorance.
    Adam as head of the human race comes from bible studies 30 years ago – I’ve not been in a church since then that really cared what Paul taught in Romans in the sense of going throught the whole book. This is nothing to do with the usual arguments about head!

    What does Federal mean in this sense? ( I am of the opinion patriarchalists totally miss the point on the Adam/Jesus metaphorical dichotomy and therefore end up elevating Adam!!!)

  189. Ken wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    Show me the “law” from the OT Paul was referencing in 1 Corin 14. God is very forthright about His Law to the Isrealites
    Firstly the law here refers to subordination rather than speaking. Paul as already quoted the law earlier on re: tongues, and I take this usage in the ‘silent women’ verses to refer to the OT as the law. Specifically, the creation order, paralleling Adam was formed first … in 1 Tim, and following what he has said about this in chapter 11 with its balanced teaching. Some take law in chapter 14 to include Gen 3 : 16, which is still in force. That appears as a cross reference.
    There is a striking resemblance to tongues speaking, where the speaker must remain silent in church if there is no interpreter and use the gift at privately at home – speaking to himself and God. So here, the speaking that would be insubordinate in church is in my understanding linked with the judging of prophecies. Whatever the exact problem going on here, they were to ask their husbands at home about it.
    Against this is the fact the silent verses don’t at first sight seem very closely linked to the weighing of prophecies. It does mean though that the silence is not absolute, it is linked to a particular set of circumstances in the meeting.
    The alternatives to this understanding are i) the traditional MacArthur-type line, where all spoken contributions in church are to be from men; and I’m afraid he an makes a very strong case for this. It certainly makes sense. ii) The other alternative is the one Victorius mentions, Paul is answering a question posed by the Corinthians about an extra-biblical law. Against this is no translation I know of puts this in quotation marks, and even if plausible, there are insufficient grounds to insist this view is correct.
    I reckon MacArthur would see my view as reflecting the culture of the modern charismatic movement (perhaps he’s right!), and the extra-biblical law interpretation as reflecting modern culture that finds the teaching too hard to stomach.
    It’s not always easy to try to approach this subject objectively rather than letting what you want to believe or don’t want to believe be the deciding factor. In my case I don’t want to believe MacAthurville, I find it too restrictive, but that is no reason not to give it serious consideration.

    Those are Ken’s laws as per Ken’s interpretation. Show me God’s Law pertaining to the subject matter in that passage.. He is very definite about His law in the OT. God will have communicated it specifically concerning women prohibiting them from teaching or leading men.

  190. Daisy wrote:

    I do think one reason I keep responding to Ken’s post on this stuff is that I want other women who are still trapped in it (and consequently, trapped in abusive marriages, or feel that God doesn’t love them as much as a male – some of which are the consequences of gender comp teaching), is to let them know there is a way out.

    Bingo. I want them to study on their own. I want them to see their inherent value to the Body and develop their gifts.

  191. @ Gram3:
    Not to mention it is almost word for word in several places in the Talmud….as oral law back then. Not to mention the tradition of the synagogue was women sequestered and to be totally silent. In chapter 11, Paul references women prophesying in the Body. In chapter 14, there is a law against them speaking?

  192. Lydia wrote:

    Not to mention it is almost word for word in several places in the Talmud….as oral law back then.

    Yes it is. If you research the Talmud you will find some deplorable attitudes about women. Many of those no doubt followed the Jewish converts like their insistence on circumcision and the Sabbath.

  193. okrapod wrote:

    I found an article about this, and I know where Ken’s thinking is coming from, and the article I think pretty well represented what seems to be gram3s thinking. That said, there is no resolving this between the two lines of thinking.
    However, I am uncomfortable with saying that Paul did not know a law when he saw one, be it Torah or commentary or missing texts or whatever he called law. He is bound to have been talking within the understanding of his day, and I see no good grounds for thinking otherwise.
    BTW, I took the hermeneutics quiz from christianity today yesterday, and I am no where close to a ‘conservative hermeneutic’ but I fell short of my goal of being a wild eyed radical. So there that is. It is interesting however that IMO it takes a progressive hermeneutic to arrive at the conservative position on this issue. Imagine that.

    Most scholars agree Paul is responding to questions sent him from the Corintian church. Some translations put quotes around some of them. Verse 36 in chapter 14 is evidence Paul is “responding” to verses 34-35. It makes no other sense because of what he wrote in chp 11 about Women prophesying in the body and also what he says about the Angels which goes back to chp 6.

    Of course Paul knew the oral law. I think that is one reason his response in verse 36 is so emphatic. It has not been translated well. Ironically, The KJV has the better translation of verse 36.

  194. @ Victorious:
    Yes. Oral law was that women are silent and ask their husbands questions at home. The true irony of all of this is that the early church attracted dispossesd women like Mary M., the unmarried Mary and Martha, widows, businesswomen like Lydia and Phoebe, etc.

  195. Lydia wrote:

    Most scholars agree Paul is responding to questions sent him from the Corintian church. Some translations put quotes around some of them.

    I may be misunderstanding, but I think this page is addressing the same situation (or similar):

    Rethinking One of Paul’s Passages about Women
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/06/12/rethinking-one-of-pauls-passages-about-women/

    Snippet:

    Peppiatt, along with Shoemaker, Padget and Vadakkedom, proposes then that Paul interweaves words and views of the Corinthian male dominant crowd (found in the letter from Chloe) with his own responses.
    Thus, the passage would have been “heard” as Paul’s argument against head coverings, head coverings proposed by males who wanted females to be in submission in the public assembly.

  196. Lydia wrote:

    Of course Paul knew the oral law. I think that is one reason his response in verse 36 is so emphatic. It has not been translated well. Ironically, The KJV has the better translation of verse 36.

    Yes and that same emphatic word is found 4 other times in his letter to the Corinthians.

    1Cor. 6:16; 1Cor. 6:19; 1Cor. 11:22; 1Cor. 14:36

    It’s found a number of other places in Paul’s letters, but most translators have removed it.

  197. @ Gram3:
    I guess i see it more as (this might soujd cory, alert!) a quest, to understand ehat is being said, how snd why, to try just a bit to think ourselves back into the places where the original writers and editors snd compilers were, if only (this also might sound corny) because it’s the closest thing to time travel that i can get, aside from pure imagination.

    Forensic: am not 100% tonight, but I’m kinda not sure what you mean by the use of this word. Could you help me out a bit? Am not sure why anyone would take a strictly forensic approach to this; to belief itself.

    Also, by “punctuation,” are you referring to the total lack of periods, commas, etc.? Because the vowrl msrkjngs in Hebrew are not punctuation per se, and they can be confusing. It’s one of the reasons that many Jewish people use Torah pointers when reading the text aloud and/or as cantors, because it can be easy to get confused by them, or so I’m told.

  198. @ numo:
    Markings. I think I’d better hang it up for tonight, as I’m clearly less alert than i had though.

    One other thing: even when we read lists of ingredients, our brains/minds are interpreting the symbols we can see on the side of the cereal box, or on the label, or…

  199. @ Bridget:
    Great insights. It gives me some ideas of what might work in my situation. I can tend to be somewhat analytical (it’s part of what I do for a living) and that may be part of the problem. I like this forum because it shows that you can be a believer without checking your brain at the door – and that’s why I brought my question here. If faced with bigotry, I can respectfully disagree, I’m going down this road, not to please anybody (except maybe God). I have been equating Jesus with the church (all of them, not any particular one) so when I’ve been disappointed by a church, I am also disappointed with God (and by extension Jesus) which leads to frustration and wanting to give the whole thing up. And I don’t want to attend church because if I don’t I’m going to Hell. I want to be a believer of my own free will – not coerced by fear. I can’t control my judgement after death, I can only do the best I can while alive. Thanks for responding.

  200. numo wrote:

    our brains/minds are interpreting the symbols

    Yep. And there is also this. Our brains exist in darkness and yet we ‘see’ because the brain interprets its own electro-chemical signals from retinal input. Our brains respond to the input of changes in pressure and displacement of air and we ‘hear’, our brain makes words out of that and imparts meaning to it. We are hard wired to communicate in part by the production of sound, and our brains communicate with each other partly by this method across the ‘cloud’ we live in and do so even on theoretical levels. And for some reason we trust the accuracy of what we ‘see’ and ‘hear’ and ‘communicate’ to the level in which we as a species have developed altruism toward one another. It is an amazing thing.

    But it is all interpretation.

  201. okrapod wrote:

    Jack wrote:
    Wife and kids are definitely in the picture. My wife does understand where I come from. Kids are a little too young for theological discussions.
    Well then, one idea is to pick a church that teaches what you want your children to learn, even if it means that you have to downplay some of your own ideas and compromise on what would be best if it were just you in the picture.

    That is a good suggestion. My wife and I are on the same page with regards to what the children learn. We don’t teach inequality and we both want them to learn about the world works – have a strong scientific background whatever they decide to do in the future. Neither of us are biblical literalists. The Assemblies of God church my wife attends has a more traditional morning service, I’m going to start there as it’s closer to style of church I was raised in. I can compromise on some things (as long as others aren’t being denigrated). I’m not going to church to please anyone (except God – maybe). There’s also a local congregation that meets in the evening that practices the Anglican rite – though it’s a more contemporary service so I might check that out as well. Thanks for your insight.

  202. numo wrote:

    I know this sounds harsh, and probably it is too blunt, but I am just weary of the back and forth.

    Better to say it like it is.

    However dogmatic I may come across, I’ve been willing to consider others’ views and change mine if convinced necessary, and have said so. I don’t think anyone else has said that. Obviously arguing for my case means I think I’m right, or I wouldn’t do so, but that applies to everyone else equally.

    In some cases there is clearly another agenda or problem at work that is nothing to do with ‘what the bible teaches’.

    Law Prof has upbraided me for being mealy-mouthed, and simultaneously for not being direct enough. I can’t win on that score.

    As one post of mine may garner half a dozen replies from those who disagree, were I to reply to all of them the situation would be even worse than at present, where I agree it does look as though this is all I want to talk about. I’ve met one-subject bores, and I don’t want to emulate them!!

    I’ve benefitted from the discussion and from some good searching questions, but am also weary of it at the moment. I don’t think I am that bad at communicating, but there are too many times when someone spectacularly (and deliberately?) misses the point or repeats endless groundless assertions that I think it is time for a break.

    We’ve got something in common. I like history too, it’s fascinating – both ancient and modern. I’ve also read widely about the text of the bible, and for obvious reasons translation. I would be nice to have a conversation about that sometime!

  203. Law Prof has upbraided me for being mealy-mouthed, and simultaneously for not being direct enough

    ..and simultaneously not being sensitive enough.

  204. @ numo:
    Forensic in the sense of trying to determine what is true by interpreting the facts available. We must do this when we do not have all the facts. We must look at the totality of the evidence to reach a sound judgment. Looking at one piece of evidence in isolation from the other evidence does not lead us to a sound conclusion. Changing the rules to reach the “right” result is almost guaranteed to reach the wrong conclusion. I don’t mean this is a model but rather a way of thinking about what we are doing when we are interpreting a text so far removed from us but which is still a text that is relevant to us.

    I think you may be on to something regarding the quest angle. But pursuing that would mean bringing up the other things about the nature of the inspired texts and the canon and so forth. I have some major distractions going on right now which makes thinking about that more than I can do right now.

  205. Ken wrote:

    n some cases there is clearly another agenda or problem at work that is nothing to do with ‘what the bible teaches’.

    Just to be clear, my only agenda is to debate your interpretation. I do think you willfully ignore the obvious, read into what is not there and ignore the contradictions your views must believe to prop up male hierarchy instead of a more spiritual/mutual view of the genders. I do not believe there is a pink and blue Christianity.

    Otherwise, we would have no problem UNLESS you were teaching my children your interpretation. Then there would be a problem.

  206. Gram3 wrote:

    I think you may be on to something regarding the quest angle. But pursuing that would mean bringing up the other things about the nature of the inspired texts and the canon and so forth.

    Katherine Bushnell touches on this very briefly. Her view was the translators, as men, did not think to question ingrained tradition in interpretation so it made perfect sense to them to, say, add “symbol of” to the text in 1 Corinthians 11 when it was never there. They could not fathom the meaning as women having authority over themselves in that context.

    Yet, in my research even the word “office” was imported into NT translations. That is understandable from translators working from a state/church paradigm.

    All of this makes “inerrancy” a confusing prospect and means redefining the word. I can live with “inspired” but I cannot affirm that all the translators throughout history were inerrant.

  207. Lydia wrote:

    Katherine Bushnell touches on this very briefly. Her view was the translators, as men, did not think to question ingrained tradition in interpretation so it made perfect sense to them to, say, add “symbol of” to the text in 1 Corinthians 11 when it was never there. They could not fathom the meaning as women having authority over themselves in that context.

    From ancient Israel to Roman rule to Luther to Calvin to King James, how were women viewed and what was the position of the average woman in society and in the church?

    Evil, deformed males, deceitful, property of men. I can’t bring to mind any famous theologian of old who saw women as anything but “less than man”.

  208. Ken wrote:

    However dogmatic I may come across, I’ve been willing to consider others’ views and change mine if convinced necessary, and have said so. I don’t think anyone else has said that. Obviously arguing for my case means I think I’m right, or I wouldn’t do so, but that applies to everyone else equally.

    The main problem you are having here is not that you have a strong position. It is rather that you do not always respond to the substantive points nor to the factual, textual, and logical problems that your position entails. I, for one, was dogmatic about a view similar to yours until I examined the evidence with a consistent conservative hermeneutic. Prior to that, I was not interested in the topic and considered the science settled, so to speak. Until reality bit. I hope it does not bite you or someone you love.

  209. Lydia wrote:

    I cannot affirm that all the translators throughout history were inerrant.

    Nor can I. No translation is inerrant. No text that we have is inerrant. Inerrancy is, or should be IMO, a reasoning starting point that cannot be proved either false or true. I believe that many people conflate inerrancy of the original manuscripts (which we do not have) with the inerrancy of the manuscripts that we do have, with translations, and sometimes with interpretations.

    And I also believe that people can get to the same correct place starting at different places. Or start at the right place and get to the wrong place. Or start at the wrong place and get to the right place. Which is why the discussions here are so interesting to me.

  210. Lydia wrote:

    Just to be clear, my only agenda is to debate your interpretation. I do think you willfully ignore the obvious, read into what is not there and ignore the contradictions your views must believe to prop up male hierarchy instead of a more spiritual/mutual view of the genders. I do not believe there is a pink and blue Christianity.

    I agree.

    he seems to view disagreement with his interpretation on what the Bible says about marriage women, etc, as being disagreement with God himself or with the Bible.Which is not so. There are people who disagree with gender comp who are conservative, who are going by what the Bible says.

    I am still a conservative, I grew up gender comp.

    I rejected gender comp due to several reasons, but one of which was growing to see that gender comp did not match up with what the Bible actually says.

    I stopped automatically accepting the gender complementarian interpretations of the text, and the scales began falling from my eyes.

    Gender comps carry a heckuva lot of assumptions and secular cultural biases and prejudices about gender roles into the text to hold on to their doctrine.

    They read stuff into the Bible, but then accuse their debate opponents of doing that, or having been swayed purely by emotion, or by secular feminism or some other personal bias. They are the pots calling tea kettles black.

  211. Lydia wrote:

    All of this makes “inerrancy” a confusing prospect and means redefining the word. I can live with “inspired” but I cannot affirm that all the translators throughout history were inerrant.

    If I am remembering right, I’ve read it explained by others in books and articles in the past as something like – the Bible is inerrant in- so- far as it’s been accurately translated from the underlying manuscripts / original languages.

    If I am recollecting that correctly, I don’t think most (or many) pro- inerrancy types would argue that Bible translations are 100% great at all times in al places of the text at conveying every point from the original languages.

  212. Nancy2 wrote:

    Evil, deformed males, deceitful, property of men. I can’t bring to mind any famous theologian of old who saw women as anything but “less than man”.

    I find it funny and kind of disturbing that a lot of gender comps think that their position is biblical, and at that, in part because it is supposedly counter-cultural.

    The gender complementarian position on women and marriage is actually the STATUS QUO* in many nations for many centuries *(all caps for emphasis, not yelling).

    Many American gender comps (and some European ones, apparently) keep pointing to secular feminism as leading to the downfall of culture.

    The original feminists (and some of the early ones, from the mid 20th cent) were only fighting for perfectly legitimate stuff, like the right for women to vote, equal pay for equal work, etc.

    The early feminists (and some of the earliest may have been Christians too, I don’t know, would have to research that), were only fighting for government, employers, and laws to treat women humanely and fairly.

    Up until what, the late 19th century?, it was legal for American men to beat their wives. Laws had to be pushed through to fight that.

    Even today, some gender comp Christian guys on blogs argue that there is no such thing as “marital rape,” that a husband is entitled sex from a wife. Some of these guys go over to JA’s blog to argue that position.

    The pro-marital rape Christian men I’ve seen online are using many of the same rationales for their views (and the same cherry picked, or distorted interpretations of, biblical verses) that the “warmer and fuzzier,” or nicer and more huggable, gender comps use for their gender views.

    The nicer gender comps are just refusing to take their views to their logical conclusions, which is what the more severe ones are doing (the guys who come right out and admit they prefer patriarchy and women being barefoot and in the kitchen).

    Gender comp is just the status quo. It’s been around since forever. The early secular feminists were trying to correct these imbalances towards women.

    Your average gender comp, though, views those eras as being nostalgic, when all was right with society, but the reality was women were taken advantage of more so way back when, and even up to the 1970s and later in the USA. If not for those pesky secular feminists, they think, cultures of the world today would be heaven on earth paradises.

    But Jesus says it’s sin from a person’s heart that causes strife and so on – Jesus did not cite living and teaching narrow gender roles as a cure for healing nations or individuals.

  213. Gram3 wrote:

    Quoting Ken, from Ken’s post:

    However dogmatic I may come across, I’ve been willing to consider others’ views and change mine if convinced necessary, and have said so. I don’t think anyone else has said that.

    Actually, I’m pretty open minded about stuff, especially since I’ve entered a faith crisis a few years ago, where I’m questioning, or in doubt about, a lot of things pertaining to the Christian faith.

    I’m not even domgatic about the age of the earth, which seems to be a controversial topic on this site and others.

    I lean YEC, but I’m willing to say I may be wrong about that. (The thing is, though, I’m not terribly interested in the topic of age of the earth, evolution, etc, I find it all boring).

    Another thing Ken should consider with me, and I’ve said this a billion times, is I was brought up in a gender comp family, and I used to be a gender comp myself.

    I didn’t dump the gender comp view until some time around my mid or late 30s (I don’t remember exactly when, but in that time frame some where).

    I suspected lightly while a girl and teens that GC (gender comp) may be bunk, but I tried very hard to believe in it anyhow.
    In my 20s, my suspicion started to grow and grow that it was bunk, but I kept just accepting the GC view on faith.

    I am very, very familiar with Ken’s position and most of his rationales for why he accepts gender comp.

    He’s sort of asking me to revert back to a position on something that I’ve already been through but realize now is false. So it’s not that I’m narrow minded about it, but I’ve already been there.

  214. Daisy wrote:

    If I am remembering right, I’ve read it explained by others in books and articles in the past as something like – the Bible is inerrant in- so- far as it’s been accurately translated from the underlying manuscripts / original languages.

    So how would they know based upon what is available concerning “original” manuscripts? Read article 10 of the Chicago statement on inerrancy written by “scholars”. Then tell me if the word inerrant means inerrant. The word “IF” is a problem. It is part of redefining word meanings that really bothers me personally. It is my biggest pet peeve with covert Calvinism.

    So when inerrancy became a salvic issue among evangelicals as in “who is in and who is out” or “liberal vs conservative”, it is a ridiculous measurement.

    I think using that word has caused many problems and caused too many people to ditch scripture all together. It became a litmus test. Instead of enjoying what is a collection of Inspired books/writings they are called to view every word as inerrant? What about the books that were left out? I use inspired here because pains were taken to pass down the stories and write them down for future generations. I find that truly amazing. I wish we spent more time looking at the larger themes in the books.

  215. Nancy2 wrote:

    I can’t bring to mind any famous theologian of old who saw women as anything but “less than man”.

    Jesus. (smile)

  216. You know, we don’t have what are known as “autograph” (in the author’s own hand) manuscripts of any part of the Bible. We don’t have them for any of Shakespeare’s plays or poetry. We do have autograph music manuscripts in Bach’s own hand – during his lifetime, individual authorship became more widely accepted and prevalent.

    But there is, as far as anyone knows, no autograph or first draft of anything in the Hebrew Bible, or in the NT. I think there are indeed errors (scribal, that is) and yet… could it be thatthe important thing (or one of them) is that we fallible human beings have been entrusted with the written word of God? How absokutely amaxing!

  217. @ numo:
    In 2 Chr. 3, the measurements of Solomon’s Temple are given. In the KJV, it says that the temple itself was 20 cubits (30 ft.) high, while the porch of the temple was 120 cubits (180 ft.) high. To compare, the temple wasn’t quite as high as a 3-story hotel, while the porch was a bit higher than a 15-story hotel! Make sense to you?

    In the notes on this, my KJV Study Bible says as follows:
    “The hundred and twenty here was apparently miscopied, ……” (Bold emphasis theirs, not mine)

    Inerrant? The original maybe. Copies???? Eh, maybe not so much.

  218. Lydia wrote:

    Just to be clear, my only agenda is to debate your interpretation

    The ‘agenda’ I have in mind (just to clarify) is often seen in the egalitarian sites such as Daisy has pointed me to. It’s not really what the text means that is at issue, rather ‘this makes me feel bad about myself’ or similar sentiments, either in the article or comments.

    This occurs surprisingly frequently, taking the focus away from where it should be. This is a separate problem that needs dealing with first; failure to do that will prevent a reasonably objective attempt to understand the meaning.

  219. Gram3 wrote:

    It is rather that you do not always respond to the substantive points

    I’m afraid there simply isn’t time to do this always. For example and with apologies to Lydia, as a translator I was interested in the arguments surrounding Kephale, and read around it – until my brain hurt! Claim and counterclaim. From what I read of both sides, and allowing for the dangers of internet ‘research’, the arguments in favour of source as a translation of this are small to the point of vanishing. It’s clear subjective factors are at work, and I’m afraid there are too many egalitarians who believe what they want to believe on this. There is also some sloppy if not bordering on fraudulent scholarship around as well.

    Cue a large number of posts putting me right on this! (We won’t go there!) The information is out there, regardless of view it is worth thinking about, but I fear the subject is now going round in circles.

    I think these doctrines, including for example predestination, are actually in the NT for our blessing, and it is a pity if we can only ever argue (in a nice way, of course) about the meaning. With the proviso the NT does say things we don’t always want to hear, if it is not blessing us I suspect we have missed the point.

  220. numo wrote:

    could it be thatthe important thing (or one of them) is that we fallible human beings have been entrusted with the written word of God? How absokutely amaxing!

    Great point!

  221. @ Lydia:
    I just skimmed Isaiah ch. 3, KJV. Compare verse 4 to verse 12:
    Verse 4: “And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.”
    Verse 12: “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. ………”

  222. @ Ken:

    Researching the use of kephale in Ancient Greek is an intense exercise. Linguists make better sources than theologians with an agenda either way. We could start with the typical Greek words that communicate authority that are not found in that passage because it is not about pecking orders in the first place. It is about being filled with the Holy Spirit.

  223. Ken wrote:

    think these doctrines, including for example predestination, are actually in the NT for our blessing, and it is a pity if we can only ever argue (in a nice way, of course) about the meaning. With the proviso the NT does say things we don’t always want to hear, if it is not blessing us I suspect we have missed the point.

    I think a search for all truth, even what some see as a distraction, is worthwhile and part of who we are to be. I believe God created us to be thinkers as well as doers. Suggesting there are things in the NT we simply do not want to hear because we disagree is one of the oldest shaming tactics out there. It promotes ignorance as piety.

  224. @ Ken:

    I did not read Daisy’s link. I stayed far away from egalitarian sources when I started researching this many years ago because I had a paradigm of that movement which was probably unfair as I look back. This is not about feeling good about ourselves. It is about who we are in Christ. Btw: Does Luke 8 sound egalitarian to you?

    I could warn you that your interpretation is about you wanting to feel important. Would that be fair?

  225. Here is what I don’t understand. Why not translate kephale as head and leave it there, since either ‘source’ or ‘authority’ can be argued from the context to result in the same sort of relationship, whereas head is an idea more open to nuances and complex meanings.

    Personally I do not see how some man is some woman’s ‘source’ and if that idea is correct then it is demeaning to the woman beyond belief. Or else it refers to Eden and the rib incident. In other words the sequence of creation. Or perhaps it could mean that to the woman the man is nothing but a paycheck, which would also be demeaning to the man.

    Does it mean source as in the head of a river? I hear that a lot. The head of a river can be some trickle of water gratuitously named a creek up in the mountains getting its water from the rain that hits the mountains and drains off. You look at that and it is weak and puny and right pitiful and you have to think that is going to be the what? river. Source? as in lots of little creeklets down the mountain?

    At the same time, and if one presupposed source to be something substantive and forget the river analogy, ‘source’ carries with it the idea that without the ‘source’ the woman would be sourceless, that is to say utterly dependent. Woman is not utterly dependent on man, and if Paul was arguing this then what does that do to his arguments about celibacy elsewhere? And please let’s not think that all women in that culture were utterly dependent on men when there is evidence to the contrary.

    I think he recognized the cultural thinking and practice of the day and sought to place it into the larger idea that all human things take second place to the reality that Christ is head of all-the man as well as the woman, and that for their very existence (man is born of woman) there exists a mutual dependency on each other also. But nowhere does Paul say that a man has to have a woman to be a real man, much less be a tyrant and a bully in the process. And nowhere does he say that a woman has to have a man. What he does say, it seems to me, is that within the particular marriage relationship one can see some analogies which can yield some good theological insight regarding God and humanity while at the same time talking about people living together within a context of mutual responsibility and cooperation.

    In my mind changing that message such that no it means authority or no it means source is equally to miss the point and borders on almost a different gospel.

  226. @ okrapod:
    Koine Greek had far fewer words than we do and therefore many more metaphors we tend to take way too far. Like sheep or head. In 1st Corn 11, Paul uses Kephale as a literal head on shoulders because the topic is head covering. That would not fit Eph 5 so we look for other uses of Kephale in ancient Greek.

    The word Head evolved in meaning so it’s natural we have challenges with it. We all know now that thoughts and decisions come from the brain but back then they believed they originated from the heart. Ergo all verses referring to the heart. We still refer to the heart about emotions.

    I don’t see anything wrong with discussing these things and am a big believer in individual freedom when it comes to moral conscience on these issues.

    Where I have challenges is when I am told I just don’t like what scripture says so I am trying to make it say different.

  227. Lydia wrote:

    Does Luke 8 sound egalitarian to you?

    No, because I try not to read it like that, this is imposing something not intended onto the text. It’s a bit like trying to see predestination or freewill scattered throughout the NT.

    But I do take the point that Jesus and later Paul did treat everyone the same, and this is ignored at our peril. That has never really been a point at issue though.

    If Daisy wanted to put people off complementarianism, she would be better going for some of the comp sites out there – I have actually seen one which likened husband and wife a to master and slave relationship. Unbelievable.

  228. @ okrapod:
    Just from the point of view of translation, you cannot just transfer synonymous meanings from one language to another. Just because head can mean a source of a river in one language doesn’t mean it does in another. The German word Haupt for head doesn’t have this metaphorical meaning as far as I can see. English doesn’t really use it in this way in common speech either. More importantly, a description of a river origin cannot be mapped onto a description of relationships between two people, because a person is not a river.

  229. Lydia wrote:

    Where I have challenges is when I am told I just don’t like what scripture says so I am trying to make it say different.

    Sure. But if one accusation against the translators of scripture through the ages is of trying to make scripture say what they want it to say, then for sure that same accusation will be applied to the interpreters of scripture both then and now. I don’t think it is ‘personal’ so much as it is just one aspect of how the game is played.

    However, most people who are accused of this, and I am thinking both then and now, are probably not doing that at all. That said, when I try to track something down it is usually not to prove how right it is but rather to be sure that something is not wrong with it because there sure seems to be something wrong. That is bias to start with. My own filter has set off flashing lights for some reason. So, at least in my case, utter objectivity for no reason at all does not come into play.

    So indeed, if Paul was talking about source then he is a misogynist of the first water, which certainly some people have said about the man. And he would have been talking about either creation order meaning the rib story or else financial and legal supremacy and control or perhaps even some primitive ideas of reproduction which we now know to not be true. And certainly some have said that is exactly what he was doing. But source, regardless of whether that meaning can be found somewhere in greek writings, is a really bad fit for this particular situation. It causes more issues than it solves. Which may be why it is a minority opinion.

    Now I don’t know what the idea was for him with heads, as in the uppermost body part, any more than I know what it was about hair for crying out loud, or why he thought that some heads should be covered and some should not at various times and places, but if that is what he said then that is what he said. I am thinking it was cultural with perhaps some combination of the local pagan cultures and the synagogue practices and that probably the people of his day understood what he was saying and leave it at that.

  230. okrapod wrote:

    And he would have been talking about either creation order meaning the rib story or else financial and legal supremacy and control or perhaps even some primitive ideas of reproduction which we now know to not be true. And certainly some have said that is exactly what he was doing. But source, regardless of whether that meaning can be found somewhere in greek writings, is a really bad fit for this particular situation. It causes more issues than it solves. Which may be why it is a minority opinion.

    I think that was exactly the situation in that day and time. The husband was the wife’s source for protection, shelter, food, etc. And I see Paul dealing with “what is a fact of life” with Paterfamilias and trying to raise the bar for believers. For most wives, submit in its meaning for that time, was a step up.

    Women in Ephesus recieved their only autonomy within the Temple Cult.

    Our problems seem to stem from trying to implement Eph 5 as a marriage manual for today. We don’t even deal with the issue of arranged marriages to name a major difference in our filter with such texts.

    On a related issue, Paul did not insist on believers freeing slaves. Instead he taught that slaves should gain their freedom if they could. He begged one owner of a runaway slave to take him back as a brother in Christ.

    Yes, source causes a ton of problems because we are so far removed from living conditions in that era.

    Believers Baptism was a minority opinion for a thousand years of church history. Why is it so accepted now?

  231. @ okrapod:

    Maybe I am not totally making myself clear. I do not see any necessary disconnect between the head coverings thing (anatomic head-calvarium) and the head thing (the husband is the head-same word) because obviously Paul would not have been talking about some woman experiencing an outburst of rain on her head (anatomic head) while praying and therefore needed protection from the rain. Heads obviously represented something more to them than just scalp. Similarly the use of head regarding husbands was referencing some connotation also. So here we say what connotation. Some say that the meaning is authority in both circumstances. This has the advantage of consistency, but it presents some difficulties. Some say source, and here I am saying this presents difficulties.

    So why not leave the word as head (anatomic designation for a body part) and just accept that we can’t be sure what all he was meaning to convey.

  232. Lydia wrote:

    Believers Baptism was a minority opinion for a thousand years of church history.

    I have to check that out. They told us in RCIA that believers’ baptism was the original idea, that people had to remain as catechumens for an average of three years, and that infant baptism was added on later, substituting the faith of the parents and sponsors of the infant and the believing church for the actual experienced faith of the infant. And in fact, and I did not know this, the RCC does practice believers baptism for adults, sometimes by immersion apparently. I did witness an adult believer’s baptism by immersion in an anglo-catholic episcopal church, so I never really questioned but that position of the RCC as well as others was not either-or but both-and, and had been for a really long time.

  233. Ken wrote:

    I fear the subject is now going round in circles.

    As circular as the reasoning about 1 Timothy 2. The evidence you have offered for female subordination in Genesis–something which is necessary to ground Paul’s argument–is small to the vanishing point. That, to state it again, is the problem with your assertions. They are assertions which you are perfectly free to believe.

    Do not get me started on shoddy Complementarian “scholarship.”

  234. Gram3 wrote:

    The evidence…

    When telling the big lie there doesn’t have to be evidence, only repetition. Maybe that is why the compster biggies talk about this so much, for fear they will quit believing it.

  235. __

    “Delusional Exhortations?

    “Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love?”

    Quack! Quack!

    @ Nancy2

    hmmm…

    Da Big Cheese sayz ta ‘honor your father and mother…’

    huh?

    Since when dose ‘honor’ (R) mean subordination? 

    What?

    heh heh heh

    these calvinestas sure like ta make stuff up, huh and use scripture ta make it universal…

    Krunch!

    Once an argument become polarizes (Complemtarian/
    Egalitarian), IMHO each side is gonna beat the oposition to the proverbial ground. 

     Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang…

    That sure spells love your neighbor as yoursef kinda stuff, don’t it? 

    Sixty percent (and increasing) of the church’s population placed under the proverbial theological jack boot of other quantity is shear insanity. 

    Yep.

    Wives, Mothers, Neighbors, Associates, Friends…

    NADM (never a dull moment)

    All in da name of Sub-or-din-a-tion.

    Skreeeeeeeeeeeetch !

    —> Out of the rib fella, not da @zz or foot…

    -snicker-

    Geezzzze

    (sadface)

    Sopy

  236. Lydia wrote:

    Believers Baptism was a minority opinion for a thousand years of church history. Why is it so accepted now?

    Because, like many crackpot fringe ideas that never quite go away, it’s not entirely without biblical precedent.

  237. @ okrapod:
    My mom told me that an old pastor friend of the family said he just skipped over those verses cos they did not pertain to him.

  238. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    Believers Baptism was a minority opinion for a thousand years of church history. Why is it so accepted now?
    Because, like many crackpot fringe ideas that never quite go away, it’s not entirely without biblical precedent.

    One can read Martyrs Mirror and see horrible punishments from both Protestants and Catholics toward such dissenters. It is hard for me to fathom that people would risk their lives for adult baptism. But they did.

  239. Ken wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    Does Luke 8 sound egalitarian to you?
    No, because I try not to read it like that, this is imposing something not intended onto the text. It’s a bit like trying to see predestination or freewill scattered throughout the NT.
    But I do take the point that Jesus and later Paul did treat everyone the same, and this is ignored at our peril. That has never really been a point at issue though.
    If Daisy wanted to put people off complementarianism, she would be better going for some of the comp sites out there – I have actually seen one which likened husband and wife a to master and slave relationship. Unbelievable.

    There is nothing to impose. It is stating a fact. Married and unmarried women were traveling around with the men in the very Patriarchal 1st Century and financially supporting them. How does that fit with comp interpretations? Jesus was accused of bad behavior several times.

  240. @ Ken:
    but how can you know this about something written in Koine Greek? None of us were around at the time it was written, after all…

  241. Ken wrote:

    Just because head can mean a source of a river in one language doesn’t mean it does in another.

    I have never hear head used for the source of a river in english. What I hear is people translating kephale as ‘source’ and then explaining that what they mean by source is like the source of a river. I am surprised you have not hear that over there.

  242. Ken wrote:

    More importantly, a description of a river origin cannot be mapped onto a description of relationships between two people, because a person is not a river.

    Actually we can, to some degree. This is precisely how metaphor works – we describe one thing in terms (as if it was) another, because there are similarities which can be mapped onto each other. Jesus was a huge metaphor user , take I am the Bread of Life, for example…Jesus is not a loaf of bread, is he? But there are enough semantic similarities for him to use this as a metaphor – he is nutritious, essential to life, what truly feeds us & so on. I have no problem with seeing this used in other areas of the Bible, such as rivers & relationships.
    My undergraduate dissertation (I have a Joint Hons degree in fine art & literature) was on metaphors of illness in poetry, using structuralist theory. Don’t even get me started on how utterly fundamental to human comprehension the use of metaphor is, as well as being one of the ways that sematic widening (a word coming to have additional meanings to its original or literal one) happens. Metaphor rocks (see what I did there?) & similies likewise (oh I’m good tonight…)

  243. @ Beakerj:

    I have not said that metaphor per se is not useful. I have tried to say that this particular metaphor does not work for me in this particular circumstance. I don’t see anything about a source of a river on the one hand and an adult human male on the other hand that would transplant into translating kephale as source if that metaphor is what they have in mind. It does not convince me that source is a good way to translate kephale in this instance.

    I would love to hear what you found about literary metaphors for illness in poetry. Well, not the whole paper of course, but maybe an idea or two if you get the time.

  244. okrapod wrote:

    I have never hear head used for the source of a river in english.

    The headwaters of the Mississippi are located in a state park just outside of Bemidjii Minnesota. Now you have. The word ‘headwaters’ to indicate the source of any river has been in common usage (American English) for quite some time now.

  245. Gen. 2:10 ~ and a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

  246. I’ve heard head and source used to describe the beginning point of creeks and/or rivers.@ numo:

    I know there are many definitions. I was just responding to @ okrapod here.

  247. @ Bridget:
    Same here. I was wracking my brain trying to rrmember the word “headwaters” when you posted it.

    Source comes from Latin, via French. I betcha head is from Old English. Our lsnguage has a very mixed – and mixed-up – heritage, for certain.

  248. @ numo:
    Btw, I’m not sure how i ended up replying to you with that link. It wasn’t my intention.

    Just looked up head, and darned if it isn’t from Old Englis. The number of definitions and nuances is pretty staggering, too – not going to touch that one!

  249. Ken wrote:

    @ okrapod:
    Just from the point of view of translation, you cannot just transfer synonymous meanings from one language to another. Just because head can mean a source of a river in one language doesn’t mean it does in another. The German word Haupt for head doesn’t have this metaphorical meaning as far as I can see. English doesn’t really use it in this way in common speech either. More importantly, a description of a river origin cannot be mapped onto a description of relationships between two people, because a person is not a river.

    A person is not a sheep, either. Sheep don’t have relationships.

  250. @ Ken:

    You know, I hope we will all agree that regardless of what the word “head” means, good hermeneutic that affects millions of individuals cannot be built on the ambiguity of one word or even one verse.

    Knowing this, the meaning of the word is a moot point for me.

  251. Lydia wrote:

    A person is not a sheep, either. Sheep don’t have relationships.

    It is interesting to consider people and which scriptures they place importance on.

  252. Lydia wrote:

    A person is not a sheep, either. Sheep don’t have relationships.

    But, their is a top-down, hierarchical, non-mutual relationship between shepherds and sheep. That seems pretty close to the same sort of relationship that Ken says should exist between a husband and his wife/family.

  253. Bridget wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    A person is not a sheep, either. Sheep don’t have relationships.
    It is interesting to consider people and which scriptures they place importance on.

    We simply must believe that some animals are more equal than others. Some are even people! Ha!

  254. @ Nancy2:

    I have always gotten a kick out of the mapping that would have to occur in their Eph 5 interpretation. The husband is Jesus and the wife, the church. Surely they can see this is a problem?

  255. Their throat is an open grave,
    they use their tongues to deceive
    The venom of asps is under their lips.
    Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.
    Their feet are swift to shed blood,
    in their paths are ruin and misery,
    and the way of peace they do not know.
    There is no fear of God before their eyes.

    This became a living reality at the weekend. Was just about to turn in when my wife said have you seen what’s happening in France. Spent the next hour of so looking at the BBC world service, and was horrified at the sheet wanton destruction of human life. It brings it home just how much of our lives is so banal in comparison to the issues of life and death, and human nature when it is estranged from God. Far from this tragedy being representative of faith in God, those who were so swift to shed blood have no fear of God.

    Paul’s description here though is where any society can go when it abandons God, it’s where sinful human nature leads unless God intervenes to restrain it. If there had never been the Cross, then this is all there would ever have been. No good news, no opportunity to change and renounce evil ways, to be put right with God and be given a future and a hope. A hope that includes the fact that one day, justice will be done and will be seen to be done.

    The West needs this good news and repentance every bit as much as those under the darkness that such actions represent. We are not beyond shedding innocent blood as well, we who have had the light of Christ for centuries and have largely turned away from it.

    It makes you long for his kingdom to come, his will to be done on earth as it is in heaven.

  256. @ Ken:
    Ken, this is not about a society that has abandoned God. It is about the horrific acts of a small group of terrorists.

    While i appreciate your concern for those who died, and were injured and traumatized, your comment kind of reminds me of some of John Piper’s pronouncements on death and disaster.

  257. numo wrote:

    John Piper’s pronouncements on death and disaster.

    He hasn’t let this act of terrorism go to waste either.

  258. There is an article on SBCVoices about Jerry Jones not punishing Greg Hardy for abusing his girlfriend. I commented that they could say whatever they want about Jerry Jones, but I have even less respect for pastors who send women back home to abusive husbands, as well as pastors who say women are abused because they are not “submissive enough.”
    My comment was deleted. I knew it would be.
    Condemn everyone else, but touch not God’s anointed!
    Welcome to the New SBC.

  259. Ken wrote:

    This became a living reality at the weekend. Was just about to turn in when my wife said have you seen what’s happening in France. Spent the next hour of so looking at the BBC world service, and was horrified at the sheet wanton destruction of human life.

    On Sept. 11,2001, I was teaching in a public school ~ not very far from Ft. Campbell military base. I watched the horror of 9/11 on TV with my 7th grade students. At that time, my husband was active duty military, along with some of my students parents. One of my students had an aunt and uncle who live a couple of blocks away from the Twin Trade towers.
    I worked closely with a team of 5 teachers, counting myself. 3 of us were married to men in Special Forces (Green Berets); one teacher was married to a man in 101st Airborne (Sceaming Eagles); the 5th teacher’s father was retired military. I can not describe the fear and dread we all felt that day.

  260. @ Nancy2:
    They were dubbed Pravda a few years back. You may not realize it but SBCvoices is often used by the big cheeses like Setzer and Mohler minions to plant their version or spin. It is like a pastor back slapping club. A yes men convention.

    They have a giant collective man crush on Platt. Years ago it was all about defending Driscoll cos ” he has correct doctrine “.

    It is hard to take them seriously.

  261. Lydia wrote:

    You may not realize it but SBCvoices is often used by the big cheeses like Setzer and Mohler minions to plant their version or spin. It is like a pastor back slapping club. A yes men convention.

    I’m catching on. One must march in lockstep with them, or get booted out. The only opinions that count are the opinions of those who AGREE!

  262. Nancy2 wrote:

    At that time, my husband was active duty military

    My brother was stationed in Japan at that time. Air Force. We had no communication with him or his wife living in Japan for some time. It was terrifying.

  263. Lydia wrote:

    defending Driscoll cos ” he has correct doctrine “.

    Now was that the Calvinista doctrine or the unlimited, Jesus commanded, sex in every orifice of the wife doctrine?

  264. Nancy2 wrote:

    I worked closely with a team of 5 teachers, counting myself. 3 of us were married to men in Special Forces (Green Berets); one teacher was married to a man in 101st Airborne (Sceaming Eagles); the 5th teacher’s father was retired military. I can not describe the fear and dread we all felt that day.

    Your fear and dread was surely justified. 14 years later we are living with the consequences generated by the misguided actions of Bush the younger, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz.

  265. Ken P. wrote:

    Did you see the response to you by Dave Miller?
    “Welcome to Pravda, Lydia.”

    SBC = Southern Baptist Communists ?

  266. Muff Potter wrote:

    Your fear and dread was surely justified. 14 years later we are living with the consequences generated by the misguided actions of Bush the younger, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz.

    My husband’s training specialized in Middle East countries. He was deployed to Iraq 3 times after 9/11.
    I am so relieved and thankful that he retired before things really got messy with Afghanistan.

  267. Let’s not turn this into a discussion of the right and wrong of various presidents. Too much virtual ink would be spilled to little effect.

  268. @ Ken P.:
    Perhaps, because you are a man, you could prevail upon Comrade Miller to publish Nancy2’s comment on the domestic violence thread?

  269. So while we are near the subject, I remember Pearl Harbor. Not just the memory of it but the event of it. I was just a kid in grade school of course but I remember. Once something like that actually happens you forever know that things like that can happen, and that never goes away from the back of your mind.

  270. @ GuyBehindtheCurtain:

    Right. I’ll be good and not shoot off my mouth on stuff like this again.
    Honest Injun! It’d be a shame for Potter to get banned from one of the few blogs that will tolerate him.

  271. @ Muff Potter:
    I will ban myself before i ban you, Muff. You know how much I love you! I believe that you have been treated unkindly and I have just written a short treatise on the last comment section.

    I want you to know this is not directed at you. You have always been the epitome of kindness and thought. Dee is a major fan of the Muffster! Always!

  272. @ GuyBehindtheCurtain:
    I wasn’t referring to any particular president or political party. I just meant that I am glad that my husband retired from the army when he did instead of re-enlisting.

  273. Many thanks for the vote of confidence Dee!, my esteem for you and what you do is also very high. I gotta stand on my comment though, it had nothing whatsoever to do with partisan politics. The mention of a former president was merely incidental. I only pointed to an inconvenient truth that dogs both sides of the aisle in different ways to this day.

  274. Lydia wrote:

    @ Ken P.:
    Perhaps, because you are a man, you could prevail upon Comrade Miller to publish Nancy2’s comment on the domestic violence thread?

    I’m afraid that you greatly overestimate my influence with Mr. Miller. One time when he said something stupid he said my reply was “ungodly communication”. There is always his hate mail box that you can try. It’s davemillerisajerk@hotmail.com. (seriously)

  275. @ Ken P.:
    I am quite familiar with his email. :o)

    It must be heady stuff to have the power to declare “ungodly communication”. It never dawned on me to use that when voices was defending Driscoll.

  276. ION: England beat Pakistan by 6 wickets in the third ODI in Sharjah to take a 2-1 series lead. Interestingly, none of the three matches has been particularly close so far.

  277. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    I love your cricket updates on this American blog! I’m afraid rain has had the upper hand in the SA / India test match – no balls bowled for 3 successive days. Wish some of that rain would head down south. Southern Africa is in the grip of a severe drought.

  278. @ Estelle:

    We aim to please!

    The UK is indeed in the grip of a severe anti-drought, as you hinted. It comes of being downstream of the confluence between the Gulf Stream and the northern polar jet – two major airflows chucking weather-systems hither.

    The Second Test between Australia and New Zealand was certainly dominated by the bat…

  279. IFON:

    Fitba’ is notorious, in the UK not least, for attracting neds and fostering tribalism and outright thuggery. On the other hand, it can also provide a near-universal sporting language (outside the US, the only country in which americanfootball is played) that – at its best, and on rare occasions – brings people together like few other sports.

    How encouraging, then, to see the latter prevail at Wembley tonight in the impeccably-observed silence in memory of the recent atrocities in Paris, and the manner in which both sets of fans sang and/or applauded le Marseillaise. The score didn’t matter (2-0 as it happens, but nobody involved was all that bothered); the result was a display of solidarity free of aggression and bitterness.

  280. … that said, there was apparently some anti-ISIS chanting. So, it was still a game of fitba’…

  281. Daisy wrote:

    Will A Truly Honest Bible Translation for Women Ever Be Made?:

    Not surprisingly, I’m going to stand up for translators! I think your article misses out on just how much care has gone into translating the bible over the years. There are probably too many versions on the market these days, but it is not exactly difficult to get at 20 or more versions at once by googling the scriptures, and if you have learnt them, the original languages.

    Specifically in the article: Some English versions translate the word deacon as deacon or minister when it refers to men, but diminish it to deaconess or servant when it refers to women. A deaconess linguistically is simply a lady deacon, there is no diminishing of anybody. Actor, actress. Similary minister is virtually a synonym of servant (though some ‘ministers’ may have forgotten this).

    It’s true that Junia was more than likely female, though even this is not absolutely certain. Now it is also true the RSV translates Rom 16 : 7 as Greet Androni′cus and Ju′nias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me, where the word men has been added and the masculine version of the name Junias has been used. Nearly every other translation before and after does not have the word men – the ESV for example has They are well known to the apostles. Nevertheless, the RSV is better with among the apostles, as it preserves the ambiguity as to whether Andronicus and Junia were themselves apostles, or were known to the apostles.

    Daniel Wallace has an article discussing this issue worth reading, and the footnotes to the NET bible have a lot of useful information. I have no problem with anyone saying Junia may have had an effective and well known ministry, but the dogmatic assertion that she must have been an apostle simply isn’t true. This is much more tentative, but the ardour with which this is asserted reveals a problem in the person making the assertion. The author (or should I say authoress) of your article sees the bible as demeaning women. The problem is in her, not the bible; nor some supposed bias in translation, and she betrays an inability to see the difference between submit and demean.

    It is not legitimate to change a translation of any source text because it says or appears to say something we don’t like. Nevertheless, there is wisdom in many translations, because some element of interpretation is almost inevitable when translating a text into a different language, all the more so with complicated and potentially ambiguous grammatical constructions in the original.

  282. @ Ken:
    The Junia/apostle (small a….a descriptor) has been done to death. Piper and Grudem made total fools of “scholarship” by quoting Epiphanous as a credible source leaving out the fact he insisted Priscia was a man, too. That is all they could come up with. Lots of ink spilled on this before the internet, too. Nowadays, the comps try to ignore it as much as possible.

    A better source for the Greek is the misogynist himself, Chrysostom, who wrote about the female apostle Junia’s great reputation .

    apostle can be a descriptor of those who are sent out…a messenger. That is what the big A were. Messengers.

  283. @ Lydia:
    The point is, sticking strictly with translation, that other social or theological agendas need to be kept away from text itself. Whilst this may not be absolutely possible, most modern translations have striven to achieve this.

    A kind of conspiracy theory of translation is very weak, including assumptions about translators wanting to smuggle in renderings that suit their theological tastes. Dogmatic assertions about how something should have been translated by non-translators weaker still, yet unfortunately all too common in the age of the internet.

  284. @ Lydia:

    Instead of trying to ‘Make the Bible say what one want’s it to say by-hook-or-crook’ why not just let conscience, reason, and common sense decide how much of it should be extrapolated out of the way back then and into the here and now?

  285. Lydia wrote:

    One can read Martyrs Mirror and see horrible punishments from both Protestants and Catholics toward such dissenters. It is hard for me to fathom that people would risk their lives for adult baptism. But they did.

    No, they didn’t.

    But I’ll come back to that point. The reason it’s hard for you to fathom, I suspect, is that you’re missing a rampaging elephant in the room. What was so important about infant baptism that those in ecclesiastical power were willing to kill for it? The reason “dissenters” were in any position to risk their lives is, at one level, simple: there were people ready to take them. In reality, these things aren’t entirely simple, of course – but the underlying causes of this can, I think, be seen in the aforementioned phrase ecclesiastical power and, in particular, the word power.

    For “Protestants and Catholics”, read “State and Imperial religions”. As crude as that looks, that’s the way it was in medieval Europe. Institutional Christianity had been in bed with secular political power for centuries, and had become synonymous with it. So by widely practicing infant baptism, a state or imperial church could lay a claim on the lives of whole populations practically from birth. The driving force behind infant baptism, in other words, was not a desire to keep everyone’s worship pure but a desire to control. Today, most people don’t go to church and those that do are – legally and practically – free to choose where and how to find fellow-believers. But historical sources all point in much the same direction: that “church” up and down the land in Europe was very much like 9 Marx, Mars Hill or the Shepherding Movement writ large.

    Now, I stated above that the martyrs whereof you spake did not die for adult baptism. For one thing, it’s not infant vs adult baptism, but unwitting vs believers’ baptism. (The Anglican baptismal liturgy, for instance, is headed “The baptism of those who are not old enough to answer for themselves”.) In effect, the historical political denominations aimed to do what heavy-shepherding churches do today: to control the consciences of, and answer for, their members. In such an environment, you can’t walk with God for yourself, nor worship him for yourself: you effectively worship and follow men. You lose one of the most basic and vital freedoms of all. That was why the dissenters were willing to die, and why the authorities were willing to kill them.

  286. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    In effect, the historical political denominations aimed to do what heavy-shepherding churches do today: to control the consciences of, and answer for, their members.

    Here and now that would include deliver the votes from ‘values voters’ if nothing else.

  287. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Very interesting post, Nick. As someone from an Anglican background (though not christened), converted in an Anglican church but who later ended up in a Baptist church, and later still baptised a few people without ordination papers(!) I’ve had to think this one through.

    The person doing the baptising is the least important person present. Doesn’t even need to be a ‘leader’.

    You are right that the issue is believer’s verses infant baptism, and I’ve know relatively young children be baptised as believers – having very definitely received the Holy Spirit! But if a man is a new creation in Christ and the old has passed away, this includes any religious rites applied before the time of coming to faith.

    I think you have to respect the conscience of those who believe in infant baptism, but in my expererience if they read the bible on it long enough they come to the conlusion that having professed faith, they ought to get baptised as a believer. This does not mean imo that where believers in an Anglican setting christen a baby and pray for it God does not hear these prayers and bless these families.

    It is never right to manipulate or pressure anyone into getting baptised.

    The amount of water is not the issue – sprinkling versus immersion. The latter is a good picture of Romans 6, but hardly decisive as what is valid baptism.

    It’s also true, and I experienced this in a non-evangelical Anglican church, that a false hope is given to those who see this rite as conveying the new birth (the child is hereby made regenerate), and in the end had to move on from that church. It’s a false gospel. The fact confirmation has to be added indicates infant baptism is incomplete as a symbol of becoming part of the church. In my wife’s case, she was christened, confirmed, later heard the gospel and believed and was baptised. External religious ceremonies cannot ever substitute for personal faith in Christ. I still part company with Roman Catholicism on this, as an institution very guilty of making the church the means of salvation, an idea that allows it at least in theory to have immense control over its members.

  288. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    The driving force behind infant baptism, in other words, was not a desire to keep everyone’s worship pure but a desire to control

    I totally agree with your entire comment. Including your position on WHY they chose the issue of believers baptism.

    A great place to look at this issue is the chronology of events with Zwingli and his students.

    There is an element here we tend to overlook that encompasses so much of what took place. The debate on believers baptism did not work well with the political/church determinism inherent in the Protestant construct. Believers baptism called into question not only spiritual freedom but political freedom. It would be a domino effect. But as a spiritual issue it had legs!

  289. Ken wrote:

    The point is, sticking strictly with translation, that other social or theological agendas need to be kept away from text itself. Whilst this may not be absolutely possible, most modern translations have striven to achieve this.

    How is it a political or social issue to be as true to the original meaning as possible? You speak vague platitudes. The “Agenda” was to turn Junia into a man.

  290. @ Muff Potter:

    You know, when it comes to interpretation, I spent over a decade delving into details concerning these horrible interpretations including ESS, etc.

    Now, I am convinced that a birds eye view is better. Major and the most important themes like Wisdom, Rescue, etc get lost if we don’t get a much larger picture.

    Debating the details is an old habit.

  291. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    I can also see where my terminology causes problems. You are right it is believers baptism vs unwitting baptism. But think what that implied: Personal Decision.

    Those are even fighting words today in the 9 Marx world and they do not practice infant baptism. But they practice the keys doctrine of an elder conferring the salvation status of individuals. Just another form of control using different tactics.

  292. Lydia wrote:

    Major and the most important themes like Wisdom, Rescue, etc get lost if we don’t get a much larger picture.

    Then there’s the two great commandments from Jesus and the Golden Rule that get lost when people get hung up on a few unimportant details.
    The details become the focus and the foundation, and even the very bedrock (Jesus, anyone?) is lost.

    “Bird’s Eye View” is a good way to put it.
    I’ve been known to call it “The Big Picture”.

  293. Lydia wrote:

    You speak vague platitudes. The “Agenda” was to turn Junia into a man.

    No, I specifically talked about Junia as an example! It may have been in the past it was assumed that this individual was male for reasons other than purely linguistic ones, but I’m skeptical of there being a conspiracy to give her a ‘sex change’.

    Similarly, translations need to avoid deciding in advance whether or not she was an apostle for reasons not related to the knowledge of Greek grammar and the current state of the MSS evidence. You don’t need to spend much time on this verse to see there are plenty of people who do assume this because it is what they want to believe.

    This would be to read modern cultural assumptions (usually Western ones) back into the text, and this is one reason why I object to getting rid of generic ‘he’ where this is used in the original.

  294. Mara wrote:

    The details become the focus and the foundation, and even the very bedrock (Jesus, anyone?) is lost.
    “Bird’s Eye View” is a good way to put it.

    So true. I’ve seen it often.

  295. @ Ken:
    It is not a “symbol,” it is a sacrament. I don’t think you really understand how baptism and confirmation are (variously) understood in Protestant liturgical churches.

  296. @ Ken:
    Err, you *believe* it to be “a false gospel,” because you cannot objectively prove it to be so. Neither can people who *believe in* infant baptism, and i baptism as a sacrament. That’s all about faith, and none of it can actually be proved as the dole objective truth.

    Frankly, you’re being pretty offensive toward those who believe differently than you do. I hope you will take some time to think carefully about wording, as you could have made a strong case for your beliefs without the “false gospel” rhetoric.

    I think you can do better, and if you don’t realize by now that many who read and comment here believe differently than you do, then i think you might want to hang it up.

    I do wish you well, but am tired of this kind of prejudicial wording from you.

  297. Ken wrote:

    Similarly, translations need to avoid deciding in advance whether or not she was an apostle for reasons not related to the knowledge of Greek grammar and the current state of the MSS evidence. You don’t need to spend much time on this verse to see there are plenty of people who do assume this because it is what they want to believe.

    No Ken, the “agenda” was presented as big A Apostle or not. It is not either/or. It is simply a descriptor like deacon or elder.

    It has nothing to do with deciding in advance or about what I “want to believe”. It is what it is. And nowadays, Romans 16 is avoided like crazy by many in the comp camp.

  298. Ken wrote:

    No, I specifically talked about Junia as an example! It may have been in the past it was assumed that this individual was male for reasons other than purely linguistic ones, but I’m skeptical of there being a conspiracy to give her a ‘sex change’.

    Read Piper and Grudem. They gave her a sex change. And quoted the whack job, Epiphanius, as their historical source. But they failed to mention that Epiphanius also wrote that Priscia was really a man, too!

    Scholars in their own camp had to come out and “question” their scholarship because it was ridiculous. They sort of dropped the Junia focus after that.

    As to the apostle question, Chrysostem wrote in his homily on Romans:

    “Greet Andronicus and Junia…who are outstanding among the apostles: To be an apostle is something great! But to be outstanding among the apostles – just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.”

    And Chrysostem was no feminist. :o)

  299. @ Ken:
    How do you decide if a child has “very defintdly received the Holy Spirit”? I cannot imagine whwt, exactly, would make it clear to all and sundry, because it’s more than a little likely that young children are simply repeating what they have been taught, possibly word for word.

    I had some lovely older women as Sunday svhool teachers when i was vety young, so it’s not as if i was lacking in this area (the Gospel and Christ presented in a way that little children can comprehend).

    As for confirmation, i don’t know of any instances in Protestant “high church” denominations where this is done without prior catechism. When you say that your wife was confirmed without ever having “heard the Gospel,” well – let’s say that i am somewhat (though by no means entirely) skeptical about this. What i am pretty much certain about is that she was not acquainted with “decision” theology (as in “make a decision for Christ”) until after she was confirmed.

    Fwiw, a lot of adults are baptized in the churches I’m thinkingmof, and the Cnof E website has information on adult baptism and confirmation. I think it’s not as far off the mark as you make itmout to be.

  300. Lydia wrote:

    Believers baptism called into question not only spiritual freedom but political freedom. It would be a domino effect. But as a spiritual issue it had legs!

    You’re not wrong! In some ways it continues to be more divisive than baptism in the Holy Spirit (even though the latter is kind of a misnomer, not to mention a different Open Discussion…).

  301. ION:

    Fitba’ news: and after 13 matches of the Premiership season, the league leaders are…

    Leicester City

    Trust me: naebody</b saw that one coming.

  302. numo wrote:

    It is not a “symbol,” it is a sacrament. I don’t think you really understand how baptism and confirmation are (variously) understood in Protestant liturgical churches.

    I have a mixed relationship with the Church of England.

    The good news is that I was converted in it, and benefitted from some of its outstanding ministers over several years (actually decades!) – Dick Lucas, David Watson, Michael Harper… . I had a very close friend from my baptist days who went on to become an Anglican vicar, and notwithstanding we did not agree on infant baptism the friendship and fellowship continued unabated.

    I think I am reasonably clued up on sacraments and the differences between Anglo-Catholics and evangelical Anglicans, and the wider differences with Roman Catholics on this subject. One of the strengths of the C of E has been the dramatic increase in the proportion who adhere to an evangelical gospel, and those who contributed to a more balanced form of charismatic emphasis. As a uniquely English institution, it is arguably uniquely in a position to reach the great mass of unchurched and indifferent that now comprise the majority of the population.

    There are some aspects of the liturgy that keep aspects of the gospel in view that all too easily can be lost in ‘free’ churches. The prayer of humble access before communion being one (‘we do not presume to come to this table …’), or the prayer to ‘cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of your Holy Spirit’ being another at the beginning – better than just ‘starting the worship’ without any preparation at all.

  303. numo wrote:

    you could have made a strong case for your beliefs without the “false gospel” rhetoric.

    The bad news of the C of E:

    The non-evangelical part of the C of E presents infant baptism in a way too similar to the RC’s for comfort. It effects that which it signifies, and gives the impression that this is all you need to be right with God, if indeed he exists. A kind of insurance just in case. My wife really did go through the preparation for confirmation without hearing the gospel, and there are far too many Anglican churches where this is the case I fear. The outward rites are not enough, she didn’t understand why Jesus died on the cross and the need for personal faith in him as a result (not decisional regeneration, as widespread as that is). I was present at the baptism of an Anglican vicar, trained as a monk, ordained for 14 years before putting his faith in Christ – he was quite a character! He reckoned he was far from alone amongst Anglican clergy despite the rigorous selection procedures for the ministry.

    I think you heard echoes of American fundamentalists when reading my comments on infant baptism being a ‘false gospel’. I did say I think you have to respect the conscience of those who believe in infant baptism followed by I experienced this in a non-evangelical Anglican church, that a false hope is given to those who see this rite as conveying the new birth (the child is hereby made regenerate). I don’t think that is being unreasonable or offensive. I’m afraid there really are multitudes of people in Britain who think this is all there is to Christianity. It really is a false gospel, one that makes no demands, expects no change, and plenty of evangelical Anglicans would agree. I’ve witnessed this mis-placed hope amongst family and friends, and in a non-evangelical middle of the road Anglican church that for a while experienced charismatic renewal. The renewal of what happened at infant baptism, namely the confering of the gift of the Spirit.

    For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. Baptism and the gospel are two separate things here, you can have one without the other.

  304. The magnificent Kim Lawton of PBS Religion and Ethnics NewsWeekly is sloughing through (aarweb dot org) today

    “I’m at the American Academy of Religion conference in Atlanta where some 10,000 scholars of all things religious have gathered. They love their books here, but I’m not sure I can find a good new beach read…” Kim Lawton

    Bless her heart!

    # aarsbl15

  305. @ Ken:
    I see a lot of prejudice against Catholicism underlying your comments.

    Lutherans also view bsptidm as a sacrameny, fwiw. Presbyterians and Methodists in the US also practice infant bapyism, though their views differ as to what it is, exactly, and what it means.

    As for the “echoes of American rvangelicalism,” i have told you before that you often say things in an identical manner. You do; it’s not just yourbeliefs, it is literally about the way you word things. So many people in this country subscribe to the line that all liturgical churches present “a false gosplrl” (and therefore are not truly xtian in any sense), it’s not funny. Keeping in mind that most of the 1st setylers in the original 13 colonies were from England, Scotland and what is now Northern Ireland, as well as the fact that the vadt msjority of yhrm weren’t exactly what one could call “high church,” and you can see dome of the things that laid the groundwork here for prejudice against the RCC and otherliturgical churches. (The other reasons are primarily political, and spurred by the English Reformation, as well as the fact that in colonies like Virginia, landowners were all members of the CofE. This is still largely true today, btw – it’s remarkable how little has changed, in some ways, since the late 1600s, whrn the Jamestown colony was founded. Marylsnd, though, was founded by Lo4d Baltimore, who was Catholic, and msny English Catholics settled there.)

    To be be brief: we inherited a great many of your pronlems, conflicts and religious strife. Is it any wonder that we often evho you, or vice versa?

  306. @ Ken:
    And yes, I agree with you that for many, christening is just something you do, are expected to do. But it is scarcely the only thing of that kind in life, is it? And peoples’ reasons don’t make or unmake the validity of it, imo.

  307. @ numo:
    to add a bit… don’t folks in your church often do things because the are expected to, for all kinds of reasons? i’ve seen that in many churches, personally. didn’t matter what theology they held, either.

  308. @ Ken:

    You might be missing something here.

    I used to listen to Marcus Grodi on EWTN, a catholic network. He was a former Lutheran pastor and had a program about converts and reverts to catholicism. On more than one occasion he brought up the issue that people from either a catholic or protestant background, having been born into and scrupulously raised in that faith, would later have a conversion experience on the opposite side of the Tiber than the one in which they were raised. He could not understand why either approach ‘works’ for some people and not for others.

    I am thinking that there is more to this issue than merely the mechanics of religious practice.

  309. @ numo:
    I was brought up under the strong influence of not believing any one denomination can say “we have the truth”. The exception was the RCC, where my parents regarded this is too far gone from the bible to be an authentic representation of Christianity. (This is also true of parts of many protestant denominations as well.) I’m not sure this influence has entirely left me.

    This might be mere prejudice if I had never genned up on Catholic theology or spoken with former Catholics. I did have limited contact with Catholic charismatics despite feeling uncomfortable with the institution they came from. I’m not a hot Prot who thinks no-one in the Catholic church is saved, but I also don’t regard the reformation as something not really needed.

    As for liturgies, the downside of them is you can simply go through the motions, saying the words unthinkingly, or even without actually believing them at all. Religion rather than relationship to use the jargon. It doesn’t have to be that way, but can be.

    I took the family once to a service of 9 lessons and carols at a ex-pat Anglican church in Germany, only to find those leading it went to great pains to make clear they didn’t actually believe much of really happened and was true. Hence we only went once! Not even the offer of mince pies afterwards could make up for it all being rather pointless.

  310. @ Ken:
    Look, non-liturgical churches all have various orders of service, and people in thrm “go through the motions” evety Sunday. I think the point is not about ritual or repetitiveness (meeting of any kind would be chaotic without some kind of structure), so much as it is *whose* variety of structure, form and content is perceived as better or worse. Myself, I’m more of a liturgical type, for many reasons. That doesn’t mean anyone *has* to be, but i am baffled by the kind of yhing you ptopose per “going through the motions,” because this is, i think, more both/and than either/or.

  311. @ Ken:
    I know what you mean about the way people sometimes put on a service for the sake of foingmit, but that doesn’t negate the value of the service, all on its own, nor does it mean that you and your family were the only people in the congregation who felt differently about it all.

  312. @ numo:
    For the sake of doing it.

    Additionally, nobody but God knows what is taking place in the hearts and minds of the people who conducted the service. If it was of sbsolutely no value to yhem, or had no meaning, they wouldn’t have bothered to go to the trouble of doing it in the 1st place. I think most of us find ourselves closer to “I believe, help my unbelief” than “I know for sure, and i have all the answers right here,” if only because life can be very hard and nobody is immune to suffering. If a service of 9 lessons and carols gives comfort and stability to the lives of many. I’d say that there’s a pretty fair chance that a lot is going on, regardless of what someone says or doesn’t say from the lectern. The holidays are painful for many people, and the very short days can also be extremely depressibg. (I have Seasonal Affective Disorder myself, and use a light box daily… and the holidays are very difficult. People can draw a great deal of comfort from services like this, and who’s to say when and how God is working in that setting?)

  313. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    The only truly holy man who ever lived was also the most compellingly attractive to sinners. He grasped lepers and touched corpses, and didn’t catch disease or death from them – quite the reverse, they caught health or life from him. True holiness is robust and contagious.

    The bride of Christ, “holy and without blemish”, is not pampered and cosseted. She is his co-heir, his co-labourer who completes his work, and his army. As a result of his love and sacrifice for her, she is not a precious flower, timid and fragile. She becomes more than she could ever have been without him – not less.

    That’s lovely, Nick. And amen.

  314. numo wrote:

    People can draw a great deal of comfort from services like this, and who’s to say when and how God is working in that setting?)

    As much as in any other setting!

  315. I know that I’m not supposed to bring up the “M” word here.
    I also know that there is no point in emailing someone about tripping on “M”, especially on a day like today.
    But I do wish I could get a message to someone, anyone, that I’ve tripped on “M” somewhere on this blog. Because it is frustrating when what I say is lost by a pile of other comments before it can be seen.
    Is there some way I can address this without getting in trouble.
    (expecting to be in trouble now but still asking for help.)

  316. Mara wrote:

    know that I’m not supposed to bring up the “M” word here.

    You are allowed to use it, but only in moderation …

  317. Lydia wrote:

    So what does “head” mean?

    Around here, it means to mmake use of the rest room.
    I hesitate to carry this thought to its logical conclusion……

  318. ION:

    Fitba’: further to my previous observation on the topic, today’s match between Leicester City and Evilchester United is a top-of-the-table clash. And once again, naebdy saw that coming.

    IHTIH

  319. zooey111 wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    So what does “head” mean?
    Around here, it means to mmake use of the rest room.
    I hesitate to carry this thought to its logical conclusion……

    Flush it down the sewer?

  320. @ zooey111:
    Apparently, according to a fundamentalist nutcase on Youtube, real men pee standing up – except he described it in a more vulgar, KJV-inspired way (technically, the most Godly way to micturate is to do so upon a wall, according to the urinating preacher).

  321. @ Ken:

    Just a side note. The reformation was more about “reforming” the Unversal church than a spiritual awakening. I wish it had been a revolution but it ended up being more about shifting power around. The peasants remained peasants.

  322. Josh wrote:

    Apparently, according to a fundamentalist nutcase on Youtube, real men pee standing up – except he described it in a more vulgar, KJV-inspired way (technically, the most Godly way to micturate is to do so upon a wall, according to the urinating preacher).

    I guess bathrooms, toilets, and urinals aren’t biblical.

  323. @ Nancy2:
    Nope! Pee on a wall if you’re a man (2 Kings 9:8 in the KJV, et. al.) and carry a shovel for solid business (Deuteronomy 23:13).

  324. Patrice wrote:

    I hope [Lesley’s] interview went swimmingly and she hears soon that she got just what she wanted.

    Thankyou for your kind thoughts, Patrice, and sorry it’s taken so long to respond to them! She didn’t get that particular job, unfortunately, but there’s no question that the application process was an irreversible step in the right direction, towards the job she deserves. TBH, although I’ve nothing against Nicola Sturgeon, it really should be Lesley doing the First Minister’s job.

    (Background information to any who are interested can be found at
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Minister_of_Scotland
    http://www.scottish.parliament.uk
    IHTIH)

  325. Now that was weird. I copied in two web addresses with no html tag, and WordPress converted them both into hyperlinks. I’ve never seen it do that before. Slightly inconvenient, too – I’d deliberately made them not hyperlinks for reasons that GBTC (as a fellow-Wordpresser) will readily understand.

  326. About the problem we ran into with math education.

    First this needs to be in perspective. It was not just math where the problems are. There are serious problems in multiple areas in the schools. Our school system if one of the largest in the state and is relatively well funded compared to some. None the less some of the variables impacting our school system include: the economy, the ever changing changes required by Washington on threat of loss of finances, the fact that we are part of a large relocation area for refugees per the federal gov (somebody said that 70 plus language groups have been settled in this area (not all impact the schools), the large percentage of people who definitively practice a different cultural lifestyle as compared to those who assimilate more easily, the crushed morale of the teachers due to a number of factors directly affecting how difficult it is to teach and also the changes in the pay and benefits, and the popularity of law suits and threats of lawsuits against teachers.

    But about the math specifically. To start, there lives with me a student who has experienced school both in the public school and in a private school. The private schools around here market themselves as maintaining some of the older and more traditional classic? teaching styles. I had no idea what all that meant since I am not a teacher. For ease of presentation let me talk about it from the student’s viewpoint backed up with a link below from the net.

    (to be continued)

  327. @ okrapod:
    (continued)

    So here is what I have extracted from the kid and have observed. The math class in public school had 30 plus students, one teacher and only a very few textbooks which were placed in the library area of the classroom and not immediately available to the students. The class did not follow any textbook (more on this later) but operated thusly: the teacher would pass out worksheets, give a relatively brief illustration of how to work the problem(s) and leave it at that. Sometimes the students were allowed to work individually but often they were sorted into groups and the answer(s) were expected to come from the group. In the absence of textbooks, and with one teacher with too many students, if the kids did not understand the problems there was little that could be effectively done about that. Now mind you, this was a class for students who had already been determined by testing to be academically gifted in math, and they were struggling with this. This, apparently being the best the school had to offer.

    The math in the private school is textbook based, has smaller class size and almost all of the work is done individually rather than as a group. There is more homework and each student is expected to be alble to explain their work to justify what they have done. The kid loves it and is gobbling up introduction to algebra.

    If you look on line at what problems some education researchers have found with the implementation of common core math they note the problem that available textbooks do not cover all the material apparently in the new format, that the teachers are not prepared to handle the material since certain courses were not required during their own teacher education training, teacher time is not well used, and the teachers basically don’t know how to handle some of the math themselves even at the elementary school level. This is exactly what we found.

    http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2014/08/researcher_diagnoses_four_prob.html

  328. @ okrapod:

    Your first paragraph describes the problems here. In fact, teachers have basically been told (due to new discipline guidelines) they should expect to be assaulted at work. Seriously! I am NOT kidding. What boggles my mind is that we have mandatory union wages here even if not in the union but the union is doing nothing about it.

    Teachers are resigning in droves right now.

  329. @ okrapod:

    The constant changes might read like keeping up and cutting edge but it is causing mass confusion and unprepardness. There are some things that are tried and true and best to stick with.

    Here is an article about how common core came to be:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bill-gates-pulled-off-the-swift-common-core-revolution/2014/06/07/a830e32e-ec34-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html

    The politicians and unions received lots of money which means jobs. The teachers got very little including training or even text books.

    Personally, I think locals should have some say in education for which they are paying taxes.

  330. @ okrapod:

    BTW: Group work in elementary and middle school is a big pet peeve of mine. I am appalled at how many class assignments are based on group work.

  331. Lydia wrote:

    BTW: Group work in elementary and middle school is a big pet peeve of mine. I am appalled at how many class assignments are based on group work.

    And from your other comment: “Personally, I think locals should have some say in education for which they are paying taxes.”

    Those who are making political statements about this are saying that this is not about the quality of education per se, except for perhaps some theorists and idealists at some university somewhere but rather this is about politics. That it is part of a power grab by the federal government to take further power away from the states and consolidate all power under the federal government and to create ‘the borg’ which can be more easily controlled. The constant emphasis on the group rather than the individual learner is one methodology of doing this, they think. Because individual thinkers are harder to control than those who have been programmed to defer to group think.

    Concrete example. In math the children are taught to think in language words about math using a different language allegedly in order to facilitate the new thinking which as you have said before is abstract at far too early an age. The conspiracy folks look at some of the specifics of that and point out some interesting things–using teacher talk. Think about the quantity of 31. Ask the child if you can take 9 away from 31 by starting with something you cannot do-take 9 away from 1. The answer at the elem school level is no that you cannot take 9 away from 1. So what can we do at this point. We can say that you can change 1 into 10 if you borrow from your neighbor ( the 3). But no, the CC people say you must not because that is a process and not a number idea. Actually you must say that 31 is not the number, but the number is actually three tens and one one. Then you can take 9 away from three tens (or I suppose one of the three tens) and you don’t have to worry about the one at this point nor do you borrow from your neighbor or much less pay back your neighbor down below in the tens column or keep a notation at the top that you have borrowed from your neighbor. I am not sure what you actually do with the two tens that had nothing subtracted from them nor what happens to the one, but then I do old process math-individually-which is probably why I have been such an utter failure in life (sarc!) Now this does not apply in higher grades because if you ask an older kid can you take 9 away from 1 the answer is sure you can because now they understand the concept of negative numbers and what things look like on a graph. The re-programming of the actual thinking processes apparently has to happen at the teachable level before the children can actually conceptualize abstractions for themselves. But the critics of this are saying that the children are being robbed of the basic processes which will facilitate their moving on to other concepts later.

    The question for some then is; is this a grab for political control at the federal level and is it laying a foundation for some form of mind control of the young?

    And then of course you do what some of us did and take at least an introductory course in statistics in college and learn that apparent numbers will betray you in a second if you do not realize that under some circumstances you have to see beyond the numbers to the people and the facts behind said numbers and ask yourself the initial question ‘what is going on here?’

  332. @ okrapod:

    Aha. I think I have figured out what they want you to do with the extra tens. First you expand 31 into 10+10+10+1 and the you take nine away from one of the tens leaving 10+10+1+1. Then you shrink it all back to one number by adding that and you have 22. I am not sure if you do this on paper or in your head, but I do think this may be what they are doing.

  333. @ okrapod:

    I don’t look at it as a mind control conspiracy theory although I think it works in that way in the end.

    What I see are people in government, education and university settings gaining grants and good paying jobs to introduce new cutting edge exciting ways to teach children. It is a way to perpetuate a machine of sorts. What do all those people at DoE do, for example? It was created by Jimmy Carter so we did get along without it. Has education, across the board, improved since its inception?

    The children are the guinea pigs in all this. I was one in middle school when they put 300 kids in an auditorium and had TV math with a facilitator. It was a disaster but who cared about what it did to us.

    What you describe above is what I was told is “mental math”. They want 3rd graders “thinking about math”. And it was taught here in most elementary private schools, too. Parents were confused and thought something wrong with their kid so had them in math tutoring. When an entire 4th grade is in math tutoring after school, something is wrong. And while the 4th grade was small for the average school (60 in 3 classes) that is still a ridiculous amount. I spent a ton of time during those years doing basic memorization math at home. It was grueling because all the terminology was different. But I found multiplication table songs which was fun.

    But here is what I found later. There were really only a few private schools here NOT using this method of math. I was a bit shocked. EVen the Catholic schools here were using it. It was almost like bucking the state not to use common core since we were early buy ins here. I had a steep learning curve on all this because I did not come from that world.

    As to teams: Industry was doing something similar with teams we mentioned earlier in the 80’s-90’s in manufacturing and other organizations. (Adults are harder to train in this area than kids~! But we have several generations who are used to it now)

    Entrepreneurs are not big on team work and don’t fit well in these settings. And it does tend to stifle individual progress and creativity. Especially for students who do not fit into our method of education.

    The best teams are voluntary where they look for specific skills to create or solve a problem. But that is now how they are usually formed. But teams can easily fall into group think. This happened recently to my kid who was totally against what her team voted to do for a project. Being new at the school, she gave in. Turns out she was right that they were on the wrong track but now she is stuck with the team grade. The team approach is so ingrained that it is a waste of time to mention the problems. I have tried. It would be like suggesting they get rid of tables and chairs. It is that ingrained.

    I do not think it is going to serve us well in society or the economy for way too many reasons to get into here. It is a very controversial subject where folks call you all kinds of names for bucking the trends. Conspiracy theorist is one.

    I am at a loss of why parents want to raise lemmings instead of a child that grows up to think things through on their own and question. We are not raising independent free thinkers. We are raising them to be dependent and want to fit in. Even on college campuses today, free speech is coming under attack. If they don’t like the speech, they want to stifle it. If no one can disagree then how can iron sharpen iron? How can they learn to actually think? Groupthink is necessary for the isms to spread. Communism, socialism and fascism.

  334. Lydia wrote:

    I am appalled at how many class assignments are based on group work.

    I always detested group assignments because I’m introverted. I work better and more comfortably alone.

    In college, I disliked group assignments also because there was always at least one slacker in every group, and I was usually the one who had to do his job in addition to mine.

  335. As a from army secondary ed. math teacher, I say “new math” and ” common core” are loads of bull crap. The stuff may sound innovative in political and university settings, but in the real world, it doesn’t work! I had to teach a group of 6th graders one year. When I introduced geometry, they didn’t understand textbook” area and perimeter at all. My classroom floor was tiled – 1′ squares. So, on day 2, we pushed the desks against the walls. I gave the students washable markers, and we worked on area and perimeter on the classroom floor. They got it, but I had to explain things to an admin who walked by the room and saw us crawling around on the floor!

    I had 7th through 9th graders who could understand the difference between mass and volume. I brought unpopped popcorn, marshmallows, and empty plastic containers to use as teaching tools.

    Mostly, I taught pre-algebra, algebra I and algebra II. It ticked me off to no end when my students didn’t know basic math and I had to review multiplication tables, long division, place value, and basic fractions before I could adequately teach algebraic polynomial equations, inequalities, exponents, roots, the quadratic formula, algebraic factoring ………….. aarrrggghhhhhh. ………. My complaint list is sooooo long.

    I don’t even want to get started on favoritism, athletes, speshul parents whose children deserve speshul privileges……….

  336. okrapod wrote:

    (continued)

    Thanks for posting this. I see many of the same problems with my 5th grader grandson. I hope to be able to say something constructive about this after the coming weekend. Some folks around home think I have had too much math to be able to talk to a 5th grader about the subject. 🙂 We’ll see.

  337. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Thanks for posting this. I see many of the same problems with my 5th grader grandson. I hope to be able to say something constructive about this after the coming weekend. Some folks around home think I have had too much math to be able to talk to a 5th grader about the subject. We’ll see.

    My brother was granted custody of my niece when she started 5th grade. She was having major problems in math. My brother finally found out how her previous school taught multiplication when he met with her 4th grade teacher.
    Example: to calculate 3 x 4, draw 3 circles on your paper. Put 4 dots in each circle. Count the dots.
    I’m not joking!

  338. Nancy2 wrote:

    Example: to calculate 3 x 4, draw 3 circles on your paper. Put 4 dots in each circle. Count the dots.
    I’m not joking!

    … hmm.

    I suppose, to be fair, I never calculate 3*4 – I just remember it (and I seriously doubt that I’m alone there). If you’re actually going to calculate, in the strict sense of the word, 3*4 then you have to do it some other way than just remembering the answer. But, of course, you only do that once or twice, when you’re very young. After that, you really need to remember it.

  339. @ Lydia,
    Here’s a comment you left over on the long Nagmeh thread before we agreed to move the math-ed convo over here to the free thread:

    It seems the well paid education experts far away in gov offices or gov grants thought it best to teach math as an abstract to 9 year olds who are concrete thinkers.

    Right on the money Lyds, literally. They are over paid actually, divorced from the real world, and without govt. funding, they’d dry up and blow away.
    To be fair and balanced math is both abstract and concrete. But in recent years, abstract theory has been given center stage at the expense of the concrete. The old tried and true methods of working problems from arithmetic through multi-variable Calculus have gotten the short shrift.

  340. So, justice at last for Reeva Steenkamp. Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of murder by South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal and the manslaughter verdict overturned.

  341. Lydia wrote:

    What I see are people in government, education and university settings gaining grants and good paying jobs to introduce new cutting edge exciting ways to teach children

    It’s not all that different this side of the Pond, this is not unique to the States.

    People in comfortable offices who have probably forgotten what the inside of a classroom looks like setting ‘targets’ to be attained and tested and tested and tested … . Classroom teachers I know despair of this in the end, if they are remotely any good they know exactly how to get the information into heads without all this nonsense. They know their pupils without filling in dozens of forms in triplicate.

    The German state system is pretty good except perhaps for the lower end of the non-academic pupils. The money finds its way to the academic grammar school end, and the less academic but clever in a more practical way who end up being engineers etc. are alway fairly well catered for. Unlike Britain, there is almost no private education.

    The main difference from the Anglo-Saxon model is that if a child starts to get behind, the teachers often won’t lift a finger to help, it’s down to parents to cough up for extra tuition. More sensitive children can also suffer in the system as well, especially where little encouragement is given for work well done/children are not spared when they have got something wrong.

    If I had one gripe over British education, it would be the free market corporate culture way of thinking has crept in, and instead of education being an exercise in learning how to think, obtain and process information, it is becoming utilitarian, only things that can later be used in the market place to make money are really valued. More than a bit Philistine, in my opinion.

  342. Ken wrote:

    If I had one gripe over British education, it would be the free market corporate culture way of thinking has crept in, and instead of education being an exercise in learning how to think, obtain and process information, it is becoming utilitarian, only things that can later be used in the market place to make money are really valued. More than a bit Philistine, in my opinion.

    That is NOT free market. It sounds more like the old Soviet system which was extremely utilitarian for those students not affiliated with the oligarchy. The Free market requires independent thinking and processing information.

    BTW: I do not define “free market” as a place where the person filling pudding cups in the hospital kitchen works for a global conglomerate.

  343. Nancy2 wrote:

    Mostly, I taught pre-algebra, algebra I and algebra II. It ticked me off to no end when my students didn’t know basic math and I had to review multiplication tables, long division, place value, and basic fractions before I could adequately teach algebraic polynomial equations, inequalities, exponents, roots, the quadratic formula, algebraic factoring ………….. aarrrggghhhhhh. ………. My complaint list is sooooo long.

    It’s almost criminal isn’t it? Arithmetic will make you or break you in algebra, and your algebra will make you or break you in the Calculus. Way too many undergrads are woefully ill equipped when their majors require a year or more of Calculus. Sadly, and to use an illustrative and brutal metaphor, they wind up like the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad.
    Here’s a you tube vid that encapsulates much of what we decry on this topic:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI

  344. We do need to keep the math thing in perspective. We also have made a switch from phonics to whole language for reading and we have thousands upon thousands who cannot read effectively. This got so bad that in our state the legislature passed a law which was basically that if you can’t read at a certain level at a certain year mark you will be retained in grade. Problem was, so many had to be ‘retained’ that the schools could not physically do it and they had to create a new category-passed to the next grade except for reading. It has been a farce and a horror. So Johnny still can’t read, and once Johnny ages past the learning window of opportunity there is little hope that he will become an effective reader, or so they say.

    When Johnny gets out of school and can barely read and also can barely make change at the grocery store he cannot find a good job at the factory or the mill because those are long gone for the most part, and much of the remaining so I read will soon be done by robots. The heartbreaking tragedy is, Johnny almost always has adequate intelligence to do both had he been taught how to do either.

    So I hear. I am not an educator. There is a remote possibility that I may be wrong.

  345. @ Lydia:
    Thanks, Lydia.
    I owe a lot to the very first math instructor I had at the community college I attended. I have always been mathematically inclined, but my rural high school has always been very weak in the math department. My mandatory college algebra class was beyond my ability. The teacher basically rescued me. I went on to take trigonometry under him and LOVED it. I changed my major and went on to a 4 year college. From the way this instructor taught, I learned to meet the students at their level.

  346. Muff Potter wrote:

    It’s almost criminal isn’t it? Arithmetic will make you or break you in algebra, and your algebra will make you or break you in the Calculus. Way too many undergrads are woefully ill equipped when their majors require a year or more of Calculus.

    Criminal??? I’d say more like certifiably insane!!!
    Learning math is like building a house. You have to have a solid foundation or the house will not stand. Those who control our education systems think we no longer need foundations.

    BTW, have you heard about Pearson’s online math classes??? I tutored my daughter and 3 of her classmates through a Pearson’s class last spring. The class met on campus 2 days each week, 50 minutes per session with a so-called instructor, The 4 students that I tutored are the only ones in that particular class who passed.

  347. okrapod wrote:

    When Johnny gets out of school and can barely read and also can barely make change

    No. Johnny can’t make change. My intern year, I also taught a consumer math class to high school juniors and seniors one year. The second week of class, I just about had to jack my jaw up off of the floor. I was astounded at how weak they were in basic math after they had spent more than 11 years in the public school system.

  348. Meeting politically mandated core curriculum standards is almost impossible when students are functioning at 3 or 4 levels below their current grade level.

  349. Nancy2 wrote:

    BTW, have you heard about Pearson’s online math classes??? I tutored my daughter and 3 of her classmates through a Pearson’s class last spring. The class met on campus 2 days each week, 50 minutes per session with a so-called instructor, The 4 students that I tutored are the only ones in that particular class who passed.

    Did a short google and all I could find under Pearson’s math was a lot of glitz, glam, and visual lure, no content. Can you gimme a link?

  350. okrapod wrote:

    When Johnny gets out of school and can barely read and also can barely make change at the grocery store he cannot find a good job at the factory or the mill because those are long gone for the most part, and much of the remaining so I read will soon be done by robots. The heartbreaking tragedy is, Johnny almost always has adequate intelligence to do both had he been taught how to do either.

    Can I be blunt and honest (not to mention being politically incorrect to boot) here?
    Not all Johnny(s) are created equal and by extension not all are endowed with equal gifting. Which means that not all Johnny(s) belong at university. That’s not the heartbreaking part however. The heartbreaking part is how we’ve allowed our financial sector to gut our manufacturing base to the point where there’s little if anything left for our regular Johnny(s) to pursue other than x-box and play-station.
    We’ve sold our birthright for a mess of pottage so to speak.
    Rant over.

  351. @ Muff Potter:
    http://www.alternet.org/education/corporations-profit-standardized-tests
    Here is one article about Pearson’s.
    My experience with it has been through tutoring college students.
    They advise against buying the expensive textbooks, saying that everything the students need will be online. All work and tests are done online. The examples are weak, and sometimes cannot be applied to the problems on the screen. Most of the time, the examples show shortcuts that can only be used in specific problems. I have found instances where their answers were wrong.
    I’m not sure a person can really understand how bad Pearson’s is with experiencing it firsthand.

  352. @ Muff Potter:
    Pearson’s is an absolute nightmare on conic sections. I had to work harder than the students I tutored just to get them up to speed.
    Neither Pearson’s nor the classroom instructor provided the formulas, theorems, and instructions that were absolutely necessary.

  353. Muff Potter wrote:

    Not all Johnny(s) are created equal and by extension not all are endowed with equal gifting. Which means that not all Johnny(s) belong at university. That’s not the heartbreaking part however.

    In my experience teaching at public schools, No Child Left Behind has been boiled down to, “Johnny is failing all of his classes, but we must give him a passing grade, anyway!”

  354. OK: against my better judgement, I’m writing this after opening a rather nice (and very reasonably-priced) bottle of Cava fae the local Co-Op. So I may regret hitting “Post Comment”. But I can report that my first week in the new job has gone reasonably well.

  355. Lydia wrote:

    I saw that! I especially liked the talking pineapple. And we wonder why……

    You should the the “pineapple” way to complete a square and graph a parabola or an ellipse.

  356. @ Muff Potter:

    Fast food.

    And believe me when I tell you colleges see a huge market for accommodation for Johnny. Pretty soon you might need a vocational certificate to make Big Macs.

  357. From the current Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Australia)

    https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/religion/2015/12/05/testifying-against-child-sexual-abuse-royal-commission/14492340002714

    “Some of these men were not subtle – but the cultures of wilful blindness that supported them could be. At least, for now, more victims have been heard.

    There are two threads to these hearings: one is to offer a dignified place for victims to voice their stories. It is the state bearing witness. The other thread, more obviously, is an investigation into institutional responses.

    This week, Archbishop Denis Hart offered marathon testimony that very nearly stretched over three days. There was a slow, patient accrual of unflattering detail. But that is another story – not the abuse itself but its awful perpetuation.”

  358. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    OK: against my better judgement, I’m writing this after opening a rather nice (and very reasonably-priced) bottle of Cava fae the local Co-Op. So I may regret hitting “Post Comment”. But I can report that my first week in the new job has gone reasonably well.

    New Job?!?!! First I heard of this. Congratulations!

  359. Muff Potter wrote:

    Not all Johnny(s) are created equal and by extension not all are endowed with equal gifting.

    Let me add to this a little. As a culture we make a big distinction between athletic gifting and academic gifting. The main thing I learned from athletics is that liking something is not the same as being good at it. Fortunately our schools in the 50’s recognized and helped the more academically inclined. The jocks didn’t seem to suffer.

    Now, I sense that the academic side of the education industry, especially in the public schools, is satisfied with the lowest common denominator (even if they might not understand the metaphor I just used).

    Thanks to all who have commented on this topic. While the magnitude of the problem may not be the same every where it’s clear that it is widespread.

  360. @ Haitch:

    I had a quick look over the link you provided, and I suspect that “kava” and “cava” are not the same thing. “Kava” hails from Vanuata which, by coincidence, is the chain of islands the two currently active trans-Pacific rowing expeditions are either side of. Both of them are heading for Cairns on the coastal shores of your own fair homeland and hope to be there either side of New Year.

  361. Lydia wrote:

    Pretty soon you might need a vocational certificate to make Big Macs.

    I had the impression they were saying that fast food was prime for turning over to robots. If we think there are problems now we may look back at ‘now’ as the good old days.

  362. okrapod wrote:

    Tell us about it.

    Thankyou for your kind words (for such they are). With your permission, I shall defer until tomorrow when the Cava’s worn off… 🙂

  363. Nancy2 wrote:

    Congrats and drink a glass for me!

    Too late – I’ve already drunk the big bottle-shaped green glass.

    hic

  364. Slight tangent here, but did anyone else get into the music of Värttinä after listening to the “Binky song” on Arthur?

  365. Nancy2 wrote:

    Pearson’s is an absolute nightmare on conic sections. I had to work harder than the students I tutored just to get them up to speed.
    Neither Pearson’s nor the classroom instructor provided the formulas, theorems, and instructions that were absolutely necessary.

    The conics are some of the most elegantly beautiful subjects in all of math.
    I shudder to think of the butchery Pearson’s hacks put them through.

  366. ION: the orange flavour of local Evil Supermarket Empire’s own-brand jelly-babies are really sickly and unpleasant.

    On the other hand, they’re a lot better than hypoglycaemia!

    #firstworldproblems

    IHTIH

  367. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I’m writing this after opening a rather nice (and very reasonably-priced) bottle of Cava fae the local Co-Op. So I may regret hitting “Post Comment”. But I can report that my first week in the new job has gone reasonably well.

    Well I hope this doesn’t indicate you have a job at the local co-op …

  368. Considering the types of people that get talked about on this blog (mega church preachers and so on), I thought some of you may be interested in this:

    How Evil Are You quiz

    Test reveals whether you’re wicked, have Machiavellian traits or show signs of psychopathy
    The quiz plots levels of Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy

    (There is a link to the quiz itself on this page; it’s underneath the big screen cap of the quiz on the page):
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3349339/How-evil-Test-reveals-moderately-wicked-Machiavellian-traits-signs-psychopathy.html
    ——————
    My quiz results:

    Infrequently vile
    You are infrequently vile – you mostly put others before yourself, though you may find occasions in which your dark side shines.

  369. Corbin wrote:

    I got the same results lol.

    Maybe you and I need to go to Villain school and learn how to be more evil?

    We could be like – 👿
    instead of all – 🙂

  370. Nancy2 wrote:

    Infrequently vile, too.
    What does that mean? ; )

    From what I read of the article about it, I take it that “infrequently vile” is probably the least evil result a person can score on that quiz.

    Had I taken this same quiz about five years ago, when I was still a total doormat, I probably would’ve gotten that same result, but the sliders on the three areas measures (psychopathy, machivellianism, and whatever else the 3rd one was) would’ve been even lower than what I got.

    On my score page, the Machiavellianism trait was the highest, almost to the middle of the bar, or slightly past it.

    Had I taken this just a few years ago, it probably would have been as low as the psychopathy and the other category.

    I have healthier boundaries now. I think that’s why my Machiavellianism trait shows up higher on that score page.

    I won’t set out to hurt or exploit another person, but I likely won’t hesitate now to take someone on who is being rude or abusive towards me, like I would have before.

  371. @ Daisy:

    I mention this so you know there were other options (not because I believe I am) but my rest was ‘Saintly.’ 😉

  372. @ Bridget:

    Oh, really? Okay. LOL.

    If I had taken this same quiz just 4, 5 years ago, I would’ve gotten that score.

    My results now say I’m basically a harmless fuzz ball, but I will defend myself in some situations. That’s about accurate. 🙂

  373. @ Daisy:
    An example of why these sorts of assessments are a problem. When it asks if you think people are easily manipulated, one can answer “strongly agree” –yet never manipulate others because they think it is wrong to do so. That will skew results. What is meant by the question, exactly?

    However, it is pretty obvious by our culture that people, in general, are easily manipulated in various ways in various venues.

  374. Lydia wrote:

    An example of why these sorts of assessments are a problem. When it asks if you think people are easily manipulated, one can answer “strongly agree” –yet never manipulate others because they think it is wrong to do so. That will skew results. What is meant by the question, exactly?

    Yeah, I felt that way about that question and a few others, too. I left that one at neutral.

    I do believe that some people are easily manipulated, but I don’t exploit that. I don’t manipulate people.

    I just thought it was a fun quiz.

  375. Daisy wrote:

    Do Babies Go to Heaven?

    Yes, yes, and yes.
    Are they consigned to flames of woe because of this, that, and the other?
    No , No, and No.

    Hurting a baby is just plain WRONG, and there is no ‘holy god’ or ‘holy book’ that will ever make it right.

  376. Daisy wrote:

    I won’t set out to hurt or exploit another person, but I likely won’t hesitate now to take someone on who is being rude or abusive towards me, like I would have before.

    I would never intentionally hurt another person, nor would I exploit anyone. But, if anyone messes with me, my family, or my pets and I will, at the very least, hunt them down and tell them what I think of them. I can be vindictive. When I was young, I had a temper. In my late teens, I had to work to exhibit appropriate self-control.

  377. http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/you-and-that-church-need-to-dtr

    Josh Manley, SBTS graduate, former aid to Albert Mohler, was recruited by John Folmar of UCCD (United Christian Church of Dubai) to plant a church in RAK. He has written an article on the necessity of formally joining a church. Ground breaking material – NOT! These 9Marx guys constantly push this message. I am considering writing a response, but feel it’s probably a waste of time.

  378. @ Patrice:

    I know it’s been haggled and wangled to death almost, but what’s your take on how these despotic chieftains of religion maintain such a strangle hold over the hearts and minds of their parishioners? Is it fear? Fear that if they don’t knuckle under and hoe the row as they’re told, they’re probably not ‘saved’ and fodder for hell when they leave this world?

  379. @ Muff Potter:
    Seems to me it’s mostly fear. They’re taught a narrow view of the world/universe, and then encouraged to live out their lives inside like-minded circles. (Be called out from among, yah?) So, they have fear of God, fear of the evil in their own hearts, fear of the outside world. And it’s all wrapped in a fear of hell, for most humans! Blech!!!

    But they can’t admit it because fear isn’t godly, either. So then what? Put on a happy face, fake it til you make it? Even pain is covered: ‘Count it all joy when you suffer’, which ‘plain on-the-face’ meaning is a recipe for masochism. Skulls grin too!

    Unless/until a spiritual earthquake comes along, there they are. (In that way, I’m very grateful that I was pushed out early.)

    What else, do you think? I don’t know that fear covers it all—-I don’t completely understand it.

  380. @ Muff Potter:
    There’s also this, maybe. Their narrow view of the universe comes from old cultures via the Bible which were strongly hierarchical. That classic pyramid shape sort of freezes most people into positions of inferiority.

    For the few among them, those who think they’ve arrived at all knowledge of the world, arrogance easily blooms. (After all, it doesn’t take that much to conquer a narrow world, you know?) Their achievement relieves much of their fear, and they mistake that for God’s anointing, appointing, gifting. Pop to the top! lol

    But seriously, love casts out fear, so how can they be governed by love when their world is structured in fear? And considering their hierarchical convictions, how can a person be a guide while also staying in last place?

    And yet, there is love in places there, and there are some wonderful serving pastors. That this occurs anyway is testimony to the Holy Spirit and the true courage of the human heart. It amazes me.

  381. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I suspect that “kava” and “cava” are not the same thing

    and I suspect you appreciate I was pulling your leg – a little ! Was also playing with the “New Caledonia” region and kava link too. I suspect your cava doesn’t leave one with tingling lips or numb mouth (and taste like muddy creek water)

  382. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Vanuata which, by coincidence, is the chain of islands the two currently active trans-Pacific rowing expeditions are either side of. Both of them are heading for Cairns

    hmm, then there’s this future boat trip heading in the opposite direction:
    http://www.cairnspost.com.au/lifestyle/cairns-sea-nomad-to-begin-northern-odyssey-after-monsoon/story-fnjpuwet-1227642446688

    “He plans to live off the land, travelling about 500m from the shoreline and improving his boat as he goes.

    “If there’s a supermarket,” there’s a boat,” he says.”

  383. @ Haitch:

    I don’t know what muddy creek water tastes like but, as a long-time hillwalker fae Auld Caledonia who is acquainted with the flavour of iffy burn water, I can guess. And no, Co-Op Cava doesn’t taste of it. Whether it gives you a numb mouth or not probably depends on how much of it you drink, though.

  384. @ Muff Potter:

    Maybe it is as simple as it is easier to do what the supposed expert says is best or right than do the hard work yourself of thinking and implementing? And when many follow the expert or guru, that makes it seem right.

    I think this is the hardest part of raising kids. Respect for authority yet question everything politely. It is a delicate balance.

    But there seems to be a need out there for learning how to think.

  385. @ Haitch:

    On an unrelated note, my son and I finally got round to watching the widely-praised Aussie horror The Babadook on Netflix tonight. All in all, a thoroughly good film. I don’t think there was a single jump-scare (the unerring hallmark of second-rate, lazy cinematic horror) in it.

    Bizarrely enough, I found it a surprisingly feel-good movie, for reasons I can’t go into without major plot-spoilers.

  386. Oops – I’m about to hit “Post Comment” by accident. Please ignore this comment.

  387. Hi, All. Nativity blessings to everybody. God blesses us even when we don’t even believe in Him.

    So, I’m stuck on this “order of creation” teaching. Like, huh?

    Thanks for your forbearance whilst I post various (most likely already-obvious to most intelligences) ruminations.

    The 1 Corinthians 11 passage mentions only 2 created beings — the man and the woman. So, an entire theology has developed from the fact that God created the man first, declared His solitariness to be “not good” in the midst of an otherwise “all is good” creation, so created the woman to rectify that “not good” aspect. ???

    God’s nature towards His woman person changes or is different from His nature towards His man person? Even though God created the woman from the same substance as the man — bone of bone and flesh of flesh?

  388. Here are my questions for those who hold to this teaching, which, admittedly, I do not fully comprehend.

    Though God says He is not a respecter of persons, do you believe He holds men and women to different standards? Do you believe He reveals Himself differently to men than to women?

  389. If an obviously beaten woman in fear of her life ran up to you and asked for help from her husband who was pursuing her, would you call 911 or would you tell her to subject herself to her husband? Seriously. I’d like to know.

    Do you sincerely believe that when you give account for your life to God, He will say to you, “Well done, good and faithful servant. You sent that wife back to her husband for more black eyes and broken bones and hospital visits and beatings, in My Name.”?

  390. 1 Corinthians 11:3 says, “the head of Christ is God.”

    Jesus says, much to the rage of the religious leaders of His day, that to see Him is to see the Father. Jesus and the Father are One. That’s God’s Will. That’s how God wants Christ to be viewed.

    What an amazing picture of “headship.” I don’t see hierarchy here, at least, not as the world understands hierarchy.

  391. 1 Corinthians 11:5 implies a common understanding that a woman prays and prophesies within the context of the worship gathering, the subject of which Paul is addressing in this chapter. Why is this “given” about a woman’s equal participation in the work of the Holy Spirit during worship not given equal weight in the “order of creation” teaching?

    The accepted practice was that women prayed and prophesied in the meeting. That issue is not in question here.

    To be honest, once in awhile I think I get what Paul IS actually saying here, and then I don’t. I get the feeling Paul is utilizing rhetorical devices with which I am unfamiliar to make his points.

    Based on this passage, how do you believe that God does not call women to pray and prophesy in “church?’

  392. 1 Corinthians 11:10

    “That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.” (RSV)

    Regarding the word translated here as “veil,” “the KJV translates Strongs G1849 in the following manner: power (69x), authority (29x), right (2x), liberty (1x), jurisdiction (1x), strength (1x).”

    ἐξουσία exousía, ex-oo-see’-ah; from G1832 (in the sense of ability); privilege, i.e. (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely, magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence:—authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength.

    First definition in Biblical usage:
    “power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases”

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1849&t=RSV

    By the use of the word “nevertheless,” yhe next verse, 1 Corinthians 11:11, seems to confirm the idea that power and authority also rest on the woman’s head (let the angels, both the fallen and the holy, be aware — God has also empowered the female Adam with authority, power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases, just as He has the male Adam).

    Like — the woman also ought to have power on her head — NEVERTHELESS, she is NOT independent of the man. NOR is the man independent of the woman. They are ONE in the Spirit of God.

    Does not the evidence suggest that that Paul’s point is that men and women have equal authority from God through the power of the Holy Spirit (for (John 6:63:) It is the spirit that gives life, **the flesh is of no avail** ) ?

    The head covering issue is that God gives the woman long hair for a covering. (1 Corinthians 11:15)

  393. Scripture says the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth.

    Do you ask the Lord to show you the truth of these Scriptures? Are you willing to do His will rather than “leaning on your own understanding?”

    You sincerely believe Jesus is pleased with man “lording it over” women? God predicted man would “rule over” the woman (Genesis 3) as a consequence of sin and death entering the world. Do you sincerely believe that God’s will for His Church is to perpetuate the effects of sin and disobedience?

    I ask my questions from a sincere concern, lest this teaching lead you too far astray from God’s truth. This teaching seems to allow mistreatment of women to a degree that impugns the very (wonderful, loving, gentle, kind, upbuilding, salvaging nature of God Himself.

  394. The library closes soon. Sigh. So many questions; so little time.

    About Colossians 3:18

    Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting for those who belong to the Lord.”

    What if we ask ourselves: What is a fitting manner for wives to submit themselves to the their husbands now that they follow the Lord (since now the Lord comes first in EVERYTHING.)?

    Submit in a manner that is FITTING in the Lord, NOT as the world does, NOT as a slave or child, NOT as a puppet, but as a joint-heir in Christ.

    Thanks for the forum. Much appreciation here.

    WONDERFUL, BLESSED 2016 to All, if I don’t get back here before then. NOTHING is better than the gift we have in Jesus our glorious Savior.

    The issue is not

  395. Ardiak wrote:

    Why is this “given” about a woman’s equal participation in the work of the Holy Spirit during worship not given equal weight in the “order of creation” teaching?

    Read the first half of 1 Cor 11, and you’ll find the answer! 🙂

  396. @ Muff Potter:
    And to you as well!

    May you be blessed with a good season, and enough libations of your choice to make those crazy relatives tolerable (should that be an issue)! 😀

  397. Winter solstice: the time of year when the weans walk to school in the dark, and it’s dark again by the time they come home. It’s the price we pay for the endless Scottish summer evenings!

    Wouldn’t have it otherwise, of course. And I must say, I love the winter light here; even bright sunshine* is low-angled and yellowish, and it picks out the features on the nearby hills amazingly well.

    * Bright sunshine does happen in the Scottish winter. Indeed, last year Lesley and I had a white Christmas, with an enchanting early-morning walk over the tops of the Ochil Hills.

  398. Haitch wrote:

    And happy summer solstice in return !!! (**grumbles about daylight saving**)

    Let me assure you that I’m your confederate in California. This nonsense (daylight saving) has gone on for far too long now. There’s an apocryphal quote purportedly by a Native American medicine man who put it this way:

    “Only a white man would cut a foot off his blanket, sew it onto the other end, and then claim he has a longer blanket.”

  399. Muff Potter wrote:

    “Only a white man would cut a foot off his blanket, sew it onto the other end, and then claim he has a longer blanket.”

    haaa, you had me laughing hysterically, love it (keep ém coming) I’m in Queensland for Christmas which is considered a bogans haven and infinitely less civilised due to its lack of daylight saving. I think they got it right sticking with eastern standard time though…

  400. http://www.christiantoday.com/article/pastor.john.piper.says.people.leaving.their.church.are.walking.away.from.jesus/74402.htm

    “Is it really possible for Christians to maintain their love for God even though they have decided to abandon their church? This was one of the questions posed to Pastor John Piper, founder of the organisation called Desiring God during Wednesday’s episode of his ‘Ask John Piper’ audio series. Piper believes that people have it wrong when they think that they are only leaving the church and not Jesus Christ. ‘If you do that, you are walking away from Jesus,’ he said.”

  401. Jerome wrote:

    Piper believes that people have it wrong when they think that they are only leaving the church and not Jesus Christ. ‘If you do that, you are walking away from Jesus,’ he said.”

    Pope Piper must be finally starting to feel the bottom line pinch methinks. Signs of the times holy rollers – the growing ‘nones and dones’ won’t accept your shaming or your curses.

  402. And a Merry Christmas to all from the antipodes, with an extra serve of plum pud for the Deebs for their ongoing motivation and sacrifices to keep TWW on the road. I am grateful, and blessings to you all.

  403. ION: the first Test in Durban is intriguingly poised at stumps on Day 2. A big partnership, or two quick wickets, would tip the balance quite strongly in favour of South Africa / England respectively. Or it could remain finely poised…

    IHTIH.

  404. Well, it turned out to be the latter: some quick wickets and a first-innings lead for the visitors. Though as one reader posted to the BBC text commentary page:

    Complete contrast to the summer where you couldn’t make a sandwich without missing an entire innings.

    Plenty of cricket still to play here; man-of-the-match performance thus far is surely Dean Elgar carrying his bat for 118.

    Aaaaand Compton’s just gone, caught behind for 45. England 119-3.

  405. So: England finished day three on 172-3, a lead of 261. England in a strong position now, and it would take a significant collapse tomorrow to make it a close finish.

    But this is cricket, and that could happen! I refer our regulars to the words of my Honourable Friend:

    JohnD wrote:

    This is why we love test cricket isn’t it?

  406. For those of us contemplating the upcoming New Year here is a poem by Mary Oliver.

    The Journey by Mary Oliver

    One day you finally knew
    what you had to do, and began,
    though the voices around you
    kept shouting
    their bad advice–
    though the whole house
    began to tremble
    and you felt the old tug
    at your ankles.
    ‘Mend my life!’
    each voice cried.
    But you didn’t stop.
    You knew what you had to do,
    though the wind pried
    with its stiff fingers
    at the very foundations,
    though their melancholy
    was terrible.
    It was already late
    enough, and a wild night,
    and the road full of fallen
    branches and stones.
    But little by little,
    as you left their voices behind,
    the stars began to burn
    through the sheets of clouds,
    and there was a new voice
    which you slowly
    recognized as your own,
    that kept you company
    as you strode deeper and deeper
    into the world,
    determined to do
    the only thing you could do–
    determined to save
    the only life you could save.

  407. Prayer request:
    Saturday night, a family of 5 from my area died in Illinois when a swollen creek swept their vehicle off of the road – father, mother, and 3 children.
    The father was one of my former students, and a former classmate and long-time friend of my daughter’s. Please remember the families of Adam and Erin Schutt in your prayers.
    http://www.lite987whop.com/news/local-news#bmb=1

  408. South Africa have set about chasing an improbable 416 – but chasing it they certainly are, hitting 65 off the first 13 overs for the loss of van Zyl (b Stokes for 33).

  409. de Villiers and Steyn don’t even have to produce their test bests to win it for South Africa. Optimism reigns supreme.

  410. JohnD wrote:

    Optimism reigns supreme.

    This has been the rallying-call of the Barmy Army for some time, of course…

    Though on this occasion, with the loss of de Villiers in the first over, the wheels came off the run-chase rather disappointingly. The last wicket (Morkel) has just gone to give England the win by 241 runs. Which moves our away-from-home stats from 1 win in 15 to 2 in 16.

    The Second Test begins in Cape Town on Saturday, of course; it seems that Chris Morris is coming in to replace the injured Dale Steyn and Quinton de Kock looks set to replace AB de Villiers behind the stumps. The pundit consensus is that this is likely to help de Villiers’ batting, and that may well be true. We may yet, of course, lose the series 3-1; but at least we’ve averted a whitewash.

    de Villiers’ career-best score of 278, plus Steyn’s of 76, don’t add up to 416 though – the others would have had to contribute!

    Interesting fact: Dale Steyn had a cameo role, as himself, in the Adam Sandler / Drew Barrymore comedy Blended.

  411. England have comprehensively beaten South Africa in an impressive all-round performance. Well done England.

  412. O.K. I have a question for folks as I am trying in this new year to think more deeply about my faith. I have been burned by church leaders in the past and have become somewhat of a skeptic. However, I still do believe in Jesus and think his way is the best way. It’s kind of a dichotomy. I keep coming back to struggling with Jesus being the only way and do I really believe that enough to commit my life to sharing that with others. I feel like I don’t believe it enough to share it with others, as I hesitate to tell them what to do with their lives. Yet I see how believing in Jesus brings release and blessings to people. Any suggestions on how I can examine this matter and come to resolution? Any book recommendations, etc.? Thanks!

  413. Back to the cricket: England coach Trevor Bayliss, in an interview with the Beeb, has admitted that England need to find some consistency.

    On the plus side, at least England are always inconsistent.

    Speaking of which, the Second Test begins in a day and a half. A test of character for South Africa, particularly without Dale Steyn, but – as is so often observed in sport – you don’t become a poor side overnight. Like any good cricket match, it could go either way again.

  414. @ Former CLCer:
    I’ve never been burned by a church but I struggle with many aspects of Christianity. I’m not sure I would even class myself as a “believer” but I am unable to completely jettison the concept.
    That being said, you probably feel the same doubts as many folks (don’t be fooled, even “committed Christians” have them).
    Here’s my advice based on observations and personal experience:
    – You’re in the right mindset by not wanting tell people what do to with their lives. Take the pressure off yourself with regards to “sharing”. The only Christians who have ever convinced me there may be something to the faith are those that don’t proselytize. They don’t need to, as they live their faith daily through actions. The best example from my life is my wife. She was raised Pentecostal and is a committed Christian. Yet I can discuss any topic with her regarding faith and religion (or anything for that matter) without fear of judgment. Likewise I have Christian friends, none of whom have “shared” the gospel with their “unbelieving” comrades. They live their faith by doing what is right – kindness, tolerance, equality. Listen to others, even if you disagree with their beliefs. If the opportunity arises you can share your personal beliefs without insinuating that the other person is “wrong”.
    – My personal belief is that everything needs to be taken in context. The bible was written long before our post modern world came into being. The concepts of liberal democracy, human rights and equality for all would probably have left most folks aghast prior to eighteenth century (even Martin Luther – the father of the Reformation – had issues with the peasant class). I always read the bible through the lens of human experience, for example – I don’t subscribe to the belief that men have a special place in creation, that women should be submissive to the man, or any of the laws of the Old Testament that proscribe death for “crimes” such as disobedient children or homosexuality nor do I believe slavery is acceptable in any way, shape or form. Civilized society left these proscriptions behind and they should stay in the dustheap of history.
    I’m a history buff, and firmly believe knowledge is power. I’m currently reading “Christianity” by Diarmaid MacCulloch – it’s a brick of a book but it’s a balanced history that neither endorses or denies the faith but simply gives a history of how Christianity came to be. I’ve also read books by Bart Ehrman on biblical scholarship, though Dr. Ehrman is an agnostic, it does make for some compelling reading as to how the bible came into being.
    I’ve given up on any sort of “resolution” when it comes to matters of faith. Instead I try to live my life fairly. Giving thought to others, helping where I can, being a good father, good husband, good friend. Sometimes I’m more successful than others. I don’t think I’ll ever be a “sharer” even if I do go full into belief mode. Much more effective to dialog than dictate.

  415. @ Jack:
    @ Jack:
    Wise words, Jack! I tend to feel that way as well about “sharing”. Maybe it’s leftover from my Catholic upbringing. I think part of my dilemna is that I was always surrounded by Christians, especially at Covenant Life, and in a little bubble. And I am very much an introvert so, although I cared about family and such, I never came out of my bubble to talk about faith too much. But lately, with all of us getting older, relationships are meaning so much more. I also see that the best way to relate and positively affect peoples’ lives is to be there among them and truly caring for them. It enables me to truly show love, but also brings internal conflict when I come against different beliefs and how to deal with them or not deal with them. So this is probably a good thing.

  416. Former CLCer wrote:

    And I am very much an introvert so, although I cared about family and such, I never came out of my bubble to talk about faith too much.

    I’m more inclined to listen to an introvert that is sensitive to my interests than any well spoken extrovert.

  417. Jack wrote:

    Take the pressure off yourself with regards to “sharing”. The only Christians who have ever convinced me there may be something to the faith are those that don’t proselytize. They don’t need to, as they live their faith daily through actions. T

    This was my mom, she was always interested in individuals of every walk of life. She always made a personal connection with people. Even in the nursing home I often found staff just sitting and talking about their lives to her. She often told me: I am not here to see through people but to see people through. I miss her.

  418. @ Lydia:
    What a beautiful illustration of the type of person your Mom was. I guess my Mom was that type of person as well, so I want to live up to that legacy.

    You reminded me of a story from when my Mom was in hospice in a nursing home as well. We had the best young nurses, and one night when all of us but my Dad had stepped out of Mom’s room, my sister and I walked back in to find one of the nurses on her break sitting listening to one of my Dad’s stories. She was sitting in rapt attention and saying, “Thank you for telling me about the beavers.” What a precious gift.

  419. Former CLCer wrote:

    It enables me to truly show love, but also brings internal conflict when I come against different beliefs and how to deal with them or not deal with them.

    I don’t know you but the fact that you have an internal conflict would indicate you have a conscience.
    I guess the question is why do you have to deal with someone else’s different beliefs? Of course when you engage someone (or read a book or watch tv) you process the information and say “yeah, I’m cool with that” or “no, I disagree” hopefully after weighing all the evidence. Your mind could be changed from on position to another but ultimately you know what you believe to be right. The other person’s belief shouldn’t be yours to deal with. You can respectfully agree to disagree. (or if the person is too offensive and not worth the battle – disagree and leave – or just walk away).
    For me it’s all about respectful dialog. If I don’t feel the person is giving respect then I don’t usually engage. If the person’s mind can’t be changed then I say my piece and let it lie. If it’s really offensive (like as in racist or sexist) I usually will comment.
    When it comes to religion (or politics for that matter), folks are usually set in their ways. Hence the best way to reach someone is by being honest, but respectful. Your example speaks louder than your words.

  420. Cricket: a biggish score in the end for England, 63% of which came from the highest sixth-wicket stand in Test history. South Africa on 24-1 (a rather freakish and unnecessary run-out for van Zyl) at tea.

    But it’s still a good pitch, so there’s a lot of cricket still to play. It will be difficult for the home side to force a win from here, though, and ISTM that the big test will be how they deal with the scoreboard pressure. If they don’t do much more than occupy the crease in the final session today, they might find themselves struggling a bit tomorrow like England themselves did early on: Stokes and Bairstow prospered precisely by attacking the bowling.

  421. @ Jack:

    Well put Jack. I think it’s a very human thing to want to convince others to adopt our viewpoints and to want them to sign on to the ‘rightness’ of our various belief systems. But failing that? So what? I think it’s way more important to recognize a common humanity in one another in the here and now and work toward building a better tomorrow. One which learns from the horrors of the past and strives to not repeat them.

  422. Just a ‘heads up’ question … when does The Wartburg Watch 2015 roll over the new year and become The Wartburg Watch 2016? Happy New Years everyone!

  423. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Interesting how the game went, hey, Nick! Both sides scoring over 620 in the first innings. The rain today was very welcome after the heat of the past few weeks, not just the past 4 days of the test match. I hope you’ve been watching on the telly so you got to enjoy the view of my favourite mountain.

  424. The Gronigen, Netherlands chapter of the long established Calvinist C.S.F.R. (Civitas Studiosorum in Fundamento Reformato) Christian student association is having their Studieweekend Yir’At’ Adonay 2016 this coming weekend.Jan 8, 9, & 10. The theme is AMERICA, GOD’S OWN COUNTRY. The program will include a documentary and address “A New Century of Old Habits Religion and Politics in America.” The translated invite

    Study Weekend Yir’at ‘Adonay 2016
    8-10 January 2016 the yearly Study Weekend Yir’at “Adonay place. This year’s theme is “America, God’s own country ‘where we look at the religious atmosphere in America. What is the influence of the atmosphere in the society and politics? What does secularism in America with the religious sphere? And what is the influence of religious America to the rest of the world?
    We will be a long weekend here to think about through lectures, a debate and a documentary. On Sunday we will visit the International Church Vineyard Groningen. Besides these activities, we will seek relaxation during meals and get-togethers.

    Besides the Study Weekend from very instructive and interesting parts exists, the Study Weekend this year is dirt cheap!
    When you get the entire weekend, you pay only € 12!
    If you two days (or day and evening) will pay you € 9
    If you one day or evening comes, you pay € 6, –

    For questions we are always available.

    Amica Liter StudieweekendCie your behalf,

    Eline Hokse
    Floris van Willigen
    Daniel Maassen van den Brink (p)”end quote

    source http://www.yir.nl/

    Info from translated http://www.csfr.nl and a FB statement “The C.S.F.R. is a nationwide student at Reformed basis with disputes in virtually every major university towns . Our association aims to bring students from the Reformed denomination together to study the foundation with each other and to experience friendship . The C.S.F.R. if in 2011 its 60th anniversary celebration.” end quote

    Looking at their subject matter, I imagine when the college students refer to America they mean the United States of America, not the Americas.

    I’ll conclude by sayin’ “Oh, Lawdy! Our ears are sur ‘nuf gonna be burnin’ this weekend child!” in a misappropriated Southern dialect. (*see my footnote) Seriously, this student association is partly responsible why Calvinism is supported by young people and, duh me, is to be expected from the Dutch Reformed overseas. It would be interesting to hear the students conclusions from their year long focus on the US religious scene as they understand it. Lots of pics of young women participating. Females are listed in CSFR leadership positions. Appears very egalitarian. Go figure. Since many of the women are studying for other professions than seminary and religious vocations hopefully they won’t have their souls crushed by hierarchical patriarchy.

    * Gage mis-recorded enslaved NY State Dutch speaker Isabella Baumfree’s powerful speeches as if entirely spoken in Southern dialect. Remember, she fought hard for her freedom and renamed herself Sojourner Truth. Just her inspired question “Ain’t I a woman?” is thought to have been spoken in a Southern dialect in order to relate to and recognize more enslaved women, abolitionists, and feminists around the country, not only Northerners.

  425. Hello everyone! I was not sure where to post this, so I decided I’d turn to the Open Discussion section. This summer I stumbled upon a spectacular science fiction book, which I know for sure many of you would appreciate. It has an amazing and eye-opening message behind the plot. The book is ‘Orphans of the Sky’ by Robert Heinlein. If anyone chooses to check it out and has their heart stirred by it, like mine was, I’ll be glad. Thanks for your time and God bless. 🙂

  426. Followup on a previous discussion. You all did see that congress passed and the president signed a new law (modification of a prior system) in which the federal government has take a step back and returned a significant amount to power to the states in the field of education. Needless to say I am delighted, but it remains to be seen what my state will do at this point-and when.

  427. @ numo:

    They (and I) are not talking about Canada the nation but rather about the anglican church in Canada. They have not been performing gay marriage, but it is up for consideration within the next few months. They have only been doing blessings. Therefore they only got a warning. That was after their bishop explained the situation to the group.

    Likewise they are not talking about the US as a nation but rather TEC. TEC also has been permitting blessings of gay couples but only recently put forth a modified liturgy and told the bishops and clergy that there was an option to actually perform gay marriage. It is not required but is an option.

    This is the difference between the two.

    Nobody cares if there are gay clergy. There is nothing remotely secret going on there. We had one clergy person at our church who was practically a caricature of something or other the way he acted and nobody objected. A lot of people care about the gay marriage issue. The doctrinal statement of the anglican communion churches has been that marriage is between one man and one woman for life. That has been the official position. But then there was the divorce and remarriage issue quite a while ago, and then there has been the issue of the gay bishop who married another male and then divorced, and now there is gay marriage.

    As to the pew persons, all I know is that we have noticed some tightened jaws so to speak on a lot of people over a lot of issues. The episcopalians that I have known, basically limited to this one church, are not a placid lot by nature. They have ‘rules’ about not causing trouble but no rules against having one’s own opinion privately.

    The way they explain it seems to be that what TEC has done is basically open rebellion against official church teaching. So there are two or more questions in play. Do they have the right to do that? And is what they have done morally right? One site I read said that of the thirty some provinces of the anglican communion only six, I think it is, are pro-gay marriage. US and New Zealand and maybe they added Canada and either Wales or New South Wales, I don’t remember-anyhow just a very few. Don’t quote me before you look it up about exactly who it is. You are aware I am sure that some formerly episcopal congregations have affiliated with the africans and come under the aegis of african bishops, and the africans are sending missionaries to the US over what they deem the breakdown of the church in america.

    They told us in confirmation that TEC is trying to hold it all together with the creeds and the sacraments, but other than that….Nothing about that statement would indicate and group consensus about much of anything,

    Which leaves the issue of our congregation, since we are anglo-catholic and have many former catholics as members so…who knows what next.

  428. @ okrapod:
    I do not think the Africans shoild be interfeting in the US. Flat-out against it – used to be for it, as i vonsidered attending The Falls Church in Falls Churvh, VA, right outside of DC, back when the ptoperty disute started (after TFC left TEC).

    I realize thst they are talking about TEC, not US law. Apparently the whole thing is on the agenda for this year’s Anglican Church in Canada synod. Thete has been a lot of controversy in the ACC over the blesding of same-sex marriages, etc.

    Sadly, Kenya, Nigetia and Uganda seem to be sinking into a mess of hatred where LGBT people are concernef. There is still s push on in Uganda re. making it a cspital offense, anc that had been a current issue for at leadt 6 years now. Unfortunately, the people who want that are under the influence of people like Scott Lively.

    I honestly do not think this should be a divisive issue, any more that i think that Mecicans are rspidts (per a certain scary csndidate), but that’s just me. Having bern on the other side of this, i think many are well-intentioned, while some are outright hateful. It is a shame, and doesn’t need to bd An Issue, imo.

  429. @ okrapod:
    I think the split has bern in the making for the past 2 decades. I knew someone who was very active on the anti-+ Gene Robinson side, the year that he attended the Lambeth conference.

    As a sort of aside, he had to wear a bulletproof vest for his consecration – many death threats. Something is VERY wrong, and i don’t think it wss his secusl orientation that is to blame.

  430. okrapod wrote:

    Nobody cares if there are gay clergy.

    Let me reword that. Nobody cares so far as it pertains to the current issue. No doubt the africans do care, and no doubt TEC does not care. The point is that gay clergy are not the ‘final straw’ but rather gay marriage.

  431. numo wrote:

    I think the split has bern in the making for the past 2 decades.

    Without a doubt. Dioceses in the US have pulled out of TEC before there was gay marriage. There has been the issue of female ordination also, but that is not like I said the final straw.

  432. @ okrapod:
    indeed. i saw a lot of it playing out in northern VA and over on the VA part of the Eastern Shore, back when. And yes, it really is about women clergy, too.

  433. @ numo:

    I finally tracked down the article which had the comment about islam and africa. It was the Rev. Dr. Samuel Wells of St. Martins in the Fields church in London who brought up the issue? or at least the one being quoted in the article. He actually did not say ‘majority’ but rather said ‘prevalent’ and brought up the issue that having a culturally wrong stance on sexual issues might be an actual matter of life and death for some people. He was trying to make a case that what might be right in one place (the west) could be entirely different in another place (mentioning africa and asia.)

    I have no comment on the cultural relevance issue. Determining what is a universal moral issue and what is a culturally flexible issue is like they say beyond my pay grade. I do understand how people would cave to cultural pressures, though, both there and here.

  434. @ okrapod:
    The interesting thing is that many Muslim men and boys are sexually active in same-sex relationships, even though that is forbidden by the Qur’an. My hunch is that so many are in predominantly homo*social* settings that the move toward the sexual isn’t such a big thing, so long as they’re discreet and masculine-acting. The same was true, imo, in England, via the public school systems, from the 19th c.-present. Which has a great deal to do with the context of the Oxford Movement, except that in going to public school boys were then separated from their families at a *very* young age, and basically had no socialization re. sisters, female classmates, moms, cousins, governesses, etc. Very sad.

  435. @ okrapod:
    I have a reply to you that’s on the back burner. Thanks so much for the reference; will try to track it down. I’m curious about the context, for one.

    Certainly, there are many, many Muslims in Nigeria, but I don’t think that’s the only thing people are facing – the Lord knows, Muslims are being victimized by Boko Haram, not just xtians, animists and adherents of various other religions.

  436. @ numo:
    And Boko Haram is a terrorist organization, not at all typical of the average Muslim in Nigeria or anywhere else.

  437. @ okrapod:
    I checked out Well,s and while I haven’t found your reference, he is definitely an inclusive kind of guy. Has published a lot of books as Sam Wells, in fact.

  438. When this first was announced I read an article which listed which countries the african bishops were from who apparently threatened a walk out if their issues were not addressed. I counted the list and there were six. I only remember Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and one of the Congo countries. I don’t remember the other two on the list nor can I find the article.

    However I found this about the percentage of muslims in african countries. I have no way of knowing if it is accurate or not.

    http://www.muslimpopulation.com/africa/

  439. @ okrapod:
    I suspect you might get better information from a good almanac or encyclopedia, and do not believe those figures actually explain anything.

    Per Nigeria, it has suffered true catastropes over the past 60 years, including a genocidal civil war (remember Biafra?), numerous military coups and disastrous, repressive regimes plus drought in the Sahel/continued in-migration from the north as the Sahara expands southward. The Hausa, who are Muslim, are moving south into the predominantly xtian/animist regions where the Yoruba and Igbo (many Igbo are members of the RCC) have historically been dominant. The Igbos are the people who were targeted for destruction during the civil war – and these are only one of many ethnic groups in Nigeria.

    I just read (but don’t have a link for) a statement that said: there are more members of the Church of Nigeria than in TEC and the A. Church of Canada combined, which really doesn’t surprise me. Xtianity is even a new, hip thing for a lot of Nigerians, especially in large cities like Lagos. The churches are largely variations of evangelical/charismatic – includes the CofN, too. The gospel music industry in Nigeria is HUGE – i mean, i have Igbo artists’ CDs here, people who from the 70s on were recording explicitly message-oriented pop music, and as big as many of them were/still are among older folks, they are as nothing compared to the *new* gospel music industry that’s been flying high for the past 15 or so years. You can find that music all over sites like YouTube and Spotify.com (To me, it sounds very Americanized and samey, but i guess that’s to be expected, given the internet.)

    Taking sides over whose pastor is best and has done the most miracles is a running gag/piece of social comentary in the novel Americanah (by expat writer Chimamanda Ngozie Adicie – quite enjoyable, though often unflattering). The competition over pastors is shown as a typical thing among upwardly mobile people in Lagos and the surrounding area; women especially. Truth to tell, Nigerian churches have been sending missionaries to the US for at least a decade, maybe longer. There was a big NYT magazine cover story on this about 10-11 years ago, right around the time that some emigre members of the Pentecostal denomination profiled in the piece (living in the Raleigh-Durham area) had 7 or so babies and became both national and international news. (There was ongoing coverage of the US offshoots of some of these denoms in the Washington Post back in the late 90s-early 00s, because: a) a lot of them were/are opening churches in the DC Metro area, and b) because there are phony “miracle” scams in many of them.)

    As for the current primate of Uganda, he is in the same camp with the rest (many clergy among them) who supports cruel penalties for homosexuality in his home country –
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/04/stanley-ntagali-anti-gay-law_n_5648648.html

    http://allafrica.com/stories/201512212069.html

    Even accusing unnamed individuals of “taking ‘dirty money’ to promote homosexuality” in upcoming elections. He and Martin Ssempa, a minister who has been behind the capital punishment push for homosexuality since square 1, are very much on the same page. Which is frightening, because Ssempa and co. have done eberything they can to demonize gay people for the past 8 years. Includes “They’re coming to recruit your children!,” gay = pedophile and the Lord alone knows what all else.

    I do not believe that a handful of African countries should have so much power over the global Anglican communion, any more than i think the US, UK and Canada should. As for the censure vote, i don’t even get how that passed – unless a lot of people were lobbying for it, and buying favors/votes from other clergy and… sheer political maneuvering.

    Re. the Church of Nigeria, see the mentions in this piece regarding numbers:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/01/14/anglican-communion-suspends-the-episcopal-church-for-3-years-from-committees/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_anglican-3pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

  440. @ okrapod:
    I have a 2nd, rather long reply to you (with li ks) that is also on the back burner. Hope you will check back, since the linked stories are important.

  441. @ okrapod:
    Fwiw, I’m not sure that those figures mean a whole lot w/o the kind of context found in almanacs and encyclopedias. Especially where West Africa and the NE African coadt are concerned. The latter have large Muslim coastal populations due to maritime trade + proximity to the Arabia Peninsula. Parts of Tanzania wrte ruled, off and on,by the Sultanate of Oman for a good whilr. (Which is very much related to the slave “trade,” among other things…)

  442. @ numo:
    And yeah, i know trivia about Africa. I used to work for a company that reissued recordings from many African counties, and while l’ve not traveled there myself, let’s just say that my boss lived in a number of places for so long that he became fluent in some of the languages (French, Swahili and a few others).

    (I’m a fan of various musical styles and musicians from both East and West Africa myself…)

  443. @ numo:

    That looks like a great article. Certainly the paragraph about anglicanism and nigeria. I have just scanned it but I have bookmarked it and will get to it when I can, but this is a long weekend with everybody home so it may be a couple of days. Thanks for the link.

  444. @ okrapod:
    Oh, glad to help – wanted to re-read it myself.

    My other comments in reply to you have been published above, so, more links. Also, the oil boom in southern Nigeria has had repercussions in the poorer north, or at least, that’s one thing i read about last night. Not certain if this is as big a deal as the writer claimed, but i can see where it might well be so.

    Also, that NYT article says approx. 20 *million* members in the Church of Nigetia as of 2009.

  445. I believe the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America just split up over gay marriage. A number of Lutheran churches here in town went with the no gay marriage faction. I am of the opinion that if the sine qua non of your church’s belief system is that you can’t tolerate gays and lesbians, then you’ve got a serious problem. Obviously, this is not a church I would attend, but then again, I don’t go to church any more for many reasons.

  446. @ mirele:
    Well, the devision at the synod conference a few years ago was to allow esch congregation the option of choosing what, and how much, re. chsnged policies, ghey would accept and implemeny. But yeah, a whole lot of people and congregations left. I think that’s *their* problem, frankly, and also think they are (among other things) extremely short-sighted, but…. as someone who was once in their camp (more or less), i know that the mental shifts required don’t happen overnight; also that they’re unlikely to happen unless/until the anti- folks get to know some LGBT people as neighbors and friends. And are eilling yo really listen to them, and to their stories.

    I still believe in an afterlife, and i think a lot of people are in for a huge shock when they see who is there.

  447. And now, fitba’.

    Today’s result from Carrow Road: Norwich City 4, Liverpool 5.

    Clearly, this was not one of those games marked by tight defending.

  448. “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 ddefault ideas and philosophies out there that wind up in the same place.”

    My point is that the au naturals types have the option. Traditional orthodoxy in many parts of Christendom made relieving pain a sin. The Puritans called them “witches” and some were burned for it. I was not blaming all tradition but only pointing out how arguments for traditional understanding can be a problem in the search for answers. It is not always a good default

  449. Here is one starkly tragic situation that comes to mind whenever I hear verbal abuse being minimized. Words completely fail me.

    Possible triggering.

    http://www.koat.com/target7/Slain-9-year-old-Omaree-Varela-called-911-for-help-months-before-murder/24269294

    “The 911 call was made June 22, 2013. Omaree is crying and scared, and he is being verbally abused and berated. It was the second time the boy turned to authorities for help, and the second time those cries from a terrified child were ignored.”

  450. @ dee :

    Ace Rothstein, an old bookie from wayyyyy back in the day has your Panthers on top by the end of the contest. The point spread? The crystal ball’s too muddy for that right now…

  451. @ Muff Potter:
    Muff, thanks for the reference. First, a confession, I am not a mathematician. I learned and used the standard applied math of my profession: calculus, differential equations, matrices, statistics, … . I haven’t viewed the video but I did locate Wildberger’s web site. He indeed is interesting.
    Starting with card eating main frames I was educated in division by zero the hard way. You do it (inadvertently, of course) and after you figure out why it’s at least 24 more hours before you get the results you were looking for.

  452. OldJohnJ wrote:

    after you figure out why it’s at least 24 more hours before you get the results you were looking for.

    Is that literally 24 hours, or a more figurative use of the term? 🙂

  453. Ken wrote:

    s that literally 24 hours, or a more figurative use of the term?

    A very figurative use of the term. When I first started computing (1960’s) the process was to prepare your program and data as a deck of cards. This was then submitted to the Computer Center. On a typical day getting your program run often meant waiting to the next day. Trivial program errors or erroneous data thus were very frustrating.

  454. OldJohnJ wrote:

    When I first started computing (1960’s) the process was to prepare your program and data as a deck of cards. This was then submitted to the Computer Center.

    What ever you do, don’t trip and accidentally spill the card deck on your way to the Computer Center. It was made worse, it was outside on a rainy day.

  455. Bill M wrote:

    What ever you do, don’t trip and accidentally spill the card deck

    anywhere. A diagonal stripe from a magick marker helped alleviate some of the paranoia.

    It sounds like you also started way back then.

  456. @ OldJohnJ:

    Let me ask you this. In the late sixties when I was a resident the first I saw of a machine which would compute stuff for you was a gadget that would compute the delivered radiation dosage at various depths in a designated treatment field. The gadget was about the size of an old timey hand cranked adding machine IIRC except there was no crank. There were punch cards that were inserted which apparently activated some program. Not sure if the word program was being used or not. What was that do you reckon and did it have a name? And was it a proto-computer of some sort?

  457. OldJohnJ wrote:

    A diagonal stripe from a magick marker helped alleviate some of the paranoia.

    It would start out as a nice clean stripe, but not after a bunch of edits, replacements and insertions. It reminds me now of the wiring in the server room. It started out clean and orderly but after many changes it is now a morass of tangled wires, also more that one person has their hands on it. Maybe it is time to declare a year of Jubilee and start over.
    If you go back far enough we could talk about acoustic couplers for a remote terminal and bore everyone.

  458. @ Bill M:
    Been there done that for both your paragraphs. Now we get perturbed if the answer isn’t on the screen the instant we hit the enter key or an OK button. The good old days weren’t in computing.

    I’ve been a UNIX (now LINUX) user for 40+ years and still prefer the command line interface. How’s that for being an old timer.

  459. @ OldJohnJ:

    Before I retired, I spent a good many years in the Southern Calif. Aerospace industry as an NC Programmer. I started out as a young fella using IBM system 370 and TSO terminals. The guy who mentored me started in the days of IBM system 360 and Hollerith cards. He regaled us with horror stories of the one-run-per-day card follies.

  460. @ Muff Potter:
    My start was in 6 one hour sessions teaching FORTRAN during the fall of 1962, my senior year at the U of Fla. The computer was an IBM 709 while computationally anemic even by 1962 standards was the most visually impressive of any that I ever used. That was the only “formal” education in computer science I ever had. I finished my working career teaching CS for 10 years in a good SC four year university.

  461. OldJohnJ wrote:

    @ Bill M:
    Been there done that for both your paragraphs. Now we get perturbed if the answer isn’t on the screen the instant we hit the enter key or an OK button. The good old days weren’t in computing.
    I’ve been a UNIX (now LINUX) user for 40+ years and still prefer the command line interface. How’s that for being an old timer.

    At least with a command line I don’t have to go hunting for the tools I need for every new version of Windows. Hopefully it is safe to beat up on Windows here as I often make MAC cracks to my MAC based colleagues who banter back with their lame MAC attacks. I shouldn’t bring it up, Dee likes us to stay clear of partisan politics.

  462. My first programming class as a freshman in engineering in 2005 taught … wait for it … FORTRAN. The professors, being the wise veterans of education that they were, claimed that picking a language that no student had encountered until that point would put everyone on a level playing field. Having learned about nested loops previously while writing BASIC programs on my hand-me-down IBM PS/1 when I was six, it was obvious to me from observing some of my colleagues struggle with this basic concept that having us learn FORTRAN had to be less about “level playing fields” and more about sadistic professors enjoying watching us struggle to SSH into the olde Solaris server to compose our little programs in vi and compile them on the CLI. (The Linux “hackers” among us figured out that we could switch from whatever abominable shell Solaris had as default, to the bash shell, which was hidden but accessible to those with the gnosis.)

    Today, I have two Macs and a Windows PC in my house, along with a server that runs a hodge podge of virtual machines of various flavors. I tease all platforms equally. 😀

  463. Lydia wrote:

    The other refugees most likely know who the attackers and thieves are.

    I responding here as I didn’t want to rile up the thread with a tangent.

    I’m curious if they silent due to fear, cultural pressure to not be a snitch, or just plain approval. I would be interested if someone had real knowledge of these mini-cultures of immigrants. Unfortunately I have a lot of skepticism as many seem to have a large bias, either anti-Islam or for lack of a better term, PC. Because suppression of information seems to be the operating principle, we are largely left with demagogues to talk about it.

    Because I have a good friend in Nigeria I have read of many accounts of the Boko Haram attacks there. I am mystified the perpetrators disappear and seemingly merge back into their community in the North.

  464. BeenThereDoneThat

    My very potted view of British politics would be as follows:

    At the end of WW2 there was a swing to the left – Churchill was voted out – with a war weary country wanting something different from the pre-war depression. The Labour govt took numerous industries into public ownership, and introduced better education and a health service ‘free at the point of use’.

    There then followed the post war consensus, where changes of govt from Labour to Conservative and back did not mean massive changes in economic policy. The Conservatives did not try to undo everything the reforming Labour govt 1945 to 51 had implemented. The state played a large role in education, and health and welfare, and this remains the position to this day. Despite loving all things private, no Conervative leader who seriously wants to get elected could ever get rid of the National Health Service, even if they do continually tinker with it or fail to fund it adequately.

    This consensus basically carried on until Mrs Thatcher in 1979. She broke the consensus and shifted to the right. In particular, she finally tamed the industrial relations chaos that had more or less blghted Britain since WW2. And she did reverse publc ownership of industries. She was really hated by the left!

    That said, had Labour won in 1979 they would almost certainly have had to introduce trade union reform and overhaul industrial relations.

    I also think she shifted the whole political spectrum to the right, because to get elected Tony Blair dropped some of the old Labour policies of nationalising industries, as there was little clamour for this amongst the electorate. He did not repeal all of Thatcher’s industrial relations legislation. He was also at least initially careful not to ‘tax and spend’ to rid Labour of its reputation, whether deserved or not, of being financially irresponsible.

    I think this scenario still largely holds to today. The Labour party has now elected an old style left-winger as leader, and debatably this might well have made them unelectable. The British electorate doesn’t like extremes of politics, neither from the right nor the left.

    I don’t incidentally have any great party political axe to grind. There does seem to be an absence of political conviction, with parties going for a more pragmatic approach that might enhance their chances of being elected rather than going for unpopular policies that might in the long-term prove better for the country.

    Politicians making promises and telling people what they want to hear. I can’t imagine that ever happens in the States …

  465. Bill M wrote:

    Dee likes us to stay clear of partisan politics.

    You have observed, no doubt, that I did not comment on vi vs. emacs .

  466. Ken wrote:

    Politicians making promises and telling people what they want to hear. I can’t imagine that ever happens in the States …

    So much so that I don’t want to vote most of the time 😉

  467. OldJohnJ wrote:

    You have observed, no doubt, that I did not comment on vi vs. emacs .

    I hate both equally. As an unwashed amateur, I prefer nano. 😮

  468. @ Josh:
    My first online editing was done with ed on a printing 30 char/sec terminal. vi was a very pleasant step forward when cursor control from the editor eventually became available. Both ed and nano are available on my Fedora linux distribution. I am old enough and very set in my ways so I’ll keep on using vi. Flame wars over the “best” editor aren’t helpful.

  469. OldJohnJ wrote:

    I am old enough and very set in my ways so I’ll keep on using vi.

    I was just about to say it. I can remember its commands so I use it also.
    A few days ago I mentioned elsewhere that I also still use a palm phone. At first I didn’t need a smart phone but now a get a certain joy from the anguish it causes my young techie comrades when I pull it out.

  470. OldJohnJ wrote:

    I am old enough and very set in my ways so I’ll keep on using vi.

    After my stint with IBM system 370 and TSO terminals, I moved on to a very high end CAD-CAM system which ran on UNIX. We called em’ unix-boxes back then. I loooooove the vi editor too! For simplicity and elegance… well… what can I say?

  471. @ OldJohnJ:

    I take it you’ve been following the announcement of the discovery of gravity waves with the same interest as I have…

  472. … I should say, the detection, not the discovery. The accuracy of my reporting has been blunted a little by a rather nice Shiraz.

    🙁

  473. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Now all we need is greater sensitivity. For radio waves antenna sensitivity increases until it is about a half wave length long. I suspect this is also true with gravity waves. The announced discovery will provide great motivation for space based gravity wave detectors where they can be vastly larger.

    Also, and perhaps more to the interest of TWW readers, the detection fulfills the last major prediction of general relativity. It will be interesting to see if the YEC community has any comments on this.

  474. @ OldJohnJ:
    Hmm, Nick & OldJohnJ, I still don’t really understand the importance of this. What does it show us? I’m really interested to know, but learnt no physics after O level, though I do have a liking for it. You know ELI5? Can you ELI47?

  475. Ken wrote:

    My mother used to use an Imperial type writer, replete with ribon and would ding when you got to the end of the line.

    Beat that!

    Now that’s a tall order Ken, hard to beat for sure.
    Leonardo da Vinci had this to say:

    “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication…”

  476. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Also, and perhaps more to the interest of TWW readers, the detection fulfills the last major prediction of general relativity. It will be interesting to see if the YEC community has any comments on this.

    I would be lying if I said that I await the reaction of the YEC community with bated breath, but I do have a morbid curiosity about how they’ll try to spin it. Did God create the gravitation waves in transit 6000 light years (gravity years?) out, or did God just speed up light / gravity during the early days of the universe? (I recognize both explanations to be severely problematic for various reasons, but I’m nonetheless interested to see which way ardent YEC adherents go.)

  477. Beakerj wrote:

    What does it show us?

    There are two answers to this question. Actually there are many, but here are two.

    Answer 1 of 2

    It shows us that Einstein (and everyone since) was right and, more to the point, that the basic approach we have developed for studying the natural world God made is also right: He made an ordered creation that we can study and whose hidden gems we can dig up.

    Answer 2 of 2

    Naebdy kens what it’s going to show us. In effect, we have a new kind of astronomical telescope of a kind the like of which we’ve never had before. We can study things that have previously been hidden – which, for believers like OJJ and myself (and many others, of course), is a source of great excitement. Beyond the confines of our solar system is a universe full of jaw-dropping wonders (as though the stuff we can discover here on earth weren’t enough).

    Answer 3 of 2

    It creates a whole nuther world for adventurous theologians to weave into yet more reasons to fall down and worship. Any theology (however few thousand years old it requires the earth to be) that shrinks God into a few theories that were all ruled on by a long-dead generation of Christians is an inadequate theology in my book.

    Answer 4 of 2

    IHTIH.

    BIPI…

  478. @ Beakerj:
    I don’t think this kind of physics or its importance can ever be explained to ELI5, at least not by me. The importance goes to what I’ve said in comments here at TWW several times. If you can derive from a theory a prediction about what should happen in the physical world the theory fails if what is predicted doesn’t appear. Gravity waves are such a prediction from general relativity. They have been inferred from astronomical observation but until today’s announcements have not been directly observed. As I indicated in my reply to Nick B above this is a big nail in the coffin lid for YEC claims.

    A good article about this is: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/gravitational-waves-einstein-s-ripples-spacetime-spotted-first-time

    This is adult level explanation, not ELI5 but you should be able to sense the importance of it even if you don’t understand much of the details.

  479. @ OldJohnJ:
    and I thank Nick B for amplifying some theological implications that I only hinted at in our near simultaneous comments.

  480. Josh wrote:

    I would be lying if I said that I await the reaction of the YEC community with bated breath, but I do have a morbid curiosity about how they’ll try to spin it. Did God create the gravitation waves in transit 6000 light years (gravity years?) out, or did God just speed up light / gravity during the early days of the universe? (I recognize both explanations to be severely problematic for various reasons, but I’m nonetheless interested to see which way ardent YEC adherents go.)

    God don’t have nuthin’ to do with it! It’s the Devil, I tell ha. He’ll do anything to distract us and lead us away from God’s truth.
    (Okay. Sarcasm generator is now disengaged.)

  481. Nancy2 wrote:

    Muff Potter wrote:
    Not all Johnny(s) are created equal and by extension not all are endowed with equal gifting. Which means that not all Johnny(s) belong at university. That’s not the heartbreaking part however.
    In my experience teaching at public schools, No Child Left Behind has been boiled down to, “Johnny is failing all of his classes, but we must give him a passing grade, anyway!”

  482. Beakerj wrote:

    What does it show us?

    Well if they really do exist (gravity waves), mayhap they can be manipulated, and usher in a whole new era that bypasses conventional horseless carriage technology and heavier-than-air flying machines that exploit Bernoulli’s lift principle.

  483. Bill M wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    . I would be interested if someone had real knowledge of these mini-cultures of immigrants

    I have worked with refugee services for years through various service providers as a consultant or volunteer. You cannot blame them for being very tight knit. They come from extreme caste system societies as many were living on dirt roads and waiting for the dictator to send the milk truck. They have no concept of individual rights. The concept is foreign. They view our government more as a father who provides but have great pride (the men) and are a bit resentful. They assimilate, in general, much less than previous generations of immigrants.

    They have very intricate and vast underground economies that blow my mind. They even have a serious system for obtaining drivers licenses that entails a trip of 4 hours and 200 bucks. One refugee group here of about 10,000 who came about 10 years ago all have files that give their birthdate as 1/1. The date of birth was a guess in the DP camp. That is one reason I chuckle when one trusts the vetting process. I have had interpreters tell me there is no way some are from a region they claim because of dialect. So who knows? I have met many an “uncle” who lives with his 3-5 nieces and wants them work and us to find them a childcare job instead of attend ESL and High school. Sigh.

    Assimilation is becoming a bigger and bigger problem. I feel sorry for them. They escape bloodshed but they would still prefer their home and way of life. For many, we are like an alternative universe to them. Let’s just pray we can have a positive influence for individual rights of all……as in women.

  484. @ numo:
    She has a typewriter (one word) with a ribbon, not a ribon. Oh for an editing function! 🙂

    A friend of mine wrote a history of the local parish church – the earliest part of the building dated back to Saxon times, and incorporates Roman tiles in the walls. For a joke, he made a quill pen and created a document listing some purchases, then cooked it in the oven to make it go yellow with age. He accidentally left it in the church where it gathered dust … Some years later, some poor soul found this ‘historic’ document, and thinking it genuine, framed it, and it now adorns a wall in the tower!

    I have say personally I’m not quite old enough to remember quill pens …

  485. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Nick B … in our near simultaneous comments…

    I feel as thought the fact that comments were detected from both of us simultaneously is somehow significant…

  486. Here’s a followup on yesterday’s gravity wave detection announcement in the form of a letter from the president of MIT: http://news.mit.edu/2016/letter-regarding-first-direct-detection-gravitational-waves-0211

    From his letter: “The most recent chapter recounts the scrupulous care the LIGO team took in presenting these findings to the physics community. Through the sacred step-by-step process of careful analysis and peer-reviewed publication, they brought us the confidence to share this news – and they opened a frontier of exploration.”

    Since I have commented many times that understanding how science proceeds is important, especially within the evangelical branch of Christianity that many of us subscribe to, this quote highlights how science is done and what it takes to test our bedrock theories.

  487. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    @ OldJohnJ:
    Thanks guys that’s helped a lot. I also heard Dr Brian Cox waxing lyrical on the radio about it today.

    However, like you both, I am waiting to see what utter nonsense some of the YEC guys come up with in the name of ‘truth’. Always entertaining watching people be put off Christianity for life 🙁

  488. I have mixed feelings about all this. It is one thing to win an argument. That is always fun. And it is one thing to see truth prevail over misconception and, well, ignorance. That is good. But there are a lot of folks who apparently cannot believe unless they believe certain things about the bible, and I am thinking that there needs to be in place something to help these people continue in faith even when they have to change some erroneous but strongly held beliefs. It is not enough to say ‘I told you so.’ People have to be ready to help folks deal with ‘what now.’

  489. Beakerj wrote:

    I also heard Dr Brian Cox waxing lyrical…

    I don’t know whether you’ve come across “Horrible Histories” (shown mainly on Children’s BBC, but wasted on weans IMHO), but they’ve developed a great parody of Brian Cox:

    vimeo.com/51091942

    “Hi! I’m a hot Egyptian scientist; and welcome to Wonders of the Egyptian Universe…”

    LOL, as they say.

  490. okrapod wrote:

    It is not enough to say ‘I told you so.’ People have to be ready to help folks deal with ‘what now.’

    Actually, that’s a really good point. I wonder if some resources to help this kind of cognitive shift could be hosted somewhere decent for people to be directed to.

  491. okrapod wrote:

    But there are a lot of folks who apparently cannot believe unless they believe certain things about the bible, and I am thinking that there needs to be in place something to help these people continue in faith even when they have to change some erroneous but strongly held beliefs.

    My quarrel is not with the pew sitters trying their best to follow God and the bible. I object to those in Christian mega $ corporations who are purposely deceptive about what science is and does to promote their own financial gains. Although not directly concerned with science the cult like churches discussed in TWW are also mega $ institutions and are equally deserving of condemnation.

  492. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Clearly, more research is needed.

    I’d be pleased to review your funding proposal. I assume you have identified an appropriate funding agency.