Didn’t Piper’s wife get in that list?

I was going to suggest that the wives of Calvinists could never make the list because if they did they’d have to have been doing stuff Calvinistas don’t want them doing. I skimmed the list. There were a few on there (Meyer) that I was hoping wouldn’t be on the list.

Burk basically proved Caldwell’s point with his response. He also seemed to imply that egals KNOW what they believe is wrong, but believe it anyway for some emotional reason. I’m also not sure why he would want the article to be about comp vs. egal, when it was clearly labeled as being about the women themselves, not any debate about them. And the list of women is hardly one-sided – I don’t think anyone would describe Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann as screaming egalitarian liberals. But they are certainly influential! (Scary as that may be in light of their connections the NAR…)

“I’ve noticed in the comments to Burk’s article that he refuses to answer a number of posters, using the excuse that they haven’t given their first and last names in their comments.” – Pam

I am rather sorry that I did give my first and last name in a comment on his blog. I commented on a thread there some months before. One of the commenters asked for a sourced quote to prove what I said. I provided it. He deleted the comment with the sourced quote. As such, my commenting there made me look like I make wild allegations which I cannot back up.

Wow, that’s quite a discussion going on over at Denny’s.
And Denny’s attitude, “There’s one right way, the way that I have decided that is God’s way,” is very revealing.
I’m glad to see a few friends over there commenting.
I simply don’t have the patience.

This is a perfect example of why there weren’t many complementarians on that list of 50 influential women. Burk and his ilk are extremely narrow-minded, and the more they promote their beliefs about the gender gospel, they more they alienate themselves from their brothers and sisters in Christ. The Calvinistas have done so much proof-texting with regard to gender that they have created another gospel, which is NOT the true gospel. -Deb

Awesome, Deb!! I love this post. Thank you for your commentary on the feature article. While there are four or five women that I’m disappointed to see on the list, I am immensely grateful that CT went with this – and even better that Calvinistas didn’t make the list. 🙂

anonymous –

He must leave out the qualities and accom

For better or worse (and I say worse), many otherwise sensible and knowledgeable evangelical women admire and look up to Joyce Meyer. I think this is because there really haven’t been many high-profile, orthodox examples of women in leadership for us to follow, so when a Joyce Meyer appears on the scene many are willing to overlook her unorthodox teachings. It’s an unfortunate vicious circle: women are discouraged or prohibited from developing and exercising leadership roles and gifts, so there is a lack of role models to follow, which in turn causes many to say and do things (like latching on to Meyer’s prosperity teaching) that perpetuate the patriarchs’ stereotypes (easily deceived, emotional over rational, unorthodox, etc). This is not an excuse but an observation. We must teach our young women to be discerning, and we must find ways to expose them to better role models and real teaching rather than the fluff the bookstores market to us. Just my two cents…

Michelle Bachman was a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), which has very rigid gender roles. Women are not allowed to vote or even speak at a meeting, because their words may influence how the men vote, and WELS considers influencing as exercising leadership. To run for president, Bachman had to resign from WELS because it believes that the office of the pope is the Antichrist, and this doctrine is very offensive to the Catholic vote.

I find it deliciously ironic that Michelle Bachman is now listed as a women of influence.

I didn’t know that about Michelle Bachman.

I know about the Missouri Synod with sounds like the Wisconsin Synod.
The Missouri Synod drove my mother-in-law absolutely crazy with their strict gender roles and denying women any say. Drove her crazy.
Joyce Meyer was a breath of fresh air in comparison for the old, dry, dusty cage of her Luthren church.

When I was attending an uber-complimentarian church (SGM), I recall that one of the biggest controversies in our college-age group was whether women should go to college. No seriously. This was a big fight. A dear friend of mine even went so far as to move away from home in order to get a graduate degree, and is was a tad scandalous…This was also a big issue in most of the calvinista churches I interacted with.

All that to say, I can’t help but think there’s a correlation between complimentarians discouraging women from getting an education and there not being prominent calvinista women on this list. If you aren’t being encouraged to use your talents and intelligence in your late teens and early 20s, you most likely aren’t going to reach a point in your 40s and 50s where you are truly influential…

Amy,

“I think this is because there really haven’t been many high-profile, orthodox examples of women in leadership for us to follow, so when a Joyce Meyer appears on the scene many are willing to overlook her unorthodox teachings.”

*******

Go easy on the use of the word “unorthodox”. Not a word to throw around casually.

In keeping with what the genie (Lennie Henry) said to Bernard (Allan Cummings) in the movie Bernard and The Genie,

(did the italics work?)

The LCMS is VERY complementarian. Concordia Seminary in St. Louis is an LCMS seminary, which states that “Since the LCMS does not admit women to the pastoral office, none are enrolled in the Master of Divinity or the Doctor of Ministry programs.” Women, your call is denied by the LCMS.

Also listen to Prof. Joel Bierman from Concordia Seminary in the Lay Bible Institute Seminar tiled “LBI: Woman and Man According to God’s Plan”. You’ll find it on iTunes at iTunesU – scary.

Dee –

I was referring to your comment about your Bible study friends 🙂

The MO Synod: I think it depends on where you live, and on the members of individual churches. They’re likely most tied to gender roles, etc. out in the Midwest – in the East, not so much (at least, that’s been true of the MO Synod churches I’ve visited).

The Wisc. Synod is (dare I say it) cult-like. One of their big ranting points used to be the Boy Scouts – they have long believed that the BSA is an ungodly organization and used to excommunicate members who were found to be involved in the BSA, or, as some of them called it, “Scoutism.” (*Not* an urban legend or Lutheran folklore; Google a bit and you’ll find info.)

From a Wisc. Synod message board:

http://arkiv.lbk.cc/faq/site.pl@1518cutopic_topicid17cuitem_itemid6679.htm

@ Numo:

Our LCMS church hosts a Boy Scout troop in its basement. They’re also right nextdoor to a Masonic lodge, which is even funnier given that the denomination as a whole is still pretty leery of the Masons.

Hester – the MO Synod thinks Freemasonry is of the devil, pretty much.

Hester – see this article for more on controversies between WELS and LCMS on Scouting and many other things. I did not know that the most rabid anti-Scout statements came from the LCMS, for example…

Dee and Deb:

I saw a post on Rachel Held Evans, but did not read it thoroughly.

I know that you don’t agree with Burk’s not classifying her as an evangelical, but could you in one or two sentences tell me what Burk’s issue is with her?

It seems that Burk would not de-classify all women who hold to egalitarian beliefs.

I don’t know Evans or her writings, and I don’t know Burk, but am interested in what Burk says puts her outside the evangelical camp.

The SBC is kind of funny in this regard. In the old days, Baptists were evangelical, but did not use the label all that much. A former Moderate leader in the convention, Foy Valentine, who was head of the Christian Life Commission (which Richard Land directs now) said that “Evangelical” is a Yankee word, and he would not use it to describe himself.

So, during the CR who was or who was not an “Evangelical” was a non-started. Ken Chaffin, for example, who taught at Southern and would consider himself very evangelistic once told a woman of another faith on national television that she needed only to “love God and her fellow man” to go to heaven. In the same broadcast, Chaffin said that a rabbi friend of his who was not a Christian was going to heaven.

If “Evangelical” had been a prized term in the SBC in those days (instead of a “Yankee” word), I guess men like Chaffin would have considered themselves Evangelicals, though the self-designation would have been hotly contested by others.

But as I said, we never had that fight.

Therefore, it is interesting to me to see the fight over the word.

So, why does Burk doubt Evans’ “Evangelical” credentials?

I’m curious, when did the SBC start to hijack the term “evangelical”? I am admittedly not all that familiar with the history of the SBC, but I’ve observed that many of the voices coming out of the SBC and representing them have espoused the view that the SBC’s position on any issue is the ultimate, or “True”, evangelical position. I find this quite puzzling, given that there have been 100s of years of evangelical history that the SBC seems to completely disregard – history of supporting women in ministry, which, I’m sure, would cause men like Denny Burk to cast doubt to whether those evangelical churches were truly “evangelical” in the first place.

In one sense, their audacity is almost humorous (almost), at least when I consider that my own evangelical undergraduate institution has been around for over 120 years, supporting women in ministry since its inception (and unabashedly in full support of today, even with one quite large Calvanista church mention here often just accross the canal) – juxtaposed with professors from Boyce College (an institution that has been around for all of…14 years?) questioning whether anyone who has egalitarian views could really be considered “evangelical”. The nerve!

Dee – someday I’ll write to you off-list about the things I was taught re. Freemasons in That Church (and others).

Conversely, the ELCA church in which I grew up has plenty of Masons in the congregation.

Basically, many see it as outrightly demonic, not just a conspiracy or weird secret society. That thinking is part of many LCMS members’ beliefs.

The MO Synod: I think it depends on where you live, and on the members of individual churches. They’re likely most tied to gender roles, etc. out in the Midwest – in the East, not so much (at least, that’s been true of the MO Synod churches I’ve visited).
—
At my LCMS church no one ever even mentions gender roles, let alone harps on them like at many of the other officially complementarian churches. We have full voting rights, we can read in church, submit prayer requests in church, etc. Plus most of the moms have their own careers and send their kids to public school – there’s only been 2-3 homeschool families (one of them us) that I know of in the congregation’s history – so the culture is hardly patriarchal.

Now I can’t speak to what they’re teaching in the seminaries. Also, my church is in New England so maybe we’re in some sort of ultra-liberal enclave. But I’ve never heard of widespread patriarchal teaching in the LCMS and never seen anything published by the denomination that really harped hard on the gender roles thing. Honestly they seem much more concerned about baptism most of the time.

Numo and Hester,

So it sounds like it’s maybe more of a regional thing, then? Maybe then the issue is more cultural?

The guys I listen to on Radical Grace Radio are in Florida and the other guy, whose name is escaping me at the moment, I want to say Mark Anderson, but anyway he is in California. That’s pretty much the extent of my experience with all things Lutheran and my experience with them has so far been mostly positive. I too am in the North East (somewhere!) and as far as I know there is only one LCMS church anywhere in reasonable radius of where I live. There are a few ELCA’s though. I’ve never even heard of WELS before.

WELS is hardly a Wisconsin thing. I live in Arizona and the five closest church buildings* in distance are (1) Southern Baptist (2) United Methodist (3) LDS (4) LDS (5) WELS.

*I have to say it that way because each Mormon church building has an average of three congregations meeting in it and I haven’t bothered to check lately to see how many are meeting in the two buildings nearest my house.

Every time I drive by the WELS church and elementary school, I think to myself: “yeah, this is the same church that gave us Michele Bachmann,” “they still think the Pope is the antichrist” and “I wonder how much that fancy colored message sign cost?”

@Hester @ 2:45

Since Lutheran churches are congregational, there can be a fair amount of diversity among congregations of the same synod, but the overall thrust of the LCMS is very much comp, but its good to see some congregations resisting it. as numo noted, look up “Seminex” and you’ll see that there was a conservative piece of the LCMS seminary much like the SBC did with theirs.

Correction – Jeff @ 4:45

I meant “conservative purge of the LCMS seminary much like the SBC did with theirs.” Darn autocorrect

I truly believe that it is highly likely that conservative theologicans are miffed off because she called Jared Wilson, Doug Wilson and Mark Driscoll on the carpet. I know that many were mad that she caught the Wilsons in that infamous statement. I told Deb at the time that payback would be coming, and so it has.

I think they are also a bit miffed because she gets way more commenters on her blog than many of these conservative guys. And she’s only a woman. It’s just so unseemly that a mere woman would be of such influence. How dare she be a leader among evangelicals? Honestly, I think many of these guys are just plain jealous of her popularity.

I am actually becoming more aware that these guys do not have as much as a forum as we may be led to believe. This may portend poorly for their agenda. They may be losing in the court of public opinion.

Thank God.

I hope you’re right!

I had no idea they got so few comments. ‘Course, I don’t read their stuff at all….

Great post Deb and I’m grateful and encouraged that you & Dee have seen through the web of deceit that encompasses complementarianism. I agree with your acknowledgement of it being a central theme in a different gospel. Since the gospel is, by nature, the revelation of Jesus Christ, those promoting complementarianism as being necessary and fundamental to a true understanding of Jesus Christ are only revealing their lack of revelation. And this is why such a tension exists between the two views. It’s a spiritual battle. I know from my experience in SGM that there are strong forces at work that are literally resistant to the Spirit of God, operating in the lives of people who have substituted complementarianism for the gospel. Thankfully people are being warned to stay away from these blind guides. Their inability to see the truth may be punishment enough if it weren’t for the fact they seek to bring others into bondage.

Complementarians like to play by a different set of rules in their own lives, with the wives of leaders enjoying liberties they disparage in other women (like those listed as influential in CT) under the guise of them operating in submission to and with the full support & approval of their husbands. If a woman is not given the stage by a man then she is out of order. If given the stage, everything she says is to bring him glory and nothing is to be done to advance herself. That’s what it means to be a woman of influence according to Carolyn Mahaney. She can’t have any influence unless her husband gives it to her – and ladies, neither should you!

“Michelle Bachman was a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), which has very rigid gender roles. Women are not allowed to vote or even speak at a meeting, because their words may influence how the men vote, and WELS considers influencing as exercising leadership. To run for president, Bachman had to resign from WELS because it believes that the office of the pope is the Antichrist, and this doctrine is very offensive to the Catholic vote.

I find it deliciously ironic that Michelle Bachman is now listed as a women of influence.
”

A lot of us here changed our minds about the groups/movements we were involved in. Perhaps she did, too. She sure “influenced” a lot of foster kids.

Burk: Make no mistake, everyone celebrates women excelling in roles that the scripture commends…”

Well, since Burk is a Calvinista then he believes in a determinst God who has decreed all things. So here are some women of the bible “excelling” in scriptural “roles”

. Driving a tent peg into a man’s head

2. Hiding Spies

3. Cleaning out the pantry to feed the king and his men because your husband is a jerk who insulted him and is going to get the entire family killed

4. Sitting under a palm tree and making judgments for an entire nation

5. Demanding your personal maid sleep with your husband when you cannot bear a child

I would love to see him discussing this with several current Supreme Court judges, (including Judge Judy), one former and present Secretary of State, and many the contributors of this web site, in person.

He would wither and start the Scripture clobber against all in the room.

@ Kolya and Numo:

“Re Masonry, I tend to follow a middle view that most Masons do join it for the cameraderie (and, in previous decades, for mutual assistance and influence, though times have changed in the UK now), but that its belief systems are rather vague and don’t always sit easily with orthodox Christianity.”

I know little about Masonry (National Treasure doesn’t count as a reliable source). ; ) I’m certainly not a conspiracy theorist, but you are right, I have heard they have some kind of “theology” that kind of goes against Christianity in some ways. I remember the name Hiram coming up? Please correct me if I’m thinking of something else.

I do know the Lutheran church has come down pretty hard on Masons in the past. I don’t know if that’s just a Lutheran thing or if other denominations have done the same. And yes, Numo, no one at church talks much about the lodge nextdoor. : ) But they don’t exactly go over there and hand out tracts either.

Also, I think the Masons must be suffering from a drop in membership like everyone else, because they’re now running ads on PBS…

Muffster; who are the noted founders that are Masons” (My Grandpa and Uncle were Masons but you wouldn’t call them evangelicals.)

The Evangelicals I know think the country’s founders were not particularly orthodox believers; more likely a lot of them were deists. However, I certainly think our founders seemed to hold to a Judeo-Christian ethos. But they weren’t necessarily followers of Jesus Christ.

I did attend a Mason’s funeral some years back. Notably; there wasn’t a Mason present under 65 years of age.
The funeral itself was a syncretic mix of vague Christian doctrine and Masonic mojo. It was strange; certainly not Christian.

@ Numo:

That article/thesis about the controversies between the WELS and LCMS was illuminating. That “fellowship” thing in the WELS? Holy smokes! And I thought IFBs were the professional hairsplitters! WELS actually does think that if you don’t agree with them on literally EVERY minuscule point of doctrine, they can’t “fellowship” with you… I’d heard that before but I thought it was an exaggeration. I guess not. And the verse they based it on (Romans 16:17) so obviously has absolutely nothing to do with the direction they took it.

Maybe this is why the WELS remains so small…and unknown…

Dee:

Thanks. It must be something more than what Stott believed. His is a big deal in evangelical circles.

It may have to do with her view of scripture, but I am just guessing.

I am not going to follow up because I haven’t really run into and doubt that I will, unless it’s on this blog.

I have never seen the problem of referring to the original manuscripts when describing one’s view of inspiration. It seems to be a necessity, regardless of one’s view, inerrancy or otherwise, rather than a cop out.

Of course if one believes that all of the books of the Bible were written with the Holy Spirit acting as the mediator and the writers were, within their own personalities, style etc., writing what God wanted them to write such that it was without error (that in itself is a mystery), one would have to be referring to the original manuscripts.

If the manuscripts were erroneous, and then God came in and corrected them later when copies were made, that would seem kind of silly.

So one has to address the manuscripts under any theory of inspiration by virtue of the nature of the discussion.

I know one who claims to hold an error free Bible because of the differences in grammar, choices etc. that inevitably have to be made in translation when comparing the various texts.

So I think it’s just inevitable. I don’t see how one could get around it.

Inerrancy is the latest iteration of describing a view of inspiration that addresses the views that came in vogue after higher criticism became the rage in the middle of the 19th century.

A large segment of scholarship rejected the traditional, high view of scripture that the church has held for most of its existence.

Inerrancy was birthed to help people distinguish between the various views of scripture that find error and see the scripture as a product of man – as he saw what God was doing, versus revelation – God speaking his truth to man.

These two camps inevitably end up in different places when it comes to the faith.

Dee – My dad was a 32nd degree Mason, too. And my mom is Eastern Star, though she really hasn’t been active since the 1960s.

The local E. star chapter meets in the fellowship hall at the church where I grew up. If those women were worshipping Baal (one of many claims made about the Masons and their women’s and kid’s groups), I have yet to see any evidence. 😉

“everyone celebrates women excelling in roles that the scripture commends,” – Burk

Okay, Denny Burk, what are those roles, assuming the woman is not married and do not have children? What roles do the Bible commend for her then.

I have an answer, actually. My answer is: The same things He tells men to do. Live for God, love her neighbor, use her gifts. They may or may not overlap with the gifts of another. Burk & co would say my answer is wrong: There are specific all-women roles for her. But what are those roles? I once asked it on his blog. He did not answer.

Dee – Boy, does all that secret stuff sound incredibly boring! 😉

And here I thought you kids were planning your part in the apocalypse…

“Make no mistake, everyone celebrates women excelling in roles that the scripture commends, but egalitarians continue to disagree with complementarians about what those roles are.”

So if Mr Burk decides that a woman preaching (for example) shouldn’t happen then what? Is it impossible for a woman to preach successfully? Clearly this would be nonsense. IS it wrong for good preaching to happen if it is delivered by a woman? Clearly this would be nonsense too. Is God not glorified if a woman preaches faithfully and filled with the spirits power? Clearly this is nonsense as well. Is a woman preaching inevitably not spirit filled however faithful to scripture, and honouring to God it is. I suppose this must be the complementarian point, but it does rather seem like nonsense of the first water.

Well, it’s tomorrow here in the UK; I see you’ve all been busy while we’ve been asleep. May I be so presumptuous as to join in several strands of conversation in one uber-post before I disappear out into the garden for the day? (Friday’s ton of gravel duly arrived, but now it needs making into concrete; before that can happen, the various holes need to be dug in the right places, and before that can happen, I have to get off my rear end and do some Manly Man-work. I should probably try to sneak up on and kill some defenceless wildlife from 50 yards away using a projectile weapon while I’m at it.)

I haven’t looked at CT’s list of 50 yet, but I wonder whether Heidi Baker is in there. (Don’t know whether she’d qualify as “evangelical” rather than “charismatic”, though – do I gather correctly that, for some/many in the States, the term “charismatic evangelical” is considered a contradiction in terms?) I came across an interesting quote, attributed to Baker, though I’ve been unable to verify it. With that caveat, it goes something like this: somebody asked her, who’s the godliest person you’ve ever met? To which she answered, you wouldn’t know her; she’s dying in a hospital in Mozambique. That’s plausible; certainly the Bakers spend much (or most) of their time among the poor of southern Africa. And I love the idea of someone who doesn’t just “graciously” dispense charity to those “poor simple folk”, but admires and respects the poor themselves.

Charis / Val – I’m kind of with you there. Mindless triumphalism on the one hand, and filthy sinners unaffected by any new birth on the other, are not the only two alternatives! I’m always wary of flinging out scriptures in this context, because all of you have read the bible too, and you don’t need me to tell you what it says. But here’s on I find challenging, from 1 John 4:

And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

OK; I could fashion the fear/punishment thing into a stick to beat the calvinistas who think the primary function of eldership is discipline. It’s the bit about “In this world we are like Jesus”, though. I know they didn’t have internet pornography in 1st-century Judea, but if they had, would Jesus have been as drawn to it (or sexual imagery in general) as I am? Did he get selfishly angry, like I do, about offences committed against him (as opposed to dens of thieves defiling worship and exploiting the poor at the same time)? And so on.

Keith Green put it very well. He described seeing a bumper-sticker that said “Christians aren’t perfect… just forgiven!“. He could not accept that this was good enough: “No, ma’am, you can’t trust my Christian teenage son with your daughter; he’s not perfect, just forgiven”. Somewhere along the line, there must be a Romans 8 realisation (as in – hey, there is no condemnation!) that doesn’t just set us free from guilt, but from sin as well.

I’m sure you all know the popular saying among motivational speakers and secular pick-n-mix religionists, that whatever the human mind can believe, the human mind can achieve. There is very limited truth in that. But if I understand God’s dealings with humanity, as chronicled in scripture, we can say this: whatever promise of God a person will believe, that person can receive. The trouble is that the converse is evidently true as well. Which presents me with the ongoing challenge: what promises of scripture am I refusing to believe, and watering down with theological compromise so that I don’t need to fight any fight of faith, but can just paint a target around whatever comes most easily and claim that it’s “God’s will”?

I’m not a fan of “Calvinistas” and find them gender/sex obsessed (like much of our culture). However, if I were one of them, I would be glad to not be included on that list. Granted most of them hunger and thirst not after righteousness but after “using God’s gifts” aka. a theology of glory (to use Luther’s term) that ends up reveling in the wisdom and strength of men.

Anyway, it is sad thing we have health-wealth, thought gurus like Joyce Meyers, nationalist militarists like Bachman and Palin and seeker-sensitive, watered down gospel-lite in Hybels and Warren. These are influential Christians? Thanks but no thanks, I’d rather be marginalized and voiceless than be on a list with them. Call me sectarian, but numbers, money, name-brand and legitimacy makes neither a Christian nor a manifestation of the catholic (as in universal) church.

Of course, I’m not into the kulturkampf of the Calvinistas. Jesus Christ did not come to make 50’s styled American households with the Cleavers, He came to call and make disciples that would follow Him, even unto death.

RE: numo on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 09:35 PM,

To the best of my knowledge it was not WELS. Back in the mid to late 50s, Lutherans got along with one and other (and with other faiths) much better than they do now. It’s a true paradox really, given the bad press about the 50s in general, but I’m convinced that in some areas of life people truly did live and let live in more tangible ways back then.

Dee – the endless nonsense about cornerstones and boundary stones in D.C. having been laid with Masonic rites – and what must be done to counter that influence – is a given at places like That Church.

They are convinced that this is all about Baal worship (i.e., the worship of demons and such). Not sure if they’ve seen anything change since their last “prayer walk,” though… 😉

Muff – I think you would remember if you’d been raised in a WELS church!

They wouldn’t even pray (or have “prayer fellowship with”) other xtians back then, as everyone knows that you should *only* pray with people who agree with you on every single particular of doctrine. (See the article I linked to upthread, in a reply to Hester.)

I love this Comp vs Egal debate.

I get to dis-agree with both sides. 😉

Comps are into Higher-Archy, leader-ship, which male is the leader.
Jesus, asks His Disciples to model Lower-Archy, Servant-ship, Jesus is the only Leader.
Jesus tells His disciples NOT to be called Leaders, “ONE” is Leader Christ Mt 23:10NASB.

Comps are into “I’m the Pastor/Leader follow me.” Obey me. Pay me.
Jesus asks His Disciples to “Follow Jesus.” Where ever Jesus goes.
Jesus never asks His Disciples to follow “A Mere Fallible Human.”
My Sheep – Hear My Voice – I Know Them – They Follow Me. Jn 10:27

Egals “say” they desire “Equality” with the two genders – And that sounds like a noble cause.
But – As I’ve questioned this debate – questioned women – My conclusion is…

Most who desire the “Title/Postion” of “Pastor/leader” are NOT looking for “Equality.”

They are looking for “Recognition.”

They are looking for “Recognition” from “The Corrupt Religious System” of today.
Egals desire the same “Titles/Postions” – Senior Pastor/Leader/Reverend – As the Comps
But – Senior Pastor/Leader/Reverend is a “Title/Position” – NOT found in the Bible.

I’ve known a few ladies that have the “Title” – and they still complain…
“The male pastors do NOT respect me.” “The male pastors do NOT accept me.”
“I’m NOT invited to the pastors meetings.” “I’m NOT part of “the Good Ole Boys Club.”

Shhhhheeessshh – Why isn’t being…
Kings and Priests unto God – The Bride of Christ – Servants of Christ – Sons of God…
Disciples of Christ – Ambassadors of Christ…
Good enough for us dumb sheep – why do we invent “Titles?”

And – Ambassador – Is – The highet diplomatic representation
that one sovereign power sends to another.

If you’re an Ambassador of Christ – There is NO one in the Kingdom of God
Higher than you – Of Course – There is NO one lower either – We’re ALL His lowly sheep…

And there-in lies the problem with us “Mere fallible Humans”

There is always someone who wants to be the Boss. Male or Female.

Actually on topic — Burk still hasn’t answered several posters’ questions about what he thinks the proper roles of women are although I suspect a hint is contained in the fact that he featured Voddie Baucham.

I post under the name Scott Terrell over on Denny’s blog. I invite you all to read my interactions with Kamilla over there. Denny let’s her rant and gives her fare more leeway than most posters. She has to be the most obtuse poster I’ve ever interacted with. If you put her, Doug Wilson, and a chair in a room (not THAT chair by the way) you would make more progress with the chair.

Deb and Dee – Here’s a link for you. Apparently it’s not enough to just talk about sex to bring them in. A church near us is trying to one up Driscoll and is going full out on the p o r n theme. Sex secrets one week and Ron Jeremy (the p o r n star) goes to church a few weeks later.

http://www.daybreak.tv/

Sallie –

Their message next week is “Dating Secrets.” I guess it could be a “grabber” title, but it seems odd for a Sunday morning.

Sorry I’m late to the party on this. Wanted to respond to the annihilation-ism discussion yesterday, but just got around to it. The rest of my essay on this is on my blog. (Dee and Deb, this is the last I’ll mention it on a comment…incidentally, you guys are the first link in my Blogroll!!!!)

Everything man does, I argue, he does via his ability. There is nothing beyond that. Ability must be eternal because by definition, it cannot be unable. Man’s soul was created to perpetually exist. Annihilation-ism implies that somehow, by his ability, man can decide to un-create himself, which is, in fact, a huge logical fallacy. Ability/created cannot also = inability/uncreated at the same time.

Now, I understand the natural objection to my argument. The natural objection says that it is not man doing the un-creating, it is God. God is annihilating man, not himself. Here is my counter argument:

The purpose of man is to exist according to his ability. The purpose of man cannot be changed by man because man’s purpose is found in God (as opposed to the rest of creation’s purpose, which is found in itself, to provide an environment for man’s ability to be effectuated and realized), which is, again,to be himself, by pursuing God–which constitutes utter freedom of self. God is utter freedom by definition; the more like God, the more man is free to be himself. God, then, does NOT create man that he may be uncreated according to an act of his ability (that is, man’s ability). Thus, the same metaphysical principle discussed in detail above still applies. God does not respond to a choice man makes as a function of his ability by rendering man unable, for what that would naturally imply is that man is, in fact, using his ability to compel an outcome whereby that ability becomes inability. A = B = C. Man’s ability = reject God = man is annihilated is the same as saying man’s ability = man’s inability. God can no more act in a metaphysically impossible way than the rest of all of the heavens and creation, for doing so constitutes that He is in fact a creator of the redundant and irrelevant, and is thus a hypocrite, and CANNOT be, in fact, God. To say that man can provoke annihilation of his ability by his own ability is a logical and metaphysical fallacy. It is clear then, that God will not oblige annihilation-ism in order that He may not be seen as the the creator of the metaphysically nonsensical. If God is truly the author of man’s ability, then ability is the end and beginning of man, and as such, inability cannot be ever effected. In short, God created man’s soul to be eternal, regardless of whatever choices man makes as a product of his ability.

The conclusion of all of this is, again, that man exists to be eternal not to be uncreated. I would caution all of us who name the name of Christ to be careful that, in the interest of showing compassion and love to others, which I feel is the motivation behind the concept of annihilation-ism (at least in some), that we do not somehow minimize the urgent need of Christ for the world. To preach annihilation-ism what we are saying is that there is no judgment; for regardless of when that annihilation comes, the result is nothing, and by definition, the punishment then for sin is nothing at all. If God does not reject (punish, enact a consequence, etc., etc.) forever, then the fact is that ultimately there is no consequence for sin, which is contradictory to the faith. If man can be uncreated, then all that man does, including sin, is forgiven without Christ, which, again, is impossible, by the very definition of what it means for a Christ to exist. I don’t mind re-evaluating the concept of hell, but we must be careful about proclaiming that it does not exist at all, or that the judgment of God is a false concept, which is exactly what we do when we proclaim annihilation-ism. By definition, if man becomes nothing, then there is NO judgment. The judgment of man cannot be nothing, because that constitutes irrational contradiction. Non-existence is not a consequence of anything; again, it is simply nothing.

Muff Potter –
At my site, www dot antichristtheories-r-us dot org, we can meet your every conspiracy threat you need/like. We not only have Barack Obama antichrist merchandise, we also have books and DVDs about the following probable/potential/definite antichrists:
Mitt Romney
Ron Paul
Ban Ki Moon
David Cameron
Angela Merkel
Julia Gillard
Brad Pitt
That lazy guy who works at the local 7-11
and many more

Prices start from just $54.60, and we offer bulk discounts!

LOL Dee (Oct 7 @ 8:00PM), good point – for someone so upset with feminism, so pro complementarianism, she sure doesn’t fit Mary Kassian’s ideal “gentle quiet spirit” insistence. I live a few kms from the US, so I pick up some US Christian stations in the car (Canada won’t allow a single faith to run a station), Mary K. was on the Christian stn. the other night, talk about straw-women arguments – egalitarians aren’t quite and calm in spirit, must be their brokenness showing through etc. Except, of course when said woman is a comp. (sorry, my autocorrect hates that word written out fully), then dear Kamilla can say whatever, however, uncharitably and turn any, absolutely any, argument against her into the feminist straw woman “Oh, that is an egal. feminist argument” I wonder what she would say to Jesus? Your just a feminist Jesus, clearly you don’t know what you are talking about! Sheesh!

Numo,
Yes…I understand your thoughts. It is a struggle. Which again is why I don’t mind re-evaluating the nature of judgment, I’m just arguing that from my standpoint, annihilation-ism is metaphysically contradictory. I believe that man’s soul must be eternal…it cannot be un-created.

Muff – but how do you think about the many OT passages that mention Sheol, then?

Certainly there was some (perhaps not universally accepted?) belief in an afterlife prior to NT times… though the pictures we have of what Sheol actually means seem to be somewhat contradictory and admittedly fragmentary.

While I’m by no means wholly sold on Greek philosophy, they might very well have had something per a part of us that is an essential “us” – and that survives physical death.

Also…I find it difficult to understand how we get a new body if the soul cannot be separate from this. Although, I do understand muffs perspective. There needs to be a body. But Koyla, yes, there must be some constant in “us”, or the IS of our existence. Something by which every change hinges on…if the change is a fundamental change in US then what we think of as US must be at the mercy ultimately of some other external force. In which case, we are that thing, not really us at all.

Hi Nick,
No offense whatsoever! I really appreciate your thoughts. It helps me clarify my own premises. Thanks for your thoughtful response. If I may make another shameless plug, do you mind reading my whole post over at my site? http://www.unreformingtheology.com

That my help clear up what I feel are things that you are incorrectly assuming. For example, I don’t start with the premise, and then form logic to prove it. I begin with the premise, and then prove why it must, or must not in some cases, be metaphysically true. I agree however that I generally do start with reason as the canvass, and this does imply a given epistemology…so granted that. But, I am first cousins with John Locke, so I’m obligated to hold to family tradition. LOL!

Hi Nick,
yes…good catch on lack of biblical reference. I dont reference it on purpose. The truth of our faith can be expressed as function metaphysical reason. Thus, no need to use the bible to prove the bible. Obviously I do proceed from the notion that Christianity is true. But I will not shy from accepting that some Christian assumptions are false(like biblical inerrancy) when they contradict rational epistemology and metaphysics. Make no mistake, truth is what I’m after, not ideology.

Apparently it’s not enough to just talk about sex to bring them in. A church near us is trying to one up Driscoll and is going full out on the p o r n theme. Sex secrets one week and Ron Jeremy (the p o r n star) goes to church a few weeks later. — Sallie

Somehow, I suspect they don’t have any problem attracting men to their church.

The immortality of the soul seems like a very irrelevant topic to “preserving true Christian faith”. I guess if you want to defend traditional Catholic natural law teaching and various inferences made within Thomistic thought it would be relevant but it didn’t seem that’s where you were coming from, Argo. Is there a reason you would propose that an immortal soul has anything to do with any Christian anything as such?

RE: Argo on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 09:09 PM,

If and only if is sometimes abbreviated as ‘iff’ or the symbol ‘’. It is what we call a bi-conditional operator between two statements, in order for one to be true, its converse must also be true. For example, the statement:

“A triangle is equilateral if and only if each of its internal angles measure exactly 60 degrees”

Means both:

“If a triangle is equilateral then each of its internal angles measure exactly 60 degrees”

And:

“If each of the internal angles of a triangle measure exactly 60 degrees then the triangle is equilateral”

Notice how this differs from the statement: “If it is raining then the grass is wet” and its converse: “If the grass is wet then it is raining”. The original statement may be true, but there is no guarantee that its converse is also true.

Kamilla calls Dr. Sheri Klouda a feminist over at Burke’s blog. She seems to not be a very nice person. That is Kamilla.

Argo – I once heard a wise man say, ‘ If the soul had a beginning, it may very well have an end’. It was the first time I’d really questioned what turned out to be quite a Greek concept, that a ‘soul’ had to be intrinsically eternal in duration. I see no reason why the ‘soul’ of man, & even that I use advisedly, because the Hebraic views of man are of a unity rather than of a soul inhabiting a flesh body is necessarily indestructible…
The same wise man said’ We do not have a soul, we are a soul.’

The earlier conversation about Scripture, where Dee said she prefers inspired/authoritative over innerant//infallible has had me thinking. I totally understand why some feel these *stronger* descriptions to be required to battle *higher* criticism.
But I love Argo’s phrase, “The idea of inerrancy does not affect faith in any way.” I E Those with an infallible Bible might be expected to be built up more in their faith (or hope,love, etc) than those with a *merely* God-breathed one.
I love, love the use and description the Hebrews-writer makes of scripture and the word of God (not always identical) in ch. 4. For example in v2 “but the word of hearing did not profit them, because it was not united by faith with them that heard.” In V4 he introduces scripture quotes with “For He hath said somewhere”. Then in v12 he describes he word of God as living, active, sharp, piercing, dividing, and discerning! Wow! A few more of these powerful terms in our statements of faith wouldn’t hurt!
Then there are these descriptions of the word of the Lord (and synonyms) in Ps 19– Perfect Sure Right Pure Clean True Desired and Sweet!! These must be at least on a par with descriptions like “verbally inspired in every word, and absolutely inerrant”.

For anyone here who knows the story of Dr. Klouda for Kamilla to verbally attack her the way she is at Burkes’s blog is downright unchristian.

Dr. Klouda has and continues to suffer greatly for something that never should have happened–her being fired from her teaching position for simply attempting to teach Hebrew to male seminary students.

Can someone provide a list of names of the 50, with where employed, and position? I do not subscribe to CT and cannot access their website without paying.

Arce –

I saw all the names at a blog – maybe Denny Burk(e)s?

Arce,

This site has the list and the names link to their sites.

http://margaretfeinberg.com/who-would-you-add-to-christianity-todays-50-women-to-watch-list/