First commenter! Where is Eagle?

Given Mohler's position on contraception, will he be a grandpa any time soon?

Mohler and Patterson are despicable human beings that blaspheme the name of God.

I note that Mohler is not averse to quoting a female historian in his article linked to the post.

In the post: “The philosophy and physics majors have been eliminated.” I wonder if this is a in principle decision since physics underlies all the accepted dating methods, or simply pragmatic since there is nothing left of the discipline if all majors must conform to the very narrow theological requirements of the place. (Philosophers are more than capable of speaking for themselves.)

Estelle wrote:

I note that Mohler is not averse to quoting a female historian in his article linked to the post.

I’ve noticed that about some gender complementarians as well.

I mentioned on the last thread about a gender complementarian guy with a radio show who is against women being preachers, yet not too long ago on his show, he quoted from a Christian woman’s blog to refute the preaching of certain types of male preachers.

Why is it okay with these gender complementarian guys to quote women as sources of authority or teaching in some aspects (even to correct men!), but not others? They aren’t consistent.

Then, some of them don’t even follow the complementarian interpretation as confined to the Bible alone (the Bible only discusses preaching, wives submitting to husbands) but seek to subjugate all women in all areas of life and society.

(Then there are still some gender complementarians who only obsess over marriage and motherhood, completely neglecting single, widowed, and childless ladies.)

Deb wrote:

First commenter! Where is Eagle?

Given Mohler’s position on contraception, will he be a grandpa any time soon?

Good question! Seems it was ok for his daughter to graduate from college and go work for a senator in DC before marrying. I expect to hear of a pregnancy soon. I never hear anything about his son. But if Mohler is giving young men and women such godly council should we not look at his own family example?

I would love to see a list of Christian colleges/seminaries that allow women to teach men. They have not gotten to Gordon Conwell have they?

I saw a bit of an attempt with the SBC to try and control Campbellsville college for being “liberal”. (The truth was they were not giving a certain prof tenure who just happened to be a Calvinist) It did not fly. One of Mohler’s guys who is KBC president wrote a post about saying they were going to withhold their 1 million a year if Campbellsville did not respond satisfactorily. As one person on the committee who looked into it told me: These young guys (Mohler’s loyalists) are immature with social media. He should never have written that.

Paige Patterson had more comebacks than Bill Clinton. He has always been one step ahead of the firing ax. Even Criswell wanted to fire him but the big boys always found a cushy place for him to land. I don’t know how he does it except perhaps he knows where all the CR bodies are buried. He has been around forever. How old is he? He has to be in his 70’s.

Speaking of Paige Patterson. Did anyone see this self promoting idolatry?

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/12/13/5415582/stained-glass-windows-honor-leaders.html?rh=1

Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

JeffT wrote:
Mohler and Patterson are despicable human beings that blaspheme the name of God.
“Despicable human beings”?

That’s what I said. That’s what I call anyone who perverts the word of God to a gospel of oppression that justifies throwing people out of a job and into the street just because they lack a penis. They can twist the few verses there are out of context to try and put lipstick on their theological pig, but when Jesus says the two overriding commandments are to love God and love your neighbor and on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets, there is no way to justify such oppression of women because that is NOT love in any sense of the word.

If Mohler and Patterson lived in the South in the mid-1800’s with this same hermeneutic, they would be slave owners.

A homemaking program? Do they not realize that this is self-parody?

Or maybe this entire neo-Cal show is just a large scale exercise is satirical performance art.

In any case, these people are far and away on the wrong side of Scripture and history. Their efforts will fail. Their efforts are failing, and this type of desperate action is proof positive.

(As an aside, Regent College, an important evangelical seminary in Vancouver, is as egalitarian as it gets. Thank goodness that there are pockets of sanity.)

Times like this make me glad I’m Catholic (the idiocy of Patterson and Mohler, not the blog here). It’s so stupid to fire someone because of their sex. I basically had that that happen to me in my last night (they’ll say it was for misconduct but it was totally sexual discrimination and severe harassment and glsd I’m out of there).

Neither would like Catholic seminaries where women are mot allowed but encouraged to teach and study. Most Catholic clergy have no problem with women teaching them (there are a few nuts but it’s NOT the teaching of the Church) and even encourage them to get advanced degrees not just in fields like chemistry nut also theology and Scripture. Heck, the chancellor for the Archdiocese of Portland (OR) is a woman. The only person “above” her is the Archbishop and that’s because he’s her boss (now I’m not entirely sure what her job truly entails but she’s no secretary and highly intelligent; she writes reflections on the Sunday readings for the Catholic newspaper and they are very thought provoking).

I know there are well-reknowned Bible scholars who are Catholic women even if I can’t remember their names right now. I heard about them from priests who praised their knowledge and education (and of course their faith but that’s a given).

So while individual Catholics and clergy certainly have expressed and pushed false ideas about women and men, it is NOT Church teaching. And the last three popes (John Paul II, Benedict, and noe Francis) have all praised women and encouraged them. JP II’s Letter to Women comes to mind, Francis’s recent words on a better theology of women indicate that the Catholic Church has much to be thankful for in women and their contributions to the Church and to society.

That being said, there is room for improvement (even Pope Francis said so). This does not mean a change in dogma and doctrine. There will never be women priests and contraception and abortion will never be allowed. I understand that many of you will have problems with this and that these reasons are reasons you will never be Catholic. I can respect that, I won’t agree but I will respect that.

As a response to to the post from Wed., I went lookinh at what the Catholic Church really teaches about marriage. So first to the Catechism (easy to read, nice index, and lists the relevant references to specific Church documents). If curious, read paragraphs 1601-1666 in the Catechism because that’s what I’m going to reference here.

Paragraph 1605 “thewoman, “flesh of his flesh,” his EQUAL, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”;she thus REPRESENTS GOD from whom comes our help (emphasis mine). So men and womem are equal. P. 1607 states ” Acvording to faith the disorder we notice so painfully does not stem from the NATURE of man and women, nor from the nature of their relations, but from sin.” (nature is italicized in the original text.) So sin is the problem. Mot being male or,female.

I searched the WHOLE Catechism and I found nothing about gender roles. So I went to the encyclical “Humane Vitae” and still no gender,roles but a really good encyclical on marriage and why contraception is wrong. The encyclucal can be found at the Vatican website vatican.va. You might have to dig a little. I have a handy free app called Laudete (yep, Catholic) that lists the most recents Vatican documents going back to the documents from Vatican II. Plus it has the Catechism though I have a hard copy, digit is easier to manage. So I had handy access to all this. So far, I can conclude that with the evidence I’ve listed sovfar, the Catholic Church does not teach or endose this false, heretical gender gospel. I haven’t even mentioned words from JP II’s “Letter to Women” or document “On the Dignity of Women” which can both be found at the Vatican website.

So why have I been rambling on so long? Simple. Patterson, Piper, Mohler, et. al., teach a reductionist, utilitarian view of women. They distill women (and men) down to objects that can only fill specific functions. They deny the fact that women (and men) are made in the image and likeness of God Himself. By denying this reality and truth (and yes, it’s Catholic but probably everybody here would agree to it’s truth), they deny or at least ignore Jesus’s own coming as flesh and blood which we just celebrating at Christmas (the Incarnation). They refute/ignore/deny/something that yes, God created mankind in male and female, God DID NOT creates or teach these false ideas that they twist from Scripture. Yes, men and women are different but that has more to do with who can carry and sustain life than some false perception of “biblical gender” and perceived economic value of culturally created ideas about sex/gender.

And now I should stop rambling. I apologize for the typos and the very long post. If tjis too much De and/or Deb, you can break up this comment as necessary.

The school now integrates “Scripture and discipline.”

Including wife-spanking?

Cedarville University: NO GURLZ ALLOWED.

@ Pacbox: I hear you! Am Lutheran (ELCA, which ordains women) and the sheer bigotry of these men just does bad things to my head.

I’m also a bit boggled by how different many things are south of the Mason-Dixon line. It’s a world I don’t recognize.

Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

Despicable

Mohler pretty much depicts all single adult Christians as being ‘despicable’ in explaining why he thinks it’s okay to practice discrimination in churches not hiring singles, and in blaming singles for being single (he thinks everyone should marry by 21 or 22.)

Mohler is definitely prejudiced against adult singles.

So, if someone else wants to peg him as being ‘despicable’, it doesn’t bother me too much.

Victorious wrote:

Amy Smith wrote:

Women can just make them sammiches as they do battle.

lol! But only the kind of sammiches they like! No peanut & butter for warriors!

Only inch-thick rare steaks and beer!

(Anyone remember Jimmy Kimmel’s The Man Show? Definiton of “Men” best described by a certain Frank Zappa title?)

The SBC is an evil institution. It is run by evil men. Yes, Seneca, evil. When you attend and give to a SBC church you are supporting both this institution and its evil rulers.

Steven wrote:

The SBC is an evil institution. It is run by evil men. Yes, Seneca, evil. When you attend and give to a SBC church you are supporting both this institution and its evil rulers.

*
I think you want to post to Wade Burleson. He actually pastors an SBC church. Therefore, I guess he’s one of the “evil men.”

Anon 1 wrote:

They have not gotten to Gordon Conwell have they?

I have seen strong undercurrents of this at Gordon Conwell. A professor recently was asked to not use N.T. Wright as a resource to point students towards. Seriously?!

Lin wrote:

What a false gospel

Yep.K.D. wrote:

too smart for the SBC

Not hard to accomplish this today.

I have lots of good friends who are SBC. And who doesn’t? It’s the largest protestant denomination in the US of A. But the “conservative resurgence” is a lie. It was a fundamentalist resurgence, exchanging the cool waters of the gospel for socially contrived, theological law. I’m not sure many realize the dark path some of the SBC is on (they are not monolithic). The 1960s was almost certainly a generational reaction to the fanatically legalistic religion and morality of the 40s and 50s.

Anon 1 wrote:

Speaking of Paige Patterson. Did anyone see this self promoting idolatry?

I better not hear ONE DMANED COMMENT from the SBC against the RCC venerating saints.

@ Pacbox:
The Catholic church talks a good game, but it’s past and present on the treatment of women is pretty abyssmal. Setting aside the issue of female ordination (which is a HUGE) issue, there’s a long and ugly history of abuse and mistreatment. Women counseled, pressured, and forced to stay with abusive husbands. Rape victims, unwed mothers, girls suspected of being sexually active, and others enslaved and tortured in laundries and workhouses in Ireland (only a male relative could retrieve them). Teaching thousands upon thousands of girls in the middle of the last century to revere poor 11 year old Maria Goretti, cannonized because she fought off her rapist and was killed. They now claim she was cannonized because of the coda to her story, where she allegedly gorgave her killer, but that was not the gist of the lurid tale as it was told to schoolgirls, who were told that she resisted and chose death so they wouldn’t both be sinning. And so the Catholic church perpetuated another round of toxic rape culture.And the effects of their current position on birth control and abortion are dangerous for women – little girls forced to carry extremely dangerous pregnancies to term, a woman forced to die an agonizing death as the baby she was miscarrying slowly suffocated and starved to death within her, women ravaged by the effects of continued pregnancies because birth control is forbidden. And thats just the last century. Read some of the writings of earloer Catholic leaders and scholars on women. Horrifying, dehumanizing stuff.

I’m not writing this to pick on Catholicism or claim it was or is any worse than the toxicly misogynistic culture described on this blog. Indeed, in the devolpped, western wotld, many of the abuses described would be unimaginable in the current Catholic church, particularly the nonsense about teaching. But it would be a mistake noto recognize the serious women problem the Catholic church has and had. Because these problems arose in a larger historical context where the Christian religion in general has long had a deep strain of misogyny.

@ That Bad Dog:

One can only wonder at the long-term effects of having an adult woman requiring them to “turn in their assignments by Friday” or – and this one would really sends shivers down their spines if they had any – being publicly corrected in their Latin verb conjugations by a woman with more degrees than they have and decades of experience in the subject matter. Such an event would obviously by life-altering, and could only have the effect of causing long-term, profound confusion regarding gender roles. I would not be at all surprised if the XY chromosome victims of such Amazonian educators were subsequently found attempting to enroll in interior decorating courses or even cooking an evening meal that included complicated sauces.

Best comment of this thread so far. 🙂

Jeff, let me tell you a true story. It happened to me this past month. I have been instrumental in bringing to a closure a particular ministry in our church that has served a good purpose in years past, but has become a little outdated in the means and methods in which the gospel is shared – particularly in light of the fact how we share Christ is changing drastically through Internet, social media and other avenues not available to us in the 1960’s, 70’s and even 80’s. In other words, our church is changing. I received a letter from a person who was furious with me for my leadership. She disagreed with me. She told me (and I quote) – “Don’t ever speak to me again; don’t call – I will not answer. Don’t look at me – I will walk away. I will attend worship and leave. I can’t stand to hear you preach. You are not a Christian!” I respected this woman’s boundaries, knowing that the ministry that ended was very dear to her and she spoke from her pain. At a banquet this past week to show appreciation to all those who had participated in 40 years of service in this particular ministry that was coming to an end, I sat down at the table where this woman was seated. I was polite and greeted her, and then involved her in all the conversation with the people around the table. I noticed she was on crutches and volunteered to go through the buffet line and get her salad and food. After I got her food, I went back through the line and picked up mine. Yesterday morning I received a voice mail from this same woman with an apology. She thanked me for my kindness to her, and said she had spoken to me out of her pain, but she knew I was a Christian and she loved me and my wife, and would follow my leadership.

I tell you this story because I think you and I are in a similar situation. We both have had hurtful and painful things said and done to us. How we respond to our hurts caused by other people dictate whether or not those people will ever eventually listen to us. Had I called this woman “a despicable human being” for questioning my salvation, I would have never won her over to my belief that it was time to change the methodology of how we share Christ.

Thanks for listening. I don’t know if I’m making sense, but I feel we are on the verge of producing some very influential and important changes in the body of Christ, and I would like to see us do it while preserving our belief in the dignity of all human beings – even those who do painful things to us.

Daisy wrote

Then, some of them don’t even follow the complementarian interpretation as confined to the Bible alone (the Bible only discusses preaching, wives submitting to husbands) but seek to subjugate all women in all areas of life and society.

For the same reason some denominations ban dancing? It might lead to. . . other things.

Sigh. Meantime the Baptists complain that their membership numbers continue to fall.

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

EXACTLY!!!! It is blatant idolatry.

Wade Burleson wrote:

Here’s why. Jeff, you have a perspective that needs to be heard. You (and I) obviously disagree with the systematic removal of women from positions of service in schools, churches and institutions because of their gender. We must prove our position from the Bible (and it can EASILY be done), without casting personal aspersions. Here’s why: Once someone calls another human being a “despicable human being” all communication ceases.

Gotta disagree with this one. Sounds real nice but it is a waste of time. They make their living with these doctrines and it attracts followers. No followers, no living no need for the doctrines.

Prove our position from scripture? Have you not seen the Calvinist debate? With the Patriarchal interpretation you have men who benefit greatly. You think they are going to give up that power and position OVER others because we think we can prove the bible teaches opposite? The pecking order is what they live for.

I think the best thing to do is to STOP talking to them. Trying to change the mind of these leaders is only giving them more influence AS leaders. Stop recognizing them as leaders of others. They are false teachers and should be treated as such. The best thing we can do is educate people through discussion to be more independent and stop following the gurus. To be thinkers and use logic and reason. People who follow the gurus rarely think through what they believe and why.

I agree with JeffT they are despicable. Not just for their errant doctrine on women but because of their behavior over their careers. Both men have treated others horribly who disagreed with them. I see little of Christ but lots of wielding power.

Wade Burleson wrote:

We must prove our position from the Bible (and it can EASILY be done), without casting personal aspersions. Here’s why: Once someone calls another human being a “despicable human being” all communication ceases.

Wade, Thank you for this excellent response and good advice! May we all pray and work to speak with grace.

http://www.cedarville.edu/Job-Openings.aspx?OpeningType=1%2C2

Out of the 18 current Cedarville University faculty employment opportunities, it appears to me only 4 areas are open to women, individuals with disabilities, minorities or veterans, and they are as follows:

Adjunct Positions:
School of Business Administration

Private Lessons Instructor Positions:
Music and Worship – Bass Guitar

Private Lessons Instructor Positions:
Music and Worship – Guitar

Private Lessons Instructor Positions:
Music and Worship – Voice.

As advertised, only those four faculty openings contain the following statement, which none of the others do:

“Positions are subject to Cedarville University policies, verification of credentials and other information required by law. Applications from individuals with disabilities, minorities, veterans, and women are encouraged. Applications will be accepted until positions are filled. Positions are pending budget approval.”

Added to each posting, Cedarville includes this statement:

Cedarville University is an Equal Opportunity Employer

But at the bottom of the page they attach an “Equal Employment Opportunity Statement” in which they declare their right to discriminate on the basis of religion, gender and/or marital status.

@ Anon 1: maybe its just, you know… different. Culturally different.

Get that bee out of your bonnet.

numo wrote:

@ Anon 1: maybe its just, you know… different. Culturally different.

Get that bee out of your bonnet.

I thought it was a strange comment to make without elaborating on what you mean by “different”. Especially since many Northerners have moved to the South since the 70’s and 80’s. Just as one example, Atlanta has a huge population of Northerners who made the trek years ago as many banks, companies moved South some for tax reasons. Many Northerners came to the Sun Belt during those years as it was exploding. So would that be included in the culturally different?

It would be interesting to compare the number of Pedophile Priests in the North vs the South. Could it be because there were simply more Catholic churches in the North? I just thought it was strange comment that needed elaboration.

@ dee:

I would love to see the price tag on those stained glass windows of CR leaders. Who are the well heeled who donated money for that idolatry? And how do you put glasses on a stained glass figure? :o)

“Why? Because taking away a program that teaches logic and reasoning, is the first step of turning students searching for truth and knowledge into mere minions of one certain belief system – whatever that belief system may be.”

Bingo! It is hard to indoctrinate when people are free to think critically and analytically.

@ Anon 1: I don’t get the SBC; we have no analogue up here. And I can’t imagine these kinds of firings taking place in a Northern school, unless at a small “Bible college” with no accreditation or other academic bona fides.

But there are quirks of local/regional culture everywhere – certainly the case where I’m currently living! I wouldn’t expect non-natives to be anything but baffled by a lot, if not all, of said quirks.

Steven wrote:

The SBC is an evil institution. It is run by evil men. Yes, Seneca, evil. When you attend and give to a SBC church you are supporting both this institution and its evil rulers.

The SBC is such a behemoth and diverse that it is possible to find quite decent churches and quite ‘despicable’ churches.

@ Wade Burleson:

Thanks you Wade. Wise council.

@ Anon 1:
I second that. I agree they are locked into teaching falsehoods and have shown no sign of openness to listening to what Christians are saying, or demonstrating any willingness to repent. Soft hearts? I’d say hardened hearts.

If what they persist in teaching what is contrary to sound doctrine, why be afraid to apply the scriptural admonitions that address false teachers? As I read the various ones, they don’t call for a soft, understanding, “let’s be diplomatic about this” approach that encourages continuous interaction. It’s says take a stand, then steadfastly maintain it, resisting those who teach falsehoods and wrongfully deny others full participation in the Kingdom.

So while I am in rare form right this minute, let me explain to one and all about the culture of the south. There is no such thing as a one and only culture of the south. Maybe there used to be, but what we have today is multiple cultures and lots of diversity. Maybe some magazine makes money with pictures of southern gardens, and maybe writers of cheap paperbacks fantasize about some supposed different sort of “relationships” between the sexes, and maybe Hollywood still has some pictures on file of some old dirt road replete with oak trees, but that is about as accurate a picture of the current south as the picture of cowboys and indians and gunslingers is of the current west. And, people, camouflage and facial hair in Louisiana is show biz.

Let me be specific. The area where I live in NC was identified by the federal government as a good area to relocate refugee groups. Add that to the pre-existing massive diversity, and the attraction of the local university medical center to people from elsewhere, and we have 70+ (that is not a typo) different identifiable ethic/language groups in the immediate area.

How do I know this? The information was presented at my daughter’s SBC mega last year while the church made decisions as to how to help meet the needs of yet more people groups in this immediate area. Already one of their campuses in totally Hispanic, and already one fairly large refugee group meets at the main campus with its own pastor; this would be in addition to that.

Let’s bring it home. That same daughter is a public school high school teacher in a close-by smaller town area in the same county. She teaches EC. The school population that she deals with is approximately 1/3 rural white, 1/3 urban black and 1/3 Spanish speaking. Many are gang members and many are illegals, through no fault of their own. My daughter makes it work. The schools make it work. And the south makes it work. And BTW, my daughter’s two children are Chinese. Mostly, around here, we just don’t care. Are we a threat to the rest of the nation because of this? Depends on what you think the American society is or ought to be. But if homogeneity is part of your creedal statement, we are not singing off the same hymn book.

But, yes, we do feel the need in the English language to differentiate between you singular and you plural. You all can have fun with that if you want. I think it is kind of silly and cute when you do, actually.

numo wrote:

@ Anon 1: how is that remotely germane?

It is germane because YOU brought up cultural differences. I simply shared what I have experienced on that score from another angle. I would prefer we be one big happy family and forget the Mason Dixon line you have mentioned several times on several threads. There are oddities everywhere as you pointed out later. There are simply more SBC churches here. But they are coming to a town near you soon as they expand their church planting efforts along with Acts 29 and Sojourn.

You guys above the Mason Dixon have your share of fundamentalists as it is growing. Harvest Bible church, Acts 29 plants,etc.

@ Anon 1: oh good grief – we’ve had fundamentalists since forever! They’re nothing new, but they are largely in small, independent churches.

Ever lived anywhere up here for any length of time? I lived south of the borderline for 20+ years…

@ numo:

Numo, You seem to forget all the Cabrini Green style housing complexes of the North that for decades kept segregation and poverty alive and well in the North.

numo wrote:

@ Anon 1: oh good grief – we’ve had fundamentalists since forever! They’re nothing new, but they are largely in small, independent churches.

Ever lived anywhere up here for any length of time? I lived south of the borderline for 20+ years…

I spent every summer growing up in Michigan with relatives. Does that count? :o)

@ numo:

Ok, Numo. You win. I am not well traveled or read.

numo wrote:

Since the SBC came into being as a result of the choice to defend the “peculiar institution,” I can’t help but see that evil legacy in these firings. It’s bigotry, turned against women this time – outright misogyny. How is that different from open racism, I wonder? I don’t see any nuances here, I’m afraid.

Women are the new “Animate Property”.

Don’t the comp/patrios talk about planning 200 years in advance for your descendants’ “Estates and House Servants”? Looks like the Plantation way of life didn’t Go With the Wind…

dee wrote:

I would really like to do a post on Mary. I believe the evangelicals have deep sixed her role in an effort to avoid some of the Co-Redemptrix doctrine. I have never heard one sermon on how Jesus chose to spend his young life with a woman. We hear of the three years with the disciples but what about the decades with Mary? As He was dying, He spoke directly to His mother which to me shows the importance of her relationship with Him during His life.

During the Reformation Wars, Mary-bashing (like married clergy) announced Which Side You Were On. And it’s stayed that way ever since.

I had a deeply committed Catholic friend ask me about this one time. He said something that I have mulled over for many years. He claims that our marginalization of Mary has resulted in a lower view of women in the evangelical church.

Resulting in the rise of Goddess cults (bearing as much resemblance to the originals as Reality Shows do to reality) and pop-culture female god figures from a bowdlerized Lillith to Princess Celestia, all taking up attributes of St Mary.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy: and their iterations can be pretty odd. Case in point: Francis Schaeffer, who started out in a Fundy splinter Presbyterian group, and got sent to the Swiss Alps to convert Roman Catholics. That’s literally how L’Abri got started. He became more moderate in time, but then seemed to revert to his background in later life.

Not sure if you’ve ever read his son’s novels, but I’d guess they’d strike a chord with most when grew up fundy.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy: both Luther and Calvin were quite pro-Mary and venerated her.

Those who came after them are another story.

burntnorton wrote:

@ Amy Smith:
I thought these guys claim perpetual persecution of the church. Now they’re on the triumphant side of history?

doublethink, comrade, doublethink.

Daisy wrote:

Mohler is definitely prejudiced against adult singles.

So, if someone else wants to peg him as being ‘despicable’, it doesn’t bother me too much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xrw0gbnNuU

@ dee:

There was actually an extensive debate about Stott’s views by evangelicals who considered both sides of the argument. The conclusion reached was that Stott was wrong but had reached his conclusion for the best of reasons.

“Evangelical Annihilationism in Review” by J.I. Packer
http://www.the-highway.com/annihilationism_Packer.html Cached
An assessment and critique of “Annihilationism” in contrast to the biblical … eight pages by John Stott in Essentials, 6 and ten by the late Philip Edgecumbe …

Nancy wrote:

I also heard C.S.Lewis say that there are sins of the mind just as there are sins of the body (not an exact quote–ref: The Great Divorce).

I enjoyed that book a lot, Nancy. Lewis does indeed discuss that briefly with George MacDonald in his dream. I think another scene in “The Great Divorce” also applies to this issue (that of Patterson and Mohler’s ‘errors’).

In the scene, one of the numerous ‘ghosts’ is accused of being a Christian apostate. Distraught, the ghost insists that his heterodox notions are “honest beliefs, honestly held”, and that it’s unfair to consider them sins. The response to him: What about an alcoholic who ‘honestly’ believes that one more drink can do him no harm? Or a jealous husband, who ‘honestly’ believes blatant lies that people tell him about his wife? (From memory, not an exact quote.)

In may well be that Mohler and M.T. Promises (Patterson) truly believe what they espouse about gender and its centrality to the Good News. They might simply be ignorant. But ignorance can be culpable, too. If they don’t know better, I really think they ought to.

numo wrote:

@ dee: they’re in violation of federal law…

And why would women want to spend their money to go to an institution that advocates gender bias, where they will have very few, if any, women to engage with. This insitution, and others like it, are creating segregation of the sexes. If they don’t want women to apply for most of the teaching positions or the classes, why should women attend? Even better, why are they even soliciting women to attend? Is it because the institution still wants the money that comes with female students?

@ Steven:

I was brought up in Southern Baptist churches. They do have problems, and I don’t agree with their stances on stuff like gender roles, but I don’t know if I’d go so far as to describe them as “evil.”

I think Independent Fundamentalist Baptist, with their majoring on the minors (they are hyper legalists, they get upset over men having hair past their collars, women whose skirts are an inch above the knee), etc, are worse.

Not evil per se, but worse in comparison to SBC.

Both groups are kind of rotten about dealing with spousal abuse and child sexual abuse. In some cases where cover ups were perpetuated despite a mountain load of evidence and notifications, I’d be willing to describe such negligence as evil, but I don’t know about every single last SBC member.

Most SBs (the rank and file in the pews) are sweet little old white haired granny ladies who love Jesus.

I know when I was going to SB churches, I was not aware of the amount of abusive preachers and child sexual abuse that was going on.

I knew their position on women and disagreed with that, but I only knew about that because it would make the headlines in the papers, about their resolution or whatever it was asking for wives to “graciously submit to their husbands.”

And how one of their colleges was offering a ‘Homemakers 101’ course for women. Not for men too, just women.

Because, as you all know, all men will marry, men won’t be single past the age of 25, men’s wives never die or get cancer and get too sick to cook, clean, and do laundry.

Wade, I very much appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue here on TWW, this and your blog have been a benefit to me on my faith journey. Let me say that I absolutely agree with you regarding your experience with the woman who was angry with you. It is exactly for these instances that we are told to turn the other cheek because good can come out of it. Here’s where I see the difference – Mohler, Patterson, et. al. have been at this for years with no sign they feel the need to repent. More importantly, these guys have been teaching their heretical doctrine of oppression to waves of new ministers created in the SBC – they need to be called out the same as any Pharisee that was called out by Jesus.

Let me explain where I’m coming from on this issue. I grew up in a liberal Lutheran church (ALC now ELCA) and became a Methodist when I shortly before getting married because my wife was a Methodist, I found liked their theology somewhat better than the Lutheran and because being a Methodist meant more to my wife than being a Lutheran meant to me. Over the years I watched my wife become more and more involved in the church and enjoying carrying out the love of God and love of neighbor. What was actually happening was that she was experiencing a call to ministry and she eventually went to seminary and became a Methodist minister in the 90’s.

As a minister yourself, I’m sure you would agree that anyone who experiences such a call considers it to be a sacred obligation and duty. Have witnessed this myself, I shudder to imagine what would have happened had we been in the SBC when the revised Baptist Faith and Message was adopted in 2000 due to the efforts of Mohler, Patterson, and others of their ilk. Her church would have had to dismiss her or be thrown out of the SBC. If she was a professor at an SBC seminary she would have been tossed out on her ear, the same if she had any position of authority in any SBC-affiliated organization. The hurt and pain inflicted on those women who did experience this treatment and being denied their sacred call because of their anatomy seems unimaginable.

By one estimate, there are about 20,000 Christian female clergy in the U.S.
If you believe that God has forbidden women to be ministers, then there are 20,000 women who:

• Lied about their call,
• Were mistaken about what they were called to do, or
• Were called by someone who they thought was God (Satan perhaps?)

and not one experienced a legitimate call by God.

How guys like Mohler and Patterson can deny God’s call of women to ministry and square that with the foundational Christian requirement for love of God and neighbor based on a very few texts that they refuse to read in context and completely ignore the many other texts in the New Testament that support the opposite is something I can’t comprehend. It’s nothing but a twisted gospel of oppression. It seems to me to be more than their own honest reading of the Bible, it seems more like they have started with their own male supremacist views and picked the texts that support their view and ignoring or dismissing those to the contrary.

Having seen the brutality and carnage wrought by the Civil War, every Christian should be appalled at the result of our classification of someone as less than equally human based on how they appear when they are born and use the Bible to support that view. The male supremacist view of the world is, at its core, no different than the view of race that created slavery in this country.

But all this alone is not what causes me to label Mohler and Patterson (and others like them) with a very harsh term like “despicable”. What pushes me to that is the sheer callousness and meanness that seems to be underlying their words and actions and when they conduct a jihad against women in every organization they get their grips into. I have no idea where the love is in this wing of the SBC because I’ve never seen or heard it from them.

At any rate, Wade, these are my views. Mohler, Patterson, and others of their type are oppressors who are teaching a dangerous false gospel. I know my description of them as “despicable” is very harsh, but what they believe with respect to women is so destructive of the faith that it is warranted. Finally, I don’t believe that my words are any more harsh that those of Jesus in a number of instances, for example, Matthew 23:13-15:

‘But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.

At any rate, Wade, please keep up the Lord’s work. I’ve learned much from you. Even when I disagree with you I find I need to take what you say into account and think through it in order to articulate my response, which is why it took so long for me to respond to your posts.

@ Anon 1:
Places do change, but history dies hard – as in the former Yugoslavia, as in the UK (many Scots are separatists; the Stone of Scone is only “lent” to them), etc.

We have our own problems with rural poverty, btw… Very much so. It’s not something that’ll make it to the news media, but it’s a reality nonetheless. The vasdt majority of the rural poor in my state are white, and that’s likely always been true. There’s also a lot of clannishness; many local people view those who’ve moved away and then come back as traitors (literally).

@ numo: something that people don’t realize is that the Mid-Atlantic and New England states are primarily rural. NYC, D.C., Boston etc. come to mind immediately, but they’re the exception, not the rule. Some of that is because of the Appalachians and smaller, related mountain ranges, some because there’s no reason for urbanization and people like things the way they are. That said, small farmers are fading away, which is sad…

@ Anon 1:

It depends on what part of the south.

Folks along the coast don’t have it too bad, but in the Mid West, Georgia, as far up as Ohio, etc, it can get up to 110 – 120 during the summers. It does get hot in the south, but not 110 – 120 hot.

What you get in the south is lots more humidity, and hurricanes and roaches.

Nancy wrote:

The issue as to whether and/or to what extent the federal government should be involved in the Cedarville issue should be considered carefully. We already have the feds trying to force the catholics to furnish contraceptives as part of employee health insurance benefits. Regardless of what one thinks about contraception or fecundity, is that OK for the feds to be the determiners of such? Similarly, regardless of what one thinks about female theologians in private colleges, is that OK for the feds to be the determiners of the question? Once we go down the road of “I can force you to do it my way” in the area of faith and faith-related practice have we opened up the proverbial can of worms?

Nancy, Patterson has some experience with this. In the lawsuit that Klouda brought against SWBTS for her demotion/firing, Patterson’s lawyers argued that SWBTS was a quasi church and could do what they wanted. The judge agreed.

The REAL message has to be that people give up some rights (especially labor laws) when they go to work for “Religious” organizations. So many people have learned this the hard way. They should NEVER assume they are going to work for “Christians”. Many mega churches do not even participate in unemployment so it can be a double whammy. And we wonder why folks go along with all sorts of things who work for these people.

The thing that impresses me about the Cedarville women faculty that are quoted is they see this. And yes, their severance pay and references will be hurt if they speak out. These guys have power to ruin. And they do. It is second nature to them.

@ Wade Burleson:
(for eventually, when you can read this)

There’s a difference between power-hungry men who are ruining a faith and people who respond angrily out of hurt. I think they need to be handled differently.

But I agree that the only way to be convincing in any argument is to insistently remember that all people were made beautifully by God. When someone aligns self more and more to that which God made him/her to be, that is worthy of praise. When someone goes further and further away, that is worthy of criticism. It is not the way they were made that is up for evaluation but what they have done to themselves.

Take for eg, Piper as a small man. It is how he was made and there is nothing wrong with it! Small guys have a harder time in our society—my bro is one and has had a rotten time dealing with it because we have crappy social standards for what makes a man. That is wrong!

Yet I think it is fair to bring up smallness as a possible factor for why Piper is demeaning half of humanity. When we bring it up, it is probably best to clarify that we are not accepting the rotten social value but the way that Piper has possibly succumbed to it. We respect how the man was made and also criticize what he seems to have done with himself.

Also, I agree with Anon 1. I don’t think there’s any value in trying to convince power-hungry people of their bad theology because they only use it as a device to grab/maintain power. The value in arguing with them is for those around them who may be feeling uncertain.

It is worth being kind to the latter group, too, whereas extraordinary kindness is completely wasted on someone who is operating from power hunger. They only twist it, seeing it either as a gesture of submission or a gesture towards grabbing power away from them. This is my experience.

Wade, I’ve not yet responded to your post from a few weeks back about loving criticism. Sorry! I have been not feeling well and life has been busy so I’ve been dragging through my days. But I’ve been thinking on it. This is part of my thoughts.

Anon 1 wrote:

I think the best thing to do is to STOP talking to them. Trying to change the mind of these leaders is only giving them more influence AS leaders. Stop recognizing them as leaders of others.

As has been mentioned by others on this thread and the last one, Southern Baptists are losing numbers, and the people pushing the gender comp view are preaching to a very small choir that is shrinking with each passing year.

Some of us posted stats and figures of changing demographics and so on.

The gender comp crowd keeps assuming, or badly wanting to believe, that 98% of Americans are married today, with dad working a 9 to 5 job, and Mom stays at home all day with a baby.

The reality of America today: Many adults today are single and do not have kids. The ones who are married do not all have children, and the ones who do have kids, both partners have to work or choose to work. (SAHMs are not as commonplace.)

I think they’ve already lost the war. So maybe arguing Bible and doctrine is unnecessary. Culture has changed a lot.

About the singleness issue, as an example, the only thing I see put forth as a Christian solution to delayed marriage, or to no marriages taking place, is, in the last five or so years, loud mouthed SB talking heads (including Mohler) is not to suggest that SB churches take steps to help adult singles (which is what they should be doing), but-

To clamp down even harder on how great marriage is, to tell all the teens today to get married by the time they are 20, etc.

Generally, they do not believe in dealing with people where people actually are.

They keep directing their policies and positions in accord to how they wish things were, or how they think things used to be.

The more a denomination refuses to deal with things as they are (which means they are not helping people who don’t meet their ideals) and keeps griping about how things are not, they are going to keep driving people away.

Maybe that will get their attention and be a wake up call, if arguing doctrine won’t.

Anon 1 wrote:

The REAL message has to be that people give up some rights (especially labor laws) when they go to work for “Religious” organizations. So many people have learned this the hard way. They should NEVER assume they are going to work for “Christians”. Many mega churches do not even participate in unemployment so it can be a double whammy. And we wonder why folks go along with all sorts of things who work for these people.

Sad commentary on Christianity when the government provides more for people than many ‘Christian’ organizations provide for their own.

Nancy wrote:

The issue as to whether and/or to what extent the federal government should be involved in the Cedarville issue should be considered carefully. We already have the feds trying to force the catholics to furnish contraceptives as part of employee health insurance benefits. Regardless of what one thinks about contraception or fecundity, is that OK for the feds to be the determiners of such? Similarly, regardless of what one thinks about female theologians in private colleges, is that OK for the feds to be the determiners of the question? Once we go down the road of “I can force you to do it my way” in the area of faith and faith-related practice have we opened up the proverbial can of worms?

*
Very thought provoking.
*

Daisy wrote:

I think they’ve already lost the war. So maybe arguing Bible and doctrine is unnecessary. Culture has changed a lot.

They seem to be doing an impression of King Canute. I have met a lot of male SBTS seminary students who married young and their wives worked while they were in semiary and before they got a church. There was always a big explanation about why this was ok. She was designed to support his ministry and this was how she was doing it: helping him have a ministry. it was temporary so not a gender role sin to be the breadwinner, etc. It was mind numbing to listen to these mental gymnastics.

BUT, as these young grads went out to churches the big issue was a salary large enough to support them and their new family so the wife does not have to work. But, most of the women in the church had to work—the very same ones who they expected to support them!

Oh the irony of the SBC

@ linda:

No sneering remarks about…how many children the Duggers choose to bear and raise.

The rest of your comment wasn’t bad, but I do have to point out that there are many, many legitimate problems with the Duggars that don’t even begin to touch the issue of how many children they have. In their particular case, the large number of children is a symptom of underlying theological problems like Quiverfull and militant fecundity. I don’t care that they have 19 kids. I do care that they’re indoctrinating them with heretical crap like militant fecundity, being promoted in the Christian community (which is largely in denial about said heretical crap), and given a microphone to glorify said heretical crap through a nationally televised show.

dee wrote:

I think we have many of the same issues as Catholics but we like to pretend we are better because our “doctrine” is right. Except which doctrine. There are some Calvinists who would imply that Arminians are no save. So, what truly is an evangelical.

I’ve noticed this too the last few years.

A lot of Protestants complain that the RCC rejects sola fide (IMO, that is true, they do, on an official level), but, a lot of Protestants reject it too, while claiming to believe in it.

There are Baptists and Protestants who say they believe in sola fide, but what they really mean, is they think while Christ is necessary for you to get your foot in the door initially, after that, it’s up to you to maintain and keep your salvation (by doing good deeds and/or repenting after each sin, or not sinning at all to start with).

And that is foreign to my understanding of the Gospel as a child.

Even as an adult, I don’t understand how a person (or a denomination) can claim to believe salvation is by faith alone, but then teach after coming to Christ, a person must work to keep the salvation, or it’s sometimes phrased as “cooperate with the Holy Spirit” to keep one’s salvation.

Daisy, Scott McKnight wrote an interesting book on OSAS doctrine that is interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/Long-Faithfulness-Case-Christian-Perseverance-ebook/dp/B00CSXWUAU

dee wrote:

Those who wish to get rid of women do not see it that way. They believe that women in these positions are an affront to God. This is what the comp crowd is bringing us.

That sort of reminds me of,

John 16:2

They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God.

Not that gender complementarianism is on par with people killing other people, but I had in mind the idea that they think they are acting with God’s approval, or that what they are doing is good in God’s sight.

The Pharisees always thought they were acting as God wanted them to, but Jesus had to correct them multiple times.

@ Anon 1:

When I lived up north (including St. Louis and Ohio), there were hardly any black people. There were so few black kids at the St. Louis school I went to, the city bussed them in.

Being around black people and befriending them if you’re white is much more common in the south, because there are more black people to be around. Some of my sisters closest friends are black ladies (my sister is white and lives in the south).

There really is not a huge race issue in the South. It’s common to work with and for black people if you are white, to shop with them, to have black friends.

I’m puzzled by this mindset that the South today is a frothing pot of whites hating blacks.

I saw a news story several years ago about how many black people have moved to Atlanta and (at that time) made up the wealthiest shakers in that city.

@ numo:
The most recent poll (Dec 2013) shows 41% of Scots against and only 27% in favour of independence.

@ Anon 1:
As Daisy did, I found it disturbing that Wade wrote of Mohler and Patterson: “They are very bright, articulate, and both men have really soft hearts.”

I do not think they are very bright. They have the same abilities as our infamous banksters: legalistically clever and savvy at turning situations to their favor. Certainly they have no wisdom, which is the best of intelligence.

As to “really soft hearts”, my abusing pastor-father had that, too, over some things. No one is without humanity in every way.

For eg, my father adored my sister’s love of butterflies and went out of his way to help her build a lovely collection but every fall (for 5 years, after which she quit owning cats), he drowned her cats without telling her, letting her call and search for them around the town into the night. For weeks.

He also wept over his love of Christ and yet told me that my biological father (who died when I was young and who he didn’t know) wasn’t in heaven.

He kept faithful integrity in use of church funds, yet took all the money we made on our after-school jobs: picking berries, working in greenhouses and at a local nursing home, and mowing lawns. Didn’t even give us an allowance.

Where a human has a soft heart, they show the way God made them. But we need to look at human’s total behavior or we are in danger of misrepresenting them and allowing evil to grow among us.

I agree that it wastes energy to talk with them, as such. If we spent all our efforts on the people around them, to get them to leave, these leaders would be left without that which they most want, power.

Anon 1 wrote:

The thing that impresses me about the Cedarville women faculty that are quoted is they see this. And yes, their severance pay and references will be hurt if they speak out. These guys have power to ruin. And they do. It is second nature to them.

Here is a big problem for me with what the leaders of this institution are doing. If they believe what they are doing is good and right, then why are they silencing the people leaving? It’s like a legal, but worldly blackmail, but I don’t see it as a righteous act before God. Also why did they tell people to not try to connect the dots? If they are so incredibly proud and sure about what they are doing, then why are they doing it in secret, silencing people, and asking people not to think about what is happening. They should be shouting it from the rooftops if it’s so pleasing to God. Instead they are hiding what they are doing and working in darkness . . .

Bridget wrote:

If they are so incredibly proud and sure about what they are doing, then why are they doing it in secret, silencing people, and asking people not to think about what is happening. They should be shouting it from the rooftops if it’s so pleasing to God. Instead they are hiding what they are doing and working in darkness . . .

Yep.

@ Anon 1:

Women teaching men in seminaries is not a problem for Orthodox, Catholics and most mainliners.

@ Patrice:
I just want to follow up on my last comment. I obviously think that Mohler et al are abusers of the caliber of my father. I believe this because they are doing publicly what my father did privately: deliberately insistently demeaning people at the core of their beings—in their case, women.

@ Patrice:

Patrice, As to “soft hearts”, I am familiar with some of the broken discarded bodies in the wake of both Mohler and Patterson. We can start with Daryl Gillyard’s victims who went to Patterson and were rebuked and Paul Debusman who was fired from SBTS a few months before his retirement because he disagreed with a chapel speaker. Mohler was what? 33 when he fired this long time SBTS employee set for retirement. These are just ONE example from each.

@ Muff Potter:

I almost spewed my coffee! :o)

JeffT wrote:

every Christian should be appalled at the result of our classification of someone as less than equally human based on how they appear when they are born and use the Bible to support that view.

One problem is they try to evade that this is doing by insisting that they believe women are equal in worth and are equally saved so that makes it okay for them to teach that women are not to be equal in roles. It is a distinction without a difference, and you are right, they ignore or rationalize any and all passages that do have women teaching and leading men with God’s approval.

@ Daisy: look, I realize this stuff, but honestly, we white people tend to miss the obvious a great deal of the time, because we’ve never had to live with it.

Yes, things have changed a great deal, but you can’t erase history and deeply entrenched attitudesovernight.

As an aside, I spent some time in neighborhoods in D.C. and suburban MD where white people rarely go. If anything, suburban MD is full of black middle-class families who left D.C. as soon as they had the money to afford other options. That’s “black flight” as well, even some black gated communities. (And there certainly are “old money” black families in D.C. itself – most would rather die than move!)

@ numo:
Which shows that it is more about class than race, although there is overlap, which just makes the whole thing tres confusing.

Somebody brought up the issue of why would anybody work for a Christian institution given some of the work conditions and such. I have searched for the comment but cannot find it. Anyhow, about people who work for Christian organizations…

My personal experience is almost zero with that, but I watch and listen a lot. In my family there has been some investigation of private church-related elementary and high schools. The ones that “we” checked out do not pay as well, have poor and almost non-existent retirement systems, and sometimes lean toward part time (even if only slightly less than full time) employee work schedules. So why would anybody work in that sort of situation? I have identified some reasons: jobs in public schools are hard to get and if you need to work then you do what you can; some folks really are seriously ideologically committed and will make personal sacrifices to do what they believe in; some folks do not much want to “deal with the public.” This person was someone who is just too religiously idiosyncratic to survive in a secular setting. This is different from ideology and more like weirdness. No doubt there are other reasons, and I have no opinion about college level educators.

I do know that the one year that I worked as the lowest of the lowest of the low “faculty” at a catholic university, I was so thrilled to get the job that I would have worked for bread and water if necessary. I was almost dancing down the streets of St. Louis singing “He Lives” I was so thrilled. So, who knows what people will do.

@ Patrice: agreed. But there are some big issues here, and no easy way of getting around them.

Most of black D.C. has been there since well before the Jim Crow laws were repealed, and thought neighborhoods change, some folks will always be there.

Example: over in VA, you could (probably still can) find large numbers of people – many in close proximity to one another – who are direct descendants of people who were enslaved by Washington, the Fairfax family (as in Lord Fairfax; had a huge plantation), etc. When I 1st started becoming aware of things like that, my brain began to short-circuit.

I also saw how many older black employees (in service jobs) would laugh and joke with the few black professional employees, but who always switched to a totally different demeanor, tone of voice etc. when speaking with me – and most of the other white people at the place in question. It was a literal enacting of Paul Laurence Dunbar’s poem “We Wear the Mask.” The only time I ever saw true happiness in one woman’s face was when she met and shook hands with Rosa Parks.

@ Hester:

I think linda is still upset over a comment I made on a prior thread, where I asked “How many kids do the Duggars have now, one 134?”

I asked because I don’t watch the Duggar show and don’t keep up with them and precisely how many kids they have. all I know is they have a lot of kids.

Linda interpreted my comment as being “snarky” in a post below it. It was not snarky.

But yes, I find it weird that a woman would want to have more than two or three children. If you are a woman and want to have 145 babies, more power to you, but I don’t have to like that choice, agree with it, or celebrate it.

BTW, I get ripped on by secular feminists on other blogs for defending a woman’s choice to be a stay at home wife and mommy.

What I am against are churches, political groups, or religions telling women that is their ONLY choice, or only GODLY purpose to be a wife and mother, and/or as though it’s a sin, wrong, or shameful to be single or childless or pursue a career.

numo wrote:

look, I realize this stuff, but honestly, we white people tend to miss the obvious a great deal of the time, because we’ve never had to live with it.

My great grandparents were abolitionists in deed. Both my parents were very involved in the civil rights movement. My dad was physically threatened by the teamsters union for daring to hire black drivers at the same wage as whites back in the 1940’s. I know, most folks don’t think of the teamsters as being so discriminatory but they were back then. Big time.

The truth of history is very nuanced. It is a mistake to get it all from school books or media. The sensational always makes the news but the other stories of Southerners who fought against segregation is rarely mentioned. It is usually spun as only Northerners coming here to help. Simply not true. The saddest part of it all is that many churches were integrated somewhat in the 60’s and that started to change.

@ Anon 1:
Yes.

@ dainca:

Thanks. I am becoming more and more interested in Eastern Orthodox. I am sadly ignorant of it.

@ Anon 1: I haven’t gotten it that way. I did extensive oral history work in and around black DC and northern VA, and dug into a ton of material -some dating very far back – that has never gotten any exposure outside of Howard University and other DC-area black academic/museum enclaves,

The teamsters – oh gee, like I didn’t know that! Samwe for the East and West Coast longshoremens’ unions, which were often a thorn in the side of people who made their living on merchant (cargo) ships, like my dad.

You keep making wrong assumptions, ma’am, and I’m tired of it. I don’t appreciate the lectures, either, and believe me, I could hold forth on my own family’s admittedly later entry to the abolitionist cause!

Ok, wenoufgh of *this* round. You seem to love to argue and cherry pick what people have said, and I’m not playing along.

Godspeed,
n.

@ numo:

In NOLA, white and black people live in the ‘burbs, shop at the same stores, go to school with each other, go to the zoo, both go to the movies at the same movie theaters.

(BTW, there are also impoverished white people in and around NOLA. Some of them live in crummy, run-down apartment complexes.)

You appear to hold some odd, retro idea that NOLA (and other Southern cities), that they are all strictly pockets of blacks here, whites over there, with the groups never intermingling, or overlapping, there’s white flight, all the whites leave, and the ones that remain, they all detest each other.

That is not so, there are neighborhoods where blacks and white live, work, and play together.

Same with Houston, Texas. In addition to black people, there are also brown skinned (Hispanic, and folks from India) there. You work with them. Live next door to them.

You don’t have to take special sight seeing trips to The Projects or “pockets o’ black town” to see black folk daily or weekly, any more than they have to get in a car to drive to Whitey-ville to see white people.

My sister is white, lives in NOLA, and 90% of her co workers have been black people, and she doesn’t have a problem with it. For years, her closest buddy was a black lady.

I remember after living in NOLA for years and moving up north to a largely Lilly-white city, it was strange to see nothing but whites. It was strange not seeing black people everywhere. It took a couple of years of that to readjust to it.

Then I had to move back down south, where it was odd to see more black and brown skinned people after years of seeing 99% whites every where.

I have lived all over the nation, including a large chunk of time in the south, and there is not a hot bed of fomenting racism there.

It’s normal for blacks and whites to see each other, work together, and become friends in the south.

“We wear the mask that grins and lies,
It hides our cheeks and shades our eyes –
The debt we pay to human guile;
With torn and bleeding hearts we smile,
And mouth with myriad subtleties.

Why should the world be over-wise
In counting all our tears and sighs?
Nay, let the only see us while
We wear the mask.

We smile, but o great Christ, our cries
To thee from tortured souls arise.
We sing, but oh the clay is vile
Beneath our feet, and long the mile;
But let the world dream otherwise!
We wear the mask.”

– Paul Laurence Dunbar

@ Nancy:
Nancy, I stand corrected. Obviously the SBC has never been a monolith, but the history books I have agree with your assessment – the SBC of the time was significantly more progressive. Thanks for the correction.

Patrice wrote:

But I suspect Daisy is missing the divisions that class structure sets up and they are deep in our country these days

No, I’m really not.

The South was depicted above in prior posts as being filled to the brim with racism, where whites and blacks never visit each other. That is not so.

Whites and blacks live and work together, befriend each other, in poor areas, on up to middle class areas. I’ve lived in and around such cities in the south. This is reality, this was the life I lived, not me conjecturing or guessing.

@ Patrice: oh, there are a lot of middle-class people here, but recent decades (and Walmart) have gutted the local economy. Unemployment is way up; so is abuse of meth and heroin. (Yes, heroin.)

There are many people whose refuge is church. But church is no longervwhat it used to be, when it offered lots of socializing opportunities for the larger community. (My granddad was in the Sunday School Orchestra, and it *was* an orchestra! Sadly, there’s nothing remaining of things like this.)

There is an air of desperation here, in stark contrast to the buzzing, humming, all stops pulled out economy one county over – due to the presence of a large university plus assorted tech companies that have grown out of it.

Most of my state is a mess, per jobs and economy. There are more and more working poor every month, and sadly, I don’t see an end in sight.

Catholicism: people from certain backgrounds (Irish, Italian, etc.) are Catholic, mostly. True of new Central American residents here, not just the Irish, etc. I don’t see that the local parish gets many takers, though I have a hunch that the primary one in the county south of here is more lively these days, due to the new folks from El Salvador and Guatemala.

Daisy wrote:

It does make you wonder about people who mouth all the right doctrines and religious platitudes, but they can be so cruel or indifferent to people (and animals).

I know, right? Sheesh. And I do think that the way some leaders in the church treat their various parishioners, and the complaints you legitimately make about yourself, particularly as a single woman, are as damaging as the outrageous behavior of my father.

By the way, I am “feminist” and I think that women who stay home with their children are lovely. I also think that homemaking is an area of expertise that can be taught and skills developed in such a way as to make it like a beautiful dance through life. My feminism means that I want women to be considered as peers to men, and thus the time /energy spent in child bearing and raising should be given the same respect given to any good human pursuit. So I don’t want child-bearing to be given extra-holy status nor do I want it to be under-estimated.

And yet I think the Duggars are selfish for a number of reasons, not least because one cannot have that many children without requiring the older ones to give most of the care to the younger ones. Thus their ideology denies their own kids the privileges of childhood.

@ numo:

Why? Because they would say they experienced racism in the south, and racism is everywhere in the south?

I’m sure there is racism in the south, and there are some racists there.

I lived in NOLA, Houston, and other southern cities, and it was normal for blacks and white to befriend each other, work alongside each other, and it was not an issue.

@ Patrice: very much agreed. “Feminist” does not mean what many people seem to think it means…

numo wrote:

There are many people whose refuge is church. But church is no longervwhat it used to be, when it offered lots of socializing opportunities for the larger community.

What kind of church is it now, do you know? Does it address their quiet desperation in any way, even just personally? Besides the RCC, are they mostly evangelical-ish? If you know….

@ Patrice:
What I mainly meant was that church is less involved in the community, in general. Denomination isn’t really the issue; social roles are, along with offering a place for like-minded people to do things like play non-sacred music together.

That all disappeared in the Korean War era, per my mom, along with local public transportation and superb rail service. We were connected; now we’re really cut off from the larger world. We no longer have a Jewish community, which makes me very sad.

@ Daisy:
Having never lived in the south, I cannot say anything about it. The closest I’ve been is a couple of years in Baltimore, not yet south. I’ve heard many things about it (including from great authors) and it is obviously different than my living experience. But the far west where I used to live is different than the upper midwest where I now live. And both are different than Alberta Canada, where I spent the happiest years of my life. Overall, I like differences.

I think we will just have to disagree as to the state-of-being between blacks/whites, which I see as having gotten better but still a mess. I am finding it a complicated puzzle to live in an almost all-black neighborhood. My whiteness always gets in the way. It just does. I am glad to be here because I think it helps chip away at the underlying issues, but I admit that sometimes I get a smidge weary of it. But so it goes.

@ Patrice: Baltimore is still very segregated, imo, and I have some ties there. But then, there’s a very nasty slur used of one of the oldest Jewish communities in that area, still.

As for problems, lots of things look good on the surface, but aren’t, really. There’s so much that people cannot/will not talk about with outsiders – even when those “outsiders” are neighbors or casual friends. Real transparency is rare, and almost impossible to achieve, but I keep hoping all the same…

@ Bridget:

Well, I don’t know how Anon 1’s response got interjected there.

Carrying on:

. . . that I had to leave the room so I wouldn’t get in trouble for talking back to an older adult.

I saw all kinds of nonsense between the races, between the age groups, between classes . . . between anyone different than anyone else really 🙁 and I’ve seen the good as well 🙂 It has all contributed to shaping who I am.

@ Anon 1:
@ Anon 1:
A good overview, easy to navigate and come back to if you have to leave, is here:

http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith

Apologies to everyone for losing my cool a little while ago. Though the points I was attempting to make still stand.

Best to all,
numo

Hester–you are entitled for sure to your opinion of the Duggars and their theology. But just as surely, they are entitled to their opposite point of view. Are you suggesting some sort of censorship should be used for those we disagree with?

@ Nick Bulbeck: very good pondering material, Nick. Many thanks!

Daisy wrote:

linda wrote:
The second group I wish would hush up is the hyper egals. There is absolutely nothing wrong if a woman chooses to be a full time homemaker. Nothing wrong in getting a degree in homemaking so she can do the job well.
Yo’re getting Christian egalitarians confused with secular feminists on that score.
I did take a few basic home ec. type courses in junior high, but I’m afraid that other homemaking skills don’t really need formal education, no.
Your parent might need to give you a brief explanation of how to use the laundry machine (when you’re 10 – 15 years old), you might need a cooking class, but I don’t see where it takes a lot of study to know how to run a rag across a dusty table top or mop a floor.
I learned how to bake cookies from reading the recipe on the chocolate chip package when I was around 14 years old.

I’d say it’s radfems rather than secular feminists. The vast majority of feminists don’t have any issues at all with anyone – male or female – choosing to be a homemaker or stay at home parent. Radical feminists are a different breed, but fortunately a small (if sometimes vocal) group.
At the same time, it still really rubs me the wrong way that courses in homemaking could be called a degree. I am completely and utterly biased on this because of my own family and educational background, but I just don’t see homemaking courses as being on par with a three or four year degree. Skills such as cooking, balancing a budget, etc, are hugely important, but they’re life skills which I see as something different to a post-school degree – a degree is something you need to qualify for and is by nature exclusionary, life skills are things that you learn, but are (ideally) inclusive and for everyone.

@ Anon 1:

Just read that post on the “shrine to the conservative resurgence”. Pardon me while I vomit…

These so-called leaders are insufferable. They can’t even wait until they’re in the ground to become a part of history — they have to see themselves immortalized NOW.

Glad most of the comments on that article reflect the same disgust.

@ burntnorton:

You seem to think I am unaware of the abuse and intolerance carried out and perpetuated by Catholics. These are individuals who are responsible for these sins. It is not nor has it ever been Church teaching to hurt women.

Don’t believe everything you read about the Catholic Church in the newspaper. Read critically. I’m well aware of the child abuse (most of which took place before I was born), the issue of abortion (the case in Ireland was not quite what the papers made it out to be) and the child abuse victim in South America (the child was NEVER and WILL NEVER be held in anyway responsible for the choices the adults in her life made about her).

I know I can’t convince you because you have already made up your mind about the Catholic Church and its members. Thing is, all I was pointing out was CHURCH TEACHING which is what we are looking at when we look at Mohler and Patterson and Piper and their teaching. Church Teaching has existed since Jesus. Mohler and all the other fruitcakes basically invented a belief system that makes them and their male followers dictators and despots.

I understand and accept the teaching of the Catholic Church because it is in no way suppresses me or confines me. These “rules” are there to protect me not hurt me. I have lived them and will continue to live them because I find them freeing, not constraining. I have dignity and worth as a child of God and a follower of Jesus that I have not seen expressed or taught elsewhere. As a woman in the Catholic Church, I feel safer and am more respected and treated with care and kindness and as a distinct person who has her own unique talents and skills I can bring to the table and am encouraged to.

I can’t speak for or to other Christian churches and their views on women. But for me, I will stay Catholic. And I know what I have gotten myself into.

I neglected to add this to the post above.

Well, I must come from a different generation of catholics than what I’m hearing here. Having attended 13 yrs. of education in parochial schools, looking back, I’d been taught some very strange doctrine with no apparent scriptural basis. As a teen, I actually put stones inside my shoes and offered that discomfort as reparation for the poor souls in purgatory. We were not allowed to sing “Away in a Manger” during the Christmas season because it was written by Martin Luther. While we were forbidden to watch Billy Graham on TV, my two aunts (who were nuns) went home from school to watch their favorite preacher.

We were not allowed so much as a drop of water prior to receiving communion on Sundays having fasted from midnight from food or water. It’s my understanding that that mandate has since changed. We had to wear veils to church or a Kleenex if we forgot it.

Again, my intent is to show that no one faith has a corner on abuse or dictator-type authorities.

@ dee:

Thanks Dee. Anytime the Catholic Church comes up in a post or a news story or what not, I cringe because it invariably ends up with commenters who bring up the child abuse scandals and juat lots of hate spewing forth by people who almost always have no knowlege of the Catholic Church or what her teachings actually are. It can hurt to read atuff about my own family (the Catholic Church and her members are my family and I theirs as we are all members of the same Body of Christ, as are you Dee). It also leads to people telling me that now that I now the flaws of Her members I should leave and find a “real” church to join and “really” truly get to know Jesus. That’s the part that really hurts, that I must be so stupid to be Catholic and that if I only knew better I would become a “real” Christian and then I would be a “real person” otherwise I’m just too stupid and not fit to live.

Sorry, I had to say that, especially that last part but I’ve had to deal with that before. You , for which I am grateful, have never done that or expressed that view. I was tears when I reading all the comments to catch up on, earlier.

You should totally write about the Catholic view of women and singles and Mary, at least how the marginaluzation of Mary affects evangelicals view of women. As for thoe mention of abortion, contraception, and ordination (which tends to tie in Mary), those are the big three things people claim to have with the Catholic Church and why they won’t become Catholic. Well, more like sex and Mary.

Most people think Natural Family Planning (NFP) means the old Rythem method. Rythum only counts in ballroom dancing and if you want to take up ballroom dancing, go for it. NFP actually covers multiple methods such as Creighton, Billings, Symtp-Thermo that measure a woman’s fertility using such indices as temperatire, cervix mucus, and other things. I’m not at all well versed in any method only that they exist, are easy to learn, and different methods can be used esoecially if a woman does not have a regular menatrual cycle. NFP can be used witn a contraceptive mentality but considering the work and communication and self-control involved(aupposedly, or so I’ve heard) I highly doubt it happens. It’s approved by the Church because it doesn’t fruatrate the marital act being open to life which is what happens with contraception. Basically, sex in marriage is understood to be both unitative and procreative. You can’t break these apart because mot only does it divorce the two aspects of the marritial embrace it also puts a barrier between the couple to be fully giving of themselve to the other. Sex then becomes an act of selfishness instead of an actbof selflessness. It also tells God that they don’t want to be part of His creativeness. By enagaing in sex and understanding that it can result in the creation of a new life, a child, God allows His creation to take part in His creation of new life.

That’s why abortion and contraception are wrong and why the Catholic Church considers them an evil. They deny God as the Creator of life, the Creator of our life and our awesome part in His creation that He has granted us.

Okay, I hope some of that helps. If you have any questions let me know. You have my email if you want to contact me privately.

@ Victorious:

Sounds like you and your brothers has nuns and priests who should not have become nuns and priests let alone be let near children. And unfortunately, the 1940s-1970s were bad years in the Catholic Church in America. I’m sorry. Those were the decades of rampant child abuse, physical, sexual, spiritual, and mental all carried out by priests and sisters and brothers, like I said who should never have been permitted to become priests and religious. Unfortunately, there was a lot of pressure for boys to become priests, and educational stands for teaxhers in Catholic schools were pretty much non-existent. Sisters were forced into teaching when they were definitelt not meant to be teachers.

You are right. Things have changed largely due to societal changes and to the abuse you and your siblings experienced. Unfortunately, there are Catholic fundies (traddies or traditionaliats) who want to go back to that era for its supposed faithfulness anf ignoring the rampant abuse you you described. Thankfully, most Catholics don’t want what traddies want and most dioceses and schools have protections in place that protect chilsren. Background checks and training are now required to even volunteer ina parish, even if there is no interaction with children. Children, not just in Catholic schools and parishes, are taught that abuse is not acceptavle or allowed and they are not to tolerate or put up with it happening to them.

Most Catholucs have learned and are learning. Some will never learn. And, I really am sorry that you and your brothers and friends and family were treated this way. It was wrong.

Sorry about some misspelling and quick writting

“You know they pulled out the day care out of Southwestern several years back. Wives were helping out working while their husbands, the students PAID a lot of tuition as well.”

“Constructivist conservatism is basically one who wants a structural reformation of biblical laws and not a heart and soul one. A deacon friend of mine once said of one at his church is that his pastor was good at sermons but really not that good of a pastor. This has been a mere academic pursuit in reforming that end up bullying the truth into organizations and onto people and also actually teach a form of replacement theology (like replacing Mal 3:10 tithing as the tax to the Temple government in Israel to their own congregations).”

@ Hester: most of those skills fall under the conservation/preservation heading, and are taught to men and women who study for degrees in art, textile etc. conservation and restoration. Lots of men are conservators, though most of the textile specialists I know of are women.

Pacbox wrote:

While it may have been the norm, does not mean it was not wrong.

For sure…

@ numo:

most of those skills fall under the conservation/preservation heading, and are taught to men and women who study for degrees in art, textile etc. conservation and restoration.

That’s what I suspected…which is why I also expect they’re not included in the homemaking degree.

Casey wrote:

Where is the CALL of Revival on that? Where is the Resurgence OUTSIDE and influencing others? Cal Thomas said it best reformation is a BOTTOM UP Process NOT a TOP down approach because it oppresses many and is what Christ warns about in Matthew 23 about NOT LIFTING A FINGER!

Casey, Right! They are out of touch with the problems. They don’t understand the factors in the lives of single parents, or anyone else who doesn’t fit the Gold Standard of Evangelicalism. Their solution is: Shape up and try harder. No self-reflection, no awareness of data, no investigation, no listening, no empathy, no understanding of the situation…and therefore no reform or solutions. And attitudes and systems need to be revised in order to embrace divorcees and single parents as full members of the church.

Now that nearly 1-in-3 people who’ve ever been married has gone through a divorce, the demographics are far different than our grandparents’ Christianity. Time for a change. I agree with Cal Thomas on this one.

Pam wrote:

At the same time, it still really rubs me the wrong way that courses in homemaking could be called a degree.

It seems like a really weird thing for someone to pay for. I can cook, and enjoy it tremendously. I know the value of a good chef’s knife and tellicherry peppercorns. And I learned it all the old fashioned way. Now, there are plenty of young women who just don’t have these skills, but how ridiculous is it to pay for years of schooling to learn this stuff?

This course also doesn’t look desperately rigorous, does it?:

It will offer a bachelor of arts in humanities degree with a 23-hour concentration in homemaking. The program is only open to women.

Coursework will include seven hours of nutrition and meal preparation, seven hours of textile design and “clothing construction,” three hours of general homemaking, three hours on “the value of a child,” and three hours on the “biblical model for the home and family.”

Seminary officials say the main focus of the courses is on hospitality in the home — teaching women interior design as well as how to sew and cook. Women also study children’s spiritual, physical and emotional development.

I did ten times more cooking than that at 15/16 to pass my O Level in Food & Nutrition, let alone these days where I’m booked on a training course in Child Development this year that has 14 hours over 2 days. And that’s just a normal professional development basic level course…It just all looks like a Mickey Mouse pretendy-degree to make the little women feel affirmed.

To tie this all together, what I wrote above is what the Cedarville students and faculty can expect. Patterson does not just “sit” on a board. He will change it for his own glory and probably profit from it. He always profits in some way. He has been making bank off SBC institutions for years. Your institution is forever changed.

Female students should bone up on his dealings with the pervert pastor, Darryl Gilyard who ended up serving time. But not before Patterson tried to protect him from his victims who started speaking out. In other words, Patterson did not care about the victims and even rebuked them for speaking up. He told them they needed 3 witnesses against an elder! For a pervert! That is how bad it is with Patterson.

And you can read about the Sheri Klouda issue and how deceptive Patterson was on that one. Even getting male students to say how offended they were to have to listen to a female prof teach them Hebrew. Oh yes, Patterson just had to do something about that. And this was after telling the faculty when he came that all their jobs were safe. The man is despicable.

But he has a “soft heart”. Right.

@ Hester: I do believe your suspicion is correct!

dee wrote:

Note that there is an ongoing federal investigation at Cedarville. Now, I wonder how the school would feel if someone was raped on campus and reported it. i wonder if Patterson might advise them to use the Gilyard approach.

Or order her stoned as a scantily-dressed Jezebel whore.

Anon 1 wrote:

But he has a “soft heart”. Right.

I’m sure it’s very soft when it comes to Himself.

Anon 1 wrote:

To tie this all together, what I wrote above is what the Cedarville students and faculty can expect. Patterson does not just “sit” on a board. He will change it for his own glory and probably profit from it. He always profits in some way. He has been making bank off SBC institutions for years. Your institution is forever changed.
Female students should bone up on his dealings with the pervert pastor, Darryl Gilyard who ended up serving time. But not before Patterson tried to protect him from his victims who started speaking out. In other words, Patterson did not care about the victims and even rebuked them for speaking up. He told them they needed 3 witnesses against an elder! For a pervert! That is how bad it is with Patterson.
And you can read about the Sheri Klouda issue and how deceptive Patterson was on that one. Even getting male students to say how offended they were to have to listen to a female prof teach them Hebrew. Oh yes, Patterson just had to do something about that. And this was after telling the faculty when he came that all their jobs were safe. The man is despicable.
But he has a “soft heart”. Right.

CC Alum wrote:

What people need to understand is HOW FAST this huge shift happened. Once President Brown resigned, it just snowballed. It all happened in little over a year. Other alum from other Christian universities please take note!

This is called A Coup.
And a Coup is always followed by a Purge.

full throttle discrimination under the cover of THIS >> Religious Groups Given ‘Exception’ to Work Bias Law
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/supreme-court-recognizes-religious-exception-to-job-discrimination-laws.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

BUT a Big a-ok atta-boys (only) >> http://www.baptiststandard.com/news/texas/15555-seminary-prison-program-changes-inmate-culture

http://heartoftexasfoundation.org/current-projects-heart-of-texas/our-vision-4-year-bible-college/

@ dee & numo:

That’s what I thought. Funny because at my mom’s high school in the ’70s, the boys had to take home economics class along with the girls. They didn’t have to take it as long, but it was required. Also funny how many things in homemaking degrees have been historically done by men, in large enough numbers that their occupational surnames (Taylor, Baker, Weaver, etc.) are extremely common not just in English, but in most European languages (i.e., Cuoco = Cook in Italian).

I would love to have analysis of the situation from current Cedarville students, employees and alumni.

Victorious wrote:

I apologize if I offended anyone; that was not my intent. But rather to show that not everyone experiences protection and love for the catholic faith. I hope things have changed since the 50′s and 60′s as I don’t have the fondest memories of that era as a catholic.

We must have attended the same parish! Let me add the following –

We were trained how to kneel in church using the wooden kneeler without any padding.
We were given a “holy picture” with Mary on one side holding Jesus and on the other souls engulfed in flames as they burned in hell.
We were told that eating meat on Friday was a sin. (12:01 AM Saturday morning is O.K., but 11:59 PM Friday is a sin)
We were disciplined using corporeal punishment. A boy laughed in class because a squirrel was walking by the window; he got a yard stick, which splintered into many pieces, as it was cracked over is back.

Joe wrote:

We were disciplined using corporeal punishment. A boy laughed in class because a squirrel was walking by the window; he got a yard stick, which splintered into many pieces, as it was cracked over is back.

I’ve always wondered where that cruelty came from. It can’t be described as merely discipline. It was cruel discipline.

@ Victorious: i think it came from people with serious mental health issues who were placed in jobs for which they were completely unsuited. i also wonder how many of them were abused during childhood.

I haven’t had a chance to read through the entire thread, and this may be completely off topic, but I have two issues with the conversation about contraception – which means the pill – by Christian conservative men.

First: the pill has more than one purpose. Not every woman that takes the pill takes it to prevent pregnancy. There are other reproductive issues that are usually first treated by putting the woman on a mild contraceptive. I can attest to this. I was 14 when I was put on the pill, and not because I was sexually active; rather, I had a legitimate medical reason for taking it. This is never discussed when this topic is raised. And the one woman who did raise it before a Congressional committee was called all manner of lewd names as a result.

Secondly: It is hypocritical at best for these men to claim such high regard for Scripture and yet ignore that God made us male AND female – and that this creation is part of what makes us “image of God”. We reflect the image of God best when we are in community that includes and respects the contributions of both genders. To completely exclude one gender from the Christian academic enterprise is sinful because it does violence to that truth.

“Your desire shall be for him and he shall rule over you.” It seems they are living up to that result of the fall in spades. It saddens my heart.

@ CC Alum:
2007 alum and I just want to say this is spot on. I was a youth ministry major and honestly found it much more challenging than any graduate classes I’ve taken since. I learned how to think critically, communicate, and learn at Cedarville. It changed my life for the better – at the time. I realize now that the time I was there (2002-2007) is no longer representative of the school, and it breaks my heart.

Evie wrote:

The Mahaney’s sent their son Chad to Cedarville. I don’t see evidence that he’s still in attendance there. Appears he’s living in Louisville working at a car dealership. Whether he’s graduated or not I can’t say, but given the Mahaney’s propensity to make a big deal out of things, I’d think there would have been pictures posted on Facebook of the ceremony along with the follow up trip to Disneyworld or something lol
Could it be the Mahaney’s pulled young Chad out and have been involved behind the scenes in some way with promoting the removal of women from teaching positions? Is Chad now safely living at home under the supervision of his Mom & Dad, safe from women who might exercise ungodly authority over him by teaching him in class at Cedarville?

I think it has only been a few years since Chad graduated from high school so doubt he has graduated already.

I just looked at Chad Mahaney’s Facebook page and it says he is working at Mitchell’s Fish Market which is actually a restaurant (from Googling the name). Maybe he works there as a waiter and god forbid he would have to take orders from women, especially a table that only has women at them. 😉 Not a good experience for a boy that needs to learn proper “biblical” roles. 😉

Before C.J. Mahaney’s “fall” I am sure C.J. could easily have gotten Chad some type of position working for SGM but apparently harder for C.J. to orchestrate these days.

I would hope that they wouldn’t have interrupted Chad’s education as a way to make a statement about this school and the school having women professors but it really wouldn’t surprise me. Maybe at Cedarville Chad got himself in another situation with marijuana like he allegedly did at CLC when his dad was still SGM’s “pope” but in this case C.J. wasn’t able to cover for his son.

This is what was alleged about the pot smoking incident:

http://sguncensored.blogspot.com/2011/02/cj-mahaney-covering-his-sons-sin-and.html

I can kind of see the point with their viewpoint on women and leadership with not wanting women to teach at the seminary level but certainly don’t understand doing this at the undergraduate level. What a sad situation and report here. It has been a while since I attended college but back then had female professors and they seemed to quite well and many times brought a needed perspective that I doubt most male professors could do.

So why is the SBC’s doctrine so mushy that they will allow Calvinists, but then women in the pulpit are given no such grace?

When its the 1930’s and we need the health of a good kind moral society its always the 1930s…..

Extreme Gender Roles often lead to dysfunction and disharmony. Despite this being touted as “God’s way” the families I see who function well, don’t get too hung up on what is women’s work and men’s work. They look at their gifts, their situation, and they work as a team. They are respectful to each other. They are kind to each other. They are thoughtful of each other. Service, respect, and love are to flow from both spouses. When you focus on that’s my job/not my job, what tends to happen? When you tell someone they have authority over someone and you tell the other person their Godly duty is to “submit” what tends to happen?

The Duggars came up earlier. I generally would say if you have the resources and you want a lot of kids, do what you want to do. However, if you have to rely on your older kids to care for your other kids, one could say that you’ve tapped out your resources and crossed over into selfish.

There is theology behind what they’re doing and I don’t think they are up front about it. Saying that they think children are a blessing is not completely truthful. I would love for Jim Bob to explain militant fecundity to the viewers.

The idea that women should have no role in the theological education of men is without Scriptural warrant. In looking at Acts 18:18-28 (Priscilla. Aquila. Apollos) Derek Thomas points out that Priscilla may well have understood the gospel better than her husband. He makes a more general point that a woman is not called on to be subject to every man but only to her husband. Yet they ran a house church together and Priscilla clearly taught Apollos without usurping Aquila’s role. Even the notable Baptist theologian Thomas Schreiner comments in his New Testament Theology that ” the gift of prophecy did not belong to men alone …..because the Spirit was poured out on both men and women.” And he cites the case of Priscilla and Aquila when he says that ” Nor is it the case that men are exempted from learning from women”

@ Lola:
Lola, I’ve been thinking about what I wrote yesterday re my neighbor and the influence of their grandmother on them (a Jamaican woman who was treated very badly by whites in her long history). I realized this morning that the frustration/weariness I feel is small compared to what all my neighbors deal with in larger culture, and I feel embarrassed.

When the neighborhood kids visit, there are constant interjections of stories about how a white person was mean to them, and then side-long looks to see how I will respond. I have to establish with one little girl, again and again, how my long hair (old lady hair!) is just another kind of cool and certainly no better a cool than her natural hair.

Three times in the last two years, boys have brought tales of a cousin, step-bro, and uncle who were shot, their eyes big with shock and incomprehension as they talked about what happened, and the funerals. One little guy (10 yrs old) cannot get the idea of guns out of his head and we talk about it every. single. time.

Also, my other neighbors remain friendly and open in the way of good neighbors. So, it’s actually ok. I was just whining because I miss those who no longer appear—the boy is very good artistically and I felt useful/happy showing him my paints, etc, and teaching him how to use them all, sending him home with his projects, etc.

Racism in Detroit is alive and well. The separation between the city, where I live, and the suburbs, makes it many times worse. Class divisions are entrenched. There are two suburbs where middle and upper-middle class blacks live. They also want little to do with the city even while they largely remain separated in enclaves. But between people in the suburbs, there is more relational equality give/take than for those who live in my neighborhood.

Steve240 wrote:

I am not saying I agree with doing this but just suggesting they fully practice their apparent thinking.

Thank you for your clarification, Steve.

If human beings are superior to all other creatures because human beings were created after those creatures, why aren’t women superior to men because Eve was created after Adam?

@ JeffT:

Some people seem to portray faulty reasoning 🙂

If Eve was taken from Adam, did that make Adam less than he had been before, seeing that he lost that part of himself which was differentiated into Eve?

Nancy wrote:

If Eve was taken from Adam, did that make Adam less than he had been before, seeing that he lost that part of himself which was differentiated into Eve?

I want my rib back! (“side” actually if we all want to be ‘Biblically correct’)

@ JeffT:

You can have your rib back, but then you will be alone . . .

Victorious wrote:

Nancy wrote:
If Eve was taken from Adam, did that make Adam less than he had been before, seeing that he lost that part of himself which was differentiated into Eve?
I believe that Eve was the result of something that changed in Adam. God continually said “it was good” following every process of design. All of a sudden, we find something that was “not good.” That something (in my opinion) was Adam’s changing. I believe he was neglecting some of the characteristics and virtues he was created with and God knew he needed those valuable qualities assimilated into his being. He formed Eve as a visible reminder of those characteristics/virtues he was ignoring and fashioned her in such a way that Adam would not ignore them.
The naming of the animals evidently confirmed to God the need for help for Adam as He formed Eve afterward.
Far fetched?

I think you may be on to something there

JeffT wrote:

I think you may be on to something there

I can’t take credit for the perspective. I read it in Kathryn Bushnell’s book years ago and never forgot it. “God’s Word to Women.”

Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

“Despicable human beings”?

Yes I noticed this as well. All power to Wade for trying to reign this kind of talk in, and get some perspective on it.

There is a phrase in James that I have often needed in church situations. It’s not my life verse, but in view of many comments here I commend it as helpful:

… the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God. James 1 : 20.

It follows the phrase that we should be ‘quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger’.

People like me who still genuinely believe pastoral teaching in Church is restricted to men and those here (the majority) who passionately believe this not to be the case do not adorn the doctrine of Christ by emoting rather than arguing reasonably and graciously – yet forcibly if necessary – for our position.

It means discussing the text, and the text alone.

A woman not giving a sermon on Sunday morning does not equate to the ‘oppression’ of one half of the human race or their denigration into being second class citizens. Well not in my experience it doesn’t. But an attitude problem towards Mohler & Co can be very bit as bad as those who do erroneously do women’s ministry down.

@ Ken:

God, including Jesus, was angry at times and used harsh words toward people in specific situations. It is possible to be angry and not sin (scripture encourages this). Is saying that someone is a despicable human being a sin? Do you know for a fact that these people are angry and in sin? Some of these people explained their perspectives to Wade.

Wade has some enlightening teaching on women.

“People like me who still genuinely believe pastoral teaching in Church is restricted to men”

What on earth is “pastoral” teaching? Junia was a female apostle (little a). You think that is a “non pastoral” situation?

Ken wrote:

Yes I noticed this as well. All power to Wade for trying to reign this kind of talk in, and get some perspective on it.

Yet another attempt to silence women from expressing their pain and anger?

Ken wrote:

A woman not giving a sermon on Sunday morning does not equate to the ‘oppression’ of one half of the human race or their denigration into being second class citizens.

-And not being able to teach at a seminary
-And not being able to hold any position of authority in the church where men might be subject to that authority, carried by some to the secular workplace as well
-and not being able to be a voting member of the church
-And not being able to participate in the distribution of the elements as part of communion
-And not being able to read scripture as part of worship
-and not being able to say a prayer as part of worship
-And being forced to submit to their husband’s control
-and on, and on

THAT is oppression, and it is despicable, as is one who practices these to the extremes as Mohler and Patterson and to call them out as being un-Christian with such a term is no more harsh than how Jesus called out the Pharisees at time and how Paul at times called out those who preached a false gospel.

@ Ken:
Seneca and Ken agree? Who woulda thunk it?

Ken, if you don’t know how to respond to “passionate” and “emoting”, why don’t you engage those commenters who disagreed while also being “reasonable” and “gracious” and full of “genuine belief”? Or is your fragile sense of superiority getting in the way?

You write: “But an attitude problem towards Mohler & Co can be very bit as bad as those who do erroneously do women’s ministry down.”

Well, hypothetically it “can” but certainly it hasn’t been on this thread so I have no idea why an honest person such as yourself would bring it up.

Mara wrote:

But I am saying that nothing short of loud protest will even put a dent in this oppressive system and oppressive view of women.

Amen, Mara! Remember Rosa Parks and those “Iron Jawed” women who were instrumental in affecting needed change.

Victorious wrote:

Remember Rosa Parks and those “Iron Jawed” women who were instrumental in affecting needed change.

Yes! those were exactly the situations that I was thinking of.

Even M.L. King Jr.’s peaceful protest was LOUD. It was emotional. And, unfortunately, it involved bloodshed, even though it wasn’t the protestors who were violent.

Ken –

How do we do this –

“It means discussing the text, and the text alone.”

‘What translation’ and ‘who’s interpretation’ will play into ANY discussion. What I have observed is that people who say this tend to function in thr discussion as “Let’s discuss what I believe the text means.”

Ken wrote:

A woman not giving a sermon on Sunday morning does not equate to the ‘oppression’ of one half of the human race or their denigration into being second class citizens. Well not in my experience it doesn’t.

It is very good that you put, “Well not in my experience is doesn’t.”

But we aren’t talking about the negative impact of sexism on your life and your experience. Of course sexism against women isn’t going to equate any sort of ‘oppression’ that you can feel because none of it is directed toward you. You are not the recipient of it. You were never the little girl sitting in the pew wondering why God favors men over women. It was nothing you ever had to think about because you, as a boy, were already ahead of any woman ever born. No one could tell you that you couldn’t be a pastor of give a sermon when you grew up. That “NO” never existed in your life.

For any and every little girl who is paying attention, the extreme absence of women in the important positions of a church screams that God favors boys over girls. Just because you had no cause to hear it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. These are great big huge “NO”s that girls have had to live with that you will never understand.

Yes, it is a good thing you added, “in my experience,” because your have never experienced this rejection that men claim God has for women.

@ Bunsen:

I would love for Jim Bob to explain militant fecundity to the viewers.

But then their ratings would plummet because the audience would suddenly realize the adorably large family is really plotting to help take over the world. 🙂

Nancy wrote:

The kinds of comments as in the first paragraph immediately remove the speaker from any consideration of what he/she is saying by clearly showing that they do not adhere to sola scripture and therefore probably may not really be a Christian.

I’ve seen Sola Scriptura turn into “EES PARTY LINE, COMRADE!” too many times.

The kinds of comments as in the second paragraph are considered to be persecution and just entrench the hearer in what they already believed, since their beliefs have caused the devil to oppose them through you.

And thus reinforce the True Belief. Continuing the above Soviet-era terminology, substitute “the Dark Forces of Reactionary Capitalism and Colonialist Capitalist Imperialism” for the devil.

Victorious wrote:

. I read it in Kathryn Bushnell’s book years ago and never forgot it. “God’s Word to Women.”

I guess I’ll be the pedantic prig here. It’s not Kathryn and it’s not Katherine, it’s ‘Katharine’. And yes I know the important thing is the value of her works and I heartily agree. And like Hypatia of Alexadria all those centuries ago, she could think rings around many of her male contemporaries.

Patrice wrote:

Racism in Detroit is alive and well. The separation between the city, where I live, and the suburbs, makes it many times worse. Class divisions are entrenched. There are two suburbs where middle and upper-middle class blacks live. They also want little to do with the city even while they largely remain separated in enclaves. But between people in the suburbs, there is more relational equality give/take than for those who live in my neighborhood.

I think you’re onto something here Patrice. I’m also of the belief that ‘racism’ has more to do with socio-economic class than the monolithic bogeyman it has been made out to be.

@ Muff Potter: Which goes nowhere as far as the way many well-off black people are spoken to/treated by others around them, white and not-so-white.

The same is true of what many well-off, not-so-light-skinned people from East and South Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, etc. run into.

I can’t deny that socio-economic factors are part of it, but it’s not the whole story. So much of it is about hating the “Other,” no matter who that “other” happens to be.

@ numo:

Numes, we may not agree on all of the particulars and logistics of the racism chestnut, but there is one thing we can all agree upon. It doesn’t have to be this way.

@ Muff Potter:
ISTM, whenever we establish an “other”, a gap in our love is created, and eventually many “others” will fall into that gap: gender, race, sex, class, on and on.

Both racism and classism are at work and they feed each other but are not the same thing.

Someone upthread complained that we need fewer enemies because it’s impossible to love them all. Yes! If we would stop “otherizing”(fabricating enemies), there would be plenty enough love because it comes from the Holy Spirit. God IS love. It is only when we “otherize” and then try to layer Christian love over top of it, that we come up skinny because there is no blessing from God in it.

IMO, when people “otherize”, they have no good reason to complain when their fabricated enemies complain against them. They cannot legitimately call persecution or hellfire or start lecturing about scripture. They made an enemy from thin air, and until they unmake it, they will have no satisfaction.

@ elastigirl: excellent choices!

“Anyone planning to send their kid to a religious oriented college/university needs to think twice and check things very seriously. I have concerns for their future accreditation as they are ripe for takeover by either Neo Calvinists or the Gothardite Fundamentalists.”

It is a take-over, but Cal has been infiltrating for many years. The chapel pastor is influential, right? Observe who the chapel pastors have been. Are all students required to attend chapel? Hmmm.

They have nursing accreditation there.

@ elastigirl:
Paige Patterson, God’s own space hero: “How dare you open a spaceman’s helmet on an uncharted planet? My eyeballs coulda been sucked from their sockets!”

Elastigirl: “But still breathin’, aintcha, Paige baby? And yellin’, too. Not so bad, after all, see? Ahahahahah. Ahhhhhahahahahah. Now, who’s next?”

If Cedarville loses its accreditation what does that mean? If you are alumnus is your degree as useful as a toilet paper?

@ burntnorton:
Thank you for illustrating my point! Your post reads as though I am simply talking (down?) to the ladies, but if you had read my post a tad more carefully, I included myself in the admonition not to emote on this subject:

“People like me who still genuinely believe pastoral teaching in Church is restricted to men AND those here (the majority) who passionately believe this not to be the case do not adorn the doctrine of Christ by emoting rather than arguing reasonably and graciously …”

So perhaps I’m not so bad after all.

There were so many replies to the post from others with whom I have already jousted probably enough on this subject (especially Mara – hope you are well) that I would like to concoct as brief a reply as possible later. The main point I really wanted to make though was the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God.

Daisy wrote:

People are not marrying today, or not until their late twenties or much older.

I often wondered whether people not marrying or delaying marriage is secular or also applies to Christians that have attended Christian colleges. I would like to believe that early marriages are more common, the marriage rate higher and the divorce rate much lower for graduates of Christian colleges, but I don’t know for sure. I would appreciate if you could suggest any websites (if you know of any) that keep such statistics by Christian college. Take Cedarville University as an example – what is the marriage age, marriage rate and divorce rate for its graduates? Is it that much different than the secular?

@ Ken:
Hi, Ken. Hope you are well also. I have a longer response stuck in moderation.
I must have used some sort of “no no” word cause I didn’t link anything.

__

Individuals such as Page Patterson (for example) are apparently spreading a sick form of gender discrimination couched in flowery biblical terms, that can only further spread this detestable moral infestation to the SBC affiliated churches, and end in the further degrading, assault, and possible battery of women in the home.

One only need look at records of abuse in the SGM affiliated churches to see where all this maleficent behavior and twisted policy is leading: the further abuse of women, and it’s cover-up by men possessing religious power.

—

So, if Dee approves, my general reply to so many posts, with the disclaimer that in keeping it as short as possible, it might sound angry and officious or too blunt. It’s not intended to and I am in a good mood!

I do not approve of abuse, and it is silly to say so when you don’t know me.

My ‘complementarianism’ is essentially confined to preaching and leadership, not the list of things Jeff noted. It stems from my current understanding of the NT, not some kind of gender hang-up.

I quite deliberately said ‘in my experience’ as this comes from a church background with what used to be called ‘body’ or every member ministry, with equality if you like the norm and 1 Tim the exception. I didn’t notice any oppression and I am sure they would have said so if that were happening. One family I knew well Mrs set up and ran her own business once the children were beyond toddler stage. I’m not claiming my experience sets the norm, but not everything that is ‘complementarian’ is patriarchal let alone oppressive. A one-man band church limits women’s ministry far more than 1 Tim.

This issue does affect me inasmuch as I have a wife and two daughters, and I do not want or expect them to be treated as second class. Same goes for all the various friends over the years in various churches and countries. (My wife attended a church for a while where headscarves were compulsory, so she reluctantly complied but wore one with ‘Tramp’ written on the front. You have got to love someone like that!) God can see the heart, whether a woman is really being rebellious or a man being a control-freak or vice versa.

When talking about sticking the text in context of the NT alone on this, I mean doing that rather than speculation (often dressed up as psychology) about men believing this due to some inadequacy, desire for power, or similar character trait. That may be true of some, but motives are extremely difficult to diagnose.

And Mara, as you mentioned this, I very much do know what rejection can be like. Men who assume the worst of your motives. You’re a trouble-maker, like your father before you. The left boot of fellowship. Rumour-mongers. (And I know what it is like for the rejection to be turned into acceptance and the right hand of fellowship as well.)

But if I’ve learnt anything, it is that for me it is not safe to get into any church where a part of the bible – any part – is quietly dropped in order to keep the relationships all smooth and hunkydory. This is a sure recipe for deception and for things to go wrong.

To clarify, position = title
Is it confined to preaching & leadership because of the titles:
title of pastor, title of elder, or some other title

Spowith, I agree. Discrimination is learned. That the Bible has been & continues to be used to teach it is a travesty. “Interpretation” is used like a club (or as you put it, chains) to make it right. Those possessing religious power abuse it. Which is why I don’t believe in religious power over others. We each work out our own salvation, there is no go-between, only Jesus.

@ Joe:

“I would like to believe that early marriages are more common, the marriage rate higher and the divorce rate much lower for graduates of Christian colleges”
+++++++++++++++++++++++

Joe, I’m not up to speed on all your comments (hence your perspective), but sounds like you believe that it is best and right for christians to marry early — that God wants people to marry early.

Why do you believe this? What is godly about early marriage?

As has been stated elsewhere, parts of Paul’s letters can best be understood as poking fun at a church practice that was inappropriate at the time, e.g., head covering (important if circumcision is not?!?); parts may be argument by showing a straw man and then refuting it (parts of Romans, e.g.,); and parts may be Paul’s advocacy to avoid unnecessary conflict with then current culture, as opposed to directives for all time. If one were to try to comply with all of it, one might well be in conflict with the intent of the writer, whether thought of as Paul, an associate, or the Holy Spirit.

And I expect some very HOT responses, even though all of the remarks in my comments immediately above are based on excellent scholarship available in the evangelical literature.

A Mom wrote:

Your complementarianism is confined to preaching & leadership. Is it because of position, or that teaching/knowledge transfer is occurring, or strictly because that’s your interpretation of the Bible?

It’s my interpretation of the NT. The restriction I believe this places on women is because this is – quite literally – out or order. It is NOT because women are inferior or second class, nor because they were uneducated (‘let a woman learn’ will deal with that) nor because they need men as a covering. The silence or inner quietness enjoined is specifically targeted for when teaching is occurring or prophecy is being judged. Apart from this, they can and should contribute fully as gifts and inclination allow.

If this principle of order is ignored I think the church can make itself vulnerable to spiritual attack of the non flesh and blood variety.

I’m not into any form of so-called complementarianism that adds to this (unless they can show me it in the NT and I’m still waiting). I’m not a patriarch.

The restriction is ‘in church’, not for activities that occur outside of it.

Even the most ardent silent women devotees inconsistently allow them to sing the hymns!

I prefer the word responsibility to authority in this context. I’m not into titles like reverend or see leadership as conferring status.

@ Ken:

“The restriction is ‘in church’, not for activities that occur outside of it.”

What does “in church” mean to you?

Ken wrote:

The restriction is ‘in church’, not for activities that occur outside of it.

And has anyone ever explained the reason for the restriction at all?

And how about this? Does “each” include women do you think?

1Cor. 14:26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

@ numo:
@ Victorious:

Those were issues that flagged in my head as well. Thanks for asking them. I had decided to tackle one flag at a time, but it seems we all had the same bells going off . . .

@ Ken:

Thanks for your response! Based on your response, it seems to me you believe (& correct me if I’m wrong) the gender restrictive interpretation & foundation for restricting female speech in church is this:

Female speech is more disorderly (disruptive?) than males, but only in a church setting. This disorderly female conduct includes singing as well as speech, but again only in a church setting. You consider singing hymns part of teaching.

I’m interested to know your views on the following:
Does the church setting include the nursery or Sunday school? Teaching does occur there. Male nursery/Sunday school teachers only? Only male children can speak/ask questions? Or maybe you reject nursery/Sunday school altogether?

What if a male asks a female where the men’s room is? Does the female remain silent & not teach the male where the men’s room is?

What about praying out loud in church? What about reading the Bible out loud in church? What about females doing both (praying/reading Bible) silently in church?

When you refer to church, do you mean the officially designated building?

Is your reference the Biblical Manhood & Womanhood 576 page book by Piper & Grudem? If not, how do you decide / define teaching?

In all other settings (except church building) with all types of actions (speech/singing/instrument playing/saving a life/ etc.), the disorderly (disruptive?) conduct problem with females is no worse than males?

Sorry, I had a lot of questions. Interested in your view.

So it’s okay for a woman to teach a man theology as long as she isn’t tenured. Got it. *eyeroll*

@ Daisy:

Now, a degree in child development and parenting would definitely be useful. But they should be open to men, too.

@ A Mom:
It’s nothing to do with disorderly speech, it is refraining from being teachers over men in the way a teaching elder or pastor would be, in a church meeeting. This is what is out of order, insubordinate, not in rank. God has given women the authority to pray and prophesy (note the covering of 1 Cor 11 is a sign of authority, not submission!), but not teach. This I think you would agree makes most of your remaining questions redundant.

I have read some of the Council for Biblical Manhood etc stuff, but it is not my bible! Also looked at the other side of the question too. I learned most of what I know on this in the UK, where there is no patriarch movement, from teachers who were very much into every member ministry. Needless to say it can be a hot topic in the UK, but it doesn’t seem to raise the ire or generate the extremes over here that it does on your side of the pond.

Not going to joust with Ken today.

I have too much going on.

But here is a link to an article that discusses Ken’s error of deciding that his way is the right way and that everybody that doesn’t agree with him, well, “simply have no intention of obeying [scripture]”

http://onacracker.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/why-denny-burk-is-wrong-about-egalitarian-exegesis-and-the-functional-authority-of-scripture/

Mara, I see only 4 comments at the link you provided though your link indicates there should be 13. I’m confused.

Ken wrote:

@ A Mom:
It’s nothing to do with disorderly speech, it is refraining from being teachers over men in the way a teaching elder or pastor would be, in a church meeeting. This is what is out of order, insubordinate, not in rank. God has given women the authority to pray and prophesy (note the covering of 1 Cor 11 is a sign of authority, not submission!), but not teach. This I think you would agree makes most of your remaining questions redundant.
I have read some of the Council for Biblical Manhood etc stuff, but it is not my bible! Also looked at the other side of the question too. I learned most of what I know on this in the UK, where there is no patriarch movement, from teachers who were very much into every member ministry. Needless to say it can be a hot topic in the UK, but it doesn’t seem to raise the ire or generate the extremes over here that it does on your side of the pond.

The first paragraph explains much to me about your thinking about leadership.

From what I gather from scripture, no male or female believer is to have ‘authority over’ any other believer in the body of Christ. The Body of Christ is not about ranks or possibly being insubordinate. It is not to be likened to the military.

@ Joe:

You had said, “I would like to believe that>/b> early marriages are more common, the marriage rate higher and the divorce rate much lower for graduates of Christian colleges”.

It sounded like you felt that early marriage and marriage in general were desirable and right and to be preferred, therefore more or less in accordance with your beliefs. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Not ‘intentionally disobeying scripture’ but indifferent to it. Following the secular culture around. In the free evangelical Willow Creek church we drifted out of, the issue wasn’t women’s ministry but some New Age occultism that crept in (possibly inner healing, I can’t remember), and when my wife challenged it on the basis that it wasn’t in the bible was basically told to keep quiet, don’t disturb the relationships in the group. I couldn’t get her to go after that, she rightly said what’s the point of studying a book if we only then ignore it. That, I would have thought you have guessed, is the real issue.

Believe me we have beaten ourselves up for years over whether we have an attitude problem or just what it is that makes us unable to fit in. We’ve even thought of going back to end our isolation, there are some superb people there, but I just can’t believe we will ever fit in – and we are not the only ones. There is something about it, and I can’t put my finger on it, that makes this seem non-Christianity to me.

You asked my what I meant about adorning the doctrine of Christ ealier. I didn’t mean to ignore you! I think some patriarchal attitudes towards women can make Christianity decidedly unattractive, and I get egalitarians not liking that. Egalitarians, in turn, can reflect an equal and opposite attitude problem though. In particular the attitude of egalitarian women to complementarian women. Daniel Wallace has if I recall some experience and comment on this, but I have a feeling you intend to address it soon by something that appeared and disappeared.

You will have to forgive wondering if you were taking the micky in your questions! I quite deliberately said women are not to ‘be teachers’ over men ‘in church’ in my understanding. This has nothing to do with children (where did Timothy get his knowledge of the bible from?) or asking for directions, which is hardly teaching doctrine. Your final question is likewise dealing with being outside of the gathered church.

Bridget – thanks for your reply above, but I wasn’t talking about one person having authority over another in the church, rather what God has authorised us as members to do. Ministry is a privilege, not a right. The idea of ‘rank’ comes from the word usually translated submit, be subordinate, and gives the flavour of the word in a different context. You can be of equal status under the law but have different rank.

There is an authority in the church, and that is for elders/pastors to implement the word of God in the lives of believers, so is hardly a hierarchy. The real authority is not found in the leaders themselves but the word they teach. (That, in one sentence, ought to be the death of shepherding/discipleship and any other unbiblical form of submission.)

That really will have to do for now!