"For most of history, Anonymous was a woman.” –Virginia Woolf link
Many in the church, under the guise of gospel™ complementarianism, treat women who have the capacity to be good leaders as an embarrassment. I have read post after post by self avowed biblical™experts who espouse god™assigned gender roles. These are so poorly defined that they lead to widespread mistreatment of women in today's churches. For example, Wayne Grudem attempted to define the biblically™ allowed activities which are, quite frankly, balderdash. You can read about his rules here. This is one example of his nonsense.
Writing a commentary on a book of the Bible for men and woman (14) is a greater responsibility than writing a study Bible for women alone (16).
LifeWay: Women preachers need to be treated like pornography link.
A few years ago, we wrote about the 2008 dustup with SBC owned LifeWay. This was how Fox News reported it — Magazine Featuring Female Pastors Pulled From Shelves, ‘Treated Like Pornography.' Here’s how the article begins:
“The five women on the cover are dressed in black and smiling — not an uncommon strategy for selling magazines. But these cover girls are women of the cloth, featured in Gospel Today magazine's latest issue, which the Southern Baptist Convention has pulled from the shelves at its bookstores, though the magazine is available for sale upon request. The group says women pastors go against its beliefs, according to its interpretation of the New Testament. The magazine was taken off stands in more than 100 LifeWay Christian Bookstores across the country, including six in metro Atlanta. Published for nearly 20 years, Gospel Today is the largest and most widely distributed urban Christian publication in the country, with a circulation of 240,000. The magazine's publisher, Teresa Hairston, said she was just reporting on a trend, not trying to promote women pastors. "They basically treated it like pornography and put it behind the counter," she said. "Unless a person goes into the store and asks for it, they won't see it displayed."
In case you are not aware of this, an SBC church was removed from the NC Baptist Association for calling a woman pastor. However, the SBC, along with the local Baptist groups, studiously ignore churches which cover up pedophile incidents. You see, women pastors are far more dangerous than covering up pedophilia.
At the time this was posted, I called LifeWay and was able to speak with a member of their public relations team whose name I have forgotten. Said individual asked me if I believed that LifeWay should support the views of the SBC which means no women pastors. Now, you readers know Dee. I answered it with a question.
I asked if they carried Anne Graham Lotz's books. And, of course, the answer was yes. I then pointed out that one of Lotz's books, featured in their stores, advocates for women preachers. So, I asked why that wasn't removed and hidden behind the counter with the magazine of the black women pastors. He said he "would look into it." Needless to say, her books sell so they stay (for which I am grateful) but the magazine with the black women preachers was insignificant in sales so they could enforce the "conscience" of the SBC.
Anne Graham Lotz and the abuse of women
In an article for Faith Street, Women Like Me Are Abused Worldwide. Here’s Why, praises none other than Jimmy Carter for his Call to Action on the plight of women throughout the world. With a grin on my face, I got up and got myself another cup of coffee. I knew this would raise the hackles of just about everyone who considers themselves conservative.™ Here is her thesis.
I applaud Mr. Carter’s defense of the equality of women. I agree that women are being discriminated against at almost every level. In almost every nation. In almost every culture. Simply because they are women.
She then speaks about herself.
I have experienced this discrimination firsthand. I am a woman. And I am a preacher. That combination has cost me privileges and position in the man’s world in which I have moved. I have stood up to speak and had men turn their backs on me. I have been offered a seminary professorship, only to have the offer revoked when I refused to sign a statement that said women were to submit to men. I have had invitations withdrawn because of the threatened furor my presence on the platform would create. Multiple times, I have been directed to speak from a microphone positioned on the sanctuary floor of a church because I was not allowed into the pulpit.
She then throws a zinger in Carter's direction.
But I take exception to the reason that he gives for this discrimination. He says that it is religion. I say that it is sin
She contrasts the behavior she experienced with the actions of Jesus. She describes Him as:
protecting women as he did the one caught in adultery who was in danger of being stoned to death,
giving women new purpose and elevated status as he did the ones who were the first to encounter him after his resurrection and were commissioned by him to go tell the men what they had seen and experienced.
In case you believe Lotz's experiences are uncommon, Jill Briscoe also had group of gospel™ minded men who turned their backs away from her when she was an invited speaker at a seminary chapel. I will never forget her son, Pete Briscoe, telling his church of this event. He cried for the pain that his mother underwent. I bet the back-turning men didn't shed a tear.
It is evident that these men who would act in such a manner were sure of their theology but were surely lacking in love. So, were they Christians or theologians? They are not necessarily the same.
Yvonne Trimble, mistreated by Mark Driscoll, comments on Patheos.
I highly recommend Scot McKnight's blog at Patheos called Jesus Creed: Exploring the Significance of Jesus and the Orthodox Faith in the 21st Century. He wrote a post called Anne Graham Lotz, Jimmy Carter and It's Time! which dealt with Lotz's post. Commenting on the post was Yvonne Trimble.
I am a 37 year missionary; both my husband and I preach. Satan has successfully limited 51% of God's workforce, women, by stroking men's egos to believe Christ does not use women. However, God is not limited by ignorant, proud men; He puts His words in women's mouths and gives them place to speak. I have experienced this first hand. The real issue is not what these men think, the real question is what does God want. I know He uses me and many other women as they yield themselves to His voice.
…I remember a conversation with a woman who was seeking ordination. The all male leaders of her church told her, "Sister, with all due respect, you must have made a mistake because God don't call no women to preach." She replied, "Brothers, with all due respect, if you are right, then God must have made a mistake, because I am a woman, and he's done gone and called me
You see, Yvonne Trimble, who has labored along with her husband, as a missionary in Haiti for many years was led to believe that she would receive funds from Mars Hill for her missionary work. She busted her tush to haul Driscoll and gang all over Haiti after the earthquake. But, when he found out that she occasionally preached, he reneged because, well Mark Driscoll is a gospel™ complementarian. You can read the sordid story called Mark Driscoll, Acts 29 Deny Haiti Relief Because of a Female Pastor.
Complementarian women desperately seeking gender distinction and failing.
It gets worse. What happens when a complementarian woman belittles complementarian women? In a post featured at The Gospel Coalition and originally published at Christianity.com, 6 Reasons Women Should Study Theology by Jen Thorn, Thorn has this to say about her fellow women.
When theology is mentioned in a circle of women I have often found the response to be less than enthusiastic. Mention books on homemaking, marriage or parenting, on the other hand, and everyone seems interested. Why is that? I have heard comments like, “I’m just not smart enough”, “I will leave the study of theology to the men”, or “I don’t need theology I just need to read my Bible.”
Perhaps these are the type of women attracted by a Jen Thorn type of church. Perhaps the type of men who go to Jen Thorn's type of church are all theological studs. However, the women I know are interested in theology as well as recipes. In fact, Dee has been know to bake a mean blueberry pie whilst explaining the travesty of Eternal Subordination of the Son to less enthusiastic family members. Thankfully, the pugs listen well!
Now, Thorn suggests reasons why WOMEN should read the Bible. Not men, mind you, women. I thought I might be missing something so I read her gender specific 6 reasons. They are:
- To know God
- To handle life's hardships
- To give an answer for what we believe
- To obey Scripture
- To strengthen worship
- To keep us humble
Did you catch it? Did you find the gender specific advice? Can you tell me which of these reasons do not apply to men?
Bottom line: Complementarians have a problem. They utterly lack the ability to adequately explain their gospel™ gender roles in any practical sense. This leads to widespread confusion. And confusion can lead to abuse.
I am sure that Thorn had good intentions in writing this post. Unfortunately, she has only added to the muddle. Since she is a complementarian, I hasten to add that she shouldn't feel bad. Wayne Grudem, John Piper, Owen Strachan and others are not able to describe it as well. It is a theology which is bereft of practical application. No one really knows what it means except they all agree that women shouldn't be preaching. And it a woman preaches, men should turn their backs because that's what Jesus would do, right?
Lydia's Corner: Malachi 1:1-2:17 Revelation 21:1-27 Psalm 149:1-9 Proverbs 31:10-24
I won’t say it, but… 🙂
Great article! Although I’m not sure pie baking is a gender specific occupation….
@ molly245:
It is when certain writers believe that women are only interested in discussing household tips.
If I want a pie, I’m the guy who bakes it.
Can we get your pie recipe, Dee, or do we have to first submit to a three-hour lecture on transsubstantiation?
Seriously, though, I love the opening quote by Virginia Woolf:
“For most of history, Anonymous was a woman.”
Many evangelicals don’t know it, but there is some thought that Hebrews was written by Priscilla.
By the way, I’d also love a recipe for theological travesty pie. 🙂
Dee, I often lecture on theology while folding laundry 🙂
dainca wrote:
You are in trouble. That’s what led to this blog. Do you like to write?
“Can you bake a pie?”
“No.”
“Neither can I.”
“Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better” from Annie Get Your Gun
@ molly245:
I live in that state where “holier than thou” men turned their back on Mrs. Briscoe. The event you describe occurred at a seminary. The event I remember happened at a Oklahoma Baptist Convention meeting during the early 90’s. I was embarrassed and felt sorry for Jill Briscoe. Ms. Lotz was scheduled to attend this meeting but backed out due to threats by these clergy men. I don’t care about the sex of an individual: if he or she preaches the Word of God, I will listen. And Jesus wouldn’t turn His back on female preachers: He will be honored that they are preaching the great evangel. Sorry, this issue makes me get on my soap box and I am a man.
Mark wrote:
Thank you for confirming this despicable event. I wish these theological lightweights could have seen Jill’s son crying in the pulpit over their biblical™ actions.
Thank you for your kind comment as well.
@ Mark:
I didn't realize this travesty happened in Oklahoma.
I guess you know that our EChurch pastor was the president of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma from 2002-2004.
dee,
We haven't had much time to swap recipes, but I'd love your blueberry pie recipe. Could you put it in the Don't Get Mad – Cook section?
Deb wrote:
Here’s the link.
http://media.sbhla.org.s3.amazonaws.com/7492,13-Jan-1993.pdf
Wade Burleson is a good man. And I have told this to conservative friends. He has kind of been blackballed by some in the SBC and this is their loss.
I know I don’t comment often even if I do read all the time.
I’m a homeschooling mom who really enjoys theology. And I like to discuss it. Only many of the women in the circles I’m in don’t, either because they aren’t interested or think it’s for the men as stated earlier in the post. So then if I want to talk about theology I have to talk to the men. And yeah. That’s not weird or anything…right.
Either I’m flirting, or shouldn’t be talking about this with men, or why do I care so much because I’m just a woman! Or the whole guy actually is interested and then realizes he’s talking theology with a woman and avoids me from here on out. Women cannot just want to have a good fun theological conversation!!!
I actually find widows and single women more interesting to talk to than most of my assumed to be “likemineded” friends.
Anyway, it’s frustrating.
Thanks for allowing me to vent a moment.
This is a very well written and informative article like almost all of them are. Thanks for all the effort.
This is an issue on which I’m deeply divided with myself. I despise Paul so naturally I should question a doctrine that comes only from him. Yet, I wonder if women taking positions of leadership isn’t why homosexuality is becoming accepted in society, because women are just too soft of sin. Then I think of my mother, who would have made the best hell fire and brimstone preacher of all time if only our church let women in the pulpit. So, I’m torn. What do do? Jesus had no women apostles, yet women were the first to see him raised from the dead, and thus to preach the resurrection TO the apostles….hmmmm…..
Pingback: Should women be allowed to be preachers? | Nerdy stuff from David Brainerd's brain
Oh, boy can I relate!! I am also a homeschooling mom of 19 years, but do not wear denim jumpers I made myself while grinding wheat grown by my husband. I don’t fit the homeschool paradigm, and non-homeschool moms can’t figure out why I would WANT to teach my kids. I am the only female I know who is interested in theology and doctrine— not celebrity teacher/preacher/writers who want to talk about makeup, and “those darn men.” i really don’t feel I have any like minded female friends, and often find myself talking theology ti my (gasp) sons , who are very male, while cooking dinner. And, my husband actually seeks out my input on big (and small ) decisions because he values the brain God put in the head of the woman he loves. @ Kindakrunchy:
“Sister, with all due respect, you must have made a mistake because God don’t call no women to preach.” She replied, “Brothers, with all due respect, if you are right, then God must have made a mistake, because I am a woman, and he’s done gone and called me”….
Hogwash. God does’t call anyone. That’s Calvinism. Where’s the Bible say God calls preachers? THat gives them an authority that God never intended they should have. Prachers and just regular people with a Bible in hand, not God appointed prophets. ANYONE, MAN OR WOMAN, WHO CLAIMS A DIRECT CALLING FROM GOD, SHOULD NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER BE ALLOWED IN THE PULPIT, LIKE EVER….PERIOD.
The Calvinists will, of course, counter with Hebrews 5:4
And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
But that’s not about modern preachers. That’s about the High Priest under the Old Testament. Learn to read in context. Its an important skill.
I realize that complementarian individuals will disagree with me, and will look at the impact of telling women that they are “out of order” as purifying the church, but this kind of proof texting is driving men and women away from church. This kind of attitude encompasses not only female evangelist / preachers, but Sunday school teachers. An elderly female Sunday school teacher who had taught Sunday School for years at an American Baptist Church (Southern Baptists think they are liberal) was fired as a Sunday School teacher for among other things, being female.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2339673
A SBC church I attended got rid of female teachers for mixed adult classes in the early 1990s. I don’t think that 51 percent of the population being excluded from being permitted to talk about spiritual matters ( ie preach or teach in a manner) is a good thing. And the mostly men doing this all had Mothers. Should their Mothers become silent once their boys grow into men? Are women permitted to teach their male children Bible stories? What if that Mother was that awful thing, a single Mother? All these are questions complementarians would like to added rules based on some proof text , and I agree with conservative evangelical who laud expositional preaching: proof texting doesn’t suffice in bringing out the meaning of the Bible. So all that is available is that one stricture that women are to remain silent and the other that women are saved through child birth. I am sure there are rules to add with this proof text such as quiverful. How outrageous all of this is in my humble opinion.
dee wrote:
“Real Dudes™”® (© Mark D.) don’t cry – especially not someone else’s hurt.
A man who cannot or does not cry is not human. Sub-human perhaps. I think the Y chromosome is part of our inherited genetic distrophy from the Neanderthals.
__
Anne Graham Lotz: “Jesus is still seated upon the throne…”
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=6j5Xxb48Uz4
hmmm…
peaked your interest? check out:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/?s=Anne+Graham+Lotz&x=24&y=9
http://www.annegrahamlotz.org/
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Graham_Lotz
;~)
—
__
“Yielding to ‘Her’ Master’s voice.”
hmmm…
“Satan has successfully limited 51% of God’s workforce, women, by stroking men’s egos to believe Christ does not use women…However, God is not limited by ignorant, proud men; He puts His words in women’s mouths and gives them place to speak.” ~Missionary, Yvonne Trimble
__
Of interest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgnWiWBN2eU
—
__
R these men wat’in fer da donkeys and da rocks ta cry out?
(sadface)
Sopy
__
Inspirational relief: Pamela – “Hosanna”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHFzvtPZGIY
—
@ Gus:
Gus wrote:
I left the church. Your problem, Gus. I know what I believe — I have a conscience.
__
And his business card read:
Haveadick
“will preach”
—
david brainerd wrote:
So, where is your "proof" on this? This is another throwaway comment like Thorn's view that women would rather talk about housework.
This blog got started on the heels of the two of us making a stand on a church which poorly handled a pedophile situation. We have made consistent stands against all types of sin on this blog. Perhaps they are the sins that don't trouble you?
Finally, i actually like Paul.
Lisa wrote:
You are my kind of woman. And I thank you from the bottom of my heart for not wearing the long denim skirts, complete with polo shirt!
Mark wrote:
I believe that the church has lost out on much wisdom that might have saved it from making stupid decisions if women in the church had been given some say. Some stats say that over 60% of congregations are female. Yet, they are marginalized.
I have always wonder what might have happened at SGM with the issues surrounding child sex abuse if women had been involved in leadership.
dee wrote:
Or in the Catholic Church, where women are also excluded from the real leadership.
Or, to get secular, at science fiction conventions, where there have been issues in the past with pedophiles (e.g., Walter Breen back in the 1960s, mentioned in a comment here on this blog over the summer). More recently, women authors and convention attendees have been calling out men who harass women.
Interestingly, the same thing has been happening among the atheist/agnostic community. Some atheists have recently written off two of the “Four Horsemen” of atheism. That’d be Richard Dawkins, for minimizing rape (the guy should just stay off Twitter) and Sam Harris (who has said women are inferior to men). There are additional problems with prominent atheist men using their positions to proposition or harass women and it’s a hot topic of conversation in certain places on the Internet.
Interesting, isn’t it?
3 weeks into an 8 week Fall sermon series by Matt Chandler called “A Beautiful Design”, exploring the concepts of creation and what it means to be Men and Women. First several weeks are introductory and foundation (and really good), but I am anxious for the rest…
Not really sure yet where he will go with this, but one of the resources he cites is a book on complementarianism by Piper. Chandler warns that this series is likely to be somewhat counter culture, and I am generally ok with counter culture, but I am curious to see how he handles the man/woman roles concept.
PS, after 15 years at Ed Young Fellowship Church, where Lisa Young was front and center almost all the time, I have yet to even catch a glimpse of Chandler’s wife on stage, and the only woman on stage I have seen has been a musician.
More to come…
@ dee:
Good topic. At our church, run by men of course, the congregation is mostly women folk. The founder’s wisdom still prevails tho, since we have congregational rule, much to the chagrin of the calvinistas who have tried to take over from time to time. It has saved us idiot boys from doing permanent damage to the church, probably on many occasions. Our reputation is that our church is accused of ‘being run by a bunch of women.’
To which I say “Thanks! We wouldn’t have it any other way…”
Imagine how much real grief Mars Hill (et al) might have been spared if they had real congregational rule. Those of us who do are breathing a collective sigh of relief precisely because of the wisdom of women in the church.
I for one am thankful for the women in our church, and for my wife, who always seem to have more common sense at critical moments. Hopefully us men folk have the good sense to listen.
FormerFellow wrote:
"Beautiful design" or "Good design" are hierarchical complementarian code words for he is in authority over her. They are intended as thought-stoppers. Period. Don't place any hope in Chandler, since he is the head of Acts29 and worked hand in glove with Mark Driscoll. He just presents a classier facade.
Gram3 wrote:
Exactly. He will just present it in a “nicer” way. But you are dead on about the “code words” and Chandler.
@ Mark:
Mark, Mrs Criswell, wife of the SBC’s long time elebrity, WA Criswell of First Baptist Dallas, taught a very large MIXED SS class for years that was even on the radio. I think it had something like 300 in it. But when brought up these days, SBC pastors go silent and you are a sinner for pointing this out. OR, she had some sort of magic authoritarian spiritual covering from her husband on her when she approached the mic. I have often wondered how that works but hear it is like magic.
__
FYI: Matt Chandler : “A Beautiful Design”
Part 1 “In The Begining”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy1KnxwscYg
Part 2 “In His Image”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSHnJ2QfMEg
Matt Chandler: “Interview”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pomPrwm05s
;~)
from above subject reference
—
@ Sopwith:
Sopy!! 😉
david brainerd wrote:
I assume you made a typo here and meant “women are just too soft of skin”. True dat. None of that ‘coarse’ skin for us.
John Lennon spoke and sang to this issue long before it became chic and fashionable to do so. And also way before our language underwent an Orwellian purge.
Here’s the link to the you tube vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5lMxWWK218
__
@ Muff ,
hmmm…
All we are say’in,
Is give women preachers a chance…
All we are say’in,
Is give women preachers a chance…
everybody now,
All we are say’in,
Is give women preachers a chance…
🙂
—
A friend of mine who is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) says that she has witnessed what Ms. Lotz describes: whenever a woman stands to present a paper (an act, I might add, which is very different from preaching a sermon), there is a coterie of men who stand up and turn their backs to the speaker. I take issue not only with their views on women, but also with the way they think they need to trumpet those views to everyone in attendance. Aside from being rude and intimidating to the presenter, they also block the view of the stage for everyone sitting behind them. If they object so strongly to women presenters, at least they could preserve everyone else’s experience by simply slipping out to browse the book table or refill their coffee. Honestly, we don’t allow movie theater patrons to stand up and block others’ view, so why ETS allows this to continue is beyond me. Even in the required (no longer–SBTS has completely overhauled its Christian Ed program) “Bible Teaching” class for final-semester CE students at Southern, the five or so men who objected to women teachers stepped out of the room when we were assigned to present. That was bad enough, but I’d rather present to 3 interested listeners than a flank of backs in a full auditorium.
I’m thankful to be studying medieval church history instead–the societies I belong to are far more respectful and courteous.
david brainerd wrote:
I’ve heard Pentecostals and Arminians and others claim callings too. Let’s not dogpile on Calvinists for an issue with a broader base.
Dee, I come to the same conclusion you did with that list at the end of your post. Any good reason for anyone to study the Bible and theology applies to women and men both.
Gus wrote:
Because crying is so unmanly, right? I reminisced recently about how they tackled this one on the old TV show “Coach”. (Catch the pun? And the second one right there? I crack myself up.)
Hmm. I guess Beth Moore isn’t preaching when she gets up on a stage, opens the Scriptures, and sometimes (gasp) even drills down into the Greek. If she did, Lifeway would put her books behind the counter … wouldn’t they?
Tim wrote:
I didn’t even know that this was a controversial issue. Is the problem with the idea that God might be leading us toward a certain path in life in general or specifically with the idea that that path might be the ministry? What is the support for the contention that He doesn’t?
This is entirely new to me.
I am sure it has been said many times but women are considered inferior in several endeavors other than the church. I love to play bridge, and follow the national and world events with great interest. A world class woman player stated that she could not get on an expert male team for the national and world championships even though she was just as good as the men, if not better. Women players are not respected at the highest levels. One or two exceptions, tho.
StillWiggling wrote:
Excellent point!
@ AmyT:
Thanks for sharing this info. I didn't realize that attendees at the Evangelical Theological Society were also guilty of this reprehensible behavior.
Yes, this. I’m going through a book for my premarital counseling and just hit the chapter on (gender) roles. If my beloved (soon-to-be) wife acts assertively, then I will obviously lose interest in the marriage (because I, as a guy, can’t grow the _bleep_ up) and it will all be downhill. And then they invoke Pope Piper. I wonder what reaction I will get it I say this is a false choice akin to me saying that if my wife is not assertive she must obviously be a doormat… (ok, rant off. our meeting on this is tonight I hope I can keep my tongue firmly in place)
It’s a shame AGL, JB, and others experience these kinds of things. Standing up and pointing your back to a speaker is beyond disrespectful – both to the speaker and to the other members of the audience.
FormerFellow wrote:
Including in bed announcing the “Seven Day Sex Challenge” with Grinning Ed?
mirele wrote:
Sounds like a set of attitudes and behaviors that crosses belief systems (or unbelief-systems). Which means it’s intrinsic to “people being people”.
david brainerd wrote:
How exactly is feeling a “call” the same as claiming authority for oneself? It seems to me that too many preachers who are already in the pulpit think they have authority over other people because of it. But that certainly seems to come not from a feeling of calling, but from institutional authority being bestowed by a human organization confusing itself with the church (“the “CALLED-out ones” in Greek”)
The Bible speaks everywhere of God calling people to all sorts of things– calling them into His kingdom, calling them to teach, giving them spiritual gifts, etc. What it doesn’t speak of is the church being an institutionalized organization with the right to bestow institutional authority on certain people while denying it to others.
david brainerd wrote:
What that tells me is women can vary all over the map, just like men.
I hid in a pulpit once. My voice teacher didn’t find me for almost 15 minutes.
molly245 wrote:
I am a woman, and I am more than happy to eat pie, by either gender. I’ve never tried making one.
Anyway. The churches that support gender complementarianism also often bar unmarried men from preaching, or even from teaching Sunday School classes. Complementarians wrap up their theology in martial status, as well as gender.
Complementarians will give Jesus Christ and Paul a pass in both areas (marital and parenthood status), but everyone else must be married with children.
I also find some of their rules odd ball and too random to make any sense.
Like in this post, and one I read on another blog, complementarian churches will not permit a woman to teach or preach, unless the big podium that the male pastor normally uses is switched out for a small table, or, the woman may speak from the floor but not the pulpit.
Some are fine with women preaching on a city street (open air preaching) to anyone and everyone, but not within a church building.
Some are okay with women preaching to non-Christians (both men and women) overseas, but not to American men in America.
Off topic.
If you all ever want to do a new post about nouthetic counseling, this may be of interest:
Northwestern Medicine develops blood test for depression
http://dailynorthwestern.com/2014/09/24/campus/northwestern-medicine-developing-blood-test-for-depression/
“The test measures the levels of nine biological markers in a patient to identify how well he or she responds to treatment. These markers are found in the RNA…
The study, published Sept. 16 in Translational Psychiatry, is the “first measurable, blood-based evidence of therapy’s success,” according to a University news release.”
I would think if their blood test works, it will be rather more difficult for biblical counselors to keep arguing that something like depression is spiritual only, or has no biological basis, and should be treated by spiritual means alone (as in Bible reading, prayer).
Or, this may be a better article about it:
First ‘Blood Test for Depression’ Holds Promise of Objective Diagnosis
http://www.newsweek.com/first-blood-test-depression-holds-promise-objective-diagnosis-270951
“Researchers have created a blood test that they have used to accurately diagnose depression in a small sample of people, and they hope that with time and funding it could be used on a widespread basis.
It is the first blood test—and thus the first “objective” gauge—for any type of mental disorder in adults…”
david brainerd wrote:
That would be because most Christian denominations (evangelical) ignore adult singles (and hence supporting celibacy for singles) and focus all attention to children and married couples.
I forgot to address this part earlier:
Part of it may be that it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is like the domestic abuse issue. Christians encourage women to think that codependent traits (such as being sweet, compliant, passive) are godly, yet those some traits are very attractive to abusers and controllers.
So, Christians set women up to attract abusive men via these gender complementarian teachings, but then also blames them for having “poor discernment” when they end up married to an abuser. (Christians create these problems for women and then blame women for them.)
If you keep telling women in your sermons, blogs, and books that their biggest calling in life is to marry and have children (which complementarians often do),
And when you keep telling women that they are easily deceived, you may just influence some women (who may be insecure or whatever) to think they have no business in learning theology but only in learning, or taking an interest in, homemaking and parenting.
You’re creating the very problem you’re complaining about. Christians do that with many subjects, from domestic abuse, to topics like prolonged singleness among adults, etc, they give out advice and teachings which exacerbates the whatever the problem is.
I guess some Christians like throwing gasoline on a fire and screaming, “Oh no, why won’t this fire go out??? We can’t use water to put the fire out, because that would be unbiblical, and it would actually solve the problem!!!”
Disturbing comments made about the first female pilot from UAE who led airstrikes against iSIS this week by two male Fox commentators.
“Apparently that respect is reserved for male soldiers only. Because before Fox’s Kimberly Guilfoyle had even finished her brief segment on Al-Mansouri’s contribution to the air strikes, her male colleagues interrupted her to joke that Al-Mansouri’s participation constituted “boobs on the ground,” and to say that “after she bombed it, she couldn’t park it.”
http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/9/25/6844297/fox-news-commentator-calls-female-pilot-leading-isis-air-strike-boobs
@ dee:
That was certainly very inappropriate of them.
Did you see the links I put on an older thread, about women soliders (Kurdish peshmerga forces) who are fighting against ISIS?
There was also this story from a week or two ago, about an American woman pilot (if I recall right, she was directed to fly her plane, with her in it, into the flight to save Americans on the ground):
Heather ‘Lucky’ Penney Recalls Mission To Stop Flight 93 On September 11, 2001 (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/11/heather-lucky-penney-flight-93_n_957326.html
AmyT wrote:
But of course trumpeting their superior spiritual status is what they mean to do. They are not making a principled stand, since ETS does not make gender an issue for membership. They are showing what is in their hearts, and it is not love for their sisters or love for the Lord they claim to represent. They are revealing what this movement of gender superiority is all about. The Bayly clan speaks for many who are too timid to say what they really believe. That is the extent of the good that I can say about the Baylys, but credit where it is due–they don’t try to hide what they are about.
These are the present-day Pharisees with their ever-longer tassels and ever-larger phylacteries and ever-expanding extra-biblical rules and regulations which they impose on others while exempting themselves. And they are just as spiritually blind to the truth. And I believe they are just as vindictive toward those who would expose them. If only they had the power…
@ dee:
If ladies had been in any type of leadership position, IMO things would have been much different. Obviously we can’t know, but….
And I still wear denim.
In the form of cute jeans. Not even mom jeans. Tho today I confess to wearing sinful yoga pants.
@ dee:uh huh, the UAE putting the “freedom luvvin” US of A to shame. I also think Al-Mansouri would find her male colleagues more respectful and less rape-y. I say that in all seriousness, America has an abysmal record protecting women in its defence/attack forces.
Gram3 wrote:
Well said, Gram3…a perfect picture of those who “love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues.”
@ hanni:
Don’t worry, women allegedly can’t play chess either. I cite as evidence Sidney Sheldon’s ‘If tomorrow comes’ – “You cannot expect a pig to grow wings and fly” ! ‘Rusty Storm’ showed how it’s done though. See from 9 minutes to 11.30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZVvYOQ-Nk4
A woman is free to preach if she feels called. But also, if other men or women believe God has not called her, they should be free to walk out, turn their backs, or refuse to listen.
Double standard at play here? We speak often of walking out on or refusing to listen when it is men we believe are out of line. Are we not free also when we believe women have crossed a God given line?
At any rate, this is sure digging up old news.
linda wrote:
Linda, some may walk out and refuse to listen but more than likely it would be because of false teaching…not their gender.
Wishing to win friends and influence people, may I suggest that western women tone down the rhetoric about how oppressed and discriminated against they are?
The USA, the EU for example are democracies where women are slightly over half the population, they can vote, stand for election, hold high office, occupy senior positions in the judiciary or corporate culture. At least in theory discrimination is illegal, certainly in Europe. They are not being oppressed in any meaningful use of the word.
Now before the howls of protest, I am sure things aren’t so rosy in day to day life always, but then discrimination for various reasons (e.g. age) can apply to men as well. But this isn’t remotely comparible with what is going on in many third world countries or those whose official religion regards women as second class at best. In short, rich middle class westerners should keep some perspective on this. This does not mean ignoring real problems, but keeping in mind how privileged most of us who live in the West really are.
If you believe in every member ministry as I do, then even the restriction argued about ad infinitum on teaching etc are not that onerous. The one man band ministry does more to stifle the gifts throughout the Body than poor old Paul’s instructions for Timothy, for both men and women.
Does anyone have a link to an account of men turning their backs on Anna Graham Lott? I’m not questioning it…I have someone asking me about the particulars and I’d like to give accurate info.
@ mirele:
Given the premise of his atheism, Dawkins is right about rape.
But it is interesting that atheists cannot escape the truth about the fall of man – and I use the term generically!! They can’t blame religion for the hanky-panky at their conferences.
Marsha wrote:
I’m OK with someone using the word “calling” when it comes to their work in the kingdom. I get the impression David Brainerd thinks it smacks of exclusivism, though
On a related topic, I now have a long drive in the car to commute to work, so I have started listening to books on tape and also downloaded some podcasts from my church. I was a bit peeved at my pastor for putting a very misleading title on a plea for money for our upcoming building fund. But usually his sermons are good, so I put in a CD and was more than pleasantly surprised to hear a message with him and the administrative pastor (who is female) discussing egalitarianism. There is a second part, so I am eagerly looking forward to it. (The sermon was titled something about becoming a healthy church, so I’m thinking the pastor isn’t good at naming his sermons. The one about money had something related to power in the title.)
linda wrote:
You approve of that kind of behavior? I would insist that anyone who stands up and blocks my view of a speaker and her visual aids either sit down or leave.
They have options. They can not come to the convention hall, they can leave quietly when it is time for her to speak, they can even hold signs up outside to exercise free speech. But they had no right to be disruptive. They should have been asked to leave and if they refused, security should have tased them.
dee wrote:
Did you expect anything different from the boyz in the Faux-news room?
@ Marsha:
I agree with you.
I also thinks this is a poor way to behave:
Complementarian men symbolically urinate on women
http://www.examiner.com/article/complementarian-men-symbolically-urinate-on-women
@ Ken:
Why Aren’t Women Advancing At Work? Ask a Transgender Person.
“Having experienced the workplace from both perspectives, they hold the key to its biases.”
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119239/transgender-people-can-explain-why-women-dont-advance-work
From the part of the article about a person (Barbara Barres) born biologically woman but who underwent procedures to become a man (and changed his name to Benjamin):
“When he [Barbara Barres] became Ben, however, he immediately noticed a difference in his everyday experience: “People who don’t know I am transgendered treat me with much more respect,” he says. He was more carefully listened to and his authority less frequently questioned. He stopped being interrupted in meetings.
At one conference, another scientist said, “Ben gave a great seminar today—but then his work is so much better than his sister’s.” (The scientist didn’t know Ben and Barbara were the same person.)”
linda wrote:
Sure, they have a “right” to be rude, but you’re going to defend rudeness?
If I disagreed with a male preacher on stage, I would quietly get up and walk out, not make a big show out of things by turning my back on the guy while standing there while he’s mid speech.
It’s also a little different, because in one case, the speaker is being rejected for an innate quality she was born with (gender), but in the other, you’re only rejecting the beliefs or opinions (not the person himself necessarily).
I’d have an easier time being rejected based on disagreement over my opinions than on me as a person.
Do you think it would it be okay if a group of white people stood up and turned their backs out of protest of a black woman or black man getting up to speak to a group?
linda wrote:
Just want to say that most conferences post the speaker schedule well in advance. I would expect that one where papers are presented like ETS would do likewise. ISTM that the path of wisdom would be to simply not attend the offensive presentation rather than drawing attention to oneself by turning your back or walking out. Another way to counter views that one finds objectionable is to write a paper refuting that view. There is simply no need for such immature and self-serving behavior, regardless of gender.
Daisy wrote:
In our family, we have used a relatively new (about 5 years old) urine test that looks at neurotransmitters. It actually measures levels of about 8 different brain neurotransmitters. For years I thought my son had ADD; he was even diagnosed ADD and given meds (which had so many side effects he quit taking it). But meanwhile, at the Christian school he was at, they said it wasn’t ADD, it was sin, it was a character flaw. Finally at the age of 23, thanks to this cutting edge test, we learned his brain made virtually no GABA, an important neurotransmitter. What looked like sin to the Christian school and ADD to the doctors was in fact a biological issue. Pennies a day for an OTC amino acid, and he is, literally, a different person. Back in school, can keep a job, and is much more focused and much happier. When people say that depression or anxiety or anything like this is a “spiritual problem”, honestly, I just want to punch them in the nose.
Daisy wrote:
This article is wrong. It’s not the first objective gauge for mental disorders. There’s been a urine test out for several years now. Sadly, very few mainstream doctors know about it. You have to go to an integrative/functional medicine doctor to get it. This test changed my life (anxiety and depression), my daughter’s life (depression), son #1’s life (lack of focus, lack of hope, inability to concentrate, poor impulse control) and, I believe, may well have saved son #2 from committing suicide (adolescent depression/suicide ideation). All due to neurotransmitter imbalances easily corrected by amino acid therapy.
Ken wrote:
While I agree that the treatment of women in the West is incomparably better *as a whole* than women in other parts of the world, the fact is that those posting here live mostly if not exclusively in the West. Therefore, we speak to Western issues that remain in the church where women remain second-class in “complementarian” and other male-privileged religious organizations.
Should we remain silent about these wrongs perpetrated on women here until women elsewhere are treated well? I don’t understand what your objection is. If you believe in every member ministry, then you should be very concerned that over half of the body is being silenced and spiritually blackmailed.
Maybe some here are also working against injustice elsewhere while also working on injustices here done in the name of Christ.
Ken wrote:
Oh Pleeeze!
Lesbian preachers are what is holding back revival in America.
They propagate abortion as a sacred rite and want to be equal with men.
A woman is better than a man….at being a woman!
A man is better than a woman….at being a man!
Jesus had 12 men as his leaders, there were no women in His inner circle.
Deal with it!
Marsha wrote:
Exactly, except for maybe the tasing part. =)
There is no double standard here. “Walking out” or “refusing to listen” can be accomplished in ways far less disruptive than standing and turning your back to the speaker. And the point below about academic conferences publishing their programs ahead of time is also excellent. Many conference programs even provide abstracts in advance, so you have a pretty good idea what will be said and who will be saying it. Rude behavior of this sort affects more than just the presenter. If you want people to respect you, you must treat them with respect first.
linda wrote:
I’m sorry, turning your back and remaining in the room is simply rude behavior. Either sit down and listen or get the **** out of the room. People shouldn’t be jerks about this sort of thing.
Oh yeah, I’d just note that at my evil too big to fail employer, this kind of dissing of women would be so totally unacceptable (i.e., turning around to face away from a female speaker) that it might just be an instant firing offense, instead of merely a “ok, you are now under warning and need to mend your ways” offense.
I bet these gutless back-turning men don’t act like this when presented with a female doctor who treats them, or a female bank vice president, or a female in authority outside of the church. It would attract a lot of attention. It’s only inside the church that this kind of nonsense is acceptable and cheered on.
And my mother wonders why I don’t go to church.
Ken wrote:
You are obviously not a woman. I am a woman. There are a lot of times here in the USA where I feel rights and equality are sometimes illusory, are granted to us on sufferance and can be taken away at any moment if someone got enough power to do so. In this we are little different from women in the developing world. We don’t even have equal pay and our male-dominated institutions aren’t exactly giving it to us.
Seriously, telling women in the West to shut up because women in the developing world have it bad is just obnoxious. *rolls eyes* I’d note that some of those “developing countries” have had women leaders whereas we here in the USA haven’t even gotten to that milestone. *shakes head*
Ken wrote:
Dawkins is little different from the many, many Christian leaders who have minimized rape or blamed it upon women for being in the wrong place, being scantily dressed, being drunk. Instead of teaching men NOT TO RAPE, the thing is to teach us women to wall ourselves in so that we don’t get raped. There’s something hugely wrong about this perspective.
I’m not talking consensual flirting or sex here. That’s what you seem to be implying by “hanky panky.” I am talking about everything from offensive language and touching all the way up to rape. You are minimizing what’s going on here and I am *very disturbed* by what you’re writing.
AmyT wrote:
“Standing and turning your back to the speaker” is not only “refusing to listen”, it’s making a public snub and making sure the one you’re snubbing KNOWS she’s being snubbed. One of the NASTIEST possible ways of “refusing to listen”.
Ken wrote:
Why, what are atheists doing at their conventions?
AmyT wrote:
Okay, no tasing then, but security should definitely drag them out!
Sopwith wrote:
LOL!!!
@ Ken:
As an agnostic who has never cheated on his wife, even when I used to travel 100 hours a week for work, I find this sort of characterization offensive.
I have literally walked away from nude-young women who were offering their bodies for the taking. The funny thing was, I said no thanks and as I walked away they looked stunned and said that maybe I was gay….no, it’s just that I love & respect my wife.
The only other time I have had a woman so obviously “hit” on me was at a Christian Booksellers Convention.
I was working the booth when a bookstore owner in a skimpy halter top interrupted my sales pitch to tell me how good looking I was…while you might think I found this flattering-I was actually flustered by her obvious flirtations, and the fact that she was doing this in the middle of a professional conference-let alone a Christian Bookstore event. She kept this up for almost a half hour in front of one of her employees-not a fun moment…
Anyway-all that to say that Christians are not the only ones with morals, as Atheists are not the only ones doing “hanky-panky”-as you say.
Marsha wrote:
Calling people to the gospel, yes. Calling people to teach????? Where? I missed that verse. I'll bet you don't know where it is either, since it doesn't exist. Heb 5:4 is about the high priest in the OT, so no, that one doesn't count. The call of the apostles doesn't count, since they're apostles, not just regular old preachers. That's exactly the problem: the schitzos who think God is calling them think they're APOSTLES.
mirele wrote:
You are putting words in my mouth, I neither said nor implied that women should shut up about mistreatment they receive in first world democratic countries. My main point was to get a sense of perspective.
I’ve had hassle in churches – banned from the youth group for sermon perceived to be stirring up trouble, lost all my friends in one go. It hurt. Clue: Baptist church, deacons! Other things have happened as well that shouldn’t.
Since then I’ve heard the testimony of a Jewish pastor who lived through the Warsaw ghetto. Visited a local church largely made up of ethnic Germans from the former Soviet Union. If you know anything of their history, the double persecution for being both German and Christian in the Soviet Union, that group went through decades of intense suffering. You could see it in their lined faces. I was very much convicted of the need to keep my own hassles in perspective. Get it in proportion, but not deny it never happened of didn’t do any damage.
The reason for this is not to indulge in a guilt trip for not suffering as much as others, but to help ward off that deadly sinful tendency – to get b~ and twisted, or if you prefer, to wallow in self-pity. (It is the ‘self’ that is the problem.) It can be a real battle to overcome this.
PS: the man who gave me the left boot of baptist fellowship two decades later, as pastor of the same church welcomed me on to the diaconate …
Richard J. Bauckham (FBA, FRSE is a widely published scholar in theology, historical theology and New Testament studies. He is currently working on New Testament Christology and the Gospel of John as a senior scholar at Ridley Hall, Cambridge) has said that Paul thought so highly of Phoebe that he entrusted her with the letter to the church at Rome, I.e. Romans. Can you imagine Phoebe reading & teaching the men at the church at Rome???
Romans 16:1-2
“1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae,
2 that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.”
Phoebe
“The final chapter of Romans is most pertinent to the contemporary gender debate,[2] beginning with the very first verse, which commends “our sister Phoebe, a deacon (diakonos: minister, patron, servant) of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.” (NRSV).[3] There are numerous indications that this chapter is intended as a letter of recommendation. For one, this was a common way of recommending someone in the Greco-Roman world,[4] the New Testament era (2 Cor. 3:1) as well as in Second Temple Judaism (1 Macc. 12:43; 2 Macc. 9:25).
Second, the honor of being named first indicates (many times) priority,[5] and Paul’s use of the term “adelphe” (sister) is indicative of two things: one, Paul views her in the Body of Christ, implicitly assuming their shared unity in the Gospel of God, and that he views her highly enough to showcase her personal involvement in his life.
Simply, Paul trusts her, and he makes it plain that the Church is to follow in his stead, for she has been a leader (or patron) of many, including Paul. It is most likely that Phoebe is the first recorded “deacon” in the churches of God within the New Testament. “Help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a great help (prostatis) to me” lexically enforces the notion that she was akin to a leader/patron/champion of Paul.[6] Many complementarians concede that Phoebe was a deacon in the church[7] and that this most likely refers to a position of leadership.[8] If Phoebe was indeed a deacon as well as a leader, which would likely require not only financial benefaction, but also spiritual guidance.[9] ”
http://splitframeofreference.blogspot.com/2014/07/apostles-deacons-women-of-romans-16.html
AND…how many times have you heard men preachers preach on this text:
Acts 21
8 On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him.
9 He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied.
Mirele – it’s me again, sorry to follow you around. As briefly as possible, what does atheism entail if true? To the extent it is married to naturalistic evolution, a reductionist view of human beings. We are the result of a cosmic accident and our sole ‘purpose’ is to reproduce our genes between when we activate and deactivate. Our behaviour is essentially a product of our evolutionary inheritance.
The implication for morality is that there are no moral absolutes, morals are relative. How could an unguided process produce morals? Dawkins will emphasise this when criticising religion, Christianity in particular. ‘At bottom there is no right and no wrong’, just a pitiless, indifferent universe. So how dare Christians criticise gays for being ‘wrong’.
The problem is Dawkins, to be consistent, has to apply this to rape. You can’t say this is absolutely wrong as an atheist and be consistent. You think it is wrong, so do I (I think absolutely wrong, but then my worldview includes moral absolutes). A rapist doesn’t think it is wrong, perhaps they are just reflecting their evolutionary inheritance, like gays they could claim it is an orientation.
Yet Dawkins is inconsistent in making absolute condemnations of OT testament ethics, for example. Where does he get his standards to make such a judgment? Can right and wrong change/evolve – what was right then is wrong now? Who says?
There is no sense in which I would ever want to minimise the seriousness of this particular moral crime. It was a capital offence in the OT, so God obviously views it very seriously too.
Doubtful – I’m sorry if you found my post above offensive. I hope you see the background to my thinking. I’m not arguing that atheists don’t have morals (a frequent misunderstanding actually), but rather the lack a basis for morality necessarily entailed by their own worldview. Morals become a matter of opinion, and opinions can differ.
Marsha – there was flurry in the blogosphere a while ago over ‘inappropriate behaviour’ (to be coy) between male and female attendees of an atheist conference, and Dawkins’ comment that ‘they should get over it’. Perhaps such atheists should be more hesitant to rubbish the bible’s diagnosis of the human condition, and be more honest in what atheism entails when it comes to morality, in that ditching absolute morals has consequences.
Richard Bauckham has written several books.
“Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” has shaken the stultified scholarly world because he uses the historical record to point out how men & WOMEN were used by God to share their own eyewitness testimony.
Ask the Complementarians how many women were cited by the gospels at being at the crucifixion versus the number of men.
Bauckham has also written a book: “Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels” which is a fascinating historical review of the leadership role that the women named in the gospels undertook in the early church.
@ mirele:
I have been following some of that stuff going on in the atheist community. I think you sent me a great link to the women who was raped by a conference leader.
It appears that Christians and atheists have their issues with women. I wonder if Dawkins answered the way that he did because he knew they had a rape problem amongst the leadership in the atheist crowd.
@ Muff Potter:
I tuned on Fox this AM, hoping to hear an apology. None yet.
Ron Grant wrote:
Gee, so you don’t think women should be equal with men? And while we are at it, do you think pastors who coverup pedophilia in the church are also responsible for “holding back revival in America?”
Another on the practice of going to someone’s conference and disrupting it…
In the first place, standing and turning one’s back on the speaker is plain silly. It accomplishes nothing constructive; any woman speaking at a conference will already be well aware that there are Christians who believe she shouldn’t be doing so. And besides, those congregants doing this will still hear a woman teaching!
We’re all well aware that there are differences of opinion through the Body of Christ on whether a woman (regardless of character) should or should not teach. Making a theatrical stand on any point of widespread disagreement like that promotes, I believe, neither truth nor love. I believe the whole ethos of, for instance, the “Strange Fire” conference was wrong and misguided. But if it were repeated here in central Scotland I would not go and picket it, nor disrupt the speakers, as though I had some kind of mandate to settle the cessationism/continuationism debate through sheer force of disrespect.
david brainerd wrote:
I take it that you are the David Brainerd who writes a blog called “Nerdy Stuff from David Brainerd’s Brain”? In which you refer to your contribution to the present discussion here at TWW as “I posted this as a comment on Calvinist sympathizer watch, so I don’t know if it will ever see the light of day (due to the Paul comment):”
I can understand why you dislike the apostle Paul so much because his calling as recorded in Acts, contradicts your assertion that no-one is called to preach. But I am at a loss as to why you should think that TWW is a “Calvinist sympathisers” and I would have hoped that Lydia, who also posts here, and with whom you haven discussed TWW would have corrected your mistaken impression.
davidbrainerd2 wrote:
I think Marsha might have been referring to Ephesians 4, vs 11-13, possibly, so her view is biblically based. Also you should stop going on about Hebrews 5:4 both in your blog and here. Most Reformed teachings relate the verse to the High Priestly office of the Lord Jesus and not to pastors in the church.
Ken wrote:
As you know, I am a Christian and believe that God created us with an understanding of right and wrong. However, it is possible to be an atheist and believe that morals have evolved as a protector of the species. I have read quite a bit on the subject because I used to say the same thing you say because that is what “apologists” always tell you to say.
Here is a very basic look at evolutionary morals. I am not saying i believe this since I believe in God as the Author of that which is right and wrong.
Early on, it was survival of the fittest to keep homo sapiens alive. The weakest took from the community and could not defend it and so usually died out early due to the harsh environment or attacking tribes.
As man evolved and began to develop technology (farming, etc.) it became necessary to protect the weak who had something else to offer such as brains, etc. Once society developed enough to become stable, society had excess food, time, etc and then it was able to offer care for the weak and sick without jeopardizing the entire community to do so.
Some of these folks who believe in the evolutionary development of morals also claim that religion was necessary for the survival of the species. It unified the group around a singular goal. Cohesiveness brings people together which allows for the sharing of idea-like how to plant crops, how to build better protection, how to organize a group of people to fight off invaders, etc.
I am sure there are many who could do a much better job in explaining this than I have. I believe it is important that Christians understand that it is possible to develop a system of morality outside of the Christian faith. In talking with atheists, which I have done on innumerable occasions, I have found that acknowledging this fact can lead to a better sharing of differences and commonalities.
Believe me, the “gotcha” retorts that atheists cannot explain morals is outdated and wrong. I believe that we Christians should “seek first to understand rather than to be understood.” It goes a long way in developing trust.
Anyone know what’s going on with Matt Redmond’s blog? It’s coming up as “private” the last few days.
Gavin White wrote:
This comment made me laugh. Did you know that their are blogs out there who try to prove that we are closet Calvinists which couldn’t be further from the truth.
In fact, let me reiterate, we are NOT Calvinists. I have deep disagreements with parts of that theology which deal with predestination, limited atonement, etc. and it is not from a lack of studying the matter.
However, I believe strongly that Calvinists, Arminians and whatevers of good will can fellowship together and love one another. Am I a Calvinist sympathizer? Yes, just like I am a sympathizer of all Christians who struggle to understand a God who is complex and mysterious.
@ Gavin White:
PS-Surprisingly good comments from you!
Bent But Not Broken 2005 wrote:
No kidding. Also, look who went to the tomb to care for Jesus’ bodies while the boys were hiding! And what’s with Mary who was tasked to raise the Son of God. What do you want to bet that she taught Him things?
benden wrote:
I had no idea. This must be a very recent development. I just sent him a query and will let you know as soon as possible.
@ dee:
I need to lie down….something’s not right!
Ps. I’m no longer a ” none”, I’ve found a place in an ordinary church, with ordinary people full of gospel sunshine.
Re: Matt Redmond
@ benden:
All readers
Matt Redmond’s site was locked for a bit due to issues with spam. It is now open.
Ron Grant wrote:
Best laugh I’ve had all morning, Ron. The fact that you’re probably serious made me smile even more. I think I’ll ask my lesbian friends about their thoughts on abortion as a sacred rite; the response is likely to be total confusion.
@ Lisa:
You should get in contact with my wife. You guys sound so similar. She has studied more theology than I have and has a much more intense relationship with Jesus than I do. Most men I know could learn much from her
dee wrote:
THANKS for checking!
muzjik wrote:
The Washington Post link doesn’t work (for me anyway) so this is the furthest back I can find: http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/10/24/anne-graham-lotz-and-800-pastors-shame/
Actually, Dee, I think it would be more accurate to say “so they could pretend to enforce the ‘conscience’ of the SBC”. If the ban on female preachers were really so important to them, they’d go the whole way and keep Anne Lotz’ book off the shelves, too. Since they don’t, it seems that money making is more important to them than complementarianism.
(Off topic)
Many thanks to anyone here who has taken the time to pray for my mother. She is in my thoughts every day. At this moment, it is still day by day. It’s still too early to tell, but hopefully the chemotherapy will be effective.
linda wrote:
There is a pretty big difference between walking out on or refusing to listen to a man who is “out of line,” and walking out on or refusing to listen to a woman who is preaching, teaching, or presenting a paper. A man who is “out of line” has breached some code of ethical conduct, or has taught some egregiously harmful doctrine. He has not merely stood up to speak or written something he wants to present. A woman who does such things is not “out of line” in the same sense at all. In fact, she’s only “out of line” to those who would deny her certain powers that they automatically grant to men (and praise them for excelling at).
dee wrote:
I agree the idea should not be a slick way to win an argument. Most atheists are unwilling to go where atheism logically takes them. The fact they do have a sense of right and wrong which evolution is unable to explain (I’ve not yet seen this convincingly done) is evidence for the existence of a God who built in this knowledge. Isn’t this how C S Lewis started on the journey from unbelief to faith?
I think it is a way of getting atheists to question their presuppositions and start a process of thinking about the alternative.
Gavin White wrote:
I have never even mentioned Heb. 5:4 anywhere on my blog, so I really don’t know what you’re talking about. I might mention that 1 Cor. 12:28 upholds the idea that God bestows gifts for certain kinds of activity in the church, including teaching. Also, 2 Tim 1:6 shows that God has bestowed some such gift on Timothy. If you don’t want to call it a “call,” very well– but those who feel the gift on them often seem to experience it that way. The thing is that though there certainly have been, and are, people who claim a call of God and use it as an excuse to take authority to themselves, not everyone who feels a call does so.
Ken wrote:
But this is the point that I am making. They do believe there is a convincing explanation for the evolution of right and wrong. Whether or not you agree with them is not the point. If they were to give you the reasons they believe in the evolution of certain absolutes, you will not get a discussion going by saying that you do not believe their explanation is adequate. It just shuts everything down.
Once again, I reiterate. I am a Christian. I believe in absolutes that were put there by God.
@ Kristen Rosser:
Kristen, unless you are DavidBrainerd2, I don’t think I’ve referenced you in anything I said. Are you maybe thinking of someone else? Sorry.
@ dee:
Got to go, but if right and wrong can evolve in changing circumstances, due to it being based for example on survival advantage, wouldn’t you agree this undercuts the atheist attack on Christian biblical or whatever you want to call it ethics?
And if evolution is the explanation of why people are religious, why attack it as being something wrong – Dawkins almost says religion is wicked? There is inconsistency here to say the least.
Ron Grant wrote:
And just what would you like to ‘revive’ in America? Slavery? Having said lesbian preachers also charged with witchcraft by ecclesiastical courts and subsequently, hanged, drowned, and pressed to death? No good sir, revival in America is not being held back by lesbian preachers, but by the church’s blind refusal to deal with far more egregious and larger evils around them in a pragmatic and constructive manner.
@ Ken:
Believe it or not, they have answers for all of that if you read up on it. There are websites dedicated to discussing these issues but they take time and effort. before I started blogging, I spent a very long time trying to understand.
Once again.,you do not need to convince me. My assumption is that you wish to have fruitful discussions with those who do not share your point of view.
Mark wrote:
Women have never been excluded from talking about spiritual matters in society. Think about Mother Ann Lee, the founder of the Shakers and the Reverend Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science.
dee wrote:
Thank you for answering this. I’m about to leave on a long-overdue and well-deserved vacation and just didn’t have the energy to respond. You handled this much better than I would have.
Ron Grant wrote:
Actually, there were in fact women in his inner circle, only they weren’t dubbed as apostles.
The fact that the twelve does not automatically mean that women are not allowed to preach or lead.
But the Twelve Apostles were All Male
http://juniaproject.com/but-twelve-apostles-all-male/
dee wrote:
Thank you Dee. I have nothing to add to what you have said, thank you for a fair and nuanced explanation of atheist ethical thought.
Ken, if you’re interested in understanding moral and ethical approaches from an atheist perspective I cannot recommend Dan Fincke highly enough. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/ I try to avoid those sorts of discussions on these comment pages but if you have any specific questions or topics you’d like to discuss, direct message me through my twitter.
@ Albuquerque Blue:
Bah hit post to early while proofreading.
To continue, if you’d like to discuss something like that Ken, I’m more then happy to talk to you about that. Obviously I don’t claim to represent all atheists, and I am some dude on the internet, so no worries if not. ^_^
Marsha wrote:
It’s been reported on different sites the last few years that there is a big problem with sexism among atheists, and coverage of this topic started when an atheist lady wrote an article mentioning she was groped or stalked or something by a male atheist at an atheist convention.
There are many articles about sexism by atheists on the internet. Here is one:
Do Atheists Have A Sexism Problem?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/do-atheists-have-a-sexism-problem_n_964354.html
Ron Grant wrote:
What is your evidence that homosexual preachers are “holding back revival” wherever? Is God not able or willing to bring revival via the Holy Spirit whenever and wherever he chooses? Is he so restricted by the behavior of humans? Why did Christ come in an environment that was as depraved as the Greco-Roman world of the first century which included pedophilia and homosexuality?
Agree with you that men are better at being men and women are better at being women. But that seems to be a tautology to me unless you are loading that with other embedded meanings such as men being better at being in authority and women are better at being in subjection to male authority. If so, then we must disagree, and I must ask you for some justification for your assertion.
Finally, please inform us of your view of the significance of the Twelve being exclusively male. And please include your view of the meaning of the priesthood under the Old Covenant and the significance of the sons of Jacob being, well, male and how that might or might not have some bearing on the gender of the Twelve.
dee wrote:
Good point, Dee. Christians and atheists both engage in those “gotcha” arguments, and they never advance anyone’s position.
Ron Grant wrote:
And the solution? PATRIARCHY! PATRIARCHY! PATRIARCHY!
You want to know the real kicker?
Lesbianism isn’t mentioned in Leviticus at all.
Only MALE Homosexuality.
Women didn’t count in the same-sex department, just like in everything else back then.
Are you Adding to SCRIPTURE?
doubtful wrote:
I agree. Oh boy do I agree. I could spent 345,382 pages explaining exactly why I agree but will keep this brief. 😆
The news stories I have seen, from the Christian 17 year old teen boy who was charged with fondling and raping small children on missions trips to Africa, some as young as three years;
to the Christian guy who worked as a preacher who got found out by police for soliciting for wanting to have sex with a dog on I think Craigslist;
to the married Christian couple who participate in “wife swapping,” and who have a site advertising the “swinging lifestyle,”(*) it’s evident that Non-Christians don’t have a monopoly on sin and kink, there are Christians who can give them a run for their money.
People can argue all day long if these people are actual Christians or not, but they are sure claiming the name of Christ.
*Kinky Christian couple use SWINGING sessions to preach the word of God
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/kinky-christian-couple-use-swinging-4322015
Gavin White wrote:
I’m sorry, Gavin. I sometimes get confused on this blog with regards to who is quoting who. I thought I was replying to DavidBrainerd2.
Ken wrote:
I agree with some of the points you were making in this post, but when you consider a lot of Christians, genuine Christians, either misinterpret and distort Scripture (for example, to keep women at a second-tier status in the church),
Or that Christians do not even bother to live out the faith’s most basic teachings, such as staying sexually pure, or weeping with those who weep, and so forth, I don’t think Christians necessarily have the market on being moral and ethical.
Christians may have a stronger basis or worldview that is more cohesive to argue from as to why they, or why anyone, should be moral, but as to actually living out those absolute morals, they seem to fail an awful lot.
Not that I expect perfection from Christians at all times on all points, but these days, I’m stunned at how so many self-professing believers don’t even live out basic, biblical morality – or try to.
So, in a way, does it really matter if atheists lack a basis for being moral and Christians have one? I’m reminded of verses directed at self-professing believers such as:
“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” – Jesus (from Luke 6:46)
and
“Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” (James 1:22)
@ Serving Kids In Japan:
I said a prayer for your mother and you when I saw the note at the top of the blog. I hope your mom gets well soon.
(I’m having a faith crisis, but I still kind of believe in God, sometimes have big doubts, but I did pray for you and your mother.)
@ Ken:
If it makes you feel any better, there are Christian apologetic essays which argue against the atheistic argument of evolving morals. I’d give you the links if I had them, but I didn’t save them.
I just remember one of them had a real life example of a father who dove into the water to save his mentally retarded son. I think the dad saved the kid, but the dad died in the process, and the dad knew he might die if he tried to save the kid.
The point from it, as I recall, was it was of no survival benefit for the dad to save the mentally retarded boy, but he did it anyhow, out of love. Dad gained nothing from risking his own life and pulling the kid out.
I think the author’s point is that atheists cannot make true account of why anyone – a healthy adult – would even want to, or actually, save or help a person society might deem weak, because weak people add nothing to culture or the group.
There are pages out there that argue against the atheistic view on all this, but I can’t remember where they are. I just came across this material while browsing around online.
Ron Grant wrote:
Ron, perhaps if you studied scripture in it’s historical context, you would understand the reason. Jesus was a Jew and the timeframe still very much encompassed a system of patriarchy (and some polygamy). We know this because of the confrontation the Pharisees had with Jesus about which of the 7 brothers would have the wife in the resurrection (Matt. 22) And the Jewish aversion to women was evident when Jesus spoke to the woman at the well. The apostles were appalled that Jesus would do so in public.
Jesus would break down the patriarchal system a little at a time and usher in a Kingdom in which those walls, distinctions, and prejudices would be replaced by one of equality in relationships regardless of ethnicity or gender. He spoke against authoritative ruling systems and replaced them with a servant-type relationship between them.
That’s why He chose only males in the beginning of His ministry. And if you want to exclude women for that reason, then you must exclude non-Jewish males as well. We know God shows no partiality but during a transition period, it may have appeared that way.
@ Tim:
By acknowledging the other side’s point of view and showing that you have taken the time to learn it, I have found that, in general, discussions have gone well.
If no woman can be a minister because the 12 apostles were all male. Then no man can be a minister unless they are of Jewish descent.
JeffT wrote:
Just want to add that the priests were all necessarily descended from Levi as were all others who ministered in the Temple. I don’t believe we have any evidence that the Twelve were all descended from Levi, much less from Aaron. The Levites, priests or not, were not permitted to own land. So, by their own reasoning, those who appeal to the exclusively male priesthood should require every professional pastor to be descended from Levi at least. Or from the tribes of the respective Apostles. Of course, this is as ridiculous as the claim that the gender of the Twelve has any significance at all with respect to the gender of ministers (every believer) in the New Covenant.
And, also BTW, those Levites were not permitted to own land or the means of production under the Old Covenant. Therefore, all professional pastors who claim entitlement to the tithes of non-pastors should immediately sell all of their property and capital. This is also ridiculous, but it is required if they want to be consistent “exclusively male” priest-pastors.
There is no consistency among the pro-male pro-clergy evangelical power-seekers. It is just more ad hoc “reasoning” which sounds plausible only to those who are already persuaded or who have a vested interest in maintaining the system.
I don’t expect Ron Grant to return here to respond to anything substantive because those of like-mind I have attempted to engage on the actual facts cannot “Deal with it” when confronted with facts that challenge their formulaic and reflexive thinking.
dee wrote:
Ain’t that the truth, Dee.
Gavin White wrote:
Hey Gavin, someone told me you mentioned me over here. :o) I don’t think it is totally incorrect from a technical pov. The blog pastor who teaches here is Calvinistic and there have, in the past, been some theologically spirited but irenic debates on his view of God’s Sovereignty and the evil done to victims of child molestation.
Gram3 wrote:
Hmm. If we are going to map the Body of Christ to the OT Laws perhaps these priests in the New Covenant might be willing to forgo their housing tax deduction to fulfill the requirements as they are already male but not Levite Jews? (wink)
The problem with this whole issue is that there is not one single prohibition in the Old Covenant against women teaching men or as leaders of men. Not one. Nada. Zilch. I know, I have searched. So has Cheryl Schatz who made a DVD about it. But I am to believe there is a NEW prohibition or law in the New Covenant. I think not.
@ Lydia:
But we have to always bear in mind that the variables take whatever value is required in order to yield the pre-determined result.
The words of the text are the variables. The pre-determined result is whatever serves the interests of the ones with the power.
So, with that in mind, it makes “sense” that priests being males means professional pastors are males. But priests and all Levites being prohibited from owning property or the means of production does not mean that pastor-professionals have to sell all their securities and property and donate them. They can place the needle of OT/NT continuity wherever it needs to be to support their required result.
Pastors=priests when the required result is exclusively male power for pastors. Pastorspriests when the required result is personal wealth and property for the pastors.
See how fun math and theology can be when you can just make stuff up? 🙂
@ Gram3:
Well, I obviously didn’t put on my HTML slip this morning and misused the greater than and less than symbols while trying to say “does not equal.” And my mother told me to always wear a slip, so there you go.
I should have spelled out in plain text that “Pastors do not equal priests when the required result is personal wealth and property for the pastors.”
Or,
He who interprets the text makes the rules? :o)
Just saw an apology by one of the Fox guys regarding his inappropriate joke about Ms. Almansouri. He said she is a true hero. He also said Fox has received lots of feedback about this. I don’t know if he was the one who made the joke discussed here or not, but at least he acknowledged that it was wrong and that she is truly a hero.
I also heard a report today that she has been disowned by her family for participating in the airstrikes. Let’s pray for her.
Gram3 wrote:
Yep! I saw it as well. Lots of pushback evidently and rightly so.
Gram3 wrote:
I have not heard this; she is receiving a lot of positive publicity in the UAE.
http://www.thenational.ae/uae/government/uaes-female-fighter-pilot-leads-airstrikes-against-isil
TW wrote:
Possibly the report was a spoof attempt to discredit her. I don’t know if anyone has actually spoken to her family. Happy to hear that she is being applauded for her efforts in the UAE.
Gram3 wrote:
One source said the guy has apologized twice now, and he said in one article that his wife was not happy with him over his comments.
One of the articles said that the women on the FOX panel were happy about the female UAE pilot and praising her before the male co-host made his comment.
As the NY Daily News reports, “Hey ISIS, you were bombed by a woman,” Guilfoyle [woman host on FOX] said to kick off the Wednesday show.”
Also from the NY Daily News: “UAE borders Saudi Arabia where women are still not allowed to drive cars”
Fox’s Bolling Apologizes a Second Time
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-bolling-apologizes-to-female-pilot-for-wholly-inappropriate-boob-joke/
“Bolling said she [the pilot, Maj. Mariam Al Mansouri] “deserves our praise, not inappropriate jokes,” and concluded by saying, “She has my admiration, and my very, very sincere regret.”
Ken wrote:
Ken, I know several others have addressed this comment and I want to preface what I am going to write by saying I am not angry with you. More than anything, I am sad.
You speak of privilege and how we should keep things in perspective. I think, perhaps, you are speaking from a place of privilege. You see, as a man, you are granted from birth greater societal/cultural privileges than your sisters. I don’t think you really understand what growing up as a woman – yes, even in the West – is like. No, the discrimination and oppression of women is the West is not as overt and blatant as it is in the Middle East or other places. That does not mean it does not exist. And I’m not really sure how to convey to you how painful it can be.
By the way, I would also like to point out that the argument that we should ‘tone it down’ because there are others who are worse off than we are is an often used strategy of abusers to mindf*** their victims into silence – to guilt them into not reporting because compared to what that person endured, this is nothing. I know. It was used on me from little.
It is such an embedded, pervasive mindset – thought system – whatever, that I don’t know how to help people see. But I would ask you to read a blog post I posted a couple of years ago on the subject:
http://www.truth-makes-freedom.blogspot.com/2012/03/on-being-female.html
And watch this video to the end:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPAat-T1uhE
Thanks
david brainerd wrote:
Not just Calvinism. Most Baptist preachers of the Fundamentalist variety also go into the pastorate based on The Call™. They don’t need more than that in some camps. No education in theology, Greek, Hebrew, Bible; nothing more than The Call™!
(“The Call™” is used to satirical effect at Stuff Fundies Like.)
david brainerd wrote:
Nonsense.
EVERYONE has a direct calling of God to do something. Everyone.
Now, if we are talking about people claiming that being called== having authority–then, I’m with you.
But we are all of us called. Some are called to be pastors. Some are called to plow corn. I am–apparently–called to adopt homeless felines. (I remind myslef of this every time I have to change that blasted litterbox). Its not, perhaps, a glamourous calling, but its mine, & I follow it.
The problem comes when folks separate “calling” from servanthood. Because we are all to be servants, in order to fill the highest calling of all: Following in the steps of our Lord and Saviour, Who was not ashamed to be the Servant of all.
On the sub-topic of calling, I can’t help feeling there’s a violent agreement * going on.
ISTM that the term “calling” means subtly different things to different people. And I say “term’ advisedly because “calling” is something of a technical term in christian circles, often with quite a strong meaning. Specifically, there is a twofold tacit connotation:
Hearing_the_Call_Of_God refers to the Pulpit or the Foreign_Mission_Field
Whilst these two Callings are in no way superior to those of ordinary Christians, well… no, actually, they are superior.
This presumably is part and parcel of the clergy/laity distinction and (in Protestant Rebellion ** circles) the idolisation of the pulpit (the equivalent in Romish Apostasy circles would probably be the idolisation of the sacraments).
* To clear up any possible ambiguity, the phrase “violent agreement” is a mildly humorous parody of “violent disagreement”, and is purely figurative. I’m not suggesting anyone’s actually being violent. Anyway – to the degree that it was humorous, I have hereby killed the joke.
** I am indebted to our friend THC for the epithet “Protestant Rebellion”. “Romish Apostasy” is my own. Both are to be taken equally seriously here.
OK. I have a little break here. The hot water heater is in place and is fine. The new heat pump is in place but there are “issues” and they have to come back Monday for some further stuff. But it all had to be done, so we carry on with it.
About “calling.” The problem I have with the great declaration of “The Call” is that there is no way to verify it. It is just somebody standing up, as it were, and making some declaration of some unverifiable and unseen sort of alleged spiritual experience. Jesus did miracles, some said (like Nicodemus), which showed that God was with him. The “called” among us do not do that. So, called, schmalled, how do we know what goes on in somebody else’s life? Like as not we may even be seriously in error about what goes on in our own lives. It is easy to note that the “called” do not necessarily agree with each other even on major issues. So if called means called by God, how come God cannot seem to get his act together in what exactly he wants the called to do/proclaim. I am not inclined to blame God, but I think that called-ness has been done to death and is pretty meaningless in the best of circumstances and can be meaningless and disruptive and even heretical and worse in the worst circumstances.
And, as to the issue of whether some are called or all are called and who qualifies for “priesthood” however determined and all that. As you all know I have been reading Bart Ehrman. His specialty as a historian is early church history in the time of the second and third centuries AD. Regardless of what one likes or not about some of his conclusions, his purely historical statements are referenced and documented and have been known for centuries and are nothing new. It is sad that early church history has been so ignored and misrepresented by so many for their own purposes, but that is another issue. Anyhow, this issue of the specialness of certain called for specific functions (and authority) in the church, or lack of all that, was played out in that time period with the development of what he is calling the proto-orthodox and is a treasure mine of information on this issue. I highly recommend that one try to listen to both sides of the various arguments, and listen to what people are saying about the conflicts in thinking between Paul and his detractors which formed an early picture of the debates which we still see in law/grace and in ecclesiology and in this issue of who does what in the church.
Personal statement: I “relate” to Paul in what he said in those NT canonical writings which the academics and historians agree were actually written by Paul. And when such disparate people as Ehrman and Wright say basically the same thing when speaking as early church historians, I believe them until proved otherwise. And it “ain’t” what you hear in church on Sunday morning at evangelical central. Just saying.
Lydia wrote:
Schatz’s work is meticulously researched and well thought out. In a nutshell she soundly refutes the doctrine of Patriarchy and argues cogently that the Bible advocates no such thing. With regard to the shabby treatment Graham-Lotz has received at the hands of men who can’t seem to figure out what’s descriptive and what’s prescriptive out of Holy Writ, it reminded me of the Haredi (ultra orthodox) Jews in Israel who smashed bus windows because the State won’t follow their rules of gender segregation.
For all their alleged smarts and erudition, the guys at the Evangelical Theological Society haven’t the slightest inkling they’re on the wrong side of history and that within a generation (if that long) their ideology will be as dead as a door nail.
@ Mark:
Jill Briscoe was a chapel speaker when I was a student at Wheaton in the late ’90s. Not only was she a speaker but she was one of the few speakers who was given a “lecture series” of three chapel addresses in a row, an honor given to only two speakers a year. I still remember what she spoke on, “I have a hunch, God wants your lunch.” It was excellent, and in my New Testament class immediately following chapel, my professor Norm Erickson said, “How many people have theology that says women can’t preach? Don’t raise your hands. I just want you to admit deep down in your heart, Ms Briscoe just proved your theology is wrong.” Amen to that.
Nancy wrote:
Actually, I think it is more than sad. It is malpractice. Using scripture to control people by teaching it out of its historical context makes it say something it never intended. Right down to using it to teach a 3 year old to forgive her “Christian” molester. Talk about taking a teaching out of its context.
@ zooey111:
“EVERYONE has a direct calling of God to do something. Everyone.”
+++++++
mmmmmm…. i’m kind of sick of that word. called, a calling. if christisns could just get over themselves, stop taking themselves so seriously.
@ elastigirl:
called / calling…. i think it breeds naval-gazing introspective indecision.
“what is my calling? i don’t know, i don’t know. should i do this? should I do that? if i do this, i might miss my calling. but then if i do that, i might miss it, as well. what about the other? and why am i not aware about the other? maybe i should just sit tight and wait for the other. maybe the other is my calling. i can’t miss my calling.”
elastigirl wrote:
Like Total Depravity bred Puritan navel-gazing sin-sniffing.
This has a name: ANALYSIS PARALYSIS.
“But on the other other other hand…”
“But on the other other other other hand…”
“But on the other other other other other hand…”
“But on the other other other other other other hand…”
“But on the other other other other other other other hand…”
“But on the other other other other other other other other hand…”
“But on the other other other other other other other other other hand…”
Until you long for someone to tell you exactly what to do, exactly what to think, Just To Make The Thrashing Stop.
Type example: Senator John F “When I Served in VIETNAM…” Kerry, 2004 US Presidential campaign. Only he called it “Nuance” instead of “Analysis Paralysis”.
Gram3 wrote:
Does not equal:
Handwritten syntax: =/=
VB/SQL syntax:
C syntax: !=
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
P.S. VB/SQL syntax is “less than” followed by “greater than”. HTML reads it as an empty tag, and I don’t remember the “non-breaking” codes offhand.
The Call? – By God? – To be a pastor? – Hmmm?
If this is truth???
Seems God has a sense of humor. 😉
Seems some pastors God Called – Baptize infants.
And some pastors God Called – Baptize believers.
Seems some pastors God Called – Teach Continuationism.
…..Speaking in tongues, healing, casting out demons, gifts of the Spirit, are for today.
And some pastors God Called – Teach Cessationism.
…..The gifts of the Holy Spirit, tongues, healing, have ceased, are NOT for today.
Seems some pastors God Called – Are Reformed.
And some pastors God Called – Are Charismatic.
And some pastors God Called – Are Pentalcostal.
And some pastors God Called – Are Patriarchal, spanking children, spanking wives
And some pastors God Called – Are Orthodox, with beards, and lots of incense.
And some pastors God Called – Are Emergent. – Are they still around?
Seems some pastors God Called – Follow Calvin.
And some pastors God Called – Follow Arminius.
And some pastors God Called – Follow Luther.
Is God confused??? – Or sumptin???
What’s a poor little sheeple to do?
Which pastor has “The Call?” The True Call?
And, In the Bible…
I can NOT find one of His Disciples who said they were “Called”
To be a pastor… To be a leader… To be called reverend…
Nope – I do NOT have a lot of trust in todays pastors…
Who say they are Called by God….
Seems, in the Bible, the only “ONE” referred to as, or with the “Title,”
Shepherd… and Leader… And Reverend… Is….
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
The Call? – By God? – To be a pastor? – Hmmm?
If this is truth???
Seems God does have a sense of humor. 😉
Because, some pastors God Called – Are now Atheists. Oy Vey!!!
A little warning – When you’re looking for a place to fellowship…
You NOW have to ask the – pastor/leader/reverend – If they actually believe in God.
No kidding – There are, Paid, Professional, Pastors, in Pulpits, Preaching, to People, in Pews.
Who do NOT believe if God. – You can’t make this stuff up… 😉
———–
The Clergy Project
http://www.clergyproject.org/
The Clergy Project is a confidential online community for **active** and former **clergy** who do not hold supernatural beliefs. The Clergy Project launched on March 21st, 2011.
Currently, the community’s 500 plus members use it to network and discuss what it’s like being an **unbelieving leader** in a religious community. The Clergy Project’s goal is to support members as they move beyond faith. Members freely discuss issues related to their transition from believer to unbeliever…
Take heed least any man deceive you…
Here is another site…
Preachers Who Don’t Believe in God
http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/episode/2012/06/21/preachers-who-dont-believe-in-god-2/
Losing faith in God is common, but what happens when your paycheque depends on your belief? A study from Tufts University tells the story of several pastors who no longer believe. **Some are still working in churches,** **preaching sermons,** and counseling the faithful. They say they do not have the skills for a new job and, in some cases, are unable to confide even in their families for fear of what their newfound disbelief may do.
.
And – If anyone is interested – Here is the PDF – From…
Tufts University – Preachers Who Are Not Believers
http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP08122150.pdf
You can’t make this stuff up… 😉
Preachers Who Are Not Believers… Oy Vey!!!
Nope – I do NOT have a lot of trust in todays pastors…
Who say they are Called by God….
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall “hear My voice; “
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16
If not now? – When?
One Voice – One Fold – One Shepherd – One Leader
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
This was signed by men and women of the American armed forces:
An Open Letter To Fox News About ‘Boobs On The Ground’
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/an-open-letter-to-fox-news
The end of it reads:
“We issue an apology on your [Mr. Bolling and Mr. Gutfeld] behalf to Major Al Mansouri knowing that anything your producers force you to say will be contrived and insincere. Major, we’re sincerely sorry for the rudeness; clearly, these boys don’t take your service seriously, but we and the rest of the American public do.”
Gavin White wrote:
Said in a voice deeper and raspier than mine – “just when you thought you were out…they pull you back in”
I think it’s unwise to hold Jimmy Carter up as an example in the fight for women equality
he is extremely supportive of regimes that unapologetically suppress and enslave women by law, while denigrating the one democracy in the middle east that gives them freedom.
President Carter, if you support women, go all the way. Otherwise please stop talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Otherwise he needs to, I meant to type.
@ Haitch:
Hi Haitch
Not quite. I went looking….. Seek and ye shall find?..
Best wishes
Gavin
dee wrote:
“Amen!” says the Arminian/Wesleyan/Methodist preacher lady! 🙂
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Nah, he just thinks any woman who would dare to preach has got to obviously be “perverse” sexually. Whatever. In the meantime, I’m as hetero as they come, and have been celibate for 15 years now, since my husband passed away.
Darcyjo wrote:
If truth be told, I am far closer to your way of thinking.
@ Darcyjo:
Great comment.
Lydia wrote:
Many orthodox SBC men who follow the party line on women preachers wouldn’t like to admit they enjoy listening to Beth Moore. I believe she is a gifted preacher, even though she calls herself a bible teacher. I understand men are in the audience during her bible study sessions.
Regarding WA Criswell, an honorable man I believe made some mistakes the last 25 years of his life, there is a story Criswell recounts in his book, “Standing on the Promises of God.” When he was a young preacher, WA Criswell asked a woman to pray in front of congregation. The woman, a Baptist traditionalist, refused because it was contrary to her understanding of the controversial Scripture we are discussing. Even though Mr. Criswell was a staunch conservative, he was not as doctrinaire as some would assume. Certainly he was a lot more open than Baptist Faith and Message 2000 creedalists.
On a lighter note:
http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/150048-driscoll-announces-beth-moore-as-junior-teaching-pastor-at-mars-hill.html
elastigirl wrote:
If you notice, I said everyone. (Yes, this means that non-Christians are called too. And atheists are called).
I understand your discomfort; the word has been used as a tool to abuse others, which is dead wrong.(It is one thing that NOBODY is called to do: abuse. That’s just a big ego, a loud mouth & a small brain talking).
But I was serious. Maybe we need to take back “vocation” from our Catholic brethren; its just the Latin for “calling” but its not been so twisted).
My mother was called to be a schoolteacher; no angelic visitations, no voices from on high; just the strong & steady knowledge that she was meant to be a teacher, & a teacher she would be–and was. (When the Depression wiped out the money she had earned to pay her way, she dropped out and spent 2 years picking apples, cherries, & peaches for local farmers. She worked the non-harvest times of the year sorting dried beans at the local canning factory. And then she went back to college again.
I had a doctor who was called to be a doctor. He could explain things in such a way that the ordianary person would understand them, & he made house calls right up to the day he retired due to failing health.
And here I sit, knowing that my first piece of work, come morning, is that thrice blasted catbox. (I can smell it from here; that’s how I know when it needs work). And yes, I am called to this. (The purring furry kids are the joy of it; something has to be the hard part).
You have a calling too–you just don’t know it. There is something you are good at, something you can do, as they say, “in your sleep”, & do it right. That skill is your calling.
Don’t use the word, if it troubles you, but don’t lose sight of the idea that we all have skills, gifts, & leanings. Each of them is provided for our easier fulfillment of God’s call. (He knows what we are going to do, of course. We are not predestined, though; some of us run a fast as we can in the opposite direction. That is free will–and aren’t you glad we have it? But we are provided for, just the same. In case, you see, there is another cat at the shelter. Not the wee one with the impishness & silliness of a kitten, even at 2 years (now 4!!). A black one with a silly little white “string bikini” flash of white in place of the usual “locket”; the one someone threw out of moving car after beating her with a coat hanger. Kind of a klutz, & not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but she shows up at my side 10, 20, even 30 times a day, demanding that I tell her she’s a good cat, & I love her, & she is staying forever. Even when she unplugs the television–again–in the middle of my favorite program…..
I am called. So are we all.
To do the simple things….the mundane. And the unpleasant, the sad, the messy. Nothing to get your name on the national news with Scott Pelley or David Muir. Just called. By the One Who knew you when you were still being knit together in your mother’s womb.
zooey111 wrote:
Although I beg to replace the word “twisted” with “restricted”, I think you’re really onto something there, zooey. It would all need to be a part of a cultural change within christian circles whereby we began to understand that the whole earth is the Lord’s and that The_Lord’s_Work does not just happen In_Church.
Moreover, there’s been at least a small trend lately for authors to state their confidence in “the local church” as being the hope of the world. IIRC, for instance, one or both of Bill Hybels and Rick Warren has said this – somebody please correct me if I’m wrong. I know what they mean by this, I think, and I’m sure they have a point. But there are things that aren’t easily addressed within the local church; healthcare and sanitation, literacy problems, structural unemployment and economic exclusion, and many other widespread problems related to poverty and inequality for a start. Many of these are not just local but regional, national or global. Many Christians are well-placed to play a part in addressing them, but are not always well-served in doing so by their local churches.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
aaaaaaand we have a missing (/i) hashtag…
@ zooey111:
Perhaps another way to look at it is to think of it as using the gifts God has given us, since, as you have explained, those gifts were given to make our calling or vocation not only very doable, but down right enjoyable and completely fulfilling. So we can say near the end of our brief lives, “I have run the course and finished the race.”
The problem with some Christian circles is that they have so genderdized and legalized what are acceptable and non-acceptable ‘callings’ that they pressure people to bury their gifts or talents resulting in looking upon God as a hard task master.
When I was getting my feet wet in the blogging world, I wrote a post about this, to a point. I hadn’t gotten into the affects of the gender gospel yet, but was only dabbling in discussions on women navigating their way through the choppy waters of male dominated theology to find out who God really is, as opposed to what some men have tried to make Him into.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2008/04/wrong-view-of-god.html
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Along these lines the Vatican recently hosted the “Pontifical Academy Workshop on Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility”. The workshop papers are available at: http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/publications/extraseries/sustainable.html
The workshop is reviewed and given a very positive editorial in the 19 Sep 2014 issue of Science. The review concludes “Pope Francis displayed deep concern over our relationship with nature and raised the profile of the issues that stem from it. It can only be hoped that such moral leadership will mobilize people to act upon them.”
Would that our evangelical leadership showed such concern instead of denigrating science.
@ Albuquerque Blue:
Thanks for the link – I’ll take a look when I get chance. I do appreciate that not all atheists are the same and that some like a rational argument rather than the exchanging pot shots type of discussion on some forums!
It’s similar to that ghastly word ‘complementarian’, which covers a range of views, not least on the different sides of the Pond.
oldJohnJ wrote:
Once more, Creation Care vs It’s All Gonna Burn.
“We have the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Vatican Observatory;
they have the Kentucky Creation Museum and Ark Experience.”
Daisy wrote:
Though regarding the phrase itself, it IS an obvious pun. Though more appropriate to schoolyard “See How Clever I Am?” a la Beavis & Butthead than a major news network.
(But then, Jerry “Buck” Jenkins’ Christianese Fiction best-sellers are full of “See How Clever I Am?” character names and contrived situations that maybe it’s a Born-Again thing…)
Ken wrote:
On this side of the pond, it was coined by the Hierarchalists as a euphemism to obscure their patriarchal and male-supremacy doctrine. It is pure deception meant to lure in people of both sexes who believe that males and females are complementary and not identical. Of course, the Hierarchalists use the scare tactic of saying that if one does not agree with their view that therefore one must necessarily believe that the sexes are indistinct or that one has abandoned or rebelled against the authority of Scripture or God’s good design.
This rank deception by “conservatives” is what has finally caused me to abandon the organized church. I am conservative theologically, and one cannot be conservative and also distort and lie about what is actually in the text in order to profit from well-meaning Christians who trust the propagandists.
However, I do expect that the “complementarians” will change and adapt (nuance) their teaching so that their profit and influence is maximized. I expect that it will be incremental and stealthy. Am I untrusting? You betcha. Because I have trusted them and thought the best and had my eyes forcibly opened to what they are really about.
@ zooey111:
Truthfully, while i love the idea of being called to a vocation, i think there are relatively few people in this world who both have the clear sense of vocation that you describe *and* the ability (financial or otherwise) to make it a reality. Even then, circumstances can alter, so that a person ends up having to leave the vocation/type of job for which they have the most gifts and talents, abd find other kinds of employment.
Bedrock: my sense is that vocation/calling are really about *who we are,* as opposed to what we do. To give you an example, some of us (like me) are really inclined toward the arts and related fields wher actual jobs are very thin on the ground and pay poorly. In my case, i don’t really have a lot of skills that would translate into a more lucrative field (one that pays a living wage), though God knows, i tried to find something else that i could do. I have used more of my education and knowledge as a minimum-wage bookstore clerk than at any other job, but livjng on minimum wage is extremely difgicult. I have a hunch that you (and everyone else here) know or have met people whose day job exists to pay bills and put foid on the table, but whose hearts are elsewher – in music, theater, the vudual arts, writing, etc. Those inclinations can/are often a person’s true calling – but they cant make a living on them. (Some can, but it is a hard life and vety often hand to mouth, not knowing when the nect check is coming or even if there will be one.)
Another reality is that today, few people are in lifelong careers. I also sincerely believe that a person’s “calling” can and does change at different stages of their life, and i’m sure Dee could tell you about that, based on her own experience. I’ve seen it happen in the lives of people close to me.
@ numo:
Apologies for the many typos!
@ Gram3:
Yep.
Not to mention that some of them don’t approve of women who wear their hair in a pixie cut and prefer jeans and t-shirts to heels and ruffly blouses. (I was reprimanded for not dresding “girly” enough, back in the day…)
@ numo: i’m willing to bet that these people never saw any movies starring Audrey Hepburn, Jean Seber (et. al.). 😉
oldJohnJ wrote:
If you look here
http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/home
And here
Worldea.org
you will see that evangelicals do address various social issues.
@ numo:
Seberg.
Worldea.org should be this http://www.worldea.org/post/initiatives
numo wrote:
Indeed!
Gavin White wrote:
And this one . . .
http://agapewebsite.org/get-involved/
Gavin White wrote:
Even the SBC down here in Georgia, USA addresses local social issues. Many of the worldwide social problems have their roots in science and technology issues. The instance of the SBC and other conservative groups to use the Bible to deny science greatly hampers any input on these large scale problems. As indicated by the SCIENCE article I believe the moral input of Christian organizations would be welcomed if they chose to provide it.
numo wrote:
I am as “girly” as it gets, although it is true that there is for Audrey Hepburn inside one leg of my jeans.
And I could teach any of Dottie Patterson, Ph.D.’s classes. With some real Economics and Finance added to the Home Economics. But that would make John (Piper, not Owen), Owen (not John) and Wayne (not John) and Bruce (not Wayne) feel unmasculine. So therefore I’m not feminine. Thankfully, Gramp3 is not as easily deflated. 😉
oldJohnJ wrote:
IMO the greater problem in the underdeveloped world is the lack of good government and secure property rights and impartial justice in all the ways those play out. Of course bad government manifests in different ways, but all the technology or science in the world will be hindered in improving the living conditions of the everyday person unless their persons and property are secure.
In addition, at least some NGO efforts are wasted in the sense of being non-sustainable. The example I was given by an NGO worker was the installation of gleaming new Western-style toilets which were promptly vandalized and so rendered worse than useless because they became a means of spreading disease. A better and less-expensive approach would not play as well in the solicitation brochures to Westerners, however.
Gram3 wrote:
I don’t disagree with this. However, the Vatican workshop I mentioned was on sustainability. Basically we, our planet’s inhabitants, are using natural resources and energy at unsustainable rates. This is very much a long term and technologically based problem thus very different than the day to day survival problems faced by a large fraction of the planet’s population.
oldJohnJ wrote:
I guess whenever I see a word like “sustainable” I start to think about what it might mean and to think about what the (usually economic) interests might be. Also, I’m not convinced that the Vatican is disinterested, considering its portfolio.
It’s just that I think in terms of economics more than science and technology. For instance, something like GMO crops seems to bring out interest groups which are on opposite sides of the issue but which both appeal to “science” and “sustainability.” Likewise the old controversy about DDT and malaria tradeoffs. I think about economics and economic interests, so how should I think about the science when both sides appeal to “science.”
By nature I’m Malthusian, so it’s not that I am unconcerned about sustainability. And I do realize that technology is the main reason that our current population is currently enjoying the standard of living it does. But I do know that economic interests will steal the benefits of technology if they can. Human nature being what it is.
Gram3 wrote:
Much agreement here Gram3. I’m no Luddite by any stretch, but I do think that science and technology are way overrated in their ability to ‘solve’ the world’s problems. You do make a good point about whose interests they really serve and that hasn’t changed since the days when the first ruling elites saw what more technologically efficient forms of agriculture could do for them.
Both Orwell and Huxley saw frightening and disparate forms of future dystopia but it took David Mitchell in his book Cloud Atlas to combine the best (the word ‘best’ serves only as a euphemism here) of both dark ages into a coming dark age of global corpocracy which demands unanimity throughout.
@ Jeannette Altes:
Possibly coming from this at different angles. I’m not trying to say everything in the West is OK, but it being harder to get up the corporate ladder if you are female is not oppression. Being treated as a sex object and abused accordingly would imo be nothing but moral wickedness, and undoubtedly that happens in the West as elsewhere. You could count that as a kind of oppression – certainly injustice. I have a wife and two daughters, so it is not as though the subject is merely academic.
I try not to take myself too seriously or have a bee in my bonnet, though on this subject maybe I have. All of us in the West are to a greater or lesser extent privileged, and moaning about what a hard time we have, for both men and women, more often than not in my book sounds like being spoilt. You don’t have to agree with me, but I’m afraid that is what comes across sometimes from Western feminists.
I’ve gone several years without a pay rise, leading to a slow erosion of my standard of living. Sad isn’t it … It is a bit annoying, balancing the budget gets harder, but I have to remind myself how much better off I am than so many people, which helps stop moaning about how hard done by I might feel. It really is very easy to get swept along in the general discontentment of Western society, which is usually just covetousness pretending to have a sense of grievence.
Finally, I’ve experienced having a head of State who was female (the Queen) and a female head of govt (Mrs Thatcher), and the country I am currently residing in has a female chancellor. The irony being the politicians both coming from the conservative side of the political fence!
I’ll take a look at your links, though I frequently get refused admission as spam so it might take a while!
Gram3 wrote:
You wear JEANS !! 🙂
I liked the rest of this post. You may not like it, but you and I share a similar sense of humo(u)r!
@ OldJohnJ:
One of the odd things I’ve noticed is that some of the New Calvinists and their organisations actually promote theistic evolution ( Tim Keller), cultural relevance (Mark Driscoll), theological flexibility (John Piper). So you would think that there was scope for discussion and participation with “Science”.
( Note: I sent Dee details of a book on the New Calvinists which exposes the shortcomings of their beliefs and argues that they are not Calvinists at all. Well worth getting and there is a US publishing arm.)
@ Ken:
It is most emphatically not “moaning” – it is a statement of fact.
Ken, I kind of hate to say this, but you just don’t “get” what Jeanette (and the rest of us) have bern trying to tell you. If you were to wake up tomorrow and, say, find that you are a woman of color, or, for that matter, a man of color, the shoe would be on the other foot.
Ken wrote:
Why would I not like that? I like you and your thoughtful responses, though we disagree on the gender issue, at least to some extent. I hope to persuade you to think about the Bible translation issue from a different perspective. 😉
@ Ken:
You are absolutely right that we in the West are over-privileged with respect to the rest of the world by just about every metric. But that is beside the point of the women here. Women should not be viewed as objects to be used by other persons. Men should not be viewed as objects to be used by other persons. We are all people to be valued because we are all created in God’s image equally though not identically.
One good reason for Christians in the West to insist on abolishing hierarchy, particularly among Christians, is that it is a great witness to others of the redeeming and reconciling power of Christ and the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit to make one new person out of two former enemies. I don’t think that anyone on either side of the issue denies that there is relational conflict between the sexes.
If we maintain gender hierarchy, what is the Good News to a woman in the non-West who is effectively chattel? Is it Jesus died for you so that you can submit better and maybe your owner will be nicer to you? We already tried that in the American South, and we are still feeling the pain of that sin.
It is a sin for one of God’s images to assert the God-given authority to be higher than another of God’s images. And it is very Good News that Jesus has made reconciliation possible in him.
Gram3 wrote:
The ‘not identically’ here is precisely what I have in mind with the word complementarian. The differences complement each other. It’s a pity this is so often only considered in terms of authority or strict delineation of roles. I wish Christians could relax about this a bit more whilst still trying to get at what the bible says we should do or how we should think of ourselves.
My ‘you might not like this’ comment above was purely tongue-in-cheek, something I suppose difficult to convey in print! My humour has got me into trouble more than once with Christians I mix with who take something seriously that wasn’t meant to be.
As regards the perspective angle, numo, I’ll have one more go to see if you get where I am coming from. As you know since 2008 financial crisis European and other countries have been following a course of ‘austerity’. In some countries this is causing a considerable amount of hardship. I recently read a tome on Britain from 1945 to 1951, ‘Austerity Britain’. Those were days of real austerity, chronic shortage of almost everything, country effectively bankrupt, some towns 80% destroyed by bombing etc etc. Greater material hardship than in the war itself. In comparison, what most people consider ‘austerity’ today would have been relative luxury back then, and it behoves us to keep a sense of proportion.
Similary with women in the West, whatever injustice still suffered, this is not comparable with the goods and chattels mentality of large swathes of the earth or how things were even in the relatively recent past. It might also be that Europe is culturally different from the States on this issue.
@ Ken:
You still don’t get it. I give up.
@ Ken:
Ken, I believe you are committing the fallacy of relative privation. It also almost sounds like you are saying that since western women aren’t suffering as awfully as they did in the past or do now in some areas of the world that it’s okay that they experience the problems that they do. I don’t think that’s what you’re trying to say, but that’s how it is coming out. Western societies espouse equality in theory, but fail it in practice. The fact that other societies suck does not excuse ours from not sucking.
Ken wrote:
I sympathise, Ken. My humour usually goes down without trouble here, but it certainly didn’t in the Glasgow church group I was exp-shunned from.
@ Albuquerque Blue:
I think you have got what I am trying to communicate. I’m not saying injustice should be ignored in one country because it is worse in another. It’s not from an unwillingness to listen or consider other viewpoints, but I just don’t see a kind of universal oppression of women in the West (meaning for me, Europe). The word is far too strong.
It may be because I feel we can easily belittle the suffering going on elsewhere if we complain too much about our lot.
Perhaps I had better stop digging so the hole doesn’t get deeper!
@ Ken:
Well Ken, I think you’re minimizing oppression because it’s not some nebulous “universal” oppression. Why do you think being concerned about one sort of oppression detracts from others? We can care about more then one thing at a time, and to be honest a lot of us can make a difference in our own countries, at least in the West (USA for me). Much more then we can effect in say Somalia and their tradition of Female Genital Mutilation. So I can care and support suffering people in the third world, and still fight for rights of my fellow citizens here in the first world. I can donate to my local food pantry and also give chickens and feed to farmers in Africa. The one doesn’t take away from the other.
I definitely don’t feel you are being malicious, but you are minimizing the suffering of women because they don’t have it as bad as some others.
Ken wrote:
Then your admonitions and indignation should be directed at the so-called “complementarians” who hijacked a perfectly good word and freighted it with a necessary meaning which it did not have.
They use the accusation against non-hierarchalists that we want to eliminate or deny the differences between the sexes. This is slander against those who are not hierarchical and pre-emptive spiritual blackmail perpetrated against those who might consider that the sexes are not related according to a hierarchy.
As for oppression of women not occurring in the West, consider the situation only within the “complementarian” sphere. Would you consider it oppressive if someone pretending to be an officer of the law arrested you without a proper warrant? I think you would feel oppressed regardless of whether the vast majority of persons who were situated similarly to yourself went merrily on their way in freedom. I expect that you would be outraged at the injustice, and rightly so.
That is what is happening to women in conservative “complementarian” culture. Women are considered second in priority to men. Women are told that God created them to be subordinate to men as part of his good design. Women are considered more easily deceived than men. Women are suspected of desiring at every instance to take over and rule men. Women are denied the opportunity to object to false teaching in the church or even to disagree with male teachers.
For all of this, the self-described protectors of the authority of scripture twist it and abuse it while preening about their piety and fidelity. They cannot defend their view using their own methodology, so they simply ignore it and make up their own logic.
In short, and returning to the arrest metaphor above, women are put under arrest without warrant, and placed in confinement, having been judged guilty only of the offense of having been born female.
If you are concerned with justice and with fidelity to the actual words of the text rather than being faithful to the traditions of power-hungry and greedy people, then you should not tolerate this outrage. I think it is outrageous, and I don’t understand why you cannot see this simple point.
You strike me as a reasonable person who has a professional interest in the use of language. Would you consider it responsible, as a translator, to insert your own words into a translation that are contrary to the meaning of the source text? People trust you to translate the text, for example a contract, faithfully. I don’t think you would insert your own thouoghts, and I think that what these “complementarians” are doing in malpractice of their profession and an abuse of the trust which people place in them.
@ Gram3:
Building on what you’ve said (in a more general way), I think it is very hard to understand what others endure unless/until confronted with specific examples of injustice and the pain and harm caused to the people who have to endure them.
Ken, have you never had anyone close to you who told you about ongoing workplace problems – be it not getting paid as much as men doing the same work, or sexual harrassment, or being brushed off or treated as invisible, simply due to their being women. Because it’s an ongoing reality for an awful lot of women in the West, and it hurts. Being told that you are “less than” (because of gender or ethnicity or religion or skin color or sexual orientation or… the list is quite long) is a painful and humiliating experience. I’ve had it happen; am sure *every* woman who reads/posts here has, too. We’ve all had to learn to live with it.
So, have you ever been belittled (by remarks or actions, or at yiur job) simply for being *male*?
[crickets]
I thought not. Men can and do bully and belittle other men by making them feel inferior – like gay men, or, even worse, *women.* Which is exactly what M. Driscoll has done repeatedly, as William Wallace II, in his onstage persona, in Facebook posts like the one asking for examples of the most effeminate anatomically male worship, leaders people had known, which got many enthusiastic responses.
Think about that, and then flip it over to “Women go through this a lot.” (For many, it is evety waking moment of their lives.)
*Then* come back and tell us that we are wrong to soeak out, to give voice to what we and others experience.
But please, let it become personal for you – listen to other peoples’ true life stories. Then you’llmbe on the road to understanding.
Or, as the song says, “Walk a mile in my shoes.” (As Jesus did.)
Btw, Numo, Gram3 and other ladies, I am a white hetero American male. Pretty much by default my life is on easy mode (video game ref), so if I’m missing something, or mansplaining please forgive me and let me know. Haven’t always been aware of the travails of others, but I certainly try to make an effort now.
@ Albuquerque Blue: you, mansplainin’?! Heehee, because you’re very sympathetic. But i promise to speak up if necessary.
Like the game ref, too. 😉
Ken wrote:
Wow. Okay. First – harder to get up the corporate ladder. How about even being allowed on the corporate ladder. I just finished talking to my mechanic (and you want to talk about an area where the sexism can be blatant and painful…) and My car need $2100 worth of work and I only have $800 of credit to work with. I have no financial margin. I have lived for 6 years in a state of being one paycheck away from disaster. Corporate ladder? I’d just like to make a living wage. There aren’t that many of us in the ‘corporate’ setting. Spend some time reading my blog and tell me about oppression. It is insulting to me, honestly, for you to suggest my experiences are not oppressive because they do not meet your predetermined criteria – especially when you are assuming what my experiences are. Okay – deep breath.
Undoubtedly being treated like a sex object happens in the West….indeed. Did you read the post I suggested? I spent a good portion of my childhood being treated as a sex object.
Let me ask a few questions.
When you go out of your house alone, do you routinely make yourself aware of the people in your vicinity – especially men – so you can avoid being attacked? Does it even cross your mind, when you go to the store, that you need to be aware and prepared? Women are routinely instructed to pay attention and park under lights and be aware of what is around them to keep themselves safe from assault. If things were ‘equal’ and ‘good’ and as rosy as you seem to paint it, this would not even be necessary. But I assure you, every time I go out of my house, I am aware of everyone around me. And women are most certainly viewed as sex objects in this country. It may not be as out in the open blatant as it is in some third world countries, but it is most certainly a pervasive undercurrent in our society. I really don’t know how to explain it in a way that makes sense to you. Perhaps Numo is right and you will have to talk to someone who has personal stories – walk in their shoes.
You’ve been a valued part of the commenter community here for a long time and I do not think your intent is to be flip and callous toward the pain of your sisters. But that is how your words are coming across.
@ Albuquerque Blue:
No need to mansplain. The fact is that I live a very privileged life, even by US standards. So, I get Ken’s point about not whining and agree with that part of his post. I would draw a distinction between whining and protesting injustice.
I have not suffered in any way for being female except in the regard women receive in churches I have been in. I have female and male children, so my interest is in equity for all and no special preferences, whether formal or informal, for either sex.
I have no idea of the struggles that men face, and I do know that there are gender preferences which work against men. I’ve seen the mandates, and they are wrong and ultimately counter-productive IMO from an economic POV. I have been very blessed to have an amazing father and husband who have made my privileged life possible. I love men, especially the ways they are different from me! I don’t love what some men and women teach and do.
Gram, numo and Jeanneate –
Stepping back a bit from the detail, this subject obviously raises emotions with you that it doesn’t with me. Different backgrounds, perhaps?
I don’t have the same problem with hierarchy that you do. You can believe in equality of status but not function, for example, government and governed. But I’m sure we would all agree on being against authoritarianism, lording over over people, abuse of authority.
I can very much relate to anyone who feels they have been walked over – I have experienced this both in the world and in the church, where the latter was aping the former in its attitudes. If not second class, treated as though I’m little more than a peasant in the pecking order, or not worth listening to by people enjoying their little fiefdom of power. Petty tyrants. Power tends to corrupt … It has taken me a long time to wise up to just how manipulative and selfish otherwise seemingly decent people can be.
I’m sorry if my attempt to argue we in the West need to get some perspective on our hassles has been misunderstood to mean we should keep quiet about injustice or unfairness. I don’t think that at all. We live in a fallen world, and “life is unfair” to quote something my father has often said, having seen more than his fair share of unfairness. To the extent we can change this, we should, but the Kingdom is still future.
I think it true to say that whole complementarian thing doesn’t raise hackles on this side of the Pond to the extent it does in the States. Evangelicals in the States (to me) more often than not seen to gravitate to extremes on issues like this. An extreme patriarchy has in turn produced an extreme egalitarianism as a reaction.
There is always a problem in discussing this kind of issue in making our own experience the norm. It is bound to affect how we view things, but can skew our perspective in the sense of not knowing how the other half live. As a generality, I have not seen women being treated as second class citizens, whether in the world or the church. I’ve seen plenty of unfairness, but this is not gender-based, gender not determining who is the manipulator nor the recipient of manipulation.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
That’s very kind of you to say so, all the more as you disagree with what I am saying some of the time.
The last thing I would want to do is make a bad situation worse for anyone, but in talking in generalities here I suppose it is inevitable that I will inadvertantly tread on someone’s toes at some point.
Dear @ Ken,
Pardon me for barging in. Your insistence on comparing the injustices suffered by women in the West with those in the developing world, reminds me of something that C.S. Lewis wrote: “Nothing is big or small, except by comparison.”
As you say, maintaining a sense of perspective regarding our sufferings is an important defence against griping and moaning. But if no one in present company is griping, but simply relating their experiences for everyone to learn from, then what really is the point of making the comparison? What purpose does it serve? And what effect can it have, to remind us that most women “here” have it better than most women “there”? The main effect will probably be to make our friends feel that they aren’t being listened to.
The indignities that most women endure in the developed world are indeed different from those endured elsewhere, but I think it’s only a difference of degree. I fear that the attitude and motivations behind misogyny and chauvinism are much the same all around the world.
The heartache and humiliation that women go through in the West might not be very obvious to men, such as you and me. That means it’s all the more important for us to listen to their stories. When numo and Jeannette, and others here at TWW, tell us that their experiences as women have been oppressive, I think that you and I would be well-advised to take their word for it. Really, what basis do we have for telling them they’re wrong?
Ken wrote:
But of course you don’t have a problem with a hierarchy where you are the one who is privileged. I don’t have a problem with a system where I’m privileged either. The question that should concern us is whether a given system is just and, if one is a conservative Evangelical, whether a given system is prescribed by Scripture. If one claims to be a conservative Evangelical, one cannot with integrity just make stuff up and call it Biblical. I’m not saying you lack integrity, but I am saying that the ones who profit off of this system lack integrity. I believe that you trust them just like I trusted them.
Authority structures and hierarchy in the workplace or military or government/governed are not comparable to authority structure and hierarchy between males and females. The former *is* functional. The latter is *ontological*.
A “role” that is assigned simply and only because of gender has nothing to do with function and everything to do with being. I hope you realize that this is a “complementarian” talking point that is meant to obscure the issue like the rest of their talking points and even the word “complementarian” itself. Please think about the implications of this. This entire system is man-made. It is a tradition of men which nullifies the Scriptures, as the Lord said about the Pharisees who considered themselves the keepers of the Kingdom.
In the West, I can participate via voting in the government or even by seeking office regardless of my sex thereby changing my status. Same in industry. If I’m a laborer, I am not restricted from management simply because of and only because of my sex. If I am a child under my parents’ authority, I can mature and become my own authority.
If I am born female, however, I cannot be in authority over a male in the home or in the church. Period. No evidence need be given. I am guilty of lacking an X chromosome. I am easily deceived, so not trustworthy. I have the heart of rebellion against authority.
Can you say with any honesty that you would feel welcome anyplace that views you that way or that restricts you simply because you are a male?
Do you desire to protect the system or to protect the authority of Scripture?
Gram3 wrote:
Very much the latter – assuming scripture needs to be protected. But it’s a very good question.
If scripture itself limits a role of function, and not just the 1 Tim verses, then I don’t see this as belittling anyone. We are all under the word of God. Any service in the church is not a right, ultimately God authorises it. Not everyone can be an apostle or prophet or teacher or healer or … whatever. James evem discourages us from wanting to be teachers, though not for reasons of protecting a system or hierarchy! This, incidentally, undercuts any man who thinks he can pastor or teach or ‘lead’ just because he is a man or that there is some intrinsic superiority men have.
I’m afraid this is an area in church life where because the scripture says something we would rather it didn’t, it is ditched. Not saying you do this I hasten to add, but too many do, having itching ears. In the past I regarded this a test of whether someone really believed the bible, not in the sense they had to agree with how I understood it, but whether they took it seriously or not. It can be extremely disillusioning.
Serving Kids: my main aim in going on (and on!) about perspective is because I’ve been there with the self-pity. This is terribly destructive both personally and in the church, and very difficult to fight off. I don’t spend all day thinking about it, but occasionally I have needed reminding that the world does not revolve around me, and there have been one or two times when I have been strongly convicted of this. It can actually be a very positive and helpful thing.
Ken wrote:
I don’t think this is about whether the scripture says something we would rather it didn’t. This is a case where one interpretation of scripture flies in the face of the whole, overarching message of the New Testament– that Christ has come bringing the Kingdom of God, which we are all to enter like children (laying down any power or privileged status we have enjoyed), to serve one another. Foundational equality is written into the gospel message. Tradition has largely ignored this in favor of the privileged, but it is true nonetheless.
http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-galatians-328-cannot-mean.html
Ken wrote:
But why do you assume that the ones saying that the actual text of Scripture does not say what the “comps” say it says are the ones who have the itching ears. It is just as possible that those who want to maintain male privilege are the ones who manipulate scripture in order to satisfy their own itching ears.
Why are women always presumed guilty, in this case of being the ones with itching ears, and in other cases by being easily deceived?
I am thoroughly disillusioned with the evangelical church. Because I trusted leaders, and they lied to me about what the actual text of Scripture says. When I finally looked into it for myself, I found out *they*I were the ones who had a low view, even a utilitarian view, of Scripture. Before I discovered their willful deception, I could have and did say much of what you have said. Now, I don’t trust any of these self-anointed “leaders” who dare to change the word of God.
If 1 Timothy 2 is not what you rely upon, then what Scripture do you rely on to support male preeminence or authority over women?
Ken wrote:
But the “comps” are the ones going to the mattresses to protect their buddies and their sinecures. They are utterly unconcerned about whether a male is disqualified by any of the standards set forth in Scripture. The only thing they care about is whether or not one has a Y chromosome. Cover up pedophilia? No problem. Say all manner of misogynistic things, as Driscoll did, and no problem up until the point where he started to embarrass them and endanger their business model.
Certainly, it is not a civil right granted by the state to serve in the Church. However, if, by his blood sacrifice, the Son of God has provided for me and all believing women the full *rights* of sons, as Scripture tells us that he has, then what human has the *right* or authority to deny me the *rights* that the Son purchased for me?
Where is that in the Bible?
Gram3 wrote:
It’s a real pity we cannot meet and talk about this over a cuppa! I think the area of agreement would vastly outweigh the area of disagreement.
If God appoints some of the men in a fellowship to be a teacher or pastor or administrator with a very public profile, but not me, then this is not because I am second class but rather he has something else for me, no less valuable to the functioning of the body. It is not because such men are superior or better either. It’s all down to God’s grace.
Similarly if God through Paul has restricted the teaching ministry of the church for men to men, this is not because women are second class in the kingdom. I don’t know how to say it more strongly than I absolutely don’t believe in second class Christians, and specifically women are not second class.
My experience of those ‘ditching’ 1 Tim is not gender-based, i.e. both men and women have had an attitude of dismissing it because they don’t like it. Conversely, I’ve known women who espouse it who don’t see it as a put down.
At least with you, the bible would be open and the text and what it means discussed. And how it’s been translated! That’s a huge amount in common to start with. I can cope with disagreement, but not indifference.
You seem to have seen this abused by men on a grand scale. I don’t know if you have ever thought of it like this, but all those men who have put women down, ruled and abused them (and their children), been harsh arrogant authoritarians will one stay stand before God, all loving, all knowing, pure holiness and a blazing fire, and give an account, right down to every careless word uttered and wound inflicted. To stand before that holy gaze with no escape and have the books opened. Would you like to be in their shoes when that happens? It might concentrate their minds that serving God cannot involve putting others down, whether men or women.
Some will lose reward, and others I fear will be horrified to find he tells them he never knew them. Sobering isn’t it.
Ken wrote:
The word of God is being abused on a large scale, and most egregiously by those who piously claim to have a high regard for it.
Which side is ditching Paul’s instructions? Before we can make that accusation, we have to first product evidence, using a sound, conservative hermeneutic what Paul’s words meant in the context in which he wrote them. Only then can we determine how to properly apply his words, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to our culture. We cannot clam with integrity to use sound hermeneutic principles if we just jump to 1 Tim. 2:12 and proclaim “mission accomplished.”
It is not a conservative stance to say, “It means what it plainly says.” That is simplistic and designed to stop thought and conversation on this issue. As I’ve said before, if 2:12 means what it plainly says, then 2:15 means what it plainly says, namely women will be saved by bearing children. Do you believe that?
One cannot with intellectual integrity sever 2:12 from the entirety of Paul’s argument, including 2:15. Without understanding the entire argument, one simply cannot assert what a part of that argument “means.”
Most of the “comps” say that 2:15 means that women will be saved from deception by keeping to their God-assigned “roles” without specifying where God assigns those roles. This, as you no doubt can see, is a purely circular argument. One must start with roles in order to get to roles.
Since the text of Genesis 1:26-28 is explicit about the mission of the man and woman being a joint one to fill the earth and subdue it, and since no assignation of “roles” is made in that joint commission, then where in the text does God change that explicit language in the text?
In that Scripture, God blesses *both* the man and the woman, without distinction between them, with the Fathee’s blessing. Do you see that God treats male and female without *hierarchical* distinctions? The usual “comp” tactic is to say that unless one agrees with them, then one desires to eliminate gender distinctions. This a lie and a straw man logical fallacy. Though the “comps” use bad reasoning, it is not because they have not learned sound reasoning. It is because they intend to mislead and count on the reader/listener not to recognize their deception.
It is abusive and ungodly to put someone under bondage to a tradition of men, as Galatians teaches us. The Judaizers were winning converts because they taught Jewish priority. Now, these YRR Galatians are teaching male priority wand “proving” it with the idiotic assertion that Adam was created first and named the animals, and so there. I cannot think of a place in the real world where this kind of reasoning would not be laughed out of the room. But such is the state of the church today.
I think it is abusive to the word of God to add to it what he has not said and it is presumptive to speak for him. The OT penalty for these was quite severe.
Since we share a conservative outlook, how do you get to male authority and priority from the text while using established conservative hermeneutical methods?
Ken wrote:
Thank you for replying to me.
I agree that self-pity is harmful to us, and it’s proper to guard against it. But again, what if those you’re speaking to aren’t indulging in self-pity? What if they’re simply telling their experiences and putting their pain into words? Are you so sure it’s helpful to tell them that someone, somewhere else has it worse?
Speaking for myself, I know (perfectly well) that my own problems are piddling compared to those of many, many others in the world. However, that knowledge doesn’t make my problems go away, or make them any better or easier to handle. If someone merely reminds me of that fact, without hearing me out when I’m looking to share my burdens, the only message I get is that he (or she) is trying to shame me into shutting up. Which makes me feel like responding, “Well, if you don’t want to hear my problems, just say so! It would at least be honest.”
I realize that Gram3 is already giving you a lot to think about on this thread. But I hope you’ll consider that the appeal to “perspective” isn’t always helpful. People who talk or think a lot about their problems aren’t necessarily wallowing in self-pity. Often enough, we focus on our problems not because we think they’re the worst in the world, but because they’re ours, and we can’t escape them. That doesn’t need to be rebuked.
Thank you for your time.
@ Serving Kids In Japan:
Wise words, Serving Kids In Japan. I thank you for them.
Pingback: ADF Proclaims Pulpit Freedom… For Men Only? | Monica Dennington
Ken wrote:
I did not leave the gender complementarian view due to emotional reasons, or because I did not like it – but because I honestly saw that Scriptures don’t support it.
You might want to read this:
“Concerning Women’s Ordination: Speaking and Teaching”
http://willgwitt.org/category/theology/womens-ordination/
@ Serving Kids In Japan:
I agree with everything you wrote. There were several things, that in the last few years, have caused me to re-think the Christian faith (if it’s true or if it works), and that is one, the attitude I got when I went to other Christians seeking empathy after the death of a loved one and over some other problems I was having.
I was looking for empathy and compassion and instead got told by the Christians I went to that I was having a pity party (I was not, I was in mourning and didn’t know how to deal with the death, and I was doing it alone), I got platitudes, and I got told to think of those less fortunate than myself.
I had Christians compare what I was going through with problems other people have, with the intent of making it sound like my loved one’s death was really small potatoes in comparison to other people’s problems, so I should shut up about it and move along already.
I got all sorts of responses from Christians during the first few years after the death, none of which helped, and all of which added to the pain.
@ Serving Kids In Japan:
I think my ‘perspective’ comment is in danger of being taken too far. I’m not really saying much more than it can be helpful to avoid self-pity to keep things in perspective. To imply this denies we have real things to deal with in life, or that no-one in the West suffers real hardship is not what I am getting at.
I’m also not aiming at anyone here, but talking more in general. That would be unfair, if not underhand. I think it better if necessary to address someone specifically with what you agree or disagree with what they are saying to keep everything clear and above-board.
If I can stop being refused admission as spam, I might yet get to reply to Gram before the inauguration of the Millenium …
@ Gram3:
You put enough effort into this that it deserves at least some reply!
Gen 1 has male and female made in God’s image. Nothing controversial about that.
Gen 2 supplements 1 with the specific creation of Adam and then Eve and their environment. Adam first who receives God’s word, and role if you like of tilling the ground. Then Eve who ‘complements’ Adam in being suitable to him. No hierarchy visible.
Gen 3 has the fall and subsequent withdrawal of blessing. Hard labour for him and hard labour (as in birth) for her, which at least indicates some differentiation of role or at least focus for him and her. Not setting roles in stone, but against the egalitarianism or feminism that equates equality with ‘sameness’. There are designed differences here that are nothing to do with hierarchy.
Paul clearly has this scenario in mind in 1 Tim which is why I don’t think it local and temporary but permanent and universal. This discussion can go on for ever, but just to round it off:
i) Paul’s prohibitions are very restricted or targetted.
ii) I’m suspicious of anyone who thinks they have glibly got all this sorted out. There is more than one way to understand for example ‘women being saved by childbirth’ that makes sense, so I am wary of dogmatism on this. I’m afraid I do think her family involvment saves = delivers her from similar deception to Eve, reiterating this is usually a focal point for women intended by God.
iii) I don’t like the “comps” you describe who seem to have run off with this doctrine and at the very least expanded it to cover areas not intended.
iv) I part company with egalitarians who claim because we are equally redeemed and justified (neither male nor female), Paul’s command can be set aside in our culture. We are not yet free of the effects of the fall, sin is still a problem and deception is still a problem, and I think 1 Tim and the other couple of similar places are there to safeguard both men and women against this. This is something that liberates rather than enslaves.
Ken wrote:
Ken, you have associated this as a punishment or “withdrawal of blessing” before but clearly if taken in context, it’s prophetic and nothing more. The prophetic words God speaks warns them of the sorrowful, difficult existence outside of the garden will be. It was never His will for them nor are they commands or we would still be prohibited from using weed killer in our gardens to control the growth. Men would still be relegated to agricultural work for a living and only married women who can conceive and/or desire children will have difficulty in childbirth. In addition, women labor both inside the home as well as in the workplace.
One can only fairly conclude that the words of Genesis 3 are prophetic warnings most of which have been overcome over time.
@ Victorious:
You want a king like the Gentiles. He’s going to oppress you. What? You still want a king like the Gentiles? OK, here you go. Sincerely, God
Seems like the same kind of thing to me.
You want to go your own way, Adam and Eve? I told you you would die, well it starts now. And, BTW, you won’t have time to thumb through gardening magazines, because you’re gonna have to work really hard, ’cause you’re gonna have a lot of mouths to feed, and Eve’s not gonna be available to help you, ’cause she’s gonna be out of service in pregnancy, lactation, and childraising. Eve’s gonna be uncooperative with you because she loves herself more than you now. So you’re gonna want to take steps to make her more cooperative.
You, too, Eve, those kids you were going to need to fill the earth? Well, you’re gonna have to have a lot more of them to do that ’cause they’re gonna die early, and every time you get pregnant and give birth it is going to be hard work. And it might kill you, but you’re still gonna want your husband sexually, and you are gonna want him to love you. But guess what. He’s gonna want to do what he wants to do ’cause he loves himself just like you love yourself.
Y’all have fun in the sandbox you’ve made such a mess of. I told you so, but, noooooo. You had to believe that serpent. What were you thinking? Prince and Princess of the whole world wasn’t enough for you??
That’s my paraphrase of what God actually said. Or, more accurately, what I would have said if I were God.
Ken wrote:
OK, we’re making some progress here, because we’re not talking about hierarchy. Now, we need to take the plunge and get rid of the idea of “roles.” Because there is no such idea introduced. They still had the same creation mandate to fulfill jointly, but it was going to be a lot more difficult. I think it clear that there are differences, but I don’t think you can get to roles from sexual differentiation. What is the role of a life-long virgin or a eunuch or so on? The concept of roles is a total fabrication. But, you’re on the right track, I think, but be mindful that feminism is not the same as egalitarianism. Evangelical egalitarianism removes hierarchy and roles, but it does not remove differences or distinctions or the value of having differences. Feminism is not the issue, though it is the bogey-man scarecrowy straw-man that the “complementarians” us to bully you or frighten you to keep you from thinking about what they are saying. They conveniently forget to mention that they, with a few extreme exceptions, do not want to deny women the right to vote or hold property or inherit or be a doctor or any of the things that “feminists” fought for. Hypocrites they are.
i: Paul is referring to the events surrounding the fall. I think you need to clarify what you mean by permanent and universal. The question is, what is his point, what was the significance of the point he was making, and what is the significance of his point to us? I believe, given the historical and textual context and the grammar, that he was addressing a local problem of false teaching, in this case it was false teaching by women. That is precisely what we would expect in Ephesus. We simply cannot ignore the cultural and historical context.
ii: Look for yourself into the beliefs of the Ephesian indigenous religion and the beliefs of that religion. I think the whole picture will make more sense, even the verses later in 1 Timothy that encourage women to marry and have babies, contra the local religion. Put off the “complementarian” presuppositions and look afresh at 1 Timothy, and especially consider Paul’s introductory remarks. Also, think about the fact that Paul used Eve as a type of all deceived people, both male and female, in 2 Corinthians, which was written *before* 1 Timothy. Eve is not just a type of women. Also, think about why it would be necessary for Paul to re-instruct Timothy about restricting women in this way if it is so essential that gender roles. Surely Paul would have instructed Timothy about this while he was in Ephesus, and surely Timothy would have remember something so crucial to the integrity of the teaching position and the male authority position.
iii: The “comps” are the ones who have hijacked a perfectly serviceable word to describe male and female relationships. Because of their desire for power and privilege and their concern to conceal what they are really after, they craftily came up with this new meaning for a good word. The problem is now the word has been tainted in conservative evangelicalism so that when one says “complementary” one is now saying “hierarchy.” Those are the facts created by these guys, so you might want to come up with another way to describe your view if you don’t believe there is a hierarchy.
iv: But you are begging the question. The question remains, what is the significance or meaning of the words? I think the best evidence, considering context, is that Paul is correcting false teaching from women who were accustomed to ruling over men in the cult of Ephesian Artemis and were probably introducing elements of that indigenous Ephesian religion. They needed to be stopped from doing that immediately, and it seems that they were drawing away women by teaching these doctrines. Please remember that, at this point, women would not have been schooled in the Scriptures, but they would be very familiar with the local cult.
You need to be consistent if your rule is that whatever Paul says to a particular class is universally binding on that class and only on that class. Surely you don’t think everything Paul says is universal and permanent. Why is this a special case? Verse 15 says pretty plainly that women will be saved through childbearing. If you want to say that’s different, then I’m going to play my special pleading card.
Thanks for taking the care and the time to respond. I think we can have a productive conversation.
Regarding the spam message, I get that from time to time, just my comments occasionally gets in moderation for a time. Don’t know why that happens. With the spam burp, I just post it again.
Thanks again for the interaction. It helps me, too.
Ken wrote:
I dunno. They just released the Left Behind movie, there is a blood moon, and my rhododendron is budding. In the northern hemisphere. No kidding!
Gram3 wrote:
…and I apologize for interrupting… Misunderstanding of Gen. 3 just happens to be the thorn in my side.
Again, my apologies.
@ Victorious:
No apology, please. I was expanding on your excellent comment! Genesis 1-3 has been twisted to harm men and women. Especially the interpretation discovered by Foh. Oy, can we make more of a mess of the fall than before? Yes, as a matter of fact we can. Tell the men they *need* to rule over women because those uppity women are going to be out to take over if you’re not careful. Paranoia is the new oneness.
Gram3 wrote:
Well put, Gram. You know the closest thing we have to the word “role” in scripture is hypocrite. If we must “play” our roles as Christian husbands/wives, we have– big time— missed the whole point. :o)
Gram3 wrote:
Yes, I’d like Ken and other gender complementarians to explain how their gender role views are pertinent to men and women who never marry, never have children, like myself, because I don’t find them to be pertinent.
I also don’t like my identity being boiled down to the fact that I may be able to carry a child and give birth to one, just because I have the physical equipment to do so.
Another point about 1 Tim 2 is that the grammar is singular: A woman. Paul is talking about ONE woman in particular who does not need to be named because she “needs to learn”. The “she and they” are gune and aner which is often husband and wife. Not she and all women everywhere for all time.
Lydia wrote:
Oh, you are such a liberal and bitter feminist, looking at the actual words and grammar of the text. You are making John Piper uncomfortable and not being winsome. Please have someone from the approved Gospel Coalition female speakers bureau speak into your life for a season.
Yeah, they never offer the alternative translations nor justify their choice, and you have pointed out an important one. The reason they don’t translate it husband and wife is because this is the *only* verse they have that clearly relates teaching with authority coupled with presumed male authority grounded in the temporal order of creation. That is why Grudem and Piper and the others are so hysterical about this verse. Along with the “headship” chain of command in 1 Cor. 11.
And yes, I went there. Piper and Grudem get hysterical (!), especially when confronted with, how shall we put this…uncooperative data in the text.
Owen (not John), on the other hand, merely melts down on Twitter and pouts when females disappoint him and asks Bruce what to think.
Without his paranoid obsession with kephale and authentein/authenteo, Grudem has nothing. If authenteo has to be played down from seizing authority to having authority, regardless of the historical context. Because that is the only way to exclude the possibility that a woman might teach a man if she is not seizing authority but has it legitimately. That would make John Piper very uncomfortable. Therefore, it cannot be. Therefore it becomes what it must be.
As you have said, I’m sure, kephale *can* be translated in the sense of authority, but it usually does not. Nevertheless, Grudem insists that because it *can* mean authority, then therefore it *must* mean authority. He absolutely relies on his readers not noticing the fallacious reasoning he deceptively uses. He assumes that it must mean what he needs it to mean in order to fit his pre-existing idea. We used to call this prooftexting. But in “comp” circles, prooftexting and eisegesis is the new black.
Daisy wrote:
Daisy, you are not a function. They have a utilitarian view of women and men. Don’t listen to the lies and guilt trips and the implication that you are less somehow than a man or than a woman who is married with lots of kids. After all, if you were married, they would speak of you as a penis home. Listen to the truth, and read God’s words.
If you are in Christ, you are a daughter of the King. He created you to glorify him wherever you are, and, if you are his daughter, you are his delight, and he loves you. And his love never fails.
Just want to add to the comment to Daisy that I don’t think Ken would say or think any of these horrid things about you or any woman, based on our interaction here.
@ Gram3:
Thank you for the kind words. 🙂
As to your second post,
I don’t dispute that. I’m sure he’s a nice guy, but, I don’t think that the nice complementarians realize how marginalizing their gender views are, let alone the non nice ones.
I don’t mean to be a broken record, but really – complementarian views on men and women are largely not applicable, or speak to, men and women who never marry, who never have sex, and who never have children.
Complementarians are strangely preoccupied with the topics of marriage, motherhood, child rearing, and sex (when not bashing things like secular feminism). They have very little to say for and about being single and celibate to folks past 30 years old.
The very little I have seen from them about singles/childless women tends to be rather patronizing. But the lion’s share of their attention is spent writing and opining about wifehood and motherhood.
@ Daisy:
This can only be a quickie!
I did have you in mind by saying ” I’m afraid I do think her family involvment saves = delivers her from similar deception to Eve, reiterating this is usually a focal point for women intended by God” note the word ‘usually’. Not everyone marries, so this is not universally the case. In practice is does cover the majority.
I read your link, so I’m not averse to looking at how others see this. Everyone has the danger of confirmation bias.
In a church years ago I helped lead, we encouraged everyone to seek gifts, and held to Paul’s restriction that women shouldn’t hold the office of teacher. One or two doing the ministry whilst the members/laity remain passive is more restrictive than 1 Tim. The women in the church, who were not doormats, didn’t react against this idea of differing responsibilities.
Gram – I appreciate your comment of 10:57 pm!
Ken wrote:
What does this mean and how do you get that from the text? Speaking of confirmation bias, your comment above makes me think you’ve been reading a bit of Schreiner and Kostenberger? If that’s where you are getting this idea, then you might want to read them again while carefully examining their argument and comparing it to what the text actually says. They end up with roles saving women because they start with roles being created by God.
How does a woman performing some role aid in her salvation or her sanctification? There is a paper or two online you could read. Really, their logic is atrocious. They form an elaborate argument which is circular, but the circle is so large that you can easily forget that the place you end up–roles–is the same place you started.
How can verse 12 mean what it plainly says but verse 15 does *not* mean what it plainly says, i.e. that women will be saved in childbearing? That is the question I’ve had for a very long time about this whole approach. It makes no sense unless you can just make stuff up if you have a Ph.D.
Also, your point about the women not objecting doesn’t really bear on the issue at hand. I’m happy that they were happy. The issue at hand is what has God said? If God has said that he has set women free to minister in every “role” then who are those women to say that the church should be hobbled by silencing women?
On the other side, just because someone, either male or female, wants to do something, does not mean that they are authorized to do so. They need to show that. For males, it is always presumed that only males are fit for ministry.
As a practical matter, it works out that once a man is a pastor, he is secure from the restrictions placed on elders by Paul. And it works out that women are *never* allowed to teach men. So you get the weird situations at Mars Hill and SGM and others where men who are unqualified according to Paul are able to “serve” while no woman, no matter how called or qualified, cannot. Because Paul. Do you see the problem with that? If a principle of adhering to the words of Scripture does not apply to all cases–whether male or female–then it is not a principle but a convenient rule.
Daisy wrote:
It’s hard not to be “a broken record” when you are continually assaulted by a doctrine in the church, whether the doctrine is formally stated or is just cultural. In this case I think the culture of complementarianism is what is so hard to escape.
They forget that Paul commended singleness. He called us to contentment and service in whatever state we are. I have know many single women and men who are serving wholeheartedly. We need to honor one another, regardless of marital or parental status. Married people face at least informal pressure to have lots of kids, or lately, to foster or adopt, too. Bloom where you are planted, but don’t let anyone put you in a box of their own construction.
Ken wrote:
Translation: “Ooh, I wish wish wish I could discuss the Bible with you. Really really I do do do, I so wish it.” But you don’t get around to actually using the Bible. You say how much you’d love to answer, but you don’t answer.
david brainerd wrote:
Homosexuality was very much accepted in Greek/ Roman society of New Testament times – in a very patriarchal society. In Afghanistan, molesting of boys is epidemic in a patriarchal society, because women’s roles confine them to the house where men cannot see them. Boys do get out of the house, where men can see them.
So no, women in positions of leadership is not why homosexuality is accepted.
@ Retha:
I have constantly alluded to the bible, but to keep posts not too long, don’t always quote it. I credit Gram and others with the savvy to know the passages concerned and to have read them or if necessary to look them up again to refresh their memory.
There is a certain irony in your post as it isn’t me that is drawing on extra-biblical information in the form of the culture the NT is addressing to determine its meaning, which can be useful but needs care. All the more so when the OT is invoked to explain the meaning.
Short written posts can come over as officious, whereas direct conversation over a cuppa allows for tone, manner, nuance, misunderstanding to be cleared up in an instant. It also has the beauty of enabling you to stop someone trying to persuade you of smething that, if they had read a bit more carefully, they would find you already agree with.
Gram3 wrote:
Precisely, the issue is what God has said, but the second half of your sentence is begging the question as whether he has authorised women for all roles!
Clarifying women shall be ‘saved by childbearing/the birth of the child’ this could mean:
A promise of safe physical birth for believing women.
A promise of salvation through the birth of the messiah as Eve’s promised offspring (Genesis is clearly in mind here).
‘Saved’ in the sense of given enough to do in her role as mother to keep her from being tempted to go into areas God doesn’t want her to provided she carries on in faith and being holy. It’s nothing to do with being born again = saved, her role in motherhood and family is a kind of sacrament to aid her in keeping free of sin. Specifically, what God has not authorised in v 12. Have a look at 1 Tim 5 14 – 15 in the light of v 13. Paul doesn’t want then straying after Satan. Try also Titus 2 v 3 – 5. There are both ‘ruling’ and ‘teaching’ functions enjoined here for women. It’s not the men’s job here to teach what being ‘submissive’ means, but the older women. Now there’s a safeguard against abuse.
I think there is some parallel with stealing, in that you can be all spiritual about what God’s word says about stealing and how it affects your relationship with him and others, which is fine, but Paul also tells the former thief to get a job to occupy him with something else, which is very practical.
Ken wrote:
No, I’m saying that in Genesis 1:26-28 God explicitly gives the subdue and fill creation mandate to both the man and the woman at the same time and jointly without distinction of gender roles. That is the bedrock, benchmark, or whatever metaphor you like for the relationship of the male and female toward one another and toward the creation, which later would come to include the church.
The burden remains with those who have fabricated gender “roles” and gone beyond what God has said in his text. Nowhere is this basic arrangement modified or revoked. Nowhere. In 1 Timothy 2, Paul is citing what actually happened at creation and fall. Namely, Adam was created, then Eve, then Eve was deceived by which she became a transgressor (came into transgression.) It is a straighforward recitation of what actually happened. The question is, what bearing does that have on “a woman/wife” asserting authority over “a man/husband.”
You want to read that as saying that God assigned spiritual priority to the male/man because the male/man was created first *temporally.” To get there, we have to say that those two concepts are linked in something like a causal way. But, of course, God frequently violates his own ordering rules in the Bible, so I don’t think that is a plausible, or at least the most plausible interpretation because we have no biblical precedent for it.
So, we are still at equality, stated explicitly in Genesis 1, unless we want to apply the “cultural” concept of primogeniture. That’s not God’s rule, that was human culture, and it is not prescriptive or universal. By your rules, we can’t use the concept of primogeniture because it’s not God’s principle or he violates his own rules.
Also, applying your interpretive rules, there must be some significance to Paul’s remark that the woman was deceived. Is it that women are more easily deceived and that, in addition to being created second, means that women can’t teach men? Does it mean that Eve’s deception somehow taints all women for all time and makes them ineligible to teach men? Well, then, we have some problems with women like Deborah who ruled Israel, apparently with God’s approval, and she ruled *in a patriarchal culture* which means that she was doubly unqualified to rule over men as a judge in Israel. What do you think this reference to deception means?
You don’t want to consider the culture of Ephesus or the indigenous religion when interpreting Paul’s instructions to Timothy. Do you think it is legitimate to research extra-biblical information regarding 1st century Israel and 2nd Temple Judaism? I think you would agree that the archaeological and textual research about all things ANE helps us to understand the *meaning of the words of the text in its historical context* so that we can properly understand the *meaning for us* or, IOW the application to us.
We can’t do proper exegesis without considering the historical context. I don’t understand why you object to this. Certainly the evidence from history needs to be examined carefully as new information comes to light.
So, what we have from the text is equality in Genesis 1 that is not modified by 1 Timothy 2 unless we read the culture of primogeniture into the actual text which is a straightforward retelling of the facts.
I don’t think it is a coincidence that Paul is clearly telling Timothy to refute error, the error involves a woman teaching, the indigenous Ephesian Artemis religion was violent toward men and valued virginity, and it was a religion of female supremacy. The myth of Artemis is that she was a midwife for her twin brother, and she was the goddess of childbirth safety. Having had two childbirths which would have killed me then, I can appreciate the importance this would have had to women.
I think, in light of that, that Paul’s seemingly random logic and instructions make holistic sense. An Ephesian woman steeped in Artemis religion was importing those teachings and disrupting the church there and seizing authority from a man or her husband. Other women were spreading the false teaching house to house. They needed to be silenced, just like male false teachers. They needed to be taught, just like the men, though the Jewish men would have a head start on that. Paul was correcting their false teaching, from the Artemis cult, that the woman was wiser than the man and that women are superior to men because Artemis is superior to her twin, having been born first. No, says Paul, that’s not how it happened. The real way things happened need to be taught so that all would understand how we got where we are.
I think verse 15 must refer to The Childbearing, but I think Paul is engaging in wordplay with the cult of Artemis being basically a childbearing cult. Instead of being saved temporally by Artemis, women will be saved eternally through a woman bearing a child, the promised Seed of the Woman. If they repent and continue in their faith, even the false teachers will be saved, just as Paul who was a false teacher was granted mercy though he was once a false teacher–see his intro to the letter.
In summary, we have explicit equality that is not modified or revoked. God gave the Father’s blessing to both the male and the female, which would have been a violation if God’s ideal culture is patriarchy. The Father’s blessing in that case would have gone only to the son or sons. God did not make that distinction in Genesis 1.
To get from explicit textual equality with no distinct “roles” we have to import a cultural concept, primogeniture, which God violated numerous times, into the text at 1 Timothy 2. A more holistic solution is to acknowledge the problems facing Timothy at Ephesus due to the cultural presupposition of female supremacy that he needed to get rid of and fast. Paul’s argument is the mirror opposite of the cult of Artemis. His other instructions regarding women in 1 Timothy also are the opposite of Artemis doctrine.
Your argument against using cultural context goes against you and against scholarship which helps us to understand much of what is going on the the Bible.
May I say how much I enjoy interacting with you and hope you will continue the conversation. You are very sharp and challenging while being polite and respectful. Thank you. Please forgive numerous typos. 🙂
Ken wrote:
Ken, how does this concept square with what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7 about it being preferable to remain single? Is he contradicting himself? Is he teaching against God’s created order?
Do you not see how these couple of sentences – the concept in them – completely condemn women who never marry or cannot have children? Growing up, it was this type of teaching that drove me deeper away from talking about the abuses that were happening because if people knew, based on these concepts, I would have been condemned, unfit. I have actually had people tell me that because I was sexually ‘active’ (yeah, I chose that) as a child, I was unfit for marriage or any kind of ministry.
I know that you would not take it that far, but these two sentences condemn me because I am 51 years old, never married and I am well past the possibility of having children. So does this life circumstances mean I am in rebellion and in greater danger of being deceived?
I have to share with you that this is the logic used by my former pastor to keep the women in the church that he abused in fear of stepping away – “Eve was deceived, but Adam was not. Women are more easily deceived. So women must be under the covering of a father or husband or pastor to keep from being deceived.” This is immensely insulting and demeaning.
I really would like to know how you would apply the statements above that I quoted to my circumstance? It does make it sound that at best, those of us who never marry or have children are somehow left out or don’t get to sit at the grown-up table. It is very frustrating as I really have a great deal to offer, but so few are willing to even entertain the idea of letting me – a mere woman – participate.
Another thing that, for me, cannot be separated from this statement is that somehow, women will always be less than men. I really don’t know how to communicate the pain of being told, over a lifetime, that men will always take priority and you will always end up taking a back seat whatever men are around, regardless of character, talents, gifts or desires. I don’t know if you ever got the chance to read the blog post I left on an earlier comment, but I am going to post a snip from it (I hope the Deebs don’t mind). It summarizes what I learned in church and from culture growing up.
Is this what God created?
@ Jeannette Altes:
Those are taught and practiced, but that is not the truth. If we are in Christ, these are true:
Boys and girls are both conquerors and overcomers if they are in Christ
Boys and girls are to control themselves if they are in Christ
Boys and girls have the power of Christ if they are in Christ
Boys and girls use their power to benefit others, not themselves if they are in Christ.
Boys and girls are weak when they are strong and strong when they are weak if they are in Christ
Boys and girls are all unclean but are made clean by the power of Christ if they are in Christ
Boys and girls should all follow Christ if they are in Christ
Boys and girls should lead according to the example of Christ if they are in Christ
Boys and girls are children of the King with all of the privileges of that if they are in Christ
Boys and girls will defend the defenseless and repent when they hurt others if they are in Christ
Boys and girls will all give an account for their actions but are forgiven if they are in Christ
Boys and girls are both celebrated as image-bearers which is Christ’s glorious image if they are in Christ.
@ Gram3:
Thank you for your kind words at the end of the post. I’m sorry if I appear to be ignoring you, but I keep getting spammed out.
For all the possibility of reading strict gender roles into Gen 1 – 2, I think it equally possible to read modern notions of equality into the text. Being made in God’s image says nothing really about this either way. I do think there is a basic differentiation in role, of work and home, but not cast in stone as it were.
I think that Paul’s use of Adam and Eve in 1 Tim is to draw a parallel. Adam was entrusted with the word of God, the command not to eat of the tree. Eve’s deception was not a comment as such as to whether women are more easily deceived than men, rather she was the one whom Satan attacked, not Adam, she was particularly vulnerable.
The parallel is that some of the men have been entrusted with the word of God in the church in the sense of being teachers it, and Paul’s prohibition on women teaching or having authority over men is to prevent a mini-Gen 3 happening again in the church. It’s not a cultural thing, Paul doesn’t explicitly mention the surrounding culture but he does the OT. I’m sure this kind of ‘spiritual warfare’ is behind the argument here. This general principle does not mean God does not let alone cannot raise women up for particular ministries. After all, he is all the ‘covering’ they need.
If this view of the text is correct, then rebelling against it will make women vulnerable to precisely the same kind of attack, because rebellion against God’s word does make us vulnerable, gives room for a bridgehead for evil in our lives as we move out from under his covering. I think this explains why such a targetted prohibition is so heavily discussed, it really can get all out of proportion. Women tend to be attacked in the form of being incited to reject it, and men are attacked by adding a whole host of prohibitions or implications the text itself doesn’t mention.
{Spied this little piece on the net & want to share it.}
Franklin Graham’s warning of coming persecution of Christians echoes what his mother Ruth and father Billy have clearly stated.
In a Google article titled “Letter from Mrs. Billy Graham,” Ruth stated that “I would rather prepare myself to go through the tribulation and be happily surprised by an unexpected rapture, than expect to be raptured only to find myself going through tribulation.”
Her husband, Billy, had this to say: “Perhaps the Holy Spirit is getting His Church ready for a trial and tribulation such as the world has never known.” He stated this on p. 72 in Sam Shoemaker’s book “Under New Management,” and the same quote is also found in a Google piece entitled “Famous Rapture Watchers – Addendum.”
To see the rest of Franklin’s message which can no longer be ignored or censored (!), Google “Franklin Graham’s Warning” which can be found on Joe Ortiz’s “End Times Passover” blog.