This makes my skin crawl. It comes across as some sort of institutional cross-breeding of some sort. And don’t get me started on “named” awards; where I’m from, the person is someone who contributed a lot academically or financially to the science world at large, and are sometimes even deceased. Are Piper and Grudem trying to tell us something?

First?

*goes back to studying*

I’m sorry…I could not get past Denzel and read the rest of the article. Swoon.

@ androidninja:
He’s always been my celebrity crush. He still looks good today!

“In 2015, we’re planning to make some big moves.” When are you guys NOT planning big moves. There’s always some book, conference, organization, statement, or meeting about to come out, destined to bring back “biblical” gender wisdom. I guess when it doesn’t have the desired effect, they gotta try again.

And I could’ve gone to this meeting!!!!! ,*frustrated teenager sigh*

Dee or Deb feel free to remove this, your blog has been an oasis for me. I came across this video

http://youtu.be/RJ7sr-jcG1M

I actually liked the part of the song that seemed to show broken pots being restored, but it is troubling, of of respect for a dear online friend at PP I wont go into my reform rant too much. Pastor Wilson is actually a talented man, just an observation, he writes well even though I think some of it is psychopathic at best. I always struggled with Paul’s reference to pots and the potter, when referring to creations in God’s image as being inanimate objects I always found that rather troubling. Pots are pots and they lack any ability to respond to any type of reflection, creations that reflect, though fallen, the image of God. Which is a primary argument against abortion, but in the same breath we are such sin soaked fallen creatures we are loathed of God, self deceived worshipers of Satan. When I read or listen to some of this theology it reminds me of the love hate relationships in junior high, the “girls” are cute but they have cuties. Only cuties on steroids.

You know I often struggled with self anger disappointment when I was young, but to truly learn to loathe every aspect of my humanness it took religion. At times I tried to out hate God’s hate for me with my own self loathing because I was such a wretched human being. From the very cheap seats, this is not good news, it really is not, it is actually sort of silly.

I am surprised that there is not a 'tweeting' award named for Piper–has anyone tweeted more questionable tweets while representing the church at large than him?

Corbin Martinez wrote:

lets try and make up some funny sub-titles for “the John Piper Award for Complementarian Leadership.”

“The John Piper Award for Complementarian Leadership: Keeping Females Submissive to Abusive Husbands – at least for a Season”

That reminds me – I have yet to make a Christmas donation to Christians for Biblical Equality

Off topic but should be interesting to TWW readers:

Over at SBCToday there is, a few articles down, quite an interesting article on witnessing to the children raised in Reformed churches who are struggling and rejecting determinism.

When you believe as the CBMW does, as noted below, then you think very highly of your accomplishments, as an organization, and of the individuals who started your organization. After all, “the contemporary surge of interest in the gospel and the greatness of God has coincided with widespread adoption of complementarianism.”

ME – Are they serious!? Where are the facts that prove this? What a claim to make on your own History page. CBMW and their complementarian belief and teachings is responsible for a surge (revival?) . . . 🙄

cbmw.org/history/

“In 2013, many evangelical groups are convictionally complementarian. The contemporary surge of interest in the gospel and the greatness of God has coincided with widespread adoption of complementarianism, with many prominent churches, seminaries, authors, and para-church organizations joyfully celebrating God’s good design for manhood and womanhood, home and church.”

Here I go again on this subject. What was going on post war and into the fifties and what P&G are doing are similar to the extent that some people thought one thing and some thought another. Other than that, there are some huge differences. I graduated from high school in 1952, went immediately for the one year at university covered by my only scholarship, and signed up as pre-med. That year the division of natural sciences called a meeting of all females who were registered pre-med. A fairly large lecture room was packed out. The told us, not everybody is going to make it, so be sure to have plan B fully functional by the time you graduate, because most of you are going to need it. There was not a frilly dress or pair of high heels or silly giggle among the group. And no suggestion of a put down from any faculty. Of course, nobody took videos or turned it into a comedy on TV.

So, “this is like the fifties” kind of misses part of the point. What they are saying now is the personal subjugation and sexual humiliation and economic impoverishment of women. To say that the TV programs of the fifties represented the lives of people in the fifties is like saying that reality TV represents the lives of most people today. Not exactly. Remember the old program General Hospital where some intern did neurosurgery in the ER (well, it was about that bad.) Does anybody believe that happened? Same way with some of the Hollywood and TV representations of happy housewives in frilly dresses and high heels getting orgasmic over tub cleaner and the latest refrigerator. Come on folks, let’s not believe too much of that, because a lot of hollywood fantasy is only because it sells as an escape, not because it is actually good documentary.

What P&G are selling is lots worse. If we just say that oh well, it is just the fifties again, then we will miss some of the truly awfulness of some of their thinking. When their compism requires the idea of ESS and they are willing to go to that level, this is way beyond just liking the idea of four kids and a station wagon.

Nancy wrote:

old program General Hospital

Or was the “Saint Elsewhere’s?” Anyhow, it was TV.

Nancy wrote:

Or was the “Saint Elsewhere’s?” Anyhow, it was TV.

“And remember, just because you saw it on TV doesn’t mean it’s real!”
— media hoaxer Joey “Joe Bones” Skaggs

CBMW is giving out an award in Wayne’s name and one in John’s name? And all the recipients were men?

Are there no CBMW awards in the name of say, Mary, Jenny, Susie, Rebecca, Megan, Heather, etc? And none of the recipients were women?

It’s funny that a group of people who swear up and down they don’t view ladies as being lesser than men don’t involve women in awards or recognition.

Surely there are some women gender complementarians who they can award for writing blog posts or books telling women to dress modestly, stay visually appealing for their husbands, baking scrumptious casseroles for their Traditional Families, and guilt tripping other sisters to stick with the male-dominated lifestyle paradigm?

The real legacy of Grudem and Piper is not these “awards” but the very real and lasting effects of their doctrines.

One of these legacies of Grudem, Piper, and all of the other Gospel Glitterati is the absence of all of the good that the females in their churches have been prevented from doing. How many women have been prevented from and shamed for serving the Body of Christ with all of the gifts God has given them.

These men and women bear the full responsibility for that just as the men who denied women access to a professional education bear the responsibility for delaying all of the benefits brought by women’s study. Let us not forget Marie Curie’s story, for there are many lessons there. Out of consistency, these men should abstain from every one of these benefits, but they will not because they are inconsistent hypocrites who care only for themselves.

Another legacy is in the souls and spirits of women who have been systematically taught that God created them lower than men, regardless of the meaningless and illogical disclaimers of these “scholars.” They claim, like Augustine, that women do not fully image God; female imaging of God is only derivative, through the male. While the Gospel Glitterati claim they are against abuse, they foster and promote the very ideas that nourish an abuser’s twisted thinking, and they shame and blame women for provoking that abuse by not being submissive enough. Remember that if Bruce Ware is the winner next year. I predict that Ware and Dever will be the next ones honored–Ware for “scholarship” and Dever for “leadership” because Dever claims that the integrity of the Gospel proclamation depends on maintaining male supremacy.

Their legacy to men is to teach them that they are failures so that those men keep coming back to the Gospel Glitterati for a fix for their souls. They teach men to disregard the importance of the women in their lives since the women are only auxiliaries in God’s plan for manly dominion. As a result, men lose the companionship that can only come from a peer who is equal but different.

Their legacy is the corruption of exegesis and the abandonment of established principles of hermeneutics. They are hypocrites who claim to uphold the authority of scripture, and they claim to honor God’s sovereign rule, but they substitute their own words for God’s words and twist what he has said to support their own agenda of male supremacy.

They usurp the authority of the God they claim to worship in order to serve their own lust for power and significance. To that end, they are willing to deny the full and equal authority and agency of the Eternal Son, rendering Philippians 2 meaningless. They are bold and brazen enough to order the Trinity along lines that please them and which they believe support their own deceptive doctrines.

These people are all about honoring and elevating and promoting one another. They are not about honoring God, his Word, or his Gospel.

Corbin Martinez wrote:

HUG, Nick, Beaker, lets try and make up some funny sub-titles for “the John Piper Award for Complementarian Leadership.” Here’s one to start:
“The John Piper Award for Complementarian Leadership: Keeping Male headship in leadership with discipleship Through mentorship.”

Not bad, not bad.

But try to work in words such as “Gospel” and “winsome” more.

Of course, I am a lady, so you can disregard my input on this if you wish, or pretend those were your suggestions all along. Ha ha.

JeffT wrote:

That reminds me – I have yet to make a Christmas donation to Christians for Biblical Equality

LOL. 🙂

Greased lightning, oh my. When my daughter was seven or eight, her dance competition song was greased lightning. She loved it and sang it constantly, but she kept singing “supreme chips ‘n cream.” Well, we rented the movie to see what the lyrics really were. I’ll never forget sitting on the sofa with our popcorn and our little angel between us when the realization hit us. My husband said “you were right! It DOES say chips ‘n cream! ”
Good times.

@ Nancy:

I have read many bios of actress Marilyn Monroe, whose career was most active during the 1950s. From reading those books, which recount the hurdles she faced due to being a woman in a male-controlled system, and from seeing vintage ads from that era show up on social media I visit, it looks to me that women were in fact way more limited in the 50s than they are now.

My mother also graduated from high school in the 50s and most definitely had attitudes about gender similar to what CBMW promotes.

As far as into the 1990s, when my family got pamphlets in our mail box from local Baptist churches, the sections on the material that was aimed at (married) women always came accompanied by stylized 1950s clip art of women – woman in 50 style dress with pearl necklace (seriously).

The housewife illustrations in these pages from 1990s churches were not of contemporary-looking women, but of June Cleaver house wife types.

Even if the 1950s were equality heaven for women or not as bad as some of us think it –

Gender complementarian Christians of today view the 1950s as an ideal decade for gender, because they view the 1950s as the good ol’ days, before nasty secular feminism came along in the ’60s or so and told women they didn’t have to be only wives and mothers.

I sometimes see men in their 50, 60s, older today, who lived during the 1950s, harken back to the 50s as an era they miss.

They miss the 1950s because they feel gender roles were more defined then, and women liked staying at home, raising a baby, and baking cookies all day then. Even if that was not the reality of the decade, that is never the less how gender complementarians I have come across on the internet view it, which I think is the pertinent part.

Feminists who came along in the 60s and after also seemed to spend a considerable amount of time criticizing the 1950s housewife role.

I had to read some of their work when I was in college, though that was years ago, and my memories of some of the stuff I read about that is vague and fuzzy now.

@ Gram3:

Great observation of their thinking in this area re vss 12 and 15. But then, their thinking does not seem to be motivated by an overwhelming desire to actually conform their thinking to scripture but more to conform scripture to their way of thinking.

Or maybe they are just not right bright. Or maybe the serpent of genesis fame continues his enmity for women and they have listened to the wrong voice in the garden.

On the other hand the whole area of sex and childbirth has been rife with superstition and who knows what the author intended to be understood by the comment or what erroneous ideas he may have been dealing with. Think about the idea of defilement by childbirth requiring religious cleansing ritual x number of days after delivering a male and y number of days after delivering a female perhaps and how does childbirth affect a christian women who no longer (or never did) believe in ritual defilement and ritual cleansing associated with childbirth. Perhaps he is saying that faith, love. holiness and self-control are sufficient without the rituals. How do we know what his hearers thought he was talking about.

Daisy wrote:

Of course, I am a lady, so you can disregard my input on this if you wish, or pretend those were your suggestions all along. Ha ha.

How dare you steal my idea and my inherent male authority! I command you in the name of John Piper to submit!

@ Gram3:
I have been very disappointed by the lack of scholarship in conservative Christian circles. Disappointed because I really, truly want to learn what and why they believe. Unfortunately, such very basic scholarly courtesies like a chapter on prolegomena has essentially disappeared from the landscape. As a result, you end up with illogical and conflicting nonsense like the article you linked from Kostenberger, which really turns thinking people off. It is so plain that no kind of real thought went into this – it is just post-hoc justification for the received tradition.

Gus wrote:

“The John Piper Award for Complementarian Leadership: Keeping Females Submissive to Abusive Husbands – at least for a Season”

XD

Daisy wrote:

Of course, I am a lady, so you can disregard my input on this if you wish, or pretend those were your suggestions all along. Ha ha.

No, I can take your suggestions. But it has to be in a setting where it doesn’t feel like your femininity is trumping my MASCULINITY!!!!!! In any way. And I get to determine what constitutes trumping, not you. Because I’m a man. And you’re not.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“The John Piper Flutterhands Award for Complementarian Leadership: Woman, Submit! Do as I say or I Beat You!”

“The John Piper Flutterhands Award for Complementarian Leadership: It’s God’s Punishment!!!”

“The John Piper Flutterhands Award for Complementarian Leadership: Male Supremacy Uber Alles (flutter flutter flutter)”

“The John Piper Flutterhands Award Against Muscular Women”

Yours are more truthful than funny. 🙁

And I would say “GOSPEL GESTURES” is what they’d call his Broadway stuff.

Nancy wrote:

How do we know what his hearers thought he was talking about.

Responsible methodology would include careful consideration of the cultural context of the Ephesians and what Paul and Timothy’s pre-understandings would likely have been. The parts of 1 Timothy which seem a little strange and disjointed make a lot more sense when the content of the Ephesian Artemis cult is considered.

It’s a forensic question, but the hierarchy freaks want to stop the investigation at the “plain meaning” of 2:12 by deploying their predictable intimidation and silencing techniques. Foremost of those is the “you are capitulating to cultural pressure” and “you are rebelling against God’s good and beautiful plan.” Of course, they never get around to actually demonstrating that what they assert is God’s plan is really God’s plan and not their creative revision of his actual plan.

In their world it is worse to be in favor of women’s equality than to deny the full authority and agency of the Eternal Son. That is the kind of twisting of reality we are talking about here. I think they have no intellectual or scholarly shame whatsoever. Take away their naked assertions and ad homs and they are left with nothing at all, much less anything that is remotely scholarly.

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
but *thinking* goes counter o their entire program for imposing their ideas on everyone. Which means that a lot of us would be destined for “re-education” camps under their regime.

I am so, so sick of the way they think they have a right to swagger around and order their minions into line.

Just looked at the CBMW site, and at the meeting Owen Strachan said that complementarianism “is thriving because it works, because it orders life in a wise and sensible way.” I think my rhetoric sense is tingling.

@ Gram3:

Yep, yep and yep. What intrigues me is why. Why the leadership puts so many eggs in this one basket, and why some people buy into it. I am thinking that chicanery and pathology have perhaps formed a partnership in some people in this area. Enough said, before I get myself into serious trouble.

@ Gram3:
He went to Bowdoin?! Well, that *is* an embarrassment! (Note: I didn’t go there, but I bet people who did – along with the administration and faculty – are rightfully horrified.)

numo wrote:

@ Gram3:
He went to Bowdoin?! Well, that *is* an embarrassment! (Note: I didn’t go there, but I bet people who did – along with the administration and faculty – are rightfully horrified.)

I don’t think Bowdoin should be blamed, and I know of a couple of people who would be embarrassed if they ever heard of Owen (not John.) For all we know, they did the best they could. Same could be said for my universities. 😉

srs wrote:

The Piper Goodbye Award

Thinking a GoFundMe for that prize might be successful. Along with the “Nothing Less Than the End of Mohler” award. Just to be clear, I am referring to the end of Mohler’s influence and this rhetorical tic of his, not to the end of Mohler as a person. If he and Piper and the others would repent of this foolishness and Gendered Other Gospel, it would be a great blessing to the Church.

Gram3 wrote:

Piper’s purple prose/peotry is from some other source, possibly Barnabas who I suspect is the twit behind Piper’s tweets.

Who’s Barnabas?

@ Corbin Martinez:
I’ve been wondering about this, too…

numo wrote:

Just so you don’t get mistaken for Fred Armisen’s character in the Woman and Woman First sketches on “Portlandia,” you’ll be fine.

I had to look that up. Why is it always the most masculine looking men who cross-dress? Doesn’t make sense.

I would like to suggest that a lexicon fund be started for the Grudem scholarship winner. Here is why:

On June 2, 1997, when the initial Colorado Springs Guidelines were agreed on, Guideline B 1 originally read,

“Brother” (adelphos) and “brothers” (adelphoi) should not be changed to “brother(s) and sister(s).”

In The TNIV and the GNB, 2004, p. 425 – 426, Poythress and Grudem write, “Examination of further lexicological data (as indicated in chapter 12) showed that this guideline was too narrow.”

“The following refined guideline was approved on Sept. 9, 1997,

“Brother” adelphos should not be changed to “brother or sister”; however, the plural adelphoi can be translated “brothers and sisters” where the context makes clear that the author is referring to both men and women.”

What was the ‘further lexicological data’? In Poythress and Grudem’s own words,

“in fact, the major Greek lexicons for over 100 years have said that adelphoi, which is the plural of the word adelphos, ‘brother” sometimes means “brothers and sisters” (see BAGD, 1957 and 1979, Liddell-Scott-Jones, 1940 and even 1869).

This material was new evidence to those of us who wrote the May 27 guidlines – we weren’t previously aware of this pattern of Greek usage outside the Bible. Once we saw these examples and others like them, we felt we had to make some change in the guidelines.”

Anyone who claims that an 1869 lexicon is “new evidence” is sorely out of date and can hardly be called a scholar, nor should such an impoverished person be held up as a model. Basically, Grudem admitted not referring to the standard lexicons in drafting his language guidelines. This whole thing boggles the mind.

Grudem was likewise unaware that the KJV had “usurp authority” in 1 Tim. 2:12. He thought “assume authority” used in Calvin’s Bible was a “novel and suspect” translation.

Grudem definitely needs a donation of basic lexicons and Bibles. Sad to see someone these days with such poor biblical literacy.

Corbin Martinez wrote:

Who’s Barnabas?

Piper’s son and an exec at Lifeway, IIRC, despite not being SBC. I briefly read Barnabas’ stuff at DG years ago and decided to give that up for Lent rather than chocolate.

@ Win:

Grudem perseverates on kephale and on gendered/non-gendered nouns and pronouns. In an odd coincidence, that played out in the TNIV controversy that made Crossway a ton of money with their gender-correct ESV of which Grudem is the editor. Strange how that happened. The Gospel Glitterati were huffy and puffy about TNIV because, as we all know, translating “brothers and sisters” would be nothing less than the end of the faithful proclamation of the Gendered Other Gospel.

@ Josh:
claiming that orientation and attraction are innately sinful is not only lacking in understanding and compassion – i believe it to be sinful as well.

Nancy wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
Along with the “Nothing Less Than the End of Mohler” award.
Have you noticed what Mohler has recently said about SSA and what Moore has recently said about gay children and gay marriage? Some folks have taken exception to their apparent change of position to some degree on these specific issues. I am wondering how this will play out in the world of comp uber alles.

I think it was motivated by the realization that the position WRT to SSA is not tenable, and way too many young people are aware of friends who experience SSA and choose to be celibate. It’s ridiculous to say that someone who refuses to act against their conscience by acting on their attraction is nevertheless sinful. My refusal to eat that second carton of ice-cream even though I want it is nevertheless sinful. And I do know that comparison is not exact, but sometimes it helps me to reduce an abstract argument to the absurd to see what we are really talking about.

I doubt that the SSA issue will affect their “complementarian” stance. The SSA thing is about keeping the conservative non-Calvinista pewpeons in the SBC on board with the leaders who are Calvinistas by pretending to be like-minded. Pure political posturing, IMO.

The “complementarian” stance is about protecting their exclusive access to the positions of authority. If women are ordained, then the supply of pulpit-fillers goes up and their power and income and prestige go down. They lose their selling point to insecure young men who are attracted to the ideas of male priority and entitlement to authority.

numo wrote:

@ Josh:
claiming that orientation and attraction are innately sinful is not only lacking in understanding and compassion – i believe it to be sinful as well.

But it is very effective if you want to provide people with a reason to feel spiritually superior to other people. I would also say that it is sinful to force people with SSA into heterosexual marriage in order to “cure” them. That only creates more heartbreak. I wonder about other things, too. See George Rekers whose thinking, among others’, is behind this. That did not end well.

@ numo:
We turned off tv awhile ago, so I haven’t seen it. Sounds like something I’d watch.

And I was more of referring to media stereotypes than actual reality.

Corbin Martinez wrote:

Just looked at the CBMW site, and at the meeting Owen Strachan said that complementarianism “is thriving because it works, because it orders life in a wise and sensible way.” I think my rhetoric sense is tingling.

Owen says it’s “thriving”? Really, Owen? The donations CBMW received last year were a mere $185k. Simple math tells us that the 26 people on their Council and the 9 on their board don’t give very much. Perhaps they don’t believe much in the organization!

I’m on the board of a Christian non-profit with fewer board members and zero council members, and we raised far more donations last year. These big name people don’t put their money where their mouth is.

As they say in Texas: “All hat and no cattle.”

Nancy wrote:

Same way with some of the Hollywood and TV representations of happy housewives in frilly dresses and high heels getting orgasmic over tub cleaner and the latest refrigerator.

LOL!! I certainly remember those ads in the magazines! “Make the little woman happy with the newest washing machine, vacuum cleaners, etc.” How silly those were!

I will admit, however, that beginning my course to become a paralegal in 1960, a “charm course” was required where we learned how to walk properly, dress appropriately, and (of course) apply makeup naturally. Barf! I chose not to pursue that career after learning there were more requirements about how to look than how to understand legal technicalities.

numo wrote:

@ Josh:
claiming that orientation and attraction are innately sinful is not only lacking in understanding and compassion – i believe it to be sinful as well.

I was mistaken in my earlier comment. I can’t speak to what Moore has or hasn’t said, but it’s Denny Burk who’s gone far off into the weeds of heresy with his comments to that effect. A recent discussion of his comments (and many other things) can be seen here:

http://spiritualfriendship.org/2014/11/26/panel-on-the-sinfulness-or-otherwise-of-sexual-orientation/

Basically, as I understand it, he claims that the temptation of attraction to / desire for a person other than one’s spouse (for a straight person) or for anyone of the same sex (for a gay or bi person) is not like the temptation that Jesus experienced, and is sinful (if you’re seeing red flags, you’re doing well).

Gram3 wrote:

I would also say that it is sinful to force people with SSA into heterosexual marriage in order to “cure” them. That only creates more heartbreak. I wonder about other things, too. See George Rekers whose thinking, among others’, is behind this. That did not end well.

The ex-gay world was nonplussed that they weren’t invited to peddle their nonsense at the latest ERLC. After decades of telling gay men and lesbians that they could find “healing” aka heterosexuality by entering into mixed-orientation marriages in faith, I’m glad to see that even conservative Baptists are slowly turning away from that destructive message. Of course, Charisma News thought it was the end of the world (Google “Transformation of a Homosexual: What Change Looks Like”), but they’re pretty much totally irrelevant in my world. I feel for anyone who lives in a world where they are relevant. 🙁

My spiritual head and master, Gramp3, has corrected me while discussing this post, and I am hereby repenting and submitting publicly.

This CBMW awards banquet is not *exactly* like a high school everybody-gets-an-award banquet nor is it *exactly* like a YMCA team where each tot gets a trophy. Very, very similar is not exactly the same as exactly the same. So I defer to his male judgment and acknowledge the slight differences, the greatest of which is the maturity of the participants. No comment or speculation regarding which participants are more mature will be forthcoming from either of us.

And Gramp3 chided me lovingly, as a servant-leader should, because I forgot the Biblical precedent for Biblical Leadership and Scholarship Awards recorded in 1 Piper and also in Grudemanations where the Lord presented awards to his disciples for being such amazing and special Theological Snowflakes. Certainly the Lord is Owen (not John)’s role model for gushing praises over these New Apostles of the Gendered Other Gospel.

@ Corbin Martinez:
It doesn’t sound like “role reversal” at all. It sounds like their personalities don’t line up with the stereotypes. I’m sure that they’re both trying the best they can, and, like Gram3 said, it might be wise to ease up on them a bit. I’m *not* trying to make you feel bad, but if you’re using your real name as a username, then your posts can easily be Googled, and I’m not sure if you want to have details of their lives splashed on a search results page.

There are many reasons for choosing a non-identifiable username, very much including what search engines (and therefore, anyone with an internet connection) can scrape up.

@ numo:
Hmmmmm, I didn’t really think about that. Although I doubt anyone would care, I am easily paranoid and wouldn’t want just anyone to read about there lives. Think I should drop the Martinez?

@ Corbin Martinez:

You’ll be fine, I’m sure, and we all enjoy your comments. It’s refreshing to have a young point of view!

@ Martos:

Thinking out loud here, but maybe Paul’s emphasis is on our *right* to question God and not about God’s response to our questions. As the Creator, he reserves the absolute right to destroy what he alone has created by his own will. We are contingent beings, after all.

But instead of destroying the pottery, he chose to redeem it. IOW I see the illustration being one of relative *rights* not a statement that people are merely pottery. Certainly it is possible, I think, that humanness is as far removed from Godness and pottery is from the potter.

God is not an angry potter looking for a reason to smash the pots like a human potter would. He has every right to do that, but out of the abundance of his mercy, he wants to re-make the pots as he intended them to be. He is the potter, but he is also the loving heavenly Father who endures the sin and questioning of his children because he has become one of us. He knows us, including the fact that we are dust. Why he loves us is a mystery to me!

Romans is a very densely argued letter, and it is not easy to understand, but people who harp on our wormness forget or hide that our Lord became one of us and has lifted up all who are in Christ as fellow-heirs with him.

The Gospel Glitterati see broken pots that God is ready to smash in Romans 9. They see God’s wrath and impatience. I see broken pots that God intends to re-make and God’s love and patient lovingkindness.

Bridget wrote:

I can only imagine why they chose San Diego for a destination. It seems a bit far from their usual haunts.

Well, November in San Diego is pretty nice compared to, say, Chicago or Louisville. Their travel expenses are probably reimbursable, so why not go for someplace pleasant? Grudem showed the way when he exercised authority over his wife and moved them from Chicago to Phoenix, not because he wanted to leave Chicago after twenty-plus Januaries, but because he was willing to sacrifice personally for Margaret’s health. What a guy. No wonder they love him.

@ Josh:
I try to avoid reading *anything* Denny Burk says. It’s bad for my blood pressure.

numo wrote:

So it’s wise to keep tabs on personal comments and information that we would rather not have out there for the whole world to see, you know?

I dig it.

Thanks for telling me. 😀

mirele wrote:

Small comfort for my GLBT friends. ERLC spent a lot of time talking at and down to GLBT persons but they had no out GLBT persons as speakers at their meeting. There were accredited GLBT journalists at the ERLC meeting and they were none too impressed by the goings on particularly because of the exclusion.
From my vantage point outside it just appears to me that ERLC is spitting in the wind. Just my personal opinion.

Oh, I agree! I didn’t feel welcomed or included based on what I read about this ERLC, either. Still, I felt it was worth pointing out that they did make a small shift that, while inconsequential from my perspective, caused a good bit of a ruckus in a closely related sphere. I learned about it by way of a couple of straight people who constantly promote ex-gay articles – in this case, the Charisma News article I mentioned previously – on Facebook.

And to your point about their selection of speakers, I see that they didn’t even have anyone who falls within the category of “out and celibate.” Just a bunch of straight people and a few “don’t say gay” gay people. Ergo, completely irrelevant in my world.

numo wrote:

I try to avoid reading *anything* Denny Burk says. It’s bad for my blood pressure.

I should take your advice. He’s toxic.

I know. This felt like satire.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Ha ha. Pardon me while I – A HA HA HA HA!!! – um, have a good chuckle HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
The arrogance, the – er – inbreeding for lack of a better term, the hubris – it is too funny to be true. I wonder if this crowd realizes just how silly they sound to the rest of the world!

Victorious wrote:

Barf! I chose not to pursue that career after learning there were more requirements about how to look than how to understand legal technicalities.

As in you were training to be eye candy for the REAL lawywers?

Corbin Martinez wrote:

I had to look that up. Why is it always the most masculine looking men who cross-dress? Doesn’t make sense.

Because People are Weird.

If someone in my secular field wanted to name an award after me, I’d tell them no dice. Why are Piper and Grudem not protesting – and disavowing if necessary – the use of their names for these awards?

Sophie wrote:

Honoring Grudem with a musical set in the Fifties seems fitting, since that’s where his views about men and women belong

The Eighteen-fifties, I should say….

Win wrote:

Grudem definitely needs a donation of basic lexicons and Bibles. Sad to see someone these days with such poor biblical literacy.

Yes, but scholarship is not really the point for these people. There is no “complementary scholarship”, just as there is no “egalitarian scholarship”. There is just scholarship that goes wherever the best information leads.

They just use their poor pretence of “scholarship” to find any argument that supports their agenda¹, however weak. This is not scholarship at all, it’s propaganda, it’s driven by their ideology.

Translation guidelines are necessary for any larger translation project done by more than just one or two people. Usually a translation memory also makes sense. But that anybody should set out to draft guidelines on how something is to be translated WITHOUT consulting the best available tools is beyond me. Grudem – not so much of a scholar then.

I’m astonished about Köstenberger a bit. He is originally Austrian, and I met him twice for about a week, in the early eighties. He seemed like a pretty clever guy. Pity he has allowed himself to drift along this ideological path.
—————————
¹ After so much handwringing about the “homosexual agenda” and the “feminist agenda”, isn’t it about time someone did something about the complementarian agenda – since it’s definitely harmful to real people?

By pretty much all accounts, John Piper and Wayne Grudem are honorable men.
*
I am certainly a “fanboy” of honorable men.
*
We need more of them.

Bridget wrote (quoting the CBMW’s own website):

“In 2013, many evangelical groups are convictionally complementarian. The contemporary surge of interest in the gospel and the greatness of God has coincided with widespread adoption of complementarianism, with many prominent churches, seminaries, authors, and para-church organizations joyfully celebrating God’s good design for manhood and womanhood, home and church.”

And, of course, they don’t say how many churches, authors and organizations, or which ones. They just generally pat themselves on the back, providing no numbers that anyone can verify or disprove. Whom do they think they’re convincing, apart from themselves?

Ken wrote:

You can, believe it or not, discuss this verse at great length. But it refers to the church and not the world.

True WRT that particular verse. But that isn’t the whole of the argument re: marriage and men and women. They take 1 Timothy 2:12 back to creation and explain that males were placed over females as part of the order of Creation. That is how they shoot down the argument that 1 Timothy 2:12 is culture-bound. They say, “No, no, no, males were put in leadership and authority over females as part of God’s Creation order.

Therefore, they conclude, the instructions in 1 Timothy 2:12 are universal. I’m saying that if males are, in fact, put by God in authority over females from their creation, then it is inconsistent to say that that creation order no longer applies in the secular realm but does still apply in the church and home.

Genesis is quite clear that the creation mandate is rather universal and certainly includes working. However, the horse of women working in the Western marketplace has left the barn and the barn has burned down. They know a hopeless cause when they see it. Besides, their kids’ pediatricians and their cardiologists are probably women, so accommodations must be made.

WRT to marriage, they say that one-man-one-woman marriage is instituted in Genesis and the civil state is bound by that because it is a Creation Ordinance. IOW, it is universal and not culture-bound. So, in the case of marriage, the Creation Order does apply in the civil sphere, but in the case of male authority over females the Creation Order does *not* apply in the civil sphere and only to the home and church.

This is bare nekkid Special Pleading. And that doesn’t even include the problems with even getting to their assumption that the Creation Order is male authority over females which include skillful deployment of the Straw Man army and making their argument march in circles. I’m just assuming their narrative of the Creation Order for argument’s sake. They are inconsistent with just about everything. And that happens when one must adjust the evidence to fit the a priori conclusion rather than reaching a conclusion based on the evidence and reason.

You and I should really discuss this whole thing sometime. I’m quite sure we could resolve the matter quickly. 😉

I’m renaming it the “John Piper & Wayne Grudem Complementarian Overcompensation Award for Scholarship and Leadership”.

They’ve already made Complementarianism a mouthful. Why not make the award a huge mouthful?

I think it’d be tough to shorten it to “The John-Wayne Award”, but the CWBW will want the name to be as long as possible, I’m sure.

What better way for those guys to make up for their deficits than by hosting an awards ceremony, and giving themselves all a little bang to end out 2014!

Gram3 wrote:

they think that exalting themselves is a grand and awesome thing?

I fear that is right. This reminds me of John 10:43 – “for they loved human praise more than praise from God.” That doesn’t make me feel anything but heartsick for these people and those who look up to them.

Once again, a new teaching from the Rabbi on this subject as he translates God’s Word from the original Hebrew.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSkv0kcd-U8&list=UU3q-ByZ2eoOikcEiajMYXXA

What Churches Don’t Want Women To Know!

It’s not enough to know compartmentalists are wrong. You have to prove it, and this certainly does.

God bless.

Janey wrote:

Owen says it’s “thriving”? Really, Owen? The donations CBMW received last year were a mere $185k. Simple math tells us that the 26 people on their Council and the 9 on their board don’t give very much. Perhaps they don’t believe much in the organization!

You’re right Janey, the arithmetic just doesn’t work out. Mayhap our blog queens could do a post on just how much currency CBMW really has in the wider Evangelical world.

Gram3 wrote:

During the war, women demonstrated that they could do what men could do. They were allowed to enter the public workforce en masse because it was essential. Once their competence was demonstrated in jobs beyond the traditional female jobs, there was no going back.

Then the war ended, and the men came back and wanted their old jobs back (pushing the women back into women’s work) just like before the war.

Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

Am I the only one reminded of Paige Patterson and his bunch? No objection to being immortalized in stained glass now. They don’t even have the humility to wait until after they’ve passed on.

“Augustus wasn’t proclaimed a god until after his death. Now Caligula has himself proclaimed a god while he’s alive to enjoy it.”
— Alister Cooke intro to an episode of “I, Claudius”.

Joe2 wrote:

She was not limited at all in a male-controlled system. Her talent and ability was recognized and rewarded.

In addition to what Gram3 said, let me add the following list of women whose talent was not recognized and rewarded – they were all crucial to research that resulted in Nobel Prizes for the men involved but they were left off:

Rosalind Franklin – the discovery of DNA

Jocelyn Bell Burnell – discovered pulsars

Esther Lederberg – her and her first husband discovered replica plating of bacteria, but only her husband and another man were given the Nobel Prise for it

Chien-Shiung Wu – an experimental physicist whose work was crucial to disproving the law of parity – two of her colleagues got a Nobel Prize for it though.

There are others as well, so even at the highest levels of science women have been marginalized.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Then the war ended, and the men came back and wanted their old jobs back (pushing the women back into women’s work) just like before the war.

Yes and no. The men did come home and there was a push for the women to relinquish jobs to the men. However, some of the jobs had been war jobs and they existed no more, like the airplane factory in my town which almost shut down due to less demand and eventually turned into an International Harvester plant. The women were not pushed back into women’s jobs so much since the women’s jobs were already filled. What a lot of women did was quit work, stayed home (a post-war subdivision frequently) and had the stereotypical four children, large dog and station wagon. Some of the women refused to do that (or could not for various reasons) but I do not know what percentage of people did what. Many of the women were only too glad to get on with their goals of family and had been waiting for the men to get home to do so. Being on the line in a war production plant was not the life’s goal of everybody, don’t you know. It was this rush to reproduce that instituted the boomer generation; this is what the boom (in the birth rate) was.

That was the 40s. By the 50s we were in another war (Korea) and that was yet a different story. The way I hear a lot of talk nowadays it seems that some women think that everything that happens to affect their lives is due to some evil male influence. In other words they seem to be saying that war or no war, good economy or poor economy, changing social values in general or not, changing religious ideas or not, developments in technology affecting the work place or not, the availability of the pill and such have no impact on women’s lives and choices, it all about the mean old men. That is way too simplistic to be accurate.

Home-baking day in the Clan Bulbeck.

Sigh… so much cake, so little glycaemic control.

@ Nancy:

Forgot to say that your historical recollections are very interesting to me. I often forget that my story does not reflect everyone’s story, so it’s good to get other points of view and interpretations.

What do you think are the most productive ways to encourage both men and women without one blaming the other which is never productive? I don’t think there is enough discussion in a positive direction on this topic. Maybe that’s not the best way to frame it, but it’s all I’ve got right now. I am so sick of the negativity.

@ Gram3:

Ah, now you’re asking me something. Up until about 10 days ago I took one unit of fast-acting bolus insulin for every 40 gram3’s of carbs or so and Bob was your proverbial Uncle. Then last Friday it all went pear-shaped, for reasons I still haven’t got to the bottom of yet. I may need to transfer to a slightly slower-acting bolus insulin (my basal insulin is fine).

Fortunately, I love exercise, so I’m off for a 900-meter hill climb before work tomorrow.

I have no plans to move to Splenda. I’d rather just cut back.

Faithful wrote:

You spent an entire evening watching a dullard take a bowling ball in the crotch but you can’t spare an hour for this?

I like to know what I’m going into. With “Nutshot Compilations” you know what you’re getting from the title alone.

What next? A Grudem Statue? Piper in Bronze?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Yeah. It’s lowbrow humor. About as lowbrow as you can get. But still more honest than these MenaGAWD and their antics.

There’s a game show in Japan based on the premise that the [male] contenders are struck in the groin with a paddle when they answer a question incorrectly. We’re mere amateurs by comparison. 😮

How about the “John Piper Look At Me” award

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“Ten Most Creative Nutshots” — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF_rWzDlL5U
I am sure “alcohol was involved” in a lot of these — “Hold my beer and watch this!”
What gets me (especially the bowling ball down the playground slide one) was these guys all act like they didn’t think it was going to hurt right up to the moment of impact.
Yeah. It’s lowbrow humor. About as lowbrow as you can get. But still more honest than these MenaGAWD and their antics.

This only confirms my belief that Idiocracy was actually a documentary

@ Gram3:

Gram 3
I don’t have time to write out it all out, but a few years ago I dissected this passage with just my lexicon, blueletterbible.org and scripture4all.org. I feel like I came up with a very viable translation and I even ran it by 3 well known scholars at a CBE conference who said it works. If you have time, see what you think.
It’s this: I found that the reference to a female at all is added to verse 15. It’s not in the original. Take out she or they when the translation means women for they that is a borrowing from verse 14. Then figure back to the earlier verses that go back and forth from Adam to Eve about who sinned first or who was tricked. Then the whole passage finally makes sense. The whole point Paul was making was that who was first didn’t matter for salvation, both could be saved. Verse 15’s they refers to both Adam and Eve who would be saved by the child-bearing if they (Adam and Eve) have faith. This goes along with scholars who say that the child-bearing could refer to the Messiah that was coming through the seed of the woman. The child-bearing that produced (Christ) only saves if we have faith in Him.

I really don’t see why it is necessary to try to make 1 Tim 2: 12-15 say something at all other than what it seems to be saying. Another approach is to say that what the author is saying was consistent with the thinking of the day but we no longer believe that or operate like that. We certainly take that approach with slavery and various scriptural statements (or lack of them) relative to slavery. And many if not most of us do that with certain things that do not jibe with evidence, like six-day young earth creationism and Noah’s flood as physically covering the entire planet. We do not any more refer to the world as having corners or pillars for support, for example. We all (I think) read the OT descriptions of leprosy and say that whatever they were talking about it is not what we today call leprosy. Most of us do not condone polygamy, and in the process we handle certain statements in scripture differently from how those who do condone it handle those same references, mostly by saying that was then and this is now. And look at how people argue about tithing or not tithing, by saying that well the NT statements referred to OT stuff and not us. And lots of folks are total cessationists and lots more are partial cessationists without trying to re-interpret scripture; just saying that was then and this is now.

In other words, just saying that something does not apply to us today, for any one of several reasons, is something we do all the time. Why get hung up on male and female as seen a couple of thousand years ago and believe that this must be handled differently from the other things that most of us no longer believe applies to us?

Nancy wrote:

Why get hung up on male and female as seen a couple of thousand years ago and believe that this must be handled differently from the other things that most of us no longer believe applies to us?

For me it is that these people are saying that they are conservative and that the Bible means what it says. Those are the people I believe are being dishonest and pretending to do something which they do not do and leading many astray. If someone wants to look at the Bible in a particular way like the one you suggest that doesn’t create that tension, then these verses or even the entire gendered gospel is not a problem. But some of us, as you aptly described it, have been resurged upon and our churches are no longer our churches.

It *is* a problem when people say they are bound by certain conservative hermeneutics and then just throw them out the window when that methodology does not yield the required result. They throw the word “liberal” or “feminist” at anyone who disagrees with them because they say we are abandoning the authority of Scripture when it is they who are twisting it and taking it out of context and using their own ad hoc hermeneutic to support their human tradition. They and their trusting audience are the ones I’m concerned about.

Gram3 wrote:

Of course they want to impose their own cultural assumptions on the text while saying that those who disagree with them are the ones who are invoking their own cultural bias which conveniently preserves their status and control. And cash flow. We must never forget the cash flows.

That does not make sense. Should be a period after “cultural bias” followed by “That conveniently preserves their status and control.”

Joe2 wrote:

JeffT wrote:
There are others as well, so even at the highest levels of science women have been marginalized.
Jeff T –
Madame Curie wasn’t marginalized. She is known for her work on radioactivity and twice won the Nobel Prize.

She had to go to France to study because she was not permitted to enter the university in Poland because she was a woman. That is pretty marginalizing, and it was due to the church’s bad doctrine of gender. Thankfully Pierre was a little more informed and recognized her gifts. They are a great model of a married couple working together as a team and supporting one another. Imagine the story if CBMW had their way. I think every last one of them should refuse to benefit from anything she discovered. That would demonstrate that they really believe what they preach.

Joe2 wrote:

Jeff T –
Madame Curie wasn’t marginalized. She is known for her work on radioactivity and twice won the Nobel Prize.

Joe2- If your point is that women have been historically welcome in the scientific world and allow to rise to whatever heights and receive whatever awards their talents allow, I strongly disagree. The names I listed were just some of the women whose denial of a prize by the Nobel Committee are considered to be the most blatant travesties. If we both put together lists of women whose scientific achievements were recognized vs. those who were denied recognition because of their gender, my list would be much longer than yours. Moreover, the history of the scientific world itself attests to the marginalization of women in the field, just the same as the history of society itself. It’s an issue we can further debate if you wish, but I think that to deny that women have been marginalized in science historically is to deny history itself.

Gram3 wrote:

In short, I believe that Paul is correcting wrong doctrine in a very straightforward way, just like he did with the Corinthians and the Galatians. The Artemis cult taught that women had the knowledge and men did not, that the woman was born first and the man second, and that women should be in the place of authority over men. Only women were priests in the Artemis cult and men had to be castrated to serve. Bearing children was not encouraged.

i.e. a Female Supremacist cult in the midst of a Male Supremacist culture (Communism begets Objectivism). Sounds almost like a cartoon of X-Treme Feminism — RL “Feminazis”, to use the Rush Limbaugh term.

And St Paul’s letter against this Female Supremacist cult’s influence in the Ephesian church was used by later generations to justify Male Supremacy by Divine Right.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

And St Paul’s letter against this Female Supremacist cult’s influence in the Ephesian church was used by later generations to justify Male Supremacy by Divine Right.

Paul had a lot of work to do de-programming people with their prior assumptions, whether they were pagans or Jews or Gentiles or women or men. I think he had to undergo his own de-programming before his ministry started. The point he makes in different contexts is that in the Kingdom, none are above anyone else. We are brothers and sisters and co-heirs, just like in Genesis 1 where Adam and Eve were “brother” and “sister” before the Lord God.

In Corinthians, status was claimed on the basis of gifts or wealth. In Galatians it was ethnicity. In Ephesians it is females and males. We are all messed up by our prior assumptions and desire for priority and status. That is the common theme running through the Gospels and the Epistles. Get over ourselves and start one-anothering.

Gram3 wrote:

In Corinthians, status was claimed on the basis of gifts or wealth. In Galatians it was ethnicity. In Ephesians it is females and males.

Like each of the Epistles had a certain “theme” relating to the conditions where it was being sent — status/money problems for Corinth, racism for Galatia, male/female supremacy problems for Ephesus. (So what’s the theme of Romans and Hebrews?) At which point, turning them into Talmud and Hadith instead of Wisdom advisories was going way too far and too inflexible.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

In the simplest of argument, you said what I say. Taking the phrase that a woman should not have authority over a man does not mean that a man should have authority over a woman.
When I set out to deeply study this a few years ago, I became only 99.9% confident that egalitarianism was biblical. I became 100% confident when my daughter asked a simple question. “Where does the Bible teach a man to lead a woman?” As Gram 3 said, the need to study the complicated complementarianism is not for our benefit, thus implying that if possible, we may save some by refuting their faulty logic.

JeffT wrote:

In addition to what Gram3 said, let me add the following list of women whose talent was not recognized and rewarded – they were all crucial to research that resulted in Nobel Prizes for the men involved but they were left off …

There are others as well, so even at the highest levels of science women have been marginalized.

Actress Hedy Lamarr invented spread-spectrum technology (foundation of Bluetooth and Wi-Fi) in partnership with composer George Antheil. They patented their invention in 1942 but donated the patent as their contribution to the war effort. Lamarr didn’t receive recognition for her achievement until very recently.

Patti wrote:

we may save some by refuting their faulty logic.

I was one of the “they” but not because of failure to examine the logic. I just failed to look at the entire question until a “complementarian” said something that I *knew* was ridiculous and not in the text. Then I started looking at the proof-texts and their interpretations of those that I had lazily never looked at before. I found Grudem’s adulteration of the text in 1 Corinthians 11, the very misleading mis-translation of Ephesians 5:22, and read RBMW for myself, shocked at the illogic and eisegesis I found there. I mean truly shocked.

I wanted and still want to know the truth, and the consequences of facing that have been costly personally. But I am not willing to participate in holding men and women in bondage to doctrines of men. That is what Jesus called nullifying his word by adding our own. That is exactly what these award winners do and approve of others doing. It is something of which they should be deeply ashamed, yet they arrogantly boast about it.

I guess that makes me a Bondage Breaker. 😉

Joe2 wrote:

Please take a quick look at the biography of Dr. Grace Murray Hooper who in the 1950’s lead the team that invented the COBOL computer language. She was not limited at all in a male-controlled system. Her talent and ability was recognized and rewarded.

I’m just not seeing women as having as many options career wise or relationship wise in the 1950s as they do today.

@ Nancy:

While it may be true that there are several reasons why women face difficulties in life or career, it still remains that there are some men – such as guys in CBMW or Reconstructionist Groups – who truly do work to suppress women.

I’m not a secular left wing feminist. Unlike most secular, lefty feminists, I don’t automatically assume every man is sexist, or that all sexism is intentional.

There are some men, even some who identify as Christian, who have very backwards views of women.

Woman is a temple built over a sewer. –Tertullian, “the father of Latin Christianity” (c160-225)

Woman was merely man’s helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God. – Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius (354-430)

Some sexist men today practice benevolent sexism but don’t think of themselves as being sexist. They think keeping women in limited roles is good, helpful, and protective for women and culture.

Some of the sexist men today (and ones I’ve seen in the 1980s and 90s), from the literature or blog posts I’ve read of theirs, refer often to the American 1950s (or pre- 1865 era, depending on the type of sexist we are talking about) as a mecca of gender roles.

They perceive the ’50s as being a time when “all women are Stay at Home Wives, and today’s Americans should return to that.”

Whether that was reality or not may be moot when discussing these types of guys. It’s their perception of the 1950s that takes precedence over reality and that colors a lot of their writing.

Who are Grudem or Piper? Are they trying to imitate heir perception of a church patriarch whose rings we should be kissing. The true patriarchs probably have have more humility and integrity. Also I don’t believe they would push a heretical interpretation of Scripture. Wasn’t it during Byzantine times, the Patriarchs at the time determined Arianism was heretical? I don’t get it.

Gram3 wrote:

. I found Grudem’s adulteration of the text in 1 Corinthians 11, the very misleading mis-translation of Ephesians 5:22, and read RBMW for myself, shocked at the illogic and eisegesis I found there. I mean truly shocked.

Bruce Ware (Owen’s father in law) uses 1 Corinthians 11 to “prove” ESS, too. Oy vey.

Daisy wrote:

Woman was merely man’s helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God. – Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius (354-430)

I read years ago that Augustine brought a lot of baggage into his late-in-life conversion, and this was a part of that baggage. Monica’s son Auggie started out as a real horndog and ended up as a celibate monastic. In neither case did he ever interact with a woman as a person — before they were Sex Objects and afterwards they were The Forbidden Fruit (with baggage carried over from before).

Lydia wrote:

Bruce Ware (Owen’s father in law) uses 1 Corinthians 11 to “prove” ESS, too

What’s wrong, in two sentences, with ESS?

Gram3 wrote:

Bob the Proverbial Uncle???

The phrase “Bob’s your uncle” is a fairly old UK idiom meaning something along the lines of “job done, and furthermore, it will all be simple from then on”.

E.g.: Just chop the veg, brush it with oil and stick it in the oven for 40 minutes, and Bob’s your uncle.

@ Ken:
Gee Ken, I am NOT that articulate!

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
After becoming a Christian he banished the mother of his child and she never got to see her son again. for some reason he could not marry her because of her low status and his sin and then he banished her which was sin. Oy vey.

@ Ken:

I should not have mentioned it. The christian blogosphere went around and around on this issue a few years ago. I have just always been amazed at all the stuff “scholars” find in 1 Corinthians 11 that is not there.

Lydia wrote:

@ Ken:
I should not have mentioned it. The christian blogosphere went around and around on this issue a few years ago. I have just always been amazed at all the stuff “scholars” find in 1 Corinthians 11 that is not there.

I must disagree, though I understand why you might regret mentioning it after all the discussion here and elsewhere. I think we need to mention it on a post about Piper and Grudem. These men are being acclaimed and elevated while they put down the Eternal Son, the Word of John 1.

  __

“Stop, Lõõk, & Listen?”

Hey Gram ,

hmmm…

God settled the ‘theological’ ESS question when He said, “This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!” 

🙂

—

__

“Consult Da Book, Perhaps?”

Refer to: Sopwith

Refer to:  Gram

Refer to:   Ken

Supplemental :

Daniel 7:14
He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Matthew 11:27
“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

Matthew 28:18
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Ephesians 1:22
And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,

Hebrews 2:8
and put everything under their feet.” In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.

Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knows the …

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, All power is given to me …

John 3:35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.

John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, …

Ephesians 1:20 Which he worked in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and …

Philippians 2:9-11 Why God also has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is …

Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, …

Hebrews 2:8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that …

Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, …

1 Peter 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels …

Revelation 1:18 I am he that lives, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for ever …

(bump)

‘All’ is a quite lot of stuff…

(grin)

…and ‘His’ eyes were flames of fire?

U bet!

“Cuz I’m bad, I’m Heaven, Universe and Eternity wide…”     🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWttL4gs078

What?

“…and I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war.  His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself.  He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God… ~ Apostle John, on Patmos 

Hear Him?

bet you’ze sweeeeet @zz.

—> Do what ya wanta, Jesus is tak’in care of business all da same…

(grin)

hahahahahaha

… “Lõõk, I see da heavens open’in N’ da the Son of Man
standing in the place of honor at da right hand of God…

Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeese !!!

Don’t get no bedder…

🙂

Sopy
__
“I can do all things through Him who strengthens me…”

Yeah !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFZmCytkit4

🙂

—

NC Now quoted Joe2’s comment thus:

Joe2 wrote:
Please take a quick look at the biography of Dr. Grace Murray Hooper who in the 1950’s lead the team that invented the COBOL computer language. She was not limited at all in a male-controlled system.

Whereupon NC Now continued:

Excuse me. But …
First off it’s Grace Hopper. Not Hooper.
Second she was held back a lot by being a woman. A huge lot… To sum it up she got to the level she did in spite of being a woman…

I have to agree with NC Now, and others, on this. Grace Hopper may or may not have been personally held back through being a woman; there’s never any way of knowing for certain what would have happened if. But the fact that she succeeded more or less alone indicates that she was the exception that proved the rule. Where were all the other women?

I read an extremely interesting report not long ago on the gender-balance in the pre-school education profession in the UK. Historically, of course, this profession has long been female-dominated. The author (who was female) argued that, in an age where increasing numbers of children are growing up without a father in the home – for a variety of reasons – it would be healthy to attract more male pre-school teachers who could provide the stable male role-model that many children lack. I agree with her, btw. In interviewing a broad sample of the minority of men in the profession, she found that they were widely discriminated against. Quite apart from the tacit assumption that any man wanting to work with children must be a pervert, they reported difficulty in progressing their careers, and that they were frequently patronised and assumed to be fundamentally ignorant and incompetent at childcare by their female colleagues and supervisors.

This stick points both ways, of course. For one thing, it shows that both genders are capable of perpetuating institutionalised sexism. But on the other hand, it shows men experiencing the same gender-specific obstacles that women have always experienced in many other career-paths.

@ Gram3:

I was banished and shunned by a once popular discernment blog and branded a heretic concerning ESS. What was chilling is that I did not even bring ESS up in that context. Someone on the blog had read a discussion I was in on another blog and that was enough. They even publicly threatened to boycott blogs that allowed me to comment. It was a bizarre experience so am a bit gun shy.

Sopwith wrote:

Don’t get no bedder

Amen, Sopy! Amen!

Excellent comment…thanks!

@ Nick:

[male preschool teachers] were frequently patronised and assumed to be fundamentally ignorant and incompetent at childcare by their female colleagues and supervisors

This stereotype – that men need women to teach them how to interact with/care for children – annoys me so much. It’s perpetuated by both broader culture and Christian culture. In media it often goes to the extreme of husbands/boyfriends/men actually losing babies/children because they are so incompetent and clueless. Apparently this happened in the Christian film Moms’ Night Out that came out this year, and it happened on Friends once (Joey and Chandler forgot Ross’ infant son Ben on a bus, then couldn’t remember what he was wearing when they went to the police station to pick him up).

Gram3 wrote:

but I’m not going to be putting down the one who bought me with his blood.

That is how I view it, too, only stronger. Akin to calling Him a liar.

“Still has” = “still had.” Sorry. Apparently I mislaid my grammar this morning.

Gram3 wrote:

I must disagree, though I understand why you might regret mentioning it after all the discussion here and elsewhere. I think we need to mention it on a post about Piper and Grudem. These men are being acclaimed and elevated while they put down the Eternal Son, the Word of John 1.

“If I make Him decrease, then *I* Must Increase”?

@ Josh:

Indeed; 30 cm per nanosecond is the speed of light, and only electromagnetic signals (not “cathode ray” electrons as would have been found in the vacuum tubes from which early computers were made) would travel so fast.

Wikipedia is quite correct on this and, indeed, much else.

I am so glad to learn about Grace Hopper here. I had no idea.