The best $10.00 you will ever spend is the yearly subscription to Searching Together. The next issue to be released will challenge the traditional Christian view of death and the afterlife by proposing the Scripture clearly teaches that death is the Christian's enemy, specifically his last enemy, and is only conquered by Christ at the believer's personal resurrection. Political columnist Cal Thomas, who has publicly acknowledged the contributions of Searching Together to his own Christian thinking, personally purchased 100 copies of the 1997 issue on God and Country, calling it the best biblical approach to the subject he has ever read.
In this day of shallow thinking and hollow Christian teaching, Searching Together is like a deluxe steak dinner compared to the typical ice cream fare of evangelical churches. The entire collection of the previously published quarterlies of Searching Together is available for a mere $50.00. For those of you with small book allowances, take it from me, it's the best investment you will ever make for your personal library.
55 comments:
I totally disagree and am prepared to separate fellowship over this one. The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS)is the BEST by FAR! And I am unanimous in that opinion.
:)
Kevin,
As one ‘night owl’ to another and maybe as one ‘revolutionary’ to another, let me ask on the topic “unafraid to challenge systems of thought”, where was the beginning of the minority named Anabaptist in 251 AD?
Could it have been, “These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us.” (NLT)
I believe the “us” was the majority that were “zealous for the law” in Acts 21:20.
Yea Wade, I never give up. :)
Rudyard Kipling: “Anybody might have found it – but His Whisper came to me.”
Kevin,
JETS is a good one, no doubt, but methinks it puts a couple of bucks more of a dent in the billfold.
:)
Rex,
Hmmm. Obviously the Anabaptists post-date the Acts 20:21 statement by several hundred years, so though there may be application, it is definitely indirect and not the primary application of Acts 20.
proposing the Scripture clearly teaches that death is the Christian's enemy, specifically his last enemy, and is only conquered by Christ at the believer's personal resurrection.
This said, how does this say we should approach death? After all, Life is Terminal.
Some studies show that Christians (apparently especially those of us who believe in supernatural healing) "resort" to life extending treatments more than other identifiable groups.
If by "unafraid to challenge systems of thought that run counter to the clear and plain teaching of Jesus Christ in the New Covenant Scriptures", you mean it is thoroughly egalitarian and prolific in its publication of that position, then I say a hearty "NO THANKS" and disagree vehemently with you on the best $10 I will spend.
If Laurie Fasullo's article, which is promoted on the first page of the website, is any indication of the scholarship of this publication then I would say this "journal" has a long way to go to be scholarly. Her article is terribly outdated (she never mentions that the current editor of Liddell-Scott, one of the world's leading Greek lexicographers, P.G.W. Glare, agreed with Grudem that kephale never means source) and limited in its treatment of the contradictory evidence.
I agree with Kevin Crowder that JETS is much better, with a host of world renowned scholars contributing (it appears that Zens is the main guy at Searching Together and the vast majority of the articles are published by him). If you are looking for scholarly articles from a New Covenant perspective, you can check out some free resources at http://www.newcovenantjournal.com/ or http://www.soundofgrace.com/.
D.R.
Whether one accepts the equality of men and women in the New Testament is not a gauge of scholarship.
There are scholars on both sides of the issue.
Wade,
I'll agree that there are scholars on both sides, but that certainly doesn't mean they are equally right or equally excellent.
Poor scholarship might still be scholarship, but that doesn't mean it should promoted or believed.
Agreed.
The humility to admit one could be wrong in his/her interpretation is important.
Wade,
By the way, equality of men and women is not at question here and the suggestion of such is disingenuous. As you know the issue between egalitarians and complementarians is one of role in the Church and home. Equality is not based on role. Those who disagree would have to believe that pastors/elders (or presidents, or CEOs, or leaders) are somehow of more worth than others, and I don't think any of us would say that (nor would Jesus).
Wade,
The humility to admit one could be wrong does not negate the need to deal with error. Nor does it negate the consequences of being in error.
DR: I hear this example often and I don't think CEO's, Presidents, Vice Presidents is what God has in mind when he created man and woman.
Debbie,
As a Calvinist, I am sure you would agree that God knew exactly what leadership roles would look like thousands of years after He created. And Jesus and Paul certainly understood the difference in roles during their time on this Earth. And again, we would not say that one's role has any quantitative or qualitative effect on worth or equality. Thus the lack of leadership role does not either.
The purpose of 'dialoguing' is to explore what is SHARED as well as what is not shared.
We weren't all created 'clones' of one another, but we were given, by God, different gifts so that we might learn to share these gifts for everyone's benefit.
One 'difference' we have, is that we see things from different points of view. Different perspectives.
Could be that God intended that arrangement for our good,
so we would have to learn to LISTEN to one another, and to try to UNDERSTAND that which we cannot see from our own perspective.
To those of us who will listen to and try to understand one another,
God gives a very great gift:
we become ABLE to see the world as others can see it, through the eyes that God has given to them.
Maybe God is wiser than we know.
DR: If the Bible is to be read and interpreted correctly, and as a Calvinist you know that scripture interprets scripture, I do not see a male/female leadership role. If you look in the OT for example, Hannah and Samson's mother actually contradicted their husband's and did what an angel of the Lord who appeared to them and not to their husbands(why was that?) told them and disobeyed their husbands in doing so. Their husbands actually began to follow their lead. An angel appeared to Mary and not to Joseph. In fact Joseph. Why was that DR?
Jon Zens made a good point in his first talk on Sunday night. Satan hates women because this was who Christ was going to come through. A woman. He has a special hate for women. This is obvious by the abuse of women in so many religions and cultures, countries. He attempts to destroy them through attempting to make it as though they cannot be fully gifted and is instead to be subservient.
John Zens also made other good points such as the prophets going to women such as Hulda and not to men. There are other good examples in the Bible.
Debbie,
Those would be great examples of an egalitarian position if they didn't fly in the face of so much male leadership in Scripture. Why were there 12 male disciples? Why were there no female patriarchs? Why did Jesus come as a male and not a female? Why weren't there any female writers of Scripture (that we know of clearly)? Why are the angels male (yes, they do have male sex organs - they didn't cover their feet!)? I could go on and on with those sorts of examples. And none have to do with the culture and all have to do with God's choice.
There are actually many more of those sort of arguments that fill up a complementarian position, rather than an egalitarian one. And if you want Scripture to interpret Scripture, why not start with clear passages of male headship like Ephesians 5 and 1 Timothy 2?
The examples you gave must be read with an egalitarian slant in order to apply to your position - taken at face value they communicate nothing to an egalitarian position, and much less than what similar things that I said above would communicate to a complementarian position.
As for Joseph, he was visited by an angel (twice in fact - more than Mary) - once in Matthew 1 and then in Matthew 2, where he is told to LEAD his family to Egypt. So not only are you incorrect, that argument actually works against your position.
I would like to thank Emmanuel - Enid for sharing their internet broadcasts and especially Jon Zens sessions. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Debbie,
Also, the special hate for the woman comes from the offspring of the woman - particularly Jesus, who crushed the serpent's head.
A complementarian could argue that one way to destroy the seed of the woman is to destroy the home. If you flip-flop the roles of the man and woman, it could lead to the destruction of the home. Note that in the last 50 years egalitarianism has grown stronger, yet the family has grown weaker. There are more women in the workplace and less in the home and today more of our children are departing from the faith than ever before.
I'm not making that as a definitive argument, but simply to show that your slant can determine how you interpret those sorts cultural and extra-Biblical arguments.
To allow a woman to freedom to do as God leads? Think? etc. is to destroy the home? I think it would enhance the home. Two Christian people with different thinking, different ideas etc. destroy the home? That's pretty faulty logic. It makes it nice for the man but not so great for the woman. Unless you marry a woman who doesn't like to study, think, have ideas, articulate those ideas and just likes to be a showpiece and kind of there except for housekeeping and child raising. Something a man should be involved with as well.
As for the disciples being men, it was culture.No other reason. I believe God to be male, so sending a male(and look how Christ was with women and how he used them in his ministry) which is never the issue here.
DR: I would refer you to the videos of Jon Zen speaking at Emmanuel Baptist. He does a great job of answering your questions and you might learn something, remember scripture interprets scripture. For example, read in the Bible Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:17-18. Speaking of all believers(now put this with the passages you give and reconcile them as one) also Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Peter 4:10-11 again speaking to all believers.
It's not the number of times an angel appeared to someone DH, you are missing the point here and completely skipped over Samson's mother who was visited more than once by an angel and not the husband and then the angel came again to both not just one or the other. It's the fact that angels visited both men and women proclaiming God's will. Watch Jon Zen who articulates very well, and I have had this view for years before hearing of Jon Zen. Taking all of scripture together, we are doing it all wrong and alienating half the women, which I might point out other countries who are Protestant and Christian are not. It might be why they are seeing more effectiveness and God visiting them.
I would say that Satan hating women is also something you seem to fail to see as well as the fact that the modern church's view of women is not much different than any other religion. Yet, we are called to be different.
Really if you want to be totally Biblical which I do, God is Spirit and neither male nor female.
God is Spirit and neither male nor female.
Amen.
Debbie,
I don't play the jump to the conclusions game. If you want to keep this a civilized respectful conversation, then don't accuse me of saying that a woman can't think. I said nothing of the kind. Not leading is not equal to not thinking. No one would say that a church member doesn't think or contribute simply because they aren't a pastor. The same is true in a home. Please stay within the confines of respectful conversation and don't put words in my mouth. And no, I don't buy into the idea that complementarianism leads to patriarchy or abuse. That's a straw man and as Calvinists we get enough of those.
And your argument about the culture doesn't gel with God's sovereign and free choices. It was Jesus' choice who He chose to be His Disciples. Are you saying He couldn't do what He wanted? Did He really need to be culturally minded there when He chose not to be in so many other arenas?
And this is where you would be out of step with egalitarianism - God is a male? God is spirit. He chooses to reveal Himself as Father and not mother, but He has no gender. He again had the freedom to choose. He created the culture and is sovereign over it. Are you saying He had no control over His creation that He couldn't have chosen to allow women to be the leaders of Israel and for men to be the followers? Are you saying that He was bound by the culture and not the sovereign over it? That doesn't gel with a Calvinistic vision of God at all.
As for Christ's ministry, He treated women well, but that wasn't extremely exceptional. It is a misconception that all women in Israel were treated as second-class citizens. Additionally, Jesus never said one thing about women leading, nor ever put women in leadership positions. So again, that is simply an egalitarian reading, not a Biblically relevant argument.
Debbie,
Glad you corrected yourself on God's gender (or lack thereof). As for videos, I think you assume that I have never read the Eqalitarian arguments, but I am very familiar with them. I am familiar with all those passages that you cite. Again nothing contradicts the plain meaning of Scripture in Ephesians 5 and 1 Timothy 2. Nor does any of it contradict God's sovereign choices or His design for distinct gender roles.
As for the angel argument, you brought that up and wrongly noted that Joseph was not visited, when in fact he was visited twice.
Finally, all that you are saying assumes an egalitarian position - none actually argues against the traditional, Biblical view. None of the texts you mention REQUIRE an egalitarian position. Visitations of angels, direct revelation made to women, and lack of obedience to a sinful husband don't necessitate a complete dissolution of specific roles for men in women in the home and church. You are forcing these texts to say more than they do and ignoring or explaining away the same types of arguments that could be made from a complementarian position. Again, if you assume a position and argue from it, then you force texts to say more than they do. There are plenty of false teachings that do the same thing.
"A complementarian could argue that one way to destroy the seed of the woman is to destroy the home."
Joanna, wife of Chuza, was destroying her home! Wonder why Jesus allowed her to sin and did not send her back home? Maybe she got a special dispensation?
:o)
"If you want to keep this a civilized respectful conversation, then don't accuse me of saying that a woman can't think. I said nothing of the kind. Not leading is not equal to not thinking. No one would say that a church member doesn't think or contribute simply because they aren't a pastor."
Debbie, Just think, "seperate but equal". He is selling the same principle dressed up in legalistic Christian make up.
"As for Christ's ministry, He treated women well, but that wasn't extremely exceptional. It is a misconception that all women in Israel were treated as second-class citizens. Additionally, Jesus never said one thing about women leading, nor ever put women in leadership positions. So again, that is simply an egalitarian reading, not a Biblically relevant argument."
Debbie, Just remember this one very important fact: There is NO prohibition on women teaching men or being leaders in the OC.
DR is selling a new law for women AFTER the cross. Doesn't make a lick of sense, does it?
Debbie,
One last point and then I am off to Church to finish preparing for tonight. Joel 2 doesn't require an egalitarian position. Proclaiming prophecy is not the same as leading in either the Church or home. Prophetic utterances come and go. And those outside of the pastorate can have that gift and those in the pastorate don't always have it. Paul is clear in 1 Cor. that it is not a required or special gift.
Essentially the same is true with every spiritual gift (Romans 12 and 1 Peter 4). All gifts can function fully in either a complementarian or an egalitarian paradigm. I see no problem there and neither has the Church historically. The issue comes again down to gender-specific, God-given roles in the home and Church and so far nothing you have pointed out contradicts a complementarian position.
And no, I don't buy into the idea that complementarianism leads to patriarchy or abuse
Yet it has.
And it would be worth your while to listen to Jon Zens as this isn't just a debate on who wins or loses and I seriously doubt that you have heard everything. Jon brings out and shows using the scripture, the Bible itself every point he makes. No DH, you haven't heard everything, there isn't enough time to show everything that would make the complimentarian view be in doubt.
I stand by my words DH with no apology, if you want a civil discussion then deal with my arguments, don't tell me I can't make the argument. To say that a husband is head over the home is to limit the woman greatly, unless you would long to trade places and see for yourself. That would be nice.
And I meant DR. Typo.
DR: That's your man made argument not based on anything from scripture? Prophecy is teaching DR. You really think that can come and go? Really??? No DR I can't buy that one.
DR: To say I have pointed nothing out is to dismiss everything I said because that is simply not true. You may refuse to accept it,even though in my view it is exactly what scripture says, but don't say I haven't shown anything I most certainly have.You have shown your view, I just refuse to accept it, but I wouldn't say you didn't attempt to show anything. That would be a lie.
Debbie,
I will continue to interact with you, but not with Lydia. In my previous conversations comments like the ones she makes above stall respectful conversation. Again, I refuse to play the jump to conclusions game, nor the "I know someone who..." game, the "I can scream the loudest" game, or the "you are a horrible person" game. We can deal with Scripture, but twisting my views into allegations that I teach abuse, inequality of women, legalism, or (as soon will be argued) a disdain for the Priesthood of All Believers, are all logical fallacies, and will be ignored.
Wade, I would think you would want to step in at this point and ask for civility, respect, and Christian love.
Lydia: I agree. It's sad as it seems it's 2010 and no Spiritual freedom for women will be in most American churches anytime soon. Great things may be missed and are being missed in America that are not being missed overseas where women in the church are free to use and go where God directs them. It's sad.
DR: I truly believe you believe that. I believe you are attempting to follow scripture fully and do God's will. The problem is if you look around you to other religions, and abused women, it's the one thing abusers and complimentarians agree on. Woman are to be following, not working with as partners in marriage. It is given as an excuse for abuse right or wrong.
Now tell me DR how can you take the egalitarian view as I believe scripture teaches it and abuse anyone with it. How can anyone turn around and use the egalitarian view as an excuse to abuse or fire a woman from a Bible college because she's a woman and not for failure to do the job? I am truly asking, not out of spite but for thinking purposes.
I will continue to interact with you, but not with Lydia. In my previous conversations comments like the ones she makes above stall respectful conversation. Again, I refuse to play the jump to conclusions game, nor the "I know someone who..." game, the "I can scream the loudest" game, or the "you are a horrible person" game. We can deal with Scripture, but twisting my views into allegations that I teach abuse, inequality of women, legalism, or (as soon will be argued) a disdain for the Priesthood of All Believers, are all logical fallacies, and will be ignored.
Wade, I would think you would want to step in at this point and ask for civility, respect, and Christian love.
Wed Sep 22, 05:09:00 PM 2010
But DR, your comments are not loving. You are teaching a new law for women in the NC. That is certainly NOT loving. It is spiritual bondage and Pharisetical. Now, if there is a "law" in the OT prohibiting women from teaching or being leaders over all, please show it to us now.
BTW: Where did I scream? I don't think you are horrible. You have just bought into the 'preeminance of men doctrine' in the Body. It is more sad than anything.
PS, Was Joanna in sin or not from neglecting her home? I would seriously like to know what you think about a woman who left her home to not only follow Christ around but support him out of her resources.
Debbie,
I never said you showed nothing. I said your arguments assume an egalitarian position and thus they do not prove your view.
As for not dealing with your arguments, that is not true. I've given an alternative position to the Scriptures you noted. In the case of the OT examples you gave, I noted that you assumed more than the passages teach. In regards to the cultural argument, I countered it with the argument regarding God's sovereign choice and complete freedom to influence and change culture.
As for your argument on prophecy, I noted that prophecy is in fact a gift that does not require a leadership position to be used. On visitations with angels, you assume too much and were in fact wrong about Joseph.
What other arguments do you want me to deal with. Again in each case you have taken individual events and attempted to show they PROVE an egalitarian position, yet each of these is perfectly consistent with a complementarian one.
In fact, it is you that have not answered my arguments - my sovereign choice argument (why couldn't God have chosen a matriarchal society?), my argument from clearer passages like Ephesians 5 and 1 Timothy 2 to less clear passages like the ones you cited (why don't these take priority?). You have said nothing of my arguments about pastors and Church members being equal, yet in separate roles.
In summary, you are taking several individual passages whose primary emphases don't speak to gender roles and reading them from an egalitarian position. Then you are assuming that the exercising of prophecy requires leadership (or even systematic teaching), when in fact it does not.
My argument is that you are interpreting based on your presuppositions. And ignoring or explaining away any similar arguments that speak to the contrary (e.g. a male-dominated culture).
Finally, if you want to continue the line of argument that complementarianism leads to abuse, you can do so without me. I can give you as many contradictory arguments to that assumption as you for it. Thus it is a zero-sum gain argument that is anecdotal and thus irrelevant. Abuse is a result of sin, not a 6000-year old plus theological position.
Debbie,
Based on this statement, let me say that I am done discussing with you:
"It's sad as it seems it's 2010 and no Spiritual freedom for women will be in most American churches anytime soon."
If your position assumes that complementarianism allows NO spiritual freedom, then there is no need to continue. I wish you the best, but I am not going to continue an unfruitful discussion.
I have seen more of Jesus in a little mother Beagle who suckles and cares for an orphaned kitten than I have in all of the priests, preachers,theologians, and Churches of Christendom.
"In fact, it is you that have not answered my arguments - my sovereign choice argument (why couldn't God have chosen a matriarchal society?),"
He did not choose a patriarchal society. That was a result of sin which God worked through and around for His Glory. Otherwise I would have to believe polygamy was God's intention.
So, thisis why comps teach the sin of the fall as virtue today.
We are to be mutualists. Putting others ahead of ourselves.
"As for your argument on prophecy, I noted that prophecy is in fact a gift that does not require a leadership position to be used."
Ironically, Deborah was both.
Fine with me DR. It seems you have rules that I would have to refuse to follow. If you think complementarianism is spiritual freedom for the woman, take it from a woman. It isn't. It seems you even make the call to discuss to not discuss. Too many rules. Yeah, a discussion is obviously fruitless.
Hi MUFF POTTER,
You wrote this wonderful observation:
"I have seen more of Jesus in a little mother Beagle who suckles and cares for an orphaned kitten than I have in all of the priests, preachers,theologians, and Churches of Christendom. "
Who was it said that if all the animals were gone, we would die from a 'great loneliness of the spirit'?
How is it that God's gentle creatures can minister to our needs so beautifully ?
And for a little child with cancer, the kindness of that blessing is sweet to behold:
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=irzLe90JHkw&feature=related
DR:If I seem harsh to you I do apologize. As I said I do believe you truly desire to follow what you believe God says and I do think that you believe the Bible.So do I. I just get tired of God telling me one thing and a man(fortunately that man is not my husband) telling me another. I have so much to give and I haven't always been able to give it. Why? Because I'm teaching heresy? No. Because I'm a woman.
"Are you saying He had no control over His creation that He couldn't have chosen to allow women to be the leaders of Israel and for men to be the followers? Are you saying that He was bound by the culture and not the sovereign over it? That doesn't gel with a Calvinistic vision of God at all."
D.R.,
Are you saying God is controlling and allowing the sexual and physical abuse of children that is happening at this very moment around the world? Are you saying He could choose to stop this immediately? But does not?
He didn't choose either hierarchal or matriarchal DR. Both are equal on earth, in the church and in heaven. An angel appered to Mary about the birth of Jesus which was the topic I was covering DR. You have yet to answer why that was. I wasn't wrong about Joseph. The topic was the birth of Christ.The angel appeared to Joseph later. My point was that angels appeared to both men and women. You haven't dealt with the angel appearing to Samson's mother and not his father. Then the angel appeared to both.
Wade,
Hey! You’ve already thanked me once for Acts 21:20 vs. Acts 20:21, so I won’t mention it. :)
Let’s do some ‘Humming’…those zealous for the law, in 200 years, may have taken the words of Jesus, “Unless you…become like little children you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3) [the smallest children are babies] “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved…” (Mark 16:16)
Bingo! Who will dispute what innocent babies believe? All babies need is baptizing to be saved. This is a Christian duty as Jesus said, “Let the children come to me and don’t prevent them…” (Matthew 19:14) Thus the theology of baptizing babies for salvation.
Sound crazy? Hey, I believe it’s not near as crazy as the theology of firing Sheri Klouda.
On the same side of the coin is:
“These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with US; otherwise they would have stayed with US. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with US.” (1 John 3:19)
I believe Paul believed “US” was:
1. Believing Pharisees: “...must be circumcised and follow all the Jewish customs.” (Acts 15:52)
2. “...friends of James...who insisted that circumcision was necessary for salvation.” (Galatians 2:12)
3. Men...from Judia “...taught the brethren...‘Except ye be circumcised...ye cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1)
4. “Friends who think you have to obey the Jewish laws to be saved.” (Galatians 4:21)
5. “...with tears in my eyes, there are many who walk along the Christian road who are really enemies of the cross of Christ.” (Philippians 3:18)
6.“...I have faced grave dangers...from men who claim to be brothers in Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:26)
7. “...false brethren...who came to spy as to whether we obeyed the Jewish laws are not.” (Galatians 2:4)
8. “We who are born of the Holy Spirit are persecuted by those who want us to keep the Jewish laws.” (Galatians 4:29)
9. “Those teachers...who are trying to convince you to be circumcised are doing it to avoid the persecution they would get if they admitted the cross of Christ alone can save...” (Galatians 6:12)
10. “...false teachers...bring long letters of recommendation...” (2 Corinthians 3:1)
I believe the Christians that left “US” were NOT ‘zealous for the law”, but tried to do Paul’s bidding: “There are many who say all Christians must obey the Jewish laws. It must be stopped.” (Titus 1:10-11)
In 200 years, did the Christians that left “US” keep the same beliefs and were named Anabaptist?
Noticed the Scripture named “US” three times. Does “US” ring a bell in the Conservative Resurgence? (Patterson told Dilday, “You’re conservative all right, but you’re not one of us”.)
Connect the dots and see that “one of us”, Klouda, Conservative Resurgence is all about power and control just as it was in Paul’s day when the majority (those “zealous for the law”) began to lord it over the minority as shown by J.M. Carroll’s Trail of Blood.
Is history repeating itself with the SBC? Only the old conventions of two States (Texas and Virginia) will not bow to/embrace the BFM 2000 that has been declared ‘our’ doctrinal guideline.
Thank you Debbie and Lydia. I typed out a few responses to DR, but I was too angry at his words to stay reasonable and clear-headed like you both were able to stay.
Anytime one is granted a superior status by birth (be it gender or family history or race) it is clearly of the flesh. It was not begun in the Spirit, it is not of the Spirit, it is carnal as anything can possibly be. It is the very epitome of "in the flesh" for it based entirely on fleshly characteristics.
"the...father arranged his children's and his grandchildren's marriages, decided how much education his son's would recieve, and even chose his son's careers. Women were sub-ordinate to men and usually had no property rights of their own. On the other hand...(there was) taught great respect for mothers and mothers-in-law. "
How "Biblical" is that? It is the QF patriarchal dream come true. At least they are being honest about what "complementarianism" looks like when applied logically.
It is from a history textbook about Ancient China, btw.
Wow, ladies, I just realized that Dr used a cult mind control technique on you! http://www.howcultswork.com/
He refused to interact with you any more because you are such bad people! Shame on you.
"Character Assasination", could be straight out of a book on "How to Dominate and Control Cult Members".
Congrats for not falling for it!
DR is like the folks in my industry (IT) that we refer to as pigeon consultants. They swoop in, poop on everyone and everything, and fly away.
That said, I think the key thing to realize here is that there are people who truly believe you make the Kingdom more visible and more holy through the process of condemning other faith traditions and variances in theology with other believers. They wouldn't say that is their position, of course, but that's what their actions strongly suggest they believe.
I, too, am a complementarian. I strongly believe that God intended for men to have the visible, distinct role of leadership in the home and in the church and the OT and the NT strongly and repeatedly shows God making choices for the sake of the Hebrew theocracy/monarchy and for the church that push men forward and make them responsible for the welfare and well-being of each group.
But the biblical counter examples to a harsh complementarian view that prevents any women from ever serving seem to me to be sufficient to evoke from complementarians like myself a peaceful accommodation of theological positions that range from less strict to even liberal on this issue. Perhaps I'll still choose my own local congregation in accordance with my own views on this subject, but I would like to think that if God permits it, then we ought to as well, again specifically using Deborah as an example of this.
How so, you say? Go review the Exodus account of Moses selection of judges. They were all men. Yet Deborah clearly isn't a man (proving that is an exercise left for the reader, but it's easy to do.)
This leads me to one of three logical conclusions:
1. God failed to inspire Moses clearly enough in that he only chose men when women are also acceptable judges.
or
2. Moses made a culturally acceptable choice in choosing just men as judges that was essentially a human, not divine, decision.
or
3. Just as Melchizedek is considered a type of Jesus as priest--as opposed to the Aaronic priestly line descending from Levi--perhaps Deborah is a type of Jesus as judge as opposed to the Moses-selected judges. This fails the test of Deborah being mentioned in the New Testament as Melchizedek was, but I think it's an interesting consideration none the less.
Note that the single counter-example of Deborah as dispute resolver, national leader (she agreed to go with Barak as he prosecuted war against Jabin and Sisera) AND prophetess which makes DR's comments about prophesying being a gift (which we note is under the control of the prophet, according to Scripture) look a little silly in my opinion.
But one thing about DR: he's more about being right than he is about relating to fellow believers. You'll find that out if he returns and continues arguing his position.
Greg Harvey
"He refused to interact with you any more because you are such bad people! Shame on you."
He had to because he could not dare deal with my points or questions. I am used to it and see it all the time: "If you do not comment the way I say you should comment then I will not talk to you". Then they just decide that no matter how things are put, you are mean and disrespectful. So, they set themselves up as the arbiters of all conversation.
It is so easy to accuse those who disagree are rebellious, mean, screaming, etc and they cannot "talk" to us anymore. This tactic most likely works well with most followers of men. I am, quite frankly, so used to this tactic because it is about all they can do is to try make one feel like a sinner for disagreeing on a non salvic issue.
Women are never to be in leadership over men? Uh...Deborah proves there is no hard rule or prohibition in the OC.
Roles? Where on earth are specific roles for all women for all time in the Body? Doesn't Joanna proves there is NO hard rule for a married woman's role?
The examples are endless. And we know for a fact that scripture is not contradictory NOR was Paul a misogynist. The truth is just uncomfortable because it would entail many giving up their special elevated place.
Let us just pray that others will not fall for the cult tactics of those who believe they should be listened to only because of a title that they believe makes them elevated over others in the Body and Marriage.
D R your who argument is base on the thought "we don't find it in scripture." moot point of view. we don't find christian church buildings, airconditioning, ordaination, salaries and benefits, christian weddings, command to do the lord supper with grape jusica nd itty bitty crackers, baptism inside,
there are hundreds of things.
Many of your points of view have led to millions being slaughtered and tortured over the centuries. I have been in the jails where folks were imprisoned for the differing with same theology you just proposed.
here in ameica folks have been whipped and locked up for differing for you.
most recently tens of thousands have lost their jobs and livehoods over those positions that are uh-hum "biblical."
no wonder that SBC and all she touches is getting smaller. I was sitting in the room when Patterson said "we might be smaller but we will be leaner and meaner."
It was a joke, but look where the SBC is now. smaller, less money and meaner.
Anonymous @ 11:21: You wrote, "I was sitting in the room when Patterson said 'we might be smaller but we will be leaner and meaner.'
It was a joke, but look where the SBC is now. smaller, less money and meaner."
I wish you'd left your name when you posted, because I'd like to give proper attribution when I pass your words on to others. Your observation is absolutely brilliant.
Louis, my family has been homeless and lost employment because of that ilk.
It is sad that those who reveal such things are marked. Some get through it and some don't. think how bad the Klouda's might have been if Wade and the REAL CHRISTIANS did not help.
The truth hurts. If we follow inerrant calvinisms then we get almost wahabeism. if we follow good scholarship then wahabism attacks and slanders and ruins lives. look at the damange done in the name of the PURIFICATION in the SBC and wonder why our worldwide outreach is down so much. We are eating our young and the "i know i am right" crowd makes all who differ targets of a fatwa.
I have seen preachers in texas, missouri and oklahoma picket, or slander, or attack, or lie, spread half truths and destroy homes, families, and churches and claim they are inerrant and HAVE THE RIGHT OR KNOW THEIR RIGHTS.
The major poster on this particular is a perfect, inerrant example.
By the way, he said, "God sent 2 angels to man and only one to the woman, (yada yada yada)
THATS BECAUSE THE WOMAN HAD A HEART FOR HER LORD AND DIDN'T NEED TO BE REMINDED OF HIS KINGSHIP. SHE GOT IS RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. MALE DIDN'T
:-)
Post a Comment