Is There Any Hope for Western Christianity?
“Can the West be re-evangelized? Only if we unlearn our default ethnocentric assumptions about “real” Christianity (our own) and unlearn our blindness to the ways Western Christianity is infected by cultural idolatry. It may be more blessed to give than to receive, but it is often harder to receive than to give. That reverses the polarity of patron and client and makes us uncomfortably aware that what Jesus said to the Laodicean church might apply to us in the West: “You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (Rev. 3:17).”
Want to read more? You can find it here. This excellent piece by Christopher Wright would be an excellent discussion starter for any Bible class, small group, or leaders’ retreat. (Thanks, Jim, for telling me about it!)
Here’s another paragraph to whet your appetite:
“So another piece of unlearning we must do is breaking the habit of using the term mission field to refer to everywhere else in the world except our home country in the West. The language of home and mission field is still used by many churches and agencies, but it fundamentally misrepresents reality. Not only does it perpetuate a patronizing view of the rest of the world as always being on the receiving end of our missionary largesse, but it also fails to recognize the maturity of churches in many other lands.”
- – - -
And PLEASE, when you get a chance, read this book review of John Stackhouse’s new Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender
Here, again, is just a taste:
Stackhouse finds, in the church’s changing attitude toward slavery, a proper model for the church’s changing attitude toward women. He points out that while women and homosexuals are never linked in the restrictive passages of the New Testament, women and slaves are. Women and slaves in the early church, freed in Christ, were nevertheless encouraged to observe cultural norms to keep the gospel from disrepute.
But slaves have been freed from that particular cultural norm—or such is the overwhelming consensus today. “In the case of slavery,” Stackhouse writes, “Christians worldwide have come to agree that the social conservatism of the New Testament was a temporary matter.” This was not an agreement reached without struggle; Stackhouse points out that theologians of the 19th century “marshalled powerful, Bible-based arguments” on both sides of the issue. “[A] straightforward interpretation of the passages regarding slavery conveys no obvious condemnation of the institution,” he concludes, “and seems instead to encourage Christians in both roles, master and slave, to stay right where they are and simply behave properly. Yet there is no important Christian leader anywhere in the modern world today who defends slavery.”
Stackhouse argues that the abolition of slavery provides us with a model for the Holy Spirit’s slow, ongoing work in doing away with a sinful, oppressive cultural norm—a change that doesn’t at all undercut the authority of Scripture. Many evangelicals point to thousands of years of patriarchy as proof that patriarchy is an essential part of God’s creation. Yet slavery, which we have now rejected, was as universal as patriarchy, and the Christian church has rightfully rejected it.
Well said!
“The distinguishing sign of slavery is to have a price, and to be bought for it.”
— John Ruskin
People have “strong” convictions but they will sacrifice them for a price. With regards to women in the church, we will change as pioneer churches work through the growing pains and begin growing. Growth is the carrot that 98% of churches are chasing. Once a trail is blazed, then settler churches will begin to creep toward change.
Thanks Mike for taking those arrows.
Test post. Couldn’t get your site to post earlier.
The first article reminds me of a piece called “Believing in the Global South” that was in First Things recently (December?). Anyone else read that?
Mike – You’re probably familiar with it, but predating Stackhouse’s work is the seminal work on the hermeneutical comparison of slavery, gender and sexuality by William Webb: Slaves, Women and Homosexuals. Found at Amazon.com here: http://www.amazon.com/Slaves-Women-Homosexuals-Exploring-Hermeneutics/dp/0830815619/sr=8-1/qid=1169610515/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-7955429-2732850?ie=UTF8&s=books
You should definitely look into Oscar Muriu’s Message (which I learned a great deal from, and talked primarily about in my chapel speech) at Urbana this year…
http://www.urbana.org/u2006.session.info.cfm?session=3
This is one of the most impactful things in determining how I consider and respond to the world around me.
I personally do not want women to take leading rolls in public worship in the church I attend. To each his own I guess.
I can’t imagine a woman preaching a sermon comparable to our minister. They could probably make a good talk but it would probably put everyone to sleep:)
I agree Mike. My only worry is that we, as a church, will begin to put “social issues” over the Word and start to be too PC. I have seen it happen already in my churches with different things.
Let it begin with me, us, here, and now. Lord have mercy.
I think Stackhouse gets this part right (quoting from Susan Wise Bauer’s blog):
“Paul means just what he says about gender,” Stackhouse writes, “everything he says about gender, not just the favorite passages cited by one side or another. . . . He believes that women should keep silent in church and that they should pray and prophesy. How can they do both? By being silent at the right times, and by praying and prophesying at the right times.”
There is a scary amount of reading between the lines going on, and some of it is not well founded. For example, someone should point out to Susan that Andronicus was a man. Secondly, scholars are divided over whether Junias was a man or a woman. And thirdly, the scriptures do not tell us the roles that each played in their local congregation.
One final point: Paul writes unmistakeably that women are not permitted to teach men, or even to speak publicly. He recognized that this would be controversial, so he emphasized it with this:
“If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.”
This was no more the cultural norm in first century Corinth than it is in 21st century Nashville. But nonetheless it was the command of God.
The West will be “re-evangelized” when the church stops chasing growth and starts chasing Jesus. But if we do this, we may find ourselves in some pretty precarious situations with some pretty controversial people. But at least Jesus will be there with us.
————
Women. Geez Louise. Not this topic again.
Did you see that? The body is built up and held together only “as each part does its work.” And I suppose the woman’s work is with the kids or making the coffee? Gimme a break …
Great words Mike – very encouraging!
Thank You, LORD for Highland!!
Steve, thanks for your words. I know that I am in a place that honors women and their gifts but it still feels like someone is stabbing me when I hear all the old stuff. I hate all the lines drawn and swords drawn and punches thrown. I have been injured by them and don’t truly intend to step into the battle again but I admit that I don’t understand it when a woman says that she thinks a woman preacher would be boring and put everyone to sleep. How does that woman feel about herself if she says those words?
Tears came this morning as I read all these comments. Yes, sometimes the wounds still feel fresh and yes, it scares me when I hear the arguments. Steve, thanks again for the encouraging scripture…I was in tears from the other remarks but yours put me over the edge emotionally because you get it. Thanks.
julie … Thanks. When I think of valuable voices that would be lost if we were to stifle the giftings of women, yours comes to mind. (sorry for your tears…)
Roland – Doesn’t the Word deal with “social issues?” Followers of Jesus can’t escape dealing with “social issues,” because Jesus didn’t.
I’m with you on being “too PC.” The gospel sure isn’t PC.
Amen Christine. I don’t want to see Women in leadership roles either. I feel uncomfortable~ to each his own~
We use to attend a church where women served communion~ fine~ I just wouldn’t want to. As a 38 year old woman myself I worry about the issue being “forced” on women. Those who feel comfortable serving great, just please don’t make those of us who feel uneasy and that maybe it isn’t our “gift” do so.
I am personally worried about the homosexual issue in the church. I hear people say the following about divorced Christians (not textual divorce) “everyone needs God”. What is next ? Homosexuals need God too~ true they do, but they need to realize “living” in a homosexual lifestyle is sin and not accepted by God.
We can all have our own opinions, but need to respect those who may not be “exactly” as your own. I have always felt like a minority on certain issues on this board, but I study my bible daily like you do and feel this is the stance God is telling me is correct.
In him
lee
Well said, indeed. This is one of the best worded arguments regarding the parallel between slavery and women’s participation (as they are treated by Paul’s writing) that I have seen.
Note about posting:
I found out from a regular reader that some of his comments (and presumably others) aren’t getting through.
Here’s what I think is happening: if you include a link in your comment, it’s liable to put it in either moderation (where I can later rescue it) or spam (where I haven’t had much luck).
I’m sorry about this. But let me say this: 99.99% of what it’s catching in moderation and spam is absolutely horrible. The porno sites are doing everything they can to grab people. I think that there are about 600 spams being caught every day on this site alone! It says there have been 26,200 caught since I started on this site.
If you have trouble getting through, see if you’ve included a link. If that’s what is keeping you out (and, as you can see above, it doesn’t always seem to — HOW DOES IT KNOW?), then try sending the comment again without the link — or maybe with the link revised like this: preachermikeDOTcom.
Also let me add that there were several comments on today’s blog that were in the spam which shouldn’t have been. I marked them as “not spam,” but I’m afraid they didn’t make it. Richard, ZZ, and others — please send again.
Steve – Thanks for those words to our dear friend Julie.
If we planted a church in Afghanistan, we’d probably ask the women to act appropriately for that culture. (This is what we see working in a couple NT passages where Paul doesn’t want anything to hinder the hearing of the gospel.)
But in this culture? No. It’s actually a hindrance to the hearing of the gospel for us to put up these walls.
lee — Let me ask you this. Do you know any homosexual people? I’m not talking about some loose acquaintance … I’m talking about someone you really know. I too believe that romantic relationships are intended to be between a man and a woman, but I also recognize the complexity of the issue. (in other words, it’s not as easy as saying to the homosexual person, “Just change,” as the church has been so apt to do). That may make the church person feel good in the short-term, but it does nothing productive for the homosexual person in the long-term.
Lee, my guess is that if a homosexual person came into your life in a meaningful way (maybe a co-worker, maybe the person you buy your coffee from in the morning, maybe a neighbor), you’d be patient with them. You’d gently show them the love of Christ in the context of a long-term relationship, as you would with anyone who isn’t following the Way of Jesus. You’d abstain from moralizing to them. You’d basically be different from every Christian they’ve ever met. The “homosexual issue in the church” begins and ends outside of the assembly, outside of our buildings, in our everyday interactions with those the church considers “unclean.” Might homosexuality be the leprosy of the 21st century?
[side note: In my experience, we're much harder in the church on "the homosexuality issue" than we are on "the greed issue" or "the gossip issue." Maybe the last two hit a little too close to home with most of us.]
Mike, thanks for these words this morning. Interesting enough, I was sitting in the barber/salon chair this morning and the guy next to me was being rather “macho” towards his hair stylist. That’s a nice way to put it. He was actually quite rude and demeaning while trying to put on a good show. All the hair stylists (all women) in the shop were seeing right through his performance. These women knew who they were and were proud of their identity.
However, it just goes to show that we still live in a culture where women are treated as second class. That is why the gospel must speak into our culture with a redeeming word and that is why a group of gathered gospel followers must show by their actions that the gospel has spoken into their life.
I guess we need to keep talking about this subject until Christ returns because the gospel is still speaking.
Mike,
Adapting the teaching to the culture is a slippery slope. Some folks are using that argument to eliminate teachings against homosexuality. I dont think you would support that. But where do you draw the line, and how do you justify drawing it where you do?
Steve Jr.
Yes, a cousin of my husband. We have all had very meaningful “heartfelt” spiritual conversations over the last 5-6 years. Email upon email of scripture and he basically thinks it’s ok to live in a homosexual relationship. So, to answer your question~yes I do know someone and our entire family loves him and he knows it. However, we stand our ground on believing God does not approve of his relationships with other men. At one point he was even seeing a married man with children and found a way to justify that. He has his Phd and is extremely intellegent in God’s word. We just differ in interpreting the scripture. Can we ever draw a line Steve? Do we as a church allow homosexuals involved in a gay lifestyle to continue to do so without drawing a line in the sand? Again, several members of his family continue weekly conversations with him and are very loving to him. Mike, where is that line?
lee
by the way… if there is no line, then the values of the church become the same as those of the culture. Romans 12:1-2 tells me that is not acceptable. Our values must be different from those of the secular culture. So we must draw a line somewhere.
There must be something the culture accepts that we do not. Will we compromise on abortion? adultery? lying? cheating on taxes? homosexuality?
If we agree that our values are supposed to be different from the surrounding culture, then we just need to figure out how we decide what the differences should be. Some of us think the scriptures answer that question very clearly.
I guess maybe you have to hear a young Christian lady, an a+ student studying the scriptues and then speaking to a teen class made up of other women to understand just how good our youth really are and how committed. It is us in our unholy ways that would not permit her to to speak to men listeners and learn Christ through her heartfelt sermon. We suddenly become the Taliban! Do you think the first century church that met in homes kept the women from speaking or serving the bread? I have so been changed in the last 8 years. Satan wins by default when 50% of us are held back from teaching the Good News.
Christine, You’re kidding, right? And, it’s women’s ROLES, not rolls—-though that is pretty much what we’ve been allowed to be a part of in our congregations. Serve the rolls. And, you’re a really good Christian LADY if you can actually make the rolls & not buy them.
And, some of the BEST speakers I’ve heard were WOMEN (God made “woman”–not “LADY”, BTW) Men & women both can be eloquent speakers of God’s Word.
My favorite section:
“Most of all, we need to go back to the Cross and relearn its comprehensive glory. For if we persist in a narrow, individualistic view of the Cross as a personal exit strategy to heaven, we fall short of its biblical connection to the mission purpose of God for the whole of creation and thereby lose the Cross-centered core of holistic mission. It is vital that we see the Cross as central to every aspect of holistic, biblical mission – that is, of all we do in the name of the crucified and risen Jesus. It is a mistake, in my view, to think that while our evangelism must be centered on the Cross (as of course it has to be), our social engagement has some other theological foundation or justification.”
Now for my editorial (I usually wouldn’t, and I tried to restrain myself – but what the heck, I suggested the topic and I’ll take some liberty with it):
Maybe it would be useful if we had a moratorium on the word salvation and substituted the word reconciliation to describe the purpose of God’s mission. Did anybody even read the Wright article? Do we even believe in the In-breaking Kingdom of God in this world? I would go even further than Wright and suggest that is ungodly to separate our evangelism from our social engagement. They have to be one and the same.
It makes me sad – we’re challenged to rethink our whole participation in the mission of God and we would rather re-argue the role of women in our churches. I’m with Steve Jr. – Geez Louise!
Love you Jules!
I still have so many questions about the Question of this post. It still strikes me as odd that Paul and the Holy Spirit would take an accomodationist, give-it-time approach while throwing around language like “full submission” because “Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”
When I read interpretations designed to neutralize those words, they almost invariably tell me about some highly-conjectural, unproven situation on the ground at Ephesus that Paul is arguing against. I’m not convinced. And if the same interpreters started making similar arguments in other texts, we’d say they were off.
Also, I think there’s some irony in pointing to the significance of the Global South and East while arguing for gender-inclusiveness. Maybe we should bequeath our old commentaries to our grandchildren.
I posted early this morning and it is not there. I was writing to disagree, and now I have not a clue what I was going to say. Oh well.
First, I think it needs to be stated clearly that the issue with women and the issue of homosexuality are two very different issues. “Solutions” or “methods” for dealing with them are not interchangeable, though I’m sure they share similar principles.
Second, I would say this, lee. It is not — nor has it ever been — our responsibility to convict others of their sin. It’s just not. That’s the Holy Spirit’s job. If we take it upon ourselves to make sure we highlight and address others’ sin (regardless of our motives, even if it for the “other person’s good”), we’re in serious error and will drive ourselves crazy. Like I said, we seem to be more obsessed with drawing a line in the sand on issues pertaining to sex than we are with many other equally destructive sins.
My suggestion is to stop. Just stop. Stop trying to convict your husband’s cousin. It hasn’t worked to this point, has it? All the scripture … the conversations — my guess is that he may feel loved, but he doesn’t feel “at ease” around a bunch of people who disapprove of what he feels is his core identity. Pray for him. Love him, extravagantly. Unabashedly. Speak truth when appropriate, but for goodness sake, give him a break. I’d be more interested in inviting him into the adventure that is God’s story. A story that gives life but doesn’t create guilt. A story that calls each of us — even the greedy and the gossipers — to become “less” so that Christ can become more. To give up everything we’re holding onto, our base desires, our entire lives — for the sake of The Way.
NOTE TO HIGHLAND MEMBERS: Randy Harris begins a three-week series tonight in Oasis. Diane and I will be attending the “Faith Decisions” class with Chris (a class we have every year for 8th graders and their parents). What a blessing that Randy does for his own home church each fall and spring what he does on weekends all over the country.
Christine and Lee,
I think I understand your feelings—in fact I have had some of the feelings you describe myself.
But I do wonder what you mean when you say “to each his own?”
I only ask because (and I may be misinterpreting your words) it sounds as if you are saying “my way is the right way.”
As someone who may be older than you are and as someone who has been in a similar (but not exactly the same) place that your words describe, I can only say that frequent and ongoing prayer asking God to have mercy on me and to remove my own filters and blinders that I was unwilling to remove and often unwilling or unable to even recognize in myself, is what has given me an openness to let the Word speak to me as if from God Himself. That and some loving words and teaching from friends and family far and near. Depending upon the very Word of God and reading it fresh and new has changed my life. And while I still have a lot of baggage, I can now, at this later time in my life, understand the freedom in Christ in ways that bring me great joy and peace. -Kathy S
By saying “to each his own” I am certainly not judging but rather saying I’m not comfortable doing it, but if you are fine. Just don’t judge me because I don’t choose to lead communion, etc.
This is my third attempt to post. In my second attempt I said that I had already forgotten what I said in the first post which I thought was pretty good. If it doesn’t go through this time I will take it as a sign to stay out of the conversation for today. The whole women’s role stuff has perplexed me for a long time. I am preaching in a semi-rural area just north of Memphis. I believe that the women in this church would go nuts if we used women in a more public way. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Mike, I am not sure of the logic of joining the issue of slavery and women together. It seems to me that you could take slavery and join it with almost anything and make the same argument that you wrote about. I try to keep an open mind and I am willing to read what others write. I have enjoyed reading the other posts.
Wow! What a discussion.
Since I don’t have time to write a dissertation, I’ll say just a few things.
One, regarding homosexuality. Homosexuality is no worse a sin (if it’s even a sin) than greed or gossip. Lying. Consumerism. Being judgemental. etc etc etc. Why do we have to have interventions for people who are homosexual, and we do absolutely nothing to the people in our churches who slander their brethren, or who horde things and ignore the plight of the poor?
Is it cause its easier to point out the speck in our brothers eye, than to pull the plank from our own?
And in regards to the women’s role in the church:
What happened to “there is no jew or greek, male or female, all are one in Christ Jesus”? Oh, right, Paul wasn’t really being serious.
Paul knew that if Christians went out of their way to flaunt equality of men, women, and slaves, that they would face even more persecution than they all ready faced. They were to treat everyon equally, but respect the times in which they lived. That, in and of itself was revolutionary.
Our culture is vastly different from that in bible times. Just as slavery is now culturally unacceptable, making women second class citizens is also. Should the church be more or less accepting of new gender roles than the culture? If we follow the path of the NT church, we should be more accepting than the culture, because everyone is the same in the eyes of God.
On one side are people whose experiences, feelings and instincts lead them to their belief. On the other are people whose understanding of scripture leads them to the opposite belief.
Regardless of which side is right (or neither!), the discussion cannot make progress unless we agree upon the standard.
So far the discussion has mostly avoided the scriptures.
Speaking just about myself: it is impossible for arguments based on people’s experience and human reasoning to persuade me to take a position that I believe contradicts scripture. For me, the scriptures are the standard and that is not negotiable. Sorry if that is narrow-minded. The discussion needs to begin and end with scripture. If that conversation is not acceptable then we cannot come to agreement.
For a well reasoned argument on women serving in equal roles with men in the Kingdom, see Sarah Sumner’s Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Leadership.
I heard her speak at the National Pastors Convention last year and she is a scholarly, humble follower of Jesus.
Peace.
AAAAAAAAAAAAArrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
No, Alan — I’m with you. Here’s a scripture for you: 1 Timothy 2. Often used as ammo against female participation in the worship assembly. But may I (drawing on prior scholarship, of course) propose that the header we see in most of our Bibles — “Instructions on Worship” — is misleading? What if chapter 2 is simply a continuation of Paul’s instructions in Chapter 1, pertaining to all of life? What if we’ve narrowed Chapter 2 down to the hour-a-week worship service, when it was originally intended to be an instruction for Christian living? (maybe there’s a Greek scholar out there who can either back me up or shoot me down — either would be accepted gracefully!)
Women in the Christian community were given freedoms in Christ that they were certainly not used to in the larger culture. A spirit of equality was present within the body of Christ, in all likelihood. 1 Tim. 2 seems to be a “reining in” of the Christian women who were extending this newfound freedom outside the walls of the house churches, likely attempting to teach their male neighbors and friends. This would have been quite the taboo in the culture at large, so Paul is saying, “Hold it. Nuh-uh. Let’s not get too crazy here.”
Yes, this reading of 1 Tim. takes into account history and context. It’s not a black-and-white, no interpretation needed reading. It’s more complex than that. But so is the rest of God’s word. It must be read first through the lens of the culture to which it was written, applied then and only then to our own culture. Reversing this is a poor treatment of scripture.
Stackhouse’s book sounds similar to William Webb’s work titled “Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis”. I haven’t read either book, but have enjoyed Scot McKnight’s take on Webb’s book over at jesuscreedDOTorg. Look for his posts labeled “Women in Ministry: Redemptive Trend”.
Don’t be mislead by the title of Webb’s book. If I understand correctly, Webb draws a distinction between the issues of slavery and women and that of homosexuality.
I think an understanding of the Redemptive Trend relative to Slavery and Women in the Church, coupled with a sense of the context within which Paul spoke to the church at Corinth is vital to a healthy view of a woman’s role in the church today. To put it simply, there is no role/function in the church that a woman should be excluded from in our culture today.
Justin,
The difference between slavery and the women’s role in scripture is vast.
In 1 Cor 7:21 Paul instructs slaves who can gain their freedom to do so. In other places, he tells them how they should live as long as they are slaves. The scriptures do not specifically command masters to free their slaves, but I think practically everyone agrees that Christian principles would lead a person who had slaves to set them free. That even seems to be implied (but not stated) when Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon (“I know that you will do even more than I ask.”)
When Paul addressed propriety for women in worship (1 Cor 11, 1 Cor 14, and 1 Tim 2), his reasons were not cultural (1 Tim 2: woman not created first, woman deceived; 1 Cor 11: woman came from man and for man; 1 Cor 14: the word did not originate with women, nor did it come only to the women. Note I am merely restating what is in the scriptures…) None of those reasons ceases to be true depending on the culture. And there is no hint in the context that his conclusions were a cultural concession.
To compare the two: A slave was to obey the teaching for slaves as long as they were slaves. If they could gain their freedom, they were to do so. A woman was to obey the teaching for women whether it was popular or not. And she was not offered the option to cease to be a woman.
Today Christians do not have slaves (worldwide, as far as I know). Yet, by not having slaves we are not in violation of any command in scripture. However, some churches are appointing women to teach and have authority over men. In those cases they are in direct conflict with a biblical command.
Steve, the “social issues” I was referring to are things such as you and Lee are discussing. I feel that many churches see the world being more and more “accepting” of homosexual life style and, thus, they must be accepting of it.
I think you have a good point in how we are somewhat harder on this issue then things like greed and gossip however that is because it is clearer. You can preach about greed but that is something that is more personal and not out in the open as much as homosexuality can be.
Am I being clear? Maybe not. Just typing really fast at work.
One short comment on women serving communion.
They have always served if you think about it. How is that you asked?
Each woman in the row passes the bread and cup to her neighbor thereby serving that individual. Ok two comments. I don’t think I have ever heard of a church family who “forces” any one to serve in any capacity he or she feels unsuited for.
Just my two cents
Roland – Yep. You’re being completely clear. And for the record, I am not advocating an “accepting” attitude from the church toward homosexuality. Some may do that, but not me. I am simply suggesting a different approach than the ones we’ve used in the past, which have usually been moralizing people in a demeaning way, quoting scripture (which, to the non-Christian person, holds zero authority), or — perhaps worst of all — ignoring that entire segment of our society. Let’s be salt and light to those who are in the darkness in the context of relationships — authentic friendships — rather than looking down from some moral high place.
Before that, though, let’s work on those planks in our own eyes, and ask our gay friends to pray for us!
Steve Jr,
Just a thought…. My husband’s cousin quotes far more scripture to us than we do to him. I think we will have to nicely agree to disagree.
Please don’t assume to understand the way in which we “talk to him”~ you have no idea. The family has a fine relationship. You make it sound as if they are hounding him with scripture, not approaching him in love. That assumption is far from the truth.
Thank you again for healthy dialogue.
God loves homosexuals as much as he loves me~~I know that. We love him enough to not want him to lead a sinful life……. enough said.
Women preaching in the worship assembly of the church is a clear violation of scripture ( I Cor. 14 : 33 and 34 ; I Timothy 2 : 11- 14. ). It has nothing to do with culture, it goes all the way back to creation and the fall and Paul wrote by the inspiration Of God.
This does not make women slaves , they are also free in Christ but God in His word has set the restrictions. The women in the congregation I attend are very active in teaching , evangelism, counseling, works of compassion, etc. and do not consider themselves as oppressed. Gal. 3 : 26- 28 speaks to the unity of salvation for all who have put their faith in Jesus and have obeyed the gospel.
Left this out…
The difference is this. When I sin and recognize it is sin~ I pray, I pray for forgiveness and to be relieved of that sin.
Homosexuals do not realize a gay lifestyle as sin…………………
Do you see where I’m coming from now?
Someone has to see this.
Fair enough, Lee
God bless.