So here’s the problem: sometimes the Bible sounds egalitarian and sometimes (perhaps even more often) it sounds complementarian/patriarchal. How can a person be honest to both perspectives? That’s what Stackhouse is asking.
He presents a paradigm that makes the best sense to him of the varied evidence.
His first principle in the paradigm is equality. As he looks at the creation story and then especially the ministry of Jesus and the events of Pentecost, he concludes: “God originally intended women and men to be coequal partners in stewarding the earth, without role differentiation, and he has never rescinded that mandate. Indeed in God’s renewal of all things, in his great salvation plan to restore shalom, men and women will treat each other as they were intended to treat each other. We already see this renewed order in the inbreaking of the kingdom evident in the New Testament.”
But what about passages that seem to sit in contrast to that vision — passages that seem to be patriarchal? That leads to a second principle in the paradigm: some things matter more than others, or what Stackhouse calls “holy pragmatism.”
God works within human limitations. In the Old Testament, you just have to think of polygamy. “God is willing to forgo the achievement of secondary objectives in the interest of furthering his primary purposes, and he expects us to do the same.” (More on this later.)
The third principle concerns eschatology. “What . . . would our understanding of gender look like if we took the ‘already but not yet’ principle seriously? What if we were to expect, instead of one extreme or the other, an appropriately paradoxical situation: a slow and partial realization of gospel values here and there, as God patiently and carefully works his mysterious ways along the multiple fronts of kingdom advance?”
He asks us to observe what missionaries have always known: “Missionaries of every era and locale often have practiced this policy. There was no point in undertaking a quixotic crusade against a deeply entrenched social evil when the church was tiny and young. Better to grow the church and then permeate society with gospel values, with the long-term hope of ameliorating or even revolutionizing what was wrong.”
Why does Paul sometimes sound like he believes in male leadership and sometimes like he’s an egalitarian? According to Stackhouse (and I agree), it’s because of “prudent instruction as to how to survive and thrive” in the patriarchal culture of that day. But he also promotes “the egalitarian dynamic already at work in the career of Jesus that in due course will leave gender lines behind.”
Here’s the conclusion of this paradigm:
“When society was patriarchal, as it was in the New Testament context and as it has been everywhere in the world except in modern society in our day, the church avoided scandal by going along with it — fundamentally evil as patriarchy was and is. Now, however, that modern society is at least officially egalitarian, the scandal is that the church is not going along with society, not rejoicing in the unprecedented freedom to let women and men serve according to gift and call without arbitrary gender line. This scandal impedes both the evangelism of others and the edification — the retention and development of faith — of those already converted.”
More manana.
I would also add that this debate is deeply driven by views of God. There are two kinds of Christians:
Type 1: God’s Psychologists
These Christians are preoccupied with God’s psychology: His preferences, His likes, His dislikes, and the fluctuating status of His moods. For these Christians, “pleasing” God is about correctly identifying his psychological hang-ups and then managing them accordingly.
Type 2: God’s Missionaries
This type of Christian seeks to bring the “good news” to all facets of human existence. They simply proclaim and enact salvation through Jesus’ cruciform life, a life lived radically for the Other. Managing the psychological quirks of a irritable, picky, and perfectionistic Deity are not guiding interests.
So, watch the posts today and see how people sort out!
This is an interesting argument and somewhat different than any (in my very limited experience) I have heard before. It raises the interesting possibility of congregations in different parts of the world responding differently. While the US and Europe are largely egalitarian, much of the world is not. Missionaries to patriarchal areas would have to adapt to the local culture in this aspect. I guess this is an obvious point now that I think about it but I am new to studying this issue.
Does it bother anyone that the church is less like God in some ways than secular society?
good post, and i think it hits the nail on the head. Richard’s point of two different views of God plays a role, but I think to say that you are all the way one or the other is not quite there. I know many who are mostly of the second bent, but who are bothered by the scriptures to the contrary, and thus this whole discussion is continued, and will be…
In my mind, the only patriarchal sytem God ever established was between a husband and wife (God’s judgment after the fall in Genesis, Eph 5, etc.). This idea of male superiority and headship over all women never seemed to originate with God, but probably evolved. There are just too many times in Scripture where women are placed in positions of leadership, authority and importance, all sanctioned by God, to say the patriarchal system was of God.
- Sarah was given equal importance in the Abrahamic covenant, with God promising her the same promises Abraham received, even changing her name as He did Abram’s. (Genesis 17:15-16)
- Deborah, the chosen leader or judge of Israel, an entire nation of God’s people God turned over to a woman. (Judges 4:4)
- Queen Esther’s decrees and regulations regarding the Jews’ fasting and lamentation times, not to mention her work on behalf of God’s people up until that point. (Esther 9:29-32)
- Huldah, the prophetess of God (2 Kings 22:14-20)
- Philip’s daughters, who were prophetesses (Acts 21:9)
- Phoebe in Romans 16.
- Women praying and prophesying in 1 Cor 11 in the context of the assembly.
- Some kind of leadership role for women in 1 Tim 3:11, noting the word “their” in “their wives” doesn’t belong textually.
To take 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 and make them forbid any leadership role for women stands against hundreds of years of history. But, to take those two passages and see them in the light of localized, specific problems Paul is dealing with, then Scripture agrees and all of history in regard to women and God doesn’t have to be wiped out.
1 Cor 14 can easily be viewed as disruptive women causing a commotion during the assembly, somehow involving their husbands. And Paul tells them to be quiet and handle it at home, just as he tells the prophets and tongue speakers who were causing a commotion as well to be quiet, speak one at a time, have an interpreter, etc.
1 Tim 2 can easily be viewed in the husband-wife context. The wife was trying to wrestle away (usurp) what rightly belonged to her husband, trying to teach “over him” and exercise authority “over him”, an order God did not create among husband and wife. It was not that she couldn’t teach or have any authority, she was wrestling away what belonged to him as head of the wife. He then calls upon Adam and Eve to help make his point, another husband-wife example.
IMHO, God has always been consistent in lifting up and honoring women as capable, worthy, honorable servants of His, whether it was leading men or following them. We should do the same.
This is not only a compelling argument, but one that I think shows great respect for the progress of the narrative that unfolds both in Scripture itself and in our collective life on the earth.
At the risk of being the trouble-maker in the room, I have to wonder how Stackhouse’s argument here — and especially his notion of “holy pragmatism” — might apply to the more difficult subject that came up in your post on ‘Avoiding Counternarratives.’
Yeah, I know. I may have just hijacked this thread. Sorry.
Jimmy - Fair question. For those interested in that very question, I’d suggest William Webb’s excellent book, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals.
One of my heroes is Mother Theresa…I am amazed by her quiet work that screamed out God’s love to the masses.
Mike, I really do understand and have felt the sadness of being slighted because I am a woman. I really don’t care who is on the stage or who is holding the microphone. I am uncomfortable when this subject is discussed because it could in someways appear that people think that getting on the stage or being in “leadership” gives them a voice. His voice is spoken through me when I dress a wound that’s bleeding or I hold a heart that’s breaking.
I will be candid here…I have sat in my church feeling so sad and alone and disillusioned. The very men who are screaming for the rights of women sat in a meeting when my husband told them that he never hit me with his fist only with his open hand. These great men sat and nodded as he said that. My friend Clint did ask him if he had in fact bruised me with his open hand and he said yes. I guess I wanted those same men who are fighting for my rights to stand on a stage or be in leadership to stand up right there and then and tell him that this not acceptable.
I have probably said too much here and will regret it but I feel there are other issues that need to be stressed as well..we know what to do when someone has cancer but how do you deal with a woman like me..sadly in the awkwardness and the loss of words we say nothing..Let me say I have been guilty of this and the Lord has taught me so much about the wounded in the church this year.
peace..
Thanks Mike. Adding it to my ‘wish list’ now. Of course, all purhcases have to go through the comptroller’s office. And man, we never should’ve put a woman in charge of THAT!
Thoughtful and provocative, as usual!
The communities of faith that produced our “holy texts” were alternatingly conservative and radical, depending on the authors/redactors/editors and the cultural context of the time. For me, what distinguishes Jesus is the fact that no one could “man handle” him sufficiently in any textual reporting to completely blot out his radical and enduring edge. I believe it is always this “edge,” wherever it is found in scripture–and it is never totally absent– that should define our strategies for moving forward as people of faith.
We have ended up having a different set of rules for spiritual life and secular life. This reduces the impact of our spiritual teaching.
There should not be two different set of values that Christians live by.
If the church really believes that when God created women he did not give them the ability to be leaders, then the church should not only oppose women as leaders in church but also in government, education, and business. If, however, God did give women these abilities, why do we not allow them to use them within the church?
When we have two sets of rules, we end up being two-faced.
Fajita,
I would like to know your definition of “like God.”
does this strike anyone else as uber-rationalism? trying to justify the act of polygamy as “god working through men’s limitations” is not logical. it is trying to find a “work around” so our modern understanding can still read the hebrew bible and not see what is so plain and simple without the mask of religion…that these are stories from an ancient culture who worked within a specific cultural paradigm much like the rest of humanity at the time. the same goes for how women were treated as birthing vessels and concubines brought in when these “properties” were barren. the same goes for the various forms of slavery
Exodus 21:20-21 “And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property].”
is this really from the mind of god? please be rational when you ask this question. we no longer justify these ancient ideas and we must no longer try to justify and fit god into our limited understanding.
The fundamental problem I have with this paradigm is that it places modern man in a position of having to decide which scriptures still apply and which do not. In effect it makes modern human judgment the ultimate standard. So it is no wonder that the church is becoming more and more like the world around it.
If the scriptures are not an invariant standard, then why were the Bereans praised as noble for searching the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true? More to the point… if not the scriptures, where am I to go to learn God’s will?
thanks alan.
Isn’t man put into that same position when they had to translate the writings into another language? And they were in the same position when they had to choose which writings to include as inspired…even now we have the coptic, the catholic and the protestant versions. and then we get to actually interpret these writings. slaves obey your masters? women are silent?
we are naive to think that human fingerprints are not all over these writings.
great final question. where do i go to learn god’s will.
my question is why do we think that god wrote a book? these writings point to the will of god. the same as our lives of love and forgiveness and humility and joy point to the mysterious of something so vast and beyond our limited perspectives.
Experience, tradition, scripture… God’s fingerprints are on all these. So are human fingerprints. That makes it awfully messy. For that reason, I think experience must trump the other two. That is not to say they are not important, however.
right on pecs!
this beautiful mess.
God did promise to deliver his message through the apostles. And the apostles did claim their writings to be scripture.
Joh 14:25 “All this I have spoken while still with you.
Joh 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Joh 16:12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.
Joh 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Rom 16:25 Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,
Rom 16:26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him–
Rom 16:27 to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.
2Pe 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
2Pe 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
2Pe 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
2Pe 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
alan. the apostles claimed their writings to be scripture? who is the apostle luke? apostle mark? apostle hebrew? (the last one was a joke)
it makes things alot cleaner when one can believe that the books of the NT are all eyewitness accounts. but that is not the case. they are writings that came out of a post-judeo community. there is nothing to verify that they were written by actual first hand believers.
Sooo….experience trumps scripture? No wonder we can then easily dismiss Pual’s inspired words. Of course we know the he obviously listened more to culture than to the Holy Spirit. ??? How dare! But it does make it a lot easier for those today who wish to dismiss very plain texts.
And didn’t Paul’s argument go back to creation in his writings to Timothy - not to 1st century culturalism.
Alan, bless you, my brother. There is no condescension in my pointing out that there is perhaps another paradigm involved here that could be out-of-kilter. Your reference to “the scriptures as an invariant standard” highlights a critical issue Mike (and others) have addressed here previously. The paradigm we hold regarding “scripture” and “authority” itself affects (and infects) virtually all of these troublesome/controversial issues we must confront in trying to live in the kingdom of heaven on this earth. Just exactly how is it that the “scriptures” are “authoritative?” I have come to believe the commonly-accepted notions (at least in some circles) about “inerrancy” and “verbal inspiration” and related ideas may be conveniently compact and comforting, but they are also simplistic and even naive to the point of unintentional arrogance.
I’m not sure we can escape the “problem” of using human judgment to make “application” of what we find in “scripture.” In fact, I’m not sure our Creator sees it so much as a problem as he may see it as part of the solution to the problem of entering a deeper and deeper relationship with Him — and becoming more like Jesus. Have you considered the issue of Jesus’ own handling of scripture? I find that a rather fascinating subject. One thing I’m sure of is that we do err when we try to “use” scripture that is narrative (or correspondence) as though it was a divine blueprint or detailed instruction manual. Whatever it is, it ain’t that.
Jon,
I am at a loss for how to respond. There is an unimaginably huge gulf between your view and mine. I have no idea how to bridge that gulf.
Does God still speak to individuals and communities, or did he write it all down once and leave it up to us to get it right?
I sure hope it ain’t the latter, because if so — well, we’re screwed.
=)
truly looking at all sides of the arguments and using rational and logical thought is the only way to bridge the gulf. if someone can open my eyes to why anyone should think that these books are even from the authors that tradition has attributed. that would be a great start!
Gary,
The question of how to interpret scripture is separate from the question of whether scripture is the authoritative Word of God. If we can’t agree on the authority of scripture then our discussion about interpretation is not likely to lead anywhere.
it’s a thing called “faith” that many today seem to have in everything - from their own experience, to logic, to culture…everything that is except the Bible.
great point alan. and i would assume that we all wouldn’t even be able to agree on what “authority of scripture” means.
Yes dalo, Paul did argue from ‘creation’ in 1 Timothy. He also argued from the apparent practice of people doing something really strange in 1 Cor. 15 (baptism “for the dead”). And he argued from ‘nature’ in 1 Cor. 11 (a basis for other Pauline arguments)to support a particular view of male/female hairstyles. In other words, Paul makes his case from a variety of vantage-points.
Now, I’m not sure exactly what it means for Paul to argue from “the nature of things,” but it sounds to me something like “our experience of the world.”
I’m fairly sure that many (if not most) of us believe that God certainly had it within his power to provide an unambiguous non-human revelation. A text without human fingerprints, human communities and human voices. We could then merely mimic and recite the “words of God” without talking about men like Paul. But instead we find ourselves with the opportunity to wrestle with our scriptures and their human authors in the midst of our experiences of the world.
Troubling as that may be (and it often is), I see no alternative.
Jimmy,
Your post touches on the topic of how we are to interpret (gain understanding) from the scriptures. It does not address the authority question.
I find that some things are obvious in scripture, as plain as day. And there are unending layers of more subtle truths that are only understood over time and with much effort. I don’t think we can understand deeper truths when we are not submitting to the more obvious ones.
We now find ourselves debating the relevance of some of the most plainly stated teachings in scripture. We do that at our own peril. If we do not learn from what is plainly evident, God will eventually “give us over” to depravity. (Rom 1:18ff).
Alan, I’m not sure they are separate. They may not be identical, but they are inextricably intertwined. The “interpretation” is greatly influenced by one’s understanding of “authoritative.” Stackhouse’s paragigm — and this discussion — are prime examples. The characterization of Paul’s “statements” to specific first-century brethren/sisteren as “commands” — especially if that characterization is intended to mean a “currently-enforceable directive” — carries with it certain assumptions about HOW scripture is supposed to BE “authoritative.”
Please don’t misunderstand. I have massive respect for “scripture” as one of the major means by which God reveals Himself and His Will to us. But when we seek what I fear is the “easy way out” by concluding at the outset that “God has spoken plainly through Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit” that (whatever, fill-in-the-blank) is the ANSWER, it seems to me we delude ourselves into thinking WE have no part in deriving that “answer” — that we have simply accepted God’s divine instruction — when in fact our “interpretation” of scripture AND authority are responsible. Does that make any sense?
Gary, your post reminds me of discussions I have had with people who are fond of saying “in matters of doctrine, unity and in matters of opinion, liberty.” When I have tried to explain that what they call “doctrine” is their opinion as to what the text says, they look at me as if I’m nuts (maybe I am). Our opinions may line up with the truth (original intent of scripture) or they may not, but whatever way we interpret scripture is our opinion about it. I thought maybe that was part of what you meant when you referred to us having a part in the ANSWER. Some opinions are true and some are false in that they either do or do not line up with the true meaning of scripture.
I don’t know if I have expressed this very well, but there it is anyway.
Are we to two million yet?
Mike, is there a reason why my comment has been moderated today?
I am a little surprised that the Holy Spirit hasnt really been a part of this discussion. Certainly scripture is the authoritative word of God, but I dont think we can really grasp its Truth unless we are led by the Spirit.
Beverly - Absolutely. I’ll be glad to speak to you about it privately.
ahh mike. let the rest of the bored in on it. you’re killing us.
To address Chris’ question, I will say that American secular society does a better job at acknowledging that women have equal capacity (and superioir capability) to men in many, many areas than the church in general does. And American society does a better job at putting that belief into action. It’s more than just talk.
Furthermore, even with all of the advances that women have made, there are still inequalities and thus the effort continues. Church, in many corners, has yet to wake up to this reality. It is the church that should be on the front line of equality, not lagging behind a secular culture that does not even believe in a god.
When I say there are some ways in which society is more like God than the church, that is what I mean.
Mike…how ironic…
you can’t imagine what guts it took for me to post that comment. Talk to anyone of your friends in psychology and they should be able to tell you that there is so much shame that comes with abuse and that’s why we don’t hear about it. For me to get the guts to spill all that out was really big for me and I felt if there may be a woman or man reading your blog maybe it would help them.
That you responded to me in that public forum really breaks my heart. You called it inappropriate. Imagine what some might wonder. You could have emailed me or called me to explain. Now, I am even more ashamed. You silence an abused WOMAN and that is my point.
In all this talk about egalitarianism, it just seems lip service to worry about whether a woman gets to stand up to pray over communion when a battered woman feels ashamed to have walked through the door. If you don’t understand this, maybe you shouldn’t be writing about the issue of women in the church.
I have read some pretty inappropriate debates going on here by men…I just felt this could be a place where I could be honest. I guess not. I was shaking when I wrote it and now I am shaking again. I am a part of the population that the church would like to think isn’t there or so it seems, but this has underlined this for me.
I love you and respect you and I am just sad.
Your sister in Christ,
Beverly Mann
Alan ,
Thank you for your posts. You are absolutely right. Scripture must be the final auhority. It cannot be culture and experiences. Culture and experiences are always changing but God’s word is living and active. Paul in I Tim 2 writes as an inspired apostle writng the will of God and said creation and the fall are the reasons why a woman must not have authority over a man. Nothing there about culture or experiences. And in I Cor. 14 he said his insrtuctions about the silence of women was for all the churches. Not just Corinth. Again , when God’s design is followed then there is an excellent harmony of lives working together for the glory of God. It is not about the oppression of women and ptting down the women of the church but God has a perfect design that transcends time and culture. We are in a kingdom that submits to the Lordship of Jesus.
For any who might care to listen, here is a sermon very relevant to this discussion, by Mark Dever, minister of the Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC. The title is “Discern Your Doctrine” and it addresses how we might distinguish those issues on which we must agree in order to have unity, and those issues on which we might disagree and still be unified. He specifically addressed the issue of egalitarianism vs complementarianism in his illustration of the principles, in the latter part of the message.
http://sgm.edgeboss.net/download/sgm/na/2007messages/a2270-02-51.mp3
As you will see, this is not merely a Church of Christ issue.
I think I am quite surprised that this issue has boiled down to whether or not people believe the Bible. I think it would be easier to accept that reasonable, God-fearing, sincere people can look at a text and come to completely different conclusions (all conclusions being based on pre-concieved notions, previous religious baggage and personal experiences) without having to say that maybe the Bible isn’t the word of God afterall. I have long thought that it is IMPOSSIBLE to come to the Scripture in a completely objective way. There is no way to see it in an unbiased way, in my opinion. But isn’t that what the whole point is. What we NEED to know: that Jesus is God’s son, that he led a perfect life, was crucified, resurrected and ascended into heaven and will come again to redeem His people… isn’t that perfectly clear? (PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE everyone say yes. If we have to debate the core of the gospel here I think my heart may break) The rest of the stuff, the stuff we’re using our energy here on isn’t the stuff that matters. After all, there is no way to be right enough, to be obedient enough to stand blameless before the throne on the last day. So we get the women’s role thing wrong…ok, but do we claim Christ as our savior? Do we worship HIm only and rest in His saving grace? Do we struggle to show Him to a world that desperately needs Him? Are we striving for justice for those who have none? Then what can we expect from the Father who loves us? A smile and a welcome home…in my opinion.
The command for silence for all time is problematic, but maybe not as much as the command for women to wear head coverings for all time when the church is gathered.
Fajita,
I get what you are saying and I often come off too harsh here, and I don’t want to. I believe that case is not a valid comparison. Society does equate, and rightly so, the equality of men and women. In the church, family of faith, whatever you want to insert here since there are numerous denominations represented, is far different from human law like equal rights. I believe most churches see and realize talents of all members. How can anyone criticize a church for following scripture. I said it yesterday and I’ll say it again, if Paul’s letter only applied to the churches or people he wrote to, then we are lost until we get a letter to Texans, Oklahomans…you get my exagerated and rediculous point.
Dixie,
“What we NEED to know: that Jesus is God’s son, that he led a perfect life, was crucified, resurrected and ascended into heaven and will come again to redeem His people… isn’t that perfectly clear? (PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE everyone say yes. If we have to debate the core of the gospel here I think my heart may break)”
I think these very things need to be debated. Right now, I think the most useful part of religion is its sometimes present product, unconditional love. One may argue that this is the heart of the gospel, but some atheists espouse these same core beliefs.
If the gospel is we that we “suck” as a created people of “God” and need to be redeemed by this very creator by violent death, then It doesn’t seem like very good news at all.
I think we all need to do as you suggest and try to come at scripture realizing the lens we through which we examine it, has been shaped over a long period of time. What you take for granted I find hard to believe because it does not mesh with my modern reality.
Thanks for your comment the the grace you have shown me on this blog.
Dixie wrote:
>I think it would be easier to accept that reasonable, God-fearing,
> sincere people can look at a text and come to completely different
> conclusions (all conclusions being based on pre-concieved notions,
> previous religious baggage and personal experiences) without having
> to say that maybe the Bible isn’t the word of God afterall.
That is the kind of conversation I wish we were having too. There we would have a common standard and have some hope of reaching agreement, or at least increasing degrees of agreement over time. To use an overworked cliche, I think some folks are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Thank you, Dixie.
Jesus is the alpha and omega, not the Bible. For too long has the written word been elevated to (replaced the Spirit) a spot in the Trinity. The Bible is an important communication from God, but please tell me that it is not the sum of it.
I do not follow the Bible. I am not a Biblian. I follow Christ. I am a Christian. Christ is so much revealed in the Bible, but so much of Christ is revealed in a million other places.
“By what authority…?”
Is that not the question here? If authority comes from God and can only be understood throught the Bible, then we are going to have to apply each and every word of an ancient cross-cultural, much interpretted book to ourselves all the way in every way all the while blocking out every sensibility, passion, logic, experience, historical learnings, and every other thing.
The discomfort we have with a God who does not play by the rules compels us to do some strange behaviors, like keeping women out of power positions. In the Bible there are places where it looks like God bans women from power, and yet there are places where it is obvious God placed women as miliatry leaders. Is this the same God from the same Bible?
Yes. We had best get used to God breaking all of our rules.
Yep, same God from the same Bible. I don’t think keeping women out of powerful positions has anything to do worship. There are women in powerful positions all over the place; with or without titles, in or out of the church.
“I am not a Biblian…I follow Christ” Christ’s surrendered heart to the Father showed who’s will we should have. You nailed it when you said we would have to block every sensibility, passion, logic, experience… That is absolutey right. I think that is what He meant when He said, “My ways are not your ways.” Don’t let feeling separate you from the truth. Those ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Feelings, emotions are powerful. Without truth and surrendering our will to His, feelings and emotions, experiences and logic are our will alone.
There can be and often is truth in feelings. God can speak through feelings, logic, experience, nature and so forth. Just because it is a feeling, logical or whatever does not make something true, but it does not make it void of truth either.
An interpretted Bible is just like a feeling, it can be true or it can be false.
Discernment must always be taken, but not in favor of one over the other. Truth is not so small that it can be contained on pages that are in turn interpretted by a person.
An interpretation from the Bible and an emotion have the same potential flaw - human interaction. There is no default truth to fall back on that we simply and readily know. truth might very well be a process we enter in to, which, from our very limited perspective, changes.
How can the desert and the beach be of the same earth? Is the earth a liar?
How can water from a well satisfy and water from the ocean dehydrate? Are they not water?
We do not know very much and it should be more obvious to us than it is.
Leland
I don’t know if you are still checking this thread since there is a newer one to look at but I wanted to respond real quick.
“If the gospel is we that we “suck†as a created people of “God†and need to be redeemed by this very creator by violent death, then It doesn’t seem like very good news at all.”
I would have to agree with you if this was the case. However, I don’t think the Creator created us to ’suck’. He created us with the capacity to ’suck’ which is inherent in His decision to create with the ability to choose. Saying that he created us to ’suck’ sortof discounts the role that satan plays in the world, in my opinion. The good news of the gospel is that even if we are ’sucky’ He still, still, wants us. And he has done everything he can to take away the fact that we ’suck’. AND more good news is that the fact that we ’suck’ is no longer relevant to us if we accept the gift that He has given through Christ. I guess the gospel wasn’t really good news to Jesus since he was the one doing all the crappy stuff for us but He still did it…for me, for you.
I think this is the most times I have used the word ’suck’ in any given conversation, especially one that is religious in nature. Lots of fun though, the word ’suck’. Thanks for the opportunity.
Dixie
dixie - that answer did not “suck” at all. Well stated. Only…about Christ. When we really REALLY love someone deeply we will do things for them that are not of our own comfort - like our kids. And when we know it will bring them joy or bring them help or comfort - even if it is hard or painful we do it with joy! Knowing…sounds like Hebrews 12:1-2 - “endured the cross…despising the pain/shame”… I don’t pretend to understand how He could but in our limited view perhaps we get an inkling of it all…
When we really REALLY love someone deeply we will do things for them that are not of our own comfort
Amen. This is why I would never tell a woman that she cannot speak what the Holy Spirit lays on her heart, spontaneously lead a song of praise, or begin to pray in a mixed assembly of believers. I love my sister too much! Even if I am not comfortable with it (hypothetically speaking), I allow the Spirit to speak through whomever he/she wills (as if it is I who allow such a thing). Truth be told, none of this is actually about us at all.
wow….talk about taking something completely out of context! My! Of course you wouldn’t tell them that - but Paul would…AND MORE IMPORTANTLY DID!
dalo- No, I smelled what you were stepping in all along. I just decided to throw a curveball — you know, the old switcharoo. Forgive me. =)
Allow me to share a scenario from my life. We have often “done church” around a table, first-century style. Worship … prayer … scripture … sharing … casual conversation are simply peppered throughout a meal. In other words, there’s really no beginning and end of the “5 acts of worship” (in fact, if we only get 2 or 4 in there, we don’t sweat it…). It’s all worship, from the casual conversation about sports to a moving testimony.
Basically, it’s a family meal with Christ in our midst. Everyone participates — even the ones with brown hair. To be honest, we’re in and out of each other’s lives so much during the week, this special meal is really just an extension of lives lived with Christ. Personally, I can’t think of a more “real” manifestation of the Christian family, so you can see where conversations about who can and can’t participate in these times are found wanting. In a family, with Christ as the head, the body is built up only when “each part does its work” each time we assemble (Eph 4).
I take that to mean EACH PART — every last part. Even the ones with brown hair, red shirts, or tattoos.