Paula

Oh, sorry, I wasn’t challenging you, just pointing out that sometimes, like Jude, we have to contend for the faith instead of putting all our efforts on the gospel and building each other up. You know that of course, but I think for the sake of readers it’s always good to write down what might not be obvious to others. 🙂

Would to God that we had that luxury, Arlene. But instead, many of us are forced to keep hammering on various side issues because others use them to restrict or control large portions of the Body of Christ. We must help the oppressed among us.

It’s just as Cheryl wrote in an earlier post about the rabbi’s view that “a woman’s voice is filthy nakedness”. These people believe that women are intrinsically evil, or at best inherently temptresses bent on usurping this alleged male authority. They hate what they fear, and their fear is from their own imagination and ego.

I wrote a little somethin’ about the “emasculated” church a while back (Here).

Really, it all comes from a complete misunderstanding of how we relate to God. Even I, as a woman, cringe at the “lover” idea as being thinly-veiled sexuality, and that’s not anything near the relationship I have with Jesus. It is to be from one soul to another, a close friendship. And close friendships can and do exist between males and females without any sexual component. Those of us women who have worked along side men know this to be true.

So it seems to me that the problem lies with those who impose that sexual component. Why are they so obsessed with it? Why can’t they imagine that relationships of friendship exist between men and women? It is that very separation which widens the gap and makes such friendships impossible. I can only conclude that the men who promote this are so weak and sexually confused that they cannot tolerate any contact with women on anything but a sexual plane.

Jesus said “If YOUR eye CAUSES YOU TO SIN…”; he did NOT say “If someone you saw causes you to sin…”. The sin is “in the eye of the beholder”; the men who always see women as sexual objects are the ones with the problem.

No problem, David, thanks.

David,

I’m a firm believer in respecting a person’s right to say whatever they want in their own “home”, so I hope I didn’t come across as trying to tell you what words you can use to describe people.

But personally, I try to avoid questioning the intelligence or mental health of people whose views I disagree with. I’ll freely blast the views and name names of those who hold them, but I do try to avoid dissing the people themselves unless they are false teachers doing great damage to the Body.

Specific to what you posted here, I still think it’s inaccurate to presume that people who say those things are crazy. Misguided perhaps, maybe even poor exegetes or lacking in discernment, but of sound mind nonetheless.

For The Shack, the link I provided is to comments by a former New Ager whose insight and experience should be taken seriously. People typically go there and just brush it off as “hate” or bashing for no reason, but the people there do their homework. It would be well worth your time.

At any rate, I won’t invade your “home” and cause undue tension.

Paula

Cheryl, I went over there and looked around, and I saw that people like me who believe in dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture are considered “nut jobs”. I also saw that if anyone says there’s New Age in The Shack (article on that Here), they need to “get a grip”. So I won’t be venturing over there to help in the debate, sorry.

Not to worry, Don. I only know how to write, not talk. 😉

Cheryl, please also pass along my prayers for Keith.

Actually, there are two verses that say all humans are still made in the image of God:

Genesis 9:6
“Whoever sheds human blood, by human beings shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made humankind.

James 3:9
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness.

Absolutely, Lin. We should all be trained in basic independent living. We should all be taught how to make minor repairs, negotiate loans, handle our finances, plan careers, etc. Our schools never taught girls anything beyond the three Rs but sewing and cooking and proper etiquette. I would have much preferred the shop class. And they were never taught how to shop or sew or cook.

Tanx! And I whole-heartedly agree: there should be male cheerleaders at female sporting events! (I’d better get some sleep before posting any more!)

Forgot something…

The idea that without hierarchy there can be no distinction is one used by those who insist that the Persons of the Trinity must have hierarchy. They say that if there is no hierarchy, then we are teaching Modalism! (see This link)

Aw, gengwall, you don’t have to beg. You can differ with impunity at no charge.  😉

Suppose you have two sports cars, each very unique. They have different types of engines, different wiring, different body shapes, different manufacturers. Yet when they are tested, they perform identically. Both are cars, both will transport people, both have the same performance results. Two very different items with the same results.

The simple fact you’re overlooking is that male and female brains cannot be told apart when their “results”– thoughts– are conveyed in anonymity. Males and females certainly have different body types, and if your facts are correct and uncontested by experts in the field, different “wiring”. But the important thing is the result; does “male” thinking differ significantly and without exception from “female” thinking? No, it does not. Differences in behavior vary more among members of one sex than between them. Personality is not a gender-specific trait, but is a combination of individual genetics and experiences.

What God designed is not one superior sex and one inferior sex,  but two equal yet complementary sexes. What Peter and Paul write about is cultural reality and how believers should conduct themselves therein. Your claim that the Bible commands unconditional respect only from wives to husbands is completely unsupported from the text, as is the implication that only husbands are to agape love. All believers without exception are to agape love each other, to submit to each other, to follow Christ’s humble setting aside of privilege (Phil. 2:5-11) and to obey his command, “not so among you”.

No, you wouldn’t want to get me started about “hormonal differences” either. I don’t go berserk every month; my husband never knows when “it” is unless I tell him. Even when I was pregnant I didn’t have many of the typical, average, majority symptoms of mood swings or strange cravings. (Even so, I’d defy any man to put up with half the things women put up with!)

Many like yourself define equality between the sexes as androgyny, but I strongly disagree with that idea. Equality does not mean two people are identical. Are two twin boys or girls indistinguishable unless one bosses the other? No, we know they are two separate people, even though they may have identical genetics and behavior. Differentiation is by virtue of their being two separate people, not by their “roles”, personalities, behavior, or anything else.

It appears from your statements that you are not very familiar with the writings here. Please take some time to prayerfully consider them, as well as the excellent DVDs.

Now if you could just convince the patriarchalists of that.

In order to prove something applies to a group of people universally, it would have to hold true without exception through all cultures and throughout history. “The exception that proves the rule” only works for things like grammar. When anyone says “all ____ are this and all ____ are that”, the existence of exceptions, even if in the minority, disprove the rule.

I’ve observed that online, when identities are unknown, people cannot tell men from women. I’ve been surprised to learn that some individual was a man after all, or a woman after all. Likewise, I’ve been in debates where my opponent was sure I was a man and was quite surprised (sometimes even enraged!) that I turned out to be a woman.

So even from that observation I can say that there is no “manly” way of thinking or any “womanly” way of thinking. There are averages, and stereotypes, but no hard and fast rules. And if anyone wants to prove me wrong, they have to show that certain traits follow a gender through all cultures and times.

Same for spirituality. There are very tender-hearted, emotional, spiritual men, and very stern, logical, and unspiritual women. It’s a personality issue, not a genetic issue. Tendencies and averages are fine for marketing research, but not for making up rules for people.

From a Bible footnote:

huios is in reference to both males and females  (P. Oxy. 9.1206; P. Oslo 3; P. Erlangen 28.6;).

Even so, it makes them fully equal, legally on the same level. Likewise, adelphoi does not refer only to males but is used when there is at least one male in the group.

Indeed, Don. What was I thinking?

We all know the only scripture-explicit answer to each of those questions is “no”. But in spite of that, they will insist that the proof-texts overrule not only that list but also “not so among you” and the example of Jesus as listed in Phil. 2:5-11, the definition of love in 1 Cor. 13, and a host of other scriptures.

When you’re talking to “scholars” who actually believe God named Adam with the English word “man”, all logical and theological bets are off.

I know all about standing outside in the rain, looking in the windows at all the happy people inside. But this isn’t our home, our party. That’s coming later, and it’ll be well worth the wait. Hang in there.

Welcome to The Revolution, Pinklight! 🙂

Hi again Mike (posted in the other thread just a minute ago),

Your comment here is a good illustration of making a critical judgment without having first examined all the details carefully. Let me touch on a few points.

Nobody is advocating the complete absence of authority. Rather, we believe that authority is only in God’s Word. We do value leaders who rightly divide the Word and help the less experienced to mature spiritually. But this leader/follower arrangement is never to be permanent or based upon the flesh. That is our point. Children should grow up, students should graduate.

Nobody is given rule over anybody else because we are not a military unit but a Body. The left hand cannot demand that the right hand ask its permission to act; the foot cannot demand the obedience of the eye. We have the Spirit and “the teachings of the Apostles” which is the New Testament letters. Some are proven to be spiritually mature and deep into the Word, while others should observe these and follow their ways until they too reach maturity.

Whether we’re talking about a “church” or a marriage, there is always at least one leader, but that isn’t always the same person. Sometimes I lead and sometimes my husband does. Sometimes one person here will have a great insight, and sometimes it will be someone else.

And remember that Jesus said “not so among you”. Leadership among believers is service; “the greatest must become the least”. It is the exact opposite of the world’s model.

You’re right that believers should concentrate on the gospel, but the reality is that we have enemies both without and within. We are forced to defend ourselves here from control freaks who wish to cripple fully half the Body of Christ. This is a terrible mistake when “the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few”! We must keep studying the Word and not neglect areas that seem to be a waste of time to some, because it’s all the Word of God and worthy of our attention.

I would suggest that before you offer criticisms, it would be wise to do a lot of reading to get a fuller understanding of the view expressed here. There is a lot of material here, and I’m sure you’ll find answers to many questions.

Hi Mike,

I left what I call The Institution several years ago. I’ve found that most churches are following flawed paradigms for one reason or another, but in recent years there has been an explosion of very dangerous and harmful trends. It is truly rare to find fellowship with all but a handful in our communities. So many of us consider these online venues our real “church”.

One sign of the end times is that “the love of many will grow cold” (Mt. 24:12), and I think that’s what you’re describing coming from some people. It is unthinkable to me that anyone would try to break up your marriage due to a lost job or a wife who actually thinks she’s fully human! 🙂

Rest assured the people here wouldn’t dream of such a thing, and will pray for your job situation. Stick around!

I had a little to say a while back about that Biblical Gynecology article:

http://www.fether.net/2008/01/19/bible-dot-arrrgh/

There’s that “gymnastics” charge again. 😉

CBMW has never been interested in honestly examining views they disagree with. Not even their own sympathizers should be surprised by this.

That’s right, Greg. Or they’ll whip out “have a problem with authority” or “bow to culture” or a hundred other diversions.

I also believe there is much significance in the fact that this concerned believers in Crete. Paul described them as lazy and irresponsible (among other things). It stands to reason that the women there were not minding their homes, so the believing women who were elders were to get these lazy women up to speed socially.

That is the reason for the emphasis on basic domestic instructions for the women. The church did not need a bad reputation in society, even in Crete, and the women had an extra hurdle to jump. And obviously Titus himself could not be a role model to the women.

It’s quite ironic that when we point these things out, we’re accused of engaging in “gymnastics”, yet our critics engage in much more elaborate gymnastics when it suits them, even sometimes to the point of adding to scripture (such as “a sign of authority on her head”). I guess context only matters when strong, leading women in scripture are to be hammered down.

Ryan,

As I said, I didn’t want to debate E.S. here, as it’s really off-topic. You can see my commentary on that and all the NT letters at http://www.fether.net/downloads/”>This PDF as well as my overview of salvation at http://www.fether.net/2006/12/01/2006-12-01-go-to-heaven-salvation/”>Go To Heaven! and one specifically on ES http://www.fether.net/2006/03/01/2006-03-01-eternal-security-salvation-saved/”>Here.

But I must object to the statement “The doctrine of eternal security is a dangerous teaching.” It is common to accuse ES as a “license to sin”, but in reality the “eternal insecurity” (EI) view has the same problem. Its proponents lead no better lives than those of ES, and the only difference is that when the EI repents they think they’re getting saved again, while the ES thinks they’re restoring a relationship that was strained but not severed. They both wind up doing the same things, slipping up and repenting. And since the EI can repent and be repeatedly re-saved, they too have the same “license to sin”.

And here again we see some of the difficulties in trying to make all churches draw the same line on fellowship.

And as much as I despise the TULIP, I hold to Eternal Security, but of course for different reasons. Many think one has to be a Calvinist to believe in Et. Sec.

My understanding of the illustration of branches being grafted in or cut off is to represent Jews (natural) and Gentiles (wild). But I won’t get into a debate here on eternal security. I also don’t take Mt. 18:18 as applicable to the issue of disfellowshipping, but instead to the following discussion about asking God for something. Jesus was talking about an individual sinning against another person, not about teaching falsehood or any other congregation-wide issue.

Also remember that Jesus spoke these things before the Cross. While many things were re-emphasized by the apostles after Pentecost, I don’t believe a church-age believer can be removed from the Body. When Paul told the Corinthians to throw a man out from their fellowship, he stated the purpose: so that the man could be taught not to blaspheme, and we don’t “teach a lesson” to those outside the Body. Later the man was reinstated into the fellowship for repenting. Some may cite this as a case of regained salvation but I don’t.

At any rate, we can see from this thread how difficult it would be for Christians world-wide to agree on who should be disfellowshipped and how they should be reinstated. The best I think we could hope for is that no congregation should accept someone from another congregation without some statement about the person’s standing where they were before.

Of course the statement that being expelled from “the body” should be clarified to extend only to the visible community of believers, as opposed to being literally severed from salvation. Just to clarify.

But I agree; if we are not to be fragmented, there has to be a way for all local congregations to communicate on the matter of believers in good standing. There could be letters of recommendation such as Paul mentioned, or in today’s world maybe a database.

But then the problem is about where the lines are drawn. The reason we have denominations at all is because people part company on so many different and sometimes trivial issues. I really don’t know the answer to solving that (beyond everyone seeing things exactly as I do!).