teknomom

I can see how some might invoke Paul’s teaching on lawsuits between believers in this. But the problems in this case are that the seminary’s actions:

were very unchristlike and violate the most basic principles of Christians caring for one another, especially since she is the primary wage earner and her husband is disabled
violate Paul’s teachings on how employers are to treat employees, especially if they are believers,
are illegal in this country (since the seminary did not have such a rule before she was hired)

That last one especially is the big point. Paul’s teachings on lawsuits among believers were never meant to say we must not consider the laws of the land, but that we can and should settle our own petty disputes. Paul himself used the law when possible, for example when he was about to be beaten without a trial which was against the law for a Roman citizen. Granted the Romans were not Christians, but granted also that Paul would never have expected believers to commit illegal acts, especially by groups of leaders!

Oh yeah, the devil is laughing. That word “enmity” is such an understatement! But, as I like to remind the hierarchicalists (why isn’t that word in the dictionary yet?), “the first will be last, and the last will be first”. And there’s also “Whoever wants to be greatest must be the least”, and “even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve”. The comps must have those verses torn out of their Bibles.

It’s hard to show how to do html when the post will interpret the code instead of showing it to you, but I’ll try.

The Part You Want To Show

If that didn’t work, then replace the brackets [] with less-than/greater-than in the text below:
[a href=”http://www.the_website_url.com”]The Part You Want To Show[/a]

Charis, surely you know that blog profiles aren’t always in the blogger’s control. Blogger and Myspace put an astrological sign on your profile whether you want it or not, simply because you enter your birthdate. I only have two blogs at present, my home website (which has no astrological stuff in the profile) and Blogger. The Blogger one is only there because I am a contributor to someone else’s blog. You’ll notice also that many other solid believers in Blogger have astrological signs in them, but I don’t think for a moment that they want them there, any more than I would. Hope that clears up any misunderstandings.

PS: Are you quoting from the written Word, Charis? Why? (That particular verse is another one for you, too. 😉 )

Charis,

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant in my blog about discipline and balance. The idea is not that we can get too much of the Word, but that we should have that kind of attitude towards it that we crave the Word like we crave other things. I really don’t believe or teach that it is possible to study the Word too much. Sorry for the confusion.

Also, to compare being immersed in the Word with a legalistic, controlling congregation is inaccurate at best. I’m talking about self-control and self-discipline. Being a student of the Word is not about controlling other people but about spending every possible minute reading the “love letter from God”. The Spirit who indwells us is the same Spirit that inspired the Word; it’s all from God. But the written Word is not changeable like our emotions, or potentially misleading like our experiences.

What knowing the Bible will do is keep you from being fooled. Measure everything else by what it says, not the other way around as you seem to be doing now. That’s what I’m trying to say. The evidence of the Resurrection is the foundation. Then comes the understanding of who Jesus is and what he did, and then acceptance. The relationship follows from there, and grows as you learn more about God through his Word.

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”… Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. (Rom. 10:14-17)

Charis, if the relationship you have is not coming from the Bible but from others who have contradicted it, I have to seriously question the nature of that relationship. “What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?” (2 Cor. 6:15) The writings of people who contradict the Bible are not the place to find truths about God. The fault is not with the Bible, but with those who have improperly taught it or failed to practice it. Please don’t blame the written World for the way it has been misused.

When you put other writings above God’s Word, does it not grieve him? Does it not put up a wall between you and him? Also, why is it that you pay more attention to the written words of people than those of God? Why are their written words better? Please ask yourself why God’s written words are not as good as people’s written words.

It would be sinful for me to stand silently and watch anyone skip happily toward the edge of a cliff. I had to warn you, because I care and because I live to honor God. I won’t bother you about it any more, but please think about it.

Charis,

There is no conflict between the written Word and the Spirit; they both come from God and are to be respected as His Word. They are both necessary, to prevent gullibility on one hand and cold-heartedness on the other. The written Word is not subject to feelings and experiences which Satan can distort.

There is a growing trend toward exactly what you’re heading for, and it will destroy you. I’m telling you this in strong terms because I don’t want you to be sucked in.

Experience can never trump Truth. Jesus came to make us right with God, but he did so by fulfilling prophecy. He made sure there were eye-witnesses to his resurrection for a very good reason: evidence. Facts matter. God values truth above experience and character above comfort. We could know nothing without God telling us, and he uses both the spoken and the written Word.

I have both the Relationship and the Word. To throw the Word away in the face of experience is spiritual suicide. Please consider all this and at least give it a chance. Throw away the other books instead, and just listen to God by reading what he so plainly wrote.

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Here is a good intro to Joyner and the book, “There were two trees in the garden”. It is by a very respectable discernment ministry that includes Sandy Simpson and Mike Oppenheimer.

I have to say also that a red flag goes up whenever I hear people trash Hal Lindsey or use the phrase “left-behinders” in a derogatory way. I’ve studied scripture all my life and still strongly believe it teaches a literal fulfillment of Revelation and Daniel and Ezekiel’s prophecies. There is no contextual basis for treating them as allegories or stories about the general struggle between good and evil. No Bible commentators are perfect, but I’ll take Lindsey over Joyner in a heartbeat.

Charis,

That’s the issue with Joyner: his teachings are affecting how you interpret scripture. Lewis, Bunyan et al wrote stories, but how many people interpret scripture by them?

I often tell people that you can’t fall off the edge of a cliff if you never take that first step in the wrong direction. It seems harmless in itself, but it’s the beginning of the wrong path. So it is with using man to interpret scripture instead of using scripture to judge the writings of man.

I am told even by strangers that I have the gift of discernment. So when I tell you Joyner smells like a dragon to me, I’m not just saying it to spoil anyone’s party. Satan masquerades as an angel of light, so he’s not going to hold up a sign that says “Here I am, stay away!” but “Oh, don’t listen to those people, there’s no harm in this.”

I strongly recommend a discernment site called Lighthouse Trails Research. People send them hate mail for being negative or “trashing a good ministry”, but the truth is they care deeply about people and expose the ways Satan is destroying the churches. It’s a thankless job to be sure. But I would urge you to spend some time there and read up on Joyner and many other voices that combine to turn people away from the Anchor that is the written Word of God.

Charis said,

I discern the Lord telling me (for my marriage) that the antichrist spirit within each one of us us will GO OUT from among us because they do not belong to us! (The antichrist being that beastly sinful “disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul”)

We have to be careful to distinguish between what the scriptures mean in context, and what we can stretch them to mean. While it’s true we can apply scriptures to our daily lives, we have to stop short of coming to conclusions that may violate other scriptures. I know you mean well, but I see some danger in this idea of having an “antichrist spirit within each one of us”.

Of course, the meaning as John wrote what he did is that some claiming to be believers are not, and their leaving us proved it. But we have our own spirit, the essence of our being, and we have the Holy Spirit. There can be no other spirits within us, because “greater is the one who is in me than the one who is in the world”. No one else can “fill and govern the soul”.

What we do have battling within us is “corrupt flesh”, and we live in a corrupt world. And because we are “made in God’s image” we have free wills that want their own way. Only externally is there an antichrist spirit, which can oppress and tempt, but cannot govern us. Our command as believers is to “resist the devil” and walk closely with God, learning what pleases him and trusting him instead of ourselves.

There is much evil in the world because people choose it. I ache for the suffering of many like yourself, and have some sisters who have been in abusive marriages. Our responsibility as believers is to do everything we can to help the oppressed. But we must also remember that this life is a test of faith and character, and God will sometimes delay his deliverance for that reason. I pray you find relief soon.

Michael, you must be on the TBC mailing list too!

This only shows once again how patriarchy drives people to error, on both sides of the issue. Had male supremacy not been taught in the churches for so long, women would not have something to rebel against. Neither extreme is right. God is neither male nor female, but in declaring him male, comps have caused some women to declare a female deity too. But a female deity is no worse than a male one, since in several places God says plainly, “I am not a man”. Here again, the assumption that grammatical gender = biological gender (which is pretty much only true of English) leads to belief that God must be either male or female, when in fact he is neither.

In fact, if God must be male, then he must have a female counterpart. One necessitates the other!

I’m sure the comps would come back with, “We don’t say God is male, but masculine.” And I would respond, “What is the practical difference? Can masculinity be separated from maleness? If a woman acts in a way you declare to be “masculine”, is she more like God? And where are these lines drawn in the scriptures? Does not God have ‘feminine’ qualities too, like compassion, nurturing spiritual children, protecting his people as a mother hen, etc.?”

The only appointed position I can think of is Elder/guardian/overseer. This is what I think is significant in the letter to Titus. He was to appoint elders in every town, and in that same letter Paul talks about both male and female elders. There is no reason to think these are not the appointees of chapter one.

So even if some comps might possibly concede that since “pastor” is a gift it cannot be appointed, we still have scriptural backing for the appointment of women to an (the only?) official position in the assembly.

And of course we can’t overemphasize the problem of how the traditional church has mangled the gift of pastor and turned it into the position of a spiritual CEO. Pastor/shepherd is someone who both guards and nurtures, and therefore must know the difference between wolves and sheep (discernment). A good shepherd will care for the sheep and protect them by beating off the wolves. But the traditional “Pastor” is a corporate officer who calls all the shots and commands the underlings.

Personally, I say the comps can have their “lodge”, their boys’ club, and run it however they want. But they can’t legitimately call it The Assembly. We are what we are by God’s gifting, and it has nothing to do with buildings, sanctuaries, pulpits, pews, performances, or committees. Let them make rules for others and rage against the Holy Spirit’s choice of servants. Let them have it their way, because I am not obligated to join it.

The Spirit leads, and we can “test the spirits” by the Bible. The Word and the Spirit work together to keep us from the extremes of gullibility and cold-heartedness. No amount of human organization or rationalization can stand against it.

Yes, people want kings over them. And I’m sure that has something to do with why comps always appeal to the OT to justify male supremacy. They think that God shows his will by using majorities (males were in the majority in the areas they always cite), but ignore God’s choosing of the younger over the elder, the weak over the strong, the small stiffnecked nation of Israel over other more powerful nations. This is the only way they can dismiss those pesky “exceptions” to their man-made rules.

And of course we know that “in Christ there is no male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile”, meaning appeals to the OT are irrelevant. (As for the argument that the verse I quoted only applies to salvation, then we could justify discrimination against slaves and Gentiles in any area besides salvation too.)

Charis,
If you’re interested, I have a personal commentary Here, and Revelation is Here.

You bring up a good point about the difference between babies and disciples, a difference the legalists never seem to grasp. Here are some thoughts I have about that:
Children and Disciples
Start Me Up!
The Greatest

Hey Michael Terran,
Just passing things along I read from others. The thing about who was driven out of the garden is that it has the article with it, i.e. “the man” and not just “man”. It’s like that for both who was driven out and who was forbidden to eat of the tree. To think I read it all those years, never knowing half the truth, because most translations use “they”.

I highly recommend Bushnell’s God’s Word to Women available for free online viewing at the GWTW website.

Actually, the Hebrew does not say “your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you” but “your turning will be to your husband and he will rule over you”. Basically, from what I understand is the view of Dr. Katherine Bushnell, the sense of the passage is “A trap was set for you, and you will bring forth children in sorrow. You will turn and follow your husband, and then he will rule over you.”

So Eve, who was not cursed but blessed with the promise of the Savior, is being told that she will make a poor choice. This means she indeed had a choice, not a command, whether to leave the garden and follow Adam out or not. Only “the man” was driven out and forbidden to eat of the Tree of Life. Eve did not have to go. But God knew she would go anyway, and told her what would happen as a result.

Rom. 8:20-21 reads like this in The Source:

Creation was joined to futility, not because it wanted to be, but because of him who made it so. Yet there was the hope that creation itself also would be set free from slavery to decay…

We really need to be careful, especially with older translations, to make sure we have the correct understanding of the passage before we draw conclusions from them. This is made all the more difficult by known instances of deliberate mistranslation due to bias.

If it’s about Calvinism, I can guarantee it would get ugly. I’ve debated it many times, and even with the best of intentions it never ends well. And with Matt, I can guarantee you’d be charged at the very least with misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting the teachings of Calvinism.

I have a hunch it’s related to his failure to understand during the radio debate that you were not claiming there are innocent people (a point I’d argue, but beside the point right now). He may be wanting to use this once again to burn the straw man he set up, that is, to take that misunderstood statement as proof that your interpretation is wrong.

I have to disagree with “oldschool” on several points.

One, debate is ALWAYS about appearances and debate skill, and NEVER about substance and reasoned exegesis. The game is to sway the audience, not with superior arguments, but with superior crowd manipulation. So only those who are trained in formal debate should even think about participating. I highly recommend a site called Ex-Atheist for more information.

Second, the words “incoherent”, “mental gymnastics”, “emotionalism”, “stories” etc. are the same biased judgments Matt threw around. Exactly who was being and doing those things is of course a matter of opinion. I think Matt was clearly the emotional one, the one doing the gymnastics, the one who was incoherent. And as we have been trying to explain, Matt’s “sound bite” hermeneutic is a coward’s way out of dealing with the depths of scripture. A surface-skimming might be okay for him, but not for me.

A formal debate between Matt and Cheryl would be like the fly agreeing to duke it out with a spider on the spider’s web. It’s his game. Cheryl’s “game” is more like a long clinical study. What the Bible teaches about the Assembly and how we all fit into the Body is not “rocket science”, but neither is it “Exegesis Lite”. What they call “stories” is simply careful thought, and they’re not used to that.

Hey Charis,
There are some great online Bibles and interlinears. Here are some links:
http://www.biblegateway.com/
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/

“keep”/shamar means to guard!
Does that not imply that there was an enemy?
Adam was the watchman.

Somewhere I read an interesting theory about that, might have been in God’s Word to Women. It proposed that Adam was to guard against the Serpent, which of course has serious implications concerning the Fall.

If Adam had been charged with keeping the serpent out of the garden, then he not only shirked his responsibility but, possibly, didn’t see any reason to keep him out. Had he done his job, Eve would not have been tempted at all. And in this light, think of the great failure on Adam’s part to stand and watch as this serpent he was to keep out led Eve into sin.

Good points, UMG. You’re right, the postmodern Christian is turned inward through teachings like contemplative prayer and other mystical, self-centering worldviews. This does make sense of the criticism = personal attack mentality. Although in Matt’s case I don’t think it’s as much a matter of mysticism as it is old-fashioned Pride. And I’ve met many like him. They have their own “private interpretation” and then wrench that verse out of context to use it as a weapon against anyone having a different interpretation.

And I do see this hierarchy view as leading right into the prophesied global religious system, since individuals are being stripped of their worth and told to bow to the concept of only allowing synods and official committees to declare doctrine for the masses.

So true, Under Much Grace. I think I wrote somewhere before about the fine balance between squelching all traces of personality and individuality on one hand, and losing all civility and Christian restraint on the other. (Oh yeah, it was This Article.)

I think the problem is not only a lack of personal application of scripture as opposed to other-application, but also a lack of discernment to know when and where to show fire and passion, and when and where to show compassion. It’s made more difficult by the PC mentality everywhere, because people cannot handle disagreement at all.

There was a time when people could really give each other a thrashing and still be friends. In the Bible we see Christians “vigorously refuting”, “contending earnestly” for the faith. We also see Paul being crude at times in his loathing of legalists and false teachers, even saying “let them be cursed!” This is properly directed and controlled passion, the kind that we should feel if a loved one is insulted.

Yet it is the passionate defense of truth and God’s very honor that is no longer tolerated. And quite hypocritically, these same PC promoters get very passionate against those who disagree with them. Somehow it’s okay for them to rage, but not anyone else. (reminding me of some earlier rants Here and Here).

I know some people think only cowards or hypocrites don’t allow comments on their writings, but personally I’m just tired of all those whiny babies and control freaks. And when you write about truth that’s the kid of crowd you draw. I figure if somebody is genuinely interested in conversation instead of a mud-slinging contest, they’ll click their mouse one extra time (oh, the inconvenience!) and send me an email.

And even if you find some reasonable people to talk to, they want it to be a debate instead of fellow believers coming together to resolve differences or at least try to understand that other people’s views have legitimacy too. And to think, here we are having such difficulty communicating among people of the same language and culture, yet we demand that the Bible be read only on the surface.

Yeah, that’s typical. Some people think every disagreement is a personal attack.

If a Christian wants equal free speech in any given discussion of religions and philosophies, we are accused of “ramming your religion down our throats”. If you criticize government they call you unpatriotic. And if you prove that the Bible does not condemn women for preaching the truth to men, you are accused of the very faults your accusers commit and declared a heretic.

And these same accusers have the gall to condemn the Inquisition. (not that there was anything good about it, but that they have a double standard) Yes, Matt is the last person with any right to throw the personal attack stone. From what I’ve seen, he simply wants to have his cake and eat it too.

I learned not to waste time on such people; you can only beat a dead horse for so long. Most people only want to throw stones instead of actually considering that they might be wrong. No matter what the topic, it is extremely rare to see people actually deal with issues, logic, and documented evidence. And if we have this problem with people who speak the same language at the same time in history and the same culture, why in heaven’s name does anyone think the Bible should be read without considering all the layers of context?

It takes a mature adult to be unafraid of criticism or of having their beliefs challenged and examined. But any fool can spout off with impunity.

Proverbs 12:15
The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.

Proverbs 12:16
A fool is quick-tempered,but a wise person stays calm when insulted.

Proverbs 17:10

A single rebuke does more for a person of understanding than a hundred lashes on the back of a fool.

Proverbs 18:2
A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.

Proverbs 23:9
Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words.

Proverbs 26:12
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

Thanks Cheryl… but I can’t always tell patience from the will to win! 😉

Well fine! Here’s a link: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_blockquote.asp

Oh rats, I didn’t do the example of block quoting right. Let me try again:
When you want to do something to text in html, you have to surround the text with “tags”. The quoting tag is called “blockquote”. So you’d type a “” then your text, then “”.

If that didn’t work I’ll just look for a link that shows it.

Also, an appeal to authority is only valid if all authorities are in agreement. When authorities do not agree, appealing only to the ones that support our own view is no proof of anything.

Someone gave me a good analogy to use whenever someone uses the “it’s been done this way for [insert timespan], so it can’t be wrong” argument. The white-collar criminals at Enron did their business for a long time before they were caught. Should we have allowed them to continue just because they had been at it for so long? Of course not. Likewise, no matter how long an unbiblical teaching has been universally accepted, we are obligated to oppose it when we learn about it.

PS: the nice quotes are done with what’s called in html a blockquote tag. Any html tag takes the form text to be affected (but without the spaces; had to do it that way or it wouldn’t show the symbols). So to make quoted text, you’d put

text to be quoted

(again, without the spaces).

Cheryl,

That “friendly fire” you mentioned has been one of the hardest lessons for me to learn. I can take (and have taken) outrageous insults from unbelievers without a problem, but when it comes from professing Christians it has a sting all its own. It’s like being disowned by your parents or betrayed by your siblings. We expect it from the lost but not the saved, who sometimes seem so filled with hatred that we have to strain to see any reflection of Jesus in them. But Jesus did say that our enemies would come from our own homes.

Sure would. Thanks!

Cheryl, I don’t know where the link is to the comments in the Slick website. Did your post ever appear (the outline one)? If so, was it unedited? (trying not to laugh now)

A good example of a word describing a group is the of-mistranslated “huios” when it appears with another noun. For example, what it typically translated “the sons of Israel” should really be “Israelites”; it doesn’t mean only the males. (stole that from Dr. Nyland’s notes)

But it does point out an inherent problem with the old “plain meaning” argument. Translators make a lot of judgment calls, and the cults take great advantage of this. And we know that mere consensus is not always dependable, as in the case of whether Junia was a female or not. Consensus often comes from shared prejudices and not acknowledged scholarship or attestation.

As far as I know, every scholar believes Paul’s meaning in this passage is “a woman” and “a man”, and I’m not aware of any lack of attestation or scholarly doubt about it. If there were disagreement over the articles I’d think at least one comp. would have jumped on it.