Overheard
Posted on June 5th, 2005 by catalyst into the Uncategorized categoryToday is the day that City Bible spoke about women being elders. Here is how I imagine the sermon went.
Good Morning, everyone. As many of you know, today we are going to discuss the ordination of women at City Bible Church. I am well aware that the Bible says some specific things about women, and that’s why the leadership and I have prepared a special presentation to help you grasp this complex Biblical issue.
First, we are now selling new Bibles in the bookstore for $49.95. These new Bibles are interepreted by Kevin Connor and edited by Lanny Hubbard. We call them the KCV version of the Bible. And yes, the teachings of Christ are in red. As is Malichi 3:8. My step-father informed me that Christ meant to speak Malachi 3:8, he just forgot.
For those of you who can’t afford this new KCV version, I am going to ask you to take out a ball point pen. Something permanent and indelible. Okay, everyone cross out 1 Corinthians 14:34-35…. well, better yet, just cross out that entire chapter. We’re not gonna be needing it anymore. Thanks… Okay.. well that settles that. Great. Now we’re all on board.
Oh and before I forget, we have bussed in some gays for us to pray for. What’s that? Oh, no, no, no, they’re not practicing homosexuality, they’re gays who don’t want to be gay. The only sin we tolerate at this church is pride.
What’s that? Another question? Ummm, well yes the Bible does say some things about women. But we’ve crossed those verses out. What’s that? “God doesn’t change.” No, you’re absolutely right, God doesn’t change, just the Bible.
Okay. Great… well everyone open your Bibles to Malichi 3:8…..
RSS feed for posts
June 5th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
Here’s how I image the congregation reacted.
Let me get my Bible out. I always use it during church to write my notes on. It makes a handy clipboard.
NOTES:
1. Buy new Bible, see if Kevin will autograph it
2. Cross out 1 Corinthians 14.
Oh my word. I think those guys are gay. I bet they all have aids. I hope they don’t ask us to lay hands on them. Oh, they used to be gay, in that case…Isn’t God good.
(All the time)
NOTES CONT:
4. Women elders = lower salary = large plasma screen @ CBC “the ‘couve”…Isn’t God good. (All the time)
Open my Bible to Malachi 3? I’m pretty sure we all have it memorized by now. If not, isn’t that what the plasma screens are for. I wouldn’t have a clue where to find Malachi anyway.
I did read on a blog once that Malachi is somewhere in the “Gospel of Hank”. Does anyone know where that is?
June 5th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
I was there this morning and, from what I heard, it was a great Sunday morning message. I’m excited about CBC–where it’s at and where it’s going. I like the vision Pastor Frank has and I’m thrilled to be part of such a great church body. Catalyst, in fact, I think you are bitter and maybe have a bit too much time on your hands. Don’t you have a job? You’re like Napoleon Dynamite’s big nerdy brother, hovering over your computer all day long. You must be just waiting all day long for your chance to add commentary to stuff the rest of the world thinks is pretty meaningless.
June 5th, 2005 at 11:38 pm
I would like for just one time someone to disagree with catalyst with out telling him that he is just bitter. As if being bitter make your concerns unvalid.
And as for as the world finding cbc pretty meaningless I’m sure you are correct, but Paul does have something to say about women teaching in the church. It is sad that Paul who wrote most of the New Testament is now considered meaningless.
June 6th, 2005 at 12:02 am
“Napoleon, don’t be jealous that I’ve been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I’m training to be a cage fighter.”
I don’t believe Cat is training to be a cage fighter, but for all we know, he just may well be chatting online all day with babes.(But I sincerely doubt it.)
I think that someone needs to start a running count of the times Cat’s been called bitter. For goodness’ sake, CBC supporters, please start thinking for yourself and stop repeating what everyone else is saying.
Kinda like the previous person said, Cat’s alleged bitterness doesn’t make his concerns invalid any more than your name-calling could discredit your point.
All of this is irrelevant to me though, since I happen to believe that Cat is not bitter and a little time on one’s hands is not a shameful thing. Maybe someone needs to stop going to church for brainwashing sessions every time the doors are open and take a step back and evaluate everything with a clear head, and stop rehearsing the bitterness line every time someone disagrees with you.
June 6th, 2005 at 3:03 am
I may be bitter and I may have too much time on my hands, but let’s be honest… that was funny. Come on now, you know you laughed.
And for what its worth, I think City Bible should ordain women. I just think that if you’re are going to ignore what the Bible says about women, then why don’t you ignore what it says about homosexuality as well. …maybe in another 100 years…
June 6th, 2005 at 7:33 am
Catalyst, I don’t think you’re bitter. Somehow categorizing you that way prevents those who disagree with you from having to actually deal with your comments.
That said, I’m a bit concerned about your last comment, that ordaining women is somehow “ignoring what the Bible says about women.” Isn’t the crux of the matter here to clearly ascertain and agree upon what the Bible says about women (rather than looking at a few verses Paul writes in isolation from the rest of Scripture)? Are you saying that ordaining women is unscriptural? I can’t tell for sure by your post.
Also, how did “ignoring what the Bible says about women” and “ignoring what the Bible says about homosexuality” get in the same sentence? Again, your meaning isn’t crystal clear to me. Since female-ness isn’t a sin, and homosexuality is (not that I believe that fact supports the church’s outrageous behavior towards homosexuals)…I’m not following you.
Anyway, keep up the good blogging.
June 6th, 2005 at 8:17 am
So, I recently heard Hank saying that CBC was a “multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, church with out boarders or walls”.
I guess that means he wants to reach both white men AND white women.
June 6th, 2005 at 8:31 am
Isn’t it a sin to be posting on a Sunday? I think the bible says you have to honor God on the Sabbath. But that’s another commandment we can toss out right? After all, it’s not very modern.
June 6th, 2005 at 9:02 am
To be fair. My post wasn’t clear. I was going for humor over clarity.
My struggle with Christianity comes in how Christians interpret the Bible. It appears to me that everyone interprets it their own way, to further their own interests.
If you are going to ignore verses that ask women to be silent in church, then why can’t you ignore verses that condemn homosexuality?
June 6th, 2005 at 9:10 am
Cat are you trying to tell us somthing about your personal life?
June 6th, 2005 at 9:20 am
Uh, no.
I am aware that defending homosexuality makes me appear gay. But I’m not. I could go into a graphic example of how I know I’m not gay, but I’ll spare you that…
June 6th, 2005 at 9:23 am
JUSTIN,
Don’t your parents read this site?
June 6th, 2005 at 9:38 am
By grapic example do you mean that it is only when you’ve been drinking that you allow yourself the love that dare not speak its name.
June 6th, 2005 at 10:09 am
I don’t think you’re bitter, but I do think that your humorous comments come at other people’s expense. I for one still attend CBC but have many friends who don’t and who regularly blog on this site. I’m finding it more difficult to have an honest, open relationship with my friends for fear that things in my life will then be openly ridiculed on the blog. 6 months of picking away at what is a big part of my life has taken it’s toll. When are you guys going to say enough is enough and everyone be a Christian that attends their own church and we all love and accept you regardless of where we all end up on Sunday?
June 6th, 2005 at 10:20 am
6 months of picking away at what is a big part of my life has taken it’s toll.
6 months she is upset about 6 months It’s been 24yrs of ridicule for me. I feel like I can go at least another two or three years before I break down.
Jesse
June 6th, 2005 at 11:38 am
“Enough is enough”
I feel terrible for my treatment of Jesse. What an un-Christ like thing to do.
Jesse, please forgive me.
June 6th, 2005 at 11:38 am
This post has been removed by the author.
June 6th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Question: What fruit does this bare in your lives? Does it feed the Spirit or the flesh? Please read 1 Cor. 6:1-8 and tell me how this public blog of entertainment at the expense of other christians faults (true or false, not the issue)is in harmony with God’s known will? And how, pray tell, is God glorified in all of this?
June 6th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
1 Cor. 6:1-8
1If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church![a] 5I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!
This scripture is talking about lawsuits (interesting note: We were, indirectly, threatened with a lawsuit by CBC 6 months ago). It is talking about taking disputes before an ungodly judge.
The reason we shouldn’t bring things before a judge is because “the saints will judge the world.” “And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?”. This basically says that we are intelligent enough to judge one another. I believe this is what the blog is doing. We are judging CBC and CBC is judging us.
Now, I appreciate your use of the Bible and I believe that there are a number of good scriptures out there about loving each other that would apply to this blog, but I’m not sure that 1 Cor. 6:1-8 really applies.
Also, I would love it, if someone would actually use their real name. Discussions are much more fun when you know who you’re talking to.
June 6th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
Sorry, I left out v7-8.
Here they are:
1 Cor 6:7-8
7The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
June 6th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
Anonymous said: “I for one still attend CBC but have many friends who don’t and who regularly blog on this site. I’m finding it more difficult to have an honest, open relationship with my friends for fear that things in my life will then be openly ridiculed on the blog.”
That’s a fair accusation. And I have to be honest, probably the best way to stop being hurt is to stop reading this blog. I enjoy having people express different views. But if its breaking up your friendships, you should probably stop visiting this website. Though, thank you very much for all your comments though. It’s nice to hear a different point of view.
June 6th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
Catalyst, I think you are missing the point.
“I for one still attend CBC but have many friends who don’t and who regularly blog on this site.”
You are the only one who blogs, everyone else just comments; usually as anonymous (as I am doing now).
Clearly this person is your friend and is threatening your friendship. I’m sure a weekend in Nicaragua will fix all this though.
June 7th, 2005 at 9:23 am
1 Cor:6:1-8 My point is in verse 1 that these issues between believers were brought “before the unrighteous” or ungodly “and not before the saints.” And again repeated in verse 6 that it is a shame that these actions transpire “before unbelievers!”
is the world wide web scripturally the place to deal with offenses? No it brings shame to the body of christ fighting out in the open for all the world, or at least the metro area, to see. Christ prayed in John 17 for believers to be in unity ( not uniformity) so that the world may believe that Christ is sent from the Father. It’s a given that cbc presentation of the gospel or lack thereof keeps people away from grace centered God glorifing gospel, but my point is that this is as well.The world will know that we are christians by our love for one another. Do we fight with family in the public streets out loud for everyone to see or do we fight behind closed doors in our homes in private between offended family members?At least you were threatened face to face, right? cbc didn’t publish public material in dealing with their offense of the blog. At least they got that right, not necessarily what they communicated to you but how they did so. The body of Christ deserves the same.
June 7th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
Damn, you had to go ahead and ruin it. All these years the world thought Christians were perfect. Now look what you’ve done, Cat.
Yes, let’s keep it all hush-hush and dysfunctional like we’re used to. “The World” doesn’t need to see our problems, they just need to focus on the shining halos above our heads.
No, let’s all be open and honest with how we feel about everything. When Jesus disputed with the Pharisees, he did it in public. You might not agree with accusing a church in public, but public humiliation is better than private dysfunction.
June 7th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
To the most recent Anonymous:
You go, girl!
That’s common sense talking — if we need to fight it out, we need to fight it out. As I recall from a few years back, a lot of people got in a lot of trouble (and justly so) because a church decided that “what happens among believers stays among believers.” I am referring to the child molestation scandal in the Catholic church. That’s the kind of stuff that happens when we deprive ourselves of outside perspectives in order to save face. Of course, the situation here is not identical, but the ideology of secrecy that is under fire is the same.
I doubt anyone would argue that the law should have been involved from the beginning in the molestation cases. Why? To bring swifter justice and mitigate further offenses. So, why is it important for us to talk about the big issues at play here in an open forum, taking the risk of including as many perspectives as we can get? To circumvent our own myopia.
A teacher of mine recently said to me that myopia is inevitable. Our own perspective will always be limited, and those who share a similar perspective will always be limited. We grow from difference, from disagreement, from being challenged by those who see things in another way. Truth grows in the light, not in the dark of secrecy. Anonymous is right — keeping it under wraps is just an excuse, and it leads nowhere but straight into dysfunction.
June 7th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Thanks for the compliment, but that last comment was actually made by me. I’m not quite sure what led you to believe it was by a girl… oh yeah, that’s right, I said let’s be open and honest with how we feel. Hmmm, am I coming accross as effeminate here?
June 7th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
Catalyst you said
My struggle with Christianity comes in how Christians interpret the Bible. It appears to me that everyone interprets it their own way, to further their own interests.
I deal with the same struggle
Peace Shalom
June 7th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
Human tendency is to use whatever “ammo” we have on hand, Scripture (often) included, to try to “make our point.” Those who quote verses like 1 Cor 6:1-8 in hopes of rationalizing private dysfunction and hypocrisy and the expectation that those who disagree will not actually say so…clearly need to read chapter 5 which defines the “such matters” referred to in 6:4…we can’t just lump any “issue” into that concept and broadly apply it to every tiny disagreement Christians have with one another. We all need to remember that the Biblical message on any given topic is EVERYTHING the Bible says about that topic, and EVERYTHING the Bible says otherwise, not any one verse or passage in isolation of the rest.
Some Christians believe in speaking in tongues; others don’t. Some drink wine for communion; others drink grape juice. These are just two examples of common disagreements. Countless books have been written about both sides of each of these two issues. What about eschatology? Come on. Are those who disagree on these kinds of issues bitter towards the other? Not generally speaking, no. They think the other is wrong, but that does not make them bitter. Most of the people who comment in this blog disagree with many of CBC’s beliefs, disagree with CBC’s interpretation and application of Scripture, disagree with their “brand” of Christianity. Why does that make us bitter? It doesn’t. It’s just much easier for CBC and their like-minded friends to write us off as such, rather than actually contemplate the possibility that others who love Jesus might passionately disagree with them. During Christ’s incarnate time on earth, the only people he was harsh with were the Pharisees. We think that the defining characteristics of CBC are Pharisaitical. Why should we tip-toe around that? There is no biblical reason, especially since we have contrasting beliefs and believe they are Biblically-based (i.e., that Christ is our Savior and righteousness, not our behavior; that Christ abolished legalistic religion and tithing on the Cross; that “it rains on the just and unjust,” meaning that bad things happen to good people no matter how “good” we are, etc., etc.). These are Biblically valid beliefs, so why should we stay silent about our disagreements with CBC’s beliefs and practices?
Catalyst, you didn’t address my previous comment:
“Isn’t the crux of the matter here to clearly ascertain and agree upon what the Bible says about women (rather than looking at a few verses Paul writes in isolation from the rest of Scripture)? Are you saying that ordaining women is unscriptural? I can’t tell for sure by your post.”
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks,
FFTM
June 7th, 2005 at 10:53 pm
Since Cat is busy packing-
In a social climate of complete equality in all things, the biblical teaching of only allowing men to be pastors and elders is not popular. Many feminist organizations denounce this position as antiquated and chauvinistic. In addition, many Christian churches have adopted the “politically correct” social standard and have allowed women pastors and elders in the church. But the question remains, is this biblical?
My answer to this question is, “No, women are not to be pastors and elders.” Many may not like that answer, but it is, I believe, an accurate representation of the biblical standard. You make the decision after reading this paper.
First of all, women are under-appreciated and under-utilized in the church. There are many gifted women who might very well do a better job at preaching and teaching than many men. However, it isn’t gifting that is the issue, but God’s order and calling. What does the Bible say? We cannot come to God’s word with a social agenda and make it fit our wants. Instead, we must change and adapt to what it says.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve. He put Adam in the garden and gave him the authority to name all the animals. Afterwards, God made Eve as a helper to Adam.(1) This is an important concept because Paul refers to the order of creation in his epistle to Timothy when he discusses the relationship between men and women in the church context. Let’s take a look.
“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression” (1 Tim. 2:12-14 — all quotes from the Bible are from the NASB). This passage has several interesting areas of discussion, but for our purpose we will focus on authority. At the very least, there is an authority structure set up by God. The woman is not to have authority over the man in the church context. But this does not extend to the political/economic world. In the Old Testament Deborah was a judge in Israel over men. Also, in the New Testament, Phoebe played an important role in the church at Cenchrea (Romans 16). There is no doubt that women supported Paul in many areas and were great helpers in the church (Act 2:17; 18:24; 21:8). But what Paul is speaking of in 1 Tim. 2 is the relationship between men and women in the church structure, not in a social or political context.
When we look further at Paul’s teachings we see that the bishop/overseer is to be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2) who manages his household well and has a good reputation (1 Tim. 3:4-5, 7). Deacons must be “men of dignity”(1 Tim. 3:8). Paul then speaks of women in verse 11 and their obligation to receive instruction. Then in verse 12, Paul says “Let deacons be husbands of one wife…” Again, in Titus 1:5-7, Paul says, “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward…” Notice that Paul interchanges the word ‘elder’ and ‘overseer’.
In each case, the one who is an elder, deacon, bishop, or overseer is instructed to be male. He is the husband of one wife, responsible, able to “exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9). We see no command for the overseers to be women. On the contrary, women are told to be “dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things” (1 Tim. 3:11). Why is it that it is the men who are singled out as the overseers? It is because of the created order of God that Paul references (Gen. 1-2; 1 Tim. 2:12-14). This is not merely a social custom that fell away with ancient Israel.
Additionally, in the Old Testament in over 700 mentions of priests, every single one was a male. There is not one instance of a female priest. This is significant because priests were ordained by God to hold a very important office of ministering the sacrifices. This was not the job of women.
Therefore, from what I see in Genesis 1-2, 1 Timothy 2, and Titus 1, the normal and proper person to hold the office of elder/pastor is to be a man.
June 8th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
FFTM:
In all fairness, I’m not really sure what I believe, so I apologize for not being clear.
That said, I do believe City Bible should ordain women. And I agree with you that Paul’s comments regarding women in church are isolated. They also aren’t really backed up by other scriptures.
But by this rationale, I can ignore all isolated verses. And I tend to think that the Bible’s verses on homosexuality are isolated.
I’m not comparing feminism with homosexuality, I’m merely applying the same logic to the same issues.
I’m sure you can make a distinction between verses on women in church, and verses on gays. But I think that distinction is murky at best.
I don’t know… it just seems everyone uses the Bible to support what they want to believe, instead of believing what the Bible supports.
I believe God is Love. And the greatest commandment is to love one another… that’s what I believe. (unless, of course, you’re starting a blog about an ex-church. then, those love verses are merely isolated remarks.)
June 8th, 2005 at 5:18 pm
To the recent Anonymous who does not support the ordination of women:
If I had the inclination, it would be easy enough to formulate a well-researched, elegantly argued defense of the practice of slavery based upon the teachings of Paul and material from the Old Testament. Yet, we as the church now believe that slavery is wrong.
Why is the ordination of women any different?
Are you saying that if Adam had been the one the serpent spoke to that we would be better off now, just since he was shy one rib and ahead one Y chromosome?
Changing the face of the church based upon non-biblical factors is something that has happened from the beginning. The notion of a “pure” church that follows only biblical mores is not only impractical (as shown by Roger Williams, Martin Luther, the Wesley brothers, and countless other reformers who set out to establish the “pure” church and wound up with good, but flawed organizations), but anachronistic and downright impossible.
Let us not forget that Paul was trained as a Pharisee himself. I know I’m walking down a troublesome path here….but here it goes. Of course he wanted to preserve the mores of his time. He probably didn’t even have a vendetta against women. It is entirely likely that his opinions on women were purely unexamined assumptions (the most dangerous kind of belief), not born out of any kind of conscious prejudice. It is only in the twentieth century that the role of women in Judaism (or any major monotheistic religion, for that matter) has been re-examined. How, then, could we expect Paul to say anything different than what he said? The fact that he embraced Gentiles into Christianity was already revolutionary enough at the time (and, incidentally, economically and socially necessary to the survival of the new faith).
I’m not here to say that contemporary knowledge supercedes the Bible and we should just toss it. I am saying that we should use all the tools at our disposal to examine the Bible and consider its application. Fear of what we might see is no good reason not to look.
One last thought: Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, American Baptists, Episcopalians, and other denominations have been ordaining women for years. To my knowledge, none of those groups are falling apart as a result (in fact, I’ve worked in congregations successfully led by women for the past 3 years). If a tree is known by its fruit, shouldn’t that be telling us something?
June 9th, 2005 at 10:59 am
jimmy—
Just because other demon-nations (to quote KJC) have been ordaining women doesn’t mean it is right.
If you brother plays basketball on the freeway, does that make it right?
Many of the demon-nations ordain homosexuals as well as women…
bad comparison for you to use.
June 9th, 2005 at 11:59 am
as a pastor who takes Scripture really seriously, who is also a part of a community that decided this last year that we will have women elders… here’s how we came to that conclusion and how we handle 1 Tim 2…
http://www.evergreenlife.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=410
June 9th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
Wow, that’s good stuff. Read the second posting on that page. That’s pretty much what I’ve believed all along, but I never researched it that much or had the capabilities to communicate it that eloquently.
June 9th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Demon-nations?
Oh, please! That’s about as credible and mature as Santa Claus/Satan’s Claws or the bit about Cabbage Patch Kids being possessed by the devil. It’s not the Middle Ages anymore, folks (”If she weighs the same as a duck…..SHE’S A WITCH! BURN HER!”).
Not only are those kinds of comments distinctly lacking in real cleverness or even significant meaning (we’re back to the “poopyhead” genre again), they’re also divisive and unhelpful. If you’re going to slam mainline Christianity, do it with some semblance of an intelligent argument instead of some borrowed epithet.
If my brother played basketball on the freeway successfully and safely for forty years….and didn’t even report seeing cars, maybe I would do it, too. Why?
Because maybe it’s not a freeway.
Maybe there’s really no mortal danger…no “demon-nation”….maybe the only real problem is that people are afraid.
Take a page out of Evergreen’s book….and let’s hear it for a historiographical approach to the study of scripture. You go, Bob!
June 9th, 2005 at 9:06 pm
I think that’s the first time that the words “historiographical” and “poopyhead” have ever been used in the same comment.
June 9th, 2005 at 9:15 pm
Has nobody ever heard that the reason Paul wrote what he wrote in 1 Timothy is because there was a group of women that had aggressively taken over the leadership of the church and that the men of the church had completely given in? This was a specific and isolated issue that Paul was addressing, not a precedent to be set for all of eternity. Didn’t God call everyone to the five-fold ministry, preaching & teaching included? And is there any reason a woman would be unfit to preach to a congregation? If you had a man and a woman standing next to each other, equally educated, equally gifted, equally passionate, equally dedicated to their walk with Christ, why would the man be the first choice? I don’t know if women “should” be pastors, but I think they could be. There are hundreds of churches in China whose pastors are 17- and 18-year-old girls. Are they pastors because they’re called by God or because there just isn’t a good man around, so God had to settle for a chick? I can’t believe that in this day and age the question is still “should a woman be allowed to…?”. When will we start looking at the person based on their life, their heart, the way they treat others, the way they conduct themselves, and what they have to say? If we’re still asking questions based on X and Y chromosomes, why don’t they just take back the vote and allow our husbands to beat the crap out of us again. If our voice should be heard and recognized as equal anywhere, it should have been first in the church, and it should have been a long time ago.
June 9th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
Well said.
June 9th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
thank you.
June 10th, 2005 at 1:59 am
This post has been removed by the author.
June 10th, 2005 at 2:25 am
Anonymous said
I can’t believe that in this day and age the question is still “should a woman be allowed to…?”
The question isn’t should they be allowed to but what does the Bible say about the issue. If Paul’s letters are no longer meant for us than we should take them out and put them with Tobit and Judith.
June 10th, 2005 at 9:53 am
Where did anonymous say Paul’s letters weren’t meant for us? All that was said was Paul’s solution to a SPECIFIC situation regarding women and the church has been extrapolated into ALL situations regarding women and the church.
To further illustrate the point, say I have a friend whose girlfriend is cheating on him and I write a letter telling him to dump her. Would it then be right for someone reading that letter to conclude that everyone with a girlfriend needs to dump her?
June 10th, 2005 at 10:29 am
I have no problem with women in leadership. The problem I have is that we use secular logic and reasoning to say what is right or wrong. If the Bible is God’s living Word than I want to listen to it. If Paul’s letters were written for SPECIFIC people than we should bury those letters with Timothy.
So if you could please go through and let me know what is scripture and what is Paul just chatting with old friends that would help.
June 10th, 2005 at 10:37 am
Anonymous said
To further illustrate the point, say I have a friend whose girlfriend is cheating on him and I write a letter telling him to dump her. Would it then be right for someone reading that letter to conclude that everyone with a girlfriend needs to dump her?
No, but it would be logical to say you think that guys who have unfaithful girlfriends should dump them. Luckily I don’t take anything you write as scripture so your opinion is just your opinion.
June 10th, 2005 at 11:03 am
Just so there’s no confusion…yes, I’m the anonymous that thinks cheating girlfriends need dumping….
No, but it would be logical to say you think that guys who have unfaithful girlfriends should dump them. Luckily I don’t take anything you write as scripture so your opinion is just your opinion.
You’re missing my point…again. It doesn’t matter if I’m a Biblical author or I’m just some bum on a streetcorner giving you friendly advice. If you take ANYONE’s advice out of context, you’re going to have problems. If you take Paul’s letters out of context, you’re probably not going to be understanding them as they were intended which could lead to unintended results due to your confusion.
If the Bible is God’s living Word than I want to listen to it. If Paul’s letters were written for SPECIFIC people than we should bury those letters with Timothy.
So if you could please go through and let me know what is scripture and what is Paul just chatting with old friends that would help.
If you will please reread my post I said they were written in response to specific SITUATIONS not people.
Plus, Paul’s letters were essentially him chatting with old friends. That doesn’t mean we can’t learn anything from the advice he gives.
June 10th, 2005 at 11:42 am
I can learn a good deal from the Maccabees, The book of Morman or even Aesop’s Fables. Likewise Paul’s letters offer alot to learn.
1 corninthian’s 14:34
As in ALL the church’s of the saints, women are to remain quiet at meetings since they have no permission to speak; they must keep in the back ground as the Law itself lays it down. If they have questions they should ask their husbands at home.
The Jerusalem Bible
Is this scripture or simply Paul talking to the good old guys?
Feel free to read it in the greek
ai gunaikev umwn en taiv ekklhsiaiv. sigatwsan ou gar epitetraptai autaiv lalein all upotassesyai kaywv kai o nomov Legei
June 10th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
To that verse I would respond with this passage from Paul.
Gal. 3:25-28
26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Based on that passage, we are all one in Christ, so why is there any need for distinction between male and female roles in the church? Are we not collective one body of Christ? Or is Paul and all the other NT passages referencing that claim wrong?
Not to mention the females who took on leadership roles throughout Biblical history such as Deborah who judged all 12 tribes of Israel. If God saw fit to give a woman that kind of a leadership role, why would He contradict Himself and impart to Paul that women are all of the sudden not only unqualified to lead His people but need to be kept quiet in church?
June 10th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
Ok all in favor of throwing out 1 corninthians 14:34 send Kevin Conner a email.
June 11th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
To the anonymous in stalemate with Fezzik:
This is going to sound harsh, but I’m just trying to be clear.
If you have a moral problem with “secular” logic, I’m not sure there’s any real point in your continuing to think at all. “Logic” is simply a process that leads human brains to mathematically reliable solutions. It doesn’t have necessary “sacred” or “secular” attachments. “Secular” in the sense that you are using it is only creating a barrier of superstition between your brain and an open forum. Plato’s cave is a nice place to visit, but I’m not sure you really want to live there.
You are also clearly missing the distinction between “person” and “situation”. The syllogism (logical equation) that Fezzik has created is this:
If your girlfriend is cheating on you, then you should dump her.
So, in algebraic terms: If P, then Q.
However, if this syllogism is misinterpreted to apply to a a different set of circumstances where the original circumstance P of a cheating girlfriend has been changed to only be P-varied, a non-cheating girlfriend:
If P-varied, then Q
then the syllogism has been violated, and it’s not Fezzik’s syllogism anymore, but something else.
Ergo, if Paul’s rule (syllogism) about women in ministry was specific to a particular set of circumstances (which we can show to be the case) and we are trying to apply his rule in the contemporary era to a set of circumstances that is completely different, then we have violated Paul’s syllogism. We are not applying his rule, we are applying something else…and once again, fundamentalism is thwarted due to a lack of thorough research.
Obviously, I have a whole set of opinions on fundamentalism. Regardless of that, however, if one is going to practice fundamentalism, it is downright immoral to be lazy about it. If we’re going to literally apply the Bible as the divine word of God, we better be good and sure we know exactly what it’s really saying about each situation in detail, beyond the surface. Otherwise, what’s the point?
June 11th, 2005 at 11:14 pm
So I guess we could say that lazy application of the Bible is immoral, and using our heads to see what the Bible is really saying IS the true morality. It’s not “secular logic”, as you pointed out.
Let me guess, anonymous who used that phrase, you’re also against going outside the church for counseling or advice because you’re afraid of someone using their head instead of just quoting scripture at you?