tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post7101584908998548172..comments2023-05-17T05:59:16.801-04:00Comments on Tuesday Column: The Women-in-Leadership Scale (a self-study)Keith Druryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05058949281404407630noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-35821056871913920672010-02-04T16:46:34.347-05:002010-02-04T16:46:34.347-05:00Chap,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I comm...Chap,<br /><br />Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I commend your faith and passion. <br /><br />Your thoughts though are driven by a commitment to a philosophical position that gives us an either/or dichotomy. This is rooted in a "propositional" view of truth that is "trans-cultural" etc. The idea is to extract propositions from texts like a timeless kernel from a time bound husk, or the baby and bathwater illustration you give.<br />This philosophy comes late in the day in world history and is highly tied to the enlightenment project. It doesn't really emerge from scripture itself. The NT doesn't make the truth a proposition, but a person. <br /><br />I would argue this dichotomy is dangerous. To throw out the bathwater of the context would itself be a mistake, not just the baby of truth as you call it. <br /><br />The bathwater, time-bound context as you say, is part of the truthfulness equation. What Paul is doing by what he is saying is just as important as what Paul is saying. Paul is doing something with these words we find in scripture, and he is doing it in his context using practical discernment in connection with given revelation. To throw out context is to throw out the pursuit of truthfulness through the text. <br /><br />In my philosophical view, texts don't just say things (propositions), they do things. <br /><br />There is of course an argument (several actually) you could make against the bishop here, but it isn't the one you make I don't believe. I think jumping to the Bishop though would be both a red herring (distraction from the issue of discussion) and a slippery slope argument (if we choose this hermeneutic we necessarily end up approving homosexuality). The issue, you are right, is how we interpret. His hermeneutic does not guarantee that result. You can hold to his hermeneutic and disagree with his application, premises, or conclusions. The hermeneutic simply shifts the criterion for decision away from unexamined positions (Bible says it, that settles it) and requires us to do a lot more work than just translation. <br /><br />We cannot simply toss water (context) out without damaging baby (content). To toss either is to damage both. The two are so intimately connected as to be more like first-trimester baby and womb, the baby doesn't live without the context. That's a very limited analogy though of course. We have to discern what Paul was doing in the context in which he lived, and seek to do analogous work in the time in which we live. And the emphasis is of course heavily on WE. I advocate an ecclessiological hermeneutic rather than an individualistic one, since we as individuals cannot come close to claiming apostolic authority. <br /><br />That said, I have read Grudem and dealt with his hermeneutic and found it also to be deeply indebted to a particular philosophy without a full willingness to admit that the philosophy was guiding the hermeneutic and to discuss the philosophical hermeneutic separate from claims to faithfulness and other laden terms for Christians. The claim usually comes across as though his hermeneutic is "biblical" when it is really philosophical just like everyone else's. (I don't find the apostles using his hermeneutic in the New Testament, except for when Peter refused to eat with the Gentiles.) On the other side, throwing out propositions would also be going too far, some things can be stated in propositions...but how those propositions are used in context of course would then be a major part of understanding their real meaning. <br /><br />May I suggest Woman in the Bible by Mary Evans on this topic? She deals with every passage of scripture that has direct or closely related but indirect bearing on this issue and gives multiple interpretive positions for each. It opens up space for discussion and provides a clear space for the position on gender in the Bible that I find to be most consistent and appealing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-87912568694751805862010-02-04T16:46:22.070-05:002010-02-04T16:46:22.070-05:00Chap,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I comm...Chap,<br /><br />Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I commend your faith and passion. <br /><br />Your thoughts though are driven by a commitment to a philosophical position that gives us an either/or dichotomy. This is rooted in a "propositional" view of truth that is "trans-cultural" etc. The idea is to extract propositions from texts like a timeless kernel from a time bound husk, or the baby and bathwater illustration you give.<br />This philosophy comes late in the day in world history and is highly tied to the enlightenment project. It doesn't really emerge from scripture itself. (The NT doesn't make the truth a proposition, but a person.) <br /><br />I would argue this dichotomy is dangerous. To throw out the bathwater of the context would itself be a mistake, not just the baby of truth as you call it. <br /><br />The bathwater, time-bound context as you say, is part of the truthfulness equation. What Paul is doing by what he is saying is just as important as what Paul is saying. Paul is doing something with these words we find in scripture, and he is doing it in his context using practical discernment in connection with given revelation. To throw out context is to throw out the pursuit of truthfulness through the text. <br /><br />In my philosophical view, texts don't just say things (propositions), they do things. <br /><br />There is of course an argument (several actually) you could make against the bishop here, but it isn't the one you make I don't believe. I think jumping to the Bishop though would be both a red herring (distraction from the issue of discussion) and a slippery slope argument (if we choose this hermeneutic we necessarily end up approving homosexuality). The issue, you are right, is how we interpret. His hermeneutic does not guarantee that result. You can hold to his hermeneutic and disagree with his application, premises, or conclusions. The hermeneutic simply shifts the criterion for decision away from unexamined positions (Bible says it, that settles it) and requires us to do a lot more work than just translation. <br /><br />We cannot simply toss water (context) out without damaging baby (content). To toss either is to damage both. The two are so intimately connected as to be more like first-trimester baby and womb, the baby doesn't live without the context. That's a very limited analogy though of course. We have to discern what Paul was doing in the context in which he lived, and seek to do analogous work in the time in which we live. And the emphasis is of course heavily on WE. I advocate an ecclessiological hermeneutic rather than an individualistic one, since we as individuals cannot come close to claiming apostolic authority. <br /><br />That said, I have read Grudem and dealt with his hermeneutic and found it also to be deeply indebted to a particular philosophy without a full willingness to admit that the philosophy was guiding the hermeneutic and to discuss the philosophical hermeneutic separate from claims to faithfulness and other laden terms for Christians. The claim usually comes across as though his hermeneutic is "biblical" when it is really philosophical just like everyone else's. (I don't find the apostles using his hermeneutic in the New Testament, except for when Peter refused to eat with the Gentiles.) On the other side, throwing out propositions would also be going too far, some things can be stated in propositions...but how those propositions are used in context of course would then be a major part of understanding their real meaning. <br /><br />May I suggest Woman in the Bible by Mary Evans on this topic? She deals with every passage of scripture that has direct or closely related but indirect bearing on this issue and gives multiple interpretive positions for each. It opens up space for discussion and outlines in many places the position on gender in the Bible that I find to be most consistent and appealing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-19495497724013359492010-02-04T16:02:14.326-05:002010-02-04T16:02:14.326-05:00It would take quite a long explanation to answer t...It would take quite a long explanation to answer those questions. Many of these are textual and grammatical issues, as well as my self-admitted prejudice that accepted teaching in egalitarian circles is based on a lot of bad exegesis (many of it repeated enough not to be challenged).<br /> <br />I will be the first to admit that I don't have an air-tight hermenuetic--as well as I would hope that those who side on a 10 would. My real issue on this matter is if our hermenuetic "cuts us off at the knees" in a lot of essential areas (doctrine of eschatology, hell, and orthopraxy like homosexuality, divorce and remarriage etc...) <br /><br />How do you use deacons and elders in church organization--or are we free to use them differently? <br /><br />Bishop, deacon, elder, overseer in the NT are terms that often are interchangeable. This is the reason we have so many differences in church polity. We've chosen to reserve overseers (as male only) and deacons as both male and female. This is open to critique, but a way I have chosen to preserve NT and OT teaching on male leadership/headship. We also would never hire a female youth pastor as well, for that and many practical ones. We do have a female children's director (of which again my hermenuetic has apparent technical holes and tensions I'm willing to live with).<br /><br />Or how do you come out on disallowing a man to divorce his wife for no cause expect for the marital unfaithfulness of the woman? Is that fixed too? <br /><br />Yes, apart from the other exceptions listed in Scripture, marrying a divorced person is sin--but not unforgiveable...it misses the mark of God's ideal for marriage. <br /><br />Can a divorced person join your church?<br /><br />Yes, of course as much as any repentant sinner can. We differentiate between a "regular attender" and a "member". Members undergo classes, demonstrate a personal testimony of conversion, interviewed personally by an Overseer before they can be affirmed as members. This helps us to maintain a membership based on regenerate Christians, not a roll to maintain. We also are considering covenant membership--having each member opt back in or opt out bi-annually based on the expectations of our covenant.<br />Having regular attenders helps us walk the tightrope and tension of reaching out and enveloping the lost and allowing God to progressively bring them to a point of membership.<br /><br />Or how do you deal with the clar statement disallowing a woman to appear in public without a head-covering. Or wearing of gold and silver?<br /><br />This is a difficult one. Where an obvious cultural issue like headcoverings (much like ceremonial laws vs. moral laws in the OT)is concerned we should read it as cultural, yet in principle (modesty in dress) it should be maintained. An issue like male teaching authority grounded in post and pre-fall creation texts and affirmed throughout the Scriptures should be read trans-culturally.<br /><br />This is a modest, not exhausitive attempt to answer your question from my perspective. I recognize fully the now and not yet tensions of ministry and walking in grace and truth--it is a difficult one.Chaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12008446549012671519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-80389559645765727512010-02-04T12:29:50.606-05:002010-02-04T12:29:50.606-05:00Chap, I want to avoid being testy here (or Drury w...Chap, I want to avoid being testy here (or Drury will delete me as he has others) but help me. I am sympathetic to taking the Bible seriously and holding up a strong hermeneutic. I do not believe God’s truth changes over time either--as far as Truth goes. <br /><br />But help me understand how you work with other passages on practice. How do you use deacons and elders in church organization--or are we free to use them differently? <br /><br />Or how do you come out on disallowing a man to divorce his wife for no cause expect for the marital unfaithfulness of the woman? Is that fixed too? Can a divorced person join your church?<br /><br />Or how do you deal with the clar statement disallowing a woman to appear in public without a head-covering. Or wearing of gold and silver?<br /><br />I’m not being argumentative, I'm just asking how your “strict constructionist” hermeneutic works it way out in passages like these. Help me see how you hold a consistent hermenutic on these things too.<br /><br />ChadAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-27868493011974495582010-02-04T12:15:09.747-05:002010-02-04T12:15:09.747-05:00ok, i said i wasn't going to comment again, bu...ok, i said i wasn't going to comment again, but a recent statement by Bishop Robinson highlights my concern on how many scholars are interpreting the Bible today.<br /><br />Please don't presume that I find a parallel with the sin of homosexual acts with women being somehow inherently sinful/flawed.<br /><br />Bishop Robinson answered: “The question you ask (is homosexual acts in Romans 1 against nature) takes about two days to answer, but I’ll try to give you the Cliffs Notes version which is: One of the things we have to understand is that any piece of scripture needs to be understood in its own context. (my comment: YES ABSOLUTELY) We have to understand that the notion of a homosexual sexual orientation is a notion that’s only about 125 years old. (THIS ISN'T CONTEXT WITHIN SCRIPTURE)<br /><br />“That is to say, St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts," said Bishop Robinson. "It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally oriented to people of the same sex. So it did seem like against their nature to be doing so.” <br /><br />This hermenuetical principle suggests that Paul was not enlightened yet about modern day notions of homosexuality. This is the fatal flaw of the "redemptive spirit" of the text. If I begin to read back into every text our modern day "understanding" of things we really don't have much left that is inspired.<br /><br />Read many of Jesus' words in the gospels about demonic activity (is really epilepsy), supernatural miracles (mind over matter) etc... with this principle, you'll begin to see at least the potential danger of throwing out the baby (propositional, transcultural truth) with the bathwater (culturally time-bound statements).<br /><br />Can we really read back into the mind of Paul--especially holding to an evangelical view on inspiration and inerrancy...pretty dicey.Chaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12008446549012671519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-87554362113393956702010-02-02T20:40:55.715-05:002010-02-02T20:40:55.715-05:0010. Clearly.
Christy...we don't know each oth...10. Clearly.<br /><br />Christy...we don't know each other, but I wish we did. I found your comment regarding the conversation with your D.S. interesting. Preaching is one of my favorite things to do! I wonder why so many women shrink away from it?<br /><br />FYI for the others who have commented...Dr. Joseph Coleson wrote a booklet that unpacks the egalitarian view based on the creation account. It was one of the most influential written pieces for me on my own journey.<br /><br />Heather SempleSemplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00857547679504828242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-67567186510241832062010-01-31T22:58:48.918-05:002010-01-31T22:58:48.918-05:00Superrustyfly,
Honest question - what does "...Superrustyfly,<br /><br />Honest question - what does "negatively submissive" mean?<br /><br />The problem I have with the view that relates the issue soley to the fall is that Paul also references the creation. <br /><br />For those who posit one either has to accept women in any and all kinds of leadership or else agree that women may not wear jewelry, a few questions. 1) Is 1 Tim. 2:9-10completely irrelavant to us today (if not taken literally), or does it teach any timless principle, if so what? 2) What timless principle might v. 12 teach?bookwormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05302340570272155413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-21612965370206080602010-01-30T21:27:10.309-05:002010-01-30T21:27:10.309-05:00The point of view from Genesis is that women were ...The point of view from Genesis is that women were created as equals to men. The text serves as commentary on a society in which men were the only leaders. From a Pauline point of view, I stand with the view that when Paul says that he does not allow women in leadership, that he is actually presenting the view that the opposition proposes, since he continually recognizes women as leaders by recognizing their positions which would have been over men in the early church. The only biblical explanation for women being negatively submissive would be that the fall caused a curse on humanity (a curse which Christ broke). So I guess that leaves me with the option 10. and since I am a Wesleyan, theologically and denominationally, I must keep on supporting these views. <br /><br />I like this interaction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-28903862837650174572010-01-29T21:00:47.400-05:002010-01-29T21:00:47.400-05:00Can we hear the board's statement on women in ...Can we hear the board's statement on women in leadership?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-51193131083113435022010-01-29T18:25:12.081-05:002010-01-29T18:25:12.081-05:00Keith, thanks for the welcome. I haven't been ...Keith, thanks for the welcome. I haven't been camping in the weselyan neck of the woods all that long yet. Interested to find out more about what's there. I was rather under the impression the whole Women-in-Leadership question was long since settled in weselyan rooted churches. Not quite so? Right or wrong how much further would such churches have to go in the direction of affirming women in ministerial leadership. Has anyone besides me come to the conclusion that whatever is correct inside the church is correct outside the church and for the same reasons?bookwormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05302340570272155413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-57003666184278531142010-01-29T14:32:14.880-05:002010-01-29T14:32:14.880-05:00What about an 11 or 12???
Women should be given a...What about an 11 or 12???<br /><br />Women should be given a preference in clergy hiring until gender disparities in clergy pay scale and hiring dissapear. <br /><br />Any thoughts on this? <br /><br />Glenn KneppAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-81703240107271078792010-01-28T23:32:40.931-05:002010-01-28T23:32:40.931-05:00Re: DS's...
I found the DS's who visited ...Re: DS's...<br /><br />I found the DS's who visited IWU when I was a student to be across the board...I met with some and thought "I'll never work in his District as long as I live, what a jerk!". I met others and was more than enthused when thinking of the privilege of working in the team environment of that district.Elizabeth Glass-Turnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15320437643343996297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-19765341969504143812010-01-28T09:59:51.443-05:002010-01-28T09:59:51.443-05:00BOOKWORM:
Your post is welcome here... the church ...BOOKWORM:<br />Your post is welcome here... the church is still trying to work this out (which is why the feelings are so high). With just another 100 years we will have come to consensus (including the Roman Catholic church too). Reasoned discussion is how we'll do that--even if at times the rhetoric is a bit hot and we all must take our lumps at being considered stuck-in-the-past conservatives or Bible-stretching liberals. Reasonable people will overlook the rhetoric and try to explain their own positions as the church finds a common ground. I expect consensus before the year 2100. <br /><br />I don't expect us to find consensus this week. But we can fairly and openly discuss the issue and try to persuade others kindly and gently. <br /><br />And (in the mean time) there are practical considerations too-like, what does a woman do who is convinced she is called into the ministry but is a member of a denomination that rejects that call for women? <br /><br />Thanks for the (generally) calm and collected discussion here so far.Keith Druryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05058949281404407630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-32129021201464299792010-01-27T22:06:45.865-05:002010-01-27T22:06:45.865-05:00New at this so bear with me. No. 5 is the closest ...New at this so bear with me. No. 5 is the closest answer to my thinking. I once would have said 7, but seems to me 7 draws a false distinction between "in church" and the rest of life. Neither are exactly how I would put it. In light of my own observation women are on average not as inclined toward leadership or as equipped for leadership as men - with exceptions that do not negate the rule. Scripture, and observation, leadsme to believe women are not - again I'll use the word "generally" - intended to be the leaders in the world. Again there are exceptions that do not justify disregarding the rule. I know I haven't really explained why I say these things. Maybe in another post - if I survive the stoning. If it makes anybody feel any better I think I'd come closer to be converted to a 10 than anything less.bookwormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05302340570272155413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-17680767342458446822010-01-27T19:11:31.777-05:002010-01-27T19:11:31.777-05:00chad:
I'm the old female pastor, Mrs. Anon. So...chad:<br />I'm the old female pastor, Mrs. Anon. So you are saying only old, ugly females should be pastors? (MY tongue is placed firmly in my cheek)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-59811186246849060652010-01-27T18:10:13.368-05:002010-01-27T18:10:13.368-05:00oops, signed in under my daughter's account......oops, signed in under my daughter's account...this is Chap.Chaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12008446549012671519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-67459539340161208532010-01-27T18:05:56.782-05:002010-01-27T18:05:56.782-05:00Interesting that you must withhold your name.
....Interesting that you must withhold your name. <br /><br />...its also obvious you've never read Grudem...he addresses those types of issues.<br /><br />by your straw man hermenuetical principle nothing in Scripture is what it means which is the "danger" I fear looming for parts of the church...uggh. The problem is our newest attempts to explain can often lead to more disastrous results or cutting off our nose for our face. <br /><br />I really did't intend in getting into anything heated-- unfortunately those kinds of responses mean I'm done talking about it. I think I clearly conveyed my point with no expectation to change anyone's mind--except those I've been called to shepherd.<br /><br />Sad some can't have an honest exchange without getting in to cheap staw man arguments...of which the ones you gave are the easiest to explain.Christian Teenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06462408330806277767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-7944232428778566792010-01-27T14:51:05.826-05:002010-01-27T14:51:05.826-05:00I accept Wayne Grudem's hermeneutic... which i...I accept Wayne Grudem's hermeneutic... which is why I refuses to permit single males to be ministers (thay cannot be "the husband of one wife" and I also follow Grudem's policy of taking the Bible to mean today exactly what it says--which is why I do not permit any man to be ordained who does not have children--for how can we know if his children obey him unless he has children. I want to be totally honest in my hermenutic and not apply it by picking and choosing places where it applies and explaining others away. (which is why I also refuse to support the ordinaion of anyone under 30--they obviously cannot be "elders." <br /><br />Name witheldAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-49556983033521305312010-01-27T14:38:59.872-05:002010-01-27T14:38:59.872-05:00I think the point of Keith's scale is to demon...I think the point of Keith's scale is to demonstrate that all of us "draw a line" when it comes to women in leadership in the church. <br /><br />I would never presume changing the thinking of someone like Dave (or others) on a blog. <br /><br />I happen to have a strong conviction that the bible does draw a line and never intends to extend the line to full ordination of a teaching pastor or elders who are in authority of a church. I think your criticism (dave) of my position that draws the line at 8 is legitimate since to do so acknowledges that I don't believe some cultural components (head coverings etc..) of passages are transcultural. <br /><br />However, to explain away so many passages that clearly teach exclusive male leadership (in role, not equality) from Gen. 1 through the new testament sets us on a path to begin to justify all scriptural oughts, propostional truth, ecclesiology as "for that time only". <br /><br />This is why I've drawn the line at 8. To me-- reserved male leadership in role (elders, ordination) more accurately preserves the intention of Paul etc... It preserves the orthodox issues of headship, the function of the Tri-unity of God rather than creating more hermenuetical gymnatics created by current egalitarian thinkers (William Webb et. all).<br /><br />For example it seems to me that evangelical egalitarians are at the mercy of always needing to defend their position on homosexuality or slavery(even considering William Webb's noble attempt at differentiating them). Or they must abandon a position because Paul (and others) were misinformed, or culturally "in the dark". <br /><br />It seems much more coherent to say, the Scriptures prohibit things like homosexuality and women in authority because of God's positive view of both gender differences and exclusive sexual practice. They were intended for the good (a gift) of the church and human sexuality, not repression. <br /><br />I'm afraid like many issues in the church our history of male repression justified by our incorrect application of Scripture (women are unequal to men) is swinging all the way to another inaccurate understanding of Scripture (women are equal and roles in the church are equal).<br /><br />The result will unfortunately mean more men stepping out of leadership in the church as more women fill the gap. <br /><br />We all draw a line (even our views on how literal we should take the book of Revelation), the question is at what point does it miss the intent of the authors inspired by the Holy Spirit to speak to us today. So, I'm an 8...and I'm pre-milennial because you've got to draw a line somewhere in what seems to me to be a march towards making everything figurative or culturally antiquated in the Scriptures.<br /><br />I just hope that everyone is open minded enough to be challenged by reading Wayne Grudem in this area. At a minimum it will sharpen your own hermenuetics.Chaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12008446549012671519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-40438663679990817962010-01-26T17:28:26.271-05:002010-01-26T17:28:26.271-05:00Good for you Mrs. Anon....
a thought: Is perhaps ...Good for you Mrs. Anon....<br /><br />a thought: Is perhaps your age an asset? Are older women less sexualized than younger ones--by both males and females? Maybe it is an asset for you.<br /><br />ChadAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-65065980597393007222010-01-26T17:23:29.474-05:002010-01-26T17:23:29.474-05:00I'm a 10 - in every way.
I'm a newly licen...I'm a 10 - in every way.<br />I'm a newly licensed pastor and female (the two are not incompatible). I serve in a small restart church. I have a very supportive husband we enjoys being the reverend mother's significant other. As a rookie, I'm blessed to be mentored by a young godly male pastor. I preach in my church at times. I have received a very positive response from other pastors and from the people in my church. <br />Sometimes I think I'm crazy to have started all this at 50 years old (that's two strikes against me - old and female). But then people like my brother remind me that we just need to say yes to God wherever and whenever that may lead.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-22353829159653156002010-01-26T17:23:22.692-05:002010-01-26T17:23:22.692-05:00Chap, Dave et. al...
post away... I was hoping fo...Chap, Dave et. al... <br />post away... I was hoping for some longer thoughtful posts in this area... and you are not disappointing me. Yjanks-- have at it.. as you continue to be kind.<br /><br />keithKeith Druryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05058949281404407630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-68425090350239777602010-01-26T11:30:13.576-05:002010-01-26T11:30:13.576-05:00Chap,
Glad to see you answered! :) As for caricat...Chap,<br /><br />Glad to see you answered! :) As for caricatures of complementarians, not sure where I painted one? Perhaps you can point that out to me?<br /><br />If you were referencing my statement that I usually can tell whether or not I will like being around a person, I hope you weren't offended. I have just noticed over the last seven years that this issue comes up in so many more ways in life than one might think and affects the way we relate both across genders and in same-gender power dynamics. As a result, over time though I may like a person in general (as it seems I would you), I find it hard to enjoy being around them long-term since my sensibilities are consistently pricked. <br /><br />As for subordinationism vs. current castings of God's character, subordinationism was condemned in the second council of the church. It's actually a conservative position to argue against it as I do. You could make a case for "relational subordination" as not being a heresy as some do, but I disagree with the distinction since God is love and hence a discussion of God's nature has to be a relational discussion. Further, what else do we make of "all authority in heaven and earth has been given to me?" Maybe Chris Bounds or John Drury would correct my thoughts here. You might fall into the relational category, just a guess. Maybe you are a full blown nature-of-God-subordinationist but I doubt it. <br /><br />More important might be the inconsistency in positions 4-9. I can at least respect the argument of 1-3 for its consistency. Women are on all levels incapable of leading at all times. 4 simply goes against the bald facts of experience not to mention the scriptural passage of Deborah and the indications of Priscilla's role. You have to at least allow for exceptions for highest level female leadership based on scripture. 5 doesn't really say anything different than 10 since all that is in question is the number of "exceptions" and since I regularly find women preachers and leaders to outstrip men in my classrooms I think its a moot position (as well as in churches). Just keep piling up the exceptions until they are the norm. 6 says that women are only allowed to lead the most impressionable which makes no sense of Paul's argument using the fall... if they are easily deceived or lured away, they should only be allowed to lead men who are supposedly less likely to be misled. 8 means women can do anything leadership-oriented in a local church actually and thereby removes the category of authority from the discussion which is what most base their scriptural argument on (usually ignoring different greek words for authority). After all, if a woman has spiritual authority over a man at any time for any reason in the system, we are being inconsistent with a nature/creation-based difference argument. Preaching, leading, shepherding, even pastoring are all allowed in this one. #9 splits it the reverse way, saying ordination is fine but only to do things underneath a senior pastor. Since large churches allow church-sized leadership roles to women in these positions the distinction seems to fall apart. It also goes against the consistency rule above. It means women could teach men, lead men, have authority over men, and do all other things which required authority as long as a figure head sits over them structurally. <br /><br />Of course all of this is moot since scripture can be used to either support or deny the claim. If, however, someone is willing to force women to wear head coverings, long dresses, avoid jewelry and makeup, keep completely silent during church at all times, and never lead a male in any capacity at any age then I think I can honor their consistent hermeneutic.<br /><br />All this said, I am sure to receive a passionate and thoughtful response from you Chap. I look forward to it. To Keith, I hope we haven't hijacked your comment section. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-41099759911363967492010-01-25T21:15:38.572-05:002010-01-25T21:15:38.572-05:00For me then, the question is not, what do I think,...For me then, the question is not, what do I think, what theological perspective have I chosen, can I rightly divide the Word of God. <br /><br />No, for me, I go wherever God is free and powerful (except I hate the side of that power that makes you look like a drunk that can't stand up straight or other like stuff). <br /><br />And since I can only find that flow of God in an all male leadership, I am draw to that type of leadership!<br /><br />I also realize that God needs different leadership for different situations, needs, or His will at a specific time.<br /><br />Therefore, I will not take a side as I think one can acceptably argue both sides from the Text. Many have already done it quite well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811538.post-33329855863616071462010-01-25T21:05:40.005-05:002010-01-25T21:05:40.005-05:00Well, I really only seen the Spirit and power of G...Well, I really only seen the Spirit and power of God manifest itself through an all male leadership. And, when I say manifest itself, I do not mean in a sensual way such as tongues, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com