tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763756733001334091.post7460498245507261827..comments2010-01-08T10:08:21.967-08:00Comments on Faith Forged in the Furnace of Doubt: And now for something controversial...faithbornfromdoubthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09043033195428755968noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763756733001334091.post-36647897782427899502009-02-08T15:23:00.000-08:002009-02-08T15:23:00.000-08:00Looked for a way to communciate with some of you. ...Looked for a way to communciate with some of you. When I go to your blogs it baffles me to find a way to leave you a message without going to a blog.<BR/><BR/>So here is another thought to one of the reasons women do most of the serving. <BR/><BR/>Men in our culture are educated by women and are taught that some of the characteristics stamped into the male psyche are destructive.<BR/><BR/>Also the cultural or global intent of I Tim and women can be found in BibSac.<BR/><BR/>Seems like some of the blog responses and some of the dialogue here is rather shallow ::grins::The Revhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04763494670308999840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763756733001334091.post-65327645779099564802009-02-08T15:07:00.000-08:002009-02-08T15:07:00.000-08:00I enjoy reading your stuff. Dynamic Interaction is...I enjoy reading your stuff. Dynamic Interaction is good for all of us. <BR/><BR/>For the most part your original is interesting, Since I have some time I thought I might give you some feedback. <BR/><BR/>Discomfort at your bibical view is more about you than about the Scripture. Who really cares how we feel about it when after lengthy and tedious application of the principles of Herm'c we come to a Biblical view.<BR/><BR/>Discomfort could be part of our human condition. We don't like God to impose upon us prinicples of function which set us apart from the flow of culture as it impacts our local assembly.<BR/><BR/>Discomfort is God's way of getting our attention to look at our heart. Tension in the head is good for us - it drives atttention to our inner rebellion toward Him and our need of absolute submission.<BR/><BR/>PS - IT takes a lot of reading to figure out what it is you are trying to say. Very erudite and graduate-schoolish.<BR/><BR/>Have a great day<BR/>DaleThe Revhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04763494670308999840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763756733001334091.post-48874092981241751732009-01-29T16:50:00.000-08:002009-01-29T16:50:00.000-08:00Every time I decide I am done dealing with this is...Every time I decide I am done dealing with this issue someone I respect or care about brings it back up. I should say up front that I am a evangelical egalitarian...and I am not nervous about it. :)<BR/><BR/>Good comments about it not being a core belief. We actually have quite a few members at our church that don't believe women should be pastors but yet we have three women serving as pastors. I believe this is a commentary on the level of certainty or the warrant of belief on the gender debate. If you say you are a uneasy complementarian, then maybe women in leadership isn't such a big deal if you love many other aspects of the church.<BR/><BR/>I think the more conservative evangelical churches are more influenced by post World War II culture and the legalism that many of our denominations (SBC, GARBC, etc) struggle with than what the Bible actually has to say about gender roles. It's much easier to take the complementarian viewpoint in a conservative church and sweep women deacons under the rug than it is to really grapple with what the Bible teaches on the subject. Similiar problems have arisen when dealing with addiction recovery groups in the church and using real wine in the Lord's Supper...I've had many tell me that Jesus didn't really turn water into wine, he actually turned it into non-alcoholic grape juice. Really? I guess that same logic applies with women deaons as well.<BR/><BR/>Your wish to stay away from subordination in the Trinity is hard for me to stomach. I think it has a very direct correllation. In fact I think the titles of the two camps are really mixed up. It should be:<BR/><BR/>Egalitarians should be known as complementarians--That is at the core of what they believe, that the sexes complement each other.<BR/><BR/>Complementarians should be known as hierarchalists--I believe that is at the core of what they believe. Distinct and hierarchal role differences regardless of spiritual giftings between the sexes.<BR/><BR/>This is a very complex issue that addresses cultural teachings and timeless principles. You'd never know that by reading John Piper, Wayne Grudem, or Mark Driscoll. They are very dismissive of opposing viewpoints. So much for Christian dialouge. <BR/><BR/>Without going on and on, I think there are two major principles at play.<BR/><BR/>1. Individuals rights are always subverviant to the advance of the gospel.<BR/>2. How do we treat each other as Christians (my belief is this has very little to do with gender)<BR/><BR/>I think that keeping women from leadership is the exact opposite of what was being taught in scripture. The admonishments from Paul and Peter were what was needed in their cultural context to advance the gospel. In my congregation, many people are so surprised that this is even an issue that for most it takes them away from the gospel message. I think that is very, very sad.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01219861084959091566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763756733001334091.post-18810192422733862022009-01-28T18:09:00.000-08:002009-01-28T18:09:00.000-08:00i am probably more of a "nervous"/soft complementa...i am probably more of a "nervous"/soft complementarian than anything else, and see woman deacons as biblical, but i always have questions about the 1 timothy 2 passage. how much of the historical context should come into play? what does it mean for a woman to usurp a man's authority? teach over a man (pulpit speaking, book writing, sunday school teaching?)? at what age does a boy become a man? <BR/><BR/>i would also agree that this is not a gospel-centric issue, and i prefer not to argue about it in most settings. it bothers me when people argue about these issues. also, i find it ironic that even in most churches with complementarian theology, women are doing most of the serving.Sabrinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05345995975391932991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763756733001334091.post-54422123599252250312009-01-27T01:07:00.000-08:002009-01-27T01:07:00.000-08:00well, it will be interesting to hear the feedback ...well, it will be interesting to hear the feedback on this. i myself am somewhere in the middle of both sides...i'm not extreme on either side and feel uncomfortable saying i'm either or...though when all is said and done i think i have more of a leaning towards the complementarian side of things. i know there's that whole headship issue but what does that mean exactly? i can't seem to define exactly what that is supposed to mean or look like though i know it exists. i also can't rule out the possibility for the allowance of women deacons in the church. i think it was within the realm of possibility based on the passages in question. anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts on the issue. it was very interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com