and page 6
|Author||Topic: Pussified Nation|
|William Wallace II|
| posted 12-30-2000 08:20 PM |
This string is simply a work in law. Now that it is beginning to evoke a bit of response we will be moving forward with clarifying further the general roles of men and women as defined principally in Scripture, and practically in our present culture (hence the post for single men on how to get a wife). Our gatherings will deal in greater specificity with accountability and male relationships centered in Scripture, governed by grace, and empowered by the Spirit as one of the multiple means by which we grow up in Christ. This posting site is good for kicking up some interest and laying out some information but simply cannot do the work that a local church was intended to and is therefore limited. Lastly, in each time and place we must speak in a way that can best penetrate the noise of the present age. While Nathan has been exalted as the example, I would also remind you that most Old Testament prophets, all but one disciple, and the Lord Jesus Christ all died at the hands of religious people. While I would not seek such martyrdom I would suggest that whispering gently in therapeutic tones has been well tried and proven a failure as Promise Keepers and the like have demonstrated. Pelagian theology and psychology are very poor substitutes for law and gospel.later.P.S. irony and sarcasm are our friends. Laugh a little and scale down kids. If you don't get the humor, I promise you it's not because it isn't funny, but because you are way too serious. For therapy you may want to read a couple bits in Ezekiel about cooking a meal and scan the law for how to take a dump in a hole.
| posted 12-30-2000 08:46 PM |
Jesus defies culture by aligning women, with "Men's business."
For Jesus it was preferable that Mary, Martha, & other women to be in on the theological sessions at his feet. (Definitely only men's business.)Jesus aligned himself with "women's work."
Jesus was into "child-minding", and clothes mending. And imaged himself as a mother hen gathering in her chicks. And he painted an image of God as a cleaning woman.
But in the OT God already painted himself as a mother with child at breast (Isa 66), and a bride (Isa49). But also a raging mother bear.
All these feminine images the complete the paradox of who God is. Who Christ is. They compliment the masculine images. The truth is in the paradoxes!The "gender roles" start to get blurry dont they.
Or do they? Could we be honest enough for one second to admit that maybe it's just that Jesus blurs OUR CULTURAL strereo-types. (be they redneck or pussified.)
"Perhaps" Jesus knew what God intended when he made humans male and female.
Jesus knew the real distinctions, not the cultural ones.
Jesus knows the way men & women are supposed to interact and co-operate in a (redeemed) partnership. (1) So what distinctions might those be? *
CAUTIOUSLY I suggest that the sexual act is a model.
- Men as penetrators, vs women as enfolders.
- Communication as: Accuracy vs Connection
- "Basic attitude to life" (Crabb) as: Entering vs Embracing
- "Core values…" (Gilligan): Independent vs Interdependent
Solve vs Nurture
Fix vs Be there
Control vs Bonding
Achievement vs Attachment
- CAUTIOUSLY, it can be observed that men "Relate to the world thru…" (Nowra):
Objects vs People
Action vs Feeling.(2) But here's the kicker: are we in partnership to learn from each other?
(rather than merely retreating to our own roles, as if marking out our domain, "mine" and "Yours". And getting embroiled in power disputes.) Stereotyping restricts us from further growth. "I can only be strong. Can't be gentle, that's for women." Aren't we to learn from each other in true partnership, and grow into fuller human beings?Is becoming Christlike for both men and women?Then we men are to adopt the full measure of his manhood, not just those traits we've chosen to nominate as "masculine."
And women are to adopt the full measure of his humanity, not just those traits we've chosen to nominate as "feminine." On what basis can we say to a woman, "oh no you can't be Christlike in that area."? Attaining to the full measure of Christ is for all, whether male or female. (Many parts of the world hate me for saying this - largely because it threatens their 'domain'.)
(3) So what do we do with passages like Eph 5?
"A man should love the wife. A wife should respect the husband."
Should not a woman also love, and a man also respect? Of course.
So why does Paul need to specifiy?
Because obviously the men weren't loving. And the women weren't respecting as they should. They'd obviously let those specific parts of the paradox lapse.But I also think Paul's saying, when we stuff up our gender relationships, we better get back to the Creation, and start relearning from the beginning. Men initiate; Women embrace; Affirm each others' strengths, show mercy for each other's weaknesses, and then help each other grow! (A Great definition of GRACE.)
(4) Help each other grow? How?
Not JUST by holding up the mirror, & showing where I lack. Not just by telling me what I want to do.
But FURTHER, by Christ's Spirit uncovering the personal lies that drive my sinful compulsions, and then bringing a personal experience of the the truth that I need, to free me from the power of that lie. THAT's what really helps. His heart surgery on me. That's where a group of men of God really helps. They bring me to God's knife. WW2, I know you're freaking out, but I've already heard what you'd say about points 1-3. It's tired. Go on if you want, after the repitition, Will you please address point 4? Something you've not yet addressed.Man
| posted 12-30-2000 08:48 PM |
"There's a long-running argument about those bits, which should be
respected." [Talking about the part in quotes] Does that ean that you either don't talk about them or
state that both sides have an equally correct view, and that both sides just need to
keep their sides to the people who care to listen?No I choose not to talk about them.
Besides you can go look them up at a library for yourself. The material will do a far better job than I of presenting their own case.
That argument isn't the core of my argument.
Show that you understand what I AM saying first.Man
| posted 12-30-2000 08:57 PM |
Apologies WW2Just read your last post. "This string is a work in law." "Cant do what the church should do..."You did address my point 4 there, so acknowledged and well-done.And your last post does put your case in a more helpful context. As long as we recognise the parameters, we're nearly agreeing!!! On that at least.I've said enough.Man
|William Wallace II|
| posted 12-31-2000 01:11 PM |
On the issue of respecting the varied theological positions surrounding the family I would disagree. You cannot find any theological issue on which there is not varied and strong disagreement. However, such variance should not prevent us from coming to conclusions, teaching them to others, and living them out in practice. The abundance of sloppy thinking and poor theology does in no way validate the confusion among believers on matters that are tremendously practical. Should my pastor be a man or woman? Should my wife and children submit to me as the head of my home? Should I provide financially for my family? Are my wife and I sexually obligated to serve one another without considering our body as our own posession? Should my wife have her ministry directed homeward to our children or can we put them in daycare for someone else to parent? Should I be gay or straight? Should I stay married or can I get a divorce? If divorced can I get remarried? And the list continues ad nauseum.But, I will stand before God and give an account for what I believed and how I embodied it. I cannot stand before God and point at the library of conflicting opinions and say that I respected them all and thereby failed to have any convictions. I am certain that God is not nearly impressed with the books on the shelf as we are. I indeed tend to see things very simply. That is because I believe that ours is a simple yet profound God and to walk as His child takes a Bible, the Holy Spirit, a church, lots of grace and a yielded heart to be lead and the courage to lead others. God's folly is wisdom to me. And my wisdom is folly to Him.
|William Wallace II|
| posted 12-31-2000 01:41 PM |
Lastly to "Man". Your attempts are likely sincere. But, you think like a deist and not a Christian. A Christian is Trinitarian and believes that the Trinity is foundational model for relationship and covenant community. Therefore, while in once sense everyone should desire to be like Jesus Christ, in another sense it would make more sense to view the totality of God rather than merely looking at one member of the godhead and neglecting the others. Therefore, a Christian marriage should be Trinitarian to bear forth the image and likeness of the community of God. In marriage God the Father remains in position of ultimate headship from whom all authority is delegated and all orders are given for His glory and His purposes. The husband should occupy the role of Jesus Christ as stated clearly in Ephesians 5. This means that, like Christ, men submit to the headship of God their Father and seek His will and glory over their own. This also means that a man must, like Christ, learn to die to himself and resurrect to lovingly forgive and lead his bride. Lastly, the woman should occupy the role of the Holy Spirit as the helper suitable role given her in Genesis 2. The Holy Spirit is also referred to as the helper throughout the New Testament (paraklete in greek) come to comfort and empower the children of God to submit to Christ and glorify the Father. This is the same pattern we see in I Corinthians 11 where we find that the head of every woman is man, the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is the Father. In this way a man does not need be a woman, or the converse, for their to be equality. Equality was given in creation by virtue of the fact that both the man and woman were both made in the image and likeness of God. And, it was not good for the man to be alone, and nothing that had been created (including man) was a suitable helper so God created woman to show forth the Trinitarian God to all of creation. In this way it is the unity of cause (the Fathers glory) that causes oneness and not the unity of roles as is the case with the Father, Son, and Spirit.Therefore, God the Father remains the Father. Men should focus on Christ to learn how to be heads and rulers as He is. And women should learn about the Holy Spirit as their model.
|William Wallace II|
| posted 12-31-2000 01:44 PM |
Proverbs 18:22 "He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the Lord."
The eastern concept of marriage that is dominant throughout the Old Testament is one in which the man prepares himself to be a husband and father, and then pursues a woman's father to win the approval to court her as his bride. The father of the bride is central to marriage and the young woman is supposed to respectfully submit to her father and he is to protect her chastity and guard her against potentially undesireable suitors like the young men who take girls to prom and put their hands down their dress, or worse still young men who prowl at singles groups hoping to mash on some young woman like a desperate junior high boy in heat. Therefore, it is imperative that a young woman have either her father or another man occupy that role of headship in her life to aid in the selection of her husband. If her father is absent or unsuited, it would be best for young women to invite an older man (i.e. a church elder, respectful man in their church, a believing close male relative etc.) to serve in that regard out of loving concern for her. Paul illustrated this principle with the topic of headcoverings in Corinthians wherein he essentially stated that women should always be under submission (first of their father and then of their husband) and demonstrate their submission in the culturally appropriate sign of such a submissive spirit with the wearing of a head covering. This transference of headship is symbolized in the Christian tradition of a father walking a woman down the aisle and then literally giving her away and transferring his headship to her husband. Therefore, a man cannot be a limp wristed coward waiting for a good woman to pursue him. He must not also casually date Christian women test-driving them to find one he really wants to buy. He should be prepared, responsible, forthright, and honorable.He must begin by being qualified to take a wife. The following list should help to begin the introspective process for single men of considering whether they are ready to take a wife and if not how much work they have to do.1. Are you a Christian who desires a Christian wife (II Corinthians 6:14)?
2. Do you work hard and make enough money to take care of a wife and child (I Timothy 5:8)?
3. Will you love the wife you take as Christ loves her (Ephesians 5:22-33)?
4. Will you accept the responsibility of headship and leadership of your wife and children (Colossians 3:18-21)?
5. Do you know your Bible well enough to serve as a pastor to your family and answer your wife's theological questions (I Corinthians 14:35)?
6. Do have sufficient self-control to be gentle and tender with a woman (I Peter 3:7)?
7. Do you have self control in regards to lusting after other women (Matthew 5:27-30)?
8. Will you be a one-woman man (I Timothy 3:2)?
9. Will you give your body to your wife to explore and enjoy sexually, in sum will you be any good in bed (I Corinthians 7:1-7)?
10. Will you keep your covenant to your wife for the duration of your life (I Corinthians 7:10-11)?
11. Are you ready to in every way sever the ties that bind you to your mom and dad (Genesis 2:24)?
12. Do you know that you do need a wife (Genessis 2:18)?
13. Do you want to be a dad with an exemplary family (I Timothy 3:5,12; Titus 1:6)?
14. Have you kept your appearance so you look good (Song of Songs 5:10)?
15. Will you enjoy your wife (Ecclesiastes 9:9)?
16. Do you like breasts (Proverbs 5:19)?
17. Are you actively involved in a solid local church and submitting to the elders/pastors there (Hebrews 13:17)?
18. Do you humbly submit to godly older men (I Peter 5:5)?
19. Do you endure discipline and hardship with courage and faith (Hebrews 12:7-11)?
20. Are you self-controlled (Titus 2:6)?
21. Do you embrace your youth as an opportunity to set an example to others of the power of God in a yielded life (I Timothy 4:12).
22. Do you watch your life and doctrine closely (I Timothy 4:16)?
23. Most importantly, do you gladly submit to Christ's complete authority over all of your life (I Corinthians 11:3)?In sum, husbands are told to love their wives, and wives are told to submit to and respect their husbands. The men must not love as psychologists tell them, but instead as Scripture does in some of the ways listed above. And, a man needs to tell a woman that his love is heartfelt, as well as shown practically in these ways. If a man does these things out of the power of God's grace alone then most every woman who has the Spirit of God within her submits and respects that man.Men, here is a secret, if you want a woman to be attracted to you, you must be attractive. If you want a woman to respect you, you must be the kind of man she can be proud of and speak highly of. In the Song of Songs the bride says "no wonder the maidens adore you." She knew that she got a good man, the kind that all the other women had admired and hoped for. Today, the problem is that there are too few men of nobility and desirability which forces the women in our churches to remain single, become independent and feministic (even if ever so slightly) and either settle for some half-a-man, or remain single indefinitely. It all rides or falls with the men.And, once a man is ready for a bride, he should then select a woman he has gotten to know in a causal way and request permission from her father (or other head) to court her as a potential spouse. More later...
| posted 01-01-2001 03:14 PM |
"And Squatting Bear's suggestion of a Vision Quest... (How can we follow that through properly?)" To Man,Real simple:1) get out of town
2) sit in ONE SPOT for three days
3) don't eat anything the whole time (it also helps not to sleep or severly limit one's water intake)
5) expect to get your ass SEVERLY beaten spirituallyany other questions?
| posted 01-01-2001 10:08 PM |
Wow. It's been a while. It's nice to be back.WWII, you are making more sense all the time. Thank you for being patient (!?) with those who are trying to really get what you are saying.There's been some great stuff coming up here, and less and less petty bickering over semantics and a pussified view of God. I think it's pretty encouraging. Whether that means that the pussified are leaving or coming around I don't know, but I'm encouraged nonetheless.I'm excited to be a part of this thing. WWII, please expect my application soon.By the way squatting bear: If you're going to go the vision quest route, you missed a very important step: pray for protection for your heart and mind. The way you've got it set up, you'll be opening yourself up to all sorts of input - and not all will be from God. I wouldn't enter into that kind of thing unless you're prayerfully and scripturally sure that God is calling you to do it. That's like saying that if you want to hear from God, use LSD. Using rites from other religions as a method by which to hear from God is a great way to taint your beliefs. The question about 'doing it properly' has a lot more merit than you might think.Good New Year to everyone.Ignorantus Rex
| posted 01-02-2001 06:45 PM |
"By the way squatting bear: If you're going to go the vision quest route, you missed a very important step: pray for protection for your heart and mind. The way you've got it set up, you'll be opening yourself up to all sorts of input - and not all will be from God. I wouldn't enter into that kind of thing unless you're prayerfully and scripturally sure that God is calling you to do it. That's like saying that if you want to hear from God, use LSD. Using rites from other religions as a method by which to hear from God is a great way to taint your beliefs. The question about 'doing it properly' has a lot more merit than you might think."Rex,I apologize; I forgot, and was assuming that I was only writing to christians here. Of course, when one prays, it should only be to the One True God thru Jesus Christ His Son, and again, I assumed that as with any spiritual endevour on the part of a christian, prayer for protection and focus would be central. Whenever a christian waits upon God, it should ALWAYS be with discernment, thankfully God gives wisdom to those who ask.As for being called to "vision quest," "fast," or whatever your culture calls it, it is Christ who is to be our example in word and deed, and he did a lot of retreating into the wilderness to pray and seek God. I sincerely believe you don't need some sign or leading to go quest/fast -we already have Christ's example, and we need to follow. My point is: Christ did a lot of fasting in remote away-from-people-places. Not just occasionally, but frequently; how come we don't? Traditionally the church has placed emphasis on fasting and waiting on God as a routine practice of the christian. Where is that emphasis now?What you call "fasting," or "prayer closet," I call "vision questing." It is not an issue of syncretism, merely a cultural understanding/label. I am Indian, I am not white. I refuse to believe the practice that to be a follower of Christ you have to be european-white-western in thought and culture. The power of Christ is the power to redeem culture -not eradicate it. If the pioneer missionaries had only understood this, many of my people would not have been murdered in the name of Christ.To the best of my knowlege, I don't know of a single tribe that encouraged the use of drugs (peyote for example) on a quest. The emphasis was always on the journey of prayer and fasting, which is fully consistant (one and the same) with Christianity. The crucial difference being that as believers, we have the assurance of being able to come to God the Father thru Jesus Christ His Son. Most tribal religions had/have a good understanding of God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit, they lacked knowlege of the Son. The beauty of Christ's ministry was that He reached and met people where they were at. "I become all things..." wrote the apostle Paul. If christians today were to follow this example, maybe Indians might be converted. But the sad fact is, most christians haven't the faintest idea who and what we are, insisting that we have to become "white" to be saved -completely forgetting that white people decimated us with their diseases and alcohol, took our lands, our languages, ect.. what Indian would want a white Jesus?
| posted 01-04-2001 09:05 PM |
Nice argument, WW2 (William Wallace Mark too ;-)Lots of good Trinitarian principles for relating with each other. The only exception I have with it, is it still restricts us into exclusive stereo-types. (and even boxes God!)
I think there are overlaps. They're not mutually exclusive...
That's the Trinitarian mystery. (Unless you think like a modalist.)There's a lot that the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit share. Very little that they don't...
The Spirit isn't the exclusive Helper: Jesus says He is the one who will be the Helper (John 16 & 14). And God calls Himself the Helper (Ps10:14, Heb 13:6). So carry on clarifying what men should be.
But CAUTION: Many of the fronts on which men are failing are simply about being Godly humans. It's for women too.
So I'm saying dont make any quality exclusive to men only, unless you've really got a solid reason. Careless stereo-types & false dichotomies only restrict growth.
| posted 01-04-2001 09:07 PM |
"But, I will stand before God and give an account for what I believed
and how I embodied it. I cannot stand before God and point at the
library of conflicting opinions and say that I respected them all and
thereby failed to have any convictions."I agree. Read me accurately. I didn't say I dont have an opinion. I said it's not the core issue of my argument. I dont have time to sidetrack there. But as a concession, very quickly, let me say I take the Scriptures literally: I take into account what kind of literature each text is. The nature of this literature does need to be considered when we interpret it for today. (Just as the Amish should get over the fact that plastic is not mentioned in the Bible - it didn't exist then. To interpret the text accurately, we need to consider the context, in order to gain the right principles.)And the literature of 1&2Timothy and Ephesians are letters written by Paul specifically to the church in Ephesus, which was laboring under the domination of the godess Diana, whose priestesses had an over-riding influence on everyone's religious thought. I think this context determined what Paul wrote to Timothy & the Ephesians.
By contrast, when Paul wrote to the Romans, he mentions by name Prsicilla (a teacher even before her husband), Phoebe (a deacon), and Junia (an outstanding apostle). What do we make about women in leadership from that?!So take another look at the texts with the Ephesian context in mind. You may see a different principle there. You may not. (Baptists have an olde saying: "In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things love." I agree we should make decisions on these matters, but I dont mind allowing you the freedom to still come to the same conclusion you hold now - because it's not an essential issue, eg. the cross & resurection). What I am saying is this:
Give credit where it's due. Dont set up a straw man to attack. (And dont misinterpret me to conveniently say whatever you want to attack.) Read what's actually there. THINK about it, dont just reiterate your present position. Argue the actual case.
| posted 01-04-2001 09:09 PM |
Squatting Bear,Do you take water?
And does anyone watch your back, for safety?(If I seem ignorant, it's because I dont live in USA.)Respectfully,
|William Wallace II|
| posted 01-04-2001 10:06 PM |
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved [restored] through childbearing-if they continue in faith, love and holiness with purity." - I Timothy 2:11-15"You must teach what is in accordance with sound doctrine...teach the older women to...train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."
Titus 1:2-5Man. For example, the Father did not die on the cross and resurrect from the dead. Likewise, neither did the Spirit. For another example, Jesus came to do the Father's will and not His own. One God, yes. Great overlap, yes. Continued distinctions, yes. If it were not that we would have no reason to refer to them as Father, Son and Spirit as distinct persons. Lastly, men can't have children. Why, because men and women are different. It may seem trivial, but my wife assures me that it is not. No matter how equal I want to be to her, we will never be the same. It's much more than culture, it's biology as an outgrowth of creation. Her role is different than mine by virtue of creation. That in no way makes one of us better, but simply much different.Your verses are very weak in arguing for an elimination of gender distinction. A husband and wife team worked together helping Paul plant churches and sometimes the wife is mentioned first, and sometimes the husband is mentioned first. That's a long way from her being an elder ruling over men in a local church - something we are never told about her. Phoebe was likely a deacon, which is different than a ruling and teaching elder. And, at the end of Romans the person mentioned is possibly a man and possibly a woman, the gender is unclear and the name in that day could go either way (i.e. like Pat in our day), and we are told that this person is "outstanding among the apostles" which does not show that they were an apostle, but instead that their work with (or among the apostles) was outstanding. You cannot give me any book of the Bible written by a woman, any woman disciple, or any woman pastor in the New Testament. Paul tells Titus to appoint elders in every town (Titus 1:5) and then explains that one of the requirements is that they be men. If you are arguing this is all cultural why would it begin in Genesis with creation and continue with Paul saying the same thing to the church at Colosse, Corinth, Ephesus, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia, Macedonia and Crete - that men and women are different and that men should rule in authority over homes and churches? In light of the multiple cities and cultures and dates of writing it seems pretty clear it is a cross-cultural principle. Lastly, the cultural argument was addressed by Paul and he claims that men's and women's roles are principally chosen at creation, and then practically lived out in culture (I Corinthians 11:9). Are you really suggesting that somehow Jesus and Paul were pussified men afraid to confront culture so they caved in and took the easy route by choosing men thereby sinning against equally qualified women?Lastly, you are exactly what is wrong with men. Crappy arguments, paper thin Scriptural support, and a dogmatic claim that you know what the hell you are talking about. My guess you are not an elder, and likely not married. My final question is for you. If there is no gender distinctions at creation between men and women then are you logically also not supportive of homosexual relationships? Look at culture and the church and you'll see that the first domino is feminism (there is no creation difference between men and women) and the second is homosexuality (therefore men loving men is no different than men loving women because there is no difference between men and women other than what culture creates as a gender identity). Is your pastor a woman? Are you gay? Are you married? Are you an elder? Are you sure you know what the hell you're talking about? Do you seriously think you have a case? Do you seriously think your arguments are worthwhile? Is that the best you've got? Sad, I've got a long list of women who would theologically take you to the woodshed and prove they shouldn't be pastors, heads of homes, or ruling over men and they would curse you out for telling them to be men and telling their husbands to be women. Some could probably kick your ass to boot. [This message has been edited by William Wallace II (edited 01-05-2001).][This message has been edited by William Wallace II (edited 01-05-2001).]
| posted 01-04-2001 10:24 PM |
WW2, i think you are arguing the case better now. At last.But, again, I'm NOT arguing for no gender distinctions.
- You keep trying to overstate my case. (So that you can shoot me down. But all you do is miss the mark, and shoot down something else I didnt say.)-
I'm arguing that NOT EVERYTHING that Paul addresses to men is necessarily exclusively for men and not women.And dont insult me personally.
I'm actually a friend of yours.
(One limitation of this forum is that so much is said outside the context of a genuine relationship. As you've already conceded, the genuine community is the context which makes better sense of the words.)Man.
| posted 01-04-2001 10:29 PM |
Likewise I'm NOT arguing there's no distinction in the Trinity.
I'm saying there's lots of overlap.The truth is in the paradoxes.You should know that.PS - Wouldn't the woodshed women prove my case?
| posted 01-04-2001 10:38 PM |
I'm going to leave it for someone else to argue your so-called rebuttal of the verses, just to see if anyone else is out there. (If not, go into your huddle.)Here's some clues:
- Women disciples, yes.
- The same rule applies to the description of a deacon as for elder - a man. But you admit Phoebe was a...
- Pat could be a man.Testing, testing. One, two, three.
Not arguing for androgeny, but neither exclusivity.I've got to go to work.Married, Dad, Elder, Contact-sport-playin'
|William Wallace II|
| posted 01-05-2001 09:14 AM |
The responsiblities for a deacon and and elder are similar, but differ in ruling and teaching. Phoebe may or may not have been a deacon. The word used of her is a servant. At times it is used for a woman who serves. At other times it is used as an official office. In this case, it is not ultimately clear since the Romans 16 section is not relating directly to any offices in the context, just faithful people and their service. If she were listed in Timothy or Titus context would have made it more clear. The listing for deacons does include a caveat about their wives which some take to mean that a deacons wife must live upto those qualities, but I would take to mean that the wives are likely serving alongside their husbands as deacons. After all, a deacon is serving others in ways of mercy, compassion, administration and the like. This is much different that teaching, preaching, disciplining, leading etc. - basically headship. I would suggest that you have a very confused ecclesiology.And, women disciples - of course. Jesus taught women. Women apostles - no way. He never chose one and certainly had the cans to do so if it were right. You've got a few straws and I've got an iron clad house. And, I feel a nice stiff breeze blowing.And to the offense. If you are a friend (and I am unsure who you are) I am offended that someone as confused as you would call me a friend. Anyone who hangs with me should have a clearer head. I've been nice enough to answer your questions, but the heart of mine (creation) has been neglected by you. And, are you also pro-queer? Is your pastor a woman? Is your wife an elder? Would you let her rule over you in the church?Whatever you do, do not go see Mel Gibson's movie "What Women Want." It promotes the same sort of male lesbianism that you are promoting.For some clearer sections, how about I Timothy 2:9-3:7 written as a general epistle to a region of churches telling them each the roles of men and women as found in creation? Likewise, Titus 1:5-9 and 2:1-5 are equally forthright about the distinctions? Look through your posts, you have yet to deal with any clear Scriture on rule in the church and gave only a cursory nod to rule in the home. A lot of chit chat about theological categories, very little work in the Word on those straighforward sections. Here's a free one to chew on. Let's suppose the women were pagan sluts in a few cities Paul wrote to. You are suggesting that because of that Paul did not appoint women elders. What the hell does what is going on in the city have to do with who rules in the church. In my city we have lots of pagan sluts and we still don't have any women elders. If Paul indeed thought that women could be elders he would have likely appointed many women elders to set a counter example to the pagan sluts thereby showing God'd ideal for a woman, rather than ducking the issue and letting the pagan sluts walk away with the Theological Superbowl victory. Yes, the Bible has a lot addressed to men and women. It also has a lot written specically to men (i.e. nocturnal emissions of semen), women (menstrual cycles), children (obeying parents), employees (working hard), employers (being fair), elder (being male), deacons (serving), etc. etc. Why you would not see that as obvious is an indication of selective reading. I, for example, could fine one jackass in the Old Testament through whom God preached (Numbers 22:21-30). Using your principles of interpretation I could then argue that Balaam's jackass set a precedent for four legged furry elders who crap as the preach.
[This message has been edited by William Wallace II (edited 01-05-2001).][This message has been edited by William Wallace II (edited 01-05-2001).][This message has been edited by William Wallace II (edited 01-05-2001).]
|William Wallace II|
| posted 01-05-2001 09:42 AM |
"If anyone wants to be contentious about this (the context is male headship and rule in the home and church), we have no other practices-nor do the churches of God." - Paul in I Corinthians 11:16
| posted 01-05-2001 03:29 PM |
man,Good efforts. However, the heart of your argument is pointless to WW2 because his primary concern is the head. What a jack to believe that our "friends" must have a "clearer head" in order to be considered friends. Wallace, your infatuation with control, power, head-ship is evident and immaterial. Luther would call it "adiaphra" - not mattering to our salvation.I guarantee you that the thief on the cross knew and believed less about all the crap you hold to be so central to the living out of faith than any of us here. He simply asked for Chirst to "remember" him.Again, you and your lackeys have repeatedly misconstrued my understanding of what a "loving God" and a "non-judicial gospel" would look like. A loving God does not abdicate his ability to get heated and shed light - even burn - the darkness of his creation. I am a fairly peaceful guy - but, mess with my family and you'll find out just how fast my anger will burn against you. My peaceful, loving nature does not make me pussified, any more than my unmitigated violence toward any aggressor confronting my family would make me a manly man. Please stop confusing God's sovereign will to be angry, wrathful or judicious with your immediate need/desire for him to be always that just so you can feel safe and justified in your hurting, afraid little world.Your manhood is not found in your theology, your wife, your church - it is found in your saving relationship with Jesus Christ. So get off the soapbox and start sharing your HEART versus your "clear head" regarding communities of faith. Jesus is not so interestred in our ecclesiastical orders as he is in our hearts. Although I believe the one flows out of the other. Get the order confused and you end up with this lame "who's a homo, who's a man" kind of back and forth. Meaning, one promotes unity, while the other promotes demagoguery. In this case, you and your merry band of yes-men! [This message has been edited by cell'me (edited 01-05-2001).]
| posted 01-05-2001 04:56 PM |
You call my arguments thin? Well aren't you the double-standard-meister!Your 1 Cor 11:9 verse has no bearing on the argument. It's saying the woman came from man, and was made for man. But it's an argument for hairstyles. How can it be consistent to flout hairstyle rules, yet enforce gender domination?You say Phoebe was a deacon. But the same texts you say demand a male elder, also demand a male deacon. So, if Phoebe's a deacon, it's possible there were women elders too (although I'll admit it doesn't specifically name one). If you dont concede that, you're being inconsistent. Re: Junia/Junias, the word "outstanding" is really applied to the person, in the Greek. (Yes, I read Greek.)
And by the way:
Junia is not a name like Pat: that's impossible because Greek is a gender sensitive language - the gender of the person always determines the ending of the name (and verbs etc): vowel for feminine, consonant for masculine. So we're actually looking at textual variants here: Junias a man, or Junia a woman.
(Oh, and if I'm wrong about Junia, I'm OK. If you're wrong about Junia, your case is stuffed.) And we do have notable Biblical women of influence:- Miriam alongside Joshua, Deborah in the time of judges, Ruth, Abigail, Esther. Mary Magdala, Mary Jesus' mum, Mary & Martha of Bethany would have to be counted among Jesus disciples, altho not in the twelve, they were there all along, including the upper room. Jesus' dignifying view of women (and children, and other outcasts) was revolutionary, you must admit! Priscilla is initially mentioned after Aquilla, but as her prominence grew, she's mentioned first thereafter. That's significant, because the pattern was to mention the more prominent one first. She became the more recognised teacher! So what's with 1 Tim 2:13-15? Frankly I dont mind saying I dont know what Paul's saying here, because he's just finished saying all women should be silent! but yet then he's OK with Priscilla teaching in & around Rome. Go figure! He argues from Genesis a case for silence which he's OK about waiving in Priscilla's case?
(Besides, Paul, Adam was deceived too, and not even by the serpent! I just don't get those 2 verses. Yet.) It doesn't surprise me that no woman wrote a book of the Bible, because nearly all were illiterate!!! Hello! And you have to admit, that's a plausible explanation as to why Paul assumed that church leadership would be male... Our disagreement on these texts might be a case of 2 logical interpretations of all the data... but the arguments aren't really water-tight on EITHER side... You wrote "you are exactly what is wrong with men. Crappy arguments,
paper thin Scriptural support, and a dogmatic claim that you know
what the hell you are talking about." That also cuts both ways my friend.
You also wrote "My guess you are not an elder, and likely not married."
Admit it, you've been wrong on a few counts!
| posted 01-05-2001 05:06 PM |
WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT WOMEN???This is supposed to be about men. I'm not saying we're the same. I'm qualifying WW2. Saying that women have more scope than you give them credit for. It may not be as the final overseer, but if they've got the skills & gifts of God, and fruit of the Spirit, dont restrict them too much. So returning to your earlier questions:* Should my pastor be a man or woman? - In the absence of a named woman in that role, I can accept the answer 'man'. (But since in China's church movement they've never thought to ask that question, it makes me wonder whether that's a cultural question. Perhaps China is more like Rome, or Cenchreae.)
* Should my wife and children submit to me as the head of my home? - Yes. But remember we're supposed to submit to one another (Eph 5:21).
* Should I provide financially for my family? - Yes. But dont forget Prov 31.
* Are my wife and I sexually obligated to serve one another without considering our body as our own posession? - Except for MUTUAL agreement.
* Should my wife have her ministry directed homeward to our children or can we put them in daycare for someone else to parent? - Injunctions are for Parents, not daycarers... and often for fathers!
* Should I be gay or straight? - Straight. But if you know any gays, you'll know it's all they can do to be celebate in practice. The change of mind (ie repentence = changing the mind, renewing the mind) that is needed for gay people, as for all compulsive sinners, is about recovery, and only the HS can bring it.
* Should I stay married or can I get a divorce? - The concession about divorce is because of sin. Sin causes divorce.
* If divorced can I get remarried? - Depends on who's sin caused the divorce. If you've walked out, remarrying is sin upon sin.
* And the list continues ad nauseum.
As for your good 23 points. Yes to all!!!
One qualification, though.
Point 4: "4. Will you accept the responsibility of headship and leadership of
your wife and children (Colossians 3:18-21)?" Those verses talk about "loving" your wives. "Not harshly." Headship isnt even mentioned there. And this is the guts of my argumentative stand to you WW2.
- You overstate too much.
You need someone to push back, and make you listen to yourself. Listen, I dont disagree that boys masquerading as men should grow up. There're too many boys in the pews. And too many effeminate, woosy songs & practices in the church. It makes me sick. (We dont do that stuff in our meetings.)
But if you start a movement given to exaggeration, it's a matter of nanoseconds before you're into heresy. What I wonder is;
now that I have to sign off and go camping for a few weeks,
who will be that resistance for you?
- How will you ensure you dont trade true manliness for machismo?
- And who among you is going to safeguard the movement against rednecks and bullying?
- Who will argue for manly gentleness, patience and kindness. (Yes those words of the most excellent way from 1Cor13. And if it makes me pussified to mention those words, then remember, those words are not original to me.)
- Will you teach the full paradox of manliness, or will you settle for half-truths?I hope I'm wrong about my guess.
| posted 01-06-2001 12:20 PM |
I hope you all get to where God is taking you with this. But remember to keep it Gods will and not our own agenda. In the end I hope to see all in Heaven.
| posted 01-06-2001 04:53 PM |
quote:Don't be afraid of a little nastiness in theological debate, Ben. This is all they did in the early days of the reformation. Fun to watch, no?
| posted 01-06-2001 05:37 PM |
How can you tell if a man does not really read his bible or does not believe what he reads in it as Paul instructs us to in Romans 3:4(Let God be true and every man a liar)?Answer:
He keeps spewing out a bunch of crappy W.W.J.D. theology. Cell me' did you trade you bible in for a bracelet that says W.W.J.D.? Lets take a look into your mind for a second shall we? Everybody ready? We are gonna take a trip into Cell'me's head.*** Man is it good to be me. i think i'll go to check out the midrash so i can show everybody my cool postmodern god... what the hell? looks a bunch of those god-damned calvinist are talking about their rapist God! Doesn't it say over and over again in the bible that God loves us? And since my (and this present ages') understanding of love is sacrificing so that others can feel better and enjoy themselves more, I better show them my kinder gentler god. The way my god demostrates his love is this: in some crazy miraculous paradox god has given me free will by limiting his own and there by made me feel better and enjoy myself more. What is all this sin and wrath God that those calvinists are always talking about? What does that have to do with the gospel of love? (Romans 5:8 -But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners Christ died for us).
I want to make people listen to me. I know everybody really respects that jesus guy so if i talk about him who is gonna argue with me. damn! who the hell is Jesus? I suppose i could just make up my own jesus but i'd have to know something about the real guy. come on brain lets think, who is jesus, who is jesus. oh yeah! he is that guy who was always loving everybody! it also says somewhere in the bible that love is like the most import thing and everybody knows that too. i got these guys now. ***Cell me: if you ever come around my family (Marshill) with your "non-judgemental" gospel, I will personally anathmatize your ass. Galatians 1:8,9.
| posted 01-06-2001 06:54 PM |
that's ridiculous, ReformUrAss.
| posted 01-06-2001 07:58 PM |
you make a good point shaun.I should just leave cell me alone.
I already made my point loud and clear the first time that he is giving a bad gospel.I was happy when he was shut up a long time ago, but now since somebody else feels its their appointed duty to be the voice of contention in this string it has given him a renewed courage to run off at the mouth again.This does not mean i am not serious about everything i said. I mean by anathmatize that i will fight against his gospel to my death.
|William Wallace II|
| posted 01-06-2001 07:58 PM |
Man, are you serious? You want to argue against headship, and then argue that you should be mine. You are funny in a sad way. If you know me, and I think I know you, then you know I am under more authority than you, with more stronger men in my life, am a loving husband, good father, and tight theologian. And, you know my case is stronger and only a completely pussified man with a guilty conscience beaten by a bad liberal theological education would prevent you from changing teams. You are simply wrong and all your bantering has given me a headache because the arguments are shitty.
All godly women were illiterate - even good businesswomen like Lydia? Come on. Even someone who's illiterate can be an elder, it is not one of the qualifications. My buddies in Haiti have an 80% illiterate congregation and some illiterate elders and they are very good men. I Corinthians 11 is not about hairstyles, hairstyles were a form of showing that men who profess Christ should not appear as gay or women - you're way off since the context is propriety in worship and that was a very very very sloppy answer. What Paul's saying to Timothy is in direct relation to the local church and you do know what it says, you just don't like it. And that is the problem with pussified men. They claim paradox and mystery not on the unclear things, but instead on the clear things that they don't like. The text on deacons goes on to say "in the same way their wives" I Timothy 3 which seems to indicate that maybe the wives were also deacons serving with their husbands. There is no similar injunction for elders. You can do as you please. You may want to read Biblical Eldership by Alexander Strauch as an attempt to sort out a very confused ecclesiology. If you are an elder then you should also have other elders to study with and come to some sense of clarity. Lastly, I have been wrong on nothing. Occasionally I am, but on the issue of church government it's rare. [This message has been edited by William Wallace II (edited 01-06-2001).][This message has been edited by William Wallace II (edited 01-06-2001).][This message has been edited by William Wallace II (edited 01-06-2001).]
|William Wallace II|
| posted 01-06-2001 08:42 PM |
So now that we have completely put all of you to sleep, let's clarify. Why is church government so important? Because if your church is screwed up it's a good bet the families and people in it are as well and there's no way to correct things as they slide. Basically, you've got three options.One, senior pastor. In this church one guy is head cheese and rules over everything. This is a good way to start a harem and/or a cult. If you are in a church like this you have a pastor with no peers, no accountability and the odds are that at some point he'll end up knocking boots with his secretary and not paying her overtime for it. Two, congregational rule. In this form everyone who breathes gets to vote on things and God's will is treated like a democratic election. And, we all know how well those go. It's like a family where the two year olds vote cancels out the fathers. It's insane. If you go to a church like this you will never accomplish anything and business meetings will be very very painful and filled with people who don't do anything but do like to talk a lot (it's a lot like phone sex in this way). Three, elder governed wherein a team of men qualified for the office rule with authority over the church in such matters as doctrine and discipline to teach and lead the church. The men live in mutual submission and that model is to be carried down so that everyone in the church is under authority and in accountable community, including everyone to Christ, husbands to elders, wives to husbands, and children to parents. This system is not guarantee that things will be perfect, but at least there's a way to efficiently deal with them should someone screw up your church. The elders should all be men who meet biblical criteria, and there wives should be godly and their children obedient. They should serve together in ministry as a family with hospitality and lives devoted to the work of the gospel. Why is all this important? In the first two models church discipline is rarely if every done because their is no accountability for anyone. Therefore, the men and women run wild screwing up the work of the gospel, wrecking marriages, and destroying families. Without strong authority hierarchy you've got a case where everyone does right in their own eyes. So, if you are in one of the first two churches you should make a stink. If things don't change, you are in a jacked church. And, if you've got women elders then the message to every woman in the church is that women need not submit to men's authority, and the men will respond by either being pussified or not doing a damn thing, and hell will start to look like a very nice place in comparison to your church.
|William Wallace II|
| posted 01-06-2001 08:45 PM |
Cell'me, you used to bug me like jock itch, praise music, and minivans. But, I've grown to love you. You are great. You are so insane that you make me look normal. For that, I am grateful. Sincerely. From my heart.
|William Wallace II|
| posted 01-06-2001 09:01 PM |
I love to fight. It's good to fight. Fighting is what we used to do before we all became pussified. Fighting is a lost art form. Fighting is cheaper than medication and more effective than counseling. Fighting always wins over compromise. Fighting is what passionate people do instead of killing. So log on, fight away. And if you are reading this and talking to yourself log on you coward and get in the ring.
| posted 01-06-2001 10:59 PM |
Skewter- right on man, i kind of wish it was like the old days that way i wouldn't have to go out to some lame gym with mirrors on every wall to keep my body looking like it should. Do I know you?Elder-Bob- Yo man if your still around here somewhere, and if you actually exist i'm sorry your in leadership. And stay away from the West Wing it has obviously contaminated your mind with that sickning interpretation of what the old testemant law was all about.more to come..
| posted 01-06-2001 11:54 PM |
Wallace,Thanks for the shout out. No coward am I. I've been tuned in from the start and have wrestled with your presentation of this topic almost as much as I've struggled with the reality you are, in fact, someone I have listened to and respected from a distance in the past. Perhaps that is why I have refrained from going "toe-to-toe" with you in some kind of Scriptural, theologized game of chicken. I believe you'd whomp me. However, this does not mean I am without fight.I have been exposed to and sickened by liberal theology at its finest. At the Lutheran seminary I attended, two women lectured on their book regarding "divine child-abuse". Essentially arguing that God abused Jesus by sending Him to the cross against His will. What a crock. The liberal agenda is sending many mainline, protestant churches running for cover. I see it and it pisses me off.However, I also am repulsed by "over-the-top, 'I'm always right', let me argue Scripture piece-meal rather than in total about non-salvation dependent issues" church folk. The lather far too often far exceeds the scope of the Gospel. Some of the caustic responses on the bb have been wholly without regard for any sense of restraint.Responses from the likes of Bryan, skewter, ReformUrAss and yourself have regularly lacked any congruity with Christian accountability. Tough love? Bring it. Half-men shouting at the top of their lungs about ONE character of God because they are pissed off? Forget it.Reform,
One more time for the thick - God does not abdicate His right or His ability to be judicial and wrathful. But He is not simply that. If you think God his, for eternity, sitting rage-filled and vengeful, then you are a sorry man indeed. Read your own theme verse - "while we were yet sinners" - God's holiness and sense of justice demands our damnation. So what does he do instead? He reconciles us to Himself and makes us righteous. According to you, we should all (including your sorry self) be barbecued, and yet, God chose another way.Finally, a God who does not judge, cannot save. God makes judgements all the time. He judges sin (yours and mine), he judges life and death, he judges the hearts and minds of each of us. Not you. Keep your mind-trips to yourself - they smack of incessant narcissism.
| posted 01-07-2001 03:21 AM |
cell'me, man -i would caution you guys to stay away from the urge to simplify this discussion. this is not about choosing teams and taking sides.this is about an issue that has been on the hearts of myself, members of my family, my friends, and many others obviously, if the amount of messages in this forum are any indication. gender roles, and especially the roles of men, are being softened at the edges. vital components of are being eaten away. we can all agree that this is true.wallace hapenned to be the one that posted a message about this phenomenon. it struck a chord with a lot of people. this is how God works. who cares if wallace makes a few social mistakes? the point is still clear. you two seem to be arguing with wallace the person instead of taking the time to think about what the point of this discussion might be. what's the significance of the fact that this is the most popular thread on this board? the pussification of men is a real problem, obviously!honestly, i think your aguments are frivolous and tangential, and what's worse, you're preventing this discussion from moving forward and reaching the stage where it could be come a physical reality instead of just a discussion. i think it's awful. every time i run across one of your posts, i'm more infuriated by your amazing ability to miss the point. what do you hope to accomplish?i understand the need for balance, and the need to consider all facets of the personality of God, but sometimes one needs to manifest itself for a while for something to get done. Sometimes a war is needed, that doesn't mean God doesn't love peace! Sometimes loud voices are needed, that doesn't mean God isn't gentle, kind. That is just not the point right now. We're not addressing the issue of sensitivity or emotional maturity in men right now. Amazingly, our own culture is stuffing plenty of that down our throats, at the expense of everything else. I know you both mean well, but please, save your arguments for later. Let's have some unity. Let's figure out how to do somethig real, together, as Godly men.
| posted 01-07-2001 01:31 PM |
skewter,Thanks for the even-handed, clearly made point minus any personal attack while cloaked in cyber-induced anonymity. I appreciate you taking the time to say, "good points, now let's move on." Too often, others have decided the best defense of the Gospel is to label eveyone in opposition to a particular position as something less than human. And that, more than anything else, has smacked of everything wrong about young, angry men struggling with mis-directed violence.I will say this though, how tangential is the issue of "church government"? This seems fairly peripheral to me in matters of personal spiritual development. For example, the point Wallace made earlier was that pussified men take no responsibility for their own sinfulness and abdication of headship in the home and/or church. Then he posits the notion that proper church government will somehow prevent this. Why? If the responsibility is ultimately mine then why should I be given the ready-made excuse that the church has failed me because of poor church government? "Oh my, the senior pastor had an affair. I'm having a crisis of faith and now I'm having an an adulterous affair, too." What kind of jack point is that. The governance of the local church should matter very little in the personal, devotional and worship life of the individual. If it matters too much, the issue belies a far greater spiritual battle than whether or not my Sr. Pastor is a solitary sinner or my elders are a larger collection of sinners.Bottom line, no "system" is going to guarantee that sin and corruption and abuse is going to be eradicated. It simply comes packaged differently. The Roman Catholic church has always had a high regard for ecclesiastical order and structure and their history is frought with abuse and disorder. Today the mormons are as concerned with church government as any other faith group and yet who in the Christian community would applaud their understanding about how the local church should function? No one - because their whacked theology effectively renders their standing in the Christian community as irrelevant.So, how does the issue of church government relate to being de-pussified when the fact of the matter is the pussified men come out of and are in every type of church in existence - including yours and mine. The reality is the church as a system or an institution is not meant to function in this way, but brothers and sisters in Christ - the body of Christ - by the Holy Spirit should be about the de-pussification of one another. And it can happen without all the crap flying around this bb as you (and even Wallace at times) have shown with your more reasoned responses.Anyway, I see and agree with your latest post and so let me pull back some for now.
| posted 01-07-2001 02:02 PM |
WWII: "This system is not guarantee that things will be perfect, but at least there's a way to efficiently deal with them should someone screw up your church."Cell'Me: "Bottom line, no "system" is going to guarantee that sin and corruption and abuse is going to be eradicated."Pay attention to the conversation, Cell'Me. You're arguing blindly and making a fool of yourself in the meantime.
| posted 01-07-2001 05:59 PM |
Where do does this dogmatic attitude that people are always supposed to talk to each other in some victorian, you have your opinion i have mine, edicit? Words like "even-handed" are automatically virtues and nobody can make somebody else uncomfortable or convicted by confronting them. People suggest that this is not speaking in "love". Why dont we pray that God creates all boys born from here on with breasts and a mentral cycle? We could pray he floods the earth and starts over again with Oprah and the cast from the Today show.
I will tell you where this dogmatic attitude comes from - The Seclorum/The world/This present age. And from the god of this world - the father of lies/the deciever/the one who appears as a angel of lightread John chapter 8 and tell me that Jesus is not fighting with the Pharisees. He throws mud, mocks, ridcules, is yelling, and if you ask me he is pretty stinking funny too. hey did anybody see how fast cellme shot out of here? What was the last thing he said, "Well I am starting to feel pretty stupid now so I guess you all wont hear from me for a while." I have heard this before but all the sudden you thought you had some theology or something and piped up again.Were did ja go boy? I know you hidin out there? You was quick to step like you had something but then you high tailed it outta here so fast that you left your panties behind. You really should have not left that last post, man, you really came off like a real idiot. I'd quote some of the crap you spewed up but i dont got time. Go ask your pastor if she will give you a bible.
|William Wallace II|
| posted 01-07-2001 09:28 PM |
The first thing a manly man learns about his salvation is that he now belongs to God and exists for God's glory and that his life is to be poured out for his church family, immediate family, and overall cause of the gospel. He, therefore, does not have some ridiculous "personal relationship" with Jesus but instead is a part of a larger system called a church in which if one part suffers their lives are so intersected that they all suffer. The church is there to discipline, teach, encourage and admonish the men to be like Christ and die to their own interests and agendas and lovingly serve and lead others for God's glory and their joy. Therefore it is imperative that the right men lead this army of soldiers with clear directives ultimately given them from the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Without such good headship in the church the men who are teachable will grow weary and discouraged as they flounder alone, and the sinful rebels will run free and use their authority to take advantage of women and the church to their own gain. If you cannot see how the church relates to your "personal" salvation I would encourage you to remember that the Bible is written to communities (the nation of Israel and the churches) and the times that it is written to individuals (i.e. Timothy and Titus) is solely to build them up so that they can find good men and build them up for the benefit of all the churches.
| posted 01-07-2001 10:34 PM |
Wallace,I see the connection b/w my personal salvation and the church very well. However, you yourself begin at the same place I do. To quote you, WW2:"The first thing a manly man learns about HIS salvation is that he now belongs to God and exists for God's glory and that his life is to be poured out for his church family, immediate family, and overall cause of the gospel."Even you recognize the fact that God begins his work in the individual first. Without individuals coming together, there is no church. A church plant doesn't typically (save for Acts) spring up over night with 100, 500, 1000+ people. It is God calling his people and gathering them together through the believers set apart for His work.Genesis tells us that God did not create a massive race of people all once, but first Adam and then Eve. From the few to the many. Yes, the Bible is written to communities of faith - and they are all, first and foremost, made up of individuals. Don't obliterate the individual in the race to build some massive commune along the lines of the Bagwhan Shree Rajhsneeshee (sp?) camp in Oregon back in the 80's. God began with the conversion of Saul to Paul before He ever sent Paul to the masses.Reform:My reading of John is not as superficial or myopic as your own. I accept everything you propose of Jesus from John's Gospel. But let's not stop there. John also shows Jesus receiving Nicodemus in the night to answer honest questions of faith. Other Gospel accounts tell us of Jesus gathering with sinners and tax collectors and inviting himself into their homes (Zacchaeus) to share the Truth with them. Jesus reserved his heat/anger for the religiously self-righteous who claimed authority, in the same way you do, when they had none. For those honestly, humbly seeking His face, His Truth, he guided them in the paths of righteousness - some times gently, some times forcefully and always in love. For the over-inflated, mouthy punks who masked their true motives (i.e., control, power, etc.) behind religosity He gave them a taste of God's contempt.As for my absence: don't worry about my comings and goings. It is obvious you care primarily for yourself and your need to be right.
| posted 01-08-2001 02:40 AM |
is there much in the Bible about church government outside of Paul's writings? ...like any of the other original apostles, or Jesus?
admittedly, this is tangential. i'm hoping context will bring some light to certain issues.