I have not said anything till now, being leary of Proverbs 26:4. But having heard DW's analogy what seems like a thousand times, I will only say that I find it personally vicious, pernicious, and malicious. I find her continuous use of it obtuse, and careless of the feelings of others. I find it interesting how she conveniently refuses to answer Doug's question, though she has no trouble answering every other concern, including manufacturing her own sidebars.
She may feel like she is riding the back of the bus, but the church is not a bus, it is not a club, it is not a golf course, and no one has rights to tee times at classis. If she wants to join a golf club instead of a church, she should do so. If she wants to sit at the front of the local bus instead of participating in a church, she should do so.
If her analogy was valid, then she should make that argument to the apostle Paul who asked women to be silent in the church and did not ask men to be silent in the church. She should make that argument to Christ who selected 12 male apostles. She should make that argument to the early church who selected seven men of good repute to be assistants (some call them deacons). She should accuse God of hurting her feelings because the twelve tribes of Israel were based on the sons not daughters of Israel. If the analogy works in one direction, then it should also work in reverse. She implies that because God chose twelve male apostles, He would not golf with blacks in heaven. She implies that because God chose only males to be the heads of the twelve tribes of Isreal, that He would put women at the back of the bus in heaven.
Her comments, and her inability to listen, and her fixation on her own feelings at the expense of scripture, at the expense of recognizing that God and Christ have themselves directly done what would offend her, makes me wonder about a very relevant analogy regarding the women whom Paul told to be silent in the churches, and not to have authority over men.
I feel that she would want christians who treat scripture sincerely and literally, to not only sit at the back of the bus, but to get off the bus and walk. I feel she would want christians who treat scripture sincerely and literally to get off the golf course. I feel she would have been very unhappy with Jesus, if she had met him after he had chosen the twelve apostles. I feel that if you do not follow society in its norms and "rights", that she would want you to leave, to get out of the way. I am sorry that I have to feel that way, but I do.
I have no questions for her, since I believe it would be a miracle for her to make an answer that she has not already made a thousand times before. Further, I am not even slightly interested in an answer that merely puts social pressure on christians to follow social norms, rather than scriptural precedents.
Paul, I believe you are right about how the flood is often perceived, but scripture as you said, does give us a different indication. To me, the flood indicates God's right to judge, and our inability to withstand judgement, outside of the simple grace of God. It is God's right, and our total lack of rights, when it comes to our relationship with God. It is not about just being bad or good. It is about being obedient or disobedient. It is about pride vs righteousness; self vs humility.
It's also about God planning our rescue (100 years of ark building). Thousands of years of messiah promise. Thousands of years of missionaries. Praise the Lord!!!!
Paul, I appreciate your comments. They are true. My personal perspective related to this is: we are presently going through a provincial election which makes media presentation and sound bites virtually the most important impact on the outcome of the election. We do not need would be politicians with their sound bites trying to control a discussion about women at classis, nor about the Belhar, nor about any other issue, within the church setting. We need sincere, considerate discussion with sincere listening and respect for others. If we do not have this, then respect will be lost on all sides. And then no discussion will be possible.
Abuse is a serious issue. But it is a complicated issue. Especially it is complicated for Christians who desire to live their lives as examples of Christ. There are so many aspects to it, and yet it is often treated as if there is only one type of abuse, and there is only one reason for it. I know of a situation where a seven year old girl was constantly hitting her father. It was her automatic reaction to any teasing or jokes or even innocent comments. She hit him hard on the arm at meal times, and he just took it and said nothing about it, once in awhile making some empty threats which did not slow her down at all. The father had been abused also by her mother, although they had been separated and divorced since shortly after the girl's birth. But he took the abuse from his young daughter as almost a sign of affection. Of course, she was getting older, and her hitting was beginning to hurt, and it was pretty constant, maybe twenty times at a meal. Because someone told her to stop doing this, and also told him to stop allowing it (he was a single father), it did stop. But without someone intervening, she was being inadvertently taught to be abusive.
Often an abuser has caught this disease from his or her parents. Or has not been innoculated against it by his parents or by his community.
I know of another situation where a woman accused her husband of abuse. But I also know that the woman herself was also rather "rough". Eventually they permanently separated. And another situation where a woman was threatened by her husband. She perceived a high risk to her children and herself. Based on counselling (not christian counselling), she was advised to not even talk to the man anymore. Of course there are more details which I won't go into. But the problem for me is how we deal with these situations as Christians. It is simpler if we are not christians. Well, the guy or the woman is not nice; he's mean and rough; we'll just separate and find someone better. Simple. Done.
Is this also then the answer for Christians? For Christians who promised for "better or for worse"? Till death do us part? In sickness or in health? What distinguishes our lives and our approach as Christians to this issue?
John H would you permit me to make a small comment? I agree with many of your points, including that God grieved. Some would say that is mere anthropomorphism applied to God, but I believe God did grieve, as scripture says. However, I'm not sure that we can say or imply that it was the flood that moved God or changed God's heart. I have always been under the understanding that God had planned the Messiah at the time of the garden of Eden already. And that is the reason He saved Noah out of the flood. The flood demonstrates the type of punishment we do deserve, and magnifies the deliverance of Christ. God apparently decided not to ever cause a universal flood again in response to Noah's sacrifice made to God. (Gen 8:20) It is a reassuring sign of God's response to our prayers of praise and adoration and supplication.
And yes, as you say, praise be to our compassionate God!
Antonio, there are no contradictions in what Paul is saying, no more than in how Jesus treated people. If you understand what he is saying. Jesus selected twelve men (only men) as his special disciples, and as his apostles. They played a different role than the children who sat on his knee, and different than the roles of Mary, Martha, Mary Magdalene, Joanna and the other women who followed him. But Paul is saying that all of these people are just as important to Jesus. Just because someone is an apostle, does not ultimately make him more important than the child or the woman or the non-apostle or the non-deacon. From our earthly perspective, we always want to think that someone with more authority is more important than someone who has less authority. This is a very earthly perspective, very worldly. Only Christ himself is more important. Everyone else is equally valuable to God; God does not give more worth to the high priest in the temple than to the boy who brought the two fish and five loaves to Jesus.
The centurion, a non-Jew who had a sick servant had more faith than all the Israelites who were supposedly special, said Jesus. The samaritan woman who begged for scraps from the table(for her son to be healed) was treated with the same love of Christ that the woman at the well received, or the woman whose son had died, or Mary and Martha who lost Lazarus, or Peter when he repented of his denial of Christ.
Do not confuse authority or roles, with importance in the eyes of our Lord. Then you will understand those verses better.
Just one example of this type of interaction, is for churches who do services for seniors residences or nursing homes, to have young children come and sing songs or play instruments at those services. For the young kids, it builds an understanding of age, of infirmity, of the blessing of helping and service. And the older people generally really like to see the young kids; it brightens their day and gives them hope for the future too. Kids from age 6 to 12 generally like to do it, and when they are used to it, they will also participate at an older age.
In our church, we have aboriginal members: three children. Also we have one adult who has some american aboriginal ancestry. We welcome them all. The three children are adopted by different families. They are open adoptions so friendly relationships with bio-parents are maintained. In one case, relationships with bio-grandparents and aunts are also continued.
I think it is much more important for youth to be involved in their church, rather than in the denomination. If they see the church as living, believing, trusting, honest, and trustworthy, then they might see the church as an example of what the denomination is like. Their involvement in the church ought to include an understanding of where the church came from, what it believes, why it holds to its confessions, how the confessions influence the faith life of worship and the daily life of its members. While change in the church is evidence that the church is listening and compassionate and caring and relevant, it also highlights the possiblity of larger changes. For example, if lots of small changes are constantly possible within a church, then a young adult would begin to think that larger changes are not so dramatic or significant, one of those larger changes being membership in a church of another denomination. Being able to distinguish between insignificant small changes, and significant confessional changes, is something that would be important to youth. It would be something that provides a reason for youth to attach to and be loyal to their church, which they might then extend to the denomination because of its common confession.
A few youth might place a lot of significance in the denomination, and want to participate in denominational discussions. But most youth are looking for a hands on relationship with people who can live the gospel, and confess their faith. They are often at the stage of learning how Christ is lord of their life, not at looking at the intracacies of denominational policy discussions. They are usually looking for leadership, not wanting to be leaders, even though they may challenge assumptions and leaders from time to time.
"Youth" is also much too broad a term to be able to get at the essence of this. Youth encompasses people from age 10 to age 18, and there are dramatic differences in how they look at life, and what kind of things they want to get involved in. These changes and differences even carry on into the young adult category, from age 18 to 25 or so. There is no blanket age category that covers all scenarios. Those who might want to get involved in denominational issues and structures would be a very small minority.
I agree with Paul that the costs of youth delegates, as well as their assumed significance would suggest that there are better ways to get their input. What makes their input more significant than the input of all those others who have never been elders or deacons or classical or synodical delegates? And which group of youth? Young marrieds? twelve year olds? college kids? farm kids? unmarried twenty-somethings? homeschooled graduates? Youth are only united by age, and are as diverse as the families they come from. Anyway, things to think about.
Recently, I have become aware of Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll. What I found interesting was: 1. They have grown as a church from about 60 members to over 5,000 members (and 15,000 weekly attendance) in about 16 years. 2. They focus much of their effort as a primary ministry, towards abused women and single mothers. (His "Real Marriage" course and book is an example.) 3. His wife assists in prayers and advice in the Real Marriage sermon series. 4. Their target audience is people between the ages of 17-34. 5. They have about 100,000 downloads of sermons and seminars every week. 6. They are intentionally "complementarian" in church and family .
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
I have not said anything till now, being leary of Proverbs 26:4. But having heard DW's analogy what seems like a thousand times, I will only say that I find it personally vicious, pernicious, and malicious. I find her continuous use of it obtuse, and careless of the feelings of others. I find it interesting how she conveniently refuses to answer Doug's question, though she has no trouble answering every other concern, including manufacturing her own sidebars.
She may feel like she is riding the back of the bus, but the church is not a bus, it is not a club, it is not a golf course, and no one has rights to tee times at classis. If she wants to join a golf club instead of a church, she should do so. If she wants to sit at the front of the local bus instead of participating in a church, she should do so.
If her analogy was valid, then she should make that argument to the apostle Paul who asked women to be silent in the church and did not ask men to be silent in the church. She should make that argument to Christ who selected 12 male apostles. She should make that argument to the early church who selected seven men of good repute to be assistants (some call them deacons). She should accuse God of hurting her feelings because the twelve tribes of Israel were based on the sons not daughters of Israel. If the analogy works in one direction, then it should also work in reverse. She implies that because God chose twelve male apostles, He would not golf with blacks in heaven. She implies that because God chose only males to be the heads of the twelve tribes of Isreal, that He would put women at the back of the bus in heaven.
Her comments, and her inability to listen, and her fixation on her own feelings at the expense of scripture, at the expense of recognizing that God and Christ have themselves directly done what would offend her, makes me wonder about a very relevant analogy regarding the women whom Paul told to be silent in the churches, and not to have authority over men.
I feel that she would want christians who treat scripture sincerely and literally, to not only sit at the back of the bus, but to get off the bus and walk. I feel she would want christians who treat scripture sincerely and literally to get off the golf course. I feel she would have been very unhappy with Jesus, if she had met him after he had chosen the twelve apostles. I feel that if you do not follow society in its norms and "rights", that she would want you to leave, to get out of the way. I am sorry that I have to feel that way, but I do.
I have no questions for her, since I believe it would be a miracle for her to make an answer that she has not already made a thousand times before. Further, I am not even slightly interested in an answer that merely puts social pressure on christians to follow social norms, rather than scriptural precedents.
Posted in: The Genesis Flood and the Gospel Narrative
Paul, I believe you are right about how the flood is often perceived, but scripture as you said, does give us a different indication. To me, the flood indicates God's right to judge, and our inability to withstand judgement, outside of the simple grace of God. It is God's right, and our total lack of rights, when it comes to our relationship with God. It is not about just being bad or good. It is about being obedient or disobedient. It is about pride vs righteousness; self vs humility.
It's also about God planning our rescue (100 years of ark building). Thousands of years of messiah promise. Thousands of years of missionaries. Praise the Lord!!!!
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Paul, I appreciate your comments. They are true. My personal perspective related to this is: we are presently going through a provincial election which makes media presentation and sound bites virtually the most important impact on the outcome of the election. We do not need would be politicians with their sound bites trying to control a discussion about women at classis, nor about the Belhar, nor about any other issue, within the church setting. We need sincere, considerate discussion with sincere listening and respect for others. If we do not have this, then respect will be lost on all sides. And then no discussion will be possible.
Posted in: Helping Pastors Respond to Domestic Abuse
Abuse is a serious issue. But it is a complicated issue. Especially it is complicated for Christians who desire to live their lives as examples of Christ. There are so many aspects to it, and yet it is often treated as if there is only one type of abuse, and there is only one reason for it. I know of a situation where a seven year old girl was constantly hitting her father. It was her automatic reaction to any teasing or jokes or even innocent comments. She hit him hard on the arm at meal times, and he just took it and said nothing about it, once in awhile making some empty threats which did not slow her down at all. The father had been abused also by her mother, although they had been separated and divorced since shortly after the girl's birth. But he took the abuse from his young daughter as almost a sign of affection. Of course, she was getting older, and her hitting was beginning to hurt, and it was pretty constant, maybe twenty times at a meal. Because someone told her to stop doing this, and also told him to stop allowing it (he was a single father), it did stop. But without someone intervening, she was being inadvertently taught to be abusive.
Often an abuser has caught this disease from his or her parents. Or has not been innoculated against it by his parents or by his community.
I know of another situation where a woman accused her husband of abuse. But I also know that the woman herself was also rather "rough". Eventually they permanently separated. And another situation where a woman was threatened by her husband. She perceived a high risk to her children and herself. Based on counselling (not christian counselling), she was advised to not even talk to the man anymore. Of course there are more details which I won't go into. But the problem for me is how we deal with these situations as Christians. It is simpler if we are not christians. Well, the guy or the woman is not nice; he's mean and rough; we'll just separate and find someone better. Simple. Done.
Is this also then the answer for Christians? For Christians who promised for "better or for worse"? Till death do us part? In sickness or in health? What distinguishes our lives and our approach as Christians to this issue?
Posted in: Promises Made in Baptism
Verry good question, Laura.
Posted in: The Genesis Flood and the Gospel Narrative
John H would you permit me to make a small comment? I agree with many of your points, including that God grieved. Some would say that is mere anthropomorphism applied to God, but I believe God did grieve, as scripture says. However, I'm not sure that we can say or imply that it was the flood that moved God or changed God's heart. I have always been under the understanding that God had planned the Messiah at the time of the garden of Eden already. And that is the reason He saved Noah out of the flood. The flood demonstrates the type of punishment we do deserve, and magnifies the deliverance of Christ. God apparently decided not to ever cause a universal flood again in response to Noah's sacrifice made to God. (Gen 8:20) It is a reassuring sign of God's response to our prayers of praise and adoration and supplication.
And yes, as you say, praise be to our compassionate God!
Posted in: Introducing Your New Elder Guide
Welcome!
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Antonio, there are no contradictions in what Paul is saying, no more than in how Jesus treated people. If you understand what he is saying. Jesus selected twelve men (only men) as his special disciples, and as his apostles. They played a different role than the children who sat on his knee, and different than the roles of Mary, Martha, Mary Magdalene, Joanna and the other women who followed him. But Paul is saying that all of these people are just as important to Jesus. Just because someone is an apostle, does not ultimately make him more important than the child or the woman or the non-apostle or the non-deacon. From our earthly perspective, we always want to think that someone with more authority is more important than someone who has less authority. This is a very earthly perspective, very worldly. Only Christ himself is more important. Everyone else is equally valuable to God; God does not give more worth to the high priest in the temple than to the boy who brought the two fish and five loaves to Jesus.
The centurion, a non-Jew who had a sick servant had more faith than all the Israelites who were supposedly special, said Jesus. The samaritan woman who begged for scraps from the table(for her son to be healed) was treated with the same love of Christ that the woman at the well received, or the woman whose son had died, or Mary and Martha who lost Lazarus, or Peter when he repented of his denial of Christ.
Do not confuse authority or roles, with importance in the eyes of our Lord. Then you will understand those verses better.
Posted in: Breaking Down Silos
Just one example of this type of interaction, is for churches who do services for seniors residences or nursing homes, to have young children come and sing songs or play instruments at those services. For the young kids, it builds an understanding of age, of infirmity, of the blessing of helping and service. And the older people generally really like to see the young kids; it brightens their day and gives them hope for the future too. Kids from age 6 to 12 generally like to do it, and when they are used to it, they will also participate at an older age.
Posted in: Truth And Reconciliation
In our church, we have aboriginal members: three children. Also we have one adult who has some american aboriginal ancestry. We welcome them all. The three children are adopted by different families. They are open adoptions so friendly relationships with bio-parents are maintained. In one case, relationships with bio-grandparents and aunts are also continued.
Posted in: How Do We Get Youth Interested in Our Denominations?
I think it is much more important for youth to be involved in their church, rather than in the denomination. If they see the church as living, believing, trusting, honest, and trustworthy, then they might see the church as an example of what the denomination is like. Their involvement in the church ought to include an understanding of where the church came from, what it believes, why it holds to its confessions, how the confessions influence the faith life of worship and the daily life of its members. While change in the church is evidence that the church is listening and compassionate and caring and relevant, it also highlights the possiblity of larger changes. For example, if lots of small changes are constantly possible within a church, then a young adult would begin to think that larger changes are not so dramatic or significant, one of those larger changes being membership in a church of another denomination. Being able to distinguish between insignificant small changes, and significant confessional changes, is something that would be important to youth. It would be something that provides a reason for youth to attach to and be loyal to their church, which they might then extend to the denomination because of its common confession.
A few youth might place a lot of significance in the denomination, and want to participate in denominational discussions. But most youth are looking for a hands on relationship with people who can live the gospel, and confess their faith. They are often at the stage of learning how Christ is lord of their life, not at looking at the intracacies of denominational policy discussions. They are usually looking for leadership, not wanting to be leaders, even though they may challenge assumptions and leaders from time to time.
"Youth" is also much too broad a term to be able to get at the essence of this. Youth encompasses people from age 10 to age 18, and there are dramatic differences in how they look at life, and what kind of things they want to get involved in. These changes and differences even carry on into the young adult category, from age 18 to 25 or so. There is no blanket age category that covers all scenarios. Those who might want to get involved in denominational issues and structures would be a very small minority.
I agree with Paul that the costs of youth delegates, as well as their assumed significance would suggest that there are better ways to get their input. What makes their input more significant than the input of all those others who have never been elders or deacons or classical or synodical delegates? And which group of youth? Young marrieds? twelve year olds? college kids? farm kids? unmarried twenty-somethings? homeschooled graduates? Youth are only united by age, and are as diverse as the families they come from. Anyway, things to think about.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Recently, I have become aware of Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll. What I found interesting was: 1. They have grown as a church from about 60 members to over 5,000 members (and 15,000 weekly attendance) in about 16 years. 2. They focus much of their effort as a primary ministry, towards abused women and single mothers. (His "Real Marriage" course and book is an example.) 3. His wife assists in prayers and advice in the Real Marriage sermon series. 4. Their target audience is people between the ages of 17-34. 5. They have about 100,000 downloads of sermons and seminars every week. 6. They are intentionally "complementarian" in church and family .