Harry. No, my argument is that if we conclude "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor," it's got to be something other than what we've understood to be a reformed hermeneutical process that gets us to that conclusion.
Acts 6? The apostles choosing 'deacons' to pay more attention to providing for the widows of Hellenistic Jews? And you say these deacons were the complainers? And that the apostles appointed them as deacons because they were complainers?
OK, I'm back to recommending "Stuff White People Like." I'm persuaded that if Christian Landers did a "White CRC" version of his book, the Belhar and Accra Confessions would be high on the list of "things liked."
I would genuinely like to see a defense of the the assertion "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor," as would quite a few classical overture authors. Acceptanance of that doctrinal point, assuming it means what the words seem to me, would pretty dramatically and foundationally change the reformed tradition.
Harry: If you want to tell your kids and grandkids the story of faith as exhibited by some in the Dutch church, by all means, do that, along with tens or thousands of other stories of faith by good people deciding to do right throughout all of human history. Some of these stories are in Scripture, many (most) are not.
But why does the CRCNA have to adopt a confession for you to tell that story, especially when that confession includes assertions that of supposed "truths" that are in contradiction to Scripture? The adage, "hard cases can make bad law" applies here.
I'm still waiting for a defense of the statement, "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor." Abraham was pretty favored (preferred), yet not poor. Lot was pretty poor, yet not particularly favored (preferred).
Harry: You say "us guys" (the 'hooty ones') have "warned [you] of the dangers of liberation theology..." and have "suggested darkly that [your] hermeneutic may not be reformed."
I'm actually at a point bit farther. I intend to say this with respect, and I actually assume you already know (??), but your thinking, at least if it is accurately reflected in what you post, is liberation theology. Not at the fringe, not in danger of, but is. Why do I say that? Because the essence of liberation theology is viewing Scripture through an interpretive paradigm in which the assumed overriding and foundational theme of Scripture is the liberation of people from political/economic oppression and injustice. The political/economic aspect of life becomes absolutized (to use a Dooyeweerdian concept) and becomes a defining filter for all (or at least nearly all) interpretive/hermenutical activity.
Outside the church (and pre-existing "liberation theology" historically), Karl Marx developed (using a bit from Hegel but also in reaction to what he saw resulting from events during the early industrial revolution) a similar kind of perspective, that is, one that absolutized the political/economic aspect of life, and so was the definition filter for all truth. Marx was no friend of Christianity, however, describing religion as an opiate that just confuses and misleads. Thus, when the same sort of perspective took hold within the church (so-called "liberation theology," which began in the Roman Catholic tradition), it was also referred to as neo-Marxism (a new Marxism -- a "christianized marxism" ). My best example of modern day liberation theology/neo-Marxism is Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, whose revolution against the Somozan government in Nicaragua gained the support of those within the (RC) liberation theology tradition.
As a historical matter, when the liberation theology perspective filtered into protestant traditions, it more often went by (and goes by) the labels "social gospel" or "social justice."
I suspect you will chastise me for articulating this history but I do so because the Belhar isn't the only something here with a story/history behind it, and to encourage you to understand the broader perspective of those opposed to the Belhar. We are not opposed to the Belhar because it condemns racism. This one document (Belhar) says multiple things, but is being pushed as a whole package. Condemning racism is an easy thing to agree on, but the Belhar does much more than that, as is made a lot more clear by reading also the Accra Confession, which is big sister to the Belhar and useful in confirming the liberation theology (aka "social gospel", "social justice", neo-Marxist) perspective written into the Belhar.
Let me be clear about this too. I do not consider someone who is of a liberation theology perspective to necessarily not be a brother or sister in Christ, as severely as I might disagree with their perspective on how to read Scripture. I think one can be of a liberation theology perspective (or a neo-Marxist if you will) and still hold to the Apostles Creed type truths that mark one as essentially "Christian." But the question involved with regard to the adoption of the Belhar is much more than "can one hold to all the statements in the Belhar and still be a Christian?" The question is whether the CRCNA should adopt it, given the CRCNA's present and past hermeneutical/confessional perspective. Some might say the CRCNA should essentially jettison its historical perspective and buy fully into the liberation theology / social gospel / social justice / neo-Marxist narrative. That causes me to shiver and cringe, but some others to smile with genuine delight. And indeed, the CRCNA can be said to have done just that in some ways by choosing to affiliate/align itself with the WCRC (World Council of Reformed Churches), which is very clearly of that (liberation theology / social gospel / social justice / new-Marxist) perspective.
In a real way, the argument over the Belhar does represent an argument over whether the the CRCNA will depart of its fundamental, historic theological perspective and move to a new one. I think you want to move to that new perspective (given the contents of your posts), although I could be misreading you. I don't. Hopefully (in my mind at least), delegates to Synod will realize what they would be choosing if they were to adopt the Belhar. This isn't just a tweak on CRCNA perspective but a foundational shift. Again, examining the Accra and the WCRC helps to illuminate that.
Harry: I'll exegete Matt 25 when you first respond to my earlier (repeated) request of you, to defend your assertion that "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor."
Oh come on Harry -- that's too old and cheap of a strategy. In response to several people explicating serious assertions about a serious subject, you thow back some hyperbolic claims but refuse to defend them, then do a bit of attention redirection with a little Stephen Colbert styled mock routine, then demand that the other side of the argument be permantly on the defensive while at the same time refusing to offer a defense for your own hyperbolic claims. And then you claim victory without ever having to defend your own defenseless claims -- declaring that everyone who thinks differently from you is just "opposing the Belhar on this issue because of prejudice and not principle".
No, I still won't bite, but whenever you care to first defend your claim that "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor", I'll then exegete Matt 25 for you, even without the mock routine.
Dawn: I bit on answering your question -- would like an answer to mine.
As to your post immediately above, I feel like I'm watching re-runs. You say you don't to want to rehash women-in-office but yet you seem to rehash but from a different angle (get rid of classes because some won't seat women) so as not to be recognized as a rehash. And you make the racism analogy again, but without any further explanation to help anyone understand the point of your analogy (again, I bit on your question, would like an answer to mine).
I just don't think classis is a broken structure, unless of course you mean that we are all living broken lives, etc etc. My classes met no long ago and it "worked" (so, not broken). You simply disagree with some classes who won't seat women about not seating women, as if that is all there is to classis. Its hyperbolic to call it "broken." They won't seat me either -- still doesn't mean its broken.
Again, would like an answer to my question that is in my response post answering yours.
Dawn: OK, this is helpful to me understanding you. I'll agree that you ultimately have to decide for yourself how to "interpret behaviors of others," and if you personally equate the behavior of those in the CRC who take a view of women-in-office opposite of your own as equivalent to the racist country club who won't let black people play golf, then I guess you will feel as you do.
My response -- but already somewhat made -- is this: while you may choose to feel that way, the two scenarios are in fact, objectively viewed, not analogous. And if they are not analogous (even though you might feel as you do), then getting rid of classes as an authority structure would be something we would do only to alleviate your feeling of being back-seater. I'm not trying minimize your feelings, but suggest that ultimately, your feelings aren't necessarily a first priority, even if you do.
As to churches taking Paul literally, I'd caution about superficially analyzing them. Some churches do take Paul quite literally, even though they allow women to teach male children (as opposed to male adults). Again, I have my own interpretation for 1 Tim 2, which is that Paul was actually encouraging women (in a new testament time) to "learn" before taking on "teaching" or "having authority," and further suggesting by subsequent analogy that doing otherwise may cause them to make the same mistake Eve did, whose decision and act, before learning, brought ruin to herself, her husband, and all of humanity.
Still, I respect other interpretations because they are fair interpretations, certainly not outside our agreed way of reading Scripture. And that's the difference between taking a no-women-in-office-elder decision and denying black people the right to play golf. The former results from a fair interpretation of Scripture, the latter from a selfish inclination to exert arbitrary power and control. Still, if the former makes you feel just like the black person denied golf, who am I or anyone else to say you can't or don't feel that way. I might explicate the distinction (as I have done) in order to encourage you not to feel that way, but I don't control your feelings, nor those of others who may feel as you do.
BP: There certainly is "stubbornness and arrogance on both sides of the issue," as there was in Acts 15, which was cause for the Council of Jerusalem. In both cases -- Acts 15 and CRC decisions re women in office -- compromise decisions were made. Part two of the process was/is to accept the compromise decicsions made.
As for your specific case, you ask "Should our church struggle because we are not allowed to have women serve on Council?", but your church IS allowed to have women serve on Council? You need to talk to and about your church Council, not Classis.
Respectfully, Dawn, and again I mean that, the way you use use of analogies (at least on this subject) seems to me to be way of saying something quite nasty to someone but yet having deniability about having said that.
For example, I could suggest that you are like Hitler and Pol Pot in wanting to have every thing your way and not being willing to ever compromise until you get exactly what you want. There would actually be something true about that analogy (you do want to have your position prevail as to women-in-office in the CRC and you aren't willing to compromise on that), but the analogy would be absolutely unfair and irresponsible (and I'm not making that analogy, BTW), because the message others would hear from my using that analogy would be that you are like Hitler and Pol Pot.
In the same way, when you repeatedly liken those who oppose women-in-office in the CRC, you repeatedly, in their minds (or, perhaps more appropriately "in their feelings"), call them racists. Frankly, I'm not sure whether you are intending to to that or not (I can't know your intentions), but I can assure you that is the message that is received by most if not all of those whose conclusions on women-in-office in the CRC are different from yours. (I'm not of that position and that's why I hear). In other words, your repeating the racist analogy is received as repeated pokings with a very, very sharp stick, and will most likely be met, eventually, with pokings back with a very, very sharp stick.
You say, "The analogy of locking out blacks from tee times at a country club to locking out women from sitting and voting at classis meetings is a fair analogy." Perhaps, but only if one considers the point of the analogy to be your way of describing your feelings. But if the point of the analogy is to describe those who oppose women-in-office in the CRC, that analogy is clearly, clearly, unfair -- it amounts to taunting, accusatory name-calling.
John Zystra is quite correct when he asks whether you are willing to apply your racism analogy to our Lord for choosing twelve MALE disciples. As ill-informed and backward as you may believe those who opposed women-in-office are, they are quite literally and precisely following Christ's example here. Moreover, they specifically point to that example, not to mention the words and actions of the apostle Paul in support of their position. And yes, if there are traditions that hold to the practice of women wearing hats or not braiding hair (or not using electricity or combustion engines and living simple agrarian lives), I would respect them, which would mean, among other things, that I would refrain from repeatedly equating their thinking with racism.
And speaking of slavery (which is not equal to racism, BTW), God himself allowed the OT Israelites to sell themselves in bondage to others to pay debts. Yet, I'll refrain from accusing him, by analogy, of racism.
Dawn: Such superlatives. If the church is now, as you say, "stagnant and not move forward" because some classes do not permit the seating of women, then it follows that the church was stagnate for most of its existence, that the apostle Paul kept the church "stagnant" and from "mov[ing] forward," and, arguably, that Jesus himself, by his example in selecting disciples, kept the church "stagnant" and from "mov[ing] forward."
You make some good points Dawn, but so many, like this one, are expressed with such hyperbole (also the whole racist analogy) that the quality of the points made are lost. Worse, they foster division, a much greater concern to the biblical authors than the question of whether all organizational distinctions in the church between men and women should be obliterated.
I am not accusing anyone else of being like a racist for opposing women-in-office. However, if I remain a member of a church that tolerates opposition to women-in-office, then I am like a racist as long as I am unsuccessful in stamping out this toleration. But, understand I'm not saying those who oppose women-in-office are like racists, just myself for failing to eliminate these racist-like tolerations.
There is a point where I have to say, "ah come on."
As to the related point, I'd really like to hear your perspective as to Jesus' selection of twelve MALE disciples and Paul's decision to not let women teach or have authority over women. Given what I've heard from you on this discussion, I would think you would oppose Jesus and Paul in the decisions they made. I'm sure you don't, but would genuinely like to hear your explanation.
Dawn: I think I understand you point quite precisely. You wish to diminish the role of classis and create a new regional sort of structure in order to "go around" the problem (as you see it) created by some classis being unwilling to seat women.
Let me give you a suggestion. Don't try to dimish the role of classis. If you do, that will will be (accurately) perceived as trying to "silenc[e] hermeneutical opponents by eliminating denominational structure?" (You may recall this post -- was a good point actually).
And instead of diminishing the role of classis, begin some regional cooperative efforts that do constructive things (to "move the church forward" as you say). Don't want for some official body like synod or even classis/es to design it, or even OK it. Just do it -- sort of private-sector-entrepreneur-like. I could give you examples, but I think you probably have plenty of your own.
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Harry. No, my argument is that if we conclude "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor," it's got to be something other than what we've understood to be a reformed hermeneutical process that gets us to that conclusion.
Acts 6? The apostles choosing 'deacons' to pay more attention to providing for the widows of Hellenistic Jews? And you say these deacons were the complainers? And that the apostles appointed them as deacons because they were complainers?
OK, I'm back to recommending "Stuff White People Like." I'm persuaded that if Christian Landers did a "White CRC" version of his book, the Belhar and Accra Confessions would be high on the list of "things liked."
I would genuinely like to see a defense of the the assertion "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor," as would quite a few classical overture authors. Acceptanance of that doctrinal point, assuming it means what the words seem to me, would pretty dramatically and foundationally change the reformed tradition.
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Harry: If you want to tell your kids and grandkids the story of faith as exhibited by some in the Dutch church, by all means, do that, along with tens or thousands of other stories of faith by good people deciding to do right throughout all of human history. Some of these stories are in Scripture, many (most) are not.
But why does the CRCNA have to adopt a confession for you to tell that story, especially when that confession includes assertions that of supposed "truths" that are in contradiction to Scripture? The adage, "hard cases can make bad law" applies here.
I'm still waiting for a defense of the statement, "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor." Abraham was pretty favored (preferred), yet not poor. Lot was pretty poor, yet not particularly favored (preferred).
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Harry: You say "us guys" (the 'hooty ones') have "warned [you] of the dangers of liberation theology..." and have "suggested darkly that [your] hermeneutic may not be reformed."
I'm actually at a point bit farther. I intend to say this with respect, and I actually assume you already know (??), but your thinking, at least if it is accurately reflected in what you post, is liberation theology. Not at the fringe, not in danger of, but is. Why do I say that? Because the essence of liberation theology is viewing Scripture through an interpretive paradigm in which the assumed overriding and foundational theme of Scripture is the liberation of people from political/economic oppression and injustice. The political/economic aspect of life becomes absolutized (to use a Dooyeweerdian concept) and becomes a defining filter for all (or at least nearly all) interpretive/hermenutical activity.
Outside the church (and pre-existing "liberation theology" historically), Karl Marx developed (using a bit from Hegel but also in reaction to what he saw resulting from events during the early industrial revolution) a similar kind of perspective, that is, one that absolutized the political/economic aspect of life, and so was the definition filter for all truth. Marx was no friend of Christianity, however, describing religion as an opiate that just confuses and misleads. Thus, when the same sort of perspective took hold within the church (so-called "liberation theology," which began in the Roman Catholic tradition), it was also referred to as neo-Marxism (a new Marxism -- a "christianized marxism" ). My best example of modern day liberation theology/neo-Marxism is Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, whose revolution against the Somozan government in Nicaragua gained the support of those within the (RC) liberation theology tradition.
As a historical matter, when the liberation theology perspective filtered into protestant traditions, it more often went by (and goes by) the labels "social gospel" or "social justice."
I suspect you will chastise me for articulating this history but I do so because the Belhar isn't the only something here with a story/history behind it, and to encourage you to understand the broader perspective of those opposed to the Belhar. We are not opposed to the Belhar because it condemns racism. This one document (Belhar) says multiple things, but is being pushed as a whole package. Condemning racism is an easy thing to agree on, but the Belhar does much more than that, as is made a lot more clear by reading also the Accra Confession, which is big sister to the Belhar and useful in confirming the liberation theology (aka "social gospel", "social justice", neo-Marxist) perspective written into the Belhar.
Let me be clear about this too. I do not consider someone who is of a liberation theology perspective to necessarily not be a brother or sister in Christ, as severely as I might disagree with their perspective on how to read Scripture. I think one can be of a liberation theology perspective (or a neo-Marxist if you will) and still hold to the Apostles Creed type truths that mark one as essentially "Christian." But the question involved with regard to the adoption of the Belhar is much more than "can one hold to all the statements in the Belhar and still be a Christian?" The question is whether the CRCNA should adopt it, given the CRCNA's present and past hermeneutical/confessional perspective. Some might say the CRCNA should essentially jettison its historical perspective and buy fully into the liberation theology / social gospel / social justice / neo-Marxist narrative. That causes me to shiver and cringe, but some others to smile with genuine delight. And indeed, the CRCNA can be said to have done just that in some ways by choosing to affiliate/align itself with the WCRC (World Council of Reformed Churches), which is very clearly of that (liberation theology / social gospel / social justice / new-Marxist) perspective.
In a real way, the argument over the Belhar does represent an argument over whether the the CRCNA will depart of its fundamental, historic theological perspective and move to a new one. I think you want to move to that new perspective (given the contents of your posts), although I could be misreading you. I don't. Hopefully (in my mind at least), delegates to Synod will realize what they would be choosing if they were to adopt the Belhar. This isn't just a tweak on CRCNA perspective but a foundational shift. Again, examining the Accra and the WCRC helps to illuminate that.
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Harry: I'll exegete Matt 25 when you first respond to my earlier (repeated) request of you, to defend your assertion that "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor."
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Oh come on Harry -- that's too old and cheap of a strategy. In response to several people explicating serious assertions about a serious subject, you thow back some hyperbolic claims but refuse to defend them, then do a bit of attention redirection with a little Stephen Colbert styled mock routine, then demand that the other side of the argument be permantly on the defensive while at the same time refusing to offer a defense for your own hyperbolic claims. And then you claim victory without ever having to defend your own defenseless claims -- declaring that everyone who thinks differently from you is just "opposing the Belhar on this issue because of prejudice and not principle".
No, I still won't bite, but whenever you care to first defend your claim that "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor", I'll then exegete Matt 25 for you, even without the mock routine.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Dawn: I bit on answering your question -- would like an answer to mine.
As to your post immediately above, I feel like I'm watching re-runs. You say you don't to want to rehash women-in-office but yet you seem to rehash but from a different angle (get rid of classes because some won't seat women) so as not to be recognized as a rehash. And you make the racism analogy again, but without any further explanation to help anyone understand the point of your analogy (again, I bit on your question, would like an answer to mine).
I just don't think classis is a broken structure, unless of course you mean that we are all living broken lives, etc etc. My classes met no long ago and it "worked" (so, not broken). You simply disagree with some classes who won't seat women about not seating women, as if that is all there is to classis. Its hyperbolic to call it "broken." They won't seat me either -- still doesn't mean its broken.
Again, would like an answer to my question that is in my response post answering yours.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Dawn: OK, this is helpful to me understanding you. I'll agree that you ultimately have to decide for yourself how to "interpret behaviors of others," and if you personally equate the behavior of those in the CRC who take a view of women-in-office opposite of your own as equivalent to the racist country club who won't let black people play golf, then I guess you will feel as you do.
My response -- but already somewhat made -- is this: while you may choose to feel that way, the two scenarios are in fact, objectively viewed, not analogous. And if they are not analogous (even though you might feel as you do), then getting rid of classes as an authority structure would be something we would do only to alleviate your feeling of being back-seater. I'm not trying minimize your feelings, but suggest that ultimately, your feelings aren't necessarily a first priority, even if you do.
As to churches taking Paul literally, I'd caution about superficially analyzing them. Some churches do take Paul quite literally, even though they allow women to teach male children (as opposed to male adults). Again, I have my own interpretation for 1 Tim 2, which is that Paul was actually encouraging women (in a new testament time) to "learn" before taking on "teaching" or "having authority," and further suggesting by subsequent analogy that doing otherwise may cause them to make the same mistake Eve did, whose decision and act, before learning, brought ruin to herself, her husband, and all of humanity.
Still, I respect other interpretations because they are fair interpretations, certainly not outside our agreed way of reading Scripture. And that's the difference between taking a no-women-in-office-elder decision and denying black people the right to play golf. The former results from a fair interpretation of Scripture, the latter from a selfish inclination to exert arbitrary power and control. Still, if the former makes you feel just like the black person denied golf, who am I or anyone else to say you can't or don't feel that way. I might explicate the distinction (as I have done) in order to encourage you not to feel that way, but I don't control your feelings, nor those of others who may feel as you do.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
BP: There certainly is "stubbornness and arrogance on both sides of the issue," as there was in Acts 15, which was cause for the Council of Jerusalem. In both cases -- Acts 15 and CRC decisions re women in office -- compromise decisions were made. Part two of the process was/is to accept the compromise decicsions made.
As for your specific case, you ask "Should our church struggle because we are not allowed to have women serve on Council?", but your church IS allowed to have women serve on Council? You need to talk to and about your church Council, not Classis.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Respectfully, Dawn, and again I mean that, the way you use use of analogies (at least on this subject) seems to me to be way of saying something quite nasty to someone but yet having deniability about having said that.
For example, I could suggest that you are like Hitler and Pol Pot in wanting to have every thing your way and not being willing to ever compromise until you get exactly what you want. There would actually be something true about that analogy (you do want to have your position prevail as to women-in-office in the CRC and you aren't willing to compromise on that), but the analogy would be absolutely unfair and irresponsible (and I'm not making that analogy, BTW), because the message others would hear from my using that analogy would be that you are like Hitler and Pol Pot.
In the same way, when you repeatedly liken those who oppose women-in-office in the CRC, you repeatedly, in their minds (or, perhaps more appropriately "in their feelings"), call them racists. Frankly, I'm not sure whether you are intending to to that or not (I can't know your intentions), but I can assure you that is the message that is received by most if not all of those whose conclusions on women-in-office in the CRC are different from yours. (I'm not of that position and that's why I hear). In other words, your repeating the racist analogy is received as repeated pokings with a very, very sharp stick, and will most likely be met, eventually, with pokings back with a very, very sharp stick.
You say, "The analogy of locking out blacks from tee times at a country club to locking out women from sitting and voting at classis meetings is a fair analogy." Perhaps, but only if one considers the point of the analogy to be your way of describing your feelings. But if the point of the analogy is to describe those who oppose women-in-office in the CRC, that analogy is clearly, clearly, unfair -- it amounts to taunting, accusatory name-calling.
John Zystra is quite correct when he asks whether you are willing to apply your racism analogy to our Lord for choosing twelve MALE disciples. As ill-informed and backward as you may believe those who opposed women-in-office are, they are quite literally and precisely following Christ's example here. Moreover, they specifically point to that example, not to mention the words and actions of the apostle Paul in support of their position. And yes, if there are traditions that hold to the practice of women wearing hats or not braiding hair (or not using electricity or combustion engines and living simple agrarian lives), I would respect them, which would mean, among other things, that I would refrain from repeatedly equating their thinking with racism.
And speaking of slavery (which is not equal to racism, BTW), God himself allowed the OT Israelites to sell themselves in bondage to others to pay debts. Yet, I'll refrain from accusing him, by analogy, of racism.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Dawn: Such superlatives. If the church is now, as you say, "stagnant and not move forward" because some classes do not permit the seating of women, then it follows that the church was stagnate for most of its existence, that the apostle Paul kept the church "stagnant" and from "mov[ing] forward," and, arguably, that Jesus himself, by his example in selecting disciples, kept the church "stagnant" and from "mov[ing] forward."
You make some good points Dawn, but so many, like this one, are expressed with such hyperbole (also the whole racist analogy) that the quality of the points made are lost. Worse, they foster division, a much greater concern to the biblical authors than the question of whether all organizational distinctions in the church between men and women should be obliterated.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Your above amounts to this:
I am not accusing anyone else of being like a racist for opposing women-in-office. However, if I remain a member of a church that tolerates opposition to women-in-office, then I am like a racist as long as I am unsuccessful in stamping out this toleration. But, understand I'm not saying those who oppose women-in-office are like racists, just myself for failing to eliminate these racist-like tolerations.
There is a point where I have to say, "ah come on."
As to the related point, I'd really like to hear your perspective as to Jesus' selection of twelve MALE disciples and Paul's decision to not let women teach or have authority over women. Given what I've heard from you on this discussion, I would think you would oppose Jesus and Paul in the decisions they made. I'm sure you don't, but would genuinely like to hear your explanation.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Dawn: I think I understand you point quite precisely. You wish to diminish the role of classis and create a new regional sort of structure in order to "go around" the problem (as you see it) created by some classis being unwilling to seat women.
Let me give you a suggestion. Don't try to dimish the role of classis. If you do, that will will be (accurately) perceived as trying to "silenc[e] hermeneutical opponents by eliminating denominational structure?" (You may recall this post -- was a good point actually).
And instead of diminishing the role of classis, begin some regional cooperative efforts that do constructive things (to "move the church forward" as you say). Don't want for some official body like synod or even classis/es to design it, or even OK it. Just do it -- sort of private-sector-entrepreneur-like. I could give you examples, but I think you probably have plenty of your own.