How Doctrinal Diversity is Affirmed in Scripture: PART 4

Paul’s various teachings on women in the church also demonstrate cultural sensitivity and awareness to various situations. Some, like my “modernity-is-the-best-theology” friends, struggle to make ONE logical teaching out of 300_ivy_gap2-1Paul and Jesus’ diverse treatment of women. The result is a messy, insensible teaching. How can women be allowed to prophesy in one place, and then be told to be silent in another? How can women be the first to testify to the truth of the resurrection, be noted among the apostles, and yet be unable to hold positions of leadership? It’s hard to explain if you believe all truth must always fit into tight little logical syllogisms. If you read the bible through the lens of western-modernism it is hard to make sensible. But if you understand some truth must be tailored to the culture, these contradictions are no problem – just examples of how the truth of God’s grace, love, and righteousness can be applied correctly, yet differently depending on the situation.

This is exactly the kind of relativity the “Friends” abhor. This is not about opening the door to heresy, but opening the door to unity and cultural inclusively. The “Friends” rejection of this biblical practice is part of the reason some see them as racist. By rejecting diverse – yet scriptural – beliefs and practices they de facto embrace and perpetrate white privilege through their power and theology.

I have witnessed first hand the destructive power this tacit and silent (and often unintended) form of racism has on people of color. Because of this the church continues to be one of the most racially segregated places in America and because of this many non-whites have rejected the Jesus of Nazareth. They reject him not for the truth of who he is, but because they are told they must view him through a euro-ameican lens.

When Jesus told the parable of the tares (Matthew 13) he was addressing the desire of those who, for the sake of doctrinal purity, wanted to rip the weeds out of the field of wheat. He made the point by trying to weed out the bad you will also destroy the good. Maybe we should focus more on sowing good seeds and being fruitful, and less on trying to search for weeds and rip them out.

Would the church would be more respected as the body of Christ if we tried to live out verses like this?:

  • 1 John 3: 16ff We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? 18Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.

Could you imagine a church or college where this verse was part of the “test” for who is a real Christian?

But too often it seems us Christians fall into the trap Paul warned Timothy about in 1 Timothy, when we have a pet theory or doctrine we want to promote –

  • …. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith. 5The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. 7They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

Lord, Let us humble follow you in love, and not drive others away with our arrogance.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “How Doctrinal Diversity is Affirmed in Scripture: PART 4”

  1. Marque

    There is a lot I would like to say about your last two posts, but I will try to limit it for the sake of time and space.

    1 Timothy 1:3-4, NIV
    “As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies.”

    Here are the two verses before the ones you used at the end of your post. What is causing controversies at Ephesus? False doctrines. But you quoted this verse with reference to pet doctrines. So you would only be right here if the pet doctrine is also a false doctrine.

    Therefore, I have a question and a comment.

    1. What constitutes a pet doctrine?

    2. The way your argument is phrased, you don’t allow for any room for discussion. You did two main things in your argument. First, you attacked complementarianism (difference of the role of women in church), and second you said that if you don’t allow for doctrinal diversity, you perpetuate white privilege. It is an argument/position defended by an ad hominem (personal) attack. So even if someone brought good evidence against your side, they could be labeled as promoting white privilege without even being given a chance to be heard.

    Now I don’t think we should reject the Christianity of a person based upon their belief of the roles of women in church (so I would disagree with the friends if they are doing this), but I don’t think your treatment of this topic here was very fair, especially due to the nature of this controversial topic.

  2. Thanks for taking the time to post – fair questions and comments – the false doctrines Paul was talking about were probably linked to gnostic heresies – many believe it was Jewish believers who were using genealogies to weave myths that the verse says …”promote speculations rather than the plan of God that is to be received by faith.” so this verse is about people who are going BEYOND the clear teaching of scripture and using their “special knowledge ” to cause doubt and confusion – that’s my point – pet doctrines that GO BEYOND clear teaching just cause arrogance and cause division-

    I didn’t ATTACK complementarianism – I just disagree with it – but I think Paul is clear – if you want a church that runs that way and fits with the culture you are in – go do it… but keeping with other biblical themes on grace (eating meat – honoring days) don’t impose your view on others…

    on the racism – the “ad hominem” argument is one I’ve heard a”d nausium” from some as a way to defect criticism –
    re-read what I said – it was not a personal attack – I said “that is why some see them as racist”… you may not like that accusation but that is a reason some see them as so… it was a statement of observed fact – then I said

    “By rejecting diverse – yet scriptural – beliefs and practices they de facto embrace and perpetrate white privilege through their power and theology.” – again you may disagree with this assessment but it has solid backing – if you BEGIN with the assumption that the theology that has been developed in Europe is superior, that forms of worship that are white are normative – then all other expressions are seen as secondary to the standards – and that is exactly how most white churches and colleges practice and teach ….

    I am not attacking anyone – I am just saying what I see and observe – if it is wrong … tell me – show me – but don’t pretend that it is a non-issue because you say I am attacking someone

    maybe it is truth – and uncomfortable at that… I do not want to shame or hurt – I want to see all come to repentance and grace extended by and to all – as Christ Jesus has shown us grace.

  3. Please let me clarify and correct me if I’m wrong.

    You are saying that we were given a lot of latitude in the way of specific things and that as long as we follow the main doctrine, all these picky little details only serve to separate us instead of unify us as Christians.

    For instance God doesn’t care if women or men deliver the teachings, as long as they are delivered?

    Am I getting the gist of it? Man, you make me think! LOL but I like it.

  4. Here’s why I wrote what I wrote, and I am going to try and make this short.

    1. To clarify: Your quote, “By rejecting diverse – yet scriptural – beliefs and practices they de facto embrace and perpetrate white privilege through their power and theology,” which is directed toward the friends specifically, does have an ad hominum attack within it. Essentially, it seems to me, that you said that by the friends rejection of diverse beliefs, specifically egalitarianism, they promote white privilege. Therefore it seems as if you say anyone who rejects diverse beliefs does the same. So anyone who wants to present a differing belief will come into the argument as one who is promoting white privilege. This is what I called a personal attack not the racism thing.

    2. I believe the church does need to be reconciled to one another across race and status divides. And I also believe the church is united to Christ through Christ.

    I think if the need for reconciliation is caused by hatred, we have good cause to question the person’s salvation. But if the issue is just that we disagree with a person doctrinally, and it is a disagreement on a minor matter, and no one is judging the others salvation, there is no need to condemn anyone. Neither side NEEDS to change their view to have unity with the other side.

    With reference to the friends, I know there is debate about complementarianism and egalitarianism. But that is not the main issue. The main issue, as I understand and have seen, is the reduction of the gospel so that many gospels are seen as correct. And this issue is not a debatable issue, so there is good reason for questions to be asked.

    I am not trying to defend the friends completely, as I do not know them, but as a witness, I have seen with my eyes certain things that the friends have raised complaints against.

    3. Finally, I would disagree with you on the roles of women in church based upon the grammatical structure, the flow of thought, and the lack of evidence for a cultural interpretation in verses such as 1 Tim 2:9-12, but I think, and hope, we can respectfully disagree on this topic on discuss it in a different setting. I do not believe that this issue should be exaggerated so that those who believe in complementarianism look like they are trying to tear the church apart, or are continuing a past evil. And if one is convinced by Scripture that a side is true, only Scripture will be able to prove a side otherwise, not white privilege or culture.

  5. 1. “By rejecting diverse – yet scriptural – beliefs and practices they de facto embrace and perpetrate white privilege through their power and theology,” – not a personal attack – just a statement of fact –
    2. Dr. Helseth said in his letter from 2007 (as posted on their web site) the “main issue” is gender and diversity issues – that have been pushed as he said (I quote loosely) “without proper scriptural defense” – I wonder what would be needed to be sufficient biblical basis for the measured changes that have been made – from my perspective all the changes on gender and diversity have had significant biblical discussion – basis and explanation
    3. agreed- we can love each other – talk later

    I just dont believe a letter written by paul to timothy can usurp the teaching and modeling of Jesus and the examples from Acts and other churches

  6. Hey Traveler – I think you are right on – we grieve Jesus when we fight over petty issues –

    gender issues in the church were never even major issues until the 1960’s or later –
    My conservative – fundamental Christian grandparents were married by a woman pastor in the 1920’s – no one was to worried about it – she was gifted – there was a need and she ministered…

  7. Reading your blog reminds me of the story of the blind men who discover the different parts of an elephant but fail to see the whole. One thinks the trunk to be a snake, one thinks the leg to be a tree, one thinks the tail to be a rope, etc. However, you’re not a blind man. Rather, you assume you’re the one watching the blind men try and explain the world. Someone will respond by saying, “yea, but the complementarians of NWC do the same thing.” Yes, they do. However, the difference is that they respectfully accept that some will disagree with their position. You, on the other hand, roll out your views as if you have a monopoly on the way the world is defacto (a luxury not afforded to wholesale advocates of postmodernity), claim to see the whole elephant as the concept of love in unity and yet are just as exclusive as those with whom you disagree. You’re like a man who cries-out that his neighbor’s yard is unkempt while tripping over the weeds in your own yard. Moreover, it seems to me, who also believes to be watching blind men at work, that you are violently and loudly stirring up the divisions Paul warns against. Many of the charges you bring against the friends of NWC also apply to you, for your biblical position is not rock-solid either. Yet, are you not the one who constantly labels those who disagree with your position as racist? Are you not the one who spray-painted a famous rock on a Christian college campus “Friends of NWC R Racist Snitches?” Are you not the one who demonstrates hate and bitterness towards a group of your brothers and sisters with whom you disagree? Then, with a slipping transmission, you peddle love in unity as the highest order. Your biblical validations are not in proportion to the gong-like noise you make. MarQue, you are the name-caller, you are the one stirring up divisions and you are the one teaching students to do the same.

  8. that’s your opinion Brent – and so I’m posting it – In answer to your list of questions the answer to each one is NO – I disagree with your other assessments, but since we’ve never talked I assume your assumptions come from stories others have told you – which is gossip – if you’d like to talk more – you have my email

    I’ll be waiting to hear from you!

  9. Marque,

    I don’t have a ton of time but I think what you posted is right on. I just had lunch with one of our Bible professors here at Bethel and we talked about how Western Theologies always want to name themselves as the “norm” (or just theology) and all others as Liberation theology/ African-American theology, African Theology and so on. We whites in the west are very use to working out of a place of power and then naming all others and that is what we have been given in this racialized culture, that is part of our white privilage. What i hear you saying and what we are starting to say over here at Bethel is that we need to make room for other views to have an equal place at the table.
    all throughout history those who have spoke to power have been called trouble makers. My view is that you are speaking to power and that is hard for some to hear.

  10. Wow I agree with Tanden. I am not very up on theology, but I can follow the jist of what is being said here…alot of the fancy words I get lost on, but to me it is about relationship and Christians in the American church today are doing a terrible job of loving people, which comes just after loving God. After reading comments on here, I think those who believe your stance is calling them “racist” is because sometimes it is hard to hear the truth. For “whites,” of which I am one, to say that there is no white priveldge and be so arrogant to think that everyone has the same opportunities as they themselves have, are being ignorant to the truth and to the long standing history this country has against minority groups whatever the monority. To think that they are not priveledged because of the color of their skin or their “white” last name (or even first name) is ridiculous. Look at the largest denominations in America and who their leadership is…. To say their isn’t white priveledge is absurd!

    We are so busy judging others doctrine and PETTY differences that we cannot hope to be loving that person. Many a believer, in many a church, feel superior to their fellow believer who choses to worship a little differently, gather with a different group of believers, pray differently and interpret certain passages a little differntly.

    It seems as if this is “stiring up the students” because it should be. This is something Christians have been turning their heads on for too long, and I for one will not. I will be in the battle with you until Love abounds to all people, regardless of their minority status. We cannot choose to disregard this any longer. We must love all people regardless of race, SES, church they attend or even sexual orientation…YES, I said it. And I am not condoning sinful behavior, but we are to love God and Love people, and if we are truly doing that, nothing else should really matter.

  11. Placing names on certain theologies can be significant (ex. Black theology). But the real question is not “why are there names on these theologies?” The real question is “are these theologies right?”

    Will people be sent to hell for putting names on theologies? I don’t think so. But I know that people will be sent to hell if they are not following Jesus Christ. Do I believe I am completely right? No, but I do believe we have to start checking things out within all theologies and determining if they truly matter. Paul definitely thought the view of the gospel that the church of Galatia had was messed up, and he said that their view had eternal consequences. So we too should be careful of the many different views people have.

    Christians, by definition, cannot get rid of doctrines (or Christian teachings). It is the basis of Christianity. They tell us who God is, what He has done, and what He wants us to do. Some are definitely more essential than others, but not less important.

    If we want to stay away from doctrine and begin embracing many different views, not only do we begin to lose our Christianity (depending on how many doctrines we get rid of), but we also MUST start not caring about or ignoring parts of the Bible. Are we willing to say that certain parts of the Bible are not important because they are controversial or hard to understand? Do we just ignore these hard parts when we come to them?

    I feel like many people within this post see doctrine at one end of the spectrum and love at the other. I do not believe this is a true spectrum at all. I believe that one can be doctrinally concerned and very loving.

  12. i think the difference is being ‘doctrinally concerned’ or saying that people who have a different view on a gray area are less Christian. (not a foundational belief ie Jesus is the Son of God, God in flesh, He rose again…)

    doctrinal concern is fine. tying something more than a foundational Christian belief (redemption of sin by faith in Christ and his death and resurrection) to one’s salvation is not fine….

  13. growing up fully saturated in evangelical conservatism i learned all about right doctrine. hours of my life were consumed with learning why we were right and churches that were liberal, spoke in tongues, had women elders/ pastors, or believed the earth was more than 6000 years old we’re wrong (meaning not really christian aka going to hell).

    with hindsight on those years its funny to me that so much time was spent on such important”fundamental doctrinal issues”. but i suppose it easier to damn and judge other people under the guise of defending the faith than to actually take Jesus at His word. it is so sad to me that i had to wait until i reached my 20s before i heard any teaching relating to the practical application of the beatitudes (not just the old “that was Jesus so we can’t actually be expected to do those things” line of thought).

    so my question is in our debates about these things do we look like Jesus? are we following the two greatest commandments? are our posts producing the fruit of the spirit?

    also, since some here and elsewhere apparently consider marque an enemy of nwc or christianity in general i have some great advice for you from this crazy guy i know.

    Love Your Enemy.

    38-42″Here’s another old saying that deserves a second look: ‘Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.’ Is that going to get us anywhere? Here’s what I propose: ‘Don’t hit back at all.’ If someone strikes you, stand there and take it. If someone drags you into court and sues for the shirt off your back, giftwrap your best coat and make a present of it. And if someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life. No more tit-for-tat stuff. Live generously.

    43-47″You’re familiar with the old written law, ‘Love your friend,’ and its unwritten companion, ‘Hate your enemy.’ I’m challenging that. I’m telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that.

    48″In a word, what I’m saying is, Grow up. You’re kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you.”

    (intentionally from The Message)

    bk

  14. I must confess that I do not quite follow your post, Mr. Jensen, partly because of some parallels you draw and partly because of seemingly apparent contradiction…

    1) I do not understand the correlation between women bearing the news of Christ’s resurrection and being leaders in the church. Women are consistently active followers/supporters/friends of Christ, but never “leaders” in the manner that the disciples and apostles were. Actually, throughout the NT women are commended for their activity within the Body but never for positions of leadership (pastor, elder) with the exception of deaconess (which is a stated Biblical women’s role).

    2) Why do you attach such significance to the “discrepancy ” between allowing women to prophecy in one place and commanding them to be silent in another? It seems to fit quite well with the fact that women are to teach in some circumstances and not others (but I realize this is open to some controversy). Point being, those two views completely coincide and ALSO align with what I mentioned in my first point.

    3) There is an interesting congruence between all of your posts. You talk about commendable concepts like “unity” and “diversity” and “inclusivity”…however, your interpretation seems dangerous. Unity, diversity, and inclusivity were certainly aspects of Christ’s work–He reached out to the Jews and Gentiles (the Samaritans), the rich and poor, healthy and diseased, married and widowed, etc. BUT He reached out to them in order to draw them to Himself, where as long as they were believers, they were one IN HIM. That is the difference–the unity is not on a basis of divers “truths” being advocated/accepted, but on divers peoples united in a propositional, fundamental faith. It is a spiritual unity that is referenced with the natural logical conclusion of equality for sexes and races…not a unity of sexes and races in spirituality. Subtle difference, but an important one!

    4) In your posts, you refer to such things as “white priviledge/power”, “euro-american lense”, etc. You make accusatory claims–for example, that the American church (and the Friends of NWC) propagates white ideology or doctrine while suppressing/discriminating against ethnic ideologies or doctrines. Or another example, that the white church’s (and the Friends’) racism has turned many away from faith in Christ. These are weighty statements and accusations to make against your brothers and sisters in Christ…and they are hasty generalizations (a logical fallacy). I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that “the church” and “the Friends” are racist and are turning divers people away from Christ! Do you realize that you have announced personal judgment upon a large number of people, based upon a completely unproven conclusion that is built upon a generalization? Unless you have some weight of evidence to support your strong accusations, perhaps they should be more graciously and humbly–and less condemningly and generally–stated.

    5) As a tangent to the above…You obviously consider the Friends or their supporters to be biased, but you must admit that you are as well. (Though I am willing to accept confidentiality as the reason for some) you have omitted many facts, including the ways that Friends and their supporters have reached out to those of differing race and gender.

    6) A thought: “Caucasian, elderly” is every bit as valid a cultural descriptor as “Latino, twenty-something”. It would seem that you have forgotten that?

    7) “By rejecting diverse – yet scriptural – beliefs and practices they de facto embrace and perpetrate white privilege through their power and theology”. This statement (and others you have made) is based on the presupposition that your definition of “scriptural” in the end all. After writing at length about the intolerant and unaccepting mindset of the Friends, you turn to them with the same intolerance and insistance upon your own personal beliefs. What you define as an accurate interpretation of Scripture may differ from what another defines it as…But when you accuse and libel a group for refusing diversity, you are refusing them their right to divers beliefs. This is a perplexing (and saddening) paradoxicality.

    To be continued…

  15. Continued…

    8) “Maybe we should focus more on sowing good seeds and being fruitful, and less on trying to search for weeds and rip them out.” Sowing good seeds is obviously a GOAL of the Christ-centrifical life…but SO IS SEARCHING FOR WEEDS. The Bereans and Timothy were commended for and commanded to compare all that they heard to the Truth of God’s Word (Acts 17:11, 1 Timothy 6:10)–to search for what is true and what is false! Men are to be held accountable for the truth or falsity of their teaching (2 Timothy 1:13, Matthew 18:15-17)–a form of “ripping out” being the Biblical manner of dealing with persitent false teaching. Jude is very much focused on the the active Christian role in the fight for Truth…using words like “epagonizomai”, the Greek verb literally meaning “agonize against”. There are other Scriptural references I could draw upon, but I think you understand my point–yes, Christians are to search for (and if necessary rip out) what is not True.
    And wait a minute!!!–in this blog, are you not attempting to enlighten people to “weeds” in the Church??? And aren’t you advocating the removal of such “weeds”???

    9) Which leads to my last…
    “…. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith. 5The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk…”.
    Frankly, from your blog and actions, I have not read or seen love or sincere concern for the state of your “opposition”s souls/faith. I am not going to accuse you of lacking humility, love, or sincere regard for their souls/faith. But as a sister in Christ, I want you to know that your actions and words have conveyed none of those things to me, or to a number of other persons–students that should be able to respect your example and follow it.

    10) Perhaps your “prayer” from the end of this post would be a good example. It is easy to read what is said indirectly–that you desire the white, racist (including Friends) faction of the Church to forsake their arrogance. Yet that prayer in itself is disheartening to me–I’m assuming you did not mean it this way, but it is strongly reminiscent of the Pharisaical prayer “Lord, thank goodness I am not like them”. Ought you to utilize the sacred and awesome (archaic sense) institution/communion of prayer to just to make a statement?

    Regards and prayers,
    StudentVeritas

  16. MarQue — I think you’re interpretation of Matthews 13 and the parable of the tares is slightly off (though it is a bit of a subtle difference). The weeds growing up are not false doctrines; rather, they are non-believers. Jesus wasn’t talking about false doctrines. He was saying that the unrepentant will grow along side the repentant until the end of days and the Judgment, at which time the tares (non-believers) will be burned and the wheat (believers) will be gathered into the barn (heaven). This conclusion is supported by Matthew 13:36–43:

    Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

    1. I’ll reply to student veritas later – but Alex – I agree it is unbelievers – but I used it in the context of how people attack what they perceive as false doctrines- because the line often heard is they aren’t “real” Christians because they believe ….. “(so let’s rip ’em up and burn ’em)”

      thanks!

  17. Thanks for letting me know you’ll respond 🙂

    I didn’t even go into my interpretation of Matthew 13 (!) but based my comment upon your interpretation, to avoid an discussion over that 🙂

    But since you do, as it turns out, interpret the passage as I and Alex do–well, I don’t understand why/how you apply the parable to Christians searching for/ripping out weeds of “doctrinal purity”…not Christ ripping out actual “unbelievers” in future? To me it seems like quite a difference–humans refining doctrine by removing false doctrine, or Christ’s future removal of unbelievers.

  18. Student Veritas….

    I assume you mean to proclaim you are a student of truth…. but it could also mean that you are a follower of Veritas, the goddess of truth, who was a daughter of Saturn in the Roman pantheon) I’ll assume it is meant to be a slick way of saying the first.

    your first point…
    1. The correlation between women bearing the news of Christ’s resurrection and being leaders in the church.

    SV – in a era when women could not bear witness in a court of law the fact that God gave women the first opportunity to witness and testify to the resurrection is of great significance.

    You write, women were…. “never “leaders” in the manner that the disciples and apostles were.”

    I would encourage a student of truth to dig deep. A good place to start is Romans 16:7 .

    “Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.”
    King James Version

    While there is a discrepancy on how this verse is translated (is it – Junia – a woman or Junias – a man) tt is interesting to note that most of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts support the translation that Junia is a Woman!

    (P46, a papyrus manuscript, dating from around a.d. 200 represents the earliest known and most reliable testimony in support of a woman (Julia / Junia). The 3rd century Coptic, 4th century Vulgate, and fifth century Latin versions provide additional early support for this female name.

    Also John Chrysostom and the church father Jerome refer to Junia as a woman.

    It is also clear that these two individuals were not just “recommended by the apostles – but are listed as note-worthy apostles.

    for an in depth analysis on this topic look at this article by Bethel Seminary Graduate Dennis J. Preato http://www.godswordtowomen.org/juniapreato.htm

    ALSO SV – you talk about the word “deaconess” could you tell me the greek work for that?

    The word “diakonos” (used in Romans 16:1 to describe a woman – Phoebe) is never used as a “ROLE of POSITION ” in the church but as a description of a person (one who serves).

    The greek word for Phoebe is the same as any other use of the word so often transliterated as “DEACON” – ( http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/cgi-bin/gnt?id=0616 )
    which if translated would be “SERVANT” – the term “deaconess” was invented by the church to justify separate roles for women and men.

    Your point # 2 – if there are no discrepancies in how Paul addressed the roles of women in the church (which I hold are because of the cultural needs of that time and place) explain to me me

    – when do you require women to wear the required head coverings?
    – when can women prophecy and when can they not?
    – how is preaching different from prophesying?
    – what is the biblical definition of the preacher?

    I think to delve into these questions deeply will show the non-sensical nature of some of the “rules” in complimentarian churches (women can sing a message – but not speak it.. women can testify from the floor of the sanctuary – but can not speak from the pulpit (which is not even a biblical concept….)

    OK – next – SV you wrote in point 3
    “[Christ] reached out to them (all groups and people) in order to draw them to Himself, where as long as they were believers, they were one IN HIM. ” ( I agree with that part)

    but the concept “spiritual unity” as opposed to a unity that is (physical ??? ) I don’t get it

    Scripture does not support a dualistic world view in which we can have spiritual unity – but disunity in the real world –

    (can we have “spiritual repentance – but not need to really do anything new?)

    We need unity – Jesus prayed for it (didn’t declare it as a spiritual reality so that we didn’t have to strive to live it out)

    Let me close by saying 1 thing about #4 I KNOW I made huge generalizations – I was direct in saying there are SOME PEOPLE…. and that not ALL are guilty –

    I am not making a RASH accusation – but this is based on YEARS of OBSERVATION – TESTIMONY of HUNDREDS of STUDENTS and others – I have tried as have others to go directly to the leadership to seek changes and have been rejected again and again (as have many others) one purpose of this posting has been to get the CHURCH at LARGE – to rise up and ask questions…..

    I do not want to attack NWC – KTIS or other Church Institutions – I only want them to live out their calling to the fullest. Many GREAT and GOOD things have come through these and other institutions.

    this’ll have to do for now….

    PEACE 2 All… through the PRINCE of PEACE!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s