 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 4:43 AM (GMT -6) |   | women in ministry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi guys! I am new at this so I hope I do it right. I was wondering what yall thought about women youth ministers. I am only 16 but I have been thinking alot about it. I am Church of Christ too. I know alot of churches allow women ministers but what about 1 Tim 12 : 2 that says " I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man..." Please give me your opinions. Thanks and God bless!
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ghost-dog-girl
12/05/00 9:33 PM
go for it, girl!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the discussion, danna!
Basically there are two positions:
1) complementarianism--which holds that God ordained different roles for men and women; they believe that passages like 1 Tim. 12:2 are for all people at all times throughout history
2) egalitarianism--which holds that men and women should pursue God's call in their lives according to the way he has gifted them; they believe that passages like 1 Tim. 12:2 are culturally conditioned
Greg Boyd has an excellent article on women in ministry on the Christus Victor website: http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=282. He talks a lot about 1 Tim. 12:2 in it. You also might want to check out Christians for Biblical Equality: http://www.cbeinternational.org. They have tons of information on-line.
If you have more specific questions, I would be happy to respond to them. After years of struggling with this issue myself, I'm finally going to seminary in the spring. If you feel God's call into ministry, go for it girl!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
12/20/00 8:57 PM
RE: go for it, girl!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm feeling feisty tonight. Thought I'd weigh in on an old discussion.
Seems to me if we say half the population can't exercise their gift for ministry just because of their gender, and just because the first century did it, we ought to still be having SLAVES, because this was true in the first century as well (e.g. Philemon). I was liberated by Bilezikian (Beyond Gender Roles). And why do we evangelicals NOT forbid women to have braided hair, wear jewlery, wear veils, or have nice cloths -- when all these things are forbidden by Paul as well (I Tim. 2:8-14' I Cor. 11)? Could there be a "power move" controlling our (male driven) hermenuetics here folks?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
12/21/00 5:05 PM
RE: women in ministry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the board.
Back when this scripture was written women were just property.
They weren't allowed to read, write, or get an education. I think when they heard the good news they got excited and started asking questions in church. Some church somewhere must have gotten out of hand for him to write this. But I think the really surprising part is that he said 'teach them at home'!!! That was counter cultural! That
was empowering to women. That shows that the timeless truth is that women should be educated and be in ministry.
I think the scriptures continues to be distorted by some men to keep women down because the men are insecure. In my experience I have found that the men who believe women are second class feel threatened. They need power to feel good. They are quick to preach on the submission passage for women, but you don't hear a peep about how they should love their wives like God loved the church - giving up their own lives, sacrificing self.
Women have come a long way, but prejudice is still rampant.
Take egotistical men with a grain of salt, and pray for them.
I don't think it is a coincidence that Calvinist's present a 'powerful' God, who is all controlling, and then try to control all the women in their lives. They are just living out their theology.
The God of OT sees power as the ability to empower others.
God bless you as you follow his heart.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/21/00 7:47 PM
RE: RE: women in ministry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yikes! Your note scorches!
Back when this scripture was written women were just property. They weren't allowed to read, write, or get an education.
I'm a historian. I'd sure be interested to know the source of your broad-brush statement.
I don't think it is a coincidence that Calvinist's present a 'powerful' God, who is all controlling, and then try to control all the women in their lives. They are just living out their theology.
Oh yeah! All the Calvinists I know are a bunch of women-abusing genderists who control their women by keeping them barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. And Beso claimed to be feisty last night. Youv'e outdone Beso.
Let's see now. . . . You've broad-stroked first-century A.D. society wherever the gospel went as bigoted sexists, and you've sterotyped all Calvinists as sexists and bigots who role-play their tyrannical God. What might be next?
P.S. I plan not to enter this discussion. I only thought it reasonable to encourage reasonableness on your part. Your comments may inflame some fool to engage you in an argument, but they make it clear to me that you have little to offer this discussion. You're far too emotive and bigoted toward the opposing viewpoint. I just thought someone ought to draw that to your attention.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
12/21/00 8:39 PM
RE: RE: RE: women in ministry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aghhhh! Lion, I respect your scholarship, though it is sometimes quite biased, I think. But honestly, sometimes your demeaner on these postings is so &%$!)(*!!!. Why can't you make your points without insulting people?
Heres how you could have made your point without insulting Springs (and everyone else who would care to respond to him -- viz. calling them "fools").
"Springs, as a historian I'd encourage you to check up on some of your claims about the status of women in the first century. As a matter of fact, women were (Here, whatever you claim their status was). For some helpful resources that substantiate this position, see (Here, whatever your sources are).
Also, I disagree with your broad claim that male Calvinists control women. My own experience with male Calvinists is that they are no more inclined to control women than male Arminians. True, conservative Calvinists tend to hold to a "complimentary" view of male and female relationships, but that doesn't mean they "control them." On what do you base your judgement?"
See Lion, same point. TOTALLY different -- and much more Christian -- demeaner. That aside, Springs, don't let Lion intimidate you away from making whatever contributions you want to make (despite his claim that "you have nothing to offer to this discussion" -- yick!).
To the topic, I'm no "historian," but I read. And all I've read informs me that by and large, Springs, you're view isn't far from wrong. Certainly, in comparison to Western culture today, women IN GENERAL had few opportunities. In Lion's scholarship, women in the first century apparently had all the access to education and had all the rights men do today. So, Paul's statement that women shouldn't teach or have authority over men could only be motivated out of a revelation that this is God's timeless ideal for all of history. But I suggest there WERE cultural reasons -- connected to the low status of women in the first century -- that motivated him to say what he said.
THERE WERE EXCEPTIONS, of course. But one can't hide behind these exceptions and dismiss your claim as altogether off -- because THEY'RE a "historian" and your not.
On the claim that Calvinist control women... here your claim is as offensive as Lion's rebuke. You could have said something like:
"I wonder if their a connection between the view of God as controlling and the view that women can't be spiritual leaders"? THAT view has been insightfully explored by a number of authors.
Lion-Lamb, I like you. But I wish you were a bit more "Lamb" and a bit less "Lion."
Good day.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/21/00 11:59 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: women in ministry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beso,
Please, try to recognize a touch of humor when it is present. I don't have time to spend trying to rehabilitate myself in your eyes because you presume to jump in to scold me when you should hesitate.
Lighten up! Springs needed some poking for such broad-stroked statements. That's all I did. And I did it in a Christian manner, also. I'm disappointed you couldn't recognize that. I do not believe that sarcasm is un-Christian. Do you? Sarcasm is quite divine! Bible writers use sarcasm often.
I'll take into advisement your chastisement and ponder whether I've sinned. At this point, I don't believe I sinned against Springs, but I will surely give it more consideration.
Baaaaaah! Baaaaaaah! There's a little bit of Lamb talk for you.
P.S. The smiley face I included in my note to Springs as now to you is a hint that the note had a definite touch of humor.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
12/22/00 12:04 AM
RE: women in ministry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Beso. I appreciate you. You are right I could have been
more gracious.
However I must say I am not the first to have written a bit of
vitriol onto this site. That said I would like to add that I have
appreciated Dr. Boyd's ability to speak the truth in love. It really is a talent and a skill that comes from a fair heart.
I disagree with Lion that I have nothing to contribute. People like me that don't know all the big words and theories (what IS apollinarianism) still have hearts. I am learning by reading this
site. I would like to contribute. For a long time I haven't because I didn't want to sound foolish. Now that I do speak up, that's just what I'm accussed of being, a non-contributory fool.
Cut me some slack whippersnapper.
God is good
all the time
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
12/22/00 12:38 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: women in ministry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm happy to hear the baaaaahhh in Lamb. I do appreciate humor, but judging from Springs' own testimony, it went over his head as well as mine. It DID have a bite.
And didn't Jesus forbid calling anyone a fool? (Mt 5 someplace)
blessings
keep it up Springs
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/22/00 8:03 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: women in ministry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please read my note to Springs again. You clearly misread my note. I did not call Springs a fool. I used the word fool in a proper, biblical, and Christian manner.
Please stop carping at my words. I write my notes with care. Yet you seem to have a hypersensitivity to virtually every note I compose. I realize you don't like my beliefs, but that hardly warrants your nagging criticism of my deliberative and measured use of words. You are being censorious. In the future I shall ignore your hypercritical dissections of my notes. Reasonable comments are still welcome.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TestWaters
12/22/00 9:40 AM
RE: Back to point?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-D-G said:
Basically there are two positions:
1) complementarianism--which holds that God ordained different roles for men and women; they believe that passages like 1 Tim. 12:2 are for all people at all times throughout history
2) egalitarianism--which holds that men and women should pursue God's call in their lives according to the way he has gifted them.
TW says:
Please don't expect others to be objective when you load your definitions like this. It's clear that the eglatarian view is the only view that respects the gifting of women--according to your definition.
As usual, the truth is between these two views. Men and women are not the same spirititually. Period. Does that mean that there is no place for full-time women ministers--especially in our society? I think not. Personally I don't think I would attend a church in this country that was pastored ONLY by a woman and continually chose that position. However, I think there are situations where women are the best 'men' for the job--sometimes it's inherently that way and sometimes it's that way because no man stepped up to the plate (read 'used his gifts') as he was supposed to.
So don't allow yourself to be polarized into either camp--the one who thinks the only way to honor women is to make them like men or the one who thinks women's only role is at home with the kids .
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
12/22/00 2:01 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: women in ministry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You clearly misread my note. I did not call Springs a fool. I used the word fool in a proper, biblical, and Christian manner."
If I say something to two people, and they both interpret me "wrongly," but in the same fashion, I would accept some of the responsibility for the miscommunication.
You said anyone who would engage in a discussion with Springs would be a poor fool, did you not? Is that "proper, biblical" and a "Christian manner"?
Show me Lamb again.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
12/22/00 2:07 PM
men are sometimes the best "women" for the job!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testwaters said: "I think there are situations where women are the best 'men' for the job--sometimes it's inherently that way and sometimes it's that way because no man stepped up to the plate (read 'used his gifts') as he was supposed to."
Just as an editorial note, I think you MEANT to say:
"I think there are situations where men are the best women for the job--sometimes it's inherently that way and sometimes it's that way because no woman stepped up to the plate (read 'used her gifts') as she was supposed to."
Am I right Testwaters? If not, we just disclosed the truth that G-D-G was right on with her definitions. It's just a matter of how consistently one is willing to apply them.
ps. I was of course joking about what I thought you "meant" to say.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TestWaters
12/22/00 2:21 PM
RE: men are sometimes the best
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! We are touchy! I was using a popular bumper sticker saying and thought I didn't need to parenthetically qualify it.
My point was that men and women are very, very different. Spiritual roles are different. OK, I'll say it: Headship is real. It does not mean control, it does not mean many other things that mis-informed and insecure Christian men put into it but it is real.
HOWEVER! The saying works both ways--you are right. If the perfect person for a role is a woman and a man needs to be in it because he's the one willing to step up to the plate it's just as bad as the other way around. Is that more inclusive?
I should have very clearly said that both men and women are gifted. If you would have heard the rest of my post it was there.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Striver
12/22/00 3:14 PM
RE: RE: men are sometimes the best
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New to the site. Lov'in it. Great stuff.
Headship IS real. The question is: Is it gift based or gender determined?
All I read in the New Testaments suggest God's kingdom ideal is for ALL to be utterly equal, differentiated only by gift functions. There are cultures in which this ideal is surpressed and the Church must back off of it to minister. But we should never loose the ideal.
Today, in this culture, WE NEED MORE WOMEN PREACHERS! (Like Joyce Meyers!!!)
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/22/00 6:03 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: women in ministry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please quote me properly. I'm finished trying to correct your misreadings in this thread.
Ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-ah!
I'm out of this thread.
Yours truly,
Butchered Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
12/22/00 10:20 PM
RE: women in ministry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay I won't misquote you Lion.
You wrote:
"Your comments may inflame some fool to engage you in an argument, but they make it clear to me that you have little to offer this discussion. You're far too emotive and bigoted toward the opposing viewpoint."
*I see that you did not exactly call me a fool, just an emotive bigot with little to offer. (sounds pretty ignorant to me, but whatever)
I'll try to check my global generalizations at the door.
Don't leave the discussion before you give us some history.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/22/00 11:06 PM
RE: RE: Back to point?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Testwaters.
You said, "Men and women are not the same spirititually. Period." Can you give me some examples of these gender-based spiritual differences?
You also said, "Personally I don't think I would attend a church in this country that was pastored ONLY by a woman and continually chose that position." Really, why not?
Just curious. GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/22/00 11:49 PM
RE: RE: RE: men are sometimes the best
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Striver, I appreciate the distinction you make between God's ideal and the cultural reality that so often falls so short. I think this is a helpful way to explain why the Bible contains so many exceptions to the "rules" for men and women's roles.
For example, although many conclude that only men can be deacons based on Paul's instructions to Timothy that deacons should be "the husband of one wife" we know that Paul gladly ministered with female deacons (i.e. Pheobe in Romans 16:1-2) and praised God for them.
So what gives? God's ideal was for women and men to serve God equally according to how God gifted them, but the cultural reality was that women in leadership faced far greater obstacles than men. Rather than take on the cultural standards of morality and decency, Paul and others sought to transform them gradually, through supporting and advocating exceptions like Phoebe.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/23/00 12:16 AM
RE: RE: RE: men are sometimes the best
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One more comment on Strivers insight:
Last Sunday my pastor preached on how Christians struggle to reconcile the tension between the ideal of being sold out for Christ and the reality of how we often fall so far short of that. SHE said that one mistake Christians often make in order to reconcile this tension is to get rid of the ideal (walk away from their calling) or equate the real and the ideal (compromise their calling).
I think that the church's history of forbiding women to minister in leadership positions reflects the reality of the sexist cultural context in which the church emerged more than God's ideal of oneness in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28) and the priesthood of all believers.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 4:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Message Go To Page << 1 3 >>
TheOpenTheist
12/23/00 12:24 AM
RE: women in ministry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a man is the spiritual head of the family (Eph 5), then how could his wife lead a congregation? If anyone in that family was to lead a congregation shouldn't it be the husband?
Also, if one of the requirements of a bishop is to rule his house well (1 Tim 3), then how can a woman become a bishop? A house that is ruled well would follow the spiritual authority that God has set up with the husband as the head of the wife, right.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ghost-dog-girl
12/23/00 8:07 AM
RE: RE: women in ministry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TheOpenTheist asks, "...how could his wife lead a congregation?" and "...how can a woman become a bishop?"
Like Phoebe (a deaconnes), Junia (an apostle), Priscilla (a woman who instructed the apostle Apollos), Lydia (the church at Philippi met in her house), and many other New Testament examples, women serve in ministry positions according to the way God has gifted them and by responding to God's call to ministry in their lives.
Why should the fact that these women were married disqualify them from that? It wouldn't for a man, why do you think it should for a woman, especially when the Bible contains examples that contradict your conclusion?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TheOpenTheist
12/23/00 9:26 AM
RE: RE: RE: women in ministry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did you only quote part of my questions GDG?
I'm talking specifically about the office of pastor and bishop.
"Like Phoebe (a deaconnes)"
Can women be deacons? Sure seems so based on Phoebe (Rom 16:1) and the fact that a deacons ministry is described in Acts 6 as dealing with material things. The twelve needed to appoint deacons so that they could give themselves to the ministry of the word and prayer (things a pastor or bishop would devote his time to).
"Junia (an apostle)"
I have no argument with Junia being an apostle as long as it is taken in the broad meaning of apostle (1 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25; 1 Thess 2:6-7). No way ever would I consider her or her husband as apostles like Paul. To be such they would need to have seen Christ (1 Cor 9:1) and have new revelation to proclaim (mysteries or secrets Rom 16:25-26; 1 Cor 4:1; Eph 3:2-5; Col 1:25-27).
"Priscilla (a woman who instructed the apostle Apollos)"
Looked up every reference to Priscilla and I don't find one that says anything about her teaching Apollos. Where did you get this from? First time I've heard this.
"Lydia (the church at Philippi met in her house)"
Does that mean she was the pastor or bishop? She could be neither because she was just converted in Acts 16:14 (not a novice 1 Tim 3). If you are basing your claim on Acts 16:40 I don't believe you can make a case for Lydia being a pastor or bishop. Didn't congregations meet at the biggest house possible for worship? I've heard of this from friends who have visited places between Rome and Jerusalem.
You asked
"Why should the fact that these women were married disqualify them from that?"
Here's my reasoning.
1. The husband is the head of the wife and the wife is supposed to submit to the husband as to Christ (Eph 5:22-24).
2. A bishop must rule his own house well (1 Tim 3:4).
3. If a wife is the spiritual leader of the [nuclear] family then the husband is not fulfilling his role and the wife needs to build him up and encourage him and obey Eph 5:22-24.
4. A woman who is the spiritual leader in the family does not meet the qualification of having a house that is ruled well (#2).
5. Therefore, a wife cannot be a bishop.
Do you understand now?
Hope this was helpful!
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
BBBCanada
12/23/00 12:22 PM
women in ministry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is another website I am trying to get CVM to link to. This is a "Commentary" on American life. It is at www.americanwasteland.com The article is:
http://www.americanwasteland.com/landsubmission.html
Great article on the timewarp and backwardness of Southern Baptists with regard to American culture. Not to slam SB's but....oh just read the article.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TheOpenTheist
12/23/00 2:00 PM
That article reaked!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That article was pathetic BBBCanada!
It was exegetically unsatisfying. I wonder if someone here could explain to me how Gal 3:28 NULLIFIES Eph 5:21-33.
Worst of all though was the comparison between marriage and slavery. It made reading the article almost unbearable.
I'm going to sleep.
Good night
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
TestWaters
12/23/00 2:54 PM
RE: Headship
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Striver:
Headship IS real. The question is: Is it gift based or gender determined?
TW again:
Then 'husband' can be female or male? I'm sorry, but I don't know how to read Ephesians 5:23:
For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. Negate the meaning of Headship if you will, tell me it's culturally based in the context of Eph 5, do something--but don't tell me it's not gender based. That's exactly what the verse says.
Don't use words unless you are willing to attach some meaning to them.
Again, headship does not equal control. The greatest Head was/is the greatest servant.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Ecclesiastes5_2
12/23/00 11:07 PM
that WAS a pretty good message ;-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDG,
I think I heard that message on Sunday... she was good. I hope to hear her again soon.
God Bless,
Eccles
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
12/25/00 1:48 PM
RE: RE: Headship / Hermenuetics, not Exegesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We all grant that Scripture contains a timeless Word in cultural packaging. The Hermenuetical task is to distinguish between what is the timeless Word, and what is the cultural packaging. We all grant (I assume) that slavery, women wearing braids, jewlery, veils, men having short hair, etc... are cultural issues. We all grant (I assume) that Jesus dying for our sins, the teaching against adultery, etc.. are aspects of the timeless Word. The issue at hand is this: Is Paul's teaching about "headship" for men part of the timeless Word or cultural packaging? Or, perhaps, what aspects of Paul's teaching about "headship" is part of the timeless Word and what aspects are part of the cutural packaging.
Some of the criteria I use to determine if something is part of the timeless Word is this/.
1. Is it uniformly taught and exemplified in Scripture?
2. Is it central or peripheral to the central theme of Scripture?
3. Were there cultural matters that render it likely the author would have said what he said?
4. Does it resonate with redeemed experience? (e.g. would it have occured to me that its immoral not to greet each other with "a holy kiss" as Scripture commands if I hadn't read it in Scripture. If not, that may be one indication that this is culutral_.
On all these accounts, it seems the prohibition on women teaching men is cultural, NOT part of the timeless Word.
So, Testwaters, its not a matter of EXEGESIS of Eph. 5. It's a matter of the HERMENUETICS of Eph. 5.
Blessings
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TheOpenTheist
12/25/00 4:28 PM
RE: RE: RE: Headship / Hermenuetic s, not Exegesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How crucial is Eph 5 to this whole debate?
Greg ended his last post by saying
"So, Testwaters, its not a matter of EXEGESIS of Eph. 5. It's a matter of the HERMENUETICS of Eph. 5."
I guess what I want to know is 1) in what way could ANYTHING taught in Eph 5 be different today because of culture? and 2) Just how would that difference affect whether or not women should be allowed to teach in churches today (as a pastor).
Could someone also give the cultural alterations that they believe should be made to Eph 5:21-33 so we can see what the differences are? Because of the comparison of the wife/husband to the church/Christ and its enduring reality (almost 2,000 years) I am having a hard time imagining how any of that could change during the present time.
In the Beloved,
TheOpenTheist
p.s.
I'd love to hear what that booger who left northern Indiana for Minnesota last Thursday instead of Friday (as he told me he would ) has to say about all of this if he's able to contribute (and if you, Greg, would ask him to ).
p.p.s.
I just wanted to let anyone who thinks I am unbalanced in my hatred of sexual immorality know that I did not go with my family to Charlotte, NC to spend Christmas with my sister. She is shacking up with a guy (in a house they just bought) and I will not give anyone the impression that what they're doing is O.K. I also listened to your sermon on homosexuality the other day, Greg, and I thought it was pretty good
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
GregBoyd
12/25/00 5:57 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Headship / Hermenueti c s, not Exegesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I did not go with my family to Charlotte, NC to spend Christmas with my sister. She is shacking up with a guy (in a house they just bought) and I will not give anyone the impression that what they're doing is O.K."
Well well, OT. We are all duly impressed. You truly are pure. Indeed, your righteousness out-does the Saviors. He was guilty of associating with sinners. HIS loved people more than his own reputation.
Between the two sins -- your sisters immorality and your self-righteousness -- I suspect the Lord is far more grieved with yours. You're bragging about this to the rest of us is no more welcome in this chat room than would be someone bragging about a immoral sexual escade they engaged in.
I don't know what you liked about my sermon on homosexuality, OT, but after the testimony you just gave about snubbing your sister, its got me worried I said something wrong. If my brother or sister was gay, I'd consider it sin NOT to show them unconditional love during the Holiday season. I'd visit them and show love to them -- and their lover! If my reputation was compromised by this, so be it. Alls you proved, OT, was that you love your righteous reputation more than your sister. You ARE imbalanced, if not in your hatred for sexual immorality, then in your lack of love.
Be that as it may, what you do with your family is your business (and your sisters misfortune). Do not pollute this chat room with it, okay? Keep the discussion to issues.
Greg Boyd
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TheOpenTheist
12/25/00 11:22 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Headship / Hermenueti c s, not Exegesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What can I say Greg?
I have gotten the impression in the past that my sister is a member of the Body. So I am following the command given in 1 Cor 5 when it comes to dealing with the sexually immoral in the Body.
1 Corinthians 5:9-12
9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet [I] certainly [did] not [mean] with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner -- not even to eat with such a person. 12...Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person."
I'm disappointed that you didn't even mention this command Greg. I'm also disappointed that you didn't recognize that Christ was dealing with the lost in the passage that you refered to and that Paul is refering to those who are members of the Body.
You also forgot the way Christ confronted the woman at the well.
John 4:7-18
7 A woman of Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, "Give Me a drink." 8 For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food. 9 Then the woman of Samaria said to Him, "How is it that You, being a Jew, ask a drink from me, a Samaritan woman?" For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans. 10 Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." 11 The woman said to Him, "Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water? 12 "Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?" 13 Jesus answered and said to her, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, 14 "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life." 15 The woman said to Him, "Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw." 16 Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here." 17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have well said, 'I have no husband,' 18 "for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly."
This woman took Christ's words and responded positively. I'm hoping my sister will do the same. I informed her that at least one study showed that 97% of couples who lived together before they got married ended in divorce. I also told her that what she was doing was wrong and that she was hurting God.
I did give her and her live-in boyfriend a few Christmas presents. One was an article titled Our Passionate God. The motivation behind this gift is to get the message across that when we sin we hurt God. The other was a video titled God and the Death Penalty: New Testament Support For Capitol Punishment. The reason I gave this gift was to make them aware of the consequences of sin and how seriously God deals with sin.
Do you think there's anything unloving about that? Isn't that the most loving thing I can do?
What would you consider doing in this situation that I haven't done? My sister became aware of my opposition to her behavior before I had made up my mind whether or not I was going to Charlotte. Do you think that my presence in Charlotte would have been helpful? Would spending all of that time around my sister whom I regard as living a sexually immoral lifestyle have helped her? I don't think so. It just would have made things more uncomfortable.
The only way I could have made my sister feel comfortable would have been to accept her current living arrangement as O.K. But to do that would mean denying Christ and condoning sexual immorality. I think things are better the way they are now - with me at home.
I believe you misunderstood me when I said "I will not give anyone the impression that what they're doing is O.K.". When I said anyone I was refering specifically to my sister and her live-in boyfriend and to my family and close relatives in general. Most of the other people I'm around don't even know that my sister lives in Charlotte.
You responded to my words saying
"If my reputation was compromised by this, so be it. Alls you proved, OT, was that you love your righteous reputation more than your sister."
It's not about my reputation, it's about those around me who I love getting the message that sexual immorality is wrong - even if it is supported by the culture.
You showed your ignorance of my love when you said
"You ARE imbalanced, if not in your hatred for sexual immorality, then in your lack of love."
I go to great lengths and make many sacrifices for my friends. I drive 100s of miles a week, miss hours of sleep and regard the relationship that I've developed with my friends as the greatest blessings I've received. I go out of my way for strangers and seek their welfare. Those who know me well will tell you this.
If you know of anything that I could have done or I still can do to help my sister repent of her lifestyle of sin please tell me so I can act on it immediately. I have no idea how you would "love" a brother or sister of yours who was gay by showing up at their place for Christmas. What would you do and say to show them that you do not condone that wicked deathstyle? Wouldn't being there be seen as an acceptance of their deathstyle?
TheOpenTheist
Ps 97:10
p.s.
For clarification: The reason I brought up my decision to not spend Christmas with my sister is because some may have the idea that I'm only strongly opposed to the crime of gay sex. I wanted to let those here know that my stand against heterosexual immorality is just as strong as my stand against homosexual immorality. In other words, that p.p.s. note was for them. I didn't expect such a response from Greg.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
trosie
12/25/00 11:59 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Headship / Hermenueti c s, not Exegesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Open Theist:
I am trying to stay off this discussion board as much as possible, however, I feel a need to throw my two cents into this particular discussion. I just want you to ask yourself W.W.J.D. in the situation with your sister? I'm not sure we are always the most effective in winning people to truth by judging them nor by alienating them from our lives. There is a saying that says: "You can win more flies with honey than with vinegar!"
Personally I believe LOVE, not judgment, is the key to our Christian witness
In Christ's Love,
trosie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TheOpenTheist
12/26/00 12:16 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Headship / Hermenueti c s, not Exegesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
trosie
I did one better than W.W.J.D.
I actually posted W.D.J.D. What DID Jesus Do.
Please tell me what you think of my use of the passages I used in my last post. I think I'm using them right. Here's another great passage.
Luke 17:3-4
3 "Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. 4 "And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, 'I repent,' you shall forgive him."
Here are a few of my favorite Proverbs to throw into the mix.
Proverbs 24:25
But those who rebuke [the wicked] will have delight, And a good blessing will come upon them.
Proverbs 27:5
Open rebuke [is] better Than love carefully concealed.
I've found that it's impossible to love without exercising judgment. As long as I love good and hate evil I will have to judge righteously (John 7:24). I think it's impossible to love what's good without hating what's evil.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
GregBoyd
12/26/00 6:13 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Headship / Hermenueti c s, not Exegesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 points OT, then I'm done with this conversation.
1) You say your purpose in advertising your dissing your sister at Christmas was to show all in the chat room that you are not imbalanced: viz. you are against heterosexual immorality as much as homosexual immorality. Either way you're trying to parade (what you deem to be) your own righteousness, and its out of place here. Please don't do it again. No one cares about how righteous you are, or at least think you are.
2) I Cor. 5 tells us not to have Christian fellowship with Christians who will not repent of public sin. Within the body of Christ we aren't to act like all is wonderful among believers when there is gross unrepentant sin going on. NO PRETENDING ALLOWED, in other words. We are to regard the unrepentant person as a non-believer.
But we still try to win non-believers over by love, don't we?. We don't have "Christian fellowship" with them, but we do have fellowship. Neither I Cor. 5 nor Mat 18 condones self-righteous snubbery of sinners.
3) You mention Jn 4 regarding Jesus' discussion with the Samaritan woman at the well. How you think this supports your behavior is a mystery to me. What stands out here is that Jesus, AGAINST ALL CULTURAL RULES, spoke with and reached out to this woman! He brought up her lurid past in a respectful manner, without shame, and offered his love as the thing she was really "thirsty" for. And no where did he suggest "clean up your act right now or I'll never talk to you again."
4)You say, "I have no idea how you would "love" a brother or sister of yours who was gay by showing up at their place for Christmas." OT, this is so sad. It makes me wonder if you yourself know unconditional love, from people or from God. You love a sinner the way Christ loves sinners -- like you and me. You just love. Then love some more. Now again. You sacrifice. You say, 'though I disagree with you, I still love you.' You give a gentle touch here. A warm smile there. A thoughtful card here. A passionate embrace now and then.
5) "What would you do and say to show them that you do not condone that wicked deathstyle?" Assuming they are professing believers, you might trying telling them you don't condone there lifestyle, though you do love them. Trying to "spank them" by not showing up isn't likely to do much good. Think about it. Do you really think they're sitting around this Christmas saying to each other, "Gee, we better quit sinning, otherwise OT won't visit us." What they're more likely thinking is, "If God is anything like the character of OT, we'll do without thank you." And it would be hard to blame them.
6) "What would you consider doing in this situation that I haven't done?" Spending Christmas with your sister and her loved ones. Call tonight and ask for forgiveness for your self-righteousness. Show them that you love them and accept them AS PERSONS, though you do not agree with their behavior. Pray for them. Share with them your own struggles and failures, but how God has forgiven you. Come down off of your position of superiority.
7). Just curious, OT. You have a lot of energy over sexual sin. Are you as passionate against self-righteousness, injustice, greed, apathy for the poor and oppressed, and gossip (slander) -- sins that are spoken against more harshly and more frequently than sexual immorality? Would you snub your sister because she gossiped habitually, or because she was wealthy but only gave 1.5% of her income to help the poor (the national average)?
All this aside, I don't want to talk about your personal issues with your sister, your righteous indignation over sex or anything of the sort. This chat room is for discussion on issues. I apologize if I've been overly confrontational in this exchange, OT, but I felt it was called for because a) Jesus clearly demonstrated that the sin of religious self-righteousness is the most dangerous and deceptive of all sins -- hence HE confronted it so strongly; and b) this is my web cite and, while I will be EXTREMELY tolerant of all sorts of different views, I will not tolerate self-righteousness advertising.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
trosie
12/26/00 11:17 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Headship / Hermenueti c s, not Exegesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOW! That was some response, Greg! I guess you made your point quite strongly. I want to respond to Open Theist too since he was courteous enough to respond to me earlier regarding this topic.
Greg Boyd said: "What would you do and say to show them that you do not condone that wicked deathstyle?" Assuming they are professing believers, you might trying telling them you don't condone there lifestyle, though you do love them. Trying to "spank them" by not showing up isn't likely to do much good. Think about it. Do you really think they're sitting around this Christmas saying to each other, "Gee, we better quit sinning, otherwise OT won't visit us." What they're more likely thinking is, "If God is anything like the character of OT, we'll do without thank you." And it would be hard to blame them
I agree with this. Open Theist, I have been thinking about this and believe the only person who is losing in your action is you. You missed out on the opportunity of sharing a holiday with loved ones. I agree that your action will most likely not win your sister and her boyfriend over to seeing your view, and could possibly turn them off to Christianity altogether. Personally,I thank God that He has more patience and tolerance for us then you seem to have for your sister. I believe we are to act as Christ acted and I don't see Him alienating people because of their sin. If He did we would ALL be doomed since we are ALL sinners!
The Bible tells us in Matt. 7:1-5 "Judge not, that you be not judged ...... Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
I believe that we should tell the person ,in a loving way, that we don't condone their sin. We are to 'love the sinner but not their sin.' I admire your convictions but don't agree with your approach. I believe the BEST approach, after we convey our opinion, is to pray that God will open their eyes to His truth. Prayer and love are the keys to answering the question of W.W.J.D.
God bless you,
trosie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/27/00 10:26 AM
RE: women in ministry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon, you always have the most interesting references! You're right, this article is hard on Southern Baptists. But I agree that the Southern Baptist history of supporting slavery/segregation, and of opposing women's suffrage and civil rights--all in the name of Christianity--is very relevant to their views of male headship/female submission.
Although many Southern Baptists qualified their support of slavery and their (ongoing) support for the subordination of women by affirming the equality of slaves and women with the white men that God ordained to rule them, functionally their hierarchical values reinforced the racist/sexist cultural status quo.
In spite of their pro-slavery, anti-sufferage history, why do so many individual Christians and Christian institutions continue to follow the Southern Baptist lead? How can we be so sure that their use of the Bible to require wifely submission and prohibit women from ministry is not as gross an abuse of biblical authority as when they used it to justify slavery?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/27/00 2:13 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Headship / Hermenueti c s, not Exegesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg, I just want to thank you for your contribution to this thread.
Egalitarian marriage and ministry roles is one area of agreement between Greg Boyd and Millard Erickson. I wish more evangelical leaders would take a stand like they have on this issue.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
12/27/00 10:49 AM
women in ministry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point of the article was to not to be "exegetically satisfying" (OT's beef, sorry) but to show how southern culture has influenced a particular branch of Protestantism. This is what I think needs to be looked at. I think we need to remember that both individually and as the whole body of Christ we have "blindspots." For i.e. I am reading Cameron Lee's "Beyond Family Values: A Call to Christian Virtue" where he states that the Church has idolized the family. Made it her goal and mission to sustain "healthy families." It seems that Jesus may have "temporalized the family" and Stanley Grenz pointed this out some years ago in an article in Christianity Today. And the call to retain or comeback to "family values" (coming mostly from the "religious right" and whatever those may be) is really a reflection of secular values of the general culture. Whatever one may think of his view I think it is important that we "Examine everything" and this includes being open to the (real) possibility that we are inundated by secular influences.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TheOpenTheist
12/27/00 11:02 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Headship / Hermenueti c s, not Exegesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 responses to your 7 points, then I'm done with this conversation.
1) I'll gladly comply with your request even though it's worded poorly.
2) Think about it Greg. What kind of "fellowship" can exist between my sister who is committing gross sin and me who is sleeping in the same house that the gross sin (which I abhor) is being committed? Very awkward and uncomfortable. I don't think my sister, having the knowledge that I oppose her lifestyle of sin, would even want me at her house after one night. Even at my nicest behavior. Things will be better with me staying home and "not even eating with such a person".
3) I was thinking of Christ bringing up the woman's whorish history and that she was shacking up with some guy at the present time. Christ exposed sin and we are to also (Eph 5:11).
4) You left the line of love that you presented unfinished Greg. Let me finish it for you based on what I've observed in similar circumstances.
"You sacrifice. You say, 'though I disagree with you, I still love you.' You give a gentle touch here. A warm smile there. A thoughtful card here. A passionate embrace now and then." Then you wave with a smile as you watch your homo brother/sister thrown into Hell on Judgment Day.
It's called loving a person to death. Instead of giving the strong rebuke that would benefit somebody on the steep slope of destruction family members give their full support and stand behind them all the way to their death bed (usually in their 30's). My best friends minister to homos Greg. They know what works and it's not the "mushy-gushy" love. It's the strong rebuke.
5) You said
"Trying to "spank them" by not showing up isn't likely to do much good."
It does more good than you might think.
You said
"What they're more likely thinking is, 'If God is anything like the character of OT, we'll do without thank you.' And it would be hard to blame them."
God is like that! 1 Cor 6:9 comes to mind. Many people do think that if God is anything like the God presented in the Bible then they'll do without. Many people reject the God portrayed by open theism. They can respond that way. It's a risk I'm willing to take.
6) Their sin is part of their PERSON Greg. Just like someone who murders is defined as a murderer. Someone who fornicates a fornicator. It comes out of their hearts (Matt 15:3-20).
7) Yes. I oppose all of those vigorously. In fact, when I protest the Women's Health Clinic (or more appropriately The Women's Clinic From Hell) and Planned Barrenhood this Thursday morning in Fort Wayne I'll be fighting three of the sins you mentioned as well as sexual immorality at the same time. I can't stand gossip and the destruction it brings (I've been hurt badly by it) and I do try to get my friends to help the poor (of which some are my friends) often. A trip to St. Paul's is coming up next week and I'm looking forward to spreadin some love among the poor and down-troddin.
I plan on moving to Denver to fight evil even more vigorously in the near future with Enyart's very effective ministry based in Denver.
Gotta go. Have a great New Year!
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
BBBCanada
12/27/00 11:39 AM
Headship / Hermenueti c s, not Exegesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TheOpenTheist said:
"p.p.s. I just wanted to let anyone who thinks I am unbalanced in my hatred of sexual immorality know that I did not go with my family to Charlotte, NC to spend Christmas with my sister. She is shacking up with a guy (in a house they just bought) and I will not give anyone the impression that what they're doing is O.K. I also listened to your sermon on homosexuality the other day, Greg, and I thought it was pretty good"
Oh boy...Jesus loves me this I know...Dude, you are their only hope! God may have positioned you in their life to be a conduit of his unconditional love.
From Brow and Pinnock aaaaaagain:
Chap 16 Fellowship: Enjoying Love
Acceptance and Transformation
Fellowship (Greek koinonia) refers to sharing the grace of God and is also a term for those who accept one another. We are forgiven people who have begun a process of being changed into Christ's likeness. We are not here because we are good people - those outside church may be nobler than we are. (Jesus said something certainly about them being wiser emphasis BBBCanada) Much in us still needs changing, but God is not finished with us yet.
Fellowship is more then acceptance. Members of many groups have high tolerance for each other's faults. Acceptance is an important start, but fellowship also aims at transformation. Since we are being changed into God's likeness, we look at each other in the light of what we will become. Alcoholics on skid row accept one another - but they do so without expectation of change for the better. Things will only get worse until death ends the stupor. But we hope for transformation and new creation.
We are looking for a process of change by the Spirit. We trust God for this and must not try to take it over. If we manipulate persons into doing what we think is good for them, they will resist. They will not trust those who interfere. We leave God to do the changing in his own way, according to his own sequence. We do not know how to get at people's problems. We do not know the priority of corrections needed. We may think a certain fault is glaring when something deeper is the underlying problem.
In the 1950's J. B. Phillips wrote a book called Your God Is Too Small. Maybe we now need a book called Your God Is Too Fast! Too readily we try to make God operate according to our rushed schedules. In both creation and redemption God takes a lot of time. God does not seem to be in a hurry. He knows how to work in a person's life and how to pace it. A thousand years of our time is just a day for God. God goes by his own schedule.
It doesn't help when we nag people about what's wrong with them and what they should be doing next. Such interference is likely to cause resentment and do more harm than good. Faith trusts God to work holiness in his own way and in the appropriate sequence. [Richard Mouw, "Humility, Hope and the Divine Slowness," in How My Mind Has Changed, ed. James M. Wall and David Heim (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 21-31]
We do not see Jesus correcting the bad habits of the disciples. As we will see in a moment, he had strong words for legalists, and the epistles severely reprove false teachers, but there is mostly positive encouragement for people to exercise their priesthood. There is no nagging interference in people's lives.
This does not imply an attitude of indifference. Concern about the faults of others should be brought to God in prayer, not to them. We talk to God about the behavior that upsets us and ask the Spirit to work in the other person's life. As we go deeper in prayer conversation with God, we may catch glimpses of the hurt, abuse and deprivation that are causing the damage. The process of change can be facilitated without abusing one another's self-respect. In prayer we hand each other over to God to be changed by him. Such prayer is an expression of our faith, and it is the most loving thing we can do.
That is how Christian prayer gives loving support unobtrusively. It is the strong foundation of vital fellowship. In prayer we yield to God to do the renewing work.
Accepting Our Acceptance
Failures of Christian growth can have serious consequences but they do not put our salvation in jeopardy. When we are baptized into the fellowship, God assures us we are forgiven, and we should assure others of that too. God knows our frailty and forgives us. He does not keep an account of our sins. Although we know God forgives sins, often our hardest challenge is not being able to forgive ourselves.
Community helps us cope with this difficulty. Here we are given the assurance that we are loved and accepted, however much we fail. It is hard for us to believe in divine forgiveness unless our fellows accept us unconditionally too. When the local church expresses acceptance in its life and worship, God's love is powerfully sensed, faith is increased, and new people are drawn to Christ.
In the fellowship we are accepted and forgiven, whatever our faults. And since we have been shown such mercy, we must take care not to reject the love of God for others. If there is someone we refuse to accept, the fellowship is broken and the assurance of our own forgiveness is called in question. The Lord's Prayer reminds us of this: "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors." Later Jesus adds, "If you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive your trespasses" (Matthew 6:12,14-15). God does not reject us for refusing to forgive, but our refusing to forgive has serious consequences.
When we start thinking that others owe us an apology and need to prove they are sorry, and will perform better in the future, we may be refusing to forgive a trespass. Refusal to forgive is a sickness in us. What right do we have to enjoy unmerited forgiveness if we do not extend it to others? The forgiven but unforgiving servant in the parable finds himself in deep trouble (Matthew 18:21-35).
If we forgive readily, does this mean license? No, because people reap what they sow by their actions (Galatians 6:7). God's wrath assigns consequences to our actions even while he loves and forgives us. God feels the pain of self-destructive behavior and assigns consequences. We too need to assign consequences for totally unacceptable behavior.
If someone helps herself to money out of the offering plate, we can make sure the plate is empty when it is passed to her next time. This does not contradict our continuing to love and forgive her as God does. If a man makes inappropriate sexual advances, consequences should be assigned and precautions taken. A single woman would not want to accompany this person to his apartment alone. But the person can still be loved and forgiven and can learn through this difficulty what love means.
Loving intimacy between men and women in church need not lead to immorality. Having tasted what genuine love is, we learn to view others not as objects of desire but as persons - every woman a sister and every man a brother.
Risky Business
Acceptance is risky business. Jesus' policy of open friendship led him to invite to God's banquet anyone who might choose to come. His was an accepting lifestyle that welcomed all and sundry into fellowship. The church is a school of the Spirit. A school takes in pupils who are ignorant and undisciplined at first.
But a school cannot survive long if its teachers reject what they are appointed to do. The same Jesus who welcomed sinners to his circle also denounced the false teachers of the law. A school for sinners needs teachers who know what is going on and who are in line with God's way of acceptance and transformation. One must distinguish between strong measures for dealing with false teachers (Romans 16:17, 2 Timothy 3:5, Titus 1:9, 2 John 10, Revelation 22:2) and the gentle treatment of ordinary disciples.
There is also a fine line between a student who is behaving badly and one who sets out to disrupt. Unruly students cannot be permitted to undermine the purpose for which the school exists. In a school, if a boy comes to class, lights up a joint and begins to sell drugs during class, even the most accepting teacher must send the student to the principal. On one occasion Paul had to exclude a man from the congregation on account of flagrant sexual sins, but even then Paul's stated goal was restoration (1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 2 Corinthians 2:5-11).
Brandon
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 4:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Message Go To Page << 1 2
Ecclesiastes5_2
12/27/00 4:09 PM
RE: Headship / Hermenueti c s, not Exegesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon,
THANK YOU ....I was gettin' nervous for a minute there. I agree completely and get excited every time I hear someone preach, teach, repeat, exclaim, shout from the mountain top....that very message.
Praise The Lord,
Eccles
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
12/27/00 5:00 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Headship / Hermenueti c s, not Exegesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling gay people "homos" really communicates love and respect. Sure to win them over. Truly.
THIS is why Jesus pounded the self-righteous of his day and was scandalously merciful toward "the immoral."
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
12/28/00 11:08 AM
Headship / Hermenueti c s, not Exegesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Brandon, THANK YOU ....I was gettin' nervous for a minute there. I agree completely and get excited every time I hear someone preach, teach, repeat, exclaim, shout from the mountain top....that very message. Praise The Lord, Eccles"
Well, I cannot take much responsibility for that quote other than cutting and pasting. But I whole heartily agree with it. So in order not to plagurize (sp) I will repeat again that it is from Robert Brow and Clark Pinnock's, "Unbounded Love" which can be view and downloaded at www.brow.on.ca
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Ecclesiastes5_2
12/28/00 10:32 PM
I once was blind but now I see
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a note of testimony...
Beso, I agree. I too, about 7 years ago, thought that gay people were
unreachable and (to be frank and honest) not WORTH my time.
Then one day while at work I had a discussion about the Bible with an openly gay man. He said something I will never forget..."I really WANT to KNOW THIS GOD but I couldn't come within a mile of YOUR church." I asked him why he would say that. He replied, "They would laugh me right out of there!" Now, of course he didn't know MY church, but this is what HE DID KNOW about Christianity and it hurt me to the core. I was changed that day. We talked a lot about God at work, I don't know if he ever accepted Christ....he couldn't bring himself to set foot in church. He died of AIDS a while later.
I regret the time wasted and opportunities missed by MY judgementalism.
Jesus is Lord of ALL and doesn't want ANY to perish.
*
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:19 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|