It's all about hermeneutics. Don't fight with me about inerrancy.

There is a good debate going on at Hermeneutics and Human dignity. It is interesting to me because I was just taking a break from reading about this very issue in Gordon Fee's 'Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics' to look at the net and I came across Peter's post.

Peter Carrell writes about how he supports

"... the ordination of women as a recognition of calling...the church should not ordain women as a matter driven primarily by justice considerations but foremost as a matter of responding to the discernment of the will of God."

I couldn't agree more and when people begin to realise that this is all about God and nothing to do with making accommodations to the prevailing culture the better. Why those who support women's ordination are always accused of succumbing to social mores, I do not know. It is faulty reasoning and something I have come across so often. Fee describes how:

'The so-called women's issue is a hermeneutical question, and we will have differences here. But those differences are not questions of the authority of scripture... They are questions of interpretation...' p.20

'Unfortunately, in an area where hermeneutics is in fact the key issue, some have taken a rigid stance on the basis of their own hermeneutics that they have accused others of believing in an errant Bible because they do not hold to the same interpretation.' (p.2)

Whenever I see arguments based on one party proclaiming to have the 'plain' reading, I think of Fee's words.

Is not the universal principle of 1 Tim 2 11-15 more to do with the fact that anyone teaching false doctrines (whether they be male or female), who has usurped established authority is to be corrected, no, indeed, silenced? This is what we should concern ourselves with. If the devil has anything to do with it, he has succeeded indeed in having us all preoccupy ourselves with worldly antagonisms to offices and titles and gender, when it is those teaching an anti-gospel that we should be concerned about. We all need to wake up! But as for that reading, it is hermeneutics, interpretation. I refuse to make claims that it is the plain reading. You know, our ability to read infallibly, God's infallible word was destroyed by the fall. We will all struggle where there is ambiguity. Thankfully about primary issues, there is consensus but about secondary issues, we will have to be prepared to wait until we meet him face-to-face, until then we carry on with our consciences clean and with the church recognising two integrities on this issue and if we are really going to imitate Christ by the power of his Spirit, let us try for the sake of the gospel to be of one accord, in so much as we love each other, despite our differences and all press-on with kingdom building for the Lord's sake.

Event

and a concert in the eve 7.30pm Gospel.

Subscribe?

Even if you do not want to take part, you could subscribe for updates to this:Click image.

Let it all be done in a spirit of fellowship and mutual edification for as this really fab bloke (understatement! His 'Gospel and Spirit' Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics' is a brilliant read, so good I can't put it down!) says:

“It is hardly possible in a day like ours that one will not have denominational, theological, or ideological preferences. The difficulty lies in allowing that it might really be true that ‘all things are ours,’ including those whom we think God would do better to be without. But God is full of surprises; and he may choose to minister to us from the ’strangest’ of sources, if we were but more truly ‘in Christ’ and therefore free in him to learn and to love…But to be ‘of Christ’ is also to be free from the tyrannies of one’s own narrowness, free to learn even from those with whom one may disagree.” – Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT, 156. (Oh, this book is so expensive).

When was the last time you looked in the mirror?

'When was the last time you looked in the mirror?'

For if any are hearers of the word, and not doers, they are like those who look at themselves in a mirror; for they look at themselves and, on going away, immediately forget what they were like. But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act- they will be blessed in their doing. James 1:23-25.

I am reminded of that famous picture by J D Waterhouse:
In Greek mythology, the unhappy nymph Echo falls in love with the beautiful youth Narcissus. Narcissus, however rejects her, he falls in love with the beautiful face reflected in the pool, which is, of course, his own reflection. He so wants to kiss the beautiful face but every time he tries to do so and his fingers touch the surface of the pool and the beautiful face disappears. He becomes obsessed by his own image in the pool's mirror and dies the death of the self-absorbed. His is a mirror of obsession; self interest.

There is another mirror. It proclaims to speak truth. 'Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the fairest one of all?' But, soon, on asking, the Queen discovers that Snow White is the fairest in the land and she flies into a rage.

Two mirrors: one leading to narcissism and the other self-delusion. Narcissus stares at his own reflection, as do we at times, but hopefully those close to us will challenge us in our smugness. When we look sometimes, like Snow White's grandmother, we'll be deluded. Now more challenging than self-absorption or delusion is the threat echoed by James. If we are hearers but not doers, we look in the mirror but we cannot understand the significance of what we see. Looking in a mirror invites a response. Christ's mirror reflects us. Christ-like, it is a mirror unlike any other. It calls us to respond to Jesus Christ's teaching. It brings us the Word and the blessing of his promise but also God's demands and expectations. We mustn't deceive ourselves. With the Christ-mirror, it reflects us as God expects us to be but in that mirror we are not alone. We are in front of the Christ-mirror with a whole group, each trying to love the person he's made us to be, each other and God. The Christ-mirror reflects truth and selfishness. We have the potential to change the world. We live in the liberty of the law so our human living abides by Kingdom values. God's truth in me and you, as well as God's demands on me and you- we need each other to see the potential for love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. So the last question: When is the las time you looked in the mirror? is not the last question, it is followed by another and another: 'Do you remember what you saw? And 'Do you need someone else to look into that mirror with you?'

30th Aug 09, Twelfth after Trinity. St Thomas of Canterbury, Dodbrooke, Devon.

Benefice Sung Eucharist at Dodbrooke Church 10:30am

Thank you Tony

Seeking advice on a translation

Perhaps you'll confirm what I already suspect but perhaps not. What are your opinions on these choices:

ESV NIV NRSV TNIV

Which would suit me?
Which might get me riled and why?

Father and more than father

'Paul's vision for he world is a transcendental projection of his vision of home and family. That is the only other model he has to work with. He does not work from universal human rights or democratic social privileges. He is thinking of the householder, who in a patriarchal society is usually the father, so we can with full integrity replace the gendered word "father" with the ungendered word "householder" or even "homemaker".' (Borg and Crossan)

“Thou art my Father, thou art my Mother, thou my Brother, thou art Friend, thou art Servant, thou art House-keeper; thou art the All, and the All is in thee; thou art Being, and there is nothing that is, except thou. “
Chrysostom [Nicene & Post Nicene Father, no. 10, 1st ser., ed. Philip Schaff]

Interesting, yes. And Crossan and Borg aren't making new claims here.

So I think to myself but Paul knew about Jesus' relationship with a God he calls father but then you remember that the gospels aren't even written yet at the time Paul is writing. But Paul spoke to those who had known Jesus and would they not have recited the Lord's prayer? Paul himself talks about how we talk to our 'abba father' because we are 'In Christ'. God is Father but it is healthy, I think, to dwell on what else God brings to his relationship with us and the idea of us all being his children and him being the householder or housekeeper is a useful and a comforting one.

Reclaiming the radical visionary behind the conservative icon

Marcus J Borg and Dominic Crossan have really held my attention with their 'The First Paul', (not finished it, yet) and they are really making me think...

Primarily, they have made me wonder what kind of a 'Bible-reader' I am, for want of a better way of putting it.

On page 13, they describe how:

What differentiates mainstream scholars from fundamentalist and many conservative scholars is that the former do not begin with the presumption that the Bible is unlike other books in that it has a divine guarantee to be inerrant and infallible. Rather, mainstream scholars see the Bible as a historical product that can be studied as other historical documents are...

So where do I sit? There have to be shades of grey in between these two extremes. (Oh, how us Anglicans love sitting in the middle). I do begin with the presumption that the Bible is unlike other books in that it has a divine guarantee to be inerrant and infallible but I also believe that it can be studied as a historical product like other historical documents. I first came to realise that investigation of the Bible in this way is possible without being blasphemous when I started to study Deuteronomy with Dr Daryl Docterman.

For example, even though the New Testament witnesses to Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy through Christ, Peter and Stephen (Matt. 19:7,8; Mark 10:3,4; Acts 3:22; 7:37), theories since the Enlightenment have posited multiple redactors, who are thought to have combined older traditions, oral and written, into a single text woven from many parts. A critical reader becomes conscious of discrepancies in redaction because of explicit features of the text such as Moses' death, which is reported in chapter 34 and can only be being reported by a later redactor.

Some Christians might think that if Christ witnesses to Mosaic authorship then who are we to put our own judgments above God. Well, again, I think Christians can sometimes set up unhelpful categories. Mosaic or not Mosaic? Do you believe Jesus or not? Well, there are countless examples of claims in the Bible that we shouldn't take literally. We have to understand the literary genres. For example, do I have to believe that exactly 3000 people were added to the believers in Acts or might this be hyperbole? I can still understand that a very significant number received the Holy Spirit and were converted. Do I have to believe that all the Amakalites were wiped out in Deuteronomy or do I instead understand that these claims belong to the genre of conquest narrative in which huge claims were made about the spoils and victories in battles much as today we would exaggerate the size of the fish that we caught on our day fishing?

What investigation like this does, though, is have you take great care about where to draw the line. We must guard our lives and doctrine carefully and not be buffeted and blown or led away by false teaching. Certain points in the Bible are non-negotiables.

So to bring this aside to a close, historical investigation does not worry me because I still think that despite its more complicated journey into what we know it today, the formation of the Bible is still something inspired by the Holy Spirit and is exactly as God would have us have it!

So I am not threatened by Borg and Crossan's explanation of how the radical Paul (in his 7 authentic letters) becomes the reactionary Paul in the pastoral epistles (Tim 1 and 2 and Titus, regarded by most scholars as not to have been written by Paul at all because they accommodate themselves too much to the conventional mores of Paul's time) and the conservative Paul in Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians (the disputed letters).

Now prior to reading Crossan and Borg and studying the NT Epistles (which will be my first module in Sept), I have always been able to see all the letters as having been written by Paul. But it is harder for the Church to read the messages of Titus and 1 and 2 Timothy as consistent with the rest of Paul's teachings. Now I am not saying that I have some kind of superior knowledge because I can read them as having been written by Paul, but it could be that not all Christians look into the various interpretations because there are many Christian women, in particular, who simply discount Paul because they read parts of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, Eph, Col etc as being different in tone regarding women. I have heard Christian women say that they love Jesus but they have some serious problems with Paul. This is regrettable and is a situation not alleviated by the Church who have for the second millennium, until fairly recently, considered Junia, whom Paul calls an apostle, a man. Today, consistent with the first millennium, it is known that Junia is the name of a woman. But what was the church going to do with Paul's claiming a woman an apostle? It just didn't suit the prevailing, patriarchal culture. There are other examples of how the Church has not made life easy for those who believe in a radical Paul. Our Bible translations separate verse 21 from 22 with a side-heading in Ephesians, chapter 5, leading readers to lose the sense that the submission Paul is describing is a mutual submission 'to the Lord'.

I have been helped in my reading of the epistles so that a radical Paul is radical throughout by Fee, NT Wight, Bilezikian, Cheryl Schatz, Groothius etc. The Church of England has obviously understood a Paul who is radical too because it teaches an egalitarian Christian theology in which women and men are gifted by the Holy Spirit to serve their families, the Church and the world without it also depending on their gender. The C of E have ordained women since the nineties and will soon consecrate the first female bishops (well, relatively soon).

So, how now do I take on board Crossan and Borg's theory that we read 1 Tim 2 11-15 etc as at odds with the rest of Paul's theology and attribute these verses to another writer?

Crossan and Borg even go so far as to claim that the writer of Tim 1, 2 and Titus is anti-Pauline with regard to major aspects of his theology. These letters 'represent a domestication of Paul's passion to the normalcy of the Roman imperial world.'

They take Philemon as 'the perfect test case'. They look at how Paul could have 'sent the Christian slave back to his Christian owner with admonitions for each: Onesimus is to obey and Philemon is to forgive. Or he could have requested that Onesimus remain as his own slave or even be freed into his care. But no, as we have seen, Paul sends Onesimus back to Philemon so that Philemon can - that is, must - free him voluntarily as is his Christian duty deriving from his Christian baptismal commitment. Christians cannot be equal and unequal to one another in Christ. But that equality within the Christian assembly spills out into the streets and fills up all of Christian life. Christians are to be equal to one another inside and outside, in the assembly and in our society.'

It's all very convincing - this reading of a radical Paul, intent on equality, turning his world upside down as did Jesus, not segregating the women as had happened in worship within the synagogues but allowing all to lead, preach, teach, pray and prophesy in the house-group churches of the day because ultimately God is the head of the household and all his children are equal and gifted by the Holy Spirit. But their refusal to accept the legitimacy of the letters in terms of authorship is problematic.

So it just leaves me asking, with all our interpretations, exegetical hang-ups, hermeneutical bridges, agendas, presuppositions, theories, prejudices, of which there are many on many sides, Paul did a great deal for Christianity (understatement!) but what has Christianity done to Paul?

When are we really (and now I am going to sound very post-modern) going to know the truth? For me, whether I believe Paul wrote all the letters or whether I come to see in time and with theological education that perhaps Paul didn't write all those letters, Paul will remain for me radical, inclusive of women and anti-slavery; the master-teacher of mutual submission between Christians.

What will a theological education, which is at the same time training for ordained ministry, have me say from the pulpit...surely that all these letters are Paul's? Is the choice here symptomatic of the difference between evangelical and mainstream Anglicanism? Or should I have said liberal rather than mainstream Anglicanism?

I'll blog some more on Crossan and Borg. I haven't made me mind up about them but theirs is just one more theory about Paul for me to add to the growing collection.

How many ways are there of reading 1 Corinthians 11 and 14?

Hermeneutics – don't you just love it?



Here I will collect together some possible ways of reading these two passages.

Please feel free to contribute your interpretation. I will add to this from

Crossan and Borg in time. This is what I have looked at so far as

regards these parts of scripture:





Some interpretations of 1 Corinthians 11:2-12  and 14:34-38  

Where kephale denotes headship, evangelicals believe, that in this epistle Paul is explaining authority and submission within Christian relationships. Man is under Christ's authority, woman is under man's authority and Christ is under God's authority. There are codes governing appearance when men and women meet to pray and prophesy. There are a diversity of views regarding the reason necessitating head coverings. Some argue that at the time a woman had to cover her head in that cultural context to distinguish herself from the Corinthian prostitutes and it is to this that Paul is referring. For Piper and Grudem, women are to conform to their pattern at creation and be distinct from men. Because woman is the glory of man, and created for him, she wears the veil, literally (or metaphorically by assuming humility) because she is under his authority. If she fails to do this 'she brought shame both on herself [head] and...the man [her head].'1 The verses assert male headship. In practice churches understanding the epistle in this way have found it difficult to implement the wearing of hats or headscarves. When Terry Virgo and his wife first planted churches, they insisted the women wear hats but discovered they were 'trying to force something that was not culturally relevant in our society.' (see W Virgo, Influential Women, p.150)

The verses in chapter 14 call on women to be silent in church, to not interrupt but to be submissive and ask their husbands for clarification when they return home if they have failed to understand something. Husbands are responsible for the spiritual leadership of their households. It is interesting to note that many who read the text in this way, do, nevertheless, consider the translation of the Greek word sigao as 'silent' to be misleading because it contradicts so obviously what has been said before about both men and women praying and prophesying. (Newfrontiers Churches are keen to encourage women with these gifts).They suppose it means something more like 'quietly' or 'hushed'. Nevertheless,the onus is still on the man for spiritual leadership.

Another way of reading these verses

Other evangelicals deny that Paul presents a hierarchical sequence of relationships here because he doesn't arrange his sentences to denote this. Instead, God is the source of Christ, Christ the source of mankind and man the source of woman because she was made from his rib. (There is much debate about whether Kephale means source or authority). Adam is unconscious at the moment of his wife's creation and unaware from whence she came, only struck by how perfectly she completes him: 'bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh' and Paul is capturing this idea with his 'the woman is the glory of man.'2 Even though Paul might be exhorting the Corinthian men and women to appear in ways that are appropriate culturally so as not to ihibit the message of the gospel to those who are curious and watching the conduct of Christians carefully, men and women are, nevertheless equal in the Lord as Paul explains: 'in the Lord, however...everything comes from God.' Bilezikian is the proponent of an argument which explains away any ambiguities in this problem passage very simply. Paul is writing to this church because Judaizers are insisting incorrectlythat women should be veiled and silenced. 'Paul cites in chapter 11:6-10 the Corinthian Judaizers' legalistic arguments...relative to veils, hair and angels' 3 so that he might correct them. In the Greek there was no such punctuation mark as the quotation mark and this is the reason for the confusion over the passage. There does seem to be a natural change of tone at verse 11. Paul has repeated their Judaic thinking back to them and then gives his answer: that 'in the Lord', this is not to be the case. He exhorts the Corinthians to look to nature. God has seen to it that the women are covered, by their long hair (verse 15). There is no need for any mark of authority on a woman when she is equally able, like a man, to pray and prophesy in public meetings. Similarly, in chapter 14, Paul is quoting a false practice so that he can rebuke the church. He quotes the Corinthians in verses 34 and 35 and then corrects their thinking. They considered it appropriate to silence the women to alleviate the disordered nature of their worship gatherings.This is not a suitable recourse and their appeal to the law does not fool Paul who knew his scriptures. There is nothing in Mosaic law requiring the silence of women. The correction begins at verse 36 and was originally introduced with an exclamation like 'What?!' but this has been lost in translation. The change in tone now signals the correction with Paul shocked that this church dares to think itself more spiritual than any other and create its own rules, when the guidance that he has for their church supersedes anything that they might glean from the law because it is 'of the Lord'. He warns them that if they fail to recognise this, they too will be unrecognised.

Some of my concluding thoughts for these passages' influence on the women in leadership debate

Proverbs 18:17 describes how 'The first to present their case seems right-- till another cross-examines them.' It is difficult for evangelicals to come to any kind of consensus. Whether it be an appeal to reason, tradition or scripture or a combination of all three, an antithetical conclusion can be drawn. In raising the theological issue of apostolicity being male throughout time, examples can be found of female deacons, priests and bishops. Where women assert their sense of calling, opponents judge this too concordant with the prevailing culture and the church is charged with succumbing to social pressures. Those who argue that women bishops are the result of a movement of the Holy Spirit face the theological views of the cessationists for whom there is no new revelation.

Perhaps at the very core of the debate is a confusion over the concept of submisson. Christians can not deny that Christianity is about submission: submission to the Godhead, the gospel and the Church which we are called to serve. As regards whether one gender is to submit more than another,this seems an appropriate question to ask when the word seems to have become associated with subordination. In Grudem and Rainey's 'Pastoral Leadership for Manhood and Womanhood', they describe that the 'Biblical View of Submission ...requires her to submit to him..., while no passage indicates that a husband should be subordinate to his wife.'4 It is in the casual exchange of the word submit for subordinate that significant problems lie. These two words are not synonymous because the former is theological and about 'dying to self', the latter is worldly, denoting inferiority. When a woman's Christian submission is also subordinationism to men, she is denied the role of oversight in the Church. E L Mascall, despite being a traditionalist, says that 'behind St Paul's thought about the man and the woman... the fundamental relation is not one of inferiority but of mutual perfection and of derived partnership.'5 Advocates of women bishops will reassert that Christianity is about servant-hood and not authority to counteract the proponents of male headship. About servant-hood all Christians are agreed but advocates will stress this aspect of Christian distinctiveness as theyexplain that women and men should serve the Body of Christ in the ordained offices because of their spiritual gifts, without it also depending on their gender!

1 PIPER, J. & GRUDEM, W.,Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, A Response to Evangelical feminism,p.132

2 MARSHALL, I.H., 'Mutual Love and Submission in Marriage'

3 BILEZIKIAN,G., Beyond Sex Roles: What the Bible says about a woman's place in church and family, p104

4 GRUDEM W & Rainey D (ed.s) Pastoral Leadership for Manhood and Womanhood, p.203-4

5 MASCALL, E.L., 'Women and the Priesthood of the Church' p.119

P.S. I am aware that there are probably some faults with the above. At grad level I got about 58%. (where 40% Pass and 70% distinction). Yep, that means there's room for improvement. I wrote an essay about Women bishops as an independent student. Some of the above has been adapted from that essay. It was marked by Christina Baxter and was my first ever essay. I haven't started full-time training yet. Bear that in mind but do not worry about pointing me to my places of weakness. I'm just hoping to learn. However, Greek and Hebrew studies have not begun for me yet so don't bamboozle me.

Resources from the theological college I attend on Youtube

See http://www.youtube.com/user/StJohnsNottingham

Oh heck, Polarisation

What it probably all boils down to this ESS, male/female debate is polarisation. The charges that 'the other' is Arian is quite painful and unnecessay, afterall, the other is a sister or brother.

Perhaps egalitarianism without the necessary caveats misleads. Perhaps complementarianism does the same. Egalitarians rightly emphasize the self-giving, perichoretic relations of the Godhead but sometimes complementarians think that they minimize the biblical pattern of internal distinctions among the persons.

"Subordinationist" trinitarians perceive the economic relations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but sometimes underplay the biblical witness regarding the benevolent mutuality.

When subordinationists use a hierarchical model of the Trinity to justify independent masculine rulership in familial and ecclesial settings, could it be that they are not grasping the self-sacrificing nature of the Father as well as of the Son and the Spirit? Surely true complentarity is shared leadership without hierarchy in worldly terms. This should be based on giftings not lists of rules to implement.

Informing debate

If you have been reading my latest posts on Mark Driscoll, ESS, gender issues, Piper and Grudem and some of the responses which are occurring over at 'Strive to Enter' and 'Suzanne's Bookshelf', also explored at 'Gentle Wisdom', '42' and 'Anglicans Down Under' (See blogroll), you might be interested in reading the following:

DesiringGod ministries
CBMW

They teach ESS and functional subordination but ontological equality of women. They help churches to work out the roles which women and men should take on in the world.


****

Giles Frazer Kevin Giles: Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity

“The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women” in Discovery Biblical Equality

“Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

NT Wight - lots of his stuff worth reading

Gordon Fee - as above

Millard Erickson: Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?

God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity to buy not read online

They teach perichoretic mutuality within the Godhead and mutual submission (Eph 21) within marriage. The Holy Spirit gifts the body of Christ without lists of gifts that are gender dependent.

I want to learn from this debate. For me, at the moment, Ware, Piper and Grudem seem to teach ESS, which I interpret as their overemphasising of a functional subordination within the trinity which overstates hierarchy and minimizes divine mutuality. They extend their theory into practical advice to women for how they should relate to men and vice versa and I believe that this sets extra-biblical restrictions on men and women, which I do not think are healthy or mandated by God.

CBMW will soon be debating the idea of ESS and women. There will also be a blog conference on Women in Ministry. So check out those sites. See Suzanne's Bookshelf for more information.

In response to many questions, do I have a problem with Grudem and Piper?

I feel concerned about the extra-biblical stuff, like the lists of jobs which Piper draws up regarding what women should do for careers.

If the hierarchical complementarianist 'men and women are equal, yet role-differentiated' gender paradigm of Grudem, Piper and CBMW is so biblical, why can’t it stand up to scrutiny? Why do CBMW and DesiringGod have to answer so many questions for churches about what women can and can not do? Why are so many of the answers that they give not in the Bible?

Why when these theologians discuss submission, do they use the term subordinate? For example, when I was doing research on the theology for and against women bishops, I looked at Grudem and Rainey’s ‘Pastoral Leadership for Manhood and Womanhood’. They describe how the ‘Biblical View of Submission …requires her to submit to him…, while no passage indicates that a husband should be subordinate to his wife.’ I think that in the casual exchange of the word submit for subordinate, significant problems lie. These two words are not synonymous because the former is theological and about ‘dying to self’, the latter is worldly, denoting inferiority.

How can these theologians claim that their interpretation of God’s word is God’s word, in effect they claim to speak for God? It is as if when you disagree with them, you are disagreeing with God. Evangelical egalitarians endorse the authority of Scripture, but not the authority of human interpreters. To dispute an interpretation is not to dispute with God himself.

Egalitarians do not embrace secular feminist agendas, it is not secular humanism that motivates us, but the Bible and Egalitarians embrace sexual differentiation and do not argue for a unisex society or church, we want for the equal contribution of women as women and men as men, complementing each other.

Egalitarians embrace what the creeds say about the Trinity: the divine three persons are one in being and authority and “co-equal.” Of relations in the trinity in eternity, the Father is attributed the beginning of action, the fountain and source of all things; the Son, wisdom, counsel, and arrangement in action, while the energy and efficacy of action is assigned to the Spirit. I do not think this equals “authority and submission,"and I believe some hierarchist-complementarian theologians redefine Trinitarian theology to fit their opinions on women in ministry.

About women and men, interpretation acknowledges that in Paul's world the subordination of women occurred and Paul subverts patriarchy by saying that in a Christian marriage husbands serve wives with agapē love, to the point of giving their life. The case is not stated so strongly for women of whom this was expected anyway, instead they are to remember that when they submit to their husbands, which means putting his needs before her own, they are actually serving Jesus in doing this; he is their Lord. The challenge for both hierarchists and egalitarians is how to apply these words.

Christians might come to see that the partnership understanding of marriage advocated by Jesus and Paul as the ideal, is the most enriching.

Christians might discover that allowing women to use the charismata that Paul insists are given without discrimination to men and women, will enrich the life of the church.

Virgo and Influential Women in parentheses

Well, I have now finished Wendy Virgo's 'Influential women'. This book grabbed my attention because of the blurb on its front cover, which explains: 'From the New Testament to today - how women can build up (or undermine) their local church.'

On Amazon it is described with this incredibly long title, which is not actually to be found on either the front or back of the book.

'Influential Women: From the New Testament to Today - How Women Can Build Up or Undermine Their Local Church: How Women Can Bless - or Ruin - Their Local Church - Wendy Virgo'

Of its original slogan, aforementioned, I was puzzled as to why the idea of women undermining the church was put in parentheses. I realise why now. I think the aim is that women will be attracted to this book as they seek to learn how they might build up the church. I think in some ways she is seeking a readership looking for affirmation. What they must realise it that this book's aims are subtle at first, hence the parentheses but then liberated from such punctuation inhibitors later on, for the book's aims will squarely smack you between the chops and if you are undecided about what you think God's will might be for women in the Church, you will be taught that if your callings are to eldership, the pastorate and to leadership that is to mixed congregation, then according to Wendy Virgo you are entertaining a 'Jezebelic spirit' as she puts it.

When I started this book, I skimmed a little. it is a bit pedestrian. But it is light-hearted and entertaining. I am on holiday so I began to see it as a holiday read and I enjoyed it. It is imaginative. She adds lots of details to the biblical portrayals of Priscilla, Tabitha, Lois and Eunice, Euodia and Syntyche, and others. The blurb on the back describes how 'Some were saints, full of good works; some were frankly poisonous and did considerable harm. What can we learn?'

So what did I learn? Well, at first I wondered whether learning was the point. And I think that this is part of the book's problem. And yes, I am aware that we tell entertaining stories to teach each other but somehow Virgo doesn't quite pull it off. Three quarters of the read was entertaining and interesting, of a kind. More entertaining is the Good Book itself which tell us these tales of our previous sisters but Virgo adds colour and detail from her imagination, which fleshes out the holes in the original stories, as she surmises about how old these women were, how they entertained themselves, what they thought about...

The last third of the book though, is of a different tone, altogether. Here, we are to swallow her bitter pill, concur with the 'theology' of her complementarian mindset, prayerfully seek forgiveness for our 'jezebelic spirits', if we have entertained 'aspirations' for which we were not built. Virgo morphs from imaginative fancy grounded in truths but padded out for our delight to, well, attempts to correct and admonish the wayward thinking that is a product of our times and demonic influence.

The book ends prematurely. It is as if we are left with nowhere to go, perhaps just to our knees. But if we weep, well, she has already been there as she struggled to tame her own rebellious heart! So even our weeping will not comfort us. We are presented, before this premature end, with descriptions of her ultimately 'influential women': Eve and Mary. Eve failed her husband and failed God. It was her independent spirit which has ruined us! Mary obeyed God, was willing to be his servant in bearing Jesus. The theology here is well-worn and centuries old, we are either the rebel or the virgin and there are no shades in between. it's all that simple! The argument is crass and unconvincing in its application to women. Never is there any discussion of Mary's counter-cultural predicament, what her relationship must have been like with Joseph in this marriage which did little to conform to the norms. Never is there any discussion of any other way of looking at the fall and what God planned for man and woman before it. Headship and hierarchy are the Holy words in this book and we are left in no doubt as to the sort of woman who will ruin her local church, for Eve-like, if she is unable to gain the power she quests, she will result to using her sexuality to unsettle the weakness of the men there. This book does not inspire a healthy vision for either men or women, in either their sin or their righteousness.

Entertaining until the end when Virgo's parentheses aims emerged. 3 out of 10.

Onto the next read....

Going on retreat with Wendy Virgo, John Wimber, Marcus Borg, John Crossan, Ralph Martin and Gordon Fee

Yes, it could be an interesting couple of weeks. Not literally going with that lot or even to their speaking engagements, no, just taking their books to the beach, well, the pebbles really, not going far.

It will be interesting reading Wendy Virgo's take on things, I will balance her out with 'The first Paul', just reviewed in the CEN, although not a new book. Gospel and Spirit by Fee I think I'll get on well with. I haven't found him too problematic with his take on the NT, although his response to Deuteronomy has left me puzzled on occasions. Ralph Martin's 'Hungry For God' is quite a classic, I believe, written before I was born. I had to get a second-hand copy and Wimber's 'Power Healing' is something which interests me at the moment for I have much more confidence now in a God who heals. It feels strange to even think I used to be skeptical about it but I was in that place at one time. It might be a result of living with a father who has MS, but I am perhaps realising that whilst God hasn't healed my father, he is keeping him nourished and positive. Now that I have witnessed actual healings, though, and felt the power myself, I find the whole idea of healing ministries very exciting and I am perhaps thinking through again more acutely the whole nature of the double imperative to preach the gospel and heal the sick in Jesus' name.

Anyway I am waffling and I haven't packed yet and I think that the break will do me good, could be the last one I'll be getting in a while! Au revoir.

What should a wife's submission to her husband look like if he's an abuser? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Oh, brother. See Cheryl Schatz at Women in ministry for her advice with this one.

What should a wife's submission to her husband look like if he's an abuser? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Shared via AddThis

Female Ministers-God's Will | Role of Women in Church

Female Ministers-God's Will | Role of Women in Church

This blog and its issues

This blog has wrestled with many things: the women in ministry issues and the egalitarian / complementarian divide and that really worrying teaching ESS - the eternal subordination of the Son. This is used by some complementarians to justify a relationship of authority and submission between hubands and their wives! Ahhh! Yes, frightening! Anyway, as you know I have looked into ESS. It is there in my sample posts on the left.

Suzanne's Bookshelf has an excellent post on Bruce Ware who champions this teaching, alongside Wayne Grudem, whom you know has left me feeling riled on more than one occasion. She convincingly dismantles their false teaching in such a way so that I come to the issue of ESS now with the same sense of 'rest' which governs my feelings about what God intends for women. So that's a relief for everyone!

Read here.

The Time Traveller's Wife

What it left me thinking:

Live every day like it's your last, be reconciled to one another

Time isn't led minute after minute, it does skip around, be grateful if your present if vibrant. Thank God that your future is secure.Thank Jesus that your past sins are wiped out.

Have a ministry to those for whom time is stuck in a loop - to those who can't play their instrument in the God-orchestra because they are stuck - they are stuck in one beat with a perpetual rhythm, a trauma beat, an event in their life which keeps looping, which stops them moving on - pray for God to heal them of this event, for it to become a part of what makes them beautiful rather than damaged.

Thank God that he is outside time, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and that the future will take care of itself and is in his hands.

Be amazed that Jesus as the logos was there with God the Father and the Spirit before it all began and gave us life.

Love. love long and love hard, love vibrantly and really, love each other despite the cost.Love each other because of the cost.

The Time Traveller's Wife. Well worth a watch. (Pun unintentional!)

Hey

Stop blogging and watch Panorama

Typed up as watched:

In 2001 we went in to get Osama but he's still free so have we made any difference?

The youngest soldier to die was 18. His mother hopes it wasn't for nothing. Has he made a difference?

Have women benefited from him laying down his life? Beneath the burka we have much in common with these women and before the Taliban they didn't have to wear it. In 1989 the world was shocked by Afghanistan's stoning of a woman. 8 years after Taliban rule, women are still downtrodden and any women trying to help are on a hit list like Maria who never knows if she will return home alive after a day's work.During the Taliban years, Maria a lawyer, had to stay home - this was the rule. Maria's children can't go to school for fear of being murdered because she is now so politically active. Women come to Maria for advice, women who are abused.

Women have no protection under the law and male judges reduce jail sentences for men. Women are married as children like Saida who was nine years old. This is the case for 60% of women. Her husband had already killed two former wives. Saida's brothers sold her to this man. This husband would beat her with anything and she lost four babies due to the stress and beatings. He would also sell her for sex with other men, saying she was his daughter. Saida was taken to a shelter in the end where she is being helped to get a divorce. Her husband is unlikely ever to be punished and he prays to be given an opportunity to 'drink her blood'.

They are living in the dark ages. They have no education. These children are forced into marriages and beaten and uneducated.

President Kasi used to have 3 women in his government, now he has just one.

8 out of 10 women suffer domestic violence. Zeinab set herself on fire to escape her husband. Most of the women who do this die before help comes but one unit treats about 100 cases a year. One 14 year old will not survive, she did it when her father tried to marry her to an older man.

Zeinab has to go back to her husband so she can care for her kids - she hopes not to survive!

Women's minister Ghanzvar thinks it might take 20 years for laws to become effective.

Maryam is one activist who hopes to change things. She is pushing boundries and was able to go on TV by wearing a hijab, otherwise being on TV is considered shameful for women. She entered the entrepreneurs' show Dragon's Den Afghanistan-style. But she was forced to leave her village and her brothers were tortured as a consequence. But she continued with the show and won 10,000 dollars, a fortune and she bought land with the winnings so she can built a factory and employ other women.

Women should be allowed to come out of the home and work. For this they need educating but 80% are illiterate. The next generation now is full of ambition and could change the political gender landscape.

The Taliban threaten teachers and attack schools with gas. But these girls return to school unafraid - they are so desperate to forge out a career. They are ambitious to be doctors etc and make a difference. Our husbands must allow us to become something, they say.

Has the government backtracked on its promises to help women. 37% women was supposed to make up parliament but they have failed to be heard and some are in hiding. Plans to make a difference are quashed for parliament contains warlords. Fawzia Kofi and her daughters have visited their constituency but Fawzia is not hopeful. The international community grants are not getting into the hands of the women and children - the poor.

The government is weak and corrupt. Just this year the president signed a law which would have made rape within marriage legal until the international community intervened. He has failed women, even his own wife, who is a doctor and worked during the Taliban years has a friend who has known her for years who wonders why this high profile wife does nothing politically. The president wouldn't talk about why this is or why he wouldn't do more for women.

So this wife doesn't act because her husband doesn't like her to go out.

All that money and all those lives - for what? Lucy Aldridge who lost her soldier son believes that the soldiers need to be there to help.

This week there will be an election. 510 million ponds will be spent on projects in Afghanistan over the course of the next few years.

BUT WILL IT ALL MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE?

Please pray for our suffering sisters. They are living in a world where men have interpreted religion so that they have no voice, no dignity, no freedom, no choice.

Our faiths must free themselves from this way of systematising, chaining and limiting the freedoms of women who are made to be whole, free and fully human. Help us, dear God to cast off the real and mental burkas everywhere and across all faiths.

HELP

Women and their 'husbands'

"I believe if there are no women in the leadership positions, how can you make policies that are fit for women?" MP Kofi asked.

But life as a woman MP is not safe: "I received some threats to me that they [fundamentalist groups] may want to kill or assassinate me.

"But then I left a letter to my children that we will die one day or the other but the pride might be that you don't die in silence."

Picture from The Stoning of Soraya M

President Karzai is leader in Afghanistan and the West demanded he improved women's rights after the repressive Taliban years. But if the life of his wife Dr Zinat Karzai, is anything to go by, this is not happening.

Panorama: What are we fighting for? is on BBC One, Monday 17 August at 8.30pm.

In April, President Karzai signed a law which sought to control a woman's sex life and freedom in the minority Shia community. It would have effectively legalised rape in marriage within that community. It was described as abhorrent by US President Obama, and in the face of international protest the Afghan president backtracked.

Eight years after the Taliban were ousted, conditions for women are not improving.

One woman the programme speaks with, Saida, like 60% of Afghan women, was married as a child and now takes refuge from her 60-year-old husband in a hostel. She was nine years old when her brothers sold her to a man known for having killed two of his wives. Her marriage was one in which she was beaten, abused and had four miscarriages, she was sold for sex with other men.

See here - the abuse and the phenomenon of underage marriage is rife

See here - for the limitations placed on the life of a woman

And here - for what our country' s real involvement is in these issues

When is the world going to wake up and stop the oppression of women in the name of culture and religion? It must make God weep.

Did you have a 'born again' moment?

Perhaps it was more gradual.
The idea of second blessing causes controversy.
What do you think?

Follow up to my John Piper investigation

Okay, hardly an investigation but the other night I came across a video which made for uncomfortable watching. See here.

Cheryl Schatz has looked at some of Piper's complementarian ideas and like me, thinks his opinions just don't stack up. Oh, to release women and men everywhere from the teachings of organisations like CBMW - that will be the day.

Cheryl writes:
'It is no wonder that churches everywhere inundate CBMW (The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) with questions each year on what is “permitted” for women to do and what is restricted. Hundreds of questions regarding things as diverse as a woman ushering to a woman giving directions to a man,have come into CBMW ...

John Piper admits that there are “ambiguities” and that he is “sure” people make “unwise decisions” in their restriction of women...'

She goes on to say 'The fallacy of “equal but different” is never so blatantly false as when complementarians like John Piper try to talk about the “ambiguities”. The fact is that they teach “unequal and different” while the Bible teaches “fellow heirs”.

Piper ends his answer by saying that, yes there are some people who will “draw lines” (that means restrictions) where they shouldn’t draw lines. What is his solution? We should be sensitive to what is the wise loving application of the biblical “clarity” that we have for these situations. That is amazing since he just said that there are “ambiguities” here so how did it now become “clarity”?

She sees so many flaws in this misuse of the scriptures to restrict the roles of women. Thank God for Cheryl Schatz - there is hope that we can bring up both our young daughters and sons in a fullness of truth which will enable them to be the new creations they are in Christ without man-enforced restrictions!

For the rest of her thoughts and Piper's video see here. I'm sure one day he'll have his Gilbert Bilezikian moment and the scales will fall off but we will have to be patient and prayerful and wait.

The Channel 4 programme ‘How do you know God exists?’ will be aired on Sunday 16 August at 7pm.

Well worth a watch, I would imagine.

Unknowingly memed and awarded

Well, Sat am - my slot. Kids watch CBBC with their Cheerios and I get a bit of time to e-church it.

So I googled my name, yes, it's a bit vain but you have to do it every now and then or you miss out on stuff.

So I discovered that I have been tagged by David Ker at Lingamish, that righteous technorati big shot adventurer who gave my site its first award. He has included me in the Bad Boy Bible Study Bald Elisha challenge:

"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths." (2 Kings 2:23-24, in context)

Dave's challenge is below:
Here are the rules:

* You’ve been asked to teach or preach on this passage.
* What would you say?
So, I'll start working on this, should be interesting but only once my Deut essay is in (role on Wed 19th).

The second thing I discovered was that I had been given an award by Peter Kirk at Gentle Wisdom, thanks Peter.

So I’m supposed to tell you 10 HONEST things about myself and then nominate 7 other blogs that I think deserve to receive the Honest Scrap Award. I'll model my answers on Peter Kirk's who modelled his on the blogger, Kevin Sam who awarded him.

1. I drive a 2007 BMW touring 3 series, pictured here.
I have wondered whether I need to replace it but it would now cost me more money to replace it with something more modest, it's depreciated such a lot. It is automatic which means I can blast out my worship music and take my hands off the wheel to praise God when the Spirit moves me, well, my gears hand anyway, since it's redundant. It also has those parking sensor thingies at the back which makes it the only car I've never crashed when trying to park. I don't know how many miles I've done - too technical for me - stuff like that - my brain doesn't register that sort of info. But it is fun to drive. I can overtake easily to show off my Christian fish badge to the rest of the traffic!

My husband drives the scrap. He is so good at doing that whole 'laying down your life for your wife' thing - giving me the BM. His is a smelly, green Alpha with a very strange gear box - I can't drive it and it has a very dodgy interior.

2. I very rarely watch TV too apart from 'Eastenders' occasionally which I treat as a break, I'm usually scouring the web at the same time but it means I move from the study to our lounge and I have a cup of tea, which my husband usually makes and I do not speak or answer the phone for that half hour, four times a week, which gives everybody else a break as well as me!! I admire Dot Cotton for her ability to quote the Bible chapter and verse and sometimes you'll hear me responding to the angst of a character's troubles with 'Oh, heck, they just need Jesus (and more acting lessons!)'. As regards scrap, not TVs in our house but laptops and bits of IT kit and wires etc. We have draws full of this sort of techno scrap because my husband is a computer nerd, a trendy one I hasten to add, and can build the things.

3. Last on the list for my “honest scrap” – I own jewellery boxes full of it. Beads, homemade things, plastic, beaded crosses, bangles, rings etc. Every bit of Jewellery I own costs less than a tenner apart from my wedding ring which cost about £200 - I'm not into stuff like that so there's no point anyone robbing my house.

4. Personality: I think - I'm a deep thinker. I'm quite manic/hyper/lots of energy. I'm a bit of a kid - I get very excited about things. I am a talker - I say it, I don't worry about revealing things. I think I'm pretty honest and self-aware and loyal. I get easily hurt but I hide it - I'm working on that one! I'm an activist and I want to learn, learn, learn. I'm getting a lot better at admitting that there is such a lot that I do not know.

5. I will be ordained in 2011 if it is God's will and I successfully complete a Masters (or a diploma if I don't finish the dissertation bit) and if I satisfy those Bishops. I will then be a stipendiary curate and will move off to somewhere in Derbyshire with my family, it might go country-wide, it all depends where God sends me.

6. Like Peter, what really turns me on in a Christian setting is worship and I too struggle with hymns accompanied on the organ. I like a band. But I am also turned on by preaching like Kevin Sam, not the shouty kind but the rejoicing kind, the Jesus came to give you life in abundance kind, the kind that calls on the Holy Spirit to be present, the kind that really exalts Jesus, that focuses less on us and more on him and what he has done and is doing. I am unafraid of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit and can't believe that we get to ask for more and God is so generous and gives more! Wow! I love God so much for this and thank the pastors and preachers who helped me to understand this. I like to walk very closely with the Holy Spirit - I'm pretty charismatic.

7. Again like Peter, I kind of believe in the whole Calvinist thing but I could never really use it as a description of myself because for me it doesn't express these things in the right words. It is the 'total depravity' thing that doesn't work for me and actually Peter has helped me here so I'll just quote him 'Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty …' Wow - thanks for that Peter - I've never been able to articulate my dis-ease until now about that one.

8. I really do not know what my politics is - it's Kingdom politics but it is taking me the whole of my life to work out which party is closest to having a Kingdom vision. I voted Christian Alliance in the latest locals.

9. I have lived in Cheshire: Cheadle Hulme; Worcestershire: Hagley; and Derbyshire - Duffield, followed by Allestree, followed by Little Eaton and yes, I am aware that so far I have only ever really lived in rather posh villages but that might change soon.

10. I like the buzz of a city, not sure I would want to live there but I am very attracted to the way that cities and student cities, university cities, that is, worship Jesus because the problem with rural worship is it can all be a bit staid and overly-polite.

So there you go - I get this for that - cool - another cheap, home-made trinket for the box

I award:
Nouslife

Thoughts from the Walderslade Bypass
42
THE RADICAL EVANGELICAL
An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy
The Ugley Vicar
Karen's Curacy Café
You must share 10 HONEST things about yourself and then nominate 7 other blogs that you think deserve to receive the Honest Scrap Award.

Can't give it up...

I must admit, I do have very mixed feelings about my interests. There is a big part of me that does not want to be interested in the women in ministry issues. I sometimes feel as though it takes me into a less than good space. I get caught up in the negative. I feel that I have to self-check. I want so much to listen and be open to the opinions of those who think that I shouldn't even be pursuing this life, this preaching the gospel life, this overseer, incumbent life. So I do listen but then I feel the injustice of it and I am not talking about a modern reaction: for the culture I live in has no problem with women preaching the gospel. My friends are shocked that some people even believe that women should not do this with their lives if they are called. But I take my friends' opinions as far as I should, for if they are not sitting within the biblical framework then really they are just offering opinions of a kind; opinions generated by their own time and place within it. They support me but I understand why.

My belief that women can preach and teach is theologically founded. I have studied the scriptures like an addict. I have studied the scriptures with my intellect and by asking the Spirit to guide me into the fullness of truth. I suspected that once the Church of England affirmed my calling, as they did in July, when I got through selection panel, that I would be rid of this passion I feel about wanting to release women (and men for that fact) from the gender constraints which limit them. But I still feel it. Rosie Ward who works for CPAS can relate to what I am saying here. Jody Radical Evangelical pursues it too, so I know that there are a number of us. It's just sometimes I wish I could give it up. Yet, sometimes I am really sure that God wants me to be interested in this. After all, it's about liberation. It's about the Church honouring women for their callings in the same way that they do men.

The Church of England has ordained women since the early nineties. I suppose in many ways it is recent and perhaps if I had been born in a century's time, I wouldn't feel the rawness of the emotions that I imagine all those women felt who were denied their callings, or at least were unable to fulfil them wholly.

Something really helped me the other day. A friend of mine heard our bishop preach on retreat. I had always suspected that the decision made in the nineties to ordain women occurred because the scriptures were scrutinised by the best intellects and it was decided that tradition had got it wrong. This did happen but the bishop also told the gathered before him on retreat that in General Synod, the day the decision was made, there was a very powerful movement of the Holy Spirit, tangible, in fact overwhelming. As the arguments and debates occurred a great many men, the majority, not all, but the majority were convicted and it was as if the scales fell from their eyes and they were coming into a fullness of truth that indeed women can lead (servant-hearted leadership - Christians should always qualify the word), yes, women can lead churches and preach and teach men from God's Holy Word.

This story has released me in a new way and yet the passion still exists to contribute my two-penneth worth to the idea. I feel that every now and then I need to speak out against teaching that prevents women from becoming all whom God intends them to become, when it is for the sake of his glory that they are called. So I guess I'll continue. I will also continue to pray it through, as I do already and I ask you to make me accountable. I want to speak out in such a way that honours God and my brothers and sisters in Christ whatever their opinions on this issue. I have witnessed lots of Internet fights and it is sorrowful and I do have my reservations about certain complementarians but I seek to engage in this debate with humility and love, so do me a favour will you, pull me up when I stray, tell me off when I need to be told. Pray it over first and keep me walking in the light. Thank you.

I've never been too sure about Driscoll. What do you think?

There's an interesting site I've come across which engages fairly and intelligently with issues of authority in the church. We are invited to respond in a blog conference on the issues coming up in September. Here's a sample post which caught my attention. H/T Cheryl at WIM

I was reading a blog post by Mark Driscoll here where he gives a brief outline of what he sees as the three main positions held on the relationship between men and women.

I appreciate Driscoll’s attempt to outline the different views and thought it might be helpful to think about it before our Blog Conference. One reason for doing this is that it can help us to distill in our minds what some of the issues are. This is what Mark Driscoll said;

“There are three basic views prevailing today in the home and church:

• Egalitarian (Feministic): There is no innate distinction between the roles of men and women in the home or church. Women can be pastors and men can be stay-at-home dads so that their wives can pursue their careers.

• Complementarian (Moderate): Men and women are partners in every area of life and ministry together. Though equal, men and women have complementary and distinct gender roles so that men are to lovingly lead and head their homes like Jesus, and only men can be pastors in the church.

• Hierarchical (Chauvinistic): Women are not only commanded to follow male leadership, but are not given a voice with male leaders, as women are often chauvinistically kept under thumb as the polar opposite of egalitarian feminism.”

In looking at the basic positions as outlined by Driscoll I noted the following;

1 – Egalitarian is about recognising equality between men and women in the home and the church. It is therefore appropriate that Driscoll likens this with feminism, as true feminism (according to my dictionary) is about equality, and NOT women dominating men, as is often thought and at times seen in extreme movements. According to Driscoll’s definitions, egalitarian (feminism) is NOT the moderate position! For Driscoll, complementarianism holds the moderate position.

2 – According to Driscoll complementarianism holds that male and females are equal, though men are to lead in the home and in the church. Personally I find complementarianism hard to define because the terms used at time appear contradictory. Often comps describe men and women as equal – but different. When trying to define how they are different it would appear that with marriage and church there is a hierarchy. This hierarchy is claimed to be God ordained and involve love, but is hierarchy none the less. Although Driscoll claims comps are moderate it must be admitted that they are very closely related to the chauvinists!

3 – Under the heading “hierachical” Driscoll makes some interesting comments. He sees this stance as being the “polar opposite of egalitarian feminism”. If this was the case, egalitarian feminism would be trying to make sure that men “are often chauvinistically kept under thumb”. As noted above, this is not what egalitarian feminism is about. As a result Driscoll’s two extremes and one “moderate” view actually demonstrate a lack of understanding of the true moderate view (egalitarianism), while trying to distance complemantarianism from the hieracrhical model, when in fact they are very similar!

Leading up to our Blog Conference we will continue to think through how we define some of the terms we use to describe ourselves and the different views we represent. What I have written above could be challenged by complementarians and chauvinists because I am trying to show the group I represent as “moderate”. What do you think? What is the “moderate” position?

Alan Wilson defends social networking

Austen and Facebook
You can no more destroy your humanity by going on Facebook than you can catch swine flu from a bag of pork scratchings

The question: Do computers make us more human?

Do Social media make people more or less human? From a Christian point of view this is a bit of a silly question. Humanity is a gift that comes from bearing the image of God, and you can no more destroy your humanity by going on Facebook than you can catch swine flu from a bag of Pork Scratchings. People may sometimes act in ways that conflict with their calling to grow towards the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, but they don't need wi-fi to do that.

Click here to read the rest

Amongst much confusion in the comments which follow Alan's article, I posted this:

Well, Bishop Alan, for what it is worth I understand exactly what you are saying. I taught Austen as a teacher and whilst yes, you do not dwell on the sex and romance here, because it isn't about that, Austen indeed understood and portrayed a world of complex social ritual. Social rituals govern the social networking sites too. I am glad that you defend these new ways we converse. We can be salt and light anywhere and the gospel can be spread digitally. It is up to Christians to use the conversation tools we invent to His glory. I am a fan of things e-church and it is just great that through Facebook, twitter and blogging, Christians can be present on the web.
Rachel Marszalek at Re vis.e Re form

Tom Wright 'Stop using your car right now'

Doesn't Tom Wright just simply make a lot of sense when he opens up the gospel. Here he is on Philemon.

Click on Tom to watch

This bit is great:

The reconciling love of Christ with arms outstretched as on the cross to Jew and Gentile, to slave and free and to male and female. Just like Jesus who says to God, whilst on the cross 'if they have wronged you Father, put it down to my account' (another way of looking at the atonement! Like it!).

Thanks Tom

Piper pipes on about women. Light at the end? Emmm.....

John Piper on how Jesus treated women differently and 'they were amazed he was speaking to a woman'.

John Piper is on the ball here but I am not sure about the outworkings of sin which he describes which become very gender specified. Aren't women and men both capable of either being overly dominant or overly passive to equal extents? There is some slanting going on here. Where in the Bible does it say that God created men and women equal and in his mage but with the Piper appendix that they are to have differing, honourable, complementary roles? I understand that women have the children and men do not but there is something else going on here too which unfortunately has its outworking in preventing women from preaching and teaching the word of God to men. Of course, this is not explicit here or even hinted at but I sense it do you? Can you sense it too? The man is a humble courageous protector and he lays down his life for his wife but the woman should do the same if she is in Christ. This is revolutionary, yes, but because it was said to men by the apostle Paul. To quote E L Mascall, who is actually a traditionalist: 'behind St Paul's thought about the man and the woman... the fundamental relation is ...of mutual perfection and of derived partnership.'1

Where Paul advocates that the man is to lay down his life for his wife we are in an interesting place in the bible because of the way that it has been presented. We are looking at Ephesians 5:21-33. The NIV, like many bibles, incorrectly creates a separation between verse 21 and the rest of Paul's writing here. Verse 21 is the frame within which the rest of the advice should be understood. The husband and the wife are to be mutually submitted to each other: the wife to the husband as the Church to Christ and the husband to the wife as Christ to the Church. Christ died for the Church,so the husband's love for the wife is to be self-sacrificial. Paul overstated the husband's submission to the wife to counteract the authority men had over their wives in the first century. It doesn't mean that Paul didn't think that the wife shouldn't also lay down her life for her husband. She should, it just didn't need stating because it would already be assumed that she would.

You're so nearly there Piper.

1 MASCALL, E.L., 'Women and the Priesthood of the Church' p.119

So what denomination....

They say that for evangelicals it is all about the cross. So what about me then for whom it is all about the cross, the resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit?

I have begun to realise how important particularly is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. In Joel 2, we are promised that this will happen and in Acts 2 it does. Without the Holy Spirit, I am not sure how we could come to know God, and Jesus tells us he absolutely had to go to the Father in order for this to happen. Jesus' influence has gone world-wide since the outpouring, whereas before this it was limited to his home geography. So why doesn't the average, middle-of-the-road Anglican church make more of this event, celebrate it, teach it, welcome the Spirit? I just don't get it, surely it's the most amazing thing, alongside the incarnate Son of God and his victory over death to have happened since the beginning of time, pre-time even. How do we more effectively convey the magnificence of this event? How do we encourage our brothers and sisters to eagerly desire the Spiritual gifts, to welcome the Spirit to take up residence in their lives? Anyone got any ideas before I turn pentecostal? ;-)

What the heck...

...trying technorati code claim thingy for the umpteenth time

They tell me to write a post with this code in it ... so there...

tv6haeq5us

...come on!!!!

A must-see for all e-churchers

I mean to get around to watching Tom Wright at the Digital Symposium at some point. I will wait until I can get my hands on a better laptop (hubby, come home!) because my little laptop won't stream the footage properly so that the famous NT looks like he's breakdancing!
Here's the link

A good book review

While I have some reservations about Crossan, this sounds like a book well worth buying and reading. Great - thanks Amazon Prime - I get it in 24!
See Suzanne's review

Today is my wedding anniversary

Us at the old house, two years ago, three doors down from the Church where we serve. Must have been mad to move.

May 09. My whole great, big, beautiful family. My kids first and third from left at front.
Nine years ago I was married at Hagley Hall in Hagley where we were married in the church in the grounds called St John's, by an Anglican priest with a Polish Catholic blessing. My cousin played 'Make me a channel of your peace' on his flute and we danced the night away to a band with a sax. We then spent one night at The Brockencote Hall before flying to the Maldives on a jumbo jet and a small sea plane, and when I saw my island I cried for it was one of the most beautiful things I had seen in my life. And we recalled the events of our wedding day as we walked down wooden steps into the lagoon below, for ours was a house on stilts in the sea. And we talked of how my heart had raced that the bells were ringing for me and God was there and the sun shone and we prayed prayers of thanksgiving in the limousine on the way to our Hotel and we had clung onto each other in the small sea plane and then arrived by boat to marvel at the flowers on our pillow and the cake and champagne that awaited us. And we spent two weeks without shoes, taking photographs of flowers and swimming and feeding fish and eating and sunbathing and...well, you know.

And it was all blissful...so now nine years on, we look back, so happy that God burst into our lives with renewed vigour, purpose and direction. And tonight we listened to music and reflected back on houses and jobs and children and what the future might hold and then at about ten o'clock my husband found out he's got a job. So after four months of unemployment, with us down to our last penny, he will leave at 5 am and head for the big city to help some people who have been left in a bit of a spin after a worm infected their IT system. So this 4 month adventure moves on. My husband was around as I prepared for Bap, to see me come home high as a kite and then to hear my whoops for joy in the hall mid July as I found out they had accepted me. We took time out for New Wine and came to understand more fully the power of the Holy Spirit. He has taken the children to and from school as I worked at college and we have worked together on my return at a big glass desk side by side with our laptops staring out over the blossoming garden.

So...I am going to miss these times. God gave us this time to be together, to parent together, to laugh in the face of near poverty together and to discover more of God together.

A new horizon is dawning and I am going to have to trust Jesus more than ever to help me to juggle everything now that the other half of my 'one flesh' is going to be a little distant in miles and focus. Bless you, Father.

This is lovely Bosco...

From Bosco Peters:

Eternal Spirit, Earth-Maker, Pain-Bearer, Life-Giver,
Source of all that is and that shall be.
Mother and Father of us all.
Loving God, in whom is heaven:
The hallowing of your name echo through the universe!
The way of your justice be followed by the peoples of the world!
Your heavenly will be done by all created beings!
Your commonwealth of peace and freedom sustain our hope and come on earth.
With the bread we need for today, feed us.
In the hurts we absorb from one another, forgive us.
In times of temptation and test, strengthen us.
From trials too great to endure, spare us.
From the grip of all that is evil, free us.
For you reign in the glory of the power that is love, now and forever. Amen.

Night Prayer - NZ Liturgy

Prompted because my daughter asked me yesterday (she's only 4)'Why is God a Father?' and 'Why is he not a mother?' and 'Are Fathers more important than mothers, then?' And 'Who is our mother then and why haven't we got a mother?'.

Wow - deep for only 55 months on this planet.

I told her 'Jesus' mother was Mary and so that's why God is his Father'. And I said 'but our Father-God is like a mother to us too'. And I explained how God made both mothers and fathers equal and blessed in his sight.

A little harmless self-promo...

Well, David Kerr is quite unabashed about telling us all he's made it into Technorati's top 5. I have been unable to even get my blog to upload to Technorati, although my new blog Angel Utterances managed it in a minute. Re vis.e re form just will not work on technorati - I must have messed up my code ages ago.

Anyway, I am rather thrilled to be at the number two slot here:
I'm not doing too badly considering I blog on a computer that's over 3 years old and seriously on its last legs - ahhhh! ;-) poor Rach.

Jimmy Carter sees the light

Here Rosie Ward covers Jimmy Carter and his thoughts on women and our attitude.
Here it has been covered by the Guardian. and here by prominent column in Oz

Michele Guinness at Re vis.e Re form

About Michele Guinness:

Michele was brought up in a practising Jewish family, became a Christian in her late teens and is now married to Peter, a Church of England minister who happens to be a great, great grandson of Arthur Guinness, the famous brewer.
Having worked in the media for many years, including presenting her own daily lunchtime programme on BBC local radio, she moved into PR, eventually becoming Head of Communications for the NHS in Cumbria and Lancashire. She left at the last reshuffle to concentrate on writing, training and speaking all over the UK. She has written eleven best-selling books, including, Chosen, her autobiography, and The Heavenly Party, a resource book on celebration, full of ideas and recipes for families and communities. She also has a regular column with practical suggestions for feasts and festivals in Families First, the Mothers’ Union magazine.
Much to her surprise, Michele now has two grandchildren. Her latest book, Autumn Leave – A Season in France, (Authentic), which describes the joys and pitfalls of planning a retirement in France, was published in July.

I met Michele Guinness at New Wine last week and was able to listen to her talk on Women and the much misunderstood St Paul. It was a joy to listen to her and I felt again the strong stirrings of a calling to women's ministry. I have tried so hard to strangle the life out of this call but it will not go away. So I was able to talk to her about Kephale and Headship and Wayne Grudem and wonder with her about what we might teach our daughters so that they might be as fully human as they ought to be in Christ. She will visit my sending church in 2010 in Derby.

She is passionate about Jesus and about reaching women and she has a real gift, for she enables women to laugh through some of the pain that they have experienced. She really is very funny and I am sure that God gave us laughter, in part, so that he might heal us.

Do see her talk if ever you have the opportunity.