- Darwinian Misogyny: Last week, a researcher announced that men are more intelligent than women, and that evolution would have supported this. It would be funny, except this guy, an outlier for sure, is serious.
- Evolutionary Apologetics: The Macroevolution FAQ at Talk.origins has been updated. This is the best they can do, so read up.
- Pro-Life Tactics: If you can’t beat them, buy their properties and refuse to rewew their lease. Nice.
28 Responses
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Seeker,
You, as a Christian, believe men to be completely superior to women. So, I'm sorry, but I'm not buying your allegedly supportive argument.
You, as a Christian, believe men to be completely superior to women.
False. I find them complimentary, and in many respects totally equal. Your charicature is showing, again.
I posted this article out of interest, but mostly to mock Darwinism.
“…in many respects totally equal.” That about says it all.
Also, while I’m at it, what does “complimentary” mean in this context? Just so I’m clear?
Sam,
I think Seeker means “complementary”, as in to complement one another. It is a word that is Fundamentalist code for women are not equal to men in church matters-i.e. they cannot teach men, cannot be pastors, etc. It is a position that is at odds with a complete reading of the Scriptures.
. It is a word that is Fundamentalist code for women are not equal to men in church matters-i.e. they cannot teach men, cannot be pastors, etc. It is a position that is at odds with a complete reading of the Scriptures.
No, it means that women and men are different, but their different characteristics are not at odds with one another, but complement one another.
On the issues regarding men being the spiritual head, men teaching women, etc. FCL is correct that the scriptures do, in some sense, put men “over” women. Being from the Charismatic stream of xianity, I am not as dogmatic about that as some others, but I do believe that in general, lack of male leadership is a bad sign in a church.
Seeker,
Before you made the following statement “FCL is correct that the scriptures do, in some sense, put men “over” women.” did you even read my post. I clearly denied that Scripture puts women in a subserviant position. I make this denial because the claim IS NOT supported by a reading of the text.
Great. So how do you interpret and apply such scriptures as “I do not allow a woman to teach a man” and “man is the head of the woman, and Christ the head of man”?
Yeah Seeker, women are so awful at leadership. Very true that churches with women in charge suffer declining memberships, political disasters and outright collapses of importance. Why, look at Christianity in America today – run by women and falling apart. Oh…wait.
Briefly, it is problematic whether those passages to which you refer are directed at specific churches at a specific time or to the church universal for all time. When these passages are read against passages such as GAL 3:28 as well as Jesus’ inclusion of women in his ministry, much to the chagrin of the authorities, it becomes clearer that Jesus did not exclude women from ministry at all. He treated them as equals (a shameful act in its day).
As for women preachers all we have to do is consider who the first preachers of the Gospel were. It was the women outside the tomb, waiting patiently and bravely while the Apostles were hiding in the upper room. It was the women who first learned that He has risen. It was the women that spread the Good News about the Resurrection. So apparently Scripture has nothing against women preaching, therefore neither should we.
So basically the way you harmonize those passages is that you relegate Paul’s instructions above to a specific church? What about the fact that Jesus only called males to official positions (disciples)? Sure, the women followed him, but he never comissioned them to preach. Basically, they supported his ministry with service and finances.
I am not necessarily arguing against women in ministry, I just think your position is incorrect – we certainly do see “something against” women leaders (not to be confused with Prophetesses) in the church. In fact, basically, you are discounting all of Paul’s requirements for leadership in the church. He didn’t rule them out of everything, but he seems to have limited some positions to men. And Jesus, though he allowed women to help him, never comissioned them (except as all believers are commissioned) for leadership.
I just think you need a more nuanced position in order to be faithful to scripture rather than to feminist overtures that seek to eliminate the differences between men and women, or want us to view “submission” to “subservience.”
In fact, we see insruction for all types of submission in the NT – wives to husbands, believers to one another, believers to civil authorities, and all to Christ.
How convenient that you find yourself at the top of the pecking order Seeker. How convenient that you don’t have to submit to anyone or anything (except for that which you get to interpret, the Bible). How convenient that you don’t have to take orders from anybody, and that you have access to every level of your church. No wonder you don’t think there’s a problem; the problem doesn’t affect you.
You are alright with women in ministry so long as they are not equal with men. The problem with this view is that it does not jibe with Scripture at all. Let’s start with your “proof-text” du jour 1 TIM 2:12. If this were a blanket prohibition against woman preaching in the church then it would also have to be a blanket prohibition against woman speaking at all in the church. If they are completely silent then they cannot pray, sing, prophesy or worship in any way. If this is the chief verse against women preaching then it is strangely lacking in a prohibition against preaching or prophesying or public worship or church service. It is speaking to wives as to how they should conduct themselves in regard to their husband. Paul is dealing with more of a home problem than a church problem. Does this mean servile submission for the woman? No it means as in EPH 5:23 “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church” How is Christ the head of the church? He was a servant, giving all of himself to his people on the Cross. In this way both husband and wife submit to God. Clearly your interpretation contradicts the teachings of the rest of the Bible. When an interpretation contradicts the clear meaning of the rest of Scripture then you get a new interpretation.
What of the rest of the teachings of the Bible as regards woman preachers and pastors? There are too many to fit into one post so I will focus on three. First of all there is Paul’s accepting of Phoebe, Priscilla and Aquila as equals in ROM 16. Secondly the first message of the Resurrection of Christ was spoken by a woman to a group of men. Thirdly there is the case of Anna in LK 2:36-38. She is clearly teaching and prophesying to all because she never left the Temple. These are but three of many verses that bring woman to an equal level with men in His church. There is in fact not any credible interpretation to suggest that women are forbidden to preach. Jesus would not have had it any other way.
You are alright with women in ministry so long as they are not equal with men….Clearly your interpretation contradicts the teachings of the rest of the Bible.
Actually, I have not yet taken a position, I was merely asking you to defend yours. Clearly I can not choose the wine in front of you.
Don’t use so many superlatives, it makes you sound like a fanatic ;) And an angry one at that.
How on Earth can you not have yet taken a position on the ability of women to preach? Do you genuinely believe that they’re incapable of teaching you anything about your own religion? This is PRECISELY the sort of antiquated thinking that makes religion so difficult for people to understand. We live in a world where we understand that women are equal to men, and yet here’s religion, claiming that women can’t be priests, or need to wear burqas, or can’t be trusted to teach religion. The notion that you’d tell my daughter that she’s less than a little boy is absolutely mind-boggling.
You’re not seriously claiming to have no position on the question of women in ministry are you? This is you’re exact words “we certainly do see “something against” women leaders (not to be confused with Prophetesses)”, at least be intellectually honest enough to admit your position and defend it.
If it seems that I am angry that a quack would mangle the Gospel to fit his pre-conceived bigotries that’s because I am. If I seem angry that you would pollute the faith with unreasonable, narrow misinterpretation of Scripture that bring derision upon the faith and presents a false, ungracious view of Christ it’s because I am. I am quite frankly sick and tired of “christianistas” misleading the world into a false and damaging view of Christianity. Someone like Sam may never accept the faith, I understand that, but there is no hope of reaching unbelievers with a hateful and bigoted stance such as yours. There is a word for the “theology” you promote: bullshit.
If this seems fanatical to you then so be it. I prefer the fanaticism of Christ to the fanaticism of the Pharisee any day.
You’re not seriously claiming to have no position on the question of women in ministry are you?
Yes, I am. I was playing devil’s advocate – your statement about there being “nothing” against women in leadership in the scriptures was untrue – you had not explained how he approached these scriptures, and your use of the superlative “nothing” was misleading, if not a polemic lie. I was merely calling you on that.
If I seem angry that you would pollute the faith with unreasonable, narrow misinterpretation of Scripture that bring derision upon the faith and presents a false,
You can be angry all you want, but to be angry at me because of my assumed position on women in ministry is a waste of time because I have no position on that, and am trying to figure that one out for myself.
I think you are still angry at how I successfully defended the bible’s position that homosexuality is sin, that’s what I think ;)
there is no hope of reaching unbelievers with a hateful and bigoted stance such as yours.
Yes, adulterers and others caught in sexual sin will “never” listen to their consciences and be saved. I should stop preaching grace and truth and only speak grace. Not.
I prefer the fanaticism of Christ to the fanaticism of the Pharisee any day.
Yes, me too. And I also prefer the fanatacism of Christ to that of those who preach that Christ promotes sexual sin. “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.”
The notion that you’d tell my daughter that she’s less than a little boy is absolutely mind-boggling.
The notion that you perceive it that way is also troubling, esp. since I have said no such thing.
Seeker,
Let’s be reasonable. Throughout this discussion, you have made it abundantly clear that you’re concerned about women preaching to men. By extension, this means that women are not as capable as men. My little girl will someday be a woman; your little boy will someday be a man. At some point, what you’re saying is that my daughter is LESS CAPABLE than your son.
What I find interesting here is that your substantive objection to women comes down to the fact that they have a vagina. You could be in the presence of the greatest Biblical scholar of our time, with a greater and deeper and truer understanding of the Bible than anybody else on Earth, and your gut response is, “Yeah, but she’s got a vagina and I don’t. I’m better.”
Seeker, when you said “your statement about there being “nothing” against women in leadership in the scriptures was untrue” you have betrayed your position already. You clearly do not think that women should fully and equally participate in the ministry of the church. This position is not a surprise to anyone who reads this blog, so why don’t you just admit it. Equivocation does not become you.
I am angry at all that you do to the Gospel. This is not so much anger at you (I actually pity you) but at your sins. You daily in this blog exhibit the sins of inhospitality, hard-heartedness, exclusion, discrimination, denigration and faithlessness to God’s word. For me it’s just a case of loving the sinner but hating the sin. Or as Bob Dylan better said “don’t hate nothing at all except hatred”.
You predictably reduced this discussion to “sexual sin” even though the conversation was not about that. Freud would have found you amazing. Yes Seeker there is sexual sin and sex can easily be twisted into a thing that leads us to mistreat our neighbor. However, there is more to God’s Word than just concern about sexual sin; like looking at everyone you meet and trying to find a way to keep them out. Christ continually looked for ways to bring people to Himself, we as Christians must strive to do the same. It is your sinful failure to even make the attempt (and the false view it gives others of the faith) that pisses me off so much. I will of course continue to pray (but still call you out when you err) for you that the Holy Spirit will pry open your mind and your heart and let in the fresh air of a gracious and loving Christ filled faith.
P.S.,
The only place you successfully proved Scripture condemned homosexuality, per se, was in your own narrow little mind. All you established is that you can selectively use Scripture out of context to prove a conclusion that you already had before you opened the book. This is of course a fraudulent use of Scripture. Anytime you want more of the Biblical truth about homosexuality and God’s command for how we should treat them just put your argument in a post (best not to have this discussion deep in a maturing thread) and I will be happy to help you and more importantly other readers of this blog see the true nature of this thing called Christian faith.
I will add only one thing to this discussion. Much is made over men being on “top” or being “over” women in Christianity or at least in conservative Christianity. What those who make this into a characature overlook is that the same passage that tells wives to submit to their husbands, tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church.
That may not mean a thing to a nonChristian, but to me as a Christian husband that is a daunting command. Not just to love my wife, but to love her sacrificially, the same way that Jesus loved the Church and died for it. It is a huge task and one that I strive for everyday – to love my wife that way.
The husbands can by no means take the Biblical commands and lord over their wives, commanding them to be as a servant and think the Bible supports that. The Bible teaches the man to be a servant leader to his wife and family. This will always be difficult for those on the outside to understand.
One of the reasons that its difficult for us outsiders to understand Aaron is that men are getting to create this interpretation, and it just so happens that the interpretation puts the man squarely on the top of the totem pole. I’d have an easier time swallowing this explanation if there was some evidence of male subservience here, but everything seems to involve women being literally below men.
This will always be difficult for those on the outside to understand.
I think, more than most, FCL is on the “inside” when it pertains to Christianity. It seems to me that FCL knows scripture very well and I listen when he speaks about Christianity. More than anyone, FCL’s comments on this blog make me think Christianity is not as “narrow minded” as I thought. His Christian perspective seems broader, more tolerant and more rational than the literal perspective I am accustomed to here. I’ve actually gone to the sites FCL has recommended to learn more, which is saying a lot since I am such a huge skeptic. FCL, if you are a pastor, I would go to your services just to hear what you have to say.
Seeker, when you said “your statement about there being “nothing” against women in leadership in the scriptures was untrue” you have betrayed your position already. You clearly do not think that women should fully and equally participate in the ministry of the church.
I am sorry you got that impression, but that is NOT my position. I was merely pointing out that your statement about there being NO statements in the bible that indicate the exclusion of women from certain activities (such as teaching men) was untrue.
Let me clearly state, that despite what you “clearly” believe, I do not have a position on women in church leadership. I am still thinking it through. You may make an “educated” guess that I will come down on the anti side, but that would only be a guess.
After spending many years in Charismatic circles, and understanding the great role women have played in both the Pentecostal movement and world missions, I have reason to question the male-dominated church leadership paradigm. Additionally, I refused to apply to Reformed Theological Seminary because their faculty were entirely older, white males. I even wrote the Dean of Admissions to ask why there were no women or minorities on the staff, and we emailed back and forth on the subject.
Your vitriol is not becoming, and in my case, I think undeserved. I think I made a logical defense of the anti-homosexual biblical position, esp. out of Romans 1.
Whom else have I “condemned” in my arguments? Just because I used some unpopular descriptors when discussing homosexuality (many of which are directly from scripture, such as ‘debased, unnatural, deserving of death’) and some medical terms (dysfunction, mental illness, maladaptation, treatable condition) don’t make it hate, nor condeming. You just are a hothead, like many of us here ;).
Perhaps I have also contradicted Islam and its western defenders – but I do think that many of its core teachings are wicked.
And FCL, could you please explain your interpretation and application of “wives, obey your husbands as you would obey Christ”? As Aaron points out, it is coupled with “husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church”. But that doesn’t negate the first half of that command.
How would one obey Christ? One obeys Christ by loving your neighbor fully and forgiving always. This is a command that is placed before all of us. How are husbands to love their wives? They do this by giving up everything for them the way Christ gave up everything for us. What is clear about this text is the reciprocity that is involved between husband and wife, radical by today’s standards, unheard of 2000 years ago.
The other point to note about this passage is that it is a clear explanation of how the Church is the bride of Christ. The notion of God being married to His people goes back to ISA 54. Additionally Jesus used this analogy often especially MATT 9 & 25 as well as LK 5.
As for your treatment of ROM 1 you per usual made a hash of it by super-imposing your anti-gay screed on the text to produce your desired result. However, as I said buried deep in an aging thread is no place to have this debate.
Your complaint about my “vitriol” is amusing considering your past complaints about me. I was the one you accused of having namby-pamby faith, a milk-toast faith and always wanting to make nicey-nice. I was the one you accused of not being able to make a call and determine righteous from unrighteous, etc. Now that I have more clearly than ever before done just that and called you on a sinful hard-heartedness you retreat behind a whiney charge of vitriol. You are incredible.
I am sorry if my clarity seems vitriolic but I am past the point of taking prisoners in the fight for the Christian faith. The right-wing has had its day and they have had their say: time’s up.
FCL, I would say that we’ve all had our say and we should God have His, in regards to the Christian faith. I don’t care if it is right-wing, left-wing, center-wing. Honestly, I just want Jesus to be glorified and for His positions to be my positions. Are you willing to say the same?
You read your own ideas back into Scripture, just as you claim seeker does. As I have said repeatedly here, I may be wrong about what the Bible says about homosexuality. I will allow for that and long for the day when I will “know as [I am} known.” Do you allow for the same? Are you willing to concede that you may be on the wrong side of this issue and others, that you may be clouding God’s Word where it doesn’t needed to be clouded?
Aaron,
Why don’t you ever say that to Seeker?
Now that I have more clearly than ever before done just that and called you on a sinful hard-heartedness you retreat behind a whiney charge of vitriol. You are incredible.
I would not be amazed if I actually took a stance against women in ministry, but your vitriol is surprising because your swift over-reaction is telling. You jumped to angry defense and attacking me before I was even out of the gate. That hardly seems mature for someone who portrays themselves as the more mature and “kind” Christian, that’s all.
Why don’t you ever say that to Seeker?
What, specifically, would you like to have Aaron say?
Exactly what he just insisted upon saying to FCL.
Do you allow for the same? Are you willing to concede that you may be on the wrong side of this issue and others, that you may be clouding God’s Word where it doesn’t needed to be clouded?
That would be an awfully good start.