Sick

Both the kids and I are sick. I don't care about women in ministry right now. Hopefully next week. Yesterday I had a great class on sacraments in the church. Very interesting.

Mentoring

I'm going to post some more - probably tomorrow - on women in ministry. Due to the underwhelming response by my current readers (Mark and Matt, I think you guys are my lone readers right now) I'm guessing this is either too big an issue to touch or it's just not that interesting. Regardless, I'm going to keep my thinkings going here on this issue because I've just got to get it worked out.

On another front, I've finally asked an elder in our church to mentor me. He's a great guy and I've known thatt I've needed a mentor for a while but just haven't built up the courage to ask him to do this. We all need someone with more wisdom and insight but I'm always nervous of asking someone and then having it go downhill. When I was in college I asked the campus BSU director to mentor me, but it ended up just being me going into his office and sitting across from his desk and he would ask me how my day was going. Not what I hope for here obviously.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Women in Ministry

Okay, I didn't get to this last night but here is a brief foray into my thinking on the issue of women in ministry. My thinking on this is right now very much in process, so if here and elsewhere I look like I am waffling it's probably because I am. I thought as of last week that I was pretty settled on this issue, but I am definitely not settled right now. Hopefully this blog will help me to settle this some for me. Below is the text for 1 Timothy 2:9-15:

9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments; 10 but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness. 11 Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

Verses 11-14 are the most pertinent to the issue of women in ministry but the other verses give us context. So the key question here is, do these verses support the complementarian position or not? I thought so until a few days ago. My take has always been that Paul's support in vv. 13-14 of his command in v. 12 is an appeal to the order of creation and the nature of women and thus a timeless truth. Not that women are "deceived" but that women have a more tender or emotional nature which could in leadership situations lead to deception. (Or something like that.) In brief, in application I took that the principle was that a woman had to have a man in authority over her in her teaching.

However, Pyne really challenged my interpretation of these verses. His assertion is that Paul's command in verse 12 is a (and I'm not using the right words here) culturally-conditioned command like many take v. 9 to be regarding adornment. That is, his command is based on culturally relevant issues and is thus applicable in different ways today. The principles behind his command apply, but according to Pyne it's a concern about the church's relevance to the culture and good teaching in the church not the nature of women.

According to Pyne, women then were little better off then women recently were under the Taliban. They were almost never educated. They had few rights. They were married off at incredibly young ages. They were often treated as property. They were not allowed to be a part of religious discussions at all - etc. I think this is pretty well attested in that I don't think either side of this issue disagrees up to here. Regardless of how you take women in ministry issues, the NT stance greatly elevated the value and standing of women in the church. Anyway, Pyne's argument is that Paul's command here is based on the cultural condition of his day. For a woman to have leadership or to teach in church would be dangerous because 1) the cultural would completely discount them and 2) there would be a real danger to the church because these women were uneducated and thus really were more likely to be deceived.

Now according to Pyne, Paul's reasons are NOT based on the order of creation or the nature of women. They are 1) based on the culturally accepted understanding of primogeniture (sp?). Since the culture accepts the implications of birth order then he is making a culturally accepted statement to support his argument. This would be similar to his statement in Titus 1:12 where he says "Cretans are always liars." Hence his argument is not on the nature of creation but on the common understanding that certain priviledges were reserved for certain people. 2) Secondly, Paul is again referring to an instance in creation not as a statement that the nature of women is to be deceived but as an argument from accepted knowledge that a woman would be deceived. However, again he is appealing to accepted cultural knowledge here. NOT eternal truths.

Hence, according to Pyne 1 Tim. 2 is not something that supports the complementarian camp.

Well, that's enough for now. Give me your thoughts if you have the time. Any holes in the above logic?

Just Gave Blood

I skipped chapel today and instead gave blood at the Blood Bus (I'll bet they don't call it that). Do you know it costs $500 per unit (about a pint) of blood? That's incredible. They told me the hospital will charge you $1k per unit. Wow.

By the way, in my class on Wednesday, Dr. Pyne totally smoked my arguments against women in the ministry. I've really gotta think through these issues so I'll be posting tonight probably and starting to think through this. I'll expect this will be a focus for a while because the implicatoins (either way) are so large that I feel I really need to have as firm a foundation as possible. I'll start tonight by giving Pyne's opinion on 1 Tim. 2 and why he argues it doesn't apply today.

God loves America?

This morning in church, during the offering a patriotic song was sung. I hadn't heard the song before, but the lyrics talked about the sacrifice our soldiers were making, talked about how we were standing united, and the chorus went in part, "land where our fathers died... pilgrims pride... let freedom ring... let freedom ring." Military drumbeats form the background. Afterwards, the pastor stated that this was a "September tribute to those fighting to preserve our freedom."

Well, you get the idea. Okay. You've seen this sort of thing before. Usually it's on the fourth of July, but patriotism can come up in the church at other times of the year - I think this was related in proximity to 9/11. My question is, how close should we tie the church to patriotism? Or to put it another way, how close should we place the cross and the flag? (As pictured above.)

What place does our nationalistic fervor have in the church if any?

Honestly, while I don't think singing "America the Beautiful" in church is heresy, I do think it's at least dangerous. I mean, I'm so grateful for the freedoms and priviledge I have as an American. I am indebted to the many men and women who have given their lives fighting for our freedom. I appreciate my freedom. I love many, many things about my country...

That being said, I think mixing the flag and the cross is risky business. I would even go so far to say that they don't belong together. Here are a couple reasons:
1. Mixing the flag and the cross can and often DOES imply to people from other nations that Americans=Christians. Certainly this is not even close to always being true.
2. Mixing the flag and the cross can imply to people from other nations that God loves Americans more than other people.
3. Mixing the flag and the cross mixes the baggage of America with the message of the gospel - a Palestinian who views America negatively might often struggle with even thinking of Christianity because of this.
4. Mixing the flag and the cross can imply equality of allegience. While I am a loyal American citizen, my primary loyalty should be to Christ. This could even be idolatrous.
5. Jesus is not American
6. Christ died for ALL people, not just Americans.

Well, those are some of my thoughts. I don't think this is the biggest deal, but I do think it's an area most churches I have been in aren't careful about.

Am I off my rocker here or right on? Feel free to comment below.

Back on Track

Okay, I know my recent posts have had nothing to do with theological discussions. I promise to be back on track next week. Or even now somewhat. I got sidelined this last week with simply too much to do to seriously "ruminate."

Before I do some serious theological posts, here's a great music video from the group "Selah." If you haven't heard their song "You Raise Me Up" yet, then definitely check this one out. (You'll have to sit through a brief commercial first.)

"You Raise Me Up" Music Video

The images really gripped me (besides the great music). I think us Americans don't spend enough time really recognizing the world wide needs - both physically and spiritually. We focus so much on our own needs. No doubt we have very legitimate needs and problems. But how do they compare to impovrishment, hunger, and even starvation? How do they compare to people who have maybe never even heard the words "Jesus loves you?"

Even more difficult for me to consider is what am I doing now, as a servant of God and in light of my enormous wealth, to meet their spiritual and physical needs?

From CNN: A hay sculpture titled "The Great Sphaynx" sits in a field near Utica, Montana, on Sunday. The sculpture is one of about 50 on display as part of the annual 'What the Hay' Contest.
 

Click HERE for a really interesting look at what the election might look at based on current polls (assuming they're accurate of course). It's broken down state by state with the close ones indicated, etc. Just fascinating.

TV to watch?

Tomorrow night at 8 on PBS (at least here in Dallas): Does God Exist?

Voice over in teaser states, "It all comes down to this question..." It'll be interesting to see how they put this together. Unfortunately, I doubt I'll be able to watch it due to a paper I have to turn in on Thurs. So if you see it, then let me know your thoughts.

A Great Prayer

Below is part of a prayer that John Eldredge has posted on his website: www.ransomedheart.com The rest of the prayer can be read HERE.

Dear God, holy and victorious Trinity, you alone are worthy of all my worship, my hearts devotion, all my praise and all my trust and all the glory of my life. I worship you, bow to you and give myself over to you in my heart’s search for life. You alone are Life, and you have become my life. I renounce all other gods, all idols, and I give you the place in my heart and in my life that you truly deserve. I confess here and now that it is all about you, God, and not about me. You are the Hero of this .story, and I belong to you. Forgive me, God, for my every sin. Search me and know me and reveal to me any aspect of my life that is not pleasing to you, and grant me the grace of a deep and true repentance.

I just thought that this prayer gave good context to the conversation over the last week and also have grown recently to appreciate prayers like this more. Coming from a Bible church background, "structured" prayers aren't real common. But the theological richness in them is both instructive and I think very worshipful.

P.S. This isn't going to be a "let's talk about John Eldredge website." Well, not forever at least. We'll move on even though I've really enjoyed the conversation so far (thanks Matt and Mark - theological geniuses!!!)

Another Hurricane Theory

Click HERE for someone else's theory behind the hurricanes.

Dr. Bramer, my Dallas Seminary Old Testament Prophets professor stated the other day in class as we were going through Amos that God judges through natural disasters - he suggested (but didn't state definitely) that the Hurricanes and other disasters that have recently hit our nation like 9/11 might be the result of God's judgement. Humm... 

Arkansas also loses to Texas 22-20. They could've won...I'm in texas so I have to be careful with my disappointment. I missed this one too - doing an Apartment Life event. Again, glad I did. 

Dallas Loses. :-( I didn't get to see the game - due to my Spiritual Formation group - which is okay because watching teams I like lose makes me depressed for the next few days 

Further info on Eldridge critique

Okay, I have the link to the Wild at Heart critique here. I don't have time to read this guy's tome but I have scanned a bit of it. An excerpt below where the author (Rut Etheridge III interestingly enough) criticizes Eldredge as being guilty of condoning Open Theism (a heresy that in part states that God doesn't really know the entire future):

The idea that God takes risks, integral to Openness Theism, is profoundly offensive to Scripture’s description of God’s sovereignty (Isaiah 46:9,10, Ephesians 1:11). Eldredge, however, heartily endorses this notion of a risk taking God, seeing it as reflective of God’s wild nature. On page 32, Eldredge writes, “God’s willingness to risk is just astounding – far beyond what any of us would do were we in his position” (p.32). Also, “And unlike some hyper-controlling parents…God gave us a remarkable choice. He did not make Adam and Eve obey him. He took a risk. A staggering risk, with staggering consequences. He let others into the story, and he
lets their choices shape it profoundly…It’s not the nature of God to limit his risks and cover his bases. Far from it. Most of the time, he lets the odds stack up against him” (p.31). From here, Eldredge cites God’s handling of the confrontation between David and Goliath and the downsizing of Gideon’s army as examples of risks that God has taken.

A risk implies uncertainty and the possibility of failure. If Eldredge means what he says, then there must have been some degree of uncertainty in the mind of God as to the outcome of these events. This, of course, is monumentally inconsistent with Scripture.

Although I agree with the critique elsewhere in his paper at points (for instance - some of Eldredge's biblical proofs for our "wild" nature are pretty weak), I don't agree here. It is possible to say God takes risks without saying that God doesn't know the future. In academic terms it is probably inaccurate to say that God takes risks. However, Eldredge's book isn't academic and like many other good authors he uses strong words that might sacrifice some accuracy for poignancy. Does God "roll the dice" or "hope to succeed?" No. But he has given us choice. That alone sounds "risky."

Wild at Heart?

To start my first evening...

HEADLINE on CT: WildheartJohn Eldredge thinks too many Christians are weak, and churches are often docile—and he's not going to take it anymore.

- it's not online yet (i'll try to post a link when it is, but Christianity Today (CT) Magazine's latest issue has an article on John Eldredge's Wild at Heart stuff. I'm having a tough time figuring Eldredge out. For those who have been in a cave and don't know his stuff, Eldridge argues among many things that we have become passive at our core and have in a sense lost our hearts. We have gotten to used to saying "I am just a sinner saved by grace" and don't recognize that God has given us a new heart that beats for him. We fail to recognize the transforming power that has been worked in us and miss out on the passion that God wants us to live out in our lives. We have, he would say, become "weak" in our Christianity.

Now, Eldredge has his critics. I missed the link, but someone has a huge critique posted at a church website of his stuff. They argue among other things, that Eldredge goes overboard in his "adventure talk", that he diminishes the sovereignty of God, and some don't like his strong distinctions on gender roles.

Ahhh.... all of that brings me to my questions... Is Eldredge totally right, totally wrong or somewhere in between? A part of me thinks that perhaps the "Calvinism" in me and my fellow Christians has gripped us too tightly and we do simply think we are "sinners" and don't see ourselves as "new creations." But maybe he goes too far?

A second blessing in my life that prefers... "different" topics. :-) 

One blessing in my life that isn't quite ready to discuss too much theology yet 

A place to think and interact

As a seminary student at Dallas Theological Seminary, I find myself intaking a LOT of information and not having much time to "Digest" it. Thus, this website. If this works, I'll regularly post my conversations and "learning" from campus to try to understand them better. If nothing else, this will help get my thoughts on paper.