Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Alright. I’m done.
Brain, it’s clear you think I’m drowning when I’m standing completely dry on the shore. You keep trying to save me and I keep trying to tell you that I don’t need saving. We are getting nowhere.
For everyone else who chimed in, thanks for your input.
Have a nice life, y’all. 🙂
Noah ( @noah-cochran ),
I’m aware that the Greek literally means “servant”. I guess what I’d like to ask is why do we automatically assume that Phoebe was just a servant of the church? From what I’ve read surrounding this verse (and other verses discussing deacons), the evidence points to Phoebe being a deacon. This mini study does more justice in exploring Phoebe’s role than I can.
I’ve not heard of the term textus receptus. I’ll look into that. It sounds interesting. 🙂
Noah ( @noah-cochran ),
For some reason, the site isn’t letting me post my reply about deaconesses and textus receptus to you. Bear with me while I figure out what’s going wrong. XD
Brain, ( @obrian-of-the-surface-world )
First off, I am completely confident in my beliefs, and it doesn’t really bother me if you think I’m a lost soul. I was raised by two linguists who taught me good exegetical skills. My father supports egalitarianism and encourages me to stand up for myself when I am “put in my proper place” by a man. My mother wrote a paper (link) last year on Ephesians 5:23 that was published in an academic journal. (I will also note that my mother holds two master’s degrees relevant to the topic she discusses, she includes citations of respected theologians and linguists in her paper, and had her paper peer-reviewed. Unlike the anonymous user who wrote your Ezer blog article.) I will also add that my egalitarian beliefs are not radical or heretical. There are many different branches of Christianity that sprang from different interpretations of different passages. Although you may not agree with all of one branches’ practices, you can still learn from them. It was through talking with Catholic friends that I realized how little attention we (evangelical Christians) give to Mary mother of Jesus, outside of the virgin birth. I don’t revere Mary or pray to her. But I do think it’s interesting to think about why of all women, God chose Mary. If it hadn’t been for my Catholic friends, I don’t know if I would have gotten that perspective.
You cannot automatically dismiss Christians who hold different opinions about the Bible than you. You are not the only one who invests time and prayer into interpretation of the Bible. God has not made you the ultimate authority on His Word. Other Christians have thoughts. Other Christians can teach you. (Even women *gasp*.) Maybe give other Christians’ opinions a chance and stop saying that we’ve lost our fear of God. Because, if you think your Christianity is the one true way and there’s nothing you can learn from people who hold different opinions than you, then you’re the one who’s getting prideful. Ultimately, all Christians believe in the Trinity, the need for salvation from sin, the inspiration of scripture, the virgin birth, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the second coming. And that’s what matters. So, if you honestly believe I am a lost soul because I insist on equal companionship in a marriage rather than having my husband over me, then you, sir, have your theological priorities in the wrong place.
You noted that I’ve been ignoring the scripture passages you’re pulling. This is true. I’ve been ignoring your verses because you’re completely ignoring the cultural context of those verses. Do we still kill magicians? No? Well, that’s a verse too. Do we tell youth to drink wine to help with their stomach pains? No? Well, that’s also a verse. Taking culture and context into account is important. In Paul’s day, women couldn’t even get a divorce. (While on the flip side, men could divorce their wives over something as little as burnt bread. They just had to give their wife written notice.) Are we still following that? Does it make sense that in a culture where women were treated like property they were barred from teaching? Does it make sense that we move away from that mindset now?
I repeat: I. Have. Not. Been. Traumatized. I am not trying to play the victim card. I am simply pointing out how some of your debate tactics are nothing but assaults on my character and beliefs. Or assaults on Christians in general who think differently than you. And well, I think that’s a poor strategy on multiple levels.
Point 8: When I said that humanity suffered equally from the Fall, I meant that all humans die. All of humanity is definitely suffering this consequence. Unless you want to argue that only men die?
Point 9: I know that Phoebe was a deacon and Paul respected her for her work.
@noah-cochran here’s your verse example:“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me.” Romans 16: 1-2, NIV.
Point 10: Cherry-picking and discernment are different things, my friend. I am using discernment to understand what commands hold true for all time (love God and love your neighbor) and which were culturally relevant (women cover your heads when you pray).
Point 11: If you call reading actual Christian academia rather than blog posts that fit my pre-formed beliefs “not doing my research”, then yes. If you call contemplating the words of respected theologians and scholars such as George MacDonald, C.S. Lewis, Tim Keller, N. T. Wright, Phillip Yancey, Beth Moore, and Kristin Kobes du Mez, “not doing my research”, then yes. If you call living 11 years on the mission field “not doing my research”, then yes. I suppose in that sense I wouldn’t have done my research.
Let’s note that I have not once called out any of your beliefs as “heretical” or “unbiblical”. I have not worried over your soul or over your fear of God. However, I still strongly disagree with you. This is because I don’t think this is an issue of faith. It’s an issue of interpretation. Our interpretations will affect how we live our lives, but not our salvation. It’s not the end of the world if we disagree. However, if you are going to insult my intelligence or claim that I don’t put in the effort to really understand the Bible and deepen my faith, then I will say that you are quite simply, wrong. 😊
Points 13 and 14: This is just going back to the “men are strong and want to be strong” idea you were arguing for. Again, I have male friends who are more emotional me. I also have male friends who are less emotional than me. Emotional levels are not tied to gender, and neither are decision making abilities. Please stop generalizing.
Point 15: Maybe the vocabulary is simply to demonstrate that I know what I’m talking about. But, it seems like that didn’t quite work. So, what will? What do I have to do to actually get you to take my interpretation seriously and not just see it as flagrant violation of Paul’s writings?
Points 16 and 17: Once again, you are marvelous at drawing conclusions about things I never said. I did not say abortion was good. I did not say women who got abortions are good. I pointed out that your response is shaming them. I don’t think shaming anyone should be the Christian response. The Christian response should always be love. Abortion is a very sad thing, and I am grieved by how many happen each year. I also realize that sometimes women feel like they have no other options and that an abortion is the only way forward. I don’t think you understand how utterly desperate some women are when they get an abortion. They may have been raped. The father may be out of the picture. They may have no means of providing for the child even if they wanted to. We do not need to add shame to the pain these women are already going through.
Point 18: Well, I give you the credit because it is your interpretation. I have also received scripture-based advice on love and marriage from my father, grandfather, and youth leaders. They have not said what you did. So, you get your own credit.
Point 19: Again, I appreciate your concern for my soul, but I am confident in my beliefs. Marriage dynamics are not a critical issue of faith. I don’t think it’s made me fear God less. In fact, I think it’s made me fear Him more. It’s made me realize that even though I live in a world where women are generally seen as less capable, dismissed as “too emotional”, and harassed for the pithiest reasons, God loves and respects women. He values me as I am. He has gifts he’s given me, and he will use them. He doesn’t expect me to live under my husband but work with him as an ally to further the Kingdom work.
One of the names of God that holds the most meaning for me is one given by Hagar, Sarah’s maidservant. Hagar called Him, “El-roi”. The God who sees me. And knowing that I have a God who not only sees me, but who loves me, is just incredibly freeing. You can call it wokeism, or leftism, or liberalism, or whatever you like. It doesn’t really matter to me. I know that I have a God that wants the best for all his children irrespective of gender or gender roles. And again, if you want to dismiss all Christians who believe things differently than you, then okay. That’s your own issue.
As one last side note, you said that I may be unused to getting pushback because I hold some liberal political stances. On the contrary, I am very accustomed to explaining and defending my beliefs. (The majority of evangelicals are Republicans.) And put simply, I think most liberal stances allow us to love people better than the Republican ones do. So yes, I suppose I have succumbed to some aspects of liberal agenda 🙂
*Slow breath*.
Let me get this straight. So far, you’ve:
1. Assumed I’ve been traumatized by a man.
2. Explained how my “trauma” has shaped my worldview.
3. Told me how to handle my “trauma”.
4. Accused me of secretly believing things that I explicitly said I did not.
5. Diagnosed me with an “identity crisis”.
6. Accused me of not being honest about my beliefs.
7. Cited a blog post written by an anonymous user as an authoritative guide on biblical interpretation.
8. Said that men received the greater consequence in the Fall when humanity is equally affected by sin.
9. Declared women in leadership unbiblical when we have examples of women deacons in the Bible.
10. Implied that I’m ready to do away with the Bible because some of its authors held sexist beliefs.
11. Insinuated that I have not thoroughly researched my own beliefs.
12. Said that political correctness, which is meant to make people feel more comfortable and accepted, is a “stupid idea brought into the public vernacular by a couple of sleazy, sex-crazed, carpet-baggers from Arkansas, who read hippie literature and philosophies akin to those of the pagan dictators my dad had gone to war to help kill.”
13. Claimed that men are more quickly able to recognize evil than women because women are carried away by their “emotions”.
14. Claimed that men are in war because they are more prepared to confront evil than women are.
15. Played the post-modernism card.
16. Took a shot at women pastors and their stance on abortion right after talking about war and how “there is a time to kill”.
17. Shamed women who get abortions when I can guarantee you yourself have never had to go through a pregnancy. (Unless you are a transman. In that case, maybe you have, and I apologize for speaking to soon.)
18. Gave me love advice on what my “ideal” man should be.
19. And overall, completely ignored my 11 sentences on Ezer to give me a lecture on how I’ve been traumatized, don’t know my own beliefs, and am risking losing my “fear of God” by encouraging women to take positions of leadership.
Are you not hearing yourself?
Right! And every single time Ezer appears in the Bible (outside of Genesis) it is used to describe either YHWH himself (17x), Isreal’s allies (1x), or Isreal as an ally (1x).
God uses the same term that he gave to women (from the very start, in Eden) as a term for himself. If we are going to say women can be helpers/rescuers of men, but not spiritual leaders, why aren’t we applying the same logic to God? God is Ezer. Women are Ezer. In my opinion, there is more to this whole thing than just “God created woman for man and she is under him because that’s how things work best”.
Don’t get me wrong- I’m not saying that women are gods or that God is a woman. I am merely pointing out the fact that God created women as rescuers, and strong ones at that. Strong to the point of God using Ezer to describe himself. So, would having a “strong woman” be so unbiblical? Can we have “strong men” and “strong women”?
@obrian-of-the-surface-world , @noah-cochran
Not sure why the tags weren’t working in the other post.
Brian (@obrian-of-the-surface-world ) and Noah (@noah-cochran ),
I’ll preface this by saying that I worked on this response with a really close friend of mine, Al Zapor. When I asked his thoughts on some things that were mentioned above, he said he had some opinions that he wanted to share. However, he’s waiting for forum account approval right now and can’t post quite yet. So, I’ll note when Al is speaking by “A:” and when I am speaking by “L:”. I will also note that this post grew way longer than we intended. (Sorry.)
A: Hello y’all!
L: Within a few days, Al will probably be able to post using his own forum account.
A: That’s the hope at least! At first, I had wanted to share my opinion about Brian’s interpretation of the text but decided I could wait to post that under my own account. Alternatively, I decided I couldn’t wait here! Lastly, do forgive me if I seem blunt and rude. Growing up in Mexico, I’ve come to hate the culture of sucking up to people, so I’ve countered that with being too straightforward for my own good. But onto the issue at hand!
L: First of all, thanks for your input, Noah! Glad you could join the discussion! Second, I’d like to be clear on what I mean when I say “I think of men and women as equals”, because I think both of you are misunderstanding me. I don’t want to do away with gender. However, I think there are gender roles that are hurtful. I don’t think that husbands are automatically the heads of their house and that wives must always defer to them because those are their set roles. (An interesting article about the concept that men are not the head of their wives is here.)
A: (Fascinating article, if I do say so myself).
L: Many women have been stuck in abusive relationships because they were told by church authorities to listen to their husbands. My mom and my grandmother both have had traumatic experiences in the church because of its enforcement of sexist gender roles. This is gender roles hurting people.
A: And the spreading and influence of the Gospel. Our actions could impact the future of Christianity on the world religion scale, but that’s an issue to discuss later.
L: And these are the sort of gender roles I would like to get rid of so that men and women can better work together for His Kingdom.
A: Meanwhile, women who point these things out are told they are pagan unbelievers. For example, within the SBC, looking at the report that came out last month, women who acknowledged and revealed the sexual misconduct in the Church were accused of essentially being sent and used by the Enemy.
A: Also, on the whole topic of “male role-models”, I wanna just share some personal experience. In my own life and Spiritual journey, yes I have had male role-models. However, the people that have impacted me the most are my mother, an aunt, my sister, and my friends who happen to be girls. Why? Because God can use anyone, regardless of gender, to impact, instruct, and mold us into who He wants us to be. I can know about manhood and be masculine regardless of the reproductive system of those who God has placed in my life. Speaking of masculinity, Brian, you seem to have a slightly warped perspective of Biblical masculinity. You insinuate that to be masculine, a man must be constantly tough, competitive, and driven to please women (though it may seem shocking to you, not every man is straight, and they aren’t any less “manly” or “men” than every other man. Plus, what would they be? You seem to think that agender, non-binary, and trans folks don’t exist. But anyway, back to the topic at hand). Let’s look at the epitome of a masculine man in the Bible, one who is described as “a man after God’s own Heart”: King David. Yes, he exhibited traits you saciate over and are quick to call masculine, such as marching with bravery and courage into war, leading Israel, and swooning multiple women, regardless of the morality of some of those relationships. Yet, he also exhibited traits that you would also label as “effeminate” and “pagan moronic cruelties”. He was compassionate, he was vulnerable (which in my opinion, is one of the antithesis of “toughness”), and he laid in meadows creating art. This is Biblical masculinity. As Noah already pointed out, true masculinity isn’t the perverted American-ized masculinity that Christians so often endorse, one filled with guns, football, beer (?), and barbeque. It can include this “toughness” and bravery, but it’s paired with compassion, love, and selflessness. Once again, credit to Noah for this! Just reworded his already excellent statement.
A:
There are silly women. Get over it. There are stupid men. You might as well get over that too.
Women are equal and have opinions just as valid as your own. Get over it. Not every man lines up with your view of perfect masculinity. You might as well get over that too.
L: Thank you, Al.
A:
I will not pander or soft-sell the scripture just to tip-toe over sensitivities that may be more modern-cultural acquired than arise from sincere humble study of the Word.
Lonie was not pandering or soft-selling Scripture or calling for this to be done. Instead, she was pointing out and saying that it is incorrect to use Scripture to defend sexist and misogynistic gender roles, especially when Christianity is a religion of equality, love for all, and salvation for all. Once again, Brian, when you insinuate that, in spite of all this, God did not create the genders equal, you only hurt more people and you risk disillusioning more souls and damaging Christianity’s reputation. Also, you are literally misinterpreting and misusing Scripture to push your personal beliefs on gender roles. You ignore Christ’s example of viewing and valuing women as equals, which can be seen throughout Scripture (ie, His interaction with the Samaritan Woman or His relationship with His mother and Mary Magdalene). But right, Lonie is the one misusing Scripture. Projection much?
L: Again, thank you, Al.
A: This one is slightly more nuanced but
Guys want to be tough.
Going back to my rant on masculinity. Honestly, outside of sports, no, not really. I don’t want to fight, go to war, constantly “assert my dominance to swoon the ladies”. I want to show compassion, care, love, service, much like Christ did.
L: I think what Al is trying to say is that Brian, you are making generalizations and stating them as fact.
A: Yeah. Just in my own way of droning on and on and on XD. But yes, and in my opinion, these generalizations are also incredibly erroneous.
L:
I am not responsible for how you “feel” about my words. Feelings are fickle and transitory. They will pass. What you choose to feel right now is your choice too.
I have to disagree here. Over and over again in the Bible the tongue is referred to as something that does damage (a fire, a sword), and therefore must be controlled. I don’t think it is my fault for being mildly offended by words that dismiss my opinions and beliefs while accusing me of things I didn’t say. Some tongue-controlling may be in order here.
A: This is very true! Honestly, tongue-control for the three of us lol. We must conduct ourselves and use our speech in a way that glorifies God, and well, instigating hate and inequality, frankly, does not glorify God.
A: To be blunt, completely honest, and a tad rude with you, Brian, you’re taking a metaphor, interpreting it literally, using it to defend sexism and misogyny, and then are ranting and defending yourself when Lonie called you out for it. You then launched some pretty personal attacks on her by saying that her view of masculinity must’ve been thwarted by some bad experiences, or saying she has a problem with God. She just has a problem with people using Scripture to defend hate. You walked into a conversation about “mama’s boy” characters, which I felt was perfectly fine, productive, respectful, and not derogatory in the least, to promote what is, well, borderline toxic masculinity. Be better, souls are on the line.
L: Yeah, can we go back to the main point, here? I was just trying to correct what I saw as a misuse of Scripture. Brian, you completely ignored one of my points and proceeded to explain gender roles to me.
A: Yeah, all Lonie was doing was pointing out how you took a metaphor about the Spiritual Realm literally. Christ was a very metaphorical speaker and this sets a bad precedence. Just remember to be extra careful, we’re dealing with the Word of God.
L: Once again, thanks for the discussion, you guys. 🙂
Cheers.
A: Yeah, thanks for including me, Lonie! It’s been fun to read the entire thread and weigh in on this discussion! I’m looking forward to reading y’all’s responses (if y’all have any)! God Bless!
Hello! Thanks for joining the discussion!
Also, gotta admit, when you went into the whole “skeletal design of a woman accommodates carrying a child in their womb, etc., etc.” thing, it felt kinda condescending. True for the most part, but unnecessary and condescending. Which Lona also expresses, though somewhat snarkily😉
I thought the snarkiness was allowed given the condescension. I’ll try to be nicer next time. 🙂
Although it does seem (correct me if I’m wrong) that Lona may have taken offence that you seem to imply that women are less spiritually discerning and more gullible than men?
Correct. I was offended by his using the fact that gullible women exist as a basis for why women can’t be heads of house. By that logic, I could say, “men can’t be politicians because greedy men exist.” This is just bad logic.
Sorry, but Lona clearly stated that this wasn’t an issue she had, so I don’t see why this is necessary? In fact, it sounds really close to sounding like a personal attack. I’m sure you’re not trying to be vehement, just standing up for your beliefs, which is great! But the fact is, that you did sound harsh at times.
Again, thank you! Your input is much appreciated.
Hi Brian ( @obrian-of-the-surface-world ),
While it was interesting to read your opinion, I still disagree. This is probably because we have different viewpoints on women’s subordination to men. I for one, see men and women created as equals and believe they should be treated as such. Accordingly, I have issues with the majority of what you said. I could back my belief with biblical references, but instead I am going to move on so I can respond to your main point about a “strong man” being needed in a family.
The principle that Jesus stated still stands and is logical. Each household should naturally be physically protected by a strong man. How can you argue otherwise?
God has put males in the role of spiritual headship in a home.
Scripture also soundly condemns males who fail to provide for their households.
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. [1 Timothy 5:8 KJV]Failure in that equates such a worthless fool as an apostate.
Males need a “male-role model”. A woman cannot do it and anyone thinking otherwise is an imbecile and a fool.
Simply put, not every household has a “strong man”. Some households have men who are ill or disabled. Some households have single mothers. But, I believe the ill and disabled men still love their families just as much as any other man. I believe the single mothers still love their children just as much as any other mother. To say that ill and disabled men (who may have gotten sick or injured through no fault of their own) have failed as the protectors of the family is extremely insensitive. Even more insensitive is implying that single women are incapable of raising children. I have a male friend who was raised by a single mother. He is intelligent, kind, respectful, and passionate about the Lord. His single mother (who is neither an imbecile nor a fool) raised him better than many young men who were raised by both a man and woman.
Some sidenotes:
The skeletal design of a woman accommodates caring a child in their womb and their pelvic bones cradle a child during the childbearing months until term. Because a child must be protected by the physical design of a woman, there are also external threats that must be protected by someone who does not bear the child and can meet anyone or anything on the perimeter of a household with physical violence if necessary to ensure that both mother and child within the household do not have to contend with that threat and risk to life of the woman and the child she carries.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. [1 Timothy 2:13-15 KJV]
By correlation, any “male” that thinks he can fully explain what being a “girl” is to a female, is a candidate for a nuthouse and I don’t mean the local Planters peanut factory.
Right, thank you for explaining my womanhood and anatomy. That was needed.
Scriptures talk about the deceivers that come with a “form of godliness” and how appearances can deceive “silly women”.
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. [2 Timothy 3:5-7 KJV]
This whole thing is uncalled for. Men can be led astray just as women can. There is no need to base your argument on the fact that “silly women” exist.
Please do not take bad examples of males to be characteristic of all of us. If a piano player plays a concerto of Beethoven poorly, it is not Beethoven who should be blamed for the performance, but the player. In the same way, God should not get blamed for poor representations of men.
If you will read my first post again, you will see that not once did I blame God for anything. I do not understand where you are getting this idea. Please read my first post more carefully.
If you have a problem with masculinity in general, it could be that either you misunderstand it, or that it has been poorly represented to you. Our enemy does so enjoy division and he often effects it by causing misunderstanding or hurt feelings.
Indeed I do have problems with some forms of masculinity. I guarantee that you yourself have come across some of them.
Cheers.
Hi, guys! I normally prefer reading through discussions rather than engaging in them, but I do have one comment on this.
God expects the male to be the physical protector in the home and occupy the defense role for those under his care. Jesus clearly refers to this role when He refers to the “strong man” in the following instances:
Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. [Matthew 12:29 KJV]
No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. [Mark 3:27 KJV]
When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: [Luke 11:21 KJV]
This is irresponsible exegesis on two counts. First of all, the context of this verse is Jesus’ response to the Pharisees after they said Jesus got his powers from the Prince of Demons (Satan). In response, Jesus says that if he got his powers from Satan, then Satan would be fighting against himself and his kingdom would not survive. However, if Jesus gets his power from God, then the Spirit of God must have arrived. Next, Jesus uses the above verses as a metaphor to illustrate the Son of Man’s power over demons. A rough translation of Jesus’ metaphor would go something like this: “Who is mighty enough to cast out the most powerful of demons? Only someone even more powerful than they.”
Secondly, Brian, you quoted this verse three times, once each from Matthew, Mark and Luke. Matthew, Mark, and Luke make up what is known as the Synoptic Gospels. They tell many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and sometimes even with identical wording. Just because a verse Jesus said appears three times in the Synoptic Gospels does not mean that Jesus said those words three separate times.
In summary, Jesus is not commanding Christian men to be macho strong men who defend their households from thieves. He is talking about himself and his power over the spiritual realm.
Cheers, and thank you all for the interesting read that this thread has been!
Elina raised an eyebrow. “Magic?”
Magic was used to heal, and in rare cases, to create. So, she supposed that the castle could have been created through magic, although it would have taken ten people at least, all with an immense amount of experience. However, that still didn’t explain how their little group had been brought to the castle.
“What sort of magic do you mean?”
Hi, Carlos! Welcome to SE! Glad to have you here with us. 🙂
