Interesting read. I stumbled on this because you posted on SWG recent post on the SBC. I did find it ironic that towards the end you slipped into one of SWGs favorite tactics of dismissing a perspective by grouping those with it into a category that you frame as shoddy:
I’ll admit that I have poked around on a few of the pages of the folks we’ve been discussing. Of note is that, to all appearances, most of these folks serve either in (liberal) mainline Protestant churches or in evangelical churches that have no real confessional pedigree, with charismatic and other non-denominational churches probably being the most prominent. A trend I’ve observed in such churches is that they are often the first to drift away from the truth and call it progress or boldness. Generally, these are very trendy churches, like “The Belonging Co.” down the road from my house co-pastored by a man and his wife.
SWG loves doing this, and while the rest of your article was cogent enough, this final broad stoke moment somewhat undermined the rest of the article.
Hi Joel! I Generally don't interact with comments but am making an exception to say 1) thanks for reading and 2) I think you may have misunderstood the "final broad stroke moment" as you call it.
The point isn't to dismiss a view as wrong because it belongs to a sub-optimal category (for there are indeed fine, independent, non-confessional non-denoms) but simply to highlight a correlation between lack of connection to the past and theological drift that goes with the current of culture.
The point is, then, that ordaining women/having female pastors is one such example—baptizing "loving" homosexual relationships would be another. Recall that the whole piece is prefaced by saying that a few observations are worth noting; the final part is simply that—an observation, and one that I believe is problematic at a very general level in evangelicalism as a whole.
The Charismatic and Pentecostal traditions have even in their earliest stages from the Welsh revivals and Azusa have had more elasticity around this issue. While I mistrust the sort of populism baked into these traditions, I still find it interesting that women in leadership has been a part of them, and for the most part they remained incredibly fundamentalist for over a century. The lines blur with pseudo charismatic big box non denoms that pander to the notion of church growth more than to any other ideology (perhaps a misunderstanding of the notion of revival).
Thanks for taking the time, and I've been known to make a similar claim about non denoms and charismatic congregations but as it pertains to American fundamentalism.
I think many things written in the Bible are human constructs and the context of the times in which they were recorded that we have baptized as "the word of God". God and the Holy Spirit are free to work beyond the boundaries of the Bible. We get glimpses of this when it is written that God's thoughts are not human thoughts, and when God says, "Now I am doing something new, do you not perceive it?" Who are we to limit God?? Even Jesus ventured outside of the contextual boundaries of his time. That's partly what got him killed! Maybe this is one of those times in history when "God's gonna trouble the waters."
What I think is really going on is masculinity is fearful of losing power and position in society. Maybe this is a time for broadening the understanding what it means to be masculine. Currently it seems fear based; the ego is afraid of losing things. What's so wrong with sharing power and position with women and other ethnic groups? Women preachers add a deeper perspective to scriptures instead of a one-sided male perspective. For example, I shake my head at most commentaries written by men about the birth of Jesus. Birth is a women's experience! Men only have a limited understanding of it. We get a much deeper understanding of the birth of Christ when we add women's reflection to the mix. That's just one example.
The Spirit; like the wind, blows where it will. You don't see the wind but you see the results. Maybe we are seeing the results of the Spirit's movement. Who knows? God may be doing a new thing!
Ps. $5 words like "hermaneutics" are shop talk and should be used in general polite company. Blessings!
While Tradition holds that Paul wrote all his letters, Biblical scholarship disputes many letters, including those calling for women to take lesser places than men. They dispute almost half of these letters were not written by Paul, but by a disciple of Paul, but penning his name to them.
Simply Google "Did Paul write all his letters in the Bible?"
How heavily should we rely on words penned in a different writing style than Paul years later by unknown writers who may have been placating to rich land owners?
Interesting read. I stumbled on this because you posted on SWG recent post on the SBC. I did find it ironic that towards the end you slipped into one of SWGs favorite tactics of dismissing a perspective by grouping those with it into a category that you frame as shoddy:
I’ll admit that I have poked around on a few of the pages of the folks we’ve been discussing. Of note is that, to all appearances, most of these folks serve either in (liberal) mainline Protestant churches or in evangelical churches that have no real confessional pedigree, with charismatic and other non-denominational churches probably being the most prominent. A trend I’ve observed in such churches is that they are often the first to drift away from the truth and call it progress or boldness. Generally, these are very trendy churches, like “The Belonging Co.” down the road from my house co-pastored by a man and his wife.
SWG loves doing this, and while the rest of your article was cogent enough, this final broad stoke moment somewhat undermined the rest of the article.
Hi Joel! I Generally don't interact with comments but am making an exception to say 1) thanks for reading and 2) I think you may have misunderstood the "final broad stroke moment" as you call it.
The point isn't to dismiss a view as wrong because it belongs to a sub-optimal category (for there are indeed fine, independent, non-confessional non-denoms) but simply to highlight a correlation between lack of connection to the past and theological drift that goes with the current of culture.
The point is, then, that ordaining women/having female pastors is one such example—baptizing "loving" homosexual relationships would be another. Recall that the whole piece is prefaced by saying that a few observations are worth noting; the final part is simply that—an observation, and one that I believe is problematic at a very general level in evangelicalism as a whole.
Hopefully this is clarifying.
The Charismatic and Pentecostal traditions have even in their earliest stages from the Welsh revivals and Azusa have had more elasticity around this issue. While I mistrust the sort of populism baked into these traditions, I still find it interesting that women in leadership has been a part of them, and for the most part they remained incredibly fundamentalist for over a century. The lines blur with pseudo charismatic big box non denoms that pander to the notion of church growth more than to any other ideology (perhaps a misunderstanding of the notion of revival).
Thanks for taking the time, and I've been known to make a similar claim about non denoms and charismatic congregations but as it pertains to American fundamentalism.
I think many things written in the Bible are human constructs and the context of the times in which they were recorded that we have baptized as "the word of God". God and the Holy Spirit are free to work beyond the boundaries of the Bible. We get glimpses of this when it is written that God's thoughts are not human thoughts, and when God says, "Now I am doing something new, do you not perceive it?" Who are we to limit God?? Even Jesus ventured outside of the contextual boundaries of his time. That's partly what got him killed! Maybe this is one of those times in history when "God's gonna trouble the waters."
What I think is really going on is masculinity is fearful of losing power and position in society. Maybe this is a time for broadening the understanding what it means to be masculine. Currently it seems fear based; the ego is afraid of losing things. What's so wrong with sharing power and position with women and other ethnic groups? Women preachers add a deeper perspective to scriptures instead of a one-sided male perspective. For example, I shake my head at most commentaries written by men about the birth of Jesus. Birth is a women's experience! Men only have a limited understanding of it. We get a much deeper understanding of the birth of Christ when we add women's reflection to the mix. That's just one example.
The Spirit; like the wind, blows where it will. You don't see the wind but you see the results. Maybe we are seeing the results of the Spirit's movement. Who knows? God may be doing a new thing!
Ps. $5 words like "hermaneutics" are shop talk and should be used in general polite company. Blessings!
That last statement should read...Should NOT be used in polite company. My bad. Blessings from "Pastor Cathy"
While Tradition holds that Paul wrote all his letters, Biblical scholarship disputes many letters, including those calling for women to take lesser places than men. They dispute almost half of these letters were not written by Paul, but by a disciple of Paul, but penning his name to them.
Simply Google "Did Paul write all his letters in the Bible?"
How heavily should we rely on words penned in a different writing style than Paul years later by unknown writers who may have been placating to rich land owners?