Monday, June 22, 2009

Grateful For Meat
I really enjoyed the article (actually, I didn’t like since it convicted me ;-). It brought a great sense of conviction in just an overall idea of why don’t I just eat less? But for me, it was an overall consumption, not relegated to just meat. I get very caught up in God’s bounty that I forget it is just that. A bounty from God. And just because I don’t vomit just so I can eat some more doesn’t mean I’m not being a glutton or, as she highlights, not giving thanks to God when it is due.

I do have one minor disagreement. In the article, she says

…animals would live longer, more productive lives when they were given plenty of grazing room and time to rest.

I just am not sure how you would measure a productive life for a cow or a chicken. It smack of the elevation of nature, which sounds just beneath the surface. Definitely not to the stereotypical PETA extremes (stereotypical, not necessarily typical), mind you. From that she states, in essence, that we should think about eating more veggies. That is also fraught with peril, just different application (how are farms treating their land, etc.).

I am grateful for the reminder of how I should be thankful to God for what He provides. Which is another extremely small point in that a) all good things come through God and b) there is no conscious act the animal does for which (a point simply to contrast thankfulness towards a person), hence thanks to the chicken sounds absurd. Regardless, though, giving thanks for God’s blessing is very often lost in the middle of reaching for that second….third…..OK, fourth helping of potatoes or brats.

New Comment:


I had read something interesting about eating Crickets. If I understand it correctly, it’s based in the days of the Killing Fields. People ate whatever they could to survive. That meant crickets, too. The crickets wound up being a carryover from a horrible time period for them. Very sad.

Read actual comments.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

five things I learned about God from the life and death of a baby

I linked here from Burk. My wife and I are waiting to try again after a blighted ovum. I think you have such a wonderful, spot-on view. After experiencing something similar first hand (not personally as that was my wife, not me), it’s a great testament to read how God has worked in your life despite the difficulties. My wife has been a source of amazement to me during this time for the same reasons! I just thought I would drop in to say what a great list this is.

Also, I liked the foundation for the name. And I couldn’t help but giggle at the occupation.


Read actual comments.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Scot McKnight’s Question about Headship
Well, we did get to 1700 on the Ware post. I think that did everyone in (then again, IBC brought it on again....). I'm not a betting man, but I think I'd take the under.

The responses are pretty much exactly what you would expect (although not many complementarians on beliefnet apparently), but I did get a (slightly guilt-ridden) giggle at one post:

It has been great reading the comments. As a Christian man, I have never really liked all the religious stuff very much. After reading most of the comments here, I am so glad I don't have to worry about leading my family in that area. I have always felt that playing golf with my buddies on Sunday mornings was a better spiritual activity for me than going to church with my wife and kids. Now I know that my previous feelings of responsibility were just due to a misreading of Ephesians 5:25ff. My wife will be a better spiritual leader than I will anyway. She will be delighted at her new opportunity to lead. And now I won't feel as much of a disconnect with the dominant culture in America and all the other men who don't really like all that religious stuff.


New Comment
Yes, but you can only bet against another man.......

PS: I think yours is the first site I’ve ever seen with a comment from mom.

New Comment

Do I think anyone will change their mind? No. Just as I also don't think that I can change an atheist's mind to come to Christ. I can’t do that work. But I can witness to him. I can continue to proclaim the truth of Christ.

In a similar, yet very different way (in that egalitarianism shouldn’t be a question of a persons salvation.), biblical manhood and womanhood is discussed here. I can’t convince you, perhaps, but I don’t stop speaking against what I view as a damaging error. I do so with gentleness (1 Peter), but I don’t stop because I just don’t feel like it. That is how a lot of doctrinal error propagates. We just get too tired of speaking against error. That said, no one has a perfect theology, I do understand that. But this is one area that appears to me very clear. And biblical complementarity has a deeper reaching impact than does, say wine vs. juice or instruments, etc. I think that Piper and Grudem’s answer the root question of “why would I keep making the argument for biblical complementarity?”

We are concerned not merely with the behavioral roles of men and women but also with the underlying nature of manhood and womanhood themselves. Biblical truth and clarity in this matter are important because error and confusion over sexual identity leads to:
1. marriage patterns that do not portray the relationship between Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:31-32);
2. parenting practices that do not train boys to be masculine or girls to be feminine;
3. homosexual tendencies and increasing attempts to justify homosexual alliances (see question 41);
4. patterns of unbiblical female leadership in the church that reflect and promote the confusion over the true meaning of manhood and womanhood.

God's gift of complementary manhood and womanhood was exhilarating from the beginning (Genesis 2:23). It is precious beyond estimation. But today it is esteemed lightly and is vanishing like the rain forests we need but don't love. We believe that what is at stake in human sexuality is the very fabric of life as God wills it to be for the holiness of His people and for their saving mission to the world. (See the Rationale section of the Danvers Statement.)

Emphasis mine.

New Comment
Just out of curiosity, Sue, where else is the second phrase used (comment 33) in the NT? Also, sorry to show my ignorance, but I’m not familiar with your reference to phoebe being the prostratis of Paul (perhaps you are referring to the Greek there, sorry, I don’t understand the reference), perhaps that Phoebe served to the needs of Paul or helper or…?

New Comment

First and foremost, remember that rooting 1 Tim 2:12 in Genesis is Paul’s establishment, not Dr. Burk or anyone else’s.

Second, I would see Dr. Burk’s, et. al argument not as 1 Tim 2 proves 1 Tim 3. I would say that 1 Tim 2, Eph 5, Col 3, 1 Peter 3 and 1 cor 14, God prescribes the order to His creation and church (and is reflective of His essence, the trinity). Titus 1 and 1 Tim 3 reflect that as well.

New Comment
She was a servant leader, I suppose
I giggled (I took that as a little [friendly] jab correctly, right?).

I’m not as familiar with prostatis, I’ll have to take time to study that (and see below, too), however along that lines, does an example of something contrary to what is biblically prescribed mean that the prescription is nullified?

The Despot reference as I was familiar, was a reference to the business aspects (in a sense) of running a household (such as the two verses you cite) and not in conflict with a husband leading his family. I’ll have to take a greater look at the references of oikodespotein elsewhere. Of course, words, as has been mentioned many times over here and similar places, can have a broader sense of the root meaning.


New Comment

You’re right, it’s impossible for me to prove it. But there’s an entire line of thinking there that I don’t think you really mean but you indicate. If you mean do I speak Greek? No, you will have to leave that to the folks who write books like Articular Infinitives in the Greek of the New Testament.

That said, Tim was Paul’s instructions for the church (God’s word breathed to the church). If it were toward a single woman (presumably disrupting church services), he would have singled out like Hym. And Alex, don’t you think? It speaks in general terms in the verses leading up and then following, so while I can’t prove it, it would seem odd to stop and single out an unnamed woman here. He roots it in Adam and Eve (the reason I mentioned it was the comment that seemed to indicated it was Dr. Burk’s concoction of sorts). He had established a similar church command in his letter to the Corinthians. 1 Peter 3, Col 3 (and Titus as well) sets forth order to the creation within the home (the two subjects the original letter writer above was connecting). It is an overall theme and order that runs throughout. Later in his letter to Timothy and then again to Titus, he mentions qualifications for elders and deacons. I mention them all in conjunction as it is the flowing unity and, especially with reference to Eph 5, is reflective of His nature.

Can I prove any of this? Not until I am face to face kneeling before my maker. Until then, well, I suppose nothing more.

PS: There is proof. The fact that you don’t accept it doesn’t make it false (for a similar argument, see if Jesus is God.). Based on the style of your comments and the (very difficult to tell over electronic media) tone, it seems you are being more quarrelsome for the sake of stirring up than a true question.

New Comment
I still think there’s no way 150 is going to get here.

New Comment
Well, to be fair, I never said nor indicated that the complementarian reading was the only possible reading. I defended my position. And yes, I understand that my theology and doctrine is not perfect. But contary to what you state, I would say a complementarian reading is more simplistic, taking the words written as they were written rather than trying to invent or assume a situation that is not mentioned or described (again, as is the case with the other two fellows as well as the unnamed, but singled out, teachers trying to take over Paul’s ministry while he was in prison).

So, only since this conversation went a little different that the letter asks, does everyone agree that the letter above describes and incongruous situation? As in if your egalitarian, it’s both church and home (must be applied the same), right?

New Comment
The problem with male leadership is that it makes your head spin. Better a woman apply to do her moral best using her own conscience which was put there by God.
Agreed that there are varied opinions. I agree with Kostenberger’s external evidence (given there isn’t a direct lexical, uh, proof). But you and I have argued that before (see the DBC threads). You mention something that, to me, is just as much at the heart of the matter as your view that men want to maintain dominance (is to the heart of your matter). It’s the idea that if I must use my gifts in the way I see fit. Conscience is a fickle thing sometimes. Many homosexuals would tell you that they are celebrating a moral thing that God has put on their hearts, but scripture would say otherwise (and the arguments against that scripture are nearly as nuanced and plentiful as teaching.). A woman may say that she left her husband for a God-fearing man and did so using her moral best judgment while again, scripture speaks against divorce (again, arguments are just as plentiful).

New Comment
What about single women who provide for their families and manage them well? Allowed to lead?

What about the celibate women of old who were abesses and in charge of estates, churches and priests, – allowed to lead?

I know you’ve stated this before, but I don’t understand why. A husband leads his family. Complementarians don’t say a woman is always to have some man in her life to lead her spiritually in her household.

And David, yes, I believe that Paul does want them to get married (he states it in his other letters as well, if memory serves me correctly). A desire, contrasted with not permitting.

OK, Darius, I have faith. We’re to 60 and we haven’t even gotten to the read scripture through the lens of Aristotle yet.

New Comment
Just to tack on something else that’s related, we tend to get focused on one or two things (along the lines of what Ferg said earlier). The unspoken part that goes hand in hand with our discussion came in what I thought was a great quote:

And then [God] goes over to the man and says, "You're going to love your wife like Christ loved the church." And so you start running through it: how does Christ love the church? He rescues her, He saves her, He becomes sin for her, He has His body ripped apart for her, and here's the kicker and here's where I want to spend my time tonight, He does it all, not because the bride asked for it, but He initiates on His own. And that's what I think is so big about this text.

OK, I'll be quiet now.

New Comment

The word servanthood is not in the bible either yet we use it to describe Christian doctrine. Yes, it does describe the order placed before us by God. Is it your interpretation? No.

New Comment

Re: Widows, no, Paul specifically says he doesn’t have a deceiving spirit at the end of that passage. One could be for younger widows, the other for older widows (the likely case given the identification of younger in 1 Tim). To tack on to what I had said earlier, not only do I not have a perfect theology, I also cannot answer every question about the bible (A. I’m simply not smart enough B. I cannot know all the things of God).

New Comment

I grieve that I brought up the Jesus as God claim. I really don’t even like reiterating it. Just go and look up JW’s doctrine and commentaries on it.

Again, I’ll go back to your original thought. Can I prove anything I believe? No, I can’t. And I have a sneaky suspicion that it will continue to give me tired-head, but, I still hold that this topic holds such an important foundation…. In the Timothy passage, this section of the letter starts by describing guidelines for proper attire and ends with preservation. Looking out further than that little section, it starts with guidelines for prayer, going further past, it takes on guidelines for teachers, overseers and deacons. Hence why I said it speaks in general terms leading up and coming out. To stop in the middle and speak to an individual, unnamed, unidentified situation would not flow with that whole portion of the letter. Hence, I In 1 Cor, I wasn’t saying 1 Tim proves it, I’m saying it’s a similar command. It then flows with the other commands given by multiple authors and can further be compared against the

Can I prove it? No, but there are very few things in the bible I can prove (either to exist or even to be commands). Can you call it theory? Sure. Then, I suppose, that settles that. I accept them as statements by faith. I accept them as true and part of the truth. I would assume you view egalitarian doctrine the same way. I certainly pray you do. I pray your desire is truly to find God’s spirit driven word, not seeking to salve my personal views as I so often find myself.

New Comment

You asked why I thought, so I told you. It does have warrant (as before, if you don’t hold to it, OK, but that can’t be used as a proof of falsehood). You are correct in saying that we don’t go the route of hyper-literalism.

I say he didn’t have a deceiving spirit as all scripture is God-breathed (and profitable, etc.). If you hold to God deceiving him (which I don’t think is what you are implying, correct?), then we are on very different ends of the spectrum. I think what you mean to indicate is that because Paul’s letters are written to churches, they are prescriptive only to that particular church or situation (some or all of the letter, anyway). If that’s the case, I think we’re still far apart as all scripture is profitable for training, etc.

New Comment
BTW, (as you would agree, I think)any hermeneutic leads to real problems. One can argue "what if" or "prove it" with any hermeneutic. I think the scriptures do transcend time. Piper and Grudem say it well:

"In contrast, to show that the specific forms of some commands are limited to one kind of situation or culture, (1) we seek for clues in the context that this is so; (2) we compare other Scriptures relating to the same subject to see if we are dealing with limited application or with an abiding requirement; and (3) we try to show that the cultural specificity of the command is not rooted in the nature of God, the gospel, or the created order."

New CommentI have found that my own views have been shaped by exposure to contrary perspectives that I had been previously unaware of. I have then proceeded to examine the issue anew and eventually have developed, hopefully, a more mature perspective which has been tempered by dealing with awareness of more details.

Amen for me, too!

New Comment
We who have the benefit of having a more complete canon of Scripture must be careful about imposing that fuller insight upon understanding those passages which could not be interpreted without that benefit.

The danger I see creeping up often (this isn’t towards you specifically or meant to be rebarbative) is that we get sunk into the idea that Paul authored the letter. God was the author. How He handled those 150 or so years worth of hearts and churches is up to Him. When taking a letter that Paul (or Peter, etc.) wrote, it must be held in the full insight we have. God didn’t make a mistake with His word. To tiresomely say again, it doesn’t mean I have full understanding (or perfect theology). I hold that the complementarian view does hold up to the full insight, taking into account a cultural aspect (if necessary) along with a historical view. This isn’t to say that there aren’t opposing views now or through history that see this issue as a cultural aspect or lone case (in the case of 1 Tim), just saying what and why I hold to it.

No way we make 150.

BTW (didn’t think it fair to put this in a different post….that would be cheating ;-), Sue, given your passion in other posts, I thought you would see that passion in this essay.

New Comment
Oh, and Ferg, I’ve completely changed my mind. After listening to it, I think that people just need to lay off of David Letterman.

Hope you enjoyed or are enjoying your tour through the US. And I like the beard though I’m not manly enough to be able to grow something that full.

I hope this isn’t seen as a cheater’s post.

New Comment
I am distressed that many men preach violence to violent men.
Who teaches this?

To take the rabbit trail, Sue, I mentioned this to you during that 1700 comment thread (or one close by), but it is awful that some man abused his Godly-authorized headship and turned a gift from God into his perverted concept. It truly pains my heart to even read that (much less hear it). And these are likely very hallow empty words for you mostly because I didn’t live them. The pain that is felt is yours. The only one (as you know by now) who can take it away is God. No amount of what I say or what you tell youself (or anyone else, for that matters) can do that. It’s a work that transcends all understanding.

New Comment
When a wife submits to an abusive husband, the abuse is not ameliorated, but it is reinforced. This is a fact.

Among other specific suggestions, Mrs. Hunt says:

Church members should be taught that injustice is sin and that submission does not mean that a woman must submit to the sin of abuse. Women should understand that it is wrong for a wife to enable a husband to continue sinful practices. She has a responsibility to him to take this to her pastor and to the elders of her church.

And from thus flows her thought of men failing to protect women (see the earlier examples in her article).

New Comment

Can I come to Ireland and have some tasty breakfast? I promise not to talk egal/comp.


I guess the cop was abusive when she gave me that ticket. Oh, and I suppose that the IRS was abusive when they sued me for tax evasion. Oh, and my boss is abusive when he tells me to get to work rather than comment on…..uh……gotta go.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have been that snarky, but part of our departure is that you see authority as sinful. I see it as a reflection of the trinity. Perhaps another area we depart.

New Comment
Yes, Sue, Susan Hunt said:
Church members should be taught that injustice is sin and that submission does not mean that a woman must submit to the sin of abuse. Women should understand that it is wrong for a wife to enable a husband to continue sinful practices. She has a responsibility to him to take this to her pastor and to the elders of her church.

I think you put two words together that don't belong "biblical battery".

Stickler: The author starts off exactly correct. She is definitely writing to tickle one’s ears. I suppose I disagree that complementarians put such emphasis on 1 Tim 3:4 as the foundation of complementarianism. Kind of renders the rest of it pointless.

New Comment

Not sure why you opted not to use my name in the comment, but I’m even more baffled how you got to your conclusion. I think anything given to me by God is wonderful. It’s good to have a car, but I don’t take it, yet I think having a car is wonderful. I’ll affirm it again, God gives authority, no one else. It cannot be taken. I am granted only that which is in God’s will. He states that will over and again to us.


Word games? How offensivley disgusting.

New Comment
I stand corrected, Darius. Only 11 to go and someone just referred to another commenter's words as disgusting. Oh, wait.....10 more, this one counts =)!

New Comment

Dangit! Nearly 30 to go still (did you really count ‘em ;-))? Does the disgusting comment count as well since it didn’t really say anything? What about combined responses? I put some together even though they were to different folks (ha ha).

I agree with you about hyper-emphasis (comment 124). I suppose for me, it then goes back to the generic references in the Timothy letter and that God ordained order and (dread the word) authority is a recurring command. I would also posit that historical interpretation was that way as well (which is not a proof, mind you, simply another, uh, checkoff?). But, I suppose, that is just me.

Again, just to state it, I don’t have an answer to every question (especially, as we see here, any acceptable answer). I would uphold your idea of commitment to inerrancy. I pray you do well in your research. Thanks for the interaction as well!

New Comment

I wasn’t offended, I was perplexed. I thought it was maybe a joke I didn’t understand (that happens often). No need to apologize, but if so, I would forgive you!

Something I want to be clear on (sorry, I hate danging preps, too!). I don’t believe that a woman is only to do something if she receives instruction from her husband (or as you erroneously expand, some man). I agree with Ann in comment 74. I would venture a guess that actions and working out aren’t tremendously different in many ways between complementarian and egalitarian households.

Y’all have fun getting the 150 mark.

New Comment
Oh, and I guess I lost the bet, too. What a disappointing comment for #150, huh?

New Comment

I may regret this, but Mr./Ms. Crow, it seems your view of Christ's work was temporal-centric. I believe that is liberation theology at it's heart.

Also, I thought Jeff Breeding summed up well a point I tried to make earlier.

New Comment
While I suppose I should resist.

So what is stated is that “could mean”= “does mean”

I suppose I could fold my hands across my chest and cry "you can't prove it", but that would be silly, I suppose. Instead, I’ll say that I understand the argument, but neither of the response comments address the idea that of the 200+ uses of aner in the NT none are neutral (as the Plato selection is). It would seem that the consistency of the word should shine through. Of course, I hold no degree in Greek, so, there’s that.

New Comment
As far as calling someone or something satanic, I think that purposeful use of abrasive language in order to offend is wrong. I believe a good way of thinking of this is theological triage. This is something that can’t be both “yes” and would necessarily split believers (disunity) and deeply impacts other beliefs (see next), hence a 2nd level issue. It doesn’t affect salvation, but I do think it is a vicious attack on the authority of scripture (through putting what we want above what is said simply because we don’t like it), thus, I see egalitarianism as a spiritually dangerous teaching. I wouldn’t be so cavalier or irresolute as to say “you need to know the truth….”. I hold that we do know the truth. I do specifically reject egalitarian teaching. I do hold that there is a truth to this. I also hold that I will have to answer for that, too. I would hope that you hold the same. If not, you are purposefully undermining authority of scripture as well (there is no truth, thus we need not be held to much of anything).

I do think this is serious and not trivial. I would hope you feel the same.

Read actual comments.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Seek to Be Known
Louise said:
Comment 11, if Mr. Brown wants to help his friend, that is a good thing.

I guess I just don't recognize that level of accountability in one's private life.

I think that is a perfect illustration of the mentality of hiding. We often sin and hide it citing "that's personal" or private. Not to say that everything we do is discussed in detail out in the open (I think my wife would rather me not). I have trouble sharing those things in my “private” life that others can and should call out. I too often value my comfort and whatever veneer I can over serving God. Integrity is doing what is right when no one is looking. Hiding gives us a false sense of integrity.

New Comment
Louise (#19):

I don’t mean to sound rebarbative, but yes, I know, and that is exactly my point. We want to do what we want and we don’t want anyone telling us any different. Sin (perhaps just for me, who knows?) is easier to justify when no one sees it or when we have no fear of being noticed. Again, that doesn’t mean that I share every graphic detail of my life and those around me are free to push for that level of detail. But with outworking actions in particular, we must remember to sharpen one another (Pr 27:17), we don’t get to hide our sin (Pr 28:13) and gently restore (Gal 6:1). And I think that is where we depart. My prayer is that I have men like Motte in my life (I believe I do). Otherwise, I would be a fool who spurned discipline.

Read actual comments.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

A Civil Rights Decision in New Hampshire?
That is an interesting question, BDW and an excellent point about Las Vegas, uh, "marriages". I just finished Marriage Under Fire… and Dr. Dobson does touch on this subject. The crux (of his argument) is that family is the foundational unit of society. We've been having a major breakdown of society because of the breakdown of the family. While gay marriage is not the cause, it is a massive erosion of the family. Government relies on society, society on the family. As you just did, he also poignantly highlights that we are in this state because of our own erosion of marriage. While gay marriage is seen as further crushing the family concept, it was we who got the big ball rolling through no-fault divorce, the sexual revolution, legitimization of living together (which has subsequently legitimized the hookup generation as well). And on and on.

We can’t dictate what should be God’s intention for marriage, but, given the government we live in (i.e. we get a say in our government) combined with the societal ramifications of the destruction of marriage, it is something that I think we should take whatever legal action possible.

BTW, congrats, dude! Are you @ T-school down there? I have a friend down there about ready to graduate with his MDiv.

Read actual comments.