On NARAL, it states: "If you are facing an unintended pregnancy, it is important that you talk about your feelings and emotions with someone you trust, be that a family member, a close friend or a member of the clergy. It is also important that you consult a health care professional to discuss your options."

Did you catch that? You can talk about your feelings and emotions with your clergy--not the truth, but your feelings and emotions. The role of clergy in this circumstance is purely therapeutic where the role of the health care professional is about the facts, the "options." This fact/feeling divide is grounded in assumptions about the nature of religion, that it has nothing to contribute to the decision at hand. By relegating religious leaders to the domain of emotions, it deems them irrelevant to any discussion related to the fate of the pregnant woman and the unborn child. As well, it assumes that abortion is primarily a medical decision and that there are no spiritual dimensions to the situation. They have determined, as an organization focused on "health care," that philosophical/theological reflection has no place in discussing "the options."

It also needs to be pointed out that they believe in the myth of the purely secular, that they and abortion providers have no worldview commitments.

So you're wondering why this is news. It isn't to me, but for some, it needs to be clarified that the worldview being expressed here has a view of religion as fiction, or something created by culture. For them, life begins only at birth because that is when a person begins to be enculturated. The meaning of life isn't found in anything metaphysical, but in the influence of culture who has created meaning for itself. Until birth, there is no meaning, rendering preborn life meaningless.

"...I prefer to think that women are human and differ in opinion like other human beings...you can not ask for 'the woman's point of view,' but only for the woman's special knowledge...'"[2]

Women today have differing points of view in matters of bioethics, yet the same experience of womanhood, though always with some exceptions. But the most dominate expression of this experience, this "special knowledge," is not from the voice of evangelical women who, as theologians, can provide meaning and communicate hope, but from secular feminism. This is not to suggest that there are no evangelical women engaging in theological dialogue, but as it pertains to being an influential, prophetic voice in bioethics--in the academy, church, and in popular culture--few women address bioethical matters in this way. A cross-centered evangelical bioethic offered through the theological voice and experience of women can serve as an apologetic for a Christian worldview, helping to put to rest the suspicion and charges of female oppression by evangelicalism and evangelical bioethics that are often made by secular feminism, charges that view human autonomy as the highest value. In society and within the community of evangelical bioethics, woman as theologian offers a unique and fresh perspective to all levels of discussion, from academic scholarship and education to more public activist roles.

Secular Feminist Bioethics
Women's issues, especially those related to women's health and bioethics including abortion, pregnancy, contraception, and reproductive technologies have by default, come under the domain of secular feminism in popular culture. For years, since the second wave of feminism leading to Roe v. Wade until now, these women's issues have been addressed primarily by secular feminist voices, and by specifically feminist bioethics. Academic journals like The International Journal to Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, blogs like the Women's Bioethics Project, and popular organizations like NOW and the Feminist Majority exist to develop the next generation in the academy and in popular culture. The website of Women's Bioethics Project states

Women's health concerns have always been at the core of the Women's Bioethics Project's work. Moving beyond narrow conceptions of women's health, we will be focusing on issues such as aging, women's participation in medical research, the impact of traditional care giving roles on women's lives, and end-of-life decision making. We have a series of initiatives planned to help bring these issues to the attention of the media, increase women's involvement, and impact public policy.

It is clear that the focus women's issues is expanding beyond what has been traditionally conceived of as important to women--contraception, abortion rights, infertility, reproductive technologies, and so on. And while feminist bioethics are expanding, with the persuasive power of mythical neutrality, evangelical women as theological bioethicists have yet to speak prominently in the theological academy, church, and in culture to these issues. With all of these voices speaking to women of all ages, and with women eagerly listening, it has to be asked, where are the theological voices of evangelical women? In there book, Living on the Boundaries: Evangelical Women, Feminism, and the Theological Academy, Pohl and Creegan ask similarly, "where are the good women?"[3] The gender discussions within evangelical circles are no doubt a contributing factor to the scarcity of evangelical women as theological bioethicists. But whether complementarian or egalitarian as it relates to women's roles in the church and family, there is ample support in Scripture for women to be a strong voice in the academy, church and culture without concern for compromising conservative views of gender roles.

Crucial to the future of evangelical bioethics is the proactive willingness to develop theologically informed women bioethicists for work in the seminary, in the church, and in culture. Women continue to dominate church membership--60% as recently reported by Barna--and continue to enter into higher education in increasing numbers. Evangelical women who desire theological training find themselves in strange territory, one stating "I guess I'll be too liberal for most evangelical institutions and too conservative for most mainline schools."[4]

The Scriptures contain numerous stories of women's experiences as it relates to matters of reproduction and even end of life scenarios. There are obviously profound theological implications of these stories--the barrenness of Hannah and Sarah, the end-of-life grief of Mary and Martha, sisters to Lazarus--as well, there are practical lessons to be communicated to women in our world today. God cares about the details and he is not uninvolved in our lives. For evangelical women in theology today, the task is to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ by taking ownership of these bioethical issues that have thus far been dominated by secular feminism.

The scope of this discussion is focused on the value of theologically-informed women's voices for the sake of women, though it does not preclude the importance of her influence on men. But in terms of God's calling on the ministry to women, I believe we can find direction for this work in Titus 2.

Typically viewed as instruction for how older women are to mentor younger women in keeping the home, I believe we can with all integrity see the broader implications of this passage in our contemporary culture. Titus 2:3-5 states:

Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

Bioethical issues never operate in a vacuum, and a decision--whether related to reproductive technologies or end of life questions--will always involve members of one's own family. For the woman as theologian and bioethicist, with her special knowledge as woman, daughter, and perhaps as wife and mother, has the opportunity to teach "what is good" to women in the academy, church, and culture. But we must be willing to take our place in culture and no longer be willing for women's issues to be owned by the voice of secular feminism. Through this, we may see the new trends develop in society at large in how we view human nature, life, the unborn, and the disabled. Ultimately, then, women as theological bioethicists have one more way to advance God's kingdom to his glory.

[1] Are Women Human? Dorothy Sayers Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (November 15, 2005) p. 41
[2] Ibid, p. 43
[3] Living on the Boundaries: Evangelical Women, Feminism And the Theological Academy. InterVarsity Press, June 2006. Page 31
[4] Ibid, 41.

We can trace our debased definition of "tolerance" back to French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau who rejected any distinction between "civil" and "theological intolerance." Rousseau did not believe that people can "live at peace with those [they] regard as damned." He saw Christian truth claims as being intolerant and a prelude to civil strife. Specifically, he wrote, anyone who dared to say "no salvation outside the church" should be driven out of society--precisely what is happening.

I agree that the intolerant ones are those who "drive out," yet it is hard to have peace internally when there are folks around who appear to be damned. We must hold out a hope and a prayer that they be saved, then, doing what we can towards that end, and leave the rest up to God. In this way we live at peace with them as much as we are able, for it is hard to live at peace with those whom one has damned oneself. It can also be hard to live at peace with our own sin.

I am seeing articles here and there which speak of sin as the "forgotten" notion. Yet sin is only truly forgotten by those who forget it. (Duh!) Were Rousseau alive today, he would have, not only secularists/atheists, but the church itself to help him drive out -- it appears that many within the church have forgotten that Christ alone takes away the sins of the world.

There seems to be a whole lot more than that required these days, and condemnation is quick for those who sin, whether in actuality or in imagination according to certain "pet" doctrines. Certain sins seem to be something that "they" do, not "us," or that none of us would commit if we just followed the right program. Whatever happened to shaking off the dust and leaving vengeance to God? Leaving salvation to God?

Why allow the sin or hard-heartedness of another to rob us of joy (Acts 13:51-52)? Why look for joy in the agreement of others (although this can be encouraging)? Ultimately, joy can only be found in His righteousness. May our intolerance, then, be truly "theological," and not civil. May we be intolerant of evil, not of each other, and forgiving of both sin and each other.

It is probably one of the longer conversations I've had online in awhile.
Sue of Suzanne's Bookshelf gets the old gray matter working overtime in the discussion of women in the church, authority and freedom, gender issues, etc,

The comments seemed to cut off as Sue was saying:

I was brought up in the Brethren, no clergy, no elders, no other hierarchy except that women were silent. There was no teaching on either leadership or authority, since the leading of the Spirit was all sufficient. I won't say that it worked well, but ALMOST as well as any other authority structure that I see in a church.

I must come across as rather dense, but clearly we don't share a common view on authority. I believe we need governance, but if the governors are dependent on the populace for keeping them in place, there is a form of mutuality, and hierarchy is rotating and contains the notion of responsible government, so responsiveness and responsibility. We need responsible government and not authoritarian government.

There is a great deal said about those in authority in the NT and the authorities seem to be worldly or earthly authorities. We are told to submit to these authorities, but, historically they have been vastly transformed by Christians. As marriage should be also.

Must we shame and lambaste men, denying them any say over their families or in the Church?

Why should fathers have more say over their families than mothers? I am not following this. Why should men have more say in church than women? Should men have more votes than women, or more civil rights? I am missing something.

I do not understand exactly what position you are arguing for. Clearly there is some kind of cultural gap. Whether because I am "post modern" or reared in an antiquated church and family structure, or because I live in another country, I don't really know.

My answer:

I'm not saying you are post modern, I 'm saying that post modern philosophy characteristically reduces everything to semantics, and that antithetical analysis is more in keeping with the manner of thinking displayed in the pages of scripture. Meaning is attached to the words, but there is more in our doctrines than mere words (and no empty context placeholders as is found in plenty of modern thinking). When we Christians say "God" we mean someone by it, when we say "authority" we have a whole body of context in the scriptures that forms the meaning of the concept.

"I believe we need governance"
To begin answering some of your own questions there is a "why" underneath this statement. Why do we need governance, Sue?

I do think we need to differentiate between the structure and form of God's Kingdom, as outlined in the New Testament, and the secular form of Representative democracy. They aren't interchangeable. Just because our US Government is of one form does not translate into that form being the one instituted by God in His Kingdom. The very fact we use a word like "Kingdom" is problematical if you try to equate the two.

I believe we borrowed many important principles from the bible in the formation of our Democratic system... but it isn't a theocracy, and the Kingdom of God most certainly is. God doesn't rule by majority vote, and to imply that this is the way of the Church is simply baseless . Mutuality is not the same as majority rule or democracy. There is form and there is function. Mutuality is a type of functioning... Representative democracy is a type of form.

If we abide by earthly authorities, how much more spiritually invested ones? The question is which ones and how do they function, and how are we to relate together? If you look at it a different way.... isn't it the importation of earthly forms of dominance the trouble with the traditionist/complementarian teachings and practice? Isn't that wrong? Why should we import another earthly system and then smack a "spiritual" imprimatur upon it? Just as wrong- because it is not true to the institution of Christ at the head of the Church. this ought to be discussed in detail, but I'm moving on...

"Why should fathers have more say over their families than mothers?"
Turn that around. Why should mothers have more say than fathers? Now, when there has to be a deciding vote, who gets it, and why? Do you have a system for that? One that creates order and reflects submission to God?

I was in the "Church of Christ" instrumentalist for awhile. They, too, claim no hierarchy, but let's face the truth: there was hierarchy. There has to be... or things don't function. Just because it is de facto rather than de jure just makes it more arbitrary.

"the leading of the Spirit"

You are talking to a "Charismatic" here. I know the claims of "the leading of the Spirit" and how that needs to be firmly anchored to the rule of scripture. The solas work in understanding this....
If you don't, you have a disorderly environment with very off the wall things....

So we end up back to the form that the NT scriptures are outlining for us.

"Should men have more votes than women, or more civil rights?"
This is a different system and a different topic. Are you going to appeal to God for your civil rights? Or are you going to appeal to His grace and mercy? And which has been the source of your gifts and callings in the first place?

The gap is between where our culture is going and where the body of Christ is going... there is a great divide between the two. If we belong to the body we are flowing to a different destination and with a different landscape than that of the culture- no matter how close they seem at some junctures.
I prefer the freedom in Christ.
It is the promised freedom of this world's systems...even the best of them that is unsecured and dependent on the whims of men. That is why we have to be vigilant in the political system of this country. We have to think the worst and understand that those freedoms are fragile.
The freedom given by the Spirit of God operates through the revelation of truth. So no matter how high sounding our rationales may be, if not grounded in the proper way they should be formed and functioning... we won't experience true freedom.

I support your stance for understanding the importance of honoring and treating each other with respect and dignity: this is foundational to the gospel. But your views on the forms that best serve it I can't agree with. Not at this point in the conversation, in how I understand you.

"because I live in another country"

This part I don't know... which country do you live in? UK?

========
to which Sue replied:

I live in Canada. Somehow, our very notions of authority are vastly different but I can't pin down why. I am trying to figure it out. Turn that around. Why should mothers have more say than fathers? Now, when there has to be a deciding vote, who gets it, and why? Do you have a system for that? One that creates order and reflects submission to God? My parents had 8 children, they were traditional and my mother was at home with the children. I remember one occasion only in 50 years where my dad cast a "deciding" vote, but this was an issue relating only to the church and not to the home. I still don't agree that he should have had a vote at church while my mother had no say. However, in the home, I do not recall any time ever where he outvoted her or where that was needed. They simply made decisions in a civilized way through discussion. The "man needs the deciding vote" argument is, to me, a complete red herring. On issues of authority, I see you as defending an authoritarian governance structure in the church, but I don't know what you are basing this on. (1 reply)

good questions... which we can continue in the comments in this post- Anyone : feel free to chime in at any time.

Well, here's my very own man in pink:

It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Galatians 5:1-18, NASB

Through a bit of serendipity, I found myself reading Galatians while considering issues of gender in both marriage and the church. Then my pastor preached from the epistle in a sermon titled, "Celebrate Freedom," tying in the freedom we celebrate on July 4th with the concept of spiritual freedom. Now, Internet Monk links to a post by Ray Ortlund on the Judaizers of Galatia, and I highly commend this post to you. It says what I've been thinking, only so very much better:

The tricky thing about our hearts is that they can turn even a good thing into an engine of oppression. It happens when our theological distinctives make us aloof from other Christians...The Judaizers in Galatia did not see their distinctive - the rite of circumcision - as problematic. They could claim biblical authority for it in Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic covenant. But their distinctive functioned as an addition to the all-sufficiency of Jesus himself... no matter how well argued our position is biblically, if it functions in our hearts as an addition to Jesus, it ends up as a form of legalistic divisiveness. [emphasis added]

Even if a biblical argument can be made for a certain position, and we all want to be biblical, the proof of what's really happening is not in the theological argumentation but in the sociological integration.

Of the Galatian Judaizers, Ortlund says,

Their misuse of the Bible showed up in social dysfunction.

...In other words, When Christians, whatever the label or badge or shibboleth, start pressuring you to come into line with their distinctive, you know something's wrong. They want to enhance their own significance by your conformity to them... What is this, but deep emotional emptiness medicating itself by relational manipulation? This is not about Christ. This is about Self. Even Peter fell into this hypocrisy (Galatians 2:11-14). But no matter who is involved, this is not the ministry of the gospel. [emphasis added]

Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh. Gal. 6:12-13

This puts to rest the argument that, if one is following Christ, one will feel "uncomfortable" in one's cultural environment. For we (and Christ) are not pitted against the culture, but rather against the spiritual forces of wickedness (Eph. 6). It is the two natures, fleshly and godly, that war within us. If we boast in the flesh, we are the culture, or rather, we are worldly, concerned with our image before men and with proving ourselves rather than with our image before God (or perhaps we have the wrong image of God).

May we all live in the freedom of the gospel, walking in the Spirit and serving one another in love.

What proves that that gospel hermeneutic has captured our hearts is that we are not looking down on other believers but lifting them up, not seeing ourselves as better but grateful for their contribution to the cause, not standing aloof but embracing them freely, not wishing they would become like us but serving them in love (Galatians 5:13).

Here is a school marm question for you: Who else does the description of David sound like?

This is an excerpt from a small book called A Tale of three Kings: A Study in Brokenness' by Gene Edwards. I first read it many years ago when recovering from the woundedness that comes from domineering Christian leadership. Not all of it male in gender, but much of it. This book was written in response to the many damaged people "devastated by the authoritarian movement that had become so popular with many Christian groups." - the author's own words.

No, he wasn't speaking of today's complementarian traditionalists, but he might as well have... the teachings are the same. Today's form just isn't so zealous of living out their teachings. Although Edwards doesn't mention it by name, I remember the "Shepherding Movement". It left a sailors graveyard of shipwrecked Christians.

And it amazes me that no one draws the obvious parallels with much of the "complementarian" teaching and practice that we see coming forth from it. The egalitarians have their own shoals to watch out for in sailing rather close to secular feminism, but of the two... this is the more dangerous because it looks so seemingly "holy"... and righteous.... and religious.

Now that we have representative government, and the abolition of slavery and a general intention to seek equitable relations is society, some men and women believe that it is more honouring to God for men and women to treat each other with equal respect and those with equal God-given authority.

I would agree, but with even more emphasis. I don't think it is the cultural situation of our viewpoint of slavery or embrace of representative democracy that informs our view of women, but that the same force of truth that brought forth those realizations ( the wrong of enslaving fellow humans, and the superiority of government that recognizes God given equality ) also now engines the move of our focus on the right view of women: of their abilities, their status, their rights. And probably more than I can think of at the moment. But my point is that it is the impetus of these truths about the freedom of mankind, and the dignity of mankind, which drive us towards certain changes in our culture. While many find other sources( which is not a part of this discussion at the moment- but familiar to many) , for us as Christians it is imperative that we recognize and retain the knowledge that these came from the gospel, the teachings of Christ.

The views on slavery, the history of its abolition from modern democratic forms of government, are related to gender issues today. Giles addresses some of that in his work on the theology of the gender debate in the book, 'The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate'. As in times past when study of God's Word and the talents of prominent teachers of the day were used to support and rationalize slavery, so now it is with much of the teaching on gender and roles of women. The irresistible force of truth, however, as in times of Abolition, are moving us forward in recognizing the New Testament realities of a woman's place. How do I see this happening?

What we have is the growing tension between the freedom philosophies of women in the secular world clashing with the archaic forms of traditions in the Church. Knowing this sounds the inner alarms for many... hold on while I explain that. In our democratic system, with the recognition of the equality of women in the area of civil rights women have risen to places of leadership based upon their abilities. ( I'm talking in idealized terms, but that is the consensus we work from). These women make their way into the Church to find, what? They are now chained to the pews, their voices unilaterally silenced de jure, while arbitrarily allowed expression under variable circumstances ( none of which is any too secure). That is one tension.

Another tension at work is the ancient one of the challenge of winning a lost world to Christ. On the one hand we risk losing souls to holding our own traditions, on the other we risk compromising the very message of the salvation found in the gospel. We want to do neither. We want to establish the Kingdom of God in our midst by aligning ourselves with the scriptures, the truth of the gospel light upon those, and the work of the Holy Spirit in and among us. Yet, when women are diminished in characterization, opportunity to exercise God-given gifts and callings all for the sake of the TRADITIONS OF MEN, there is a tragic loss in the making. This is sinful.

This situation is what the egalitarians see, and protest, I believe. At the same time they are willing to sacrifice essential doctrines in the struggle. This compromise, I believe is what the "complementarians" protest, yet all the while they then destroy some of that same essential doctrine, by falsely reading back into the theological concepts - some of which were anciently settled- for the sake of their own favored agenda. The egalitarians whittle away at the essential doctrines of authority, and the traditionalists disturbingly cast away the issues on the nature of the Godhead and His revelation which was settled admirably by Athanasius.

Here is one quote about Athanasius:

His chief distinction as a theologian was his zealous advocacy of the essential divinity of Christ as co-equal in substance with the Father. This was the doctrine of the Homoousion, proclaimed by the Nicene Creed, and elaborately defended by his life and writings. Whether or not Athanasius first suggested the use of this expression, he was its greatest defender; and the catholic doctrine of the Trinity has ever since been more identified with his "immortal" name than with any other in the history of the church and of Christian theology. (J.T.)

Encyclopaedia Britannica
Ninth Edition, Vol. II
Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1878

Francis Schaeffer wrote some important thoughts on our present Western system of representative democracy and a culture that highly values women. His ideas of the "form and freedom" structure, and the importance of idealogical source explain some of this interrelationship between holding fast to essential doctrines and the outcomes.

This is why I defend both ideas of freedom of women in the Christian faith, including opportunities for ministry and the careful retention of the form of authority, as articulated within the scriptures ( and illustrated in the structure of the Church as explained by St.Paul).

But since this is where the conversation starts for many people, we will have to continue hammering out the theology on the text found in 1 Timothy 2:12, and other verse in the controversy.

As for my conversation here, I have a few more things to say concerning authority, that I hope might interest you all, and maybe take the conversation in a different direction. I also want to take a look more closely at what Denny Burk has to say, and some of the other defenders of the present complementarian interpretations.

* There needs to be a focus on the theology- not on opinions, culture, or the many rabbit trails involved in the debate
* Recognizing order and the function of hierarchy
* Understanding authority as defined and implemented by God in His Kingdom, as found in the person of Christ Jesus
* Realizing that both the egalitarians and the traditional hierarchialists have their points of truth and their errors: using the theology to parse these out
* Realizing, too, that there is a fundamental place for men's leadership... and women cannot edit that out in their appeal for right understanding of their own place in the church... which includes all of life for us as believers.

There are very long comment sections on Burk's blog, and the subject matter runs the gamut from speaking of gender roles to the threat of abuse, and assorted church issues which are gender related. One point that is getting lots of comment time is the idea of men having authority over women in general, and specifically over their wives, with controversy centering on the Greek word "authenteo" and Bruce Ware's posted audio teaching.

In response to Bruce Ware's words:

"and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged, or more commonly by becoming passive, acquiescing and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches."

Sue Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 11:49 am

The way to solve this is to teach the husband that he does not have "authority" that he has responsibility. Then, if he is abusive, the wife will not think that she can prevent future abuse by submitting. That is not possible for more than a short term part of the abuse cycle.

One situation I find in all this is that there are weak distinctions being made between specific situations depicted in scripture. First, is the difference of position, relation, and exercise of roles of authority. This is more complicated than I can properly dissect in this introductory post, but one of the main things I want to add to the discussion. I think I will use examples from the conversations over at Burk's blog- they are well articulated and representative of many common viewpoints in the gender debate. If I fisk any of these, that will happen at my own blog, TrueGrit, but the main discussion of the general points in the topic will be here. The fisking can be distracting from the main topic, but pertinent enough that I want to deal with it.

Wifely Submission:

This is a related topic to women ministering in the church, but it runs in a separate, parallel stream. It often comes up in the debate. This is the turn this particular post, 'Bruce Ware's Complementarian Reading of Genesis' takes.

Quoting from the looong conversation appended to this post....

Bonnie says:
He [Ware] is presenting a double standard in saying that it is fine for the
husband to pursue his own will and expect his wife to help him do this,
but that it is wrongful for a wife to have a will that she is not
willing to subordinate completely to that of her husband. He is calling
the husband's will "authority" and the wife's will "sinful."

I note here: discussing "marriage relationship", including the 'mystery of Christ and the church' is speaking of the covenant relationship in which each contracts with the other and binds themselves to certain responsibilities. This is not gender, alone, but gender and covenant requirements. The position remains, but the relationship includes mutual submission. Covenants were characteristically the yoking of one who is positionally inferior to one who is superior ( in power, etc) for the sake of specific demands upon both parties.

It is a specialized relationship- and this one is not one between all men and all women or even between Christ and all the world, but between Christ and those who are His by virtue of the covenant contracted between them. This explains why the mutual submission portion of the scriptures is so applicable and important in the way husbands and wives, not mentioning all believers together, are supposed to relate. Being in covenant imposes special demands and privileges beyond the general matter of gender. This is often ignored, if not outright conflated, within the many teachings and opinions given on authority, who has it and what kind.

What Are You Going To Do With This Simple Statement?

a preacher's wife Says:

"Well, no man wants a woman telling him what to do."

That is about as wise a summation of what we are going to have to grapple with in the culture and in our Christian fellowships. For the egalitarians I have to say you cannot edit out men's leadership. There is something innate that has to be dealt with... and for the complementarian hierarchialists I have to say you cannot hijack God's order and authority to further your own agenda promoting traditions which are oppressive.

Here is my own quote and where you can expect me to go in this discourse,

"And the Church can speak of nothing with clarity until it makes clear its view of women. Until it can articulate who God says women are, it cannot speak authoritatively. It is not as if we lack examples of godly women. Or definitions, if we will study them. We are simply afraid of making the statements with the humility of Christ's servants. We want our places, and prerogatives, more than we want the truth. And that goes for both sides, as I see it. Submission is not a dirty word, and we shouldn't make it so."

Authority is vitally important a word in our Kingdom vocabulary, but it is how we exercise that authority which defines it in a Christlike way. That, for me, is the crux of the whole matter.

Bonnie has just left here to return home from what was a wonderful and intellectually stimulating visit. You can't be five minutes with Bonnie without having the brain synapses firing off in all sorts of directions... the words just start to tumble out over each at times. Wouldn't it be great if we could get a mini-conference of like-minded women bloggers going? It would be fun to the ^x power.

I've been a bit AWOL - sorry. That happens to me in real life, too, sometimes, and I am always sorry that I separate so far after having a time of building the relationship. It reminds me of how valuable that person/group is to me. Such was the effect of meeting with Bonnie. Our relating together builds friendship and fulfills the need we all have for fellowship; all it takes is a little time and effort.

We tend to circle around in our accustomed avenues of life, and the accentuation of something a bit different, such as meeting with more time and intensity of sharing, doing something different, sparks new life within us. At least, a new appreciation and perspective forms.

Of course, we have to want the outcome to be positive. It is often a concerted effort of our will to be ...as the Bible directs... looking for the good, believing for the best, and determined to relate in a way that encourages and strengthens. That part is something of a discipline, because while it happens easily and effortlessly with those on our same wavelength, there are those (especially in family, as the old adage goes: we don't choose our family) who benefit from our working to get along. This doesn't need to be difficult- just decided.

After having a thoroughly enjoyable time getting to know Bonnie and her family better I can highly recommend taking the time to build memories of good times and good talk (throwing in a little good food doesn't hurt either!).

Hope you are building some good memories together with family, friends, and those God places in your pathway this summer.

Part of the problem is internal. Evangelicalism doesn't provide much space for the female theologian as she is almost always relegated exclusively to matters of the home (if she is married).. The debates over roles in the church and family limit the likelihood that a woman would enter into the theological academy, and as a result her voice is silent and she has little influence on other women in church and culture.

Feminists and other women's rights activists have a significant voice in public debate largely due to the fact that the Christian community is viewed as being oppressive of women, something that is not entirely true. But the absence of female voices can feed into that generalization.

Grounded in a theology committed to a historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture, evangelical women can bring a voice of faith, reason and experience to bioethics issues. The experienced joy of womanhood within the framework of a Christian worldview is an invaluable resource for the church in ministry to women in church and society at large.

(A late Independence Day post)

Many thanks to Joe Carter for linking to an article at Touchstone magazine on channelling the Messiah as opposed to any other spirit or guru who might promise heaven, either in the here-and-now or the world to come. Otherwise, I might have missed it.

As usual, I am going to quote way too much of it in order to talk about it, but oh well. You'll still go read the whole thing, I know. But first, a question: How many "preachers fit Jesus into a preexisting storyline"? Preachers who do

not call upon their hearers to find themselves in the storyline of the crucified, buried, and resurrected Jesus[?] For them, Jesus is a mascot, just for different agendas, none of which will last a minute past the Judgment Seat.

Author Russell D. Moore goes on,

There is a liberation theology of the Left, and there is also a liberation theology of the Right, and both are at heart mammon worship. The liberation theology of the Left often wants a Barrabas, to fight off the oppressors as though our ultimate problem were the reign of Rome and not the reign of death. The liberation theology of the Right wants a golden calf, to represent religion and to remind us of all the economic security we had in Egypt. Both want a Caesar or a Pharaoh, not a Messiah. (emphasis added)

Continuing, with my interjections:

Like the deeds of the flesh, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which...have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21 (NASB)

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Gal. 5:22-23

Then there is that charged passage in 2 Timothy, which I thank Don Johnson from the comment thread to a previously-linked post at Denny Burk's blog for bringing to my attention:

But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power... 2 Tim. 3:1-5

More Moore (with my own interjections):

Where there is no gospel, something else will fill the void: therapy, consumerism, racial or class [or gender] resentment, utopian politics, [utopian programs, doctrines, and prescriptions], crazy conspiracy theories of the left, crazy conspiracy theories of the right, [crazy going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket diatribes, crazy do-and-don't lists, anti-this and anti-that warnings, even subtle prescriptions and warnings]; anything will do. The prophet Isaiah warned us of such conspiracies replacing the Word of God centuries ago (Is. 8:12-20). As long as the Serpent's voice is heard, "You shall not surely die," the powers are comfortable.

The problem with prescriptive so-called Christianity is that it adds to the gospel and makes a golden calf (idol) of whatever is supposed to bring health, wealth, and prosperity (or salvation), subtly pitched to us as "WJW" - What Jesus Wants. All these things are couched in terms of "right living" or, simply, the word "biblical," as if just because something is in the Bible, it is righteous. Don't forget, Satan is in the Bible too. (I realize that people use the term "biblical" to mean "godly," "righteous," "proper," or "right," but it's not specific enough. Besides, it's a buzzword, used as a smug weapon against those who subscribe to "non-biblical" morality or practices, as a way to put up a wall between those who are "biblical" and those who aren't. Better to use a more specific, generally-understood term.

The problem with prescriptive so-called Christianity is that, more than adding to the gospel, it actually pushes the simple gospel (and the New Commandment) out and puts a much more complicated set of rules, or way of life, in their place. This is also known as legalism.

Unless Paul and the other writers of the NT Epistles were adding to the New Commandment, any interpretation of their writings that does not also commend loving the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself, is simply wrong.

The trouble is that it can be difficult to understand just what these things mean. There is much legalism and error masquerading as the truth of what would please God, even within our own hearts and minds. Perhaps we absorbed or developed certain ideas while growing up, which, even as adults, persist in our minds as "righteous" when in reality, they are not. Myself, it has taken me far longer than it probably should have to recognize many of these things. The process has been long, slow, and often painful, yet also liberating beyond imagination. Learning how to be owned by no one but God can't be easy for anyone, but it literally is not something to be traded for anything in the world.

Where anything other than Christ is preached, there is no truth offered, and thus, there is no freedom proclaimed. There may be shouts of affirmation or silently nodding heads, there may be left-wing politics or right-wing politics, there may be culturally liberal psychotherapy or culturally conservative psychotherapy, there may be almost anything people think they want, but there's nothing but judgment in the air.

1) when competing in an athletic event
2) when taking a stand against a specific statement, or law, or opinion about something
3) when at war
4) when seeking to combat disease, or disaster

But there is a real tendency for some Christian believers to take this stance against non-Christians, or even, good grief, other Christians. In other words, against other people, as people. And I think this is a grave wrong, because we are to

Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of His might. Put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm... Ephesians 6:10ff

It's true that we are not to associate with evildoers such that we commune or convene or connive with them. But as soon as we assume that "we" are better than "they," we are, not only in big trouble, but wrong. Yes, the believer is a person who is being transformed, but show me a Christian who never sins, i.e., does evil, and I'll show you the 50-carat diamond I found in my backyard. And while it is certainly true than some sin "bigger" than others, this should be no cause for pride, as it was for the Pharisee in Luke 18:11-12.

Sometimes, as Christians, our biggest challenges come, not from non-believers or other "outside" sources, but from fellow Christians. And not in a good way (although yes, I believe in Romans 8, but you know what I mean). Let us fight evil wherever it appears, as evil is no respecter of persons. The perfect state of having that honor (respecter of persons) belongs to Christ alone.