Some questions to ponder this weekend as we continue to talk about gender roles in the church:
- To what degree do specific instructions in the New Testament about particular situations speak to the life of the modern church? The New Testament letters were occasional, that is, they were prompted by a particular motive arising from the context of the early church. Does that render them irrelevant to us?
- How has a shift from small, intimate church gatherings to large, formal assemblies affected the discussion about gender in the church? How might activities such as prayer and the serving of communion be viewed differently in a home-based gathering?
- To what extent can individual congregations vary in their interpretation and application of Paul’s teachings and still be considered faithful churches? Does not allowing women to fully participate render a church unsound? Does allowing women to participate mean that a church has left the faith?
- How can the church adapt to a changing culture without being guilty of conforming to that culture?
- A repeat question: did the writings of the Bible as regards gender shape the culture of the early church or did the culture of the early church shape the writings of the Bible? Or to what degree was there a bit of both?
Simple questions to dwell on the next few days. Have a great weekend!
Here ya go …
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/11/22/its-time-for-a-schism-regarding-women-in-the-church/
The only thing about the article, I wish he would not hide his true feelings so much.
I left a comment there, though I probably should have expressed it better. Really sad.
I agree, Tim, but in a way that I do not like to admit, Jones has a point. When he (and many others like him) use such venomous language (I am no longer a Christian, even though ALL I EVER want to do is be a part of biblical and historical Christianity), then there has already been a separation.
I believe that, far deeper than just a gender issue, this question reveals a very deep schism in how Scripture is to be viewed. If we can simply remove certain texts because they do not fit our concept of gender equality (or sexual orientation, for that matter) then how can we assert that Scripture is authoritative at all?
I have so much more to say, but it would take a whole gigabyte to put into words. I guess it would suffice to say I am just utterly bewildered. I feel the very foundations of my understanding of Scripture being questioned (or in Tony Jones’ case blatantly rejected), and no one is stepping up and giving me any kind of firm footing to replace it. I sat at the feet of men like Everett Ferguson, John Willis, Ian Fair, Eugene Clevenger and Bill Humble. Now I am being told that, not only is the *content* of what they taught me wrong, but the *method* by which I am to arrive at the meaning of Scripture is wrong. In the place of that method all I am being given is some kind of nebulous “progressive revelation” and an adherence to “cultural sensitivities.”
Sorry for hijacking your posts. I am just, in the beautiful words of Dr. Willis, “cornfused.”