I'm having a hard time reading and keeping up. I've lost my mojo. Maybe it's because I've already decided how I feel about this. Though I'd like to have the book larnin' to back up the feeling, I am finding it a tough-read. And my summer fiction, to be honest, is getting in the way.
Is anyone still out there and on track with reading our book? I think I'm going to use a scanning technique and try to finish the book in the next couple of weeks.
I got a tip about Dr. Sarah Sumner's "Men and Women in the Church." It's apparently easier to digest. However, I was also struck with a statement today that went something like, "Christians and churches in America are spoiled." I'm chewing on that one. I think there's an EXTREMELY good case to prove it. Makes me want to move to Rwanda to raise orphan babies and open a Christian home/school for girls.
Hope you are all doing well. Don't feel guilty if you've given up on our study. But if you do read and have a comment, or read something else interesting, or have questions or comments of any nature, feel free to keep posting. Summer's end is around the corner, so enjoy!
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Chapter Three
I got over my fussiness about the way Mr. Keener writes and came to the understanding that obviously no one knows exactly what happened in the first century. We're all just trying to learn all we can about the heart of our God. I enjoyed my reading more as I remembered that I'm just trying to learn different thoughts on the topic we're studying. I enjoyed reading about Eve as I've always felt a little sorry for her. I've always felt that she just wanted to be more like God and be closer to him. Satan deceived her - just like he deceives me.
My favorite line in Chapter 3 is in the conclusion.
"We trust inner conviction and the fruit of holy lives and teaching and faithfulness to that call, and if the evidences are insufficient demonstration of divine calling in the case of our sisters, how shall we attest our own?"
I'm moving on to Chapter 4 with a better attitude... I hope.
My favorite line in Chapter 3 is in the conclusion.
"We trust inner conviction and the fruit of holy lives and teaching and faithfulness to that call, and if the evidences are insufficient demonstration of divine calling in the case of our sisters, how shall we attest our own?"
I'm moving on to Chapter 4 with a better attitude... I hope.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Chapter 2 Comments?
Anyone? Okay, to be honest, I haven't read it yet, but I should have a chunk of time tonight. Surely one of us has read it and has a thought or two? If not, just share something that's been going on in your life this week. My other half's been in St. Louie all week, so I've been a bit busier and not home much.
Hope everyone is well. Keep reading!
Hope everyone is well. Keep reading!
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Prayer Request
This has nothing to do with our reading, but I'd really appreciate your prayers. My nephew, Justin Morris, was wounded in Iraq on Monday. Read my blog for the details.
Lara, your phone call on Tuesday meant so much! What a blessing you have been to me in the short amount of time since our little visit before Thanksgiving!
Lara, your phone call on Tuesday meant so much! What a blessing you have been to me in the short amount of time since our little visit before Thanksgiving!
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Head Coverings (I Cor 11:2-16)
Whew! That was intense! I just finished Chapter 1. I kept getting tricked by his pattern of explaining six different ways to interpret each phrase before landing on the one he thinks is most accurate. I guess he does that so each person trying to refute his interpretation sees their version in there before he reveals what he believes to be the most contextual explanation.
His interpretation of head coverings and "head"ship make logical sense to me. I like that he concludes that "Paul's purpose was to make Christianity available to more people, to increase its cultural appeal to the majority of those who would be interested in it. If our churches' dress codes turn people away from the church rather than bring them in, we have failed to catch Paul's motives or his message." I see churches and Christians (myself included sometimes) doing a lot of this--missing the point of the message of Jesus. The old saying of "minoring in the majors and majoring in the minors."
It's also good to hear a theologian say that there is NOTHING in 1 Cor 11:2-16 that suggests wives' subordination. Because "head" in those days was capable of many meanings and that nothing here indicates it meaning subordination. I take that to mean that men and women are different (as in distinguishable, not ranked) and should not attempt to disguise the differences--but that both are created in God's image and should be treated equally.
Honestly, in my opinion, to do otherwise will NOT increase the church's cultural appeal. Isn't Paul the one who's always telling us to lay aside our rights when it might help someone find Jesus?
I certainly think Keener affirms the fact Paul was trying to tell women that although they had a right to cover or uncover their own heads, in that culture it could be detracting--like a women in today's culture wearing a bathing suit to lead worship. Though not illegal, it would hardly be conducive to worship and might even cause someone to fall into sin.
I suppose he is building this case about head coverings since it's one our church family tends to easily put aside as cultural instead of transcultural.
But let me say that this chapter, though yielding several "yellow highlighter moments," was as good as a tranquilizer to me. I've fallen asleep at least three nights in a row while reading it.
Belinda, I agree with your scenario in the comments of the last post, and I offer another:
"The other day I was at Blank Church and a woman stepped forward to read the scriptures. And you'll never believe it, but she wasn't wearing a bra! A thin white top and NO BRA! I don't remember anything much about Jesus after that."
Obviously that would be culturally taboo in these parts. However, even current culture varies. That might not be a problem at all in rural Africa. Hmm.
Is everybody ready to head to Chapter 2 (the shortest chapter in the book) on I Cor 14:34-35? I don't want to jump ahead of ourselves, so just let me know if we should spend another day or two in Chapter 1. Once I hear from you guys, via comments, I'll set a date for finishing chap 2.
Glad to see the comments on the last post. Keep up the good work!
Lara
His interpretation of head coverings and "head"ship make logical sense to me. I like that he concludes that "Paul's purpose was to make Christianity available to more people, to increase its cultural appeal to the majority of those who would be interested in it. If our churches' dress codes turn people away from the church rather than bring them in, we have failed to catch Paul's motives or his message." I see churches and Christians (myself included sometimes) doing a lot of this--missing the point of the message of Jesus. The old saying of "minoring in the majors and majoring in the minors."
It's also good to hear a theologian say that there is NOTHING in 1 Cor 11:2-16 that suggests wives' subordination. Because "head" in those days was capable of many meanings and that nothing here indicates it meaning subordination. I take that to mean that men and women are different (as in distinguishable, not ranked) and should not attempt to disguise the differences--but that both are created in God's image and should be treated equally.
Honestly, in my opinion, to do otherwise will NOT increase the church's cultural appeal. Isn't Paul the one who's always telling us to lay aside our rights when it might help someone find Jesus?
I certainly think Keener affirms the fact Paul was trying to tell women that although they had a right to cover or uncover their own heads, in that culture it could be detracting--like a women in today's culture wearing a bathing suit to lead worship. Though not illegal, it would hardly be conducive to worship and might even cause someone to fall into sin.
I suppose he is building this case about head coverings since it's one our church family tends to easily put aside as cultural instead of transcultural.
But let me say that this chapter, though yielding several "yellow highlighter moments," was as good as a tranquilizer to me. I've fallen asleep at least three nights in a row while reading it.
Belinda, I agree with your scenario in the comments of the last post, and I offer another:
"The other day I was at Blank Church and a woman stepped forward to read the scriptures. And you'll never believe it, but she wasn't wearing a bra! A thin white top and NO BRA! I don't remember anything much about Jesus after that."
Obviously that would be culturally taboo in these parts. However, even current culture varies. That might not be a problem at all in rural Africa. Hmm.
Is everybody ready to head to Chapter 2 (the shortest chapter in the book) on I Cor 14:34-35? I don't want to jump ahead of ourselves, so just let me know if we should spend another day or two in Chapter 1. Once I hear from you guys, via comments, I'll set a date for finishing chap 2.
Glad to see the comments on the last post. Keep up the good work!
Lara
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Part 1, Chap 1: Head Coverings
Alrighty, then. Hope everyone has enjoyed and been challenged by the reading so far. Let's begin discussion as we read instead of waiting until the end. Let's have chapter one read by Sunday and discuss as we go. Anyone find something they totally think is way off base?
Lara
Lara
Monday, May 21, 2007
How to apply God's Word
I think what it all boils down to is how do we interpret the Word in view of the context (who it was written to and for what purpose), and how do we apply that to us today? In his words, ". .how can we use cultural background consistently in our interpretation of Scripture?"
I thought this statement below was interesting. It is the first one I highlighted.
"While virtually all scholars (from complementarians to eglitarians to traditional critical scholars) acknowledge the importance of taking cultural context into account, on a popular level most Christians do not." My first reaction to that was that he's assuming I'm not smart enough to realize that of course you have to consider the setting for Scriptures. But the more I thought about it, and after reading his footnote on that statement (see p. xx), it's true. Most of us don't have an ancient history degree. I have a vague impression of what life must have been like back then (from some Harding Bible classes and the History Channel), but I don't know all the specifics of what was going on in culture and government back then to really grasp all of what I could. Having said that, I think that God inspired his Word through these different authors, and he knows we're not all going to know the historical background for it. I think we're going to be judged on how we use what we know, which means we have to study to know it (the Scripture). It makes me a little nervous, because I haven't been doing in-depth studying for a while. It also makes me want to know more and study harder.
I'm quite happy to sit back and not have a "leading role" in worship. I've never really felt like that was my gift (though it never crossed my mind to consider it). Before this book came along, the last I had studied this subject, it was put to me in the "equal but different roles" way. I don't remember having any problems with that. The thing that DOES bug me is how we have been so inconsistent in how we interpret Scripture. Who is it that determined that head coverings aren't necessary, but a woman can't even stand up to pass a communion tray, even when she doesn't "lead" the prayer beforehand? It really got under my skin when he pointed out that Paul uses the same argument about "creation order" when he talks about head coverings in I Corinthians (which we all agree doesn't apply to us) and to women "remaining silent" in I Timothy.
I'll have to tell you I'm enjoying this study. It's making me actually use my brain, which like Lara's, has a few rusty gears.
I'm not sure I actually made any points in this post, but it's late (that's my excuse, anyway). I look forward to reading all of your future posts, and know we'll have some good discussion!
Laura
P. S. Here's a funny (kind of) story about when I got married. My great-uncle performed the ceremony. I wanted to discuss the wording of the vows with him beforehand, because I did NOT want to say I would love, honor, and OBEY. I had no problems with the love and honor part, just the obey. I didn't want to promise something I didn't think I'd keep! We didn't really want to write our own vows, just the traditional ones would do, with that one change. John and I went by his house, but his "wedding stuff" was at the church building, and I must have not gotten the message across somehow. In our wedding, he came out with the "love, honor, and obey", and I said it, but I think I crossed my fingers. Is that bad? ;-)
I thought this statement below was interesting. It is the first one I highlighted.
"While virtually all scholars (from complementarians to eglitarians to traditional critical scholars) acknowledge the importance of taking cultural context into account, on a popular level most Christians do not." My first reaction to that was that he's assuming I'm not smart enough to realize that of course you have to consider the setting for Scriptures. But the more I thought about it, and after reading his footnote on that statement (see p. xx), it's true. Most of us don't have an ancient history degree. I have a vague impression of what life must have been like back then (from some Harding Bible classes and the History Channel), but I don't know all the specifics of what was going on in culture and government back then to really grasp all of what I could. Having said that, I think that God inspired his Word through these different authors, and he knows we're not all going to know the historical background for it. I think we're going to be judged on how we use what we know, which means we have to study to know it (the Scripture). It makes me a little nervous, because I haven't been doing in-depth studying for a while. It also makes me want to know more and study harder.
I'm quite happy to sit back and not have a "leading role" in worship. I've never really felt like that was my gift (though it never crossed my mind to consider it). Before this book came along, the last I had studied this subject, it was put to me in the "equal but different roles" way. I don't remember having any problems with that. The thing that DOES bug me is how we have been so inconsistent in how we interpret Scripture. Who is it that determined that head coverings aren't necessary, but a woman can't even stand up to pass a communion tray, even when she doesn't "lead" the prayer beforehand? It really got under my skin when he pointed out that Paul uses the same argument about "creation order" when he talks about head coverings in I Corinthians (which we all agree doesn't apply to us) and to women "remaining silent" in I Timothy.
I'll have to tell you I'm enjoying this study. It's making me actually use my brain, which like Lara's, has a few rusty gears.
I'm not sure I actually made any points in this post, but it's late (that's my excuse, anyway). I look forward to reading all of your future posts, and know we'll have some good discussion!
Laura
P. S. Here's a funny (kind of) story about when I got married. My great-uncle performed the ceremony. I wanted to discuss the wording of the vows with him beforehand, because I did NOT want to say I would love, honor, and OBEY. I had no problems with the love and honor part, just the obey. I didn't want to promise something I didn't think I'd keep! We didn't really want to write our own vows, just the traditional ones would do, with that one change. John and I went by his house, but his "wedding stuff" was at the church building, and I must have not gotten the message across somehow. In our wedding, he came out with the "love, honor, and obey", and I said it, but I think I crossed my fingers. Is that bad? ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)