As with many other issues, Northwestern has never officially recorded its beliefs about biblical manhood and womanhood in its doctrinal statement, yet the overwhelming evidence indicates that the college has historically held a complementarian position. For example, here is a statement on women students printed in the July 1933 Pilot, the college’s monthly publication:“The Northwestern Bible School has been from its inception co-educational. In this new development that arrangement will remain. The Theological Seminary is not primarily intended for women students, as we hold that the primary product of the seminary is the pastor, and find no women pastors mentioned in the New Testament; and it is not our purpose to prepare women for that particular office. But, we do recognize the fact that as missionaries, effective witnesses to the Truth as revealed in the Word, and particularly as the wives of pastor-husbands, such an education would contribute greatly both to their pleasure and effectiveness in the Lord’s service; and so we admit them on equal terms to the Seminary course.”
It is important to note that this was printed in the Pilot, the publication that functioned as the college’s communication to its constituents and was largely responsible for Northwestern’s reputation with the general public. A published statement like the one above would have been carefully scrutinized by college leadership with the realization that it would be regarded as “official.”
The September 1931 Pilot addressed the question, “What part can women have in Christian service?” C.W. Foley, a Bible professor, gave an extensive, biblically supported answer on behalf of the college. While he carefully noted the many opportunities for women in the church that were in keeping with Scripture, he concluded from the New Testament that, “the man is the head of the woman” and that “it is plain as anything could possibly be, that a woman is not to take the oversight of the church, and publicly teach or preach in the man’s appointed place.” He also asserted that these roles were not the result of culture or a specific time period but were “founded in creation.”
This attitude was not isolated to the 1930’s. In fact, William V. Trollinger says in his book God’s Empire that Foley “summarized well Northwestern’s later teachings regarding the role of women in the church” (106). Even half a century later, this stance could be seen in something as widespread as the Student Handbook. For example, the 1987-1988 Northwestern Student Handbook stated in a section addressed to men, “All men at Northwestern are training to be leaders in the family and church” (12). Nothing was mentioned about such leadership in the corresponding section for women.
These are just a few glimpses of Northwestern’s historical attitude towards manhood and womanhood. Much more evidence could be offered. But for the time being, it seems fair to observe that there have been significant and public statements of complementarity at Northwestern.
26 comments:
I hope that NWC can be a place where students feel free to discuss and debate the egalitarian and complementation positions in an environment that values a variety of opinions. NWC should not take a position on this issue. As an institution of higher education, NWC should encourage students to explore these gender issues and come to their own conclusions; it should not take a stance on minor issues (yes, this is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things) that are highly debatable.
Why do you feel NWC needs to take an official stance on a controversial issue like complementarianism?
That's a good question, Anonymous. If complementarianism and egalatarianism are relatively minor doctrinal truths, then surely it would be unwise to take a stand on this issue.
But, we would disagree, because we believe the Bible would disagree. At this time, I don't have time to unpack a thorough justification. I will get to it soon, after my immediate demands die down. But until then, let me briefly say that the gender issue is important and necessary to take a stance on for at least the following two reasons:
1.) It is impossible NOT to take a stance on the issue. One cannot be neutral. It is pragmatically impossible.
2.) The issue of gender points to something greater than issue, namely, the gospel.
Jeremiah,
In response to your two points:
1) While an individual may not be neutral, an institution can be neutral on issues that are controversial and debatable. If the issue does not speak to a core tenant of the Christian faith, which the gender issue does not, then why not present all the perspectives and let individuals decide? I'm not sure what NWC achieves by taking a stance on this.
2) I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here, so I will look forward to your explanation later.
I know people feel strongly (both ways) about the gender issue. The core issue in this discussion is the degree of authority one ascribes to the biblical texts, as well how literally the Bible should be interpreted and applied in our lives today. A range of perspectives on the Bible’s “inerrancy” (or lack there of) is represented in the NWC faculty, and I would guess that this range in perspectives is frustrating to people who feel NWC’s theological positions on controversial issues should be more clearly defined. I think the diversity of positions is critically important to a well-rounded education – as long as people have well-founded reasons why they believe what they believe.
Anonymous (May I know your name, please?)
Lord willing, after these few busy days have passed, I will give some answers to your questions. Sorry to leave you with such bare points; I'll expound them. Thanks for your patience. My next post should come on Wednesday.
Until then, the rest of you guys feel free to chime in as well.
Anonymous,
I am not sure how much you know about Northwestern, but when looking at some of the majors offered (e.g. Pastoral Ministry) and the mission & vision statement, “… to give God-honoring leadership in the home, church, community, and world,” one can see that it is impossible (and I dare say unwise) for them to remain neutral. The second a woman applies for the Pastoral Ministry major, they have to take a stance. There is no choice other than to accept her or reject her.
Also, with the mission of teaching “God-honoring leadership in the home, church, community, and world” they again reach a point where sitting on the fence is simply not an option. If they remain neutral they will either fail their own mission and vision or communicate that the Bible is not clear about God-honoring leadership. The latter of course is totally false.
Those simple points said, I believe that Northwestern would achieve a lot by taking a stance. First they would be achieving their own mission and vision as an institution. Second they would achieve obedience to God’s Word in a time when such obedience is becoming sparse. Regardless of controversy we are to be obedient to what God has commanded. The right ordering of roles included.
Our culture is moving toward making male and female into an ambiguous personhood, but God did not create it that way. He made us distinctly male and female. Creation was set up in particular way for a particular purpose. When we live in God’s right order, it will be glorifying to Him and a joyous freedom to us (regardless of what culture may say). We will be functioning as we were designed to function; reflecting His character in the way we were created to reflect it.
Much grace to you,
Alia
Alia,
I guess I don't see any reason why complementarians should object to women enrolling in a major like Pastoral Studies. Many churches that take a complementarian stance employ female pastors on their staffs to oversee women's and children’s ministries. Complementarian churches need women leaders who are trained to be pastors in order to adequately minister to those (women & children) who are placed under their leadership. Northwestern is not a seminary, it does not ordain students into pastoral positions - that is the role of the denomination or individual church.
Also, I don't see how remaining neutral on this issue will cause NWC to "fail their own mission and vision or communicate that the Bible is not clear about God-honoring leadership." The interpretation of the Bible is subjective - obviously different Christian groups use different rules that govern how they interpret the Bible - some of the methods used are intended to promote continuity among the books (systematic theology), while other methods are intended to look it the Bible from a purely literary and/or historical perspective.
To have academic integrity, I believe NWC needs to teach students a wide variety of perspectives so that they read the Bible not only as God's word, but also with an understanding of the historical context in which it was written.
Trying to force students (and faculty) into a very narrow interpretation of the Bible may seem like the only God honoring thing to do to fundamentalists, but it also alienates a lot of Christians who use different methods to interpret the Bible. I think Christians are better off if we unite around those major issues that unite us, while acknowledging the issues that we differ on. Our country and our world need to find issues that we can all agree on, rather that resort to fundamentalist attitudes. Northwestern needs to teach students to think critically about their faith – it should not tie their hands to one narrow interpretation of the Bible.
What would Jesus do?
Northwesterns views or "no views" on certain issues won't change unless Dr. Curaten (sp?) cares about these issues. Faculty believe what they want to believe and each faculty member interprets the Bible how they see it. NWC is not a church, nor should it be treated like one. Your group is great to have but if other people decided to start an egalitarian group on campus they have ever right to do so. It is a college institution with freedom of belief. Complementarianism isn't the only view point of the Bble that needs to change on campus and these problems aren't going to be solved as long as long as the faculty teach and believe different doctrine than their coworkers. Would you say that someone can still be saved if they don't believe in the complementarian view? In other words, does believing that Jesus Christ died for your sins and having faith in that alone enough even if you completely refect the view of complementarianism?
Can you not be a complementarian and still be a Christian? Of course.
Then what is the big deal? Why not just leave this open-ended and tolerate other views?
I am afraid that if we write this off as an unimportant or peripheral issue, it will be too easy to do the same for other biblical issues. How are we sure that this is unimportant? The very fact that there has been so much discussion on this seems to indicate that this is anything but unimportant.
The variety of opinions represented in the Northwestern faculty and administration should by no means warrant a “no policy” position on this issue. The Apostles did not adopt that stance when believers in the First Century AD disagreed on many things. Indeed, much of the New Testament was written to protect believers against seemingly subtle errors in doctrine. The Apostles fought time and time again to preserve God’s word and the correct understanding of it. They saw it is having utmost importance.
You might say that that was different because it was the Church and this is an academic institution. But how is that really different? Churches of the New Testament basically were local bodies of believers. How does that not also describe Northwestern? Just like the Church, Northwestern’s only real standard or authority is the word of God. The first point in its doctrinal statement clearly states, “We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally and plenarily inspired of God, are inerrant in the original writings, and are the infallible authority in ALL matters of faith and conduct (II Tim. 3:16).” If we do not let the Word of God define our institution and its policies, then what standard defines us?
Northwestern’s statement is a good one. I hope we will increasingly move towards having “all matters of faith and conduct” within the institution reflect radical submission to God’s word—not just in this area. But right now the matter at hand is how we view God’s design for men and women. As Alia pointed out earlier, this is a “matter of conduct” that is terribly relevant to decisions, policies, and even personnel choices of Northwestern. Even if there is no written, official “stance,” how we handle those decisions does reflect an interpretation of God’s word one way or another. If it does not reflect an intentional interpretation, it reflects apathy to an issue that the Bible clearly speaks to. We need to take his word seriously and discern what it says.
This is a matter of striving to discern and implement what the Bible says. What is more important—not dealing with a controversial issue for the sake of “unity,” or seeking to discern and submit to God’s directives? Do we earnestly desire to seek and implement His wisdom in what He tells us or do we instead gravitate to the comfort of not ruffling anyone’s feathers? I want to keep in mind Hebrews 11—where people believed God’s word at all costs even when it looked like foolishness to those around them. God is glorified when we risk the approval of men to trust Him.
I saw this blog on the Facebook group for "I believe in biblical manhood and womanhood."
I wanted to let you know about a conference for biblical womanhood in Chicago, IL on Oct. 9-11, 2008. I think your group would love it!
Speakers include: John Piper, Mary Kassian, Nancy DeMoss, Joni Tada, and more! It's all about biblical womanhood!
If you'd like to know more ... the website is: www.TrueWoman.com.
We are believing God to raise up a new generatio of biblical women who are willing to live out the plan of God for their lives.
I hope you'll help us spread the word!!
.,
You asked: "What is more important—not dealing with a controversial issue for the sake of “unity,” or seeking to discern and submit to God’s directives?"
We live in an increasingly globalized and pluralistic society that heightens the need to work cooperatively and find areas of common ground so that we can address the major issues that confront our world - terrorism, environmental issues, poverty, HIV/AIDS, human rights, etc...
Christians are always going to have disagreements about how to interpret the Bible, but religious colleges & universities must find a way to balance doctrine with academic freedom. Even though NWC is a body of believers, its role is to educate and empower students in the pursuit of truth. You cannot pursue truth by forcing people to submit to one method of Biblical interpretation.
The unfortunate issue here is that while students at other universities are involved in finding solutions to global issues like global warming, poverty, and HIV/AIDS prevention, NWC students are arguing about whether women can be pastors. The faculty, students and local churches who are trying to force this issue at NWC need to find something more pertinent to discuss.
Amen. This issue shouldn't be one that is debated on this campus. Students are able to make up their own mind on what they believe. It is not Northwesterns place to do so.
So I'd like to know why certain comments are not published. All of the comments go through a filter, that being the people that run this group. It is not fair for only certain comments to be published - for this to be a fair discussion, all points of view should be published for all to see.
Anonymous,
Just a few questions:
Is a globalized and pluralistic society an intrinsically good thing? If so, what is your authority for this statement?
Furthermore, are terrorism, environmental issues, poverty, HIV/AIDS, human rights, etc. the most important issues? Again, if so, what is your authority?
The purpose of an institution like NWC is not to find solutions to global issues or even empower students in the pursuit of truth. Rather, as it states in the school’s Mission Statement, “Northwestern College exists to provide Christ-centered higher education equipping students to grow intellectually and spiritually, to serve effectively in their professions, and to give God-honoring leadership in the home, church, community, and world.” What’s more, the Vision Statement reads, “Because of God's compelling love, we will teach wisdom and understanding to reach all nations for Christ (II Corinthians 5:14, Proverbs 1:7, Matthew 28:19).”
Your post consistently points to worldly ideals, but not biblical truth. At NWC, the goal is to be Christ-centered, and looks to the Bible as the sole authority. The Doctrinal Statement of the college states, “We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally and plenary inspired of God, are inerrant in the original writings, and are the infallible authority in all matters of faith and conduct (II Timothy 3:16).”
This is why I ask for the authority of your statements. NWC has made it very clear that the Bible is its authority, and from my understanding, expects the faculty, students, administration, etc. to adhere to this statement in reaching “all nations for Christ.”
In posting this comment, I am appealing to a higher authority than the secular world. We must look to the Word of God to see what the major issues are. When we do so, it is clear that the Gospel is the most important issue. Jesus Christ died for the salvation of sinners, not to end global warming or bring a halt to the AIDS pandemic. Ending poverty, serving those infected with HIV/AIDS, and being good stewards of creation can be godly endeavors, but not unless they are saturated with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The most pressing issue in all of our lives is where eternity is going to be spent, not prolonging our life on earth.
Ultimately, we are concerned with NWC not taking a stance on gender issues because the authority of Scripture is at stake. The doctrinal consistency of clear Bible passages such as 1 Timothy 2:12, Titus 1:6, Colossians 3, Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3:1-7, 1 Corinthians 11:3, etc. cannot be denied. Ultimately, NWC must verify the authority of Scripture by taking a stance on biblical truths, or the authority of the Gospel will be in question.
What it all boils down to the question of authority. We have chosen to stand on the Scriptures alone. But I must ask, on what authority do you stand?
Bologna (sp) no one stands on the authority of scripture anymore. Thats why we have seminary's to teach us what the Bible doesn't say. Think about it the Bible is one of the only books that has other books write about it to tell you what it really says, commentaries and the such. Now be honest if you take the verse God is not the author of confusion, and there is confusion about understanding the Bible, what do you think is going on. Think about it I dare you. Every one is confused, because it is no longer the Word of God it is the Word of Man. It is all hear say, "well this verse, really means this, and this verse, really means that", no let God's Word be that takes faith, which is too simple for mankind. However, when you let God's Word be it contradicts itself and it takes "man" to make some system of belief to combat those who say it contradicts itself again turning the Word of God into the Word of Man. You say you have authority, someone says they have authority the truth is you probably both don't. So, how do we get back to what the Bible says, not what you think or what you feel, or what it really says? After that soap box the complementarian man made label view is true because it doesn't twist scripture, however no matter what you say, or what you do and I commend you for trying and I hope I eat my own words, but your fight is in vain if you are trying to get Northwestern to take a stand, they won't and never will, again I hope I eat my own words. Your efforts should be spent on educating students about men's and women's roles in the church and home and not waste your time with Northwestern administration, because even if some of them have complementarian views it is politics and they are probably too cowardly to take a stance, because no one likes to take stances anymore. This comment will probably be taken off your page, because it is too hostile, which is no surprise because we don't listen to the hard things Christ and Peter and Paul said, why would we start now, why should we think deep and hard about these things. Think about the Bible and study the Bible no way. So I ask you what is your authority tarters and prove it, you who ask others who probably use the same means as you, the Bible that is.
TCGF -
You said, "Bologna (sp) no one stands on the authority of scripture anymore. Thats why we have seminary's to teach us what the Bible doesn't say..."So, how do we get back to what the Bible says, not what you think or what you feel, or what it really says?"
Whenever we are studying the Scripture, we must keep in mind a few things.
1.) We are finite beings. We can never know things omnisciently. Never will we grasp all the complexities of God perfectly.
2.) God's Word is given to us so that we might know. Herein lies the tension. We can never know omnisciently, yet reject the notion that concludes that we can therefore never know at all. This rejects the sufficiency of God's Word and makes of mockery of him, who gave us his Word so that we might know. The Apostle John writes his purpose for writing his epistle: "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13).
If we conclude that we cannot know, or that nobody stands on the authority of Scripture, must we not then conclude that God was not wise in his choice to communicate with humans through his Word?
3.) Biblical illiteracy magnifies confusion on God's Word. More than ever before, we live in a culture that does not know the Word of God. Rather, they simply rely on their presuppositions or on other scholars. Granted, commentaries and books are wonderful(Heb 13:7), but they are only as good as they faithfully reflect the God's Word. Therefore, it is imperative that we spend the most time in God's Word. This must be coupled with humility, longing to be taught and instructed. The goal of biblical studies is not so much to be the master of Scripture, but rather to be mastered by it.
I hope this helps, tcgf.
Blessings,
Jerry
Tarters,
You asked: “Is a globalized and pluralistic society an intrinsically good thing? If so, what is your authority for this statement?” Whether or not a globalized and pluralistic society is a good thing is beside the point. It is a reality in our world today. People from different cultures and religions are encountering each other more frequently now, and as a result we have to make a choice – are we going to let our differences divide us, or are we going to work together to find values that we have in common.
You asked: “Furthermore, are terrorism, environmental issues, poverty, HIV/AIDS, human rights, etc. the most important issues? Again, if so, what is your authority?” If you keep up-to-date with the news over the past few years, then I think it is pretty clear that each of these issues are critically important.
You stated that “The purpose of an institution like NWC is not to find solutions to global issues or even empower students in the pursuit of truth.” I completely disagree with your statement. The global issues that I mentioned are all our responsibility. As Christians, we strive to live out the teachings of Jesus Christ in our lives. I think it is pretty apparent from the Gospels that issues like poverty and human rights where top priorities in Jesus’ ministry. Also, if NWC does not encourage students to pursue truth, then are we pursuing a lie? I personally believe that the search for truth is the search for God – if God is indeed the Creator of everything. I do believe that the pursuit of truth sometimes requires one to ask difficult questions – such as questioning the inerrancy of scripture.
You said: “Your post consistently points to worldly ideals, but not biblical truth. At NWC, the goal is to be Christ-centered, and looks to the Bible as the sole authority.” Just because I don’t bathe my posts in “Bible-saturated” language doesn’t mean that my ideas are worldly. I just believe very strongly that the gender issue, while important to some Christians, is not important enough for NWC to take a stance on. I recognize that the Bible – even if everyone accepts that it is inerrant, can still be interpreted in a variety of different ways. When you force people to adhere to a very narrow interpretation of scripture – people will rebel against it. So, being practical, I think the gender issue should be a non-issue. People can make up their own minds.
You said: “In posting this comment, I am appealing to a higher authority than the secular world. We must look to the Word of God to see what the major issues are. When we do so, it is clear that the Gospel is the most important issue.” - Tarters, please, you are reading the Bible with your own agenda. Of course the Gospel is important, but what good is it if we bicker amongst ourselves over minor theological points, rather than get out into the world and spread the love of Christ to all nations. One does not have to have a perfect theology in order to be a witness for Christ in the world.
You also stated: “The most pressing issue in all of our lives is where eternity is going to be spent, not prolonging our life on earth.” Tarters, the gender issues has nothing to do with determining where our eternity is going to be spend. And just because eternity is the ultimate priority does not mean that we shouldn’t work to relieve suffering in the world today.
You said: “Ultimately, we are concerned with NWC not taking a stance on gender issues because the authority of Scripture is at stake. The doctrinal consistency of clear Bible passages such as 1 Timothy 2:12, Titus 1:6, Colossians 3, Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3:1-7, 1 Corinthians 11:3, etc. cannot be denied. Ultimately, NWC must verify the authority of Scripture by taking a stance on biblical truths, or the authority of the Gospel will be in question.” – The authority of scripture is not at stake; your interpretation of it might be. NWC’s actions do not have any effect on scripture, they merely reflect a reaction to it. In sections of the Old Testament, God tells the Israelites to go wipe out various people groups (Numbers 31 for example). Does this mean that Christians should kill people groups who we feel live in opposition to God? Of course not. But if you read scripture literally as inerrant truth, then it would indicate that God has approved on genocide. You have to read Paul’s letters with a historic context in mind. This is not out of line with NWC’s doctrinal statement.
Jeremiah thank you for your response, I am not at all suggesting that we cannot know God's Word or authority therefore we should not study it. I am suggesting that we as men have screwed it up to the point that there is confusion within the Body of Christ, divisions and schisms and isms, exactly what Paul explained in 1 Cor. My question is that with so many different systems of belief within the Body of Christ, not even in the world there is confusion, how do we get back to the truth of scripture and not the truth of calvin, arminius, packer, stott, macarthur, piper, boyd, and so many more? My God is not an Author of confusion because I believe that verse for what it is, therefore the confusion and there is confusion within His Body and anyone who says different is ignorant and doesn't realize they are in the snare of the devil. Satan has done His job in confusing the Body of Christ, because we do not hold the Head, leaving us ineffective for true edifying ministry. Again, my question is how do we get back to the authority of scripture that we can realize what Paul had in mind in Ephesians 4, being unified in one Spirit, one Body, one hope of calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. Imagine that if the Body of Christ could be unified in these, however we are not. How? We are confused about the scriptures today, because we are not doing something right, it is not God's fault, nor is it because we can't know, it's because we are doing something wrong, we are studying wrong, we hear the Word of man rather than the Word of God. How Jeremiah, I know we are all one in Christ our position in heaven, but how do we realize that now, because Paul says it to be true. How? Then lets fight for men and women's roles, then lets fight for other things, but we don't even have the basics figured out, you might think you do, but so does the next person. How?
We spend too much time arguing over small and trivial issues, which is exactly where satan wants us to be. He wants us to be so focused on arguing over the small, petty, grey areas in the bible that we totally neglect bigger issues such as world hunger and preaching the gospel to those who have never heard it.
I personally believe that NWC does not need to take a stance on this issue and instead needs to focus on the bigger picture. One doesn't need to worry about where they stand on such small issues, but rather whether or not they love Jesus. Period.
Anonymous (May I know your name, whom I am talking to?)--you said:
"We spend too much time arguing over small and trivial issues, which is exactly where satan wants us to be. He wants us to be so focused on arguing over the small, petty, grey areas in the bible that we totally neglect bigger issues such as world hunger and preaching the gospel to those who have never heard it.
I personally believe that NWC does not need to take a stance on this issue and instead needs to focus on the bigger picture. One doesn't need to worry about where they stand on such small issues, but rather whether or not they love Jesus. Period."
Twice you emphasize that the nature of gender roles are small issues. You claim we should be focused on the bigger issues, rather than being bogged down, looking at Scripture through a rather myopic lense.
I appreciate your concern and your statements, but I fear that you have not considered the gravity of the issue. For instance, if this is such a small issue, why does Scripture talk about it numerous times, both explicitly and implicitly (1 Tim 2:8-15, 3:1-3; Eph 5:22-33; 1 Pet 3:1-7; Col 3:18-25; Titus 2:1-8; Gen 1-3; Prov 31)? Is God sending us words on which he knows nothing about? Or, is God a verbose fool, speaking idlely on meaningless topics? These are hermeneutical roads we must not travel down. What God has spoken on, and especially those with much frequency, must be discerned with special care.
Yes, I agree that the Gospel is of central importance. Paul values the Gospel to such a great degree that he sends down an anethema on the wicked Judaizers that pervert the good news (Gal 1:8). This is a serious charge! But the Gospel is never a static truth; it is alive and active. It is transformative.
It is also not only a past reality but a future realization. I, as a believer, have been saved (Eph. 2:8) and look forward to the day when I will be saved (1 Pet 1:5; Phil 2:12). The Bible consistently tells us that only those who persevere to the end will be saved (Matt 10:22; Col 1:23). I will be saved, for I am held by the power of Christ, but I am not yet saved, for I have not been justified before the Judgment Seat of Christ (justification, after all, is simply a foreward pronouncement of a future reality). Because of these dual realities, living in a way pleasing to the Lord (Eph 4:1) is of paramount importance, of Gospel importance. It is not the Gospel, but it is the way in which redeemed people are to act.
Anonymous, there is so much here. Much more could be said, and when God grants me time, I will do a three or four part series on the importance of the issue of gender.
Blessings,
Jerry
My desire is never to hear a brother in the Lord possibly have wrong doctrine nor want this for a brother. I desire for sound doctrine to be working effectually in one's life through the Holy Spirit. This is why I posted that I hope that I was wrong and took you the wrong way. The reason I don't comment more is because of time and also because my post would be large. I do not know what orthodox Protestants believe, nor do I know what the 5 solas are nor do I know what an ad homenian (sp) is. My education is obviously not up to par, therefore my points will probably be weak and not looked at by most, because "I won't know what I am talking about" or what not. I count those things as loss, not saying that education in God's Word isn't bad however I fear that man's ideas have corrupted God's Word in its context and the applications and implications. Again I do not have the education of seminaries and institutions and classes, but of years in the Word of God alone. You mentioned before in one of your post it takes humility and not to master the Word but be mastered by the Word. This is what I have done without the help of many men. I will respond soon and try to be as short as possible, thank you for bearing with me. I ask you if you were proved wrong through plain Scripture would you have the humility to admit your wrong and admit that your education about God's Word was wrong, to count those things as loss for the sake of know the Lord Jesus Christ? Frankly, many I have run into forfeit God's Word alone for human thinking. I ask myself that same question every day and bring it before the Father everyday that I may know Him.
Tim,
After considering that nature of our topic, and, though I am convinced it to be incredibly important, I am not convinced that our dialogue will be beneficial to those that listen. The issue is simply to tangential. We no longer are discussing gender roles, and because of that, I deleted our comments.
Nevertheless, I desire to engage you with these thoughts. If you have questions, check your email; I have given you my address. From your most recent comment, it seems like there was simply a misunderstanding on your part.
Before you feel obligated to engage me through an email, perhaps wait until I've done my 3 or 4 part posts on how the Gospel is at stake through the gender debate. Your questions may be answered through that series.
Thanks, Tim.
Jerry
My apologies for my typo. It should read "too tangential" rather than "to tangential." :)
Post a Comment