things I don’t understand, part 9
The appeal of Justin Bieber. I’m getting old.
Tongue piercing. Ditto.
Churches that refuse to let a woman “teach” but sing every hymn Fanny Crosby ever wrote.
Women who make big decisions about their hair or clothes based on their husbands’ preferences.
Buying expensive sunglasses (you don’t sit on them, scratch them, leave them on shelves at Target?)
Watching The Bachelorette.
Young earth creationism.
Those guys standing on corners twirling signs advertising strip mall stores. Have you EVER made the decision to eat somewhere because they paid a high schooler to hold a sign on the corner?
Why Walmart still employs greeters. I can’t imagine there is any ROI in this.
The iPod, yes. The iPhone, absolutely. The iPad—not so much.
Believing there is one person God picked out for you to marry. (Or one job he’s “called” you to. Besides the theology of God as micromanager—itself deeply flawed—do you really think he called you to be a well-known speaker and someone else to clean rooms at a Marriott in Muncie, Indiana?)
More confusion here.
16 Comments »
Leave a Reply
Jennifer Taylor
My Other Sites
Twittering @seejenwrite- seejenwrite: I wonder if there's an FBI file on me.
- seejenwrite: Next year on Memorial Day weekend I'll be doing something fun instead of packing up my house during a heat wave. I keep telling myself this.
- seejenwrite: @BenArment end of June. Let me know when you're ready for STORY Philadelphia :)
- seejenwrite: @ShaneWhybrew Nope, just reading lots of buzz on FB
Okay, I’ll bite. (And frankly, I can’t believe no one else has raised the issue in the two days since this post.) What’s your beef with young earth creationism? You’re that skeptical of the “apparent age” theory? Seems like it makes a lot of sense to a lot of thoughtful people…people who would also rather not listen to Justin Bieber or sit through an episode of The Bachelorette.
What I’ve read–and, granted, I have not done graduate study on the subject!–points to scientific proof of a very old universe and a very old earth. And I don’t find that incompatible with the biblical creation account.
As for no one else commenting on it, I think I lost most of the young-earth folks two or three years ago when I first posted on climate change.
Also testing the water on gender roles, eh?
I’m just saying the theology seems incongruent. Thoughts?
In my view, 1 Tim 2:12 must mean something. Theology is the practice of making distinctions. Some have made a distinction between writing a hymn and teaching doctrine.
Fair enough. But why is that verse prescriptive as written, but 2:9 is not? Sincere question, not sarcastic. I see lots of braids/pearls/gold/expensive clothes at church.
No sarcasm detected. I’m sure we agree that the Bible contains timeless principles as well as practical applications (derived from timeless principles) which meet the unique context of the time. It is easy to see how 2:9 could contain both. If 2:12 is not a timeless principle, then from what was it derived?
That’s the question. And I won’t pretend to have all the answers figured out–greater minds than mine have tried to figure out this chapter and whole graduate programs are given over to these questions. What I struggle with is we say 2:9 can’t be taken literally because it obviously contains aspects that are tied to that time and place. (To your point, modesty is the timeless value but we think it’s okay to wear pearl earrings now.) And we don’t know what to do with 2:15 but it certainly can’t be taken literally because what the heck. But 2:12, yes, we can take that literally as as a principle for all times and places.
I don’t want to preach. But I need a better reason why I can’t than what seems a pick and choose method about which verses are timeless and to be accepted without context and which aren’t.
As an “old guy” I want to congratulate all of the posters for their reasonable tones in this discussion. I envisioned a shouting match and am pleased not to have seen it. Now, for my perspectives:
Young Earth Creationism – I’m totally comfortable stipulating that an old earth and evolution are the best approaches by reasonable and intelligent people absent the scriptural record. Too often, the church has acted as if outsiders were stupid as well as wrong. My guess (and that’s all it is) is that we will all be surprised by new evidence if we even care to ask once we’re in Heaven. Here’s where I end up – there are things in scripture that are true, although apparently unreasonable (God dying for me comes to mind). If, however, you want to hold to a middle position – old earth plus creationism, we can still have sweet fellowship – and spirited discussions over coffee!
Women as pastors/elders/teachers – The idea makes me uncomfortable, but I suspect it’s more a case of conditioning than conviction. I suspect I’d eventually come around. I’m a lot more concerned about Elders not doing their jobs than I am about who they are. (Oddly, I have no issue taking direction from my Female ministry leader and Female department head when assisting with toddlers some Sundays.)
Sign twirlers – amen, sister – do I really want to patronize a place that demeans its employees?
I’m not convinced the picking and choosing is arbitrary. The reason I believe 2:12 is not a temporary cultural application is because if it were then there would also have to be a timeless principle present. In my view, there is not another timeless principle present because 2:12 is the timeless principle. I cannot discard such just because I am uncomfortable with it.
BTW, I don’t like believing this – my life would be a lot easier of I were an egalitarian
I understand your logic. For the record I completely agree we don’t get to choose what we believe based on our comfort level. I do think we as the Church have had an inconsistent approach to interpretation of scripture across a variety of issues, not just this one. And on a number of those issues, including this one, I wonder why the Bible couldn’t be more clear. If your reasoning is right, what about the women we see in leadership roles in the New Testament church? Again, I don’t have an agenda here of wanting “power” but how is that compatible with this teaching? Were those women/churches in error? Or was this teaching specific to Timothy’s church?
I notice no one has tackled 2:15.
This issue comes with a lot of baggage (which we have deftly avoided). By my count, we have now broached the subjects of gender roles, biblical interpretation, and church leadership (and it is barely noon).
Here’s a telescopic question: what would the Bible have to say in order to be clearer? Suppose our iconoclastic Lord and Savior chose only men as apostles. Suppose male headship (in the home and the church) is repeatedly stated as the norm. Suppose God referred to himself as Father and Son. Suppose from Creation there have been roles assigned to genders. My point is that perhaps there is more clarity than Sarah Sumner would like to admit.
Women were, and continue to be, active in and essential to the life of the Church. This is because gender roles are not hierarchical or value based.
I describe my theology as both “logical” and “organic”. I have only written on the logical side thus far. Organically speaking, I believe gender roles in the church parallel gender roles in the Christian home. These are complementary, loving, overlapping, even sloppy relationships that will, at times, challenge the hard lines we sometimes like to draw. Ideally, I do not believe these relationships have much to do with power. In my view, the NT women to whom you referred served obediently in (relatively) healthy churches.
Also, I would be glad to tackle 2:15, but I’m not sure anyone cares
That, my friend, is one of the single best rationales for the traditional way of things someone has given me. Thanks.
To your point in paragraph three, if both men and women truly understood the full range of who they were created to be, individually and in relationship to each other, and lived that out consistently, I suspect much of this would become moot.
My pleasure.
Agreed.
And thanks for the reference to Muncie – good friends and good memories there.
[...] How 20% of Americans (undoubtedly the same ones) can’t find the United States on a map. This is just my latest confusion. [...]
Pingback by things I don’t understand, part 10 « Write About Now | October 12, 2010 |
[...] How 20% of Americans (undoubtedly the same ones) can’t find the United States on a map. This is just my latest confusion. [...]
Pingback by things I don’t understand, part 10 « Write About Now | October 12, 2010 |