Dr.Elwin Ransom wrote:

Too many Christians are overdosing on “mystery”

I don't think it hurts to ask a little, so long as it doesn't get out of hand. Would contemplating the Incarnation give me a deeper appreciation for our Lord's grace, of how much He was willing to do for us and for our salvation? Perhaps. Would knowing how the Feeding of the Multitudes worked do that? Probably not so much.

And of course Gnosticism is the real Mystery Overdose danger running around these days.

If God had wanted us to know, He would have told us. My view? He’s left such things open for questions partly because it doesn’t affect us much now, and partly to give us more to debate and discuss in the New Earth.

Yes and no. On the one hand, we can propose that when Mary said Yes, she was given Eve's prefallen form, or received her Glorified body early, or the Babe lived inside a holy forcefield, or the Babe who drew the matter of a new body from the matter of the mother's body was immune in some way that we don't quite understand. Yes, I am satisfied to know that it worked. But at the same time it does affect us somewhat right now, since denominations have divided over it.

When we meet Mary we could just ask her.

Which reminds me of two things. One, is C.S. Lewis unique in referring to the two as "Lord Adam and Lady Eve"? So many people refer to Adam and Eve in almost contemptuous terms because of the Fall. Do other writers refer to them with respect?

Two, it doesn't actually explain why Eve was approached first, but there are extra-biblical tales that Adam had three wives. Lilith allegedly was created at the same moment with Adam and for this reason would not submit to him. (Those of you who have heard the tale will know that there's also a grown-up, "intimate" aspect to what she said No to.) She supposedly went off to be a djinn. That's why C.S. Lewis referred to the White Witch as part djinn. Allegedly Adam's second wife was created before his eyes (sinews, bones, guts). Adam was so disgusted that he wouldn't have anything to do with her. I don't remember what happened to her. Allegedly this was why God put Adam to sleep to make Eve, the third wife. Of course the Bible mentions Eve and only Eve, so it's a matter of debate as to where the other tales came from.

Why didn't Adam stop things since Scripture says plainly that he was with Eve? (I'm surprised more people only noticed that for the first time in this thread.) One theory I haven't heard before is that, like a lot of little kids, maybe Adam could tattle on her before he did it too. But since they will be Lord Adam and Lady Eve in the afterlife, I imagine it might be a little harder to just ask them.

On communion: yes, context is crucial. Part of the question is that there's more than one place which gives context. The crowds deserted Jesus in John 6:35-66 because they were offended by the talk of His body and blood and He wouldn't back down. But I'm not really arguing against

For me, and for millions of other non-Catholic Christians, it does not detract from His sacrifice to say it is a spiritual, symbolic reminder of His death until He comes

because I've been exposed to it as well.

Yet Christians have so many wrong ideas about how to know God’s will, through some kind of “sign” or vague communication from Him to them, in advance of making a big decision such as a career choice or whom to date/court/marry. Not cool. I’m hoping to co-write more about this along with contributions from a very familiar “face,” in coming weeks.

Will you be playing Table Tennis ("God got me a good parking space!") or hardball? (Where hardball ranges from "God has revealed to me that we should marry" outside of Mormon pologamy sects, Oral Roberts sobbing that God would "strike [him] dead" if he didn't raise $1 million dollars. Oral survived, by the way.) "Signs" take many forms.

(Have I mentioned that it’s great to see you offering more stuff here, and not just about that old Left Behind series? )

Spoken like someone who has never read the LotR/Tolkien threads (plural), the Books thread, the Star Trek thread, the Mush thread, the Volunteering thread, or most of this thread. This must be what it's like to be on someone's Ignore List.

Agh, I didn't mean to imply you only ever talked about that, TOM. Rather, it was intended as a compliment, though re-reading it made me realize it did sound like I was picking on you. Please accept my apology?

In answer to your question: in some ways, both. There are the overt wackos, like Oral Roberts' fundraising "threat," and then there are the teachings that tell believers they must not make a big decision -- such as where to move, which major to choose, etc. -- until they are absolutely sure in advance that this is God's will, confirmed in some way (setting out a fleece, a "confirmation," a whisper from the Spirit, etc.).

Quick addition: I'm not saying the Spirit doesn't whisper. But expecting Him to whisper or give some feeling of peace every time leads to problems. We'll explore those more in the series. ... Anyhoo, 'nuff advertising.

And of course Gnosticism is the real Mystery Overdose danger running around these days.

Whew, amen to that, and it's infiltrated Christianity to boot, in a lot of ways. Rather than relying primarily on God's written Word, leaders, authors and whatnot encourage subjective experiences with God as the only way to learn about Him. Claiming to know something about God from the Bible is seen as "arrogant" -- that kind of thing.

Like you, TOM, I love equal balance of mystery about God and knowledge about Him. Evidently when He was inspiring the Bible, He felt the same way first.

Please accept my apology?

Aw. You were supposed to laugh. Therefore your kind apology, while gracious and graciously accepted, technically solves a problem that does not exist.

Before you begin your mini-series, check out the December 2009 Atlantic Monthly magazine. Their cover is unusually sensational for them: "Did Christianity cause the economic collapse?" I only had time to skim. Turns out they're talking about Prosperity Gospel adherents -- thanks for lumping us all together, sirs -- who bought sub-prime in the name of "stepping out in faith." Oh, and there's a reference to mortgages and churches going hand in hand with some church getting a "donation" for every mortgage approved on a member. As to how anyone else may have contributed to the mess, that wasn't on the cover.

Getting back to Mary, I've no problem either way about her sinlessness or not. You see, if it wasn't for the special circumstances in which Mary was involved, the only sin she would likely to be accused of is the very one for which she is specifically excused from, that she fell pregnant with the baby Jesus. And to this day, it is still the sin that women Must Not Commit on pain of death up there in the Middle East, whatever other misdemeanors they might or might not commit. In contrast to my convict ancestress who narrowly escaped hanging for shoplifting during a famine year.

Some years ago, I saw an Alfred Hitchcock movie, Marnie, in which the protagonist, 'Marnie', was a virginally pure woman who nevertheless committed every other sin under the Sun. Has anyone ever seen this movie? And if so, would you agree that there is a real tendency for people in general to not see beyond a woman's role as mother or wife before considering what sort of person she is?

Which leads me to your comment, Dr Ransom. Thank you very much for answering my post and your considered opinions. But whilst I agree about the instances you mention, and appreciate your saying that in hindsight it would not matter in my eventual choice, I couldn't agree less with this comment:

waggawerewolf27 wrote:
My father thought I was destined to become a teacher when I won a scholarship. I felt that becoming a teacher was just about the last thing I wanted to do. So was I wrong or right?
Either way, I’d suggest your career choice would be outside the Biblical debate over whether believers meet God halfway or are fully saved by Him.

No, one's choice of career is never outside the Biblical debate over whether believers meet God halfway or are fully saved by him. Have you noticed how many of Jesus' followers had careers of one sort or another? Luke was a physician, St Paul was a tentmaker, Peter, John and James were fishermen, whilst Jesus, himself, was considered the son of Joseph the Carpenter.

There are jobs that are definitely unethical, such as those that border on the criminal. Recently a chemist here insisted he would not sell contraceptives because his religion forbade their use. What about conscientious objectors in the Military? Or St Paul's dictum: 'I do not suffer women to teach'? That is not my problem, incidentally, though much of my life and education has been affected by the debate, among Christians, on whether women are entitled to have a career at all, especially if she wants to marry, and if so, what is the most seemly for a woman.

This debate is still not finished really. What if you are called to service to the Lord to become a Minister or Priest? Surely this is of gravest import to a man, as well as a woman? There are many other ways of serving, I agree, including missionary work which in places like Iraq or India can be of deadly danger, not only to a man, but also for his family. We are urged every week to pray for our congregation members who have been called to this work.

Whilst women might be allowed into the clergy somewhat begrudgingly, they Must Not Become Bishops, even when the Head of the Church happens to be the current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. The Catholic Church opens its arms to dissenting Anglicans who Do Not Want Women clergy at any price . But then it still has to deal with our married clergy.

What I am driving at is that if what you do vocationally is important, surely what you do everyday also matters.

Further up the thread I mentioned last Sunday the Seven acts of Corporal Mercy, which are backed up by Matthew 25. Out of the corner of my eye I vaguely glimpsed a reference to what I think are Seven Spiritual acts of Mercy. Exactly what are they?

On the subject of Mary, I agree with whoever said "if God wanted us to know, He would have said so" (I think it was Dr. Ransom...?) I think this holds true for a lot of things, from the creation of life to how the universe is held together. Does it really matter if we think it's gravity or God's word that makes the Sun rise? To me, the two are part of the same process, and quibbling over which one is right is silly.

Some years ago, I saw an Alfred Hitchcock movie, Marnie, in which the protagonist, 'Marnie', was a virginally pure woman who nevertheless committed every other sin under the Sun. Has anyone ever seen this movie? And if so, would you agree that there is a real tendency for people in general to not see beyond a woman's role as mother or wife before considering what sort of person she is?

I've not seen this film, but from personal experience I say a huge, red-lettered "YES". This seemed to matter more in high/middle school than it does being in college, but college brings its own set of problems around this area. Beyond not seeing past the role as mother or wife, we still have the issue of women not being seen beyond the role of "object of desire for my use", be that use momentary pleasure or the bearing of sons. I have a hard time believing that the Bible condones the objectification and misuse of women that Eve's role in the Fall has been used to perpetuate. On the other hand, I do think the Bible has played a role in the cultural stratification of women into the "virgin", "mother", "wanton" stereotypes. This can be extremely frustrating for women because we want to be considered by what type of person we are, not stratified by our sexual status.

( and /soapbox... )

On the flip side of the coin men aren't being respected either. Society portrays us as lazy and incompetent or sex-crazed maniacs (or both).
Satan's having a field day. But God is greater!

I'll have to agree with W4J. I cannot speak for the other nations but much of my home country is undergoing a feminization process that tends to undermine how young men are raised and interact with the world around them, and the up and coming generation of men are suffering for it. I might raise some ire here but men and woman are different. While we share most of the same physical characteristics we develop differently, we have different hormones going through our system, and we're each hardwired by God for different purposes. There are acceptions to the rule, of course, but this is largely the case. I remember reading a poll that was taken several years ago in the newspaper and a sample of men and women were asked what they thought was the most significant scientific contribution created in the 20th century. Men tended to feel it was more or less a tie between the moon landings and nuclear weapons while women thought penicillin was at the top. I thought it was a striking contrast in how each gender perceives the world around them.

We're just different. And yet in that unique way we're perfect for each other. This is how God designed it, so just let it be, because really from there it just devolves into the perennial "toilet seat up/down" argument, which could go on until infinity runs out of breath and cries "uncle".

Wagga, I read all of your posts, and to quote Puddleglum, "you really are a chap of one idea". Or "chapette" if you prefer . If you're looking for social injustice between genders in the Bible or anywhere else one needn't look very far to find it. But if you're taking issue with women's role in the Bible specifically then your issue really isn't with us (and by that I mean Christian men), but rather with the Author of the Bible. He's the one that came up with the rules and He's the one you need to bring these complaints to.

If I've read your posts correctly you don't seem to place much weight on the authenticity of Scripture anyway, seemingly tossing large portions of it aside because consider it basically xeroxed words from some group of misogynistic males from antiquity who had nothing else in mind than to ensure their womenfolk were securely under lock and key, or because it's just preposterous, like the book of Genesis. Whatever. I have had this stuff practically shoveled down my throat from every quarter since I was in my formative years and I'm just weary of it. I take special care to treat females (Christian and non-Christian) equally to everyone else. But if God says that women can't be pastors or bishops or what have you, then all of us have to follow that rule. God came up with it and He's demonstrated billions of times in the past that He's always right even if we disagree with Him. I cannot explain to you His reasons, but God doesn't make such decisions lightheartedly and always has a reason for what He does and says.

If you discard large segments of the Bible it just doesn't work. Either you have to accept that the whole thing is from God, as it says, or that none of it is. There is no middle ground, no compromise. And if none of it is true then that would make it rather worthless as a whole and essentially you and I and everyone are all basically living one big lie. I'm sorry if this comes across as rude and perhaps a bit crass, but it rubs me the wrong way and I'm just plain weary of it.

I'll have to agree with W4J. I cannot speak for the other nations but much of my home country is undergoing a feminization process that tends to undermine how young men are raised and interact with the world around them, and the up and coming generation of men are suffering for it.

I can't stress enough how much I agree with this! The "double standard" of society does equal harm to men, though people tend not to see it. A male friend of mine just wrote an article on how pornography is degrading for men as well as women, and contributes to the gap in understanding between men and women.
(for those who are interested. I'll warn you, it's blunt. Not explicit, just blunt. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2395874/the_effects_of_pornography_on_men.html)

However, a large part of the degradation of both comes out of the ridiculous stratification between the genders and (I'll be blunt as well) the demonization of sex. Once again, not blaming the Bible for that, since I'm pretty sure God knew what He meant by "Be fruitful and multiply" considering He designed the system! However, the association of Eve->women->sex->Evil and therefore all sexual impulses (either embodied in women or perpetrated onto men by them depending on the century) runs very deep in Western culture, and to me that is the root of gender relation problems. But Christianity can't carry the sole responsibility for that. Western civilization idolizes Ancient Greece, and they considered women to be nothing but "incomplete males".

When it comes down to it, though, degrading one gender degrades the other at the same time because we're two sides of the same coin.

We're just different. And yet in that unique way we're perfect for each other. This is how God designed it, so just let it be, because really from there it just devolves into the perennial "toilet seat up/down" argument, which could go on until infinity runs out of breath and cries "uncle".

Somewhere we forgot that we are equal and each needs the other. This is part of why I don't hold with the more extreme feminist views that claim women are superior. Men and Women are on the same level, but God knew that someone had to be the decision maker or nothing would ever be accomplished. The problem arose when men began using God's structure in order to "keep the little woman in her place", or as proof that women were not as intelligent, which was not the intent of the structure at all. A properly balanced relationship in line with God's structure is a very beautiful thing that doesn't happen as often as it should.

It can be difficult for women sometimes to find a sense of worth in the Bible because of some of the more uncomfortable moments, such as Lot offering his daughters and wife to be raped by the mob, or because they feel they can't find role models in the Biblical women.

Thank you Draugrin, for your support and views. I agree with you 100%

On the flip side of the coin men aren't being respected either. Society portrays us as lazy and incompetent or sex-crazed maniacs (or both).
Satan's having a field day. But God is greater!

Listen, mate! You are a fellow Aussie, aren't you? Please let us take a grip on ourselves! I don't know how old you are but you should know a bit about your own country's history, and how it defines your place in it and in the world.

Yes, it is unjust to call all men sex-crazed, lazy and incompetent. Unless the shocking behaviour of a few people indicates those people might actually deserve it. Sensational headlines in the News don't help, do they? And I hope you weather the latest heatwave comfortably.

Men - or at least sinful convicts - were considered sex-crazed back in the 19th century, in 1817 when my convict ancestress, like many others in UK, was famously saved from hanging for shoplifting, precisely because the men of the newly founded settlement of Hobart (1804) were a trifle short of eligible females, and for no other reason. The arbiters of that notion were usually Other Men, who tended to treat female convicts, even when they weren't thieves and murderers, as even more sinful to the male convicts, even if they were thieves and murderers. Those Other Men, being wealthier, more powerful, more socially important, and who had escaped themselves from calumny for their sins, considered themselves among the elite and so felt entitled to pass judgement on their convict (slave?) inferiors, be they men or women.

I cannot speak for the other nations but much of my home country is undergoing a feminization process that tends to undermine how young men are raised and interact with the world around them, and the up and coming generation of men are suffering for it.

Shadowlander, I think you should be downright ashamed of just what you wrote, just now. Which country did you say you came from? It wasn't Australia, or you just might know a thing or two about your country's place in the world and how you and your country should operate in it. Aren't women equal to men in your country? Is this enshrined in your country's constitution? And if not, why not?

Are you saying that anyone of us gets to choose what gender we are born, or that social stratification should be rigidly obeyed, no matter what, whoever suffers, and no matter what the consequences might be to the population? And what exactly do you have to lose if women in the state are actually equal to men before the law? Please don't quote Scripture as evidence for your point of view, as Jesus famously stood up for the following women:

1. The Samaritan woman at the well

2. The woman taken in adultery

3. The woman who washed His feet with her tears

4. The women who attended His crucifiction, including His own mother.

And that is precisely why I believe in Jesus, my Saviour. Oddly enough, Jesus was far more generous with women than some later historical figures, including, I believe, Mohammed, and even some modern people would have allowed. Are you aware that women are still stoned for adultery in various parts of the world? Regardless of the participation of the guilty male, who may get off scot free?

Were you descended from convicts, as I am? One of the Stolen Children, the apology to whom took place on February 11 last year? Funnily enough, as a child, I actually met some of these children of Aboriginal heritage, en route to my own destination as not exactly one of the 'forgotten Australians' but surely a not-too-distant relation. After all, that was the fashion last century, to shove every family problem children might have into a 'home', or boarding school.

Just 24 hours ago my Prime Minister apologised, not only for the Aboriginal 'Stolen Children' but also for the way some of the so-called 'Forgotten Australians' were also treated. Was it in your news? Because it really ought to have been, as a rare high point in world affairs. The 'Forgotten Children' were children from poor families in UK, sent out to Australia as an easy solution to social problems incurred during the UK depression and subsequently. Or even other Australian children whose families had been destroyed for one reason or another, including the weaknesses and inadequacies of fathers who should have known better, if they were fair dinkum about their so-called Christian heritage. And including myself, when my own parents' marriage broke down.

Or do you rather belong to an unstated country that is too proud to acknowledge its faults, or its shortcomings in history? Including the places and roles its men and women might have in it, and the horrible way they treated each other, and their children?

And funnily enough, I've got good reason to say what I have done so far. Yes, I do believe the Scriptures. But like the Jews, the Catholics and others, who exercise prudence about Evolution, I do think that Darwin actually stumbled upon something quite tremendous. I'm not dissing the Scriptures if I point out that in days gone by neither the authors of those Scriptures nor their heathen opponents, sometimes with highly similar Creation myths, had any idea of how the world came to be, and at best the authors of Genesis, who based it on the 'Book of Jubilees', 'saw through a glass darkly'. Having done a degree in Ancient History it just might be possible I actually know a thing or two about that part of time, especially after my recent visit to the Assyrian display in the British Museum last 20th September.

And when I note just how many books of the Bible co-incide with the most turbulent part of Hebrew history, am I really what you say for deducing what the impact of the destruction of Jerusalem might have been on what the Bible contains? Especially when I've actually read sources from elsewhere, including magazines like Archaelogical Diggings, Archaeology and any others that I can get hold of?

I'll have to go now. Hubby needs help and I can't refuse.

Sorry I have been absent this past week. I've missed some of my "favourite" debates .

Wagga's points over the last few pages, including her last post, covers many of the issues that lead me to interpret the many portions of the Bible, and especially Genesis, in a Non-literal manner.

We don't stone women for adultery in Western Democracies, or disallow them from holding positions of power any more. But the fact is, they did in the Bible. Of course it wasn't something Jesus Himself approved of. Though considering that Women's Suffrage wasn't even recognized until 1920 in the US, often based on 1900 years of Orthodox interpretations of the Bible, one can be forgiven for associating Christianity with the subjugation of Women (in the West. Of course subjugation of women was a global phenomenon justified by appealing to local religions in many regions). And women still have yet to reach economic and political parity today considering that they are 1/2 the population.

One of the things left out of the Gnostic discussion a few pages back, is that Gnostic Christians of many sects had no problem with women in leadership roles. Indeed, when Gnostics gathered for mass, they would draw lots to see who would be the "priest" in that session, and men and women alike were eligible. Many Gnostics, such as the Valentinians, associated Jesus with the Divine Sophia, or Wisdom, considered a Feminine aspect of the True God .

I know that for some of you, the Bible is All or Nothing. But it doesn't have to be that way. Slavery was implicitly condoned in many parts of the Bible, yet I know everyone at this forum accepts that it is Immoral and UnGodly today. So clearly there are some aspects of the Bible that even to many of you, have been reinterpreted to fit a more "enlightened" Age .

Peace and Long Life

Gandalf's Beard

Ah, but the slavery allowed by God was one more akin to servant-hood. It was very different to the violent and abusive slavery practised by others.

It's true that Slavery in ancient times was on a different scale than that practiced as a Mass Industry in Colonial Times. But it would be a mistake to think that the slaves and indentured servants were not largely treated barbarically. They could be killed or tortured at the whims of their "Masters", and Wives and Concubines were largely treated in a similar manner.

In any case, slavery was justified Biblically up through the 19th century. Ending slavery required people of conscience to challenge what had been a standard Christian interpretation of the Bible for 1800+ years. I don't toss out the whole Bible as some do because of things like that. But it does give me pause to question many "Traditional" interpretations.

Of Course Christians weren't the only peoples to use their religion to justify barbaric acts, but we can't ignore our History or Gloss Over the ugly bits. It's only by facing up to it that we can get past it to focus on the Spiritual Stuff .

Live long and Prosper

Gandalf's Beard

When it comes down to it, though, degrading one gender degrades the other at the same time because we're two sides of the same coin.

This was precisely the point I was trying to make.

*chuckles* And now to wagga...

Shadowlander, I think you should be downright ashamed of just what you wrote, just now. Which country did you say you came from? It wasn't Australia, or you just might know a thing or two about your country's place in the world and how you and your country should operate in it. Aren't women equal to men in your country? Is this enshrined in your country's constitution? And if not, why not?

Why should I be ashamed of either my convictions or the truth? This is coming perilously close to branching into politics, which is strictly prohibited here, and I would like to avoid the trouble that accompanies it when it comes up (and it surely will). For the record I am from the US. Yes women are equal to men here, and I have absolutely no problems with this. The Constitution clearly states that all citizens are equal under the law. And I certainly know my country's place in the world, ma'am. Rattle your saber at someone else.

Are you saying that anyone of us gets to choose what gender we are born, or that social stratification should be rigidly obeyed, no matter what, whoever suffers, and no matter what the consequences might be to the population?

Don't lump me together with the purported targets of your personal animosity just because I disagree with you, sister. None of us gets to choose our gender. God does. Again, your problem is with God, not me.

Please don't quote Scripture as evidence for your point of view, as Jesus famously stood up for the following women:

1. The Samaritan woman at the well

2. The woman taken in adultery

3. The woman who washed His feet with her tears

4. The women who attended His crucifiction, including His own mother.

When I read my Bible I don't get the idea that Christ was on Earth to become some Great Social Crusader. I certainly agree that things were much more harsh in Biblical times for women than they are today in many places, but the fact remains that Christ came here to save the elect. Christ corrected many things for all of us, and our job as Christians is to emulate Him, and I consider equal treatment of women to be a part of that. Now I'm not going to sit here and tell you I'm perfect and am able to follow the rules perfectly at all times because I have terrible sin issues. Just like everyone else. But we do the best we can with what God gives us. That's really all we can ask for.

And that is precisely why I believe in Jesus, my Saviour. Oddly enough, Jesus was far more generous with women than some later historical figures, including, I believe, Mohammed, and even some modern people would have allowed. Are you aware that women are still stoned for adultery in various parts of the world? Regardless of the participation of the guilty male, who may get off scot free?

I'm perfectly aware that atrocities of that type happen in places in the world. Do you have some idea that I choose to remain ignorant of it? Do you think I like or condone it? Absolutely not! I think that many rules in the Islamic world are archaic and barbaric, nor do I feel that the male should get off scot free everytime someone makes a mistake. Am I somehow guilty to you because I share their gender?

Were you descended from convicts, as I am?

As a matter of fact yes, and it doesn't get more rowdy than the bunch of drunken Irishmen I'm largely descended from. The criminal "element" in my bloodline tends to still pop up from time to time among family members. Not exactly my family's most glorious moments, but still...

Or do you rather belong to an unstated country that is too proud to acknowledge its faults, or its shortcomings in history? Including the places and roles its men and women might have in it, and the horrible way they treated each other, and their children?

I'd say that we try to do the best we can pushing forward while keeping past mistakes in mind, sometimes to a fault. Some of us are better at than others but overall I think the Great Experiment worked out just fine. To be human means to make mistakes, and no country on Earth is free of that. I will say in our defense that when we do make a mistake we bend over backwards to try and fix it as best we can. That's a sight more than many other countries do.

And funnily enough, I've got good reason to say what I have done so far. Yes, I do believe the Scriptures. But like the Jews, the Catholics and others, who exercise prudence about Evolution, I do think that Darwin actually stumbled upon something quite tremendous. I'm not dissing the Scriptures if I point out that in days gone by neither the authors of those Scriptures nor their heathen opponents, sometimes with highly similar Creation myths, had any idea of how the world came to be, and at best the authors of Genesis, who based it on the 'Book of Jubilees', 'saw through a glass darkly'. Having done a degree in Ancient History it just might be possible I actually know a thing or two about that part of time, especially after my recent visit to the Assyrian display in the British Museum two months ago.

I restate: Take the Bible as a whole or take it as nothing at all. Taking only some of it in consideration allows "cherry picking", meaning you can dismiss parts you don't like or feel are scientifically unprovable, while sticking only to the parts you do like. You can harp on all day long, kiddo, but the fact remains you're cherry picking and I'm calling you out on it. And you can throw your degrees in my face all you want and turn blue in the face from shouting at your screen at me but at the end of the day you're still cherry picking.

And when I note just how many books of the Bible co-incide with the most turbulent part of Hebrew history, am I really what you say for deducing what the impact of the destruction of Jerusalem might have been on what the Bible contains? Especially when I've actually read sources from elsewhere, including magazines like Archaelogical Diggings, Archaeology and any others that I can get hold of?

You're also basically saying that God is incapable of keeping His Word together through the ages. I mean, when it comes down to brass tacks, that's your argument, yes? God has had no control over the Bible since its earliest days and basically it just sort of drifted around whimsically, subject to nothing but Chaos Theory, until it ended up in its current form. To quote Professor Kirke, "what do they teach in schools these days"? When I find a conflict between what I see in the world around me and the Bible, experience has taught me to trust the Bible, and it has never failed me. Even if I don't like what the Bible is telling me I accept it, hard as it may be. It makes me take a good, long, and hard look at myself and I never like what I see (that makes two of us, eh?), but it's a necessary part of our beliefs as you well know. Now this may qualify me as a hulking, Neanderthal ignoramus with the IQ of an onion to you, and I'm perfectly fine with that. It comes with the job.

Setting aside denominational and interpretational disputes for the moment, may I point out that the two of you are coming at these question from very different backgrounds.

Shadowlander lives in a country where the majority of women who go to college do not go to get their MRS (pronounced "missus" i.e. catch a husband) degree. Thus he is less impressed by a degree that in his country is easier to acquire. Shadowlander also lives in a country where the women's movement arose in the late 1960s to early 1970s.

Wagga lives in a country where the women's movement did not begin to arise until the mid-1980s. While SL was yawning at Tasha Yar -- "that's nice, she's a police officer and a woman; that's so Last Decade; a post on the Enterprise requires a little more than that" -- Wagga and half her country were still expected to live, think, and feel like the women in Classic Star Trek, the series that supposedly was "sending a message" by letting Uhura, Rand, and Chapel on the ship at all. ("When I get my hands on the idiot who assigned me a female yeoman!")

A lot of the injustices, issues, and human needs that people in the States think are done and are tired of are still being sorted out, argued about, and prayed over in Aussieland. So "take it up with God ; don't wave a degree in my face; yup, call me a Neanderthal" sound very different on the other side of the southern pond. Likewise, "you should be ashamed" of what one doesn't know about and didn't personally do also sounds very different.

Just a thought.

(Thanks much, Old Maid, for the reminder of the cultural differences at play here. Meanwhile, I was writing up the long one below, and some of that comes through as well, though with not as much a helpful perspective on Australia and America as you provided!)

Whew. Oh, that wasn’t a volley of intense verbiage at all, was it?

Now I suppose I shall also enter the fray, though with this disclaimer: as I said before, wagga, I think you are basing a lot of beliefs and assumptions about other views, or the Christians that hold them, on what you are against instead of what you are for.

Or as Shadowlander put it, as only he could (quoting Puddleglum), “you really are a chap of one idea.” Or at least, you seem to be in this topic, about male/female roles and what women should and shouldn’t do.

Argh, it’s so hard to avoid that, I have found. That’s especially the case if you have been through a lot of junk, which it sounds like you have — though, as I understand you later, it sounds like you haven’t personally tried to be a pastor or something and been shut down, but instead have been affected more secondhand by the debate. More on that soon.

Here goes, anyway. It starts with Predestination (lots of things do, it seems!):

Either way, I’d suggest your career choice would be outside the Biblical debate over whether believers meet God halfway or are fully saved by Him.

No, one’s choice of career is never outside the Biblical debate over whether believers meet God halfway or are fully saved by him. Have you noticed how many of Jesus’ followers had careers of one sort or another? Luke was a physician, St Paul was a tentmaker, Peter, John and James were fishermen, whilst Jesus, himself, was considered the son of Joseph the Carpenter.

Let me clarify. When I say the career choice is outside the Biblical debate, I don’t mean to say it doesn’t touch on it at all. What I mean is that while God directly saves human sinners from default damnation, He does not so directly press someone into a career. There are limits, sure, on what Christians can do, based on the guidelines included in Scripture. You touched on many of those examples. Yet the two issues are different.

Yet lots of Christians do assume that normally He does directly press someone into a specific career field, and so they just sit there, waiting for a direct word from the Lord, some sort of sign or “inner peace,” before they go to college, take a job, etc. It takes a lot of the Bible way out of context — turning accounts, such as Elijah hearing the voice of God, into specific examples — and trust advance knowledge, and not God, before making a move. Unfortunately many Christian authors (such as the Blackabys) push this mindset and contribute to panicked Christians worried that they may have made some misstep even in a small way.

What boggles my mind is that (so far) I have seen this happen most often in the free-willies (i.e., my affectionate yet tongue-in-cheek term for those who mostly dismiss God’s sovereignty in salvation and overemphasize Man’s Responsibility)! — not all free-willies, but some.

While they say it is up to man all the way to decide to get saved, they act downright hyper-Calvinist and fatalistic when it comes time for them to freely choose a job, career, or even what kind of car to buy. I have never seen this attitude in Reformed Christians. So far, I’ve only seen that they just go right out there and, as long as it’s not forbidden in the Bible, make a decision and do something. If they did it successfully, and it happened, it was God’s will — not spelled out in advance via the Bible or some kind of “inner peace” sign, but God’s will nonetheless.

Now a little more on the “as long as it’s not forbidden in the Bible” part.

There are jobs that are definitely unethical, such as those that border on the criminal. Recently a chemist here insisted he would not sell contraceptives because his religion forbade their use.

That may be his religion — perhaps Catholicism — yet Scripture is not nearly so uniform in its condemnation of such things as some think. However, I won’t go into that issue here. At the least, this is a very gray area for believers, though the best case against certain kinds can be made if you can show that it would actually kill a new developing life.

What about conscientious objectors in the Military?

Another gray area at best, though I would argue Scripture does not absolutely bar participation in fighting a war on behalf of civil government. Romans 13 allows even an evil civil government (Rome, at the time) a role in God’s plan, to enforce justice. Theologians would call good government, or even a not-so-good government (I am not talking about dictatorships, but say, the U.S. government, ahem) a means of God’s common grace. Governments, mostly, keep the world from decaying into absolute chaos by placing some kind of check on human sin.

Or St Paul’s dictum: ‘I do not suffer women to teach’? That is not my problem, incidentally, though much of my life and education has been affected by the debate, among Christians, on whether women are entitled to have a career at all, especially if she wants to marry, and if so, what is the most seemly for a woman.

This debate is still not finished really. What if you are called to service to the Lord to become a Minister or Priest? Surely this is of gravest import to a man, as well as a woman?

(In the voice of “The Beverly Hillbillies” character Jed Clampett, played by the late Buddy Ebsen) “Wheeeeee doggie!”

Christians argue over this one, that’s for sure. It sounds like a lot of what you believe — based on what you have said here — is based on avoiding the extreme of supposedly Christian chauvinism. I wonder, though, do you think it is possible to overcorrect into Christian feminism?

A little from me personally: I have not been as affected by feminism as some could claim. In fact, my more-favorite area of study is combating Christian chauvinism, or at least wrong beliefs that lead that way — because they make their main point avoiding feminism. In America we call them the Visigoths (and by we I mean my wife and me; she actually invented the term and I want it to stick). The term is a hybrid of a patriarchalist organization and a Christian teacher whose beliefs on character development and family-centeredness were a precursor to the Western patriarchalist movement. It’s small, but unfortunately growing.

So that is my part of my “thing,” to oppose all of this nonsense.

The most bizarre thing about it — my wife has come up with this theory — is that a lot of it is managed by women. Yes, women, who seem to want to brag about how “submissive” and spiritual and Godly they are, and how it is up to them to make their men feel like men. Ugh. As a man I can say with disgust, how patronizing. Yes, I am sure there are families in which men really are ruling with an iron fist, but in a lot of cases it is a rule that is enabled and actually abetted by a strong woman — who may in fact be managing the thing all along. There is a control in being “controlled.”

Again, all this has come because the Visigoths’ main goal is to oppose feminism. Their vitriol against this (admittedly bad) ideology would probably make you even more angry than me. Blogs posts, books, audio messages and such actually claim that women must never go to college or be anywhere outside their husband’s or father’s Authority, lest they be outside God’s authority as well. It is sickening — and far more human-authority-centered than Protestants complain about Catholicism.

My strong suggestion: don’t be like the Visigoths. They got this way by making Oppose Feminism! their main goal. If you merely react, and say Oppose Chauvinism!, you’ll be just like them, and overcorrect — the other direction. You may miss out on Biblical balance and spiritual growth.

I do read these kinds of opposite-way views in your material. Why do you hold such intense views, I wonder? Would anything help you change? even if it’s from someone long-range, and a guy at that?

What if you met dedicated believers from churches in which men led as elders yet women were honored as equal, or the idea of God’s sovereignty is upheld and He is seen as more glorious and loving because of it? There are many, many such churches of which I am personally aware, and I attend one. If you were somehow to see this done right for yourself, might that help you reconsider?

I will have to make this a little more personal. Otherwise, anything I say in support of the Biblical view that men are meant to be the only spiritual teachers in churches with mixed-group settings (i.e. congregations; I am not referring to Sunday school instructors or even college professors who are female) — any of that will fit right into the oppose-chauvinism filter. And all of it will be stereotyped right along with the material Shadowlander wrote as the Neanderthal chauvinist-pig Christian that (I fear) you are not able to see past — yet.

Might it help if you got some of this from a Christian female on NarniaWeb? Or might the accidental assumption come up that they, too, are put-down by the male hierarchy of Western Christianity, or the Catholics or whatnot? I hope not. And when I say this, I am not trying to stereotype your view, but base my understandings and questions about what you believe based solely on what you wrote.

Again, I think this mostly goes back to the concept of understanding the Bible, or Christianity, or other Christians, based on what must I avoid as false? rather than what must I believe as truth, in Biblical balance?

I don’t want to lean so far into this debate that I also base everything on trying to avoid these wrong ideas alone. That gives them too much credit, and God too little. Rather, I want to start with the Bible and read everything out of that, with the mindset of how to love and glorify God best? rather than how can I avoid the bad stuff I’ve seen? That is a little too much like Christianity based on “don’t sin, be good” rather than “learn God’s truth, and love and glorify Him for Who He is.”

Now for a brief word on behalf of my friends here, such as Warrior 4 Jesus and Shadowlander. If I may speak for them, what they are saying is not based on some chest-thumping male-dominant woman-be-silent-and-stay-in-the-kitchen stereotype. Instead, it’s likely with the background of firsthand knowledge of how (at least in the U.S.) many women have way overcorrected for male dominance in the past.

It’s not just on the stupid Western sitcoms, either, with the Homer-Simpson ineptitude-and-beer-guzzling cliché that may have been funny with Homer (insert your requisite “D’oh”). Yes, this has gotten really old and offensive — to both men and women, who ought to expect more from their husbands — every time another stupid-husband-smart-hot-wife situation is thrown out at us again, supposedly to make us all chortle and snort about how woefully true it all is.

That kind of garbage thinking has infiltrated churches too. You may be stunned to hear this, but in many Southern Baptist churches it is not the men who run things, but the women. There may be a male pastor, and maybe only male deacons, absolutely, but it’s all a false front. The women run the committees, the Sunday schools, very likely their families. A lot of men haven’t a clue. They’re spiritually vapid, emotionally weak, and just stay in the background most of the time. Far worse, that makes God look weak. It’s hardly the ideal of representing Him in their families and in the Church.

My wife can testify. After she has been going to my church for more than six months, she has been stunned by the fact that when it’s testimony time, it is mostly men who get up to share what sets their affections on Christ. (Last Sunday a young guy, a friend of mine, broke down, just about the very idea that God would choose anyone to save — that Predestination concept again. If you think it is impossible to be emotionally moved and appropriately masculine, you should have been there.)

The women of my church are certainly not all externally-submissive and stereotypical. Some of them are even deacons — because my church, seeking to follow Scripture, separates the roles of deacons and elders, and deacons are more service-oriented, while elders take spiritual-teaching roles (as in, teaching both sexes in congregation settings). But the women aren’t running the entire show either. They don’t want to preach to everyone else, or take teaching roles, not because they couldn’t, but because when the men are leading those (per Ephesians 5, 1 Timothy 3, etc.) everyone else wants to follow. Women want to get behind their husbands and support them. It’s not weak. It’s powerful.

Yes, this is an unabashedly complementarian approach — not feminist/egalitarian, not patriarchalist, but complementarian. Men and women are equal. They only have different roles, especially when it comes to the family and church.

I’ll stop there, partly because I need to do some other writing. Yet I hope all of this has at least been helpful to present another side of things. If I had not seen or read of this concept of Biblical balance in male/female roles myself, I might have also thought the world was either feminist (women are equal!) or patriarchalist (men are da boss, all da time). I hope you will consider Biblical balance, especially as you seek the Scriptures for what they say — Ephesians 5 and 1 Timothy 3 in particular.

Godspeed, and I’ll be around later ...