Fencer; you correctly pointed out something in 220’s post that I (and maybe others) noticed…a tendency to take DE scriptions in the bible and turn them into PRE scriptions for believers. Unfortunately, that is very shaky hermeneutical ground. Further, I would like to submit that some of these instances are being used in an “if-then” sort of way that suggests humans, with the power of music, can manipulate the Almighty to do something He did not originally plan to do.

I can tell the differences when someone is doing thier work as a presentation vs doing it as worship to the Lord. And that is the real issue here. The genre or the song is almost irrelevant. It's the artist that's the issue. If there is a song that is clearly labeled as 'worthy of worship' for either private or corporate worship, out there that can get mixed receptions based on the artist, how much more any other songs? If we are going to rule out entire genres because a number of artists have shown enmity with God, we may as well rule out all music while we are at it because of the same reason. This is clearly faulty logic and we should by no means do this, but that is a logical conclusion to that stance. But one thing I will say. I have seen more worship of the Lord through bands like Curvine and The Fray than I have in a number of churches. The genre of music has nothing to do with it. It's all on the artist.

What I hear you saying, fencer, is somewhat in concert with what 220 seems to be saying. Boiled down, it looks to me like,

I love it = worship

I don’t love it = not worship

Are you saying to me that it’s what you see and hear that shows you someone’s heart and therefore indicates they are genuinely worshiping God and therefore inspires worship in you? I submit to you that it may not be possible to support that line of thinking biblically. Additionally, it seems to me that both of you and some others may be saying that

the right heart attitude = a better performance (or presentation) than a wrong heart attitude.

When it applies to something you yourselves do, yet you've both said it's not the skill and talent of the performer that makes worship. Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

Furthermore, I would add that both of you are still coming from a viewpoint you may not even realize. It is the assumption that

musicing-at-a-religious-service-or-in-a-religious-context = worship

I do not deny it, but that is because everything we do as Christians should be an act of worship and thankfulness to our God. But the more important question is how does GOD look at our musicing? From what I can tell from Scripture, He looks at it much like He looks at bible teaching or even preaching. (an aside…found this little jewel this morning as I studied background for this post: from Deut. 31 “Now therefore write this song and teach it to the people of Israel. Put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the people of Israel. 20 For when I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, which I swore to give to their fathers, and they have eaten and are full and grown fat, they will turn to other gods and serve them, and despise me and break my covenant. 21 And when many evils and troubles have come upon them, this song shall confront them as a witness (for it will live unforgotten in the mouths of their offspring). For I know what they are inclined to do even today, before I have brought them into the land that I swore to give." Hm. Looks like God DOES give song for the purpose of teaching. )

I can assure you that people who are completely unregenerate can teach Sunday School or even preach with great passion and you will not be able to tell that that which they preach and teach is from a depraved and unregenerate soul.

Each of you have indicated that you have no problem knowing the heart of the person who is singing or performing by simply looking on the outside. But Scripture clearly states in many ways and many places that God is the only One Who can know the heart…even our own hearts are mostly hidden from us, and we need His help to understand them.

Lastly, I still see quite consistently a foundational belief that

a special emotion=worship

But God never describes it as such in Scripture that I can find.

I’m not saying we should not have special emotions and feelings when we worship. We are even commanded to worship with thankfulness in our hearts toward God. But that thankfulness, those feelings, must not be mistaken for the worship itself.

There is an interesting little book that I find ever so useful in my bible study. It is called Willmington’s Book of Bible Lists. When I look up the word “Worship” in it, I see the following list. I present it here for our edification.

1. Through reading God’s Word Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27; 1 Tim. 4:13; Rev. 1:3
2. Through studying God’s Word Acts 6:2; 2 Tim. 2:15; 3:15
3. Through teaching God’s Word Acts 2:42; 6:7; 12:24; 18:28; 19:20; 1 Tim. 4:6; 2 Tim. 1:13; 2:2
4. Through preaching God’s Word 2 Tim. 4:2
5. Through the keeping of the ordinances 1 Cor. 11:2
6. Through the singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; James 5:13
7. Through the lifting up of prayers, intercessions, supplications, and thanksgiving Acts 2:42, 46; 3:1; 4:31; Eph. 6:18; Phil. 4:6; Col. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:17; 1 Tim. 2:1-2, 8
8. Through the receiving of his Son John 1:11-12
9. Through the sacrifice of our bodies Rom. 12:1
10. Through the sacrifice of our praise Heb. 13:15
11. Through the sacrifice of our good works Heb. 13:16
12. Through the sacrifice of our substance Phil. 4:18

Please do show me if I am completely off in left field with anything I have said here.

mm

MM, I am so enjoying your posts on music and worship. Keep them coming

Meanwhile, I'll tackle the sticky question of women in leadership roles. Maybe I'd be better off to join in the music discussion

PP, first off, I don't want to come across like I am debating you, because I don't feel that way at all about it. I know and like you from other discussions around the forum, and one thing I appreciate about you is your teachable spirit. I have wrestled with the same things that you're bringing up now, and even now I don't exactly adore the principles in those tough passages. But I'm getting there. Some things I do know for certain, and all my interpretations need to built around those things.

Oh, and Gladius — and the other guys here — I appreciate your sensitivity to our feelings about this subject! But don't be afraid to offer your thoughts as well. If they are graciously expressed, I doubt any female here would get in a tizzy about being "bossed" by a guy. I know it is not that way (at least, it better not be! ).

So let's jump in.

I really wish Paul had been clearer. Sometimes he is so clear, such as saying, “I say – I and not the Lord” and “I give this command – not I but the Lord.” They letters are so hard to understand.

Oh, you aren't the first one to have this problem! Peter did too (see II Peter 3:16). So be comforted there; you're not an idiot for not getting it. It's just a subject that requires careful study and an investment of time.

An important thing to note is that Paul was not the Holy Spirit. What I mean by this is that Paul may not always have been perfectly aware that what he was writing was exactly what God wanted written. But so it is; God caused Paul to say what he did, even when Paul maybe thought he was speaking on his own. God is the Author of Scripture, and we can be sure that everything in the Bible is there by His design and plan. Paul was not omniscient even as he penned the epistles — but the Holy Spirit is. So we can't take the passages where Paul says "I desire" as uninspired. We have to take the whole of Scripture, or none of it.

There are parts that seem in complete contradiction to each other.

If two passages of Scripture seem to contradict, either our interpretation of one of them is incorrect, or our interpretations of both are incorrect. There can be no contradiction in the mind of God. If there is any inconsistency, it is in us.

However, there is an indication that some things in the Bible were written only to apply for a certain timeframe / situation. (That sentence isn’t exactly saying what I want it to). We are not longer expected to follow the rules of sacrifice yet they are still in the Bible.

Indeed they are. I don't think that is the best example because all the Old Testament laws and sacrifices were there to point to the Perfect Sacrifice, Christ, and to show us that we could never reach God's standard of holiness. We need all those rules in the OT to show us our utter inability to live righteously. So yes, we don't follow them today because they have been fulfilled in Christ — but they are part of the inspired Word of God because they still have a role to play in our salvation. We need to know that we can never attain righteousness by following rules... and that there is only one Sacrifice that is big enough to cover our sin.

In passages that seem "culturally conditioned," it's important to make sure we understand what they meant to the people reading them at the time. There are always universal principles behind the culturally conditioned stuff. There is a verse in the Bible about women not adorning themselves with braided hair. Does that mean we shouldn't braid our hair, ever? No... when you look at the passage, it becomes clearer that the prohibition is not against braided hair, but against vanity and immodesty. Braided hair must have been considered showy and flaunting back then. But what is showy and flaunting now? It's not about the externals, but the ruling principle. (The passage is I Timothy 2:9, btw.)

My version of the Bible has Phoebe being called a deacon of the church. A footnote says “or minister.”

I consider myself a "minister" of the Gospel in my everyday life. Does the text say "pastor" about Phoebe though? No, it doesn't. Pastoring is a specific role and there are no female pastors in the Bible. It just doesn't make sense to see the word "deacon" and immediately jump to the conclusion that that means women should preach in a corporate worship setting. Sure, women can and should hold ministry positions within the church. And it's not that men can't learn from women. It's just that God designed us to fill certain roles. When we usurp the role of the opposite sex, we are robbing not only them of their God-given position, but also ourselves of the spiritual benefit we would receive from the order God has set in place.

I find I am growing more comfortable with these truths as I get older. In my early twenties I was actually rather rebellious about these passages, and yes, Paul got a lot of my flak for being the messenger . I'm not really "old" now (26), but I have found that as I study church relationships and even my own relationship with my husband, what the Bible says about the different roles of men and women is so true. I am designed to submit to the leadership of my husband and the elders and pastor of my church — and in so doing, I am submitting to Christ because this is His will for me. This does not mean that I have nothing to offer, no input or insight, or that my husband never learns from me. It simply means that he is responsible before God for the spiritual headship of our home, and because he is accountable for that I have to let him do his job without interference and rebellion on my part. It's the same in church... the men of the church are responsible for the leadership of the church under Christ. It is not my place to usurp their roles.

And anyways, I am best suited for the role God has designed for me in the first place!

When a man and a woman marry, they become “one flesh” as Jesus says. In 1 Cor 7: 3-4 it says “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” This seems to be a relationship where each of the parts is equal. Neither the husband nor the wife has complete control of the relationship.

The man's leadership in the home does not mean he has "complete control" and the wife just has to bow her little head and obey his every whim. It's really a straw man to portray biblical submission that way. This passage is indeed talking about marital relations, and it isn't a master/servant picture at all. The man and the woman complement one another. Equal status; different roles — by God's design.

According to my Bible, 1 Tim 2:12 can read either “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man” or I permit no wife to have authority over her husband.” The second one is clearly different from the first.

I'd like to know the scholarship behind that claim, and I'd especially like to know its motivation. So often modern scholarship is obsessed with teasing meanings out of the Word to align with modern ideas. It couldn't really mean "submit," could it? Let's see if we can find a way around it...

But looking at those two versions of the verse, it seems they aren't as different as your study notes might suggest. If a woman is not to have authority over her husband, how could we justify her taking a leadership/teaching role over him in the church?

Galatians 3:28 “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Jesus Christ.”
This seems to say that all are equal in Christ and considered one. This limits the class of people into “Christians” and “Non-Christians.” However, when we look at how the church is apparently supposed to run, suddenly male and female matter again?

Yes, male and female again. Did we ever stop being male and female? The point of Galatians 3:28 is that salvation is given regardless of gender, status, and race. I am just as saved as my husband . In a way it's kind of like the Trinity... all Three are One, and are God. But there are different roles for each! Likewise, men and women are equal in status in Christ, but have different responsibilities according to God's design.

Basically, I just don’t understand. I want to understand. I want to do God’s will and follow his Word. However, there are parts of the Bible I can’t reconcile to other parts and seem to me to be telling me two different things.

If anyone lacks knowledge, he should ask the Father for it. The fact that you want to understand is what will make the difference for you. Are you willing to study this, wrestle with it, and ultimately accept what God says even if you don't like it?

And again, if there is a seeming contradiction in Scripture, it is our interpretation that is incorrect. God never makes mistakes! And so to digest those tough passages, we have to keep chewing them... and praying for the Holy Spirit's guidance to both enlighten our minds and change our hearts to make them receptive to His truth.

None of us will ever completely understand God and Bible. I think that everyone who reads the Bible holds some misconception about what it is trying to say.

I agree, but to a point. The Bible is clear on basic doctrine, and we can understand it, with the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. I just don't want to make excuses about the parts I don't understand and never even try to study them.

(The inaccuracies in translation can’t help. Any translation is going to have some errors.)

The translations we have are actually extremely accurate. There may be some questionable passages (questionable only because of the limits of our knowledge, not because of what they contain). But God will never allow His Word to be obscured by things like that. If He wrote it, He can preserve it and present it to us for salvation. I just don't like the "bad translation" excuse... it's so easy to start thinking the translation MUST be bad if it doesn't align with modern ideas. Usually the bad translation is in us refusing to translate the meaning of the passage into our everyday lives...

I still wonder if the writers of the letters intended them to be read for generations.

But does the intent of the writers really even matter? We should be more concerned about the intent of the Author. And it's clear that He did intend His Word to be read for generations. Heaven and earth may pass away but His Word will never pass away.

We can learn from them the same as we can learn from the Old Testament, but some parts will completely apply to us. (There isn’t a whole lot of meat out there that has been offered to idols).

I think you are getting hung up on the externals again, PP. It isn't about the literal meat offered to idols that the early Christians struggled with; it's about the principle behind it. There may not be literal meat in the grocery store that was first offered to a graven image, but there are definitely things we consume that may not have "Christian" origins.

Look at the Walden Narnia movies! They have their origin in the minds of secular men. They are created to make a profit; one could almost claim that their purpose is to serve the god of material gain. They've been offered on that altar. But don't you consume them? Don't you draw spiritual parallels from them that bless you? Do you see how the principle of meat offered to idols is timeless, though the external trappings change with culture?

I Corinthians 11 is probably a hard chapter for you right now. I do believe its principles are timeless because Paul appeals to the order of creation as the basis for his statements. Obviously that is not something that changes!

Right now, I’m trying very hard to determine if what my church culture and secular culture says about women aligns with the God’s Word and Will or not.

I feel your pain. This isn't easy for you, is it? What will be harder is if you determine your church is not obeying the timeless principles of Scripture. What will you do then? You don't have to answer this; I'm asking it more for your sake than mine.

God has, more than once, upset my beliefs with something from His Word that I just couldn't ignore or gloss over anymore. I remember how painful that was, and even how angry it made me. You have to walk through that. I applaud your courage in facing it even though it could have big consequences in your life, and I urge you to keep going back to the Word. It does not change or go out of date. We haven't outgrown it. to you as you work through these issues!

(Oh, and one more thing. I don't know Tim Stafford, but I am reading a book by Philip Yancey at the moment and while some of it is good, he definitely has bad theology regarding God's sovereignty. So be careful of him; he totally yanked some verses out of context in the chapter I read last night )

I've been reading this segment of the thread with great interest but have withheld from actually commenting because it is quite obviously a touchy subject.

Oh, and Gladius — and the other guys here — I appreciate your sensitivity to our feelings about this subject! But don't be afraid to offer your thoughts as well. If they are graciously expressed, I doubt any female here would get in a tizzy about being "bossed" by a guy. I know it is not that way (at least, it better not be! ).

And I appreciate this statement and it puts me more at ease!

I have absolutely no qualms with women in a leadership role, be it at work, in an elected position, or anything of that kind. But the Bible is quite clear that this ends with actual pastoring in what the folks here are referring to as corporate worship. So when I see a church with a female pastor my brain automatically says, "that church is not teaching out of the same Bible I'm reading from". That's particularly dangerous because when you start cherry picking which portions of Scripture you wish to believe, all for the sake of modern ideologies, it can very easily spread to other facets of Christianity. And please don't misunderstand me, I am all in favor of female missionaries, deacons, Sunday school teachers, and other such jobs. But the second you have a female pastor the process of eroding that church from within begins (and probably has been at play for some time, to be truthful, if it happens at all).

Always bear in the back of your mind that the Devil works in subtlety, and so he's going to discombobulate a church through seemingly minor things of this type, but his goal is always to undermine God, and it will usually start with things of this type which many will consider trivial details at best. And if he succeeds you ultimately end up with a church that deals in good feelings and platitudes instead of any kind of rock solid theological backing. Stick to Scripture, it will never steer you wrong even if it seems to collide with "modern sensibilities".

The man's leadership in the home does not mean he has "complete control" and the wife just has to bow her little head and obey his every whim. It's really a straw man to portray biblical submission that way. This passage is indeed talking about marital relations, and it isn't a master/servant picture at all. The man and the woman complement one another. Equal status; different roles — by God's design.

Precisely! I have learned so very much in the past 3 years being married that I didn't know before that it could fill volumes. I'm sure any of the other married folks here will make similar claims. And it's a continuing education! My wife and are equals and we complement each other in all facets of our lives together. We are two totally different people (as the old Osmond song goes, "she's a little bit country, I'm a little bit rock n' roll") and yet through God's grace it works out. Laura comes to me for guidance and it is my solemn duty to try and assist her through advice and wisdom. She does the same for me. But in matters spiritual and familial, while this dynamic is still in play, the Bible says that I have the final say. I take this portion of the job very seriously and even though I may have the final decision on such matters I still go to my wife continuously for advice and guidance, as well as God in prayer. I was an indecisive man before marriage, but marital life has forced me to become very decisive at times. I don't like having to make hard calls but with God and my wife right there I know that I have great backup!

Whew. Too many topics at once. Though I'd love to talk about husband/wife roles according to Scripture, I fear I must move on past that for now, and try to focus still on the discussion about worship beliefs.

It's fine you mention all sorts of Biblical examples of what people did from Daniel, to Joseph, etc. But in what you have said, you made a mistake of saying "this is what they did, so this is what we should do". All the stories you mentioned were historical narratives. [. . .] We should have convictions that we will stand for to the point of death. But if we limit ourselves to only doing what they did, we run the risk of legalism.

Fencer; you correctly pointed out something in 220’s post that I (and maybe others) noticed…a tendency to take DE scriptions in the bible and turn them into PRE scriptions for believers. Unfortunately, that is very shaky hermeneutical ground.

I do think you've missed the point of Daniel: the point of Daniel is that even in the midst of trouble, God is faithful and will preserve His people. It's about God keeping his covenant promises.

Yet it is common in evangelicaldom to read the Bible as "God's instructions to you" or "God's love letter to you," and not God's account of what He has done, about Himself, with applications for you, yes, yet not all about you. Too often the Bible's readers miss that emphasis in their haste to read Scripture and ask, "what should I do in response?" after which their conclusion is wrongly "try to imitate whatever the good characters did."

This very topic actually came up in the closing days of the previous Christianity discussion. Perspicacity had posted about someone's convincing-sounding argument that churches these days should follow the habits and practices of churches in the book of Acts. Others, including myself, pointed out that what the Bible describes is not always what the Bible proscribes.

Too often Christians -- whether well-meaning or forcefully opinion-driven -- read out of Acts or any other Scriptural narratives imperatives or mandates that simply aren't in the actual text.

But there are many problems with this: first, as you mentioned above, the fact that just because something in the Bible is mentioned, it's mandated for all of us (such as churches meeting in houses only at first).

Secondly, such a wrong way of reading is never consistent, nor can it be. For example, I don't find in that list an admonition that the Last Supper must be celebrated with real wine, as the Corinthian believers did! Surely the author of that list would say that alcohol was more relevant to the culture of that time, but today's believers can feel free to use grape juice in its place. [. . .]

The same is true with Old Testament narratives. Many Christians, trying to overcorrect for excesses of man-centered, directionless "dating," swerve so far into "courtship" that they're reading all kinds of mandates (ha ha) out of Old Testament descriptions (such as they are) of arranged marriages or family structures.

A certain U.S. leader caught in scandal strongly implied some months ago that like King David, who was also caught in scandal, that humility and repentance were all that was necessary, and he wouldn't need to resign his post because David didn't "resign" as king either. I doubt very seriously this leader would try to replicate the account of David consistently -- otherwise he'd be giving up his firstborn son to disease and death!

It gets worse when some Christians decide they must hear the "voice of God" or the Spirit's "inner leading," just like the Old Testament prophets, before they make any decisions about where to move, what job to take, whom to ask out in view of marriage. That not only makes "laws" where God didn't, but "flattens" the Biblical narrative.

There must be a great and violent flattening of revealed, redemptive history. Pivotal moments in the Bible are pounded down, mashed and flattened into illustrations of daily Christian living. Direct, binding, inerrant prophetic revelations are radically down-sized into illustrations of God nudging us today towards a particular spouse or church ministry or university course major. Prophets who speak for God are shriveled into everyday Christians listening for that still, small murmur the the Bible never calls us to seek.

The same "violent flattening" occurs when one reads Scripture only with an eye toward how-must-we-live-as-Christians. Yes, we find these truths there; I am not denying it, but they are not always verbatim in the narratives of Scripture. Such an approach is not only bad hermeneutics, but always inconsistent in how they are read and applied. For example, should we get grown men to dance in loinclothes in church in King David style, when the Ark was being returned to Jerusalem? Yet 2 Samuel 6 strongly implies this was legitimate worship!

1. Good music, language, books [i.e. Bible!], movies = good thoughts = good behavior...
2. Bad music, language, books, movies = bad thoughts = bad behavior...

And--that doesn't really convince us of whether that kind of music is good or bad. What I'm saying is-- Sure, your statements may be true--but if we believe Christian Rap is fine and good to listen to, then those statements there won't make us "change our ways." If we think Christian Rap is good music, we'll believe that good comes out of it.

Exactly -- and besides, I could easily say the truth that the Cross and especially Christ has been magnified to me by listening to music that some Christians would dismiss as "worldly." Or I could say that I "felt the Holy Spirit" in this music, or that it was a Peaceful Experience. What could be said in response to that? My answer: we should not base opinions on whether something is good or bad on how we feel, or whether it leads to a good experience. The written Word should be our sole standard as to whether something is God-glorifying or not, or else can go either way because of personal convictions, struggles, and stylistic differences.

Romans 14 is the vital text here, and as the revealed Word of God must be understood and accepted: that some things are not black-and-white, pure-or-not-pure issues. However, this teaching is far too foreign in many churches, leading some Christians to two very opposite and very wrong conclusions: either 1) discernment doesn't matter, or 2) "conformity" is needed about what songs we enjoy, what holidays we celebrate, what foods we eat, or what books we read.

Oh, and Gladius — and the other guys here — I appreciate your sensitivity to our feelings about this subject! But don't be afraid to offer your thoughts as well. If they are graciously expressed, I doubt any female here would get in a tizzy about being "bossed" by a guy. I know it is not that way (at least, it better not be! ).

I agree I want multiple opinions. Actually, opinions from males on the subject might be lest bias that some opinions form females. At some point, some males had to come the conclusion that it was alright for women to be pastors.

Before I comment, I just want to clarify that I would never consider myself a feminist. I realized some of my points might come across that way. I don’t mind gender bias language (ex. Actresses). I have no problem using the title “Miss” instead of “Ms.” There are certain jobs that I think males better at than females and the other way around. When (if (since I can’t be certain that it is in God’s plan for me to do so although I really hope it is)) I marry, I intend to take my husband’s name. I really want to marry have kids and then be a stay at home mom.

If two passages of Scripture seem to contradict, either our interpretation of one of them is incorrect, or our interpretations of both are incorrect. There can be no contradiction in the mind of God. If there is any inconsistency, it is in us.

This I definitely can agree with.

In passages that seem "culturally conditioned," it's important to make sure we understand what they meant to the people reading them at the time. There are always universal principles behind the culturally conditioned stuff. There is a verse in the Bible about women not adorning themselves with braided hair. Does that mean we shouldn't braid our hair, ever? No... when you look at the passage, it becomes clearer that the prohibition is not against braided hair, but against vanity and immodesty. Braided hair must have been considered showy and flaunting back then. But what is showy and flaunting now? It's not about the externals, but the ruling principle. (The passage is I Timothy 2:9, btw.)

That’s exactly it! I want to know how to tell the difference between the “ruling principle” and “prohibition.”

I consider myself a "minister" of the Gospel in my everyday life. Does the text say "pastor" about Phoebe though? No, it doesn't. Pastoring is a specific role and there are no female pastors in the Bible. It just doesn't make sense to see the word "deacon" and immediately jump to the conclusion that that means women should preach in a corporate worship setting.

I didn’t immediately jump. I looked up the word deacon in a couple of sources as well as minister. When I looked up “minister” in my Study Bible it immediately referred me to pastor. (However, that is no longer conclusive since you pointed out that at least one of the commentators in my Bible isn’t always accurate) (From what I can determine, “pastor” only occurs in the NT once and that isn’t at any of the parts we are discussing )

I find I am growing more comfortable with these truths as I get older. In my early twenties I was actually rather rebellious about these passages, and yes, Paul got a lot of my flak for being the messenger . I'm not really "old" now (26), but I have found that as I study church relationships and even my own relationship with my husband, what the Bible says about the different roles of men and women is so true. I am designed to submit to the leadership of my husband and the elders and pastor of my church — and in so doing, I am submitting to Christ because this is His will for me. This does not mean that I have nothing to offer, no input or insight, or that my husband never learns from me. It simply means that he is responsible before God for the spiritual headship of our home, and because he is accountable for that I have to let him do his job without interference and rebellion on my part. It's the same in church... the men of the church are responsible for the leadership of the church under Christ. It is not my place to usurp their roles.

Maybe my problem is I’m not married (mostly serious)… and am still a little too young (25) or maybe I’m behind … it wouldn’t be the first time … (mostly joking)
I’m probably being a bit like a devil’s advocate again, but if the men who are in charge of the leadership of the church decide to bestow some responsibility on a woman or women is that different? They can’t be usurping it that way. Does it change things if the female pastor is under the male pastor? We have one senior pastor (male who oversees the other two).

The man's leadership in the home does not mean he has "complete control" and the wife just has to bow her little head and obey his every whim. It's really a straw man to portray biblical submission that way.

Oh bother, I guess I’m reading things wrong again. I thought when it said in Ephesians 5:22-24 “Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.” It meant that wives had to bow her head and obey whatever their husbands said. That didn’t make sense to me because then a husband could demand that the wife do something against God’s Word.

According to my Bible, 1 Tim 2:12 can read either “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man” or I permit no wife to have authority over her husband.” The second one is clearly different from the first.

I'd like to know the scholarship behind that claim, and I'd especially like to know its motivation. So often modern scholarship is obsessed with teasing meanings out of the Word to align with modern ideas. It couldn't really mean "submit," could it? Let's see if we can find a way around it...

But looking at those two versions of the verse, it seems they aren't as different as your study notes might suggest. If a woman is not to have authority over her husband, how could we justify her taking a leadership/teaching role over him in the church?

Now that I think about it, I misspoke about them clearly being different. I forgot that the word “wife” as its origins in words that meant “woman.” I suppose the Greek language might use the same word for “woman” (a female) and for “wife” (a female spouse).

Galatians 3:28 “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Jesus Christ.”
This seems to say that all are equal in Christ and considered one. This limits the class of people into “Christians” and “Non-Christians.” However, when we look at how the church is apparently supposed to run, suddenly male and female matter again?

Yes, male and female again. Did we ever stop being male and female? The point of Galatians 3:28 is that salvation is given regardless of gender, status, and race. I am just as saved as my husband . In a way it's kind of like the Trinity... all Three are One, and are God. But there are different roles for each! Likewise, men and women are equal in status in Christ, but have different responsibilities according to God's design.

Your response is logical. I suppose I’m trying to compare apples and oranges again.

If anyone lacks knowledge, he should ask the Father for it. The fact that you want to understand is what will make the difference for you. Are you willing to study this, wrestle with it, and ultimately accept what God says even if you don't like it?

I’m asking and studying and wrestling and if I ever figure out what God is saying I’ll accept it.

None of us will ever completely understand God and Bible. I think that everyone who reads the Bible holds some misconception about what it is trying to say.

I agree, but to a point. The Bible is clear on basic doctrine, and we can understand it, with the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. I just don't want to make excuses about the parts I don't understand and never even try to study them.

That’s what I meant. I had trouble getting the thoughts out of my head again.

The translations we have are actually extremely accurate. There may be some questionable passages (questionable only because of the limits of our knowledge, not because of what they contain). But God will never allow His Word to be obscured by things like that. If He wrote it, He can preserve it and present it to us for salvation. I just don't like the "bad translation" excuse... it's so easy to start thinking the translation MUST be bad if it doesn't align with modern ideas. Usually the bad translation is in us refusing to translate the meaning of the passage into our everyday lives...

I didn’t mean our translations weren’t any good but some are better than others. Translation always involves some interpretation on the part of the translator and that allows for some human error. I think most translations are accurate in the main details but do have some inaccuracies in the smaller details.

We can learn from them the same as we can learn from the Old Testament, but some parts will completely apply to us. (There isn’t a whole lot of meat out there that has been offered to idols).

I think you are getting hung up on the externals again, PP. It isn't about the literal meat offered to idols that the early Christians struggled with; it's about the principle behind it. There may not be literal meat in the grocery store that was first offered to a graven image, but there are definitely things we consume that may not have "Christian" origins.

You’re right again.

A couple of questions:
1. When Col. 3:20 says “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is your acceptable duty in the Lord,” does that mean “everything” or “everything that isn’t against the Word of God?” For example, if someone’s parents forbade them to pray to God, read the Bible, etc. would they have to do it? I can see someone not going to church because his parents said not to and not owning a Bible but giving up praying?
2. 1 Cor. 11:5 NRSV “but any woman who prays and prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head.” German version translated by me: A women, who in worship publicly prays or proclaims God’s Instructions (prophesy?), …” Amplified Bible: 5And any woman who [publicly] prays or prophesies (teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, or comforts) when she is bareheaded dishonors her head (her husband); it is the same as [if her head were] shaved. (for explanation of symbols go to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplified_Bible#Explanation_of_arbitrary_punctuation_from_the_March_1985_printing)
1 Corinthians 14:26-27 34-35 What should be done then, my friends? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. … As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a women to speak in church.
A note in my German Bible calls attention to the difference between 11:5 (describing how women can pray and do other things in worship.) and the part where women should be silent. It indicates that the prohibition agrees with 1 Tim 2:11-12. Yet, it mentions that in some ancient texts verses 34-35 (The numbering is slightly different in the German version. I’ve bolded the part above that corresponds with the German 34-35) actually comes after verse 40. It says that is perhaps an indication that that passage was a margin note at one time and was later added to the text (it doesn’t not indicate when after the letter was written this note was added (thus, I conclude that if they are right it could either have been added by Paul himself before sending the letter or by someone else later.) What is your (anyone who is reading this and choose to answer) interpretation of these verses and the note? What does women should be silent mean? (no noise of any kind? No singing? No praying?) (I’m trying to ask these questions in a nonbiased way and not express any opinion of my own. At this point, I no longer no which way is up ).

I have to make this short due to time. Mother_music, I was not saying I can know the heart of people. I've mentioned this in the past, but I should have mentioned it again, but I do have a gift of spiritual discernment. There are certain things that I can't explain that I simply sense. I was not saying that a better performance =better worship. I am a horrile singer (extreme tone deaf) and I can worship as well as anyone (if such a comparison could be made). I was saying is that people show their heart in whatever they do. It's the fruit of their actions. There are a number of popular artists out there that are excellent performers, but they are not worshiping God with thier talents. Then take one such band called The Fray. They are a secular band and don't do songs that are considered Christian. Yet they are worshipping because they are using thier talents to reach out to a secular audience and point them towards clean music that they would listen to.

I am not of the type that says if I like it, it counts as worship, or if not it doesn't. I am not the judge of those things. But there are times, where I can see the heart of the matter. I can't explain it very well. I do know that worship extends far beyond the realm of music. Those who have visited the Writer's World thread know I am talking with a publisher for a spiritual warfare novel I have written. I wrote that book to illustrate Biblical truths. That book is an act of worship. I also fence. My physical ability to do the sport alone is worship because of the Testimony I have. Not only that, I do what I can to use the sport in ministry, which is yet another form of worship. Other people draw. Others yet dance. Others speak. And others even still work. Anything and everything we do can be done with a heart of worship and that brings us closer to the real concept of worship that God has.

Emotions also don't determine worship. They are used in worship, but they don't determine what worship is. We are made of body, soul, and spirit, and our soul contains our emotions. In fact, we cannot worship without emotion. Because to do so would be to not do it with all of ourselves. Our spirit is our means of worship. It is through the spirit that we can talk to God. I can go into that more later.

I have to run to class now.

And--that doesn't really convince us of whether that kind of music is good or bad. What I'm saying is-- Sure, your statements may be true--but if we believe Christian Rap is fine and good to listen to, then those statements there won't make us "change our ways." If we think Christian Rap is good music, we'll believe that good comes out of it.

You still have not offered any scripture as to what style of music honors God. You give examples, and talk about how certain music feels to you, but that's entirely subjective. I'm not being nitpicky, I hope--I'm willing to be taught. But unless you can show me from Scripture that one set of frequencies and wavelengths is more acceptable to God than another, I must remain unconvinced.

We should not base opinions on whether something is good or bad on how we feel, or whether it leads to a good experience. The written Word should be our sole standard as to whether something is God-glorifying or not, or else can go either way because of personal convictions, struggles, and stylistic differences.
Romans 14 is the vital text here, and as the revealed Word of God must be understood and accepted: that some things are not black-and-white, pure-or-not-pure issues. However, this teaching is far too foreign in many churches, leading some Christians to two very opposite and very wrong conclusions: either 1) discernment doesn't matter, or 2) "conformity" is needed about what songs we enjoy, what holidays we celebrate, what foods we eat, or what books we read.

How do we decide what is good and what is bad? Fruit. And that has two meanings. 1. What we do with our tongues, hands, and feet. 2. Fruit of the Spirit [Gal 5:22-23]. If we're bearing good fruit in both areas, it means we're abiding in Christ and our lives are probably full of good influences. But if we're bearing bad fruit, it means we need to examine ourselves--our lives, our friends, what we feed on [cultural influences], etc. Actually, we're commanded to examine ourselves. And we should do so, frequently. Sometimes we know good and bad, right and wrong, but sometimes we don't--especially in grey areas. We need an external standard, the Word, because our hearts can deceive us. God, through the Holy Spirit, through the Word, will show us areas in our lives where we're falling short and reasons for any bad fruit. He will help us apply the Word to specific situations. He will illuminate the grey areas--music, books, movies, etc. For a good chunk of my life, I had a sin problem. But my eyes weren't really opened to it until 2005. And in the process of my discovering some bad fruit in my life and wondering what to do about it, God--through the Spirit, through the Word--also opened my eyes to some bad cultural influences I had to deal with. But it didn't dawn on me until a few weeks ago why. For a long time, all I saw was the negative = give up X. I didn't see the positive = go deeper in worship, grow deeper in love with Jesus, and drink "living water." It's called holiness.

Dr. Ransom: I confess I'm not a big fan of Romans 14. But that's my problem, isn't it? Also, I didn't "bypass" Romans 14 or much of your post yesterday. I had about 5-10 minutes to digest it and respond. Most of my post yesterday was written the night before, with only previous posts for reference.

I've mentioned this in the past, but I should have mentioned it again, but I do have a gift of spiritual discernment. There are certain things that I can't explain that I simply sense. . . .I am not of the type that says if I like it, it counts as worship, or if not it doesn't. I am not the judge of those things. But there are times, where I can see the heart of the matter. I can't explain it very well. . . .Emotions also don't determine worship. They are used in worship, but they don't determine what worship is. We are made of body, soul, and spirit, and our soul contains our emotions. In fact, we cannot worship without emotion. Because to do so would be to not do it with all of ourselves. Our spirit is our means of worship. It is through the spirit that we can talk to God.

I know exactly what you're talking about! See my response to Mother-Music below. I also have some spiritual discernment, but it's the size of a pea compared to my mother. She can read people's hearts just by observing them and talking to them. How? "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" [Matthew 12].

Each of you have indicated that you have no problem knowing the heart of the person who is singing or performing by simply looking on the outside. But Scripture clearly states in many ways and many places that God is the only One Who can know the heart…even our own hearts are mostly hidden from us, and we need His help to understand them.

You're right. God alone knows the heart, which "is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" [Jer 17]. I am fully aware of a self-deceived heart. I've been studying this topic for a few years as a result. And I mentioned a blog post called "Where is your heart?" on pg 4. At the same time, you say "we need His help to understand" our hearts. Yes! How? As you explained, through the Word. But I believe that just like God can reveal to us the state of our own hearts through His Word, He can also reveal to us the state of others' hearts, through the Word. "Discerning of spirits" [1 Cor 12] is a gift we can pray for. John tells us to "believe not every spirit but try the spirits whether they are of God because many false prophets are gone out into the world" [1 John 4]. Then he tells us how: "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God" [4:2-3]. John also says, "These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him" [2:26-27]. So there is no reason we should ever be deceived. People in both Old and New Testaments recognized false prophets and false worship for what they were. How? The Holy Spirit, through the Word. Below is just one example.

Afterward I came unto the house of Shemaiah the son of Delaiah the son of Mehetabeel, who was shut up; and he said, Let us meet together in the house of God, within the temple, and let us shut the doors of the temple: for they will come to slay thee; yea, in the night will they come to slay thee. And I said, Should such a man as I flee? and who is there, that, being as I am, would go into the temple to save his life? I will not go in. And, lo, I perceived that God had not sent him; but that he pronounced this prophecy against me: for Tobiah and Sanballat had hired him. Therefore was he hired, that I should be afraid, and do so, and sin, and that they might have matter for an evil report, that they might reproach me.

It's fine you mention all sorts of Biblical examples of what people did from Daniel, to Joseph, etc. But in what you have said, you made a mistake of saying "this is what they did, so this is what we should do." All the stories you mentioned were historical narratives. Yes, Daniel, Shadrach, Messhach, and Abednego had excellent convictions and would not defile themselves. But the point of that story is not we should have thier convictions. The point was that we should upold the convictions we have of God to the extent they did. Are you aware they made thier stand (in Chapter 1) to the point of not only thier death but the servants' death as well? We should have convictions that we will stand for to the point of death. But if we limit ourselves to only doing what they did, we run the risk of legalism.

Fencer, you correctly pointed out something in 220’s post that I (and maybe others) noticed…a tendency to take DE scriptions in the bible and turn them into PRE scriptions for believers. Unfortunately, that is very shaky hermeneutical ground.

Too often the Bible's readers miss that emphasis in their haste to read Scripture and ask, "what should I do in response?" after which their conclusion is wrongly "try to imitate whatever the good characters did."

I never said "do what they did." I never referred to what they did as prescriptive behavior. I was giving Biblical examples of people's faith in God, of their commitment to spiritual separation. So I think I was grossly misread on this point. Obedience = fruit of faith and trust in God. "Faith without works is dead" [James 2]. I think we would all agree on that, yes? I have to confess, Fencer, that when I first read your post, I thought you were calling holiness "legalism." And I became really upset. But I see now I misread you. At the same time, consider that some things don't change. Idolatry, in whatever guise, is still sin. So are practicing witchcraft, sexual immorality, and infanticide--in whatever guise. Yes, the grey areas are hard sometimes. But I pray for these people's convictions, their faith. Because I know what it is to stand up for Christ and lose my job.

I believe that (apart from infant baptism for babies of believing parents), when you believe later in life, baptism is something you do because you believe. . . .If you become saved and say "I'm not going to be baptized, it's not required" then it's pretty silly. I mean, you become baptized because you were saved. Because you were "told to." Are you saying that if you're on your deathbed and you are converted, you have to quick be baptized before you die or you're not saved? I'm sorry, but I sure don't believe that. ("Quick! Pour water on my head or I won't go to heaven!") Mark 16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." This verse doesn't say "He who is not baptized will be condemned." It says "he who does not believe will be condemned." Baptism is a step you take after you are converted, but definitely not something that saves you!!!

I agree! I also think water baptism is commanded of us but it cannot save. We must confess and believe first. It's our spiritual baptism into Christ's death and resurrection that counts. If someone has the opportunity to be baptized, I say go ahead. If they don't, I tell them not to worry about it. And I always like to give the example of the repentant thief on the cross: "But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise" [Luke 23:40-43]. "Today ... in paradise": no water baptism required.

I'm not going to weigh in on the women in ministry topic right now. I just want to note the following.

A. Although "priestess" isn't in the Bible, "prophetess" is. But I'm not sure what is meant by the term, or what role it entails.

Prophetesses in the Bible
1. Miriam, Exodus 15:20
2. Deborah, Judges 4:4
3. Huldah, 2 Kings 22:14 & 2 Chron 34:22
4. Isaiah's wife, Isaiah 8:3
5. Noadiah, Nehemiah 6:14
6. Anna, Luke 2:36-38
Other references: Ezekiel 13:17-23, 1 Corinthians 11:5

B. Various women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, prayed for the Holy Spirit along with the 120 in the Upper Room. Were they counted part of the 120? Dorcas was called a "disciple" [Acts 10].

Dr. Ransom: I confess I'm not a big fan of Romans 14. But that's my problem, isn't it? Also, I didn't "bypass" Romans 14 or much of your post yesterday. I had about 5-10 minutes to digest it and respond. Most of my post yesterday was written the night before, with only previous posts for reference.

Yes, that is a problem. Quite a big one, too. But you knew I would say that; maybe that’s why you tried to say it first, and thus attempt deflection of even kindly worded criticism. You’ll get it from me anyway, though, yet I hope not just as a critique from some guy on the internet but as a Christian brother. Here’s hoping the care and concern comes through, because these issues are so vital!

By the way, trust me, I know it’s hard to respond to everything! That's why I sometimes bypass a point or two made that seems collateral, in favor of trying to find the foundations or assumptions behind another person's beliefs.

This is also partly why I’m missing an otherwise excellent participation in the women-in-church discussion; drat it, 220, this just seems more important. Also, we agree on baptism, 220, along with other things that have come up in other discussions, so you should know from this that none of this is personal.

I hope you will also not let either of these sneaking suspicions creep in:

a) I’m in the minority here; and they’re picking on me personally.
b) I’m in the minority here; so yay! I’m a Martyr for the Cause.

If either of these wrong assumptions come up, please call 911, the U.S. Center for Disease Control, or your local poison recovery center, or else, remember all this is meant in both truth and Grace, both/and, not just yelling out truth so much it resembles a clanging gong or clashing cymbal, or overcorrecting into a “love” that doesn’t also lovingly chastise.

Romans 14: read it, know it, apply it

At least you’re honest about admitting you don't particularly like Romans 14! But I'll also be honest in reminding you — as I’m sure you knew I would — that if we claim to believe the Bible at all, we simply don’t have that option. You’ll need to face it sometime. Why not start now?

Too often, if a passage contradicts someone’s own beliefs, he or she tries one of (about) four methods:

1) Just kind of ignore it and hope it goes away.
2) Reinterpret it the best way we can, often contradicting context and original audience, to fit with our own beliefs.
3) Pick and choose what we believe in the Bible or what we don’t, being more honest about our doubts of the Word, but probably worse in that we don’t even try to reinterpret.
4) Throw out the whole thing, wrong beliefs and right beliefs alike.

So although I’m glad you haven’t chosen option 2 — which would be very hard to do with the very plainly worded and -argued Romans 14 — you’re in effect opting for option 1.

While many people here would admit some passages give them more struggles than others, I don’t know if I would simply say “I’m not a big fan” of any other passages. What if I were an antinomian (“no rules”) kind of Christian whom you were reminding about the importance of holiness, and you quoted Romans 12:1-2, and I simply said, “well, I must confess I’m not a big fan of that passage”? I hope you wouldn’t let me get away with that. No loving Christian mindful of the truth of God’s Word would.

Instead, there’s nothing more you could say to persuade me, just as I won’t try to opt for some other source besides Romans to “get through” to you. I won’t point to personal experiences or subjective impressions. All we have is Scripture at the top, the main authority — God’s Word.

Away from overcorrection, toward Biblical balance

What you have likely seen, in our own life or in others, is a tendency to ignore Biblical standards and just listen to any music, see any movie, hang out with any people, whatever. Solid Christians would stand with you in opposing these. I would argue that this and not too-strict standards is the worse problem in Christendom today. More often than having too-low standards for trying to honor God in our choices, professing Christians don’t have their standards high enough.

So again, as Queen Susan said, you’ll get nothing but agreement when you say things like that. Purity, holiness, and doing our best to let our minds be conformed to that of Christ, are clear Scriptural concepts — such as the aforementioned Romans 12: 1-2.

But gray areas that are not illuminated the same for everyone is also a clear Scriptural concept. Without recognizing that, you are doomed to flail into the opposite extreme, from the no-standards extreme to the too-many-standards extreme. When you make the ideal avoiding some extreme rather than focusing on the entirety of God’s Word, Biblical balance, that pendulum swinging will never stop because you’re always trying to correct for some other wrong, rather than focus on what is right — God and His grace, in the blazing center.

I think you’ve tipped your hand that this is the main issue, when you worried that Fencer was calling holiness legalism. Maybe you just need to know Fencer better, even online; he and I have some disagreements, yes, but from what I can tell he’s no antinomian.

Why did you instinctively jump to that conclusion (even if you rightfully changed your mind)?

I suggest that when your basis is “avoid being antinomian” rather than “seek Biblical balance,” any suggestion of legalism may automatically resemble an invitation to go out and party without rules. Similarly, someone whose main basis is “avoid legalism” will get into trouble by having too-low standards of holiness and not seeking to glorify God.

That’s why churches need to teach Romans 12, and Romans 14, passages about being holy as Christ is holy, and passages about how some practices will always be gray areas.

At my church, you cannot even join without undergoing a community training class over about four months. I was pleasantly stunned to find that along with such teachings as Who Christ is, and what we believe about Scripture, they include two lessons for people to understand on two very essential areas of Christian discernment: first, responding Biblically to believers who have different lifestyle practices, and second, how to deal with believers who are clearly in sin. Scripture doesn’t emphasize one over the other. It presents both.

What you’re likely seeing in Christians who don’t care about discernment in their lives is an overreaction to, frankly, your view that doesn’t much acknowledge the very real areas of Christian freedom that Scripture allows in such things like celebrating holidays, eating certain foods, drinking alcohol or music choices. Both extremes have the same problems: they avoid Biblical balance. One side ignores Christian freedom and swings into cultural “fundamentalism”; the other ignores Christian discernment and swings into antinomianism. Based on my observations, the majority of Christendom is in the latter. But you’re leaning to the former.

The dangers of un-spiritual ‘discernment’

Furthermore, upon what can you base such “discernments” of people’s motivations, either in personal conversation or a worship service? I seriously and strongly question the idea that any Christian can discern the thoughts and motivations of people’s hearts. You yourself said “God alone knows the heart” and that you are “fully aware of a self-deceived heart.” Yet without seeing a contradiction you referenced a supposed spiritual gift that grants a believer psychic-like power to “read people's hearts just by observing them and talking to them.”

I hope this is said in all humility in grace: This is spiritually dangerous.

Disclaimer: This is not because I deny in belief or practice the reality of spiritual gifts (not even tongues, for the purpose of this discussion). I am not a “cessationist.” Yes, believers can make discernments about people based on their fruits, but go back and look at the Scriptures:

a) Jesus in Matthew 7 says “By their fruits you shall know them” specifically about false prophets and wolves in sheep’s clothing. Is this really about supposedly special-empowered believers having the ability to “heart-read” anyone else, even a non-false-prophet Christian?

b) If discerning someone’s “fruit” here in practice means external appearance, or one’s perception of “the fruits of the Spirit” — which is in an entirely different Scripture book and context — then cult groups like Mormons would easily pass the “test.” Their “fruits” are excellent: beautiful families, polite demeanors, and socially conservative beliefs.

I agree that some Christians are more gifted in discernment, but this should be based on both primarily written Scriptural standards and the appearance of character and mindful of actions, and done in the context of building up the church. (Again: I am not overcorrecting here; I am saying we need both/and, not either/or.)

That is what Biblical “discerning of spirits” is based upon — comparing someone’s beliefs and actions with the firm and highest standard of Scripture, not just a kind of telepathic emotional “read” of someone, Spirit-gifted or otherwise. You may not have seen this personally, but I have known too many incidences in which someone “spiritually discerned” someone else’s supposed heart attitude or basis of motivations and could not have been more wrong.

I am not saying anyone you know or you have ever done this; I do not know you! But you have left the door wide open to this kind of abuse. If someone were to say to you, “the Spirit told me this” or “I discern that you are a drunkard and a fiend,” how could you respond? Based on what you have said so far, our only recourse would be to say “well, the Spirit told me otherwise” and thus get into a “did not / did too” sort of emotional “debate” that bypasses the Bible and goes nowhere.

Far better, you could point to the written standard for testing “discernments”: compare what the person says with Biblical doctrine that is given to all.

Scriptural truth trumps personal “revelation,” not vice-versa. Every time.

Every time.

This also means that although your below assertion is somewhat true, and Biblically based discernment is important …

It’s that simple! “What goes in is what comes out!”

… Mark 7 reminds us and provides Biblical balance:

And [Jesus] called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

Mark 7: 14-23 (ESV)

Also, the commands to be separate from the world and avoid evil are based not on some subjective impressions of what is evil, or appears to be evil, but what is actually evil, either intrinsically evil (such as idolatry, greed, etc.) or what is personally evil (say, alcohol or music that tempts a person with a history back toward that worldly lifestyle):

Abstain from every form of evil.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 (ESV)

Note this is referring to actual forms of evil, not just some vague “appearance of evil.” One very helpful article notes that reading the KJV’s “appearance of evil” to mean “not only actual evil, but whatever looks evil to someone else, is wrong” is not only a bad reading of the Scripture, but woefully arbitrary and baseless. Worse, it avoids citing a deeper reason for avoiding actual sin even if such a reason does exist!

When a teenager asks what is wrong with going to the public beach, what do you tell them? You could tell them this practice "appears" evil in the sight of some and therefore they can't go. But friend, parading around half-naked at the beach is not wrong simply because it "appears" evil to someone else. It is wrong because of what the Lord taught on modesty (1 Timothy 2:9). It takes more time to explain what modest apparel is and how when a man "looks at a woman to lust for her (he) has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). Sometimes parents are too embarrassed to explain the affect our clothing (or lack thereof) might have on members of the opposite sex. So, instead of explaining lasciviousness and lust to their teenagers, they will talk about the "appearance" of evil. It usually does not take a teenager long to see through the diversion -- they quickly see that the "appearance of evil" standard is arbitrary at best.

Wrapping up, for now

And now, this is the part where I say that until one recognizes and personally applies the Biblical balance of Romans 14, there’s not much point in continuing this line of discussion. Maybe now I can start talking about women in church, complementarianism, and those tough passages of Paul’s about braided hair, being silent in church and the infamous head coverings.

220, I wish you God’s grace and truth as you’re still reading through this stuff, doing some thinking, and (I hope) not feeling outnumbered — or worse, persecuted for righteousness’ sake (as opposed to being contradicted because of bypassing Scriptural balance). Here’s hoping and praying, too, that everything said here is done in a winsome and God-glorifying manner, firm when necessary but also gracious — which I must admit is too often lacking in Christian debates.

That is what Biblical “discerning of spirits” is based upon — comparing someone’s beliefs and actions with the firm and highest standard of Scripture, not just a kind of telepathic emotional “read” of someone, Spirit-gifted or otherwise. You may not have seen this personally, but I have known too many incidences in which someone “spiritually discerned” someone else’s supposed heart attitude or basis of motivations and could not have been more wrong.

Thank you, Dr. R. I had a feeling you'd say something about this.

I haven't time for a full answer, especially on the subject of description vs. prescription as I read it in 220's post above, but wanted to confirm what you said as biblical as well as kind, and also to make a few random points...

During this last mess at church many, many people allegedly judged my heart by my actions and by the spin they put on my own words. (I say allegedly, because STILL no one has come directly to me to Scripturally deal with their offenses against me. I only know of these things because right or wrong, my pastor and a few other people reported those things to me.)

They couldn't be more wrong. I thought I was doing my job by singing special music when no one else wanted to do it: they thought I was grandstanding. I thought I was helping us keep a biblical standard by publishing the brochure: they thought I was being exclusionist. I thought I was helping the choir enjoy their music more and communicate a clear gospel message in song at an ever higher standard of performance: they thought I was being a know-it-all and trampling on their right to sit anywhere they wanted to in the auditorium.

I don't buy that "gift of discernment" means a telepathic ability to tell whether a person is a "goodie" or a "baddie". I think Scripture supports that discernment is as defined by our good Dr. R., who has also been a victim of this supposed "gift", I might add (though he is too kind to mention it).

I strongly desire to come back and address 220's post and some things fencer said also, but family, school, work, and recital have to take precedence just now. Know I am reading and praying for this discussion to continue in a biblical manner. So refreshing to have a place to come and discuss without getting cussed, lol!

mm

I think you’ve tipped your hand that this is the main issue, when you worried that Fencer was calling holiness legalism. Maybe you just need to know Fencer better, even online; he and I have some disagreements, yes, but from what I can tell he’s no antinomian. Why did you instinctively jump to that conclusion (even if you rightfully changed your mind)?

I don't think Fencer is an antinomian either. So I was surprised when I first read his post from yesterday [Monday?] that "the point of that story is not we should have their convictions." I didn't know if I'd read the paragraph too fast and missed the sentences following it, or if he'd edited the post. I was confused.

I seriously and strongly question the idea that any Christian can discern the thoughts and motivations of people’s hearts. You yourself said “God alone knows the heart” and that you are “fully aware of a self-deceived heart.” Yet without seeing a contradiction you referenced a supposed spiritual gift that grants a believer psychic-like power to “read people's hearts just by observing them and talking to them.” . . . That is what Biblical “discerning of spirits” is based upon — comparing someone’s beliefs and actions with the firm and highest standard of Scripture, not just a kind of telepathic emotional “read” of someone, Spirit-gifted or otherwise.

I don't think just any Christian can discern others' hearts either. But I think more Christians should have spiritual discernment. Yes, God alone knows the heart but He can reveal to us the thoughts and motivations of others' hearts, through the Spirit and through the Word, via mouths and fruit--both "the works of the flesh" [Gal 5:19-21] and "the fruit of the Spirit" [Gal 5:22-23]. It's not "psychic-like power" or a "telepathic emotional 'read' of someone." It's a very real gift of the Spirit. And as you mentioned, it is for discerning false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing, as well as people who are demon-possessed. Here are some biblical examples [NKJV].

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him. Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?” She said, “Yes, for so much.” Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband.

“You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers, who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it.”

And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, “Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”
But Peter said to him, “Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money! You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity.” Then Simon answered and said, “Pray to the Lord for me, that none of the things which you have spoken may come upon me.”

Now when they had gone through the island to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew whose name was Bar-Jesus, who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man. This man called for Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. But Elymas the sorcerer (for so his name is translated) withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. Then Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him and said, “O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord? And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time.” And immediately a dark mist fell on him, and he went around seeking someone to lead him by the hand. Then the proconsul believed, when he saw what had been done, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord.

Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling. This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, “These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.” And this she did for many days. But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And he came out that very hour.

I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church. Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God.

How did these people discern others' hearts? Spirit, Word, mouths, fruit [in any order]. Over the past 40 years, my mother has frequently discerned both false prophets--wolves in sheep's clothing--and people who are demon-possessed. And she is RARELY wrong, even if it takes 5, 10, 20 years for the person's heart to be made manifest for others to see. There have been times in the past when I'd like a singer or preacher, or think they were "okay" spiritually, but my mother would say "no." And eventually, she was right. The person's heart was revealed.

It’s that simple! “What goes in is what comes out!”

… Mark 7 reminds us and provides Biblical balance:

And [Jesus] called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” Mark 7: 14-23 (ESV)

When I said "what goes in is what comes out," I was not referring to physical food. I was referring to outside influences--cultural, emotional, spiritual, etc. I believe our hearts dictate what we feed on [in a metaphorical sense]. Our hearts drive us toward ___. And what we feed on influences our thoughts. After that, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him" [Mark 7]. It begins with the heart, not the mind. But it also begins with what we feed on, not our thoughts--evil or good. Spiritual food, whether good or bad, produces those thoughts.

And I do think you've missed the point of Daniel: the point of Daniel is that even in the midst of trouble, God is faithful and will preserve His people. It's about God keeping his covenant promises.

I didn't miss the point of Daniel. The book has many themes, just like all the other books. And I'm not convinced any of these themes has precedence. #1-3: remember Esther?
1. God's faithfulness to Israel
2. Some people's faithfulness to God, in the midst of national infidelity
3. Spiritual separation [instead of conformity]
4. God's use of Daniel and others as witnesses of Him in the midst of a heathen culture, prophetic of NT message of the gospel for Gentiles as well as Jews.
5. Prophecy

Paul clearly had no problem with people eating meat sacrificed to idols--why should we have a problem with listening to certain artists?

But you completely bypassed the clear meaning of Romans 14 — that meat sacrificed to idols is not an either-it’s-right-or-it’s-wrong issue. Instead, you sidetracked into other Scriptures, and dodged Romans 14.

I didn't intend to bypass the meaning of Romans 14. But I didn't "sidetrack[] into other Scriptures" either. Yes, the spirit of Romans 14 is Christian liberty. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty" [2 Cor 3]. But I also think there's nothing wrong with learning what the entire Bible says about the topic of idolatry, and about food offered to idols. It is relevant. I call it comparing scripture with scripture. But I have to do it on two topics: idols and Christian liberty, yes? And, TBG, you're right that Paul didn't have a problem with others "eating meat sacrificed to idols." But some did. Paul acknowledged that [14:2, 14-15, 22-23] and respected their consciences. I quoted an example Sunday of some African Christians refusing to use drums in their services because the instrument reminded them of heathen dances. But Christians in other parts of Africa had no problem with using them. I think the same principle applies.

I just want to say this. How many of us have seriously evaluated the cultural influences in our lives? Music, books, movies, TV, friends, etc? I can't force my musical choices on others and they can't force theirs on me. But we can't think everything is okay either. We must have discernment. We must pray for spiritual enlightenment. For it is the Spirit who helps us discern good and bad, better and worse, in the grey areas. I made the mistake of not evaluating the cultural influences in my life, of not having discernment. But God graciously woke me up. And as a result, I gave away some CDs I once listened to, and some books I once read or wanted to read. I stopped watching some shows on TV, and some movies I once liked. I became much more discerning when I walked into bookstores and video stores. Things I might have picked up and given a second glance, or even bought, I no longer did. My interests changed.

Prophetesses in the Bible: I missed one!

On the next day we who were Paul’s companions departed and came to Caesarea, and entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. Now this man had four virgin daughters who prophesied.

1 Corinthians 11:4-5, 13, Amplified Bible:

Any man who prays or prophesies (teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, and comforts) with his head covered dishonors his Head (Christ). And any woman who [publicly] prays or prophesies (teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, or comforts) when she is bareheaded dishonors her head (her husband); it is the same as [if her head were] shaved. . . .Consider for yourselves; is it proper and decent [according to your customs] for a woman to offer prayer to God [publicly] with her head uncovered?

Isn't this a direct contradiction to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?

The women should keep quiet in the churches, for they are not authorized to speak, but should take a secondary and subordinate place, just as the Law also says. But if there is anything they want to learn, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to talk in church for her to usurp and exercise authority over men in the church].

I have nothing to say about 'spiritual discernment' except that all the people I know who think they have it are a pain to be around--always misreading between the lines.

How do we decide what is good and what is bad? Fruit.

Hurrah! One amendment to that and I think we'll be on the same page.

That amendment is: what brings forth good fruit in one may bring forth bad in another, and what brings for bad in one may bring forth good in another.

Charles spurgeon wrote,

What, for some, is sin, others do to the glory of God. And the good Dr. Pentecost's remarks notwithstanding, I intend to go home tonight and smoke a cigar to the glory of God. It is a kind of incense drifting to Heaven.

Not that I condone smoking, of course.

Just a few clarifications, 220.

First, if you misread anything else in my post of this morning, I almost don't care -- but don't miss the Romans 14 stuff. It must not be missed.

Also, please don't miss the encouragements to maintain Biblical balance, not just fear of being either antinomian or legalistic. Fearing one merely leads to the other, and Christ is not glorified in that.

Balancing both issues of personal conviction and across-the-board sins is the entirety of Scripture. Again, you'll find nothing but agreement for your encouragements to compare everything in our lives to Scripture!

When I said "what goes in is what comes out," I was not referring to physical food.

Neither was Jesus. He used food as a metaphor. The passage relates (check the context). Too many Christians seem to assume that this is where sin comes from. I have seen many homeschooling families who in the name of "purity" withhold all kinds of bad "food" and then find out years later that the sin was within, and craving to get out all along.

That is yet another reason why Biblical balance here is so vital! Yes, Biblically based discernment of media choices is vital, but in the past you have equated what seems your own personal opinions with what is Biblical. Proving that we must be Biblically discerning does not prove one's personal discernments at the same time (such as that certain music genres are not useful for worship). Furthermore, there's no response to be made when someone does the same thing for you. 220, you ought not use Celtic music in worship; it was developed by pagans and is certainly not something God likes. That's why Paul put Romans 14 in there.

I think at the heart you have the right idea about discernment and can defend it well, but are misreading any objection to your blanket statements about whether something is "wrong" by claiming some kind of subjective standard. No one here is claiming we should have no standards. The rebuttal saying anything to that effect is thus unnecessary (though I am not saying this truth can just be assumed). Perhaps, seeing as how the discussion keeps circling, we might move on.

Yes, God alone knows the heart but He can reveal to us the thoughts and motivations of others' hearts

Scripture reference, perchance? What you cited are only examples of the Apostles, in the apostolic age, receiving special revelation from the Spirit about someone's motivation. (Reference: yesterday's post about proscriptive narrative versus descriptive narrative.) No proscriptive Scripture says that other Christians will be able to do what they did.

Again, discernment is based on the Word of God, not an inner subjective sense. Inner senses can exist, and I have a few of those myself. Those come from familiarity with Scripture and what it says, not some kind of special "psychic"-style gift to read people as you've described. I won't make judgments about people I don't know -- including anyone's mom, for sure! -- but while she may have a good track record, others do not. And when they're convinced their "misreading between the lines" can't be wrong, as Gladius said, the body is not edified and Christ is not glorified. We must compare everything with Scripture -- including the fact that only God knows hearts and our hearts are too often deceived about others' behaviors and motivations.

Just a few quick thoughts before I leave...

What brings forth good fruit in one may bring forth bad in another, and what brings for bad in one may bring forth good in another. Charles Spurgeon wrote,

What, for some, is sin, others do to the glory of God. And the good Dr. Pentecost's remarks notwithstanding, I intend to go home tonight and smoke a cigar to the glory of God. It is a kind of incense drifting to Heaven.

Not that I condone smoking, of course.

You know what verse came to my mind when I first read this? Titus 1 "Unto the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled" [KJV]. So I think you made an excellent observation. But there's a limit, namely what's black and white. Some things are good for all and some are bad for all. Some things produce good fruit in no one.

My Bible takes me from Titus to 1 Corinthians 6 "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." And 1 Corinthians 10:23 ends, "all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." All things are lawful. But not all things edify. This is where the Holy Spirit comes in! He helps us understand [discern] what edifies and what doesn't in the grey areas.

By the way, Spurgeon finally gave up his cigar [didn't he also smoke a pipe? ] to avoid offending his congregation. Or was that his critics?

Scripture reference, perchance? What you cited are only examples of the Apostles, in the apostolic age, receiving special revelation from the Spirit about someone's motivation. (Reference: yesterday's post about proscriptive narrative versus descriptive narrative.) No proscriptive Scripture says that other Christians will be able to do what they did.

I disagree. Spiritual discernment is apostolic "special revelation"? When tongues and prophecy aren't? And I didn't even give any OT examples! The Holy Spirit gives us discernment...

220, the bait-and-switch becomes a bit wearying. Maybe making my posts shorter and more focused may help?

Given: spiritual discernment is a Biblical concept.

Not a given: your understanding of spiritual discernment, a la a "heart reading" gift of some kind, is a Biblical concept.

The two definitions are not the same.

What I am not saying: I oppose the idea of spiritual discernment.

What I am saying: I oppose, and Scripture does not prove, that any Christian can have a special "gift" to read someone's heart or motivations. I have seen this wrongfully done too many times and based in little but someone's emotional opinion. Without basis in Scripture, and Scripture alone, this will be a disaster in too many cases (though not necessarily in yours).

As I said, the "usual" response simply won't work here because the opposing view is not "we shouldn't discern at all," but rather "we should discern only with Biblically based discernment." Where you apparently see only two alternatives, and seem to react as if anyone opposing your view is swinging to the opposite extreme, there is in fact a third choice, right in the middle: Biblical balance, not ignoring actual evil, but recognizing that sometimes we can misperceive the motivations of others.

You still haven't explained how you can reason with someone who argues that "the Spirit told me this music is wrong." And some people say the same sort of thing about The Chronicles of Narnia. I'm sure you wouldn't, but don't you see that this places you in the exact same position as a Christian who's trying to defend how a rap or contemporary style of worship is actually fine to use in worship or even entertainment?

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. Perhaps someone else can help clarify? In the meantime, I'm heading off to dinner and then bed!