Jesus Creed

Jesus Creed


Willow’s Dangerous Women

posted by xscot mcknight

Gene Appel’s sermon at Willow last night was a thorough defense of women in ministry and I thought it was fantastic. The talk combined three themes: Mother’s Day, The DaVinci Code’s theory that women threaten the Church, and the ministry of women in the current churches.
The sermon finished with all the women standing and reciting the ending to Lynne Hybels’ book, Nice Girls Don’t Change the World, in which she calls women to become “dangerous” women — women who show up with everything they’ve got and are and who join the battle against whatever opposes the will of God. Just in case you’d like to know, “dangerous” contrasts with “nice” and “nice” means happy little girls who do not accomplish all God has designed for them. Here’s a sampling from her book:
May we be dangerous women.
May we be women who acknowledge our power to change, and grow, and be radically alive for God.
May we cherish children, embrace the elderly, and empower the poor.
May we be strong and gentle leaders.
May we overflow with goodness in the name of God and by the power of Jesus. And in that name, and by that power, may we change the world.
Dear God, Please make us dangerous women. Amen.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(44)
post a comment
Julie

posted May 15, 2006 at 6:32 am


Do you have a link for that sermon, Scot?



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted May 15, 2006 at 7:11 am


Julie,
Willow does not, so far as I know, podcast sermons. But the sermons are available on CD and can purchased through Seeds, their bookstore. I think it is worth it, and frankly I was glad to see such a bold statement.



report abuse
 

Julie

posted May 15, 2006 at 7:17 am


Thanks Scot.
Do they express a position on women as pastors? I haven’t known how they resolved that one, though I have known that women are much more a part of leadership at Willow itself than lots of evangelical churches.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted May 15, 2006 at 7:33 am


Julie,
You might be asking for more than I know. I’m not sure about the word “pastor” but the focus was on “ministry” and “leadership.” They’ve always had women elders. They have women teachers, and Gene made a point that if Paul permitted women to be “prophets” then they were all one in Christ. Something along that line.
Others may know if there is something technical going on here.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted May 15, 2006 at 7:35 am


A significant person shaping the discussion and policies at Willow is G. Bilezikian, who was Bill Hybels’ college teacher and then later a professor at Wheaton. Bilezikian’s book Beyond Sex Roles (?title) brought this issue more into the open for evangelicals, and it drew the response of many, and in some ways got Wayne Grudem into the discussion.



report abuse
 

Julie

posted May 15, 2006 at 7:36 am


Cool. Thanks for the follow-ups. I appreciate it. :)



report abuse
 

Becky

posted May 15, 2006 at 3:16 pm


A friend from out of state was visiting last summer, and was reading a book of similar theme, only for men – that somehow the idea has become that christian men are nice, and nice hasn’t much backbone. Perhaps poor choice of words, so please overlook if I haven’t presented it at it’s best.



report abuse
 

Jackson

posted May 15, 2006 at 5:34 pm


I’m a seminary student and just did an exegesis paper on 1 Tim 2:11-15, where Paul says “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man,” etc. In studying up for the paper I read “Beyond Sex Roles” by Bilezikian. I wanted to be convinced by his arguments but I couldn’t.
For example, Dr. B thinks that in 1 Tim 2:13-15 when Paul mentions Eve, he uses her as an example of someone who is “unprepared,” not someone who is a woman. He says that Eve was “unprepared” because she didn’t receive the instruction from God regarding the tree in the Garden, only Adam did. Therefore when she ate of the tree and influenced Adam to do so it was as an unprepared person. So Dr. B says that in 1 Tim 2 Paul is saying that “unprepared” people should not teach, an is in fact saying nothing about “women.” I found his argument there pretty unconvincing. I wanted to agree with him but I found his arguments often spurious and I think he pretty dramatically overstated his case. He even went so far as to say that if you don’t allow women to teach you are succumbing to the culture, and placing the locus of authority on the teacher instead of the Bible, something you clearly shouldn’t do.
The issue of women in ministry is larger than that one passage…but I think Dr. B’s whole women-in-ministry argument is a bit questionable. Anyway I don’t want to open up this huge can of worms or anything, I just thought I’d offer my 0.02 as someone who recently read Bilezikian’s book.



report abuse
 

Kim

posted May 15, 2006 at 6:44 pm


Willow’s statement on women in ministry can be found here. I find it pretty persuasive.



report abuse
 

Jackson

posted May 15, 2006 at 7:43 pm


Yeah, I looked at that. It’s based largely around Bilezikian’s arguments/thinking, so if you don’t find Bilezikian persuasiave you probably won’t find that persuasive either.



report abuse
 

Clint Walker

posted May 15, 2006 at 7:57 pm


Thanks for sharing about this.



report abuse
 

Julie

posted May 15, 2006 at 8:17 pm


Thanks for charing that pdf of the statement about women.



report abuse
 

Makeesha

posted May 15, 2006 at 10:48 pm


Jackson: if you look under the women tag here on this blog you will find some extensive and long comment discussions about this issue. Most of us are probably going to be hesitant to engage in debate again.
B’s support for his position sounds very much like Witherington’s. He has a couple of really good discussions on his blog if you want to see a dialogue about it.
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/02/literal-renderings-of-texts-of.html is one and you can do a search for 1 tim or other related tags to find others.
My feeling on the issue is that a person will be “convinced” based on the extent of their cultural conditioning and how firm they are on their particular point of view. Any position is possible, the plausibility of one or the other depends on the lense through which you view the argument.
Scot – I think that is such a great affirmation of women and an awesome topic for mother’s day.



report abuse
 

Christoph

posted May 15, 2006 at 11:49 pm


The Willow statement is really just the typical egalitarian interpretation of all other passages via the lens of a particular interpretation of Galatians 3:28 as dealing with something to do with hierarchies. The passage in context of course has nothing to do with that and therefore, with the premise destroyed, the whole interpretive lens collapses. But in the end, Makeesha is right about one thing: if you want the Bible to say something, you will never allow it to say another.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted May 15, 2006 at 11:58 pm


Christoph,
It does very little good to dismiss a view with a stereotype, and only invites others to do the same with you. The purpose of this post, however, was not to engage in debate about the propriety but simply to report the service.



report abuse
 

Jackson

posted May 16, 2006 at 12:52 am


Makeesha, I wasn’t trying to start an argument. And of course after reading the thread you linked me to I can pretty much assume that’s how most of the conversations on this topic go. Like most “arguing” on the internet it’s largely pointless.
I approached my paper without a previous viewpoint. The church I attend is Egalitarian and I was actually thinking I’d find a satisfactory Egalitarian interpretation of 1 Timothy 2. So not everyone is preaching to their own choir.
I do know that people on each side love the Lord and I wouldn’t accuse them of disrespecting Scripture. It’s a difficult issue and very emotionally charged. In the end I think each church/congregation has to make up their own mind on how to deal with it. It’s not something I think we should be splitting up churches over. I mean, I work at an Egalitarian church and I may disagree with my pastors over this issue but I love our church and I don’t think we should fight about this with venom.
We should fight about important things like whether we should use guitars in church or just pianos! ;)



report abuse
 

Christoph

posted May 16, 2006 at 12:54 am


Scot, when you applaud it, you are taking a position on the subject that will then have others view it skeptically. I dismiss the idea that Gal 3:28 is dealing with an issue of hierarchy, rather than a fellowship/communion/acceptance issue based on the Gospel, which is the entire context of Galatians. It has nothing to do with hierarchy as though no elders will have authority, no apostles have authority, slaves can now have authority over masters, etc. That interpretation doesn’t fly unless one really wants it to do so. Since Willow puts its hope in viewing all other passages through that interpretation of Galatians 3:28, the conclusions built from that premise logically fall. That’s not a casual dismissal anymore than someone pointing out any overextended use of a passage. It’s just calling out an abuse by people or groups who want the Scripture to say something that it never really meant to say. Gal 3:28 is talking about one sphere being addressed. Willow is placing it in another.



report abuse
 

Abiding

posted May 16, 2006 at 12:55 am


I had a friend who was a female “Pastor” at willow.



report abuse
 

Brian

posted May 16, 2006 at 6:24 am


Nothing against Willow Creek (or similar congregations) but this is just one more reason why evangelical/neo-evangelical/emerging communions will not be taken seriously as dialogue partners with those in the catholic tradition.



report abuse
 

Makeesha

posted May 16, 2006 at 8:06 am


Brian – I don’t understand. Are you saying that because Catholics aren’t egalitarian that we can’t dialogue? That’s a very sad commentary if that’s true.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted May 16, 2006 at 8:12 am


Brian,
Cutting off conversation because you think the RCC is absolutely right and that the encouragement of women in ministry is singularly small-minded. The Church had women in major positions of leadership very early on, and I’m thinking of Macrina (in the East) and Scholastica (in Italy).
I don’t think it helps much either to be so dismissive with your labels: evangelical is not the same as neo-evangelical (whatever you might mean by that) and emerging.



report abuse
 

Brian

posted May 16, 2006 at 10:42 am


Thanks for the replies, #20 & #21.
I should be more clear on my end. Sorry about that. I don’t mean that dialogue can’t happen between the Orthodox and Catholics (that’s what I meant by ‘catholic’) with egalitarian evangelicals (be they emerging or of another label). I only meant to imply that it can ultimately result in nothing much. In other words, dialogue is about the only thing that can result. There will not be, or rather cannot be, union with others who jettison catholicity. This is the same reason that dialogue with Anglicans with Catholics and Orthodox will go nowhere. I wasn’t picking out evangelicals, by the way.
Really, as it see it, and I think both the catholic West and catholic East has seen it this way also, is that the issue of “women’s ordination” is not a practical ministry question but rather of Trinitarian and Christological nature.



report abuse
 

Makeesha

posted May 16, 2006 at 11:22 am


brian – I think we must disagree about the “goal” of dialogue. If by dialogue you mean to come to some sort of consensus I would disagree with your definition. To me, to respectfully discuss an issue, sharing our point of view, finding the common ground, etc…that is very productive by way of creating unity of spirit. Just because we disagree on whether or not women can be ordained does not mean we cannot have positive and productive dialogue.
My husband and i have a very good friend who was my husband’s mentor in college. She is a RC nun running a mission hospital in Africa ** side note: interesting that she can run a hospital and order men around there but can’t administer the sacriments..but as you say, with the RCC and EOC it has more to do with Cristology and Trinitarian theology than authority.** Anyway, she is an amazing woman and has the utmost respect for me even though I am in a position of leadership in our church. We have great dialogue about many issues on which we will likely never come to consensus, but the more we dialogue, the more empathic I become and the more unified we are.
I think your view of dialogue can be very destructive to the communiton of the saints.



report abuse
 

Makeesha

posted May 16, 2006 at 11:23 am


typo correction: ..communion of the saints.



report abuse
 

Brian

posted May 16, 2006 at 12:06 pm


Don’t misunderstand me: dialogue is good and needed. However, talk at some point needs to be called what it is, mere talk. The hope of dialogue is understanding with the goal of union (trying to put the words of our Lord in Jn 17 into practice) otherwise dialogue turn into simply an intellectual swapping of ideas or opinions.
My point is this. When something as fundamental as the catholic (little ‘c’) apostolic ministry is rejected, the only thing that can happen is dialogue as understood as the exchange of ideas.



report abuse
 

Makeesha

posted May 16, 2006 at 12:14 pm


I don’t consider talk ever just “simple talk”.



report abuse
 

Julie

posted May 16, 2006 at 12:52 pm


Brian, do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that because dialog between catholics and evangelicals(as you define it) can’t be achieved if women are in pastoral ministry, we should continue to see women as not qualified scripturally to be in the pastorate? That keeping dialog open is more important than reconsidering this issue?



report abuse
 

Becky

posted May 16, 2006 at 1:25 pm


Brian, can there be union if I practice different than you, but I have the utmost respect for you ? If talk achieves this, then I think the prayer of Jesus for union is achieved.



report abuse
 

Becky

posted May 16, 2006 at 1:31 pm


Christoph, per your statement “It’s just calling out an abuse by people or groups who want the Scripture to say something that it never really meant to say.” That argument is brought out often to defend many views. Those who hold a view different than yours, could say the same about how you are reading scripture.



report abuse
 

Christoph

posted May 16, 2006 at 7:01 pm


Becky, I only stated Gal 3:28′s contextual meaning. I gave no interpretation for either side here. Many could say that then of my interpretations, but I would like them to show it as I at least briefly did. In any case, the “I know you are, but what am I” type of argumentation needs to go. It is simply not productive to learning anything.
Julie, I think Brian is trying to point out that catholicity accepts the collective interpretation of passages and to “rethink” it is to automatically reject the catholic viewpoint when it comes to interpretation. I don’t know if that is what he was getting at, but I would second that in any case.



report abuse
 

Becky

posted May 16, 2006 at 9:09 pm


Christoph, per 30, I wasn’t commenting on your interpretation of the Galatians verse. You lost me with “the “I know you are, but what am I” type of argumentation needs to go.” I don’t know if you are saying that’s where I’m coming from, or who. My observation was toward using terms like “the Bible *clearly* says,” or “having scripture say something other than it does,” and such. I have heard many people, holding a thought-out, sincere idea of something the Bible says, but differing in interpretation, try to use those words to defend what they believe. Bottom line is, as I see it, there are many things sincere christians differ on. Personally, on my better days, I don’t like proposing I have read it more correctly. I wll agree to disagree, but I won’t assume others are more misled than me.



report abuse
 

Julie

posted May 16, 2006 at 9:17 pm


Christoph, what do you mean by collective interpretation? Are you referring to the RCC (as authoritative for the Church) or are you meaning small “c” as in church universal? If the latter, there isn’t any collective interpreting going on that I can tell. It appears to me that each denomination/expression of Christian faith nuances the faith according to their criteria and often will defend that view as “truly true.”
If by “collective,” you mean “traditional interpretation” or “majority interpretation,” I’d say that limiting dialog to shared interpretations misses the intended goal of dialog. Dialog is about mutual sharing and learning. We gain nothing if we talk about what we agree on. We gain something when we discuss the whys and wherefores of our difference and attempt to stand in the shoes of the one with whom we disagree.
Julie



report abuse
 

Christoph

posted May 16, 2006 at 9:24 pm


Becky, I think the more uninformed someone is about contextual issues, language, etc. the more it seems that everybody has equally valid interpretations. Therefore, who are we to say others are wrong when it seems no one really knows (kind of the postmodern idea of knowledge that is continually expounded here). I was once like this. I remember learning first year Greek and just thinking that maybe there is no way to know the truth of what a particular passage is saying. BUT I then learned linguistics and what you can and cannot do with background info. I learned how to read texts as continuous units rather than broken up statements of theology. I learned advanced Greek grammar and syntax (and how to evaluate the grammar books themselves). When I learned how to evaluate interpretations, I suddenly learned that not all interpretations are valid, and that it is possible to come to a most probable conclusion. I then hold the historic Church to have some sway and it gives boldness to an exegetical position when backed up by such a collective voice. All this to say, I don’t think it is a matter of everyone is sincere and has convincing arguments to their crowd. I think on issues like this it is often a matter of those who want the text to say something that it doesn’t say—especially so when once the simple context is pointed out, no one wants to admit that it is being overextended to fit a completely different issue than the original one. That’s just a contextual fact. Anyone who honestly reads the context and understands the issue at hand in Galatians will see that the text is not talking about doing away with all hierarchy in the Church. I’m sorry if that sounds too certain for the postmodern crowd, but I see lack of certainty on major issues like this as either lack of understanding or disobedience. It’s unfortunate that we are now being urged to live a life of doubt and uncertainty when the Scripture calls us to faith and boldness.



report abuse
 

Christoph

posted May 16, 2006 at 9:36 pm


Julie, I think dialogue is great (obviously I’m doing it), but if we do not at least share the same source of authority upon which we believe and through which we see all things, then dialogue (as Brian said) only remains talk and never unity. I think dialogue should have a goal of unity in the truth. I don’t think unity is simply getting along or diminishing the faith to a small snipet about Jesus that has no implications on how the whole Church should then see all issues.
So if someone bases their outlook in the authority of Scripture as it is interpreted by the Church, then he or she will never agree with one who bases their outlook on their contemporary experiences and worldview. I think dialogue is still good for other reasons, but without the same basis of authority, it will eventually lead to further division as people solidify their positons in what “side” they are on, and people dig their feet deeply in.



report abuse
 

Becky

posted May 16, 2006 at 9:57 pm


Christoph, per 33 (I think that’s what it is as the first number is in the dark part and I can’t accurately read it.) What you put forth here, I’ve heard almost the same from a person in our church who has his doctorate from a seminary. I still look at the history of christianity, or even from the 1900′s, and the differing views. So I assume there are some things in the Bible that must not be so clear as some think they are, if we’ve had people through the ages disagree on it.
On my better days, I don’t much like labeling. So, I don’t see a pot called Postmodern and think I see what all it constitutes. I will talk about ideas that have been brought up.
That said, the double side of life remains – we are imperfect, our knowledge is imperfect; the make-up of what makes me, me, and you, you and them, them, influences what becomes important platforms for each of us, important things to believe. That’s not the end of it there, but that is one side that is reality. Imperfectly: that implies as well, that there’s a glimmer of truth by the Holy Spirit in it too. I think there are some crucial biblical issues we can not be wobbly on. But I think there are many others we can agree to disagree on. Or as I heard at L’Abri a lot : “it’s not biblical, but it’s not unbliblical.”



report abuse
 

Christoph

posted May 16, 2006 at 11:24 pm


Then I guess I would have to ask, Becky, who decides what issues are so important that we cannot wobble on them? Isn’t that a matter of interpretation as well? I totally agree with you that we cannot know all things or know anything perfectly, but knowing sufficiently an issue that the Bible teaches and the Church confirms is another matter.
If the Church in the 19th Cent had submitted itself more to its Fathers, there would not have been as many disagreements nor as many cults that popped up, not to mention the modernism that poured into Biblical interpretation both from Fundamentalist/Dispensationalists and Liberals. The unity that the Lord prayed for is accomplished through the Word by which we are sanctified and the Church which He established. Any other way has lead us to disunity or false unity, so I really see the Church as needing to set the agenda for what is important and what is not. Otherwise we are left to whatever we feel is relevant, which is largely based on whatever our culture thinks is relevant (with us taking either a pro or con position with these issues), and all else is dumped into the “not as important” category.
If something is really neither biblical nor unbiblical, I don’t think that would fall into the category of issues I would be talking about.



report abuse
 

Brian

posted May 16, 2006 at 11:42 pm


Julie (post #27),
What I mean is that endless dialogue is the only achievement that can result between the catholic tradition (Orthodox and Catholics) and certain evangelicals/Protestants (those who ordain women). Why? Simply because the ordination of women is not part of the apostolic and catholic tradition that cannot be dispensed with. Such a fundamental misunderstanding of the church (and the ordination of women is not only a Trinitarian/Christological issue but also one of ecclesiology), upon which in part truth stands, prohibits those who hold it from participating in this catholicity. This is the same as any other abberant or heterodox dontrine that is held. It must be rejected in order to be placed in the fold. In a certain sense, changing from heterodox doctrine to orthodoxy is achieved in an easier fashion since it requires a change in thought and heart, whereas the practice of women ordinands in the ministry requires not only a change in doctrine but also a reworking of the fundamental structure of the ministry.
I’ve been thinking about this lately, and also the general Protestant (be it liberal, conservative, emerging, evangelical, etc) way of doing theology and this problem gets in the way: for Protestants, the local congregation precedes the church and for those in the catholic tradition the church precedes the local congregation. Therefore, in the Protestant way of doing things as I understand it, you can live liturgically and think theologically without any regard for the greater body, both geographically and in time.
I guess what I’m trying to say in this later part is that the Church simply doesn’t have the authority to ordain women. This, however, is getting into those Trinitatrian and ecclesiastical arguments.
[By the way, thanks to Scot McKnight for the place to exchange thoughts here. Bulletin boards and the like are often hard places to ascertain the tone of ones dialogue partner. I hope my words are civil and I mean no ill will towards those who disagree. Thanks.]



report abuse
 

Brian

posted May 16, 2006 at 11:58 pm


can there be union if I practice different than you, but I have the utmost respect for you ? If talk achieves this, then I think the prayer of Jesus for union is achieved.
Becky (post #28)
Let me say this before I answer that. And again, thanks for the patience of the host. I don’t want to nor is it my intent to turn this discussion into what *I* think.
Anyway, let me say this. In some sense all those who are united to Jesus in his life, death, and resurrection, through their baptism, have union with each other. Even if in this life its imperfect.
Now to the negative part ;-)
Jesus prayed that we may all be one, not merely to respect each other in our differences. I have a gut feeling that when Protestants read that in Jn 17 they know what it means and that it means more than some mystical lowest-common -denominator type of union. This union is to be lived out organically in confession (doctrine), liturgy, and life. This is why, in the catholic tradition, the Eucharistic meal is often called the communion meal. I know that some Protestants and evangelicals use this language but intend with it a type of vertical meaning (“communing with the Lord” or what not). In the greater catholic tradition this communion intends a horizontal idea. This is why the Lord’s Supper is both the culmination of union and the supreme symbol or token of unity. Contrast this with groups who share the meal but have nothing in common. In other words, the meal is the ending point of unity not the beginning.



report abuse
 

Andy Cornett

posted May 17, 2006 at 5:50 am


Brian in #38: you wrote: “In some sense all those who are united to Jesus in his life, death, and resurrection, through their baptism, have union with each other.”
What if that is the more fundamental part of union? As far as I have understood it, the root of our communion with other another is our common union with Christ – much more than a common toeing the line on all matters of doctrine, liturgy, practice and life. That we are united wtih him in death, in resurrection – so I no longer live, but Christ lives in me, and one day I will be united with him in glory. And if Christ is our brother, captain king – that is were our union with one another comes. There I am with you: Communion is not just a vertical lowest-common-denominator thing, but a celebration of our unity with Christ and with one another in and through Christ.
I’m fumbling in saying this, but what if our unity as a body of believers is more a God-created, Spirit-initiated reality than a “something out there” that we have to forge together by being all of the same mind about everything? Calvin was cleary united with the one true church even though he railed against some doctrines and practices: he viewed the essentials of the gospel (the most important things) as belonging to the whole church and theological matters on which there must be fundamental agreement. This side of paradise our practical unity is never going to be fully realized – but it remains something for us to live into, rather than create. And here I agree that the fundnamental separation (obstacle?) now between Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant is at the level of ecclesiology. peace -



report abuse
 

Julie

posted May 17, 2006 at 8:59 am


Hi Brian.
Your tone came across charitably in case you were worried. :)
I think the word “dialog” as you are using it and as Christoph used it is different than the uses I’m familiar with in the academy. The goal of dialog isn’t to harmonize or unify, but to expose and grasp another’s viewpoint. Each participant is there to offer a firsthand perspective of why the faith (or universe) makes sense from his or her perspective and to gain a more profound understanding of the interior logic of that position even if you disagree with its conclusions.
Some dialog is aimed at common ground (particularly when an issue is on the table). So the world’s religions may dialog about a stance related to war or famine or AIDS in Africa or the conflicts between religions in regions like India or the Middle East or something of that order.
Dialog within Christianity, to my way of thinking and from my understanding, is not to promote uniformity of theology or practice, but to allow for each stream to be known more fully, more adequately for the sake of promoting mutual respect (or at minimum, not to villify each other insensitively and without real understanding).
So to me, if someone says dialog can’t exist until we share a similar epistemological starting point, that isn’t dialog. That is organizing a group meeting around an agenda that is intended to convert someone’s thinking to a preconcieved interpretation, not dialog where all meet on equal footing.
I don’t see the goal of dialog being unity in the sense that we come to agreement, but as the opportunity to dispell stereotypes, to come to common ground only where we may, and to have an encounter with the other (rather than reoutinely talking about each other behind our backs). Encounter transforms us – it causes us to rethink and to make space… for both sides of the discussion. That’s why it’s better than reading books. :)
Just my thoughts.



report abuse
 

Julie

posted May 17, 2006 at 9:02 am


P.S. Brian – there are lots of Catholics who do want to talk about ordination of women even within the church itself. While there are Christological reasons that they cite as reason for not ordaining women, not all Catholic theologians agree with those criteria. For instance, Elizabeth Johnson (Catholic theologian) challenges the root of this argument. She asserts that being made in the image of God and being fully alive in Christ as much as men means that women are just as adequate to represent Christ in the consecration of the host as men… if not, are we saying that women are somehow less fully representative of God, less made in his image, less “Christ-like” than men?
Thoughtful theologians in the Catholic tradition are addressing this issue and I don’t think it will stay as it has always been forever as voices are added to the development of the tradition.



report abuse
 

Makeesha

posted May 17, 2006 at 9:54 am


Julie expressed my feelings of dialogue exactly.
and just for the record, I have 2 brilliant Greek scholar friends, both of whom are egalitarian…so to say that only the ignorant (which is what christoph basically said) think that a verse can go both ways is arrogant, condascending and wrong. Not to mention that other scholars who have been linked regarding this issue in past discussions are equally as “academically convinced”.



report abuse
 

Brian

posted May 17, 2006 at 2:12 pm


To be clear again, I think dialogue is important. I’m a big believer in it. However, dialogue should be to build understanding with a goal toward unity. If all there is is understanding (as in you’ve told your part and I’ve told mine, and we intellectually understand each other) then it falls short. This is what has become of the modern ecumenical movement, particularly among the mainline churches.
Anyway, I’ll stop here. I think the question of dialogue has been ehausted.



report abuse
 

paisley

posted May 25, 2006 at 12:13 pm


I looked long and hard, and found how to get this CD from Willow Creek (I have no connection with Willow Creek whatsoever–just sharing the info):
They can send you a copy of “Cracking the Da Vinci Code, Part 3: Are Women the Enemy of the Church?” May 13-14, 2006 on CD for $4.00. Email or phone with your payment info and we will send one to your address.
They need your credit card number, and the expiration date. They can accept Visa, MasterCard and Discover.
Seeds Media Production
224.512.1524
pluchsinger@willowcreek.org



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Jesus Creed. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:15:58am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Our Common Prayerbook 30 - 3
Psalm 30 thanks God (vv. 1-3, 11-12) and exhorts others to thank God (vv. 4-5). Both emerge from the concrete reality of David's own experience. Here is what that experience looks like:Step one: David was set on high and was flourishing at the hand of God's bounty (v. 7a).Step two: David became too

posted 12:15:30pm Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Theology After Darwin 1 (RJS)
One of the more important and more difficult pieces of the puzzle as we feel our way forward at the interface of science and faith is the theological implications of discoveries in modern science. A comment on my post Evolution in the Key of D: Deity or Deism noted: ...this reminds me of why I get a

posted 6:01:52am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Almost Christian 4
Who does well when it comes to passing on the faith to the youth? Studies show two groups do really well: conservative Protestants and Mormons; two groups that don't do well are mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics. Kenda Dean's new book is called Almost Christian: What the Faith of Ou

posted 12:01:53am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Let's Get Neanderthal!
The Cave Man Diet, or Paleo Diet, is getting attention. (Nothing is said about Culver's at all.) The big omission, I have to admit, is that those folks were hunters -- using spears or smacking some rabbit upside the conk or grabbing a fish or two with their hands ... but that's what makes this diet

posted 2:05:48pm Aug. 30, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.