John Ruffle [08/29/2015 1:15 AM]
This is a complete nonsense, because neither Piper (who is way out on right field in this one) nor the blogger make any distinction between civil society and the Ecclessia.
We represent a different kingdom; leadership within the ruke of the Kingdom is not about power or ruling over anyone. It’s servanthood – and I a depth of level civic society can’t even contemplate.
The Church tries to mimic society. I do think we need to re-visit he distinctive male – – female roles in the Church. I am not in agreement with the theology of women priests within a liturgical and sacramental context. Because my personal faith is highly sacramental and liturgical, I do not personally agree with women having full leadership over an entire local Church assembly. Having said that, prior as a chaplain, I’ve worked with and met some wonderful women priests. But my experience – positive as it nay be – does not change my theology on this issue.
In non-sacramental situations, I’ve got a whole lot more latitude on the question partly because the NT epistles are addressing more formal gatherings; at least one can derive that implication from context. Civic society is not addressed in this context so Piper needs to shut up too.
In Catholic circles, as we know, there is much debate about woman priests. Episcopal churches have woman bishops for goodness sake. Why? I’m pretty convinced it is because the supporters of this fail to understand the sacramental nature of the priesthood.
A priest is not a pastor in different clothes – although all priests should also be pastors. (But not always are, I admit!) This also goes back to the Liturgy of the Eucharist. If the bread and wine are but symbols, then there is a lot of latitude. But if in the other hand, in some mystical way, the bread and wine actually becomes the Body and Blood if our Saviour, *as Jesus clearly said) then everything elevates into an entirely different and more sacred plain, and the role of “president” at the Eucharist becomes a critical issue.
As a closing side bar, i find it curious and nit a littke hypocritical how avid self-identifying fundamental Bible-believers almost to a man (or woman!) categorically refuse to believe the Scriptures – in Jesus’ own recorded words – regarding the Body and Blood of Christ. Even when Jesus spoke on the subject , some if his disciples followed him no more — so I guess it should not surprise me — but it still does! This is actually one major reason why I feel I had no option to be either Catholic or Orthodox.
John Ruffle [08/29/2015 1:18 AM]
(Will try to correct typos when on a pc later)
Timothy Carter [08/29/2015 5:55 AM]
This is where I am coming from: Desiring GodGod-centered resources from the ministry of John Piper, John Piper is founder and teacher of desiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. For over 30 years, he served as senior pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota. He grew up in Greenville, South Carolina, and studied at Wheaton College, Fuller Theological Seminary (B.D.), and the University of Munich (D.theol.). For six years, he taught Biblical Studies at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota, and in 1980 accepted the call to serve as pastor at Bethlehem.
John is the author of more than 50 books and more than 30 years of his preaching and teaching is available free at desiringGod.org. John and his wife, Noël, have four sons, one daughter, and twelve grandchildren.
Link Hudson [10/02/2015 10:56 PM]
This is an old thread. Is there a rule against resurrecting them? I missed it the first go-round.
I’d rather see this woman’s way of thinking ‘exorcised.’ Here understanding of ‘demonic’ is just to weird and vague. I believe that demons are actual entities, not just some sort of vague spiritual force that works against the creative force of the Spirit. And I don’t equate the work of the Spirit with left-wing concepts of social justice.
We are here on the earth for a short time, living our lives before the kingdom is established in a fuller way at the return of Christ. There are a lot of social justice concepts that aren’t worth our time bothering with, particularly those that aren’t Biblical.
I think if we used this bloggers idea of sexism, we’d have to conclude that the Bible is sexist. Using that definition, there is good sexism and bad sexism.
God gave a lot of laws that could be considered ‘sexist’. Letting men cancel their wives vows, but the wives not cancel their husband’s vows. That’s good sexism right there. Making the husband the head of the wife– good sexism. If this stuff is ‘sexist’, yes it’s good sexism. God’s law is holy, just, and good.
God made men and women different. I believe God created some types and shadows of spiritual reality into the creation. God is the Father, and when He made us in His image, He made men with the ability to be fathers. The creation is patriachal, because God is the Father. And God created a world where there would be patriarchy, because he made man first and made the man with the potential to be a father.
Luke tells us that Adam was the son of God. He was a created son, though, but a type of Christ. In some ways, he was a kind of opposite type of Christ as well. God took His son, pierced his side, and took something out and created woman, his bride.
We read in Ephesians 5 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
The differences between man and woman are a good thing. Christian wives should embrace what the Bible teaches wives. They should embrace fearing/respecting their husbands and men should embrace the idea of loving their wives.