Denominational doctrine over Biblical teaching?

So today I had an interesting discussion with some ladies at church that fueled this thought and got me all sorts of fired up for this issue. The topic was whether or not women should be allowed to teach Bible studies or Sunday School or whatever of boys, and not just boys but with boys and girls together. I guess it goes for women teaching classes where men would also be as well. I guess in the past this has been a taboo thing and people made a big deal out of this and I am left to wonder why is this even an issue? I understand and respect the view that women shouldn't be pastors, but this isn't about women pastoring but teaching. This really got me all worked up throughout the day the more and more I think about it the more upset I get at this train of thought. To say that women can't teach and spiritually lead boys is setting boys up for an improper view of women. If boys are taught that this is not okay for women then they could grow up and not value women and to not respect what they have to say. How are boys to view their own mother's if they are taught that women can't teach them? That women can only teach girls or other women is this teaching our boys and men that women have a lesser place or that their opinions and Biblical interpretations are not as good or accurate as a man's? To say that a man could not sit under some incredible woman like Beth Moore or Margaret Feinberg and not learn incredible insight is ridiculous!! These are just two examples of extraordinary women who God has called to teach and has given them great spiritual insight and there are so many more out there and to limit who they are allowed to minister to and to teach isn't that also limiting God? Or is what they have to say only good enough for women and not good enough for men? Now I realize that some topics and discussions are geared toward women and that's fine but I'm talking about in general. Why are churches so afraid to allow women to teach (I said teach not preach)? I know many women who have more spiritual depth and leadership skills then some men who are doing the leading and yet they will never get a chance to execute them and they have to stand back as the men do nothing. I'm not saying that all men are like this at all, so don't misunderstand what I'm saying. But I think we all miss out on what God has to say and wants to do when we limit who gets to speak. If we really and truly believe that men and women are created equal then why are we afraid to allow women the chance to teach what God is speaking to them? Couldn't women be given insight that could help men as well as women? What is this teaching our girls about leadership and their role in the kingdom of God? That they can learn great things and be excited about what God's doing but only share it with women? I think we run into grave trouble when we put denominational doctrine over Biblical teaching. So I did some research over this subject and here's some of the things that I found at the Refiner's Fire. Judges 4: 4 Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading [a] Israel at that time. 5 She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided. Philippians 4: 2. I plead with Euodias and Syntyche that they be of one mind in our Master (Y'shua). 3. I also plead with you, my true burden bearers, that you assist those women who worked hard with me in the Good News; together with Clement and with the rest of my helpers whose names are written in the book of life. Luke 2: Then there was Kanna the prophetess a daughter of Peniel from the tribe of Ashir; she was also advanced in her days . And she was seven years with her husband whom she had lived with since her virginity. 37. And she was a widow for about eighty-four years. And she would not go out from (the Temple). (But would) with fasting and with prayer serve by day and by night. 38. And she also stood up in that hour and gave thanks to Master YHWH and was speaking concerning him to everyone who was waiting for the salvation of Urishlim (Jerusalem). There have been many debates about what the Bible says about women teaching men, and many try to use the following Scriptures as proof that women should remain in subordinate roles: 1 Corinthians 14: 34. Let your women be silent in the assembly: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be in subjection, as also Torah says. 35. And if they wish to be informed on any subject, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is unbecoming for women to speak in the assembly. 1 Tim. 2: 11. Let a woman learn in silence, with all submission: 12. for I do not allow a woman to teach or to be assuming over the man; but let her remain in stillness. First Timothy 2:11–15 does not teach that women cannot exercise their spiritual gifts when the body meets. We know that women can, and are to do so (Acts 2:17; 1 Cor. 12:7; 14:26). Instead, the passage has a more narrow focus on the role of a ruling elder. To "teach" (1 Tim. 2:12), as defined "with authority" is an elder's function. This particular function in the body of Messiah ­ and only this function ­ is reserved for men. More significant was the local situation in the Messianic assembly. False teachers had apparently found support in homes headed by widows (1 Tim. 1:6, 7; 5:13–15). False teaching was apparently still a problem for "gullible women" when the letter of 2 Timothy was written (2 Tim. 3:6-7). So the instructions for a woman to "learn" but not to "teach" was aimed at keeping the women, who in this congregation had proved particularly susceptible to false teaching, from spreading it. Paul, therefore, says, "I do not permit a woman to be a teacher." The context here has to do with assembly order, and the position of the man and woman in the assembly worship and work. The kind of teacher Paul has in mind is spoken of in Acts 13:1, I Corinthians 12:28, 29, and Ephesians 4:11 - YAHWEH-called, and YAHWEH-equipped teachers recognized by the Assembly as those having authority in the Assembly in matters of doctrine and interpretation. This prohibition of a woman to be a teacher, does not include the teaching of classes at the pastor's request, or children in a Sunday School, for instance, but does prohibit the woman from being an elder. When we look at the grammatical notation for "to teach" we find that it's a present infinitive which means that it speaks of a continuous or repeated action. So what Paul said to Timothy was that a woman was not to continuously teach a man, which would be seen as not being submissive (when looking at this verse in context), because if she was always teaching the man, he would never have time to teach her. At the same time, because the grammatical notation is a present infinitive, it would show that Paul did not say that a woman could not teach a man at all. So from a Scriptural standpoint women are allowed to teach men, just not continuously. Priscilla is seen in Scripture helping her husband teach Apollos the way of God more perfectly (Acts 18:24-26) and yes, even as we see in Scripture, there sometimes are exceptions to this as seen in Deborah (Judges 4 and 5), when there were no men spiritual enough to do the job - but not very often. Consider also the following: * In Paul's letter to the Galatians, Paul had said that in Messiah, 28. For there is neither Jew nor Aramean, nor slave nor free, nor male nor female, but you are all one in Y'shua the Mashiyach (Galatians 3:28) * In Paul's letter to the Corinthians, he refers to women praying and proclaiming YAHWEH's message in public worship. (1 Corinthians 11:5) * In Paul's letter to the assembly in Ephesus (Romans, chapter 16), he recognized and introduced the woman Phoebe as not only a "deacon" (not a deaconess) but also the president of the assembly in Cenchreae. (Romans 16:1,2) * In the same letter to the assemly in Ephesus, Paul refers to the woman Priscilla and her husband Aquila as his coworkers, who also host the assembly at their house. (Romans 16:3-5) Earlier when he was in Ephesus writing his letters to the assembly in Corinth, he also had referred to the assembly in Ephesus as being in the home of Priscilla and Aquila. (1 Corinthians 16:19) * In the same letter to the assembly in Ephesus, Paul also addressed the woman Junia and her husband Andronicus as apostles - even as "prominent among the apostles." (Romans 16:7) Please understand that I'm trying to be a big feminist or crazy woman but to share some concern I have as to what this train of thinking will teach both my son and daughters. I want my son to grow up respecting women and with the understanding that God can use them just as much as He can use men. I want him to know that there are many Godly women out there and that he can learn incredible things from them. I want my girls to grow up and know that God wants to use them to whatever their gifts and talents are and to not be afraid to do something because they are women. If they want to cook in the church kitchen and work in the nursery then wonderful and great but that those are not the only places they can serve God in the church. Just some thoughts. I'm sure many who read this will disagree and that's fine we all have our opinions just something to think about.

Examples of terrible logic

Read this This article was sent to my husband and has created much discussion between us about it. This article was written by a very well known and respected man who has been a primary influencer in the church for many decades, but I think that in this case there is some concern with the logic and the direction in which is he taking us. Upon reading this article there were a few main points that stuck out and I think need to be addressed. The article starts off talking about how Paul used a different approach when addressing the people at Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17)and his goal was to create a new way to introduce them to Jesus. That sounds like a good thing, right? Well then the article goes on to talk about how there are a bunch of new churches that are adopting this “Mars Hill philosophy of ministry" as if it were a bad thing. This group is then labeled "Emergent", however a clear definition of what the "emerging church" is is not present and leaves many to assume or imply their own definitions.The only implication of the "emergent church" is the reference to Mark Driscol, otherwise know as the "cussing pastor" However, he does not represent the whole of the emerging church. That would be like saying that all Baptist are like those crazy people from Westboro who protest the soldiers funerals and say hateful things about gays and other people. To lump all "emerging churches" into the cussing and liberal theology pool is a vast misunderstanding and a dangerous assumption. "In recent years the emerging church movement has attempted to “do church” (or be the church) in a new way amidst our postmodern world. Their purpose is “missional living,” that is, to get involved in the world in hopes of transforming it. This style of ministry engages the culture in a “conversation” rather than preaching to people like a prophet." What then is the problem? Or if this not the goal or objective then what is? The Bible talks about how we are the Church and so this idea of us "doing or being the church" is a good thing and an example of us living out what we were called for. Jesus's entire ministry was all about "missional living". He had every intention of how He lived and interacted with all those He came in contact with to transform not only them but the world. Look at the very people He choose to engage with, the adulteress woman, the Samaritans, the tax collector, prostitutes, and all those considered "unclean and unworthy". He is the poster child for "misssional living" and if we are supposed to follow His example wouldn't that mean that we too are called to live like this? Maybe it's just me but I fail to see the problem with "conversation" rather than "preaching like a prophet". I want to be taught and I want to dig deeper into the Bible and for me having a conversation or discussion where you can think, question and wrestle with scripture is much more appealing then not having an opportunity to engage the scriptures. The whole idea of conversation is very Biblical in that's exactly what the Rabbi's did with their disciples and what is taught in the Jewish culture as midrash. Now I also realize that in most church on a Sunday morning that a conversational type of preaching or teaching is not realistic due to the size of the church (this is where small groups come in and the significance of them), however, I also realize that a style where the preacher/teacher is engaging and relating is much more received and applicable then when the preacher/teacher is barking at them. Regardless of how you want to label it we do live in a postmodern society and the question then becomes how do we relate who Jesus is and why we need Him to this changing culture. I'm afraid that many, like the author of the article, have failed to see the need for the changing of how we as Christians relate to the world in which we live. Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying that we have to be okay with what the world says is right or that we water down the Bible, but I am saying that we can not use the same approaches that were used 50 years ago to relate and reach today's people. God never changes but the way in which He related to and reached His people did change because they changed and to reach them He took a different approach, i.e sending Jesus. This notion and mentality that we can reach people today using door to door or Billy Graham style ministry is the main reason that we see such a decline in our churches. Society has changed and yet our methods of approach have not and this is one of the reasons why people see the church as out of date and unrelatable. This is the reason why the churches under the so-called label of "emergent" are growing and thriving while the rest of the "traditional" churches are dying off. These "emergent" churches are relating to the people and are seeking out ways to engage and make the Bible applicable through small groups and a community mentality. They are making the "church experience" exciting and alive instead of routine and boring and they are igniting a passion whereas many churches are surviving on apathy. Let's face it, how many people who go to the "traditional churches" are excited or given the opportunity to experience the Living God? For many people, primarily in the 18-35 age range, the emergent church is appealing despite if they agree with them politically or not because of the opportunities to be involved and engage in the church. I guess the question then becomes what is the "traditional church" so afraid of and if this is not the approach they see as right then what is? If "missional living" and "being the church" is not what they see as needing to be done then what is? My question is how is the approach that's been used for 50+ years working for you?

My Manifesto

So here's a question that I've been trying to figure out lately and while I know what I would like the answer to be it doesn't seem to be the answer I'm getting. I know I've blogged about the purpose of the church recently and I guess I should be more specific in my direction or thinking. I guess the more relevant question is what is the purpose or vision of our church? We all know the "church answer" and that being to see "lost people get saved...". But is that it? Really? Is this where we put all of our time, attention and focus? I can't help but feel that there is so much more being lost in left undone in all of this. I can't help wonder if this is really what Jesus wanted to see from a religion bearing His name. Every single time I think about the purpose of the church one word comes to mind and that is discipleship. So I guess the pressing question would be is our church doing this? Or I guess we should take a step back and ask what really is discipleship to begin with. When you look at the Biblical meaning of discipleship and what it looked like with the Rabbi's of that time, it meant that the Rabbi had a group of guys who followed him everywhere and were so hungry for any knowledge and wisdom they could get from him. The Rabbi in turn was all about teaching his followers Truth and teaching them to think and to question and to look at things in a way they had not done before. Isn't this exactly what we saw from Jesus? He had his small group of guys (and yes the key to this is a small intimate group), who followed him everywhere and were eager to hear what he had to say and to learn all they could from him. These followers devoted their lives, left their families and all they had to follow their Rabbi. They hungered for the knowledge and wisdom they could get from him and they committed everything to do as instructed. So while this is all great in the Biblical sense what does it look like in today's church setting? Discipleship today is about teaching Truth and about digging deeper and deeper into scripture. It's not about making things simple but it's about challenging and getting to the meat and way past this watered down milk crap. It's about small groups that meet regularly and are committed to learning together and holding each other accountable. There's a level of intimacy that comes from small groups with people you can get close to and share in the realness of life with. Jesus had this with his disciples in that they were real together. Their faults were laid out and it wasn't about judging each other but about loving each other and pushing each other to be who they were meant to be. This goes past having Sunday schools and the typical church activities and to what should be the heart and depth of the church. While Sunday school classes are nice and serve some function, I personally have not seen a Sunday school class that has the same level of depth or intimacy that small groups tend to have. Partially because things are different when visitors are there as well as the commitment level seems to be different. So I guess the question is does our church have discipleship and if so where is it? Discipleship is also critical for those people that do accept Jesus. I think all too often our entire goal is to get people saved and then once "they're outta hell" we drop them and more onto the next "lost soul." We assume (and if we don't this, it is what is being portrayed) that once they get right with God that they will just know what to do and they will get themselves into a Sunday school class and they will just know how to pray and will magically know how to read the Bible. Too bad this is far from the truth. Real discipleship would be once someone starts this journey with Christ they would get hooked up with a mentor and a small group that can answer all these questions they still have and can model what this new journey and walk will look like. It's about growing people up and helping them develop depth and not keeping is so simple they never question or dig into the real stuff. I realize that small groups and discipleship takes commitment, and that's part of the point. We all have excuses such as work and kids and just the busyness of life but is this a priority? Apathy has been running rampant and is threatening to strangle and kill off our church. I honestly don't know how to make people care. This is a question that has been eating me up for the last many months and I still have no answer. But I do know that the apathy in the church is having a direct impact on the youth of the church. Why should the youth care when they see adults that don't? Why should the youth want growth and depth when the adults are content with barely milk? How do you shake people from their apathy? I wish I could answer this question. What is it that you want from our church? What is your vision for the church and are we even pointing in the same direction? My vision for the church is this; I want small groups that desire growth and are challenging, I want a hunger for Truth and for the meat of scripture, I want us to have real worship and to be excited about that worship, I want to be excited about coming to hear Truth and I want Truth to be demanded, I want to see mentors and real relationships established, I want us to all be going in the same direction and for the same purpose instead of like a shot gun all in different directions and with different objectives, I want people to walk away from our church feeling loved and valued and with worth, I want a spiritual awakening! and for apathy to have no place here anymore. This church is capable of having all of this if the people really wanted it. If the people saw a need for it and would fight for it and demand it. Is this what the people want? Is this what you want? If not why are we here?.....

I have many ideas and thoughts running like an out of control river through my head right now and while I need to get them out and express them I'm not sure that they will be coherent or make much sense....So if you are reading this good luck and I hope I don't completely confuse you. I guess the first issue that is driving me nuts is this saying that I hear week after week at church. That the desire is for the Bible to be made simple so us simple folks can understand it.... I have a problem with this statement and mentality. While yes I do want to be able to understand the Bible I don't want it to be so simple that it loses any depth and meaning and far far too often that's exactly what happens. I think there's a line that we must be careful with when teaching scripture and that we need to make it so that the listeners can understand what's being said but we can't completely water it down in the process. I may not be the brightest but I don't want to be a simple folk and I don't want the person teaching me to see me as that either. How are we supposed to grow and be challenged when it's all made so simple we don't have to really think? There has to be depth and questioning involved. And when speaking to any large group there will always be some that you end of speaking over their heads but to completely dumb it down to the slowest person makes the vast majority bored. I think this is the problem in too many churches. We water down the message so people understand and in turn all we are doing is feeding milk over and over and never getting to the meat of any issue. Then we wonder why people are apathetic and stop caring because they are never challenged. It's like when dealing with children, you have to set the bar high and when you do they will rise to meet it. When you set the bar low it shows that you think so little of them that they will never strive for more or better. Same thing in the church, we need to raise the bar and start feeding the people meat! Challenge and stretch people. Make them see things from a different point of view and make them question things. It's in the questioning and stretching that real growth takes place. To say the same things week after week, over and over again just frustrates the people and makes them tune out and bored. I guess it all comes back to the point and who we're trying to preach to or to teach. Are we spending all our time and energy trying to reach that one "lost soul" all the while leaving the rest of the people bored and unchallenged or are we engaging in discipleship where we train, teach and grow the majority of the people to then go out and do that to others? I want so desperately to be part of the discipleship group! I want to walk away each week challenged and not frustrated! To feel stretched and pushed because the person teaching thinks enough of me to know that I can handle it and I need it. Looking back at my time in youth group I know that I was so incredibly fortunate and privileged because it was during that time that I experienced what real growth looks like. My incredible youth pastor and amazing mentor pushed me and challenged me to look at things differently. They gave me meat, and although I may not have always been ready for the meat they cut it up and helped me work through it. They never watered it down and thought I couldn't handle it. Sometimes it was frustrating to want to get more then I did but I was challenged and I strived to understand. It was because they believed in me, more then I did in myself, that I wanted to understand and I wanted to go deeper. When we treat people as babies and too simple to get it we can't be surprised when that's how they act. We treat the church as babies and kids and then are shocked when there's no growth or depth or yearning for more. What have we expected from them? I guess the question is what's the goal or focus from the church? Saving people from the pits of hell or raising up disciples? I want to be part of a church that's focus is on discipleship. When the focus of the church is to grow, challenge and strengthen believers the natural overflow of that is that those people then go out and do that with others. Seeing believers excited and eager for more is much more likely to get people to want what they claim to have then to expect people to sit there and hear what they "need" while all the people around them are bored and stagnant. It's time for those who need and want more to demand more and to stop settling for milk when they deserve food.

Why do we need Jesus?

Why do we need Jesus? This is a question that needs to be addressed. It needs to be addressed in our own lives but also in the way in which we deal with the rest of the world. If somebody came up to me and asked, "Why is it that I need this Jesus you talk about?" what would my response be? For far too many I think the answer would be that they need Jesus to go to heaven or otherwise put to be saved from hell. But is that really why they need Jesus? If so great, they receive a get out of hell free pass but then what? No I think that this question needs to be approached from a different point of view. You see far to often we only look at anything that has to do with God or Jesus as a path or way to an afterlife. I mean all so often the message that is preached from church is that you need Jesus or you're going to hell. All the focus is put on what happens when I die but for me the problem is that I'm not dead or dying, I'm alive so what does this mean for me? We live in a society that wants to know how things are going to affect them now. Not next year or when they're dead, but here and now and so this answer of needing Jesus for when you're dead doesn't mean much to them. So here's how I would answer the person that wants to know why they need this Jesus: So that you can live!! Don't misunderstand where I'm coming from, I fully acknowledge that the only way to heaven is through Jesus because over and over again that's what is said in scripture (John 14:6). However, heaven is the added bonus but not the only reason that I need Jesus. You see Jesus talks repeatedly about living and life and these things only come through Him. In John 10:10 Jesus says that He has come that we may have life and have it abundantly! I don't believe that means just in the afterlife but the here and now. We are called to live life and live it to the fullest and that only happens when we are in that direct relationship with Jesus. We need Jesus so that we can live this life, the present one here on earth to our fullest and that means living out our passions, desires, dreams and potential right here and right now. We get so caught up with what will happen after we die that we fail to live. If being a Christian is all about going to heaven then once saved we can go ahead and die so we can get what our goal is, right? I believe that being a Christian is having a relationship with Jesus. It's about being real and broken and yet deeply desired by the Creator of the Universe. It's about being flawed and yet loved beyond measure. It's about God wanting to use you and me to tell His love story. It's about being part of this movement and revolution that Jesus started 2000 years ago. It's about pointing people to the Father so that they can live now as well as later. Heaven will be great and we've been promised it once we've entered into that relationship with Christ but that's not all this is about. I just think for far too long we've left being a Christian at just getting to heaven and neglected the rest of our purpose and story because of it. So are you waiting and clinging to what's to come or are you living life to it's fullest? Are you living in a way that makes people excited about the hope that you have? Are you living in a way that shows people that they need this Jesus so they can live now?