Comments on: The Temple of Links

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:48:42 +0000

Thanks Roger, that definitely clarifies your position, particularly your respect for your female friend with whom you disagree.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:31:45 +0000

I was actually being a bit facetious in saying the ordination of women is aweful, hence the smiley face after the comment. The other reasons were what really set me off. I agree that it is strongly stated, but I don't think it's inappropriate. I disagree with Dissposational views, the view that Q was a written document fundamental to the formation of Matthew and Luke, etc, but these views don't (usually) have a large scale practical impact. However, the idea that the Bible allows for the ordination does have huge practical impact, either postive or negative. Since I think the view is incorrect, I'm inclined to think it is negative, and that could in fact be aweful. I'll also note, though, that I have a female friend who was ordained in June (after graduating from Fuller), and though I disagree with that activity, I have a lot of respect for her.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:38:31 +0000

Roger, I am being serious, but I appear to have offended you in a way that I did not intend. I did not dismiss everything else you said, and It wasn't my intent to communicate that. In fact, I appreciated you outlining what you found aweful in the show. I don't watch the show – or any TV for that matter – so I didn't have anything to comment on that part.
I tried to express the progression of my thought in my comment, if you will note. I did initially receive this personally, but then tried to clarify my thoughts to more correctly reflect that your tone was emphatic regarding a theology and interpretation of scripture that allows for the ordination of women. Since Amy picked up on that note too, let me affirm that you said nothing regarding your feelings toward those who hold this theology.
Do you not find it emphatic or strongly stated to say that the ordination of women is aweful?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:10:36 +0000

FYI, there is a conversation about this going on over at On Fresno Dome.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:53:18 +0000

Sorry! I didn't mean to repeat Roger's comment. I posted before his comment popped up.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:51:43 +0000

Bill I'm curious as to why you interpret Roger's belief that the position is wrong as “feelings toward” the people who hold that position. Those are two very different things.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:44:11 +0000

Bill, I hope you're not being serious. I offered you a fairly nuanced position and you decided to take one small part of it, take it personally, and dismiss everything else I said. I find it insulting that you don't take what I say seriously because you personalized something that has nothing to do with you. My “feelings” are toward a theology that I find incongruent with Scripture, not toward people who hold that theology.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:06:25 +0000

“Yes, and that she's an ordained woman is awful as well. :)” Your feelings toward us whose theology and interpretation differs from yours appear to be very strong. Or how else should I word it? Your tone toward our theology and interpretation is very emphatic.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 03:20:48 +0000

What I found awful:
1) The motivation for Lucy being a pastor has nothing to do with God's calling (at least in this episode, I don't watch regularly), but with her desire to change how religion treats women. Any motivation other than a calling from God is awful, especially that one.
2) It would be one thing if they said they believe the Bible supports the ordination of women, but they didn't bother to consider the Bible at all. It appears to have been dropped from the decision-making process.
3) Some religious people, and some religions have been harmful to women, but I believe it is incorrect to say Christianity has been harmful to women, which is what was implied. I think Christianity of all the major world religions has been the most liberating to women.
4) Their response to the harmful religions isn't to show that Christianity isn't harmful, but basically to form a new version of Christianity that rises above the oppressiveness.
5) Lucy had preached a sermon that went too long and most of the congregation wanted her to leave. The congregation seems to signify traditional Christianity, and so they are viewed as bitter oppressive patriarchal types who don't have a legitimate, principled position. This lends itself to mocking traditional Christianity in order to do what they feel is right.
6) Yes, and that she's an ordained woman is awful as well.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:56:41 +0000

“Lucy were going to change that by having Lucy continue as his associate pastor. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood exists for such awful things as this, ”
Is the biblical interpretation that validates the ordination of women the awful thing, or do you merely disagree with it? Is it the reference to religion being harmful to women that you found aweful?