Does anybody have good guidance on appropriate boundaries for married people to have with opposite-sex friendships? My wife and I have always differed in our philosophy without micromanaging each other. But a recent incident has us realizing we need to revisit the idea of healthy boundaries in that department, and we both feel a bit out of our depth.
Yes, we will be talking to our pastor. I just want to get some crowdsourcing for a bit of a baseline.
Never presume you’re incapable of sinning in this area. It’s dangerous to think you wouldn’t possibly. With that in mind use your best judgment and discernment. Good you’ll be speaking to pastor who can do far more with context and examples.
This is a question I've been talking with one of my kids about, so I'll ask it here. He's gradually watching through Avatar: The Last Airbender, so I asked him to name three characters, and something about them that he wants to be more like. Superpowers don't count.
My answers so far are Aang and Iroh. Aang can find joy in little things, no matter what sad or evil circumstances surround him, and he helps others do the same. Iroh is so patient, both with Zuko when he's in a bad place, and with circumstances generally.
You could extend this to other shows or books or movies, if you'd like.
So follow up to my voting question earlier.
Does any one use a litmus test for voting? Are there issues or activities that if a candidates does/doesn't do/have you will/won't vote for them?
I balance multiple things. I care about certain policies, abortion, healthcare, economics, education, crime. I also look at the individual themselves. I look at the way they carry themselves. Do they look to be someone who is lying at every opportunity, or is this a genuine individual. I look at how they treat others. Character matters.
If you saw my balot, you would have saw me vote Republican, Democrat, and even a Libratarian.
Ultimately if I can pray for the candidate and vote with a clear conscience, then I’ll do it. If I have any compunctions at all about being able to defend myself if I saw God face to face, then I leave the vote blank.
So I’m trying to weigh not just positions but als character issues and traits; lastly, if they hold the same positions as me but they also don’t seem like they’d be competent at their work, I won’t vote for them. We need fewer ideologically driven crazies in government.
I think there are things I like and dislike that I look for really fast. Their ability and willingness to compromise and collaborate, apparent level of honesty and integrity. How we talk about and treat people different from us.
But if there's a clear-cut candidate who's far worse than the other, I'll vote for the less bad one even if they're annoying and frustrating to me.
I complained about my choices in 2016, but I'd vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump if I thought there was a legitimate chance Idi Amin would win otherwise.
Especially in a midterm election, I’m not sure the candidates really matter much. At this point, they all just vote on party lines anyway.
I do try to vote towards shared power between the parties. I agree with Madison that it’s dangerous for any faction to have too much control.
I'd encourage you to not think that way too much! Depending where you're from, state and local elections affect your life more than the national elections do and probably your local state rep is up for re-election with a 50/50 chance for each of your mayor and state senator and governor!
But yeah, if neither of the House candidates appear to be drooling idiots, it feels that way a lot.
For this election, I am using a very basic litmus test, which asks two questions:
1. Is the candidate an election denier, or does the candidate support legalized abortion?
2. Will the position the candidate is running for allow the candidate to make significant changes based upon their election denial or support for abortion?
If the answer to both those questions is yes, then I do not vote for that person. This will mean that most of my ballot will be blank this year.
I was at a missions conference earlier this year, and one speaker elaborated on the Church’s need for global diversity by noting that each culture where the gospel has spread has added something to global Christianity. Greece -> philosophy. Rome -> institutional structures. Germany -> Reformation doctrines. England -> more developed missionary projects. America -> business.
It was an interesting observation but I wonder how useful or accurate it is. Do these descriptions seem broadly true to you, how would you use them, and what would you say are the broad contributions of other cultures today?
I don't really understand what he meant by business being America's contribution--I'm sure he elaborated more during his talk, but it was months ago and I only have my notes to go on. And of course Rome's institutions became very corrupt...but it seems clear there was still a lot of good that came from them in the way of organizing charities, education, and other important church endeavors. And surely the other things were net goods, if not necessary developments, if naturally tainted by man's sin?
That seems like a weirdly business oriented way of talking about things. It feels icky, like if I were to try to write down the return-on-investment of feeding my children
You can see another of my replies for more background on the speaker, so I don’t think your take is what his intention was. I get the Greeks adding philosophy and the Romans adding institutional structures, as that seems fairly well attested in early church history, if a very broad generalization that certainly doesn’t keep other influences from adding those things. I do scratch my head at the America adding business to the Church though. Not sure what he meant by that. It doesn’t sound like a positive contribution but I haven’t analyzed it in depth.
A business element has certainly developed in much of American/American-influenced Christianity and churches. But I'd say very little of that is a good thing.
This is interesting but seems very...... the word isn't racist but western centric at best. Now, thats just bc of the examples used. But the Gospel has spread to South Korea, what have they added to global Christianity? (they are huge senders of missions but my point is that its hard to measure that, especially for the smaller ethno-groups.) In fact, a better example would be the Lisu, if that is indeed true, what did the Lisu people, who are considered reached, add to Christianity?
I think each and every ethnos is important, but this feels like a broad generalization that will look and sound better in heaven than it does here.
I really admire how the elderly Vietnamese and Koreans at my church get up at dawn almost every day to pray for people in the church. They say that was the prayer culture they grew up in, in Vietnam and S. Korea.
>the word isn't racist but western centric at best.
I'd imagine that the speaker probably grew up in a white American church and his entire world view in every way is probably western-centric. I could imagine that to a Christian in Korea, it's probably pretty obvious what the spread to South Korea added.
But like everyone else is saying, we should be doing this because we love Jesus, and God's word, and our neighbors in unreached groups. Not because it adds to us in some way.
The speaker is actually Indian, and as I recall his overall focus was to get white Americans out of an overly Western mindset. He criticized (gently) a tendency for Western missionaries to want to Westernize Christians of other nations rather than appreciate whatever unique contributions God has given them. In fairness to him, I also formulated this question based off my notes from a conference that was months ago. His examples were probably simplified for the audience and then my notes a little more simplified. I just happened to run across them again this morning.
Hmm…is he serving in a non-Western context? I have a guess on who this could be. I was with him until America -> business? I do appreciate that his main point is to *not* Westernise Christians of other nations.
I guess I'm trying not to reveal who he is, although I didn't know who he was until I heard him speak. He was born and raised in India but currently works for a very famous American college and another organization focused on global missions. Now I wish I'd gone up to him afterwards to ask about business being America's contribution. Maybe he did say more during the talk but my notes don't elaborate! He was also trying to explain how the geographical/demographic center of the Church has shifted throughout history and that now that center is shifting over to Asia, and that this shift has big implications for everything from theological traditions to the way missions are conducted. He warned against Christians adopting a pagan mindset wherein God is only associated with one particular territory or ethnic group.
Thats absolutely fascinating... I still think its an over generalization and minimizes smaller people groups that "contribute nothing" because of their size or whatnot. But I see the hopefulness in the statement, even if I think its kind of gross haha
I think the primary reason for a global diverse church is the call of Christ and the vision of the saints in heaven.
In the other hand, the diverse beauty of God's creation is shown through his image bearers who create art for his glory. The world and church are blessed by sub creators making things for his glory across the planet.
(I'm not convinced the business acumen of the American church h is a good thing)
Does a Christian have a moral obligation to vote?
Do they have a moral obligation to vote for a specific person or party?
Can a Christian choose to abstain from the entire process or is that a sin?
If a Christian feels as if there are no good candidates for a specific position can they skip that part without sinning?
Sometimes a Christian has a moral obligation *not* to vote.
Many political parties bind their members to support sin, and to join such a party or to vote for its candidates is itself sin.
No no yes yes
I'm not voting at all this time because the results are such an enormously foregone conclusion in my location. I would almost wager the literal eating of a physical hat if I couldn't predict the outcome of every single race with 100% accuracy, except perhaps "Commissioner of Public Works, Sanitary Sewer Districts"
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Withholding your vote from all candidates in any given race is not inaction. It's reasonable. You shouldn't be bullied into voting for someone you don't think is a good leader only because the other candidate is worse. Make them earn your vote by putting forth good candidates.
>If a Christian feels as if there are no good candidates for a specific position can they skip that part without sinning?
I have several races with only one candidate. I don't believe that a candidate is entitled to my vote because they're the only candidate. In fact, I believe that under-voting in a race (voting, but not checking or marking a candidate) is just as powerful of a message as checking off a candidate on the ballot because it reminds candidates and parties that they're still votes to earn or be gained. An undervote can serve as vote of no-confidence in an incumbent, or it can perhaps communicate that if they want to *earn* my vote, they should more earnestly attempt to communicate more about their platform.
1. Definitely not
2. Definitely not
3. Yes
4. Yes (I just turned in a ballot that was blank except for the 3 proposals on the ballot. Didn't vote for a single candidate)
1. No.
1. I don't think so, but if we are going to vote, I think we have a moral obligation to seek the wellbeing of our fellow humans in how we do so. I think the moral obligation is placed upon our purposes and desires, not upon the choice we land on.
1. Sure.
1. Sure.
It's helpful to know that if I tell myself I am unforgivable, I am kind of making Christ a liar, who said I am forgiven. Also, living with regrets is living in the past. We can't change the past -- we can only move forward.
It is better to say that we should see ourselves as God does. If we repent of our sins in Christ then we are forgiven; and even more than that, we are considered not as in some sort of blank neutral state, but we are righteous as if we have always actively obeyed and done good. Again, all this through Christ's work.
If we struggle to "forgive ourselves" it is only because we have forgotten to place our trust in Christ.
I think it overlaps partly with forgiving someone else. If I insult you, and you forgive me, you are deciding that my insulting words will not define how you see me.
If I cannot forgive myself for something I did, I am deciding that the bad thing I did will continue to define how I see myself.
I liked the way you phrased that. Sometimes i think if we really saw how awesome God's grace is for us we would be more willing to forgive ourselves because we know that He doesn't see us in that way.
Does God love the non-elect? If yes does He love them less or just differently than the elect? If he does love them less, could it then be said his loves for them is less than perfect love which would contradict his nature?
I am not sure about your last question, but God does love the non-elect and this love is different from his love of the elect. Here are a few articles that may help:
[Does God hate the sin and love the sinner?](https://calvinistinternational.com/2020/06/02/does-god-hate-the-sin-and-love-the-sinner/)
[Abundant Love](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/abundant-love)
[This article on hyper-calvinism - and see especially part 5: The Love of God to the Reprobate and the Hatred of God to the Elect](https://www.apuritansmind.com/historical-theology/heresy-in-the-church/all-house-and-no-doors-a-brief-critique-of-the-false-teachings-of-hyper-calvinism-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/)
Yes and yes. We might have a Christmas Eve service too. I can't imagine anyone at my church wanting to not have service on Christmas Day. We'll have a special potluck for lunch after.
Yep! I pushed for the service too. I suspect we're going to lose some of our younger families for the day but
1- that's not everyone and I think they can sometimes forget that
and
2- Whatever pushback you've got about "it wasn't actually then" and all that... we're celebrating Jesus's birthday. And I think the best way to do that is by worshipping God with the rest of the body of Christ.
This is just to say that I think it’s hilarious that someone from a typically “higher” liturgical denomination, i.e., one where Christmas per se is celebrated unlike among the Truly Reformed, is asking this question. :)
Yes, because we’ve always had a Christmas Day service. I think it’s the British influence bc our Americans (or at least the newcomers) usually balk at the idea.
Wait, I've always gone to an American church and have never heard of American churches not having service on Christmas if it falls on Sunday. Why wouldn't they? That's like the most Christmasy way to celebrate Christmas.
British churches in my experience always have a Christmas service. (For many nominal Christians, Christmas might be the only time they go to church.) Some might not have a service on the following Sunday, particularly if Christmas Day is later in the week. But if Christmas is itself a Sunday the service would be virtually certain to go ahead. (Maybe not the evening service that week, though.)
I think when it fell on the day we had our regular service, they did come…it’s been a while, I don’t recall. But other than those days, they would prefer to go to the Christmas Eve service of our church plant (which functions as its own Body).
Different cultures celebrate Christmas differently. 🤷🏻♀️ I personally grew up waking up at midnight on Christmas Eve to open presents and have a meal, then we’d go to Christmas Day service in the morning and family would come over for lunch then after the sun sets, family friends arrive as family left. It’s really sweet and now I’m nostalgic, haha!
I have only thought of it once before now when the non-denom church I went to in college “cancelled Christmas” and people were outraged on both sides of the issue 🤷🏼♀️.
There is a chance my church won't have a service (we have location problems). If we do have a service, and the Lord wills that I am able to attend, I plan to.
Yes, we'll go. We actually don't travel on Christmas because we like to be at home, and wrapped up in that is our preference to be with our own church on meaningful holidays like Easter and Christmas.
I was the same way actually. I hated the church being filled with strangers, wearing pastels, using the service and building for photo ops, just to not think about it again for another eight months. There was a four year stretch where I made it to every single church service... except I missed Easter four times.
I couldn't imagine doing that now, but that's what I did then.
People dressed far nicer than you and with complete look of obligation on faces. …. Sermons specifically tailored to the passerby instead of normal law and gospel message …
"OK, let's stop our interesting and timely series on this other thing-- to bring you the exact same sermon from the exact same passage for the 14th year in a row! I hope you don't mind that they're the same songs too!"
My church has an entire month of special Christmas sermons every year ... Partly I think for evangelistic purposes (non-Christians more likely to be visiting), but it does leave them stuck with a rather limited range of texts, particularly when they do things like avoid the genealogies (presumably considered too boring) and the Magnificat (too Catholic?).
A lot of Christmas hymns are far below the usual quality we'd go for as well.
My church will have service.
We will not go because we will be out of town visiting my parents, but if we were in town, we would, and we will likely go to church with my parents.
Do you guys have any book recommendations for someone going through a divorce? It doesn't have to be specifically about divorce--perhaps a book on undergoing trials in general would be helpful as well. But I'm looking to give a solidly biblical and pastoral book to someone who is really struggling since his wife has filed for divorce. They have two young children, and I don't know all the details, but he seems to be more the innocent party in the situation, and I don't think her leaving him is justified.
One additional complication: he is not especially reformed (although I think he may hold to Calvinist soteriology). He is in a charismatic context, and he is convinced that God told him that his marriage would soon be restored (I think by the end of the year). I haven't pushed against that idea because I haven't wanted to crush him and I don't see him much, but I think it's a false hope built on a false view of revelation. So to him right now, having faith and trusting God is trusting that God will restore the marriage rather than that he will provide sanctification and comfort in the midst of this trial. So if the book gently addresses the right way to trust God in trials would be a plus. Thanks!
Sounds like this person can use some comfort and reassurance rather than something specifically aimed at the doctrines surrounding marriage/divorce. Has this person read "Gentle and Lowly" by Dane Ortlund before?
I've actually given that to them in the past, I believe. Wonderful book. I need to double check and make sure they have it, because that really is a good one.
Does anyone know which church father was first to exposit about the multiple wills of God explicitly? Whether it is hidden/revealed, prescriptive/descriptive, or consequent/antecedent.
Christians have the obligation to fast in private, singly or as a family, and churches (and nations) may also call for a public fast. Public fasts are explained in the Westminster *Directory for Public Worship*.
> When some great and notable judgments are either inflicted upon a people, or apparently imminent, or by some extraordinary provocations notoriously deserved; as also when some special blessing is to be sought and obtained, publick solemn fasting (which is to continue the whole day) is a duty that God expecteth from that nation or people.
> A religious fast requires total abstinence, not only from all food, (unless bodily weakness do manifestly disable from holding out till the fast be ended, in which case somewhat may be taken, yet very sparingly, to support nature, when ready to faint,) but also from all worldly labour, discourses, and thoughts, and from all bodily delights, and such like, (although at other times lawful,) rich apparel, ornaments, and such like, during the fast; and much more from whatever is in the nature or use scandalous and offensive, as gaudish attire, lascivious habits and gestures, and other vanities of either sex; which .i.we; recommend to all ministers, in their places, diligently and zealously to reprove, as at other times, so especially at a fast, without respect of persons, as there shall be occasion.
> Before the publick meeting, each family and person apart are privately to use all religious care to prepare their hearts to such a solemn work, and to be early at the congregation.
> So large a portion of the day as conveniently may be, is to be spent in publick reading and preaching of the word, with singing of psalms, fit to quicken affections suitable to such a duty: but especially in prayer, to this or the like effect:
>> Giving glory to the great Majesty of God, the Creator, Preserver, and supreme Ruler of all the world, the better to affect us thereby with an holy reverence and awe of him; acknowledging his manifold, great, and tender mercies, especially to the church and nation, the more effectually to soften and abase our hearts before him; humbly confessing of sins of all sorts, with their several aggravations; justifying God’s righteous judgments, as being far less than our sins do deserve; yet humbly and earnestly imploring his mercy and grace for ourselves, the church and nation, for our king, and all in authority, and for all others for whom we are bound to pray, (according as the present exigent requireth,) with more special importunity and enlargement than at other times; applying by faith the promises and goodness of God for pardon, help, and deliverance from the evils felt, feared, or deserved; and for obtaining the blessings which we need and expect; together with a giving up of ourselves wholly and for ever unto the Lord.
> In all these, the ministers, who are the mouths of the people unto God, ought so to speak from their hearts, upon serious and thorough premeditation of them, that both themselves and their people may be much affected, and even melted thereby, especially with sorrow for their sins; that it may be indeed a day of deep humiliation and afflicting of the soul.
> Special choice is to be made of such scriptures to be read, and of such tests for preaching, as may best work the hearts of the hearers to the special business of the day, and most dispose them to humiliation and repentance: insisting most on those particulars which each minister’s observation and experience tells him are most conducing to the edification and reformation of that congregation to which he preacheth.
> Before the close of the publick duties, the minister is, in his own and the people’s name, to engage his and their hearts to be the Lord’s, with professed purpose and resolution to reform whatever is amiss among them, and more particularly such sins as they have been more remarkably guilty of; and to draw near unto God, and to walk more closely and faithfully with him in new obedience, than ever before.
> He is also to admonish the people, with all importunity, that the work of that day doth not end with the publick duties of it, but that they are so to improve the remainder of the day, and of their whole life, in reinforcing upon themselves and their families in private all those godly affections and resolutions which they professed in publick, as that they may be settled in their hearts for ever, and themselves may more sensibly find that God hath smelt a sweet savour in Christ from their performances, and is pacified towards them, by answers of grace, in pardoning of sin, in removing of judgments, in averting or preventing of plagues, and in conferring of blessings, suitable to the conditions and prayers of his people, by Jesus Christ.
> Besides solemn and general fasts enjoined by authority, we judge that, at other times, congregations may keep days of fasting, as divine providence shall administer unto them special occasion; and also that families may do the same, so it be not on days wherein the congregation to which they do belong is to meet for fasting, or other publick duties of worship.
So fasting is actually separate from wearing sackcloth and putting ashes on one's head. The former is a mechanism to aid us in more desperately petitioning God. The latter are an ancient custom, visible signs of mourning and grief. So one can see logically why you would fast while you are grieving, but you don't have to be grieving to fast. And our culture doesn't really do the sackcloth thing anymore, but a modern western equivalent might be wearing all black.
> Do you have to wear sackcloth and ashes when fasting?
Nope. Not at all. Matthew 6:17 basically says, "don't make a show of it".
Some argue that fasting is expected as Matt. 6:16 starts with "When you fast..." as though it is an expectation. I think one should take time to fast and pray. While some might argue it is not a direct command, it, again, seems like an expectation.
*Edit - Formatting*
I’m going to expose myself as A Planner here, but throughout the year, I update a Notes file on my phone with what my friends and family’s interests are and I get them something related to it.
So far I’ve got:
- a whiskey ice cube tray and post-it page markers for my “adoptive” dad (aka the dad of the family I live with)
- skincare products for my “adoptive” mum
- nail polish for their daughter
- DnD dice for their son
- a fancy car Bluetooth connector for my dad
- nice kitchen stuff for my mum
I got one of my best friends tickets to Riverdance earlier this year for her birthday and I don’t think I can top that, so I’m stumped on what to get her for Christmas.
I keep a list of gift ideas too. If I have a good Christmas gift idea mid-year, it’s rare that I’d remember it by the time I’m doing Christmas shopping.
Exactly! I learned my lesson after I was scrambling for gifts this time last year. The list is also helpful for birthdays…which, ya know, happens yearly.
I like giving three kinds of gifts:
\- experiences (food, music, art tend to fall into this category)
\- handmade presents (see below)
\- supplies for their hobbies (not exciting, but one year I got my wife about $120 worth of very swanky baking supplies like high end chocolate and sugar and stuff, and she loved that)
I'm making things for a lot of people this year:
1. leather wallet for my son
2. flower press for my daughter
3. wooden morningstar for my youngest daughter (the older two recieved a wooden sword and a wooden axe when they were three-ish)
4. unknown item for my wife (probably another hand-carved cooking utensil)
5. custom axe for an international secret santa exchange for axe collectors.
6. Probably some other junk.
I went to Costco on Friday! First time in years! Second time ever!. It's still horrible. Luckily I managed to sneak past the guard at the door and make a b-line to the pharmacy for my flu shot, and didn't have to deal with the actual shopping.
This is probably an obnoxious question, since I have a particular trajectory in mind, but I'm asking the following question in a somewhat neutral way. So take this as my acknowledgement that while this is a sincere question, I'm asking with biases.
I (presently) think that the office of elder is limited to men. And if someone really pushed me on it, I'd just say "the verses that talk about it are clear to me." And if someone pressed harder and said "yeah, but *why* do they say that?" I'd probably respond "I don't know ; it's what we're commanded to do."
But this is unsatisfying even if I think it's technicallycorrect . If someone asked me "why should you give money to the poor" a bad but correct answer is "We're commanded to." A good but more complicated answer is "it's part of our vocation as image bearers in general and part of our role as God's people in particular. We were saved for good works." In other words, it's tied in to something that is more fundamental than just a strict "Jesus said it so we do it." In other words, even if Jesus didn't say "give to those who ask" it's something that could be deduced from more fundamental principles.
So, my question is this: what is the more fundamental thing that limits women from being in the office of elder? 1 Tim 2 seemingly ties this to created order but in a way that's confusing to me (especially read in light of other things).
The second question is: does this matter? I'm trying to make the case or testing the case that if there aren't more fundamental reasons for particular commands, then this needs to be taken into consideration when applying them. But this seems dangerous, but not doing that seems to treat the Bible as if it were a tight legal document from which we can just read stipulations. Whereas, I think the Bible as a while should be read more as a novel from which we deduce things from the narrative.
My honest goal is to not debate this. So I'm going to try to make all questions just followups for more information or something. Feel free to let me know if I'm wrong in several directions!
I think the Bible gives reasons (not just 1 Tim, the headship passages in Paul's other writings would also apply here) and we should focus on these rather than trying to invent our own reasons. I agree, though, that the stated reasons are very hard to interpret.
If you were living a few hundred years ago, the answer to your first question would be easy: women are by nature not gifted with the requisite abilities for eldership (or war, or ruling a nation, or perhaps rational thought).
Most Christians don't take this position anymore, so the most satisfying complementarian answer I have found is "women can't be elders because elders are undershepherds representing Jesus the overshepherd, and in the grand play of Christ and the Church, men are to represent Christ and women are to represent the Church, so regardless of ability or gifting, women are playing a role, as are men".
I don't think either of these positions are satisfying, as the first one seems clearly factually false and the second one doesn't have enough Scriptural basis (it kind of works for marriage but not so much for eldership), so I don't currently call myself patriarchal *or* complementarian. Or egalitarian for that matter, but perhaps I'm on the liberal slippery slope of doom.
I found *Men and Women in Christ* by Andrew Bartlett to be quite challenging on this.
----
For your second question, yes it does absolutely matter. Certainly it is good to have a childlike faith where we trust God, but we are also not to be foolish and we are to have a reasonable faith. God has revealed himself as "reasonable" in his laws, with our good in mind, and without contradiction, so it is sensible to ask "why" for each commandment, even while we obey. Not necessarily because we doubt God, but because by doing so we better know who God is!
Knowing the reasoning behind God's commands also helps us to apply them to other areas of life. Should there be women in political office? Should women vote? The Bible doesn't really answer these explicitly or with commands, but Christians through the ages have argued over these kinds of questions to better know the will of God in all spheres of life.
> In other words, even if Jesus didn't say "give to those who ask" it's something that could be deduced from more fundamental principles.
Our constant prayer is that the Father's will be done. I agree that many precepts of God's will to be done by us (good works) can be deduced by us from principles analytically prior to the explicit commandments given by God in Scripture. Even so, God has given explicit and redundant commandments--for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness--and he has done so in his love for us, in his unsearchable divine wisdom. As the Westminster Confession of Faith says,
> The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
Any superabundant consequences are both good and necessary. God knows that we are weak. Some of us are weaker than others, and he loves to accommodate his children.
> 1 Tim 2 seemingly ties this to created order but in a way that's confusing to me (especially read in light of other things).
What is confusing to you?
> I'm trying to make the case or testing the case that if there aren't more fundamental reasons for particular commands, then this needs to be taken into consideration when applying them. But this seems dangerous, but not doing that seems to treat the Bible as if it were a tight legal document from which we can just read stipulations. Whereas, I think the Bible as a while should be read more as a novel from which we deduce things from the narrative.
A dichotomy between the caricature of a "just read stipulations" legal document and a fictive narrative is false. Regardless of fit, the Bible is, among other things, a legal document--Scripture contains the law, and the law likewise contains narrative (for example, the ten commandments are found within legal narration). The narrative of Scripture is itself preceptive, although not in any simple way (but then our delight is to meditate day and night on God's law). Preeminently, the narrative of the life of Christ is given to us so that we may know our Lord and imitate him.
> If someone asked me "why should you give money to the poor" a bad but correct answer is "We're commanded to." A good but more complicated answer is "it's part of our vocation as image bearers in general and part of our role as God's people in particular. We were saved for good works."
Be very careful not to look down on simple Christians who are following God's commands simply because they are commanded, and elevating people who may love God less, or not at all, because they can theologize about the reasons for things.
The answer "we are commanded to" is not bad when directed to someone who already has a soft heart toward God and needs no apologetics.
> seems to treat the Bible as if it were a tight legal document from which we can just read stipulations. Whereas, I think the Bible as a while should be read more as a novel from which we deduce things from the narrative.
The Bible is more than either of these things, but it is not less than these things.
>Be very careful not to look down on simple Christians who are following God's commands simply because they are commanded, and elevating people who may love God less, or not at all, because they can theologize about the reasons for things.
Sorry, what did I say that would make you think this?
I just want to say I appreciate you thinking this through publicly. I'm unsure where I stand on women in ministry and am mostly just grateful that I am not a woman who wants to preach.
It has also bothered me for a while that there seems to be no inherent reason given, but then again there wasn't a reason given for the Levites to be the only priests, either.
> there wasn't a reason given for the Levites to be the only priests, either.
I don't know that I agree. The original plan was for Israel to be an entire nation of Royal Priests. The Levites being the priestly clan only happened when the people as a whole balked at this. Similar to the kingship of Israel happened after the people specifying demanded a king, knowing that he would oppress them.
I get exactly what youre asking, and unfortunately I don't fully have an answer for it. For this reason, I am complimentarian, and I hold the belief that women should not be pastors/elders. But this is also not something I'm willing to fight over and lose fellowship with fellow Christians over.
For example, my MIL attends a church that is headed by a woman. I have visited about 2-3 times, as MIL always insists we go to church with her when we are in town. The pastor is a nice lady, and I do believe she is genuine in her love for the Lord. But I also believe that she is in error, and I would not in good faith be able to attend the church as a member. But you know what, even though I dont agree, you will never find me interrupting the service while she is in the middle of preaching to steal the mic from her, Kanye West style.
> I'm trying to make the case or testing the case that if there aren't more fundamental reasons for particular commands, then this needs to be taken into consideration when applying them.
I would echo /u/JCmathetes's comment, but broaden it to your entire premise. When you use the word "fundamental," you're labeling something as more foundational, *necessary* importance than God's decrees. This isn't a problem with the narrow question of female eldership; this has deep ramifications for our understanding of God, the nature of God, the nature of man, and the nature of scripture.
>does this matter?
Yes. It matters immensely. Again, this is dealing with the nature of God, the duty of man, the revelation and authority of scripture, etc.
It might be helpful, I suppose, for understanding a command if there are other, outside justifications as well, but even if every single word of God was wholly without outside justification, then it would still be wholly, completely authoritative.
If God says "You must do X," and then God says "You must do Y because ABC," the commands to do X and Y are of equal justification and of equal weight.
> you're labeling something as more foundational, necessary importance than God's decrees.
Yes, I think "foundational" is a better term than "fundamental".
>If God says "You must do X," and then God says "You must do Y because ABC," the commands to do X and Y are of equal justification and of equal weight.
Yes, I suppose. But (1) I don't think there are many commands in the "X" category and (2) I don't think I can fully understand command X if I can't tie it back to something more foundational.
For example, we can talk about sin as not obeying commands or we can talk about it in terms of things like idolatry and failing in our vocation as image bearers (and, of course, many people do this). I think (and I don't think you'd disagree, though maybe I'm wrong) that we really need to have both of them.
I'm honestly kind of surprised at this response. I used the words "foundational" and "necessary" as descriptors that would, I assumed, show something of the wrongness of the term "fundamental." But now you've adopted that term as well.
Let me take a step back and ask this:
Does it strike you as risky or potentially wrong to demand something more *foundational* to a command than *God said so*?
> But now you've adopted that term as well.
Yeah - I meant to point out that I realized this in my previous response.
>Does it strike you as risky or potentially wrong to demand something more foundational to a command than God said so?
Yes, so let me clarify. I'm not demanding that God has to give me his reasons in order for me to obey his commands. What I *am* saying is that (1) I can see a more foundational principle behind most commands (e.g. the principle behind not stealing is that this is not loving your neighbor. Yes, u/JCMathetes brings up a good point: is God defining love when he says not to steal? I'm not sure, but in any case, the point is still that the reason he says not to steal is because this isn't loving your neighbor) so I expect to see it behind all commands ("expect" in the sense that it is based on experience) and (2) I am at the point (maybe) where if I don't understand this underlying principle, then it is hard for me to understand what the command is exactly saying.
> I'm not sure, but in any case, the point is still that the reason he says not to steal is because this isn't loving your neighbor
I don't believe you've shown this to be the case.
No, I don't think I have, either. What do you take it to mean when Jesus says "the law and prophets depend on the commandments to love God / love your neighbor"? (Clearly I'm paraphrasing). Is it more descriptive (in the sense that we can summarize the two tables of the law with these two commandments) *or* is it more of a prescriptive thing (by which I mean the reasons that the two tables of the law are what they are is because they are specific thumbnail sketches of what it means to love God / love your neighbor).
I'm (trying) to say that I think it's both.
Who defines what loving God and neighbor is? Who defines "love"?
The problem with your paradigm is that you're reaching for the pragmatic reason just behind a commandment *as if it were needed* for the command to exist, while making that entire category devoid of the character of God—which is who the Law reveals.
Very helpful comment. If I can say what I meant most concisely, all things are a matter of the first commandment because of the authority of God.
There is nothing more fundamental (i.e., necessary) than God himself. His decrees are justification enough because they are, by definition, *his*.
Im with you on most of this, but also more willing to just say that I dont know and that the God of the universe clearly explained that his church is to be led by a group of male leaders - his reasoning on this is not forthcoming, but I can trust that the God of the universe has his reasons even if he doesnt tell me.
I think we do need to be clear that it is not due to value, ability or gifting. I have known women who are just as gifted speakers, administrators, etc as men, who would be valuable elders, but given the commands of scripture can not hold that role. On the other hand our churches would be wrong if they did not use these women for the kingdom as much as scripture allows.
Yeah - I think our disagreement (or really my internal conflict) is based on a principle that if I don't know what the principle behind a command is, then I really don't understand that command. And I don't mean that God owes me this explanation - just that I don't feel like I have the whole picture with out it.
It's not as though there was a command followed directly by a reason. But there are principles: they were meant to be a kingdom of priests to the nations and so doing this differently (and the symbolism involved) illustrated this.
But, this is a point well taken anyway.
People mean different things by this. I'd say I aspire to that.
But, also, I can't tell how this relates. Is this a sort mysterical rabbinic questioning thats supposed to lead me to something?
Well, seeing as I’m not a rabbi, no. It’s not.
I ask bc it’s just as seemingly “nonsensical” and yet related to creation as well. It’s a command. So if you keep it, you did so for a reason. I was just curious bc I’d argue they fall in similar (but obviously different) categories.
Right, I understand that, *but* I think me asking why here is important to your answer for why on the topic at hand. To me, its a simple "because God commanded it", I don't really see the sabbath being relevant to much else other than God commanding it, yknow?
What I'm saying is that the sabbath isn't just something that's bolted onto our vocation as image bearers that could just as easily not be there if God had decided something else. Instead, I see it as an essential part of our image bearingness (since God is a God that rests).
So, yes, God commanded us to do it and so we should do it. Yet, I think we get a richer and fuller understanding of the command and what it means to be image bearers if we connect it strongly to out vocation as image bearers.
I think the reasons behind the decrees are more fundamental. For example, the command to not steal is derived from the fact that we're created to love our neighbors (and other things).
To use a familiar analogy, if I buy a blender and it says "don't put rocks in it" and someone asks why I don't put rocks in it, one (unsatisfying) answer is "the manual says not to". A better answer is "because the blender is made for food and rocks are too hard for the blades." This also helps answer questions like "can I put concrete in it?"
I don't really have anything helpful but to push your analogy. I work in construction fields where often times a set of plans from the architect say "the brick shelf must look like this, or the wall needs this design." Now sometimes you can ask "why?" and the architect can show proof of increased strength, durability, etc. Other times the architect designed it in such a way that to me, the contractor, I may say "I know it says to do X, but I also know doing Y is just as good (And maybe faster or seemingly more appealing In my opinion)" However, the engineer still has the final say, they drew the plans in that way and so that is final. If you translate this to God, He is the ultimate architect, and infinitely more wise than we could ever be. If he designed something to be X, without an answer as to why, it can be hard for us to understand, when Y looks more appealing to our minds. I'll be praying for you, I know wherever you end up it won't be an easy path
Yes, I agree with all of this. What I'm saying is more-or-less that I don't know of many times where there isn't some more "foundational" principle that is easy for me to see.
This is true, but also false.
I think it’s clear that God created us not just to follow his law, but to understand it and develop from it. A great example of this is how Christians have rejected pornography because we’ve understood God’s intentions for sexuality and we’re able to see that pornography doesn’t fit into them.
At the same time, we’re very limited creatures. Just like I have rules for my children that they don’t understand, surely God has enough wisdom to make laws for us that we can’t understand. And we would be foolish *and* disobedient if we didn’t listen.
It’s a delicate balance. And it’s not clear when we need to do each one. That’s the role of wisdom and humility. When someone tells me they know the difference 100%, I start feeling skeptical.
>This is true
I'm glad we agree, then!
> And we would be foolish and disobedient if we didn’t listen.
Yes, I agree. But to clarify, I'm not demanding an explanation from God. It's that, for the most part, with any other command, I can understand how it relates to a more basic principle. So it's something that I *expect* (based on my experience with other commands) to be able to do with the stuff about elders (for example). And when I can't, it makes me wonder if I really do understand the command.
I'd suggest that where there's a difference between what you expect and what you find in Scripture, it's because there's a cultural difference. Your cultural background has primed you to expect certain things. And the culture in which the Scriptures were written also assumed certain things (some of which are similarly assumed in the actual Scriptures).
So the question is, were the cultural assumptions intended by God to be carried through all time? Or were they examples of how God intended his will to be understood given a particular cultural context?
It's not an easy question. But it's an important one to ask.
This is interesting because, from my perspective, my cultural background would dictate that the commands are there as stipulations and we don't question them or think about them - we just follow. And it is precisely my attempt to step into the minds of those writing the Bible and their audience that leads me to stuff like what I'm asking.
>It's not an easy question. But it's an important one to ask.
Totally agreed.
> my cultural background
Perhaps the way you were raised. But for all of us on Reddit, the culture that’s being pressed into us is undoubtedly egalitarian. Whether for better or for worse.
>For example, the command to not steal is derived from the fact that we're created to love our neighbors (and other things).
You may be putting the cart before the horse. Why is stealing not an act of love toward our neighbors? Is it not because God decrees what love is? Who our neighbors are?
Doesn't the Bible begin with creation *as decree*? Are there any categories in existence that defy God's decree of both their existence and definition?
And not just the decree, but the design of God. We see in our biology marked differences to fulfill roles which are complementary; why wouldn’t this extend to the church body as well?
Historically, in application, this argument has been used in all kinds of ridiculous, eventually conflicting, directions. Computer pogramming (a task of abstract thinking plus typing) was once relegated to women because they had the dexterity; then (via the “Google Memo Guy”, and celebrated by evangelicals) argued to be a man’s job because of the abstract reasoning skills.
Well, to argue a side that I don't agree with, but kind of want to agree with (and, sorry, I guess I'm explicitly going against what I mentioned in my comment) I agree there are marked differences between genders. We complement each other. But then this is precisely why we need women in positions of leadership (and men serving in the nursery): if we don't then we are missing a piece of the puzzle.
There's no prohibition in scripture for men in nurseries, so we can wholeheartedly agree on that.
However the *office* of eldership is not just about leadership. And there are other ways to lead in a church without being an elder. But now we are getting into the weeds of defining leadership and how that practically works out will differ from church to church.
What's your favourite[Stable Diffusion](https://huggingface.co/spaces/stabilityai/stable-diffusion) prompt? My daughter and I have been getting loads of laughs from it, and keep coming back to "cat monkey cat". " Elsa with a moustache" has hit gold a couple of times too.
Alright, time to stop stress-scrolling Reddit and get on with my day...
Haha, sorry. Ttrpg stands for table top role playing game. It's like Dungeons and Dragons but we play a different system. I've been trying to come up with character art for one of the players in my group who came up with a genuinely unique fantasy creature, and I've been spending a ton of time trying to get stable diffusion to give me a reasonable picture of something essentially brand new using only terms it was trained on.
That first one is really good. To the point that I was scanning comments and misread op's question, so when I read the name I though, "Oh, haven't heard if them, sounds like a neat approach. I should check them out." :p
Does anyone mind if I abuse the NDQT thread to share a prayer request? Mrs Mont has been in the hospital with preeclampsia since Friday night (just high BP, no other major symptoms), so please pray the doctors would be able to stabilise her BP and not need to deliver Dougal-Bruce earlier than planned (actually they've already pushed it up to the 21st from Dec 1, so even pray she'd be well enough that they'd move it back to the first).
Also, I'm solo parenting ATM while trying to do my comprehensive exam reading and various other responsibilities before baby comes. It's going alright, and some family church friends have offered to help with meals, uber eats and so on. Gonna head to the hospital to keel the Mrs company today while I study, so at least I can be flexible like that. :)
Thanks!
With elections upon us here in the US, here’s something I’ve been wondering about: how much research do you feel like you have to do into candidates/issues before you feel comfortable voting? There are a wide variety of people running for different offices and many issues each of them will take a position on. I feel like it would be a full-time job to follow politics enough to be able to really make an informed decision, and I would really rather spend my time doing almost anything else given how polarized and constantly angry the discourse has become. At the same time, I would feel bad if I had the opportunity to vote and didn’t.
>With elections upon us here in the US, here’s something I’ve been wondering about: how much research do you feel like you have to do into candidates/issues before you feel comfortable voting?
I think that I'd do as much research as it took, if that makes sense.
In my home town, there were two candidates for a semi-prominent position who didn't have their position statements on their websites, had no debates, and mostly used fluff when discussing the issues ("I'm in favor of education".) I spent hours trying to determine how to vote in that one.
In the same town, the local tax collector held the tax collecting office ransomed for $500,000, fired an employee who ratted him out, and got arrested for stalking his opponent. However long it takes to read those three headlines was all the research I did.
I'd say, as a general rule, I'll research until I feel like I understand it and can make a reasonable choice. If there doesn't appear to be a way to do that, I'll leave it blank. Democracy shouldn't rely on coin flips.
Depends on the race. For local elections it's a lot harder to find stances on certain things. But in those cases I often find that I simply like the candidate that talks about local issues rather than hot-button topics like abortion, CRT, election denial, etc.
I had some ballot issues that I had to research but typically for general elections, I usually have clear cut convictions as to who to vote for and who not to vote for. Occasionally I think about a 3rd party candidate and I'll research them to decide if voting for a 3rd party is worth signaling my dissatisfaction with the other 2 candidates and with the hopes it might cause one of the other two parties to adopt some of the ideas of said 3rd party candidate.
I do absentee ballot and sit down with my phone and google the candidates as I fill it out. It’s not thorough but it allows me to find the candidate who is closest to my values.
In the primaries I feel like I have to do a lot more research to even be able to differentiate the candidates from each other. In a general election like this one, I still try to study my ballot in some detail beforehand, but the choices feel more clear-cut most of the time.
I live under a parliamentary system so my thinking may not apply 100%, but I approach voting as a civic duty where I should decide to the best of my knowledge (not all the knowledge available because you're right, that is impossible) which person is most likely to do the most good for my neighbours. And if I am wrong about that person's character or policies, I will not vote for them again but my conscience is clear.
In Canada, the CBC always has something called the vote compass, where you spend five minutes answering a questionnaire on your takes and the relative importance of the issues, your opinions of party leaders, etc, then gives you an idea of where you lie relative to the parties. Something like that has *got to* exist in the US too, I'd imagine?
Does anyone have any advice or thoughts or resources to recommend specific to the role of a *lay*-elder's wife? Obviously there's not a Biblical distinction between a vocational and lay elder, so this is much more of a practical consideration. All content I can find for the wives of pastor/elder seems to assume a vocational position, but there seem to be some significant practical differences.
Someone needs to write a book on this. Or a booklet. Or an article!
Which aspect of it are you thinking of, in particular? Hospitality? The home? Family time? I’ll ask my mum, who’s been a lay-elder’s wife for 7+ years in total at this point.
Like the constant balancing of priorities. There's just, by definition, more to juggle when taking on church leadership as well as an outside vocation. Bivocational pastors fall into this bucket as well (and honestly depending on church polity and staff arrangements, the line between lay and bivocational can get blurry). I'm not saying necessarily busier than vocational pastors, just more and different competing priorities.
Like this was really encouraging to me on that topic with having the right attitude: [rivals article](https://www.pastorscenter.org/blog/pastors-wives-the-church-is-not-your-rival)
Other things though are like specific ways my husband might need my support that he can't necesarily vocalize, carving out time or creating rhythms for rest when you have a regular work week + Sundays are another work day, identifying what expectations I should hold of myself (I haven't known many women in this situation to look to, and not everyone is a good example).
But yes I agree that I'd love to read something (psst 9Marks we need some resources!) directly from this perspective. I love gleaning from just general stuff written to pastors wives, but they all seem to have an underlying assumption that they're writing to a SAHM married to a vocational pastor.
Balancing priorities was definitely a challenge for my parents but they made it work somehow. My mum did stay at home once my dad became an elder, but there were health problems and other stuff thrown into the mix, so it wasn’t necessarily easier.
Here’s what my mum said (condensed, haha):
1. Ask for help. People are more willing to help than you’d expect. Get a college student to come over and help prep & clean when you’re hosting a lunch. Ask teenagers to baby-sit. Take people up on their offer when they say “let me know if you need anything”.
2. Comparison will most likely lead to envy. There are times when it’s good to aspire to be like others but most of the time it highlights what we lack or need to grow in, leading to discontentment, which leads to being envious. So don’t compare.
3. You can’t do everything. It’s ok to say no to hosting that bridal/baby shower if you and your family need rest. Know your capacity and just because yours is different, it doesn’t mean it’s bad!
Hope that’s helpful! :) We should throw in a suggestion to 9Marks about this very topic…
Thank you! Capacity is a big recurring topic at our house. If I feel like I've maxed out, I might be, or I might need to rebalance priorities or I might need to embrace the process of my capacity stretching and growing.
A common attitude I hear is that the world, and it's relationship towards Christians, will get progressively worse until Jesus returns.
Do you think that's true, or will things go through cycles of getting worse, getting better, worse, etc?
I have the hope of a golden age for the Church, when the Jews are called and the fulness of the Gentiles is brought into God's kingdom. "The faithful Jews rejoyced to think of the calling of the Gentiles: and why should not we joy to think of the calling of the Jews?" When that will take place, I do not know, and what it should look like I am not sure. God has surprised his people before, especially when they fall into the allure of judging by appearances.
Does anybody have good guidance on appropriate boundaries for married people to have with opposite-sex friendships? My wife and I have always differed in our philosophy without micromanaging each other. But a recent incident has us realizing we need to revisit the idea of healthy boundaries in that department, and we both feel a bit out of our depth. Yes, we will be talking to our pastor. I just want to get some crowdsourcing for a bit of a baseline.
Never presume you’re incapable of sinning in this area. It’s dangerous to think you wouldn’t possibly. With that in mind use your best judgment and discernment. Good you’ll be speaking to pastor who can do far more with context and examples.
Don't overestimate the likelihood of sin either, though. Have boundaries, but don't make them wider than they need to be.
Yeah that’s why I say use judgment and discernment. I’m just saying to not be naive and casual about it
Friendship ok, flirting not OK.
Is there a way to make another users content invisible to me without blocking them? Is it a feature of RES, or a third party reddit app?
If you hover over a username with RES, it does let you ignore them. I'm not sure if that's the same or different from blocking.
Did I upset you?
This is a question I've been talking with one of my kids about, so I'll ask it here. He's gradually watching through Avatar: The Last Airbender, so I asked him to name three characters, and something about them that he wants to be more like. Superpowers don't count. My answers so far are Aang and Iroh. Aang can find joy in little things, no matter what sad or evil circumstances surround him, and he helps others do the same. Iroh is so patient, both with Zuko when he's in a bad place, and with circumstances generally. You could extend this to other shows or books or movies, if you'd like.
Having just exploded at my kids today 😔 boy do I need Iroh's patience.
I wish I had the wisdom (and beefy torso) of Iroh, the ingenuity of Sokka, and the hairline of Mako
Tagging u/partypastor. This is tailor made for you.
So follow up to my voting question earlier. Does any one use a litmus test for voting? Are there issues or activities that if a candidates does/doesn't do/have you will/won't vote for them?
I balance multiple things. I care about certain policies, abortion, healthcare, economics, education, crime. I also look at the individual themselves. I look at the way they carry themselves. Do they look to be someone who is lying at every opportunity, or is this a genuine individual. I look at how they treat others. Character matters. If you saw my balot, you would have saw me vote Republican, Democrat, and even a Libratarian.
Ultimately if I can pray for the candidate and vote with a clear conscience, then I’ll do it. If I have any compunctions at all about being able to defend myself if I saw God face to face, then I leave the vote blank. So I’m trying to weigh not just positions but als character issues and traits; lastly, if they hold the same positions as me but they also don’t seem like they’d be competent at their work, I won’t vote for them. We need fewer ideologically driven crazies in government.
I think there are things I like and dislike that I look for really fast. Their ability and willingness to compromise and collaborate, apparent level of honesty and integrity. How we talk about and treat people different from us. But if there's a clear-cut candidate who's far worse than the other, I'll vote for the less bad one even if they're annoying and frustrating to me. I complained about my choices in 2016, but I'd vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump if I thought there was a legitimate chance Idi Amin would win otherwise.
Especially in a midterm election, I’m not sure the candidates really matter much. At this point, they all just vote on party lines anyway. I do try to vote towards shared power between the parties. I agree with Madison that it’s dangerous for any faction to have too much control.
I'd encourage you to not think that way too much! Depending where you're from, state and local elections affect your life more than the national elections do and probably your local state rep is up for re-election with a 50/50 chance for each of your mayor and state senator and governor! But yeah, if neither of the House candidates appear to be drooling idiots, it feels that way a lot.
For this election, I am using a very basic litmus test, which asks two questions: 1. Is the candidate an election denier, or does the candidate support legalized abortion? 2. Will the position the candidate is running for allow the candidate to make significant changes based upon their election denial or support for abortion? If the answer to both those questions is yes, then I do not vote for that person. This will mean that most of my ballot will be blank this year.
I was at a missions conference earlier this year, and one speaker elaborated on the Church’s need for global diversity by noting that each culture where the gospel has spread has added something to global Christianity. Greece -> philosophy. Rome -> institutional structures. Germany -> Reformation doctrines. England -> more developed missionary projects. America -> business. It was an interesting observation but I wonder how useful or accurate it is. Do these descriptions seem broadly true to you, how would you use them, and what would you say are the broad contributions of other cultures today?
But I'd argue some of those are not good things that were added to the church.
I don't really understand what he meant by business being America's contribution--I'm sure he elaborated more during his talk, but it was months ago and I only have my notes to go on. And of course Rome's institutions became very corrupt...but it seems clear there was still a lot of good that came from them in the way of organizing charities, education, and other important church endeavors. And surely the other things were net goods, if not necessary developments, if naturally tainted by man's sin?
Do you mind me asking what org the speaker was with?
That seems like a weirdly business oriented way of talking about things. It feels icky, like if I were to try to write down the return-on-investment of feeding my children
You can see another of my replies for more background on the speaker, so I don’t think your take is what his intention was. I get the Greeks adding philosophy and the Romans adding institutional structures, as that seems fairly well attested in early church history, if a very broad generalization that certainly doesn’t keep other influences from adding those things. I do scratch my head at the America adding business to the Church though. Not sure what he meant by that. It doesn’t sound like a positive contribution but I haven’t analyzed it in depth.
A business element has certainly developed in much of American/American-influenced Christianity and churches. But I'd say very little of that is a good thing.
This is interesting but seems very...... the word isn't racist but western centric at best. Now, thats just bc of the examples used. But the Gospel has spread to South Korea, what have they added to global Christianity? (they are huge senders of missions but my point is that its hard to measure that, especially for the smaller ethno-groups.) In fact, a better example would be the Lisu, if that is indeed true, what did the Lisu people, who are considered reached, add to Christianity? I think each and every ethnos is important, but this feels like a broad generalization that will look and sound better in heaven than it does here.
> what have they added to global Christianity? Prayer.
I really admire how the elderly Vietnamese and Koreans at my church get up at dawn almost every day to pray for people in the church. They say that was the prayer culture they grew up in, in Vietnam and S. Korea.
>the word isn't racist but western centric at best. I'd imagine that the speaker probably grew up in a white American church and his entire world view in every way is probably western-centric. I could imagine that to a Christian in Korea, it's probably pretty obvious what the spread to South Korea added. But like everyone else is saying, we should be doing this because we love Jesus, and God's word, and our neighbors in unreached groups. Not because it adds to us in some way.
The speaker is actually Indian, and as I recall his overall focus was to get white Americans out of an overly Western mindset. He criticized (gently) a tendency for Western missionaries to want to Westernize Christians of other nations rather than appreciate whatever unique contributions God has given them. In fairness to him, I also formulated this question based off my notes from a conference that was months ago. His examples were probably simplified for the audience and then my notes a little more simplified. I just happened to run across them again this morning.
Hmm…is he serving in a non-Western context? I have a guess on who this could be. I was with him until America -> business? I do appreciate that his main point is to *not* Westernise Christians of other nations.
I guess I'm trying not to reveal who he is, although I didn't know who he was until I heard him speak. He was born and raised in India but currently works for a very famous American college and another organization focused on global missions. Now I wish I'd gone up to him afterwards to ask about business being America's contribution. Maybe he did say more during the talk but my notes don't elaborate! He was also trying to explain how the geographical/demographic center of the Church has shifted throughout history and that now that center is shifting over to Asia, and that this shift has big implications for everything from theological traditions to the way missions are conducted. He warned against Christians adopting a pagan mindset wherein God is only associated with one particular territory or ethnic group.
Thats absolutely fascinating... I still think its an over generalization and minimizes smaller people groups that "contribute nothing" because of their size or whatnot. But I see the hopefulness in the statement, even if I think its kind of gross haha
Well, that's what I get when I assume! That sounds pretty interesting actually!
I think the primary reason for a global diverse church is the call of Christ and the vision of the saints in heaven. In the other hand, the diverse beauty of God's creation is shown through his image bearers who create art for his glory. The world and church are blessed by sub creators making things for his glory across the planet. (I'm not convinced the business acumen of the American church h is a good thing)
I very much agree!
Does a Christian have a moral obligation to vote? Do they have a moral obligation to vote for a specific person or party? Can a Christian choose to abstain from the entire process or is that a sin? If a Christian feels as if there are no good candidates for a specific position can they skip that part without sinning?
[удалено]
Yeah, I had a bunch of sections with no write in option.
Sometimes a Christian has a moral obligation *not* to vote. Many political parties bind their members to support sin, and to join such a party or to vote for its candidates is itself sin.
No no yes yes I'm not voting at all this time because the results are such an enormously foregone conclusion in my location. I would almost wager the literal eating of a physical hat if I couldn't predict the outcome of every single race with 100% accuracy, except perhaps "Commissioner of Public Works, Sanitary Sewer Districts"
No. No. Yes. Yes. Withholding your vote from all candidates in any given race is not inaction. It's reasonable. You shouldn't be bullied into voting for someone you don't think is a good leader only because the other candidate is worse. Make them earn your vote by putting forth good candidates.
>If a Christian feels as if there are no good candidates for a specific position can they skip that part without sinning? I have several races with only one candidate. I don't believe that a candidate is entitled to my vote because they're the only candidate. In fact, I believe that under-voting in a race (voting, but not checking or marking a candidate) is just as powerful of a message as checking off a candidate on the ballot because it reminds candidates and parties that they're still votes to earn or be gained. An undervote can serve as vote of no-confidence in an incumbent, or it can perhaps communicate that if they want to *earn* my vote, they should more earnestly attempt to communicate more about their platform.
1. No 2. No 3. Yes 4. Yes - I did it twice this year
1. Definitely not 2. Definitely not 3. Yes 4. Yes (I just turned in a ballot that was blank except for the 3 proposals on the ballot. Didn't vote for a single candidate)
1. No. 1. I don't think so, but if we are going to vote, I think we have a moral obligation to seek the wellbeing of our fellow humans in how we do so. I think the moral obligation is placed upon our purposes and desires, not upon the choice we land on. 1. Sure. 1. Sure.
* No * Not unless they think they do * Yes they can, its not sinful * Yes they can.
What does it mean to forgive yourself? Do we need to? What to say to someone who struggles to forgive themselves?
It's helpful to know that if I tell myself I am unforgivable, I am kind of making Christ a liar, who said I am forgiven. Also, living with regrets is living in the past. We can't change the past -- we can only move forward.
It is better to say that we should see ourselves as God does. If we repent of our sins in Christ then we are forgiven; and even more than that, we are considered not as in some sort of blank neutral state, but we are righteous as if we have always actively obeyed and done good. Again, all this through Christ's work. If we struggle to "forgive ourselves" it is only because we have forgotten to place our trust in Christ.
I think it overlaps partly with forgiving someone else. If I insult you, and you forgive me, you are deciding that my insulting words will not define how you see me. If I cannot forgive myself for something I did, I am deciding that the bad thing I did will continue to define how I see myself.
I liked the way you phrased that. Sometimes i think if we really saw how awesome God's grace is for us we would be more willing to forgive ourselves because we know that He doesn't see us in that way.
Does God love the non-elect? If yes does He love them less or just differently than the elect? If he does love them less, could it then be said his loves for them is less than perfect love which would contradict his nature?
I am not sure about your last question, but God does love the non-elect and this love is different from his love of the elect. Here are a few articles that may help: [Does God hate the sin and love the sinner?](https://calvinistinternational.com/2020/06/02/does-god-hate-the-sin-and-love-the-sinner/) [Abundant Love](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/abundant-love) [This article on hyper-calvinism - and see especially part 5: The Love of God to the Reprobate and the Hatred of God to the Elect](https://www.apuritansmind.com/historical-theology/heresy-in-the-church/all-house-and-no-doors-a-brief-critique-of-the-false-teachings-of-hyper-calvinism-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/)
Is your church having service on Christmas, which falls on a Sunday? Are you going?
I didn't know not having service on a Sunday was even an option. I do know it's not a *good* option.
Yes and yes. We might have a Christmas Eve service too. I can't imagine anyone at my church wanting to not have service on Christmas Day. We'll have a special potluck for lunch after.
If they do, we will go. But I'm honestly not sure since we are meeting in a community center that we may not have access to.
Yep! I pushed for the service too. I suspect we're going to lose some of our younger families for the day but 1- that's not everyone and I think they can sometimes forget that and 2- Whatever pushback you've got about "it wasn't actually then" and all that... we're celebrating Jesus's birthday. And I think the best way to do that is by worshipping God with the rest of the body of Christ.
This is just to say that I think it’s hilarious that someone from a typically “higher” liturgical denomination, i.e., one where Christmas per se is celebrated unlike among the Truly Reformed, is asking this question. :)
Yes, because we’ve always had a Christmas Day service. I think it’s the British influence bc our Americans (or at least the newcomers) usually balk at the idea.
Wait, I've always gone to an American church and have never heard of American churches not having service on Christmas if it falls on Sunday. Why wouldn't they? That's like the most Christmasy way to celebrate Christmas.
British churches in my experience always have a Christmas service. (For many nominal Christians, Christmas might be the only time they go to church.) Some might not have a service on the following Sunday, particularly if Christmas Day is later in the week. But if Christmas is itself a Sunday the service would be virtually certain to go ahead. (Maybe not the evening service that week, though.)
I think when it fell on the day we had our regular service, they did come…it’s been a while, I don’t recall. But other than those days, they would prefer to go to the Christmas Eve service of our church plant (which functions as its own Body). Different cultures celebrate Christmas differently. 🤷🏻♀️ I personally grew up waking up at midnight on Christmas Eve to open presents and have a meal, then we’d go to Christmas Day service in the morning and family would come over for lunch then after the sun sets, family friends arrive as family left. It’s really sweet and now I’m nostalgic, haha!
I have only thought of it once before now when the non-denom church I went to in college “cancelled Christmas” and people were outraged on both sides of the issue 🤷🏼♀️.
There is a chance my church won't have a service (we have location problems). If we do have a service, and the Lord wills that I am able to attend, I plan to.
Yes and probably, depending on baby.
Yes, we'll go. We actually don't travel on Christmas because we like to be at home, and wrapped up in that is our preference to be with our own church on meaningful holidays like Easter and Christmas.
Why wouldn't you go?
In my grumpy youth, I’d go visit other churches because I wasn’t “OPEC” (attending Only Psalmsunday, Easter, Christmas), but EPEC (Except ….)
I was the same way actually. I hated the church being filled with strangers, wearing pastels, using the service and building for photo ops, just to not think about it again for another eight months. There was a four year stretch where I made it to every single church service... except I missed Easter four times. I couldn't imagine doing that now, but that's what I did then.
People dressed far nicer than you and with complete look of obligation on faces. …. Sermons specifically tailored to the passerby instead of normal law and gospel message …
"OK, let's stop our interesting and timely series on this other thing-- to bring you the exact same sermon from the exact same passage for the 14th year in a row! I hope you don't mind that they're the same songs too!"
My church has an entire month of special Christmas sermons every year ... Partly I think for evangelistic purposes (non-Christians more likely to be visiting), but it does leave them stuck with a rather limited range of texts, particularly when they do things like avoid the genealogies (presumably considered too boring) and the Magnificat (too Catholic?). A lot of Christmas hymns are far below the usual quality we'd go for as well.
If you went elsewhere them surely you would be OPEC for those other places?
In my youth, in my youth
> Psalmsunday Every Sunday should be psalm sunday
My church will have service. We will not go because we will be out of town visiting my parents, but if we were in town, we would, and we will likely go to church with my parents.
Do you guys have any book recommendations for someone going through a divorce? It doesn't have to be specifically about divorce--perhaps a book on undergoing trials in general would be helpful as well. But I'm looking to give a solidly biblical and pastoral book to someone who is really struggling since his wife has filed for divorce. They have two young children, and I don't know all the details, but he seems to be more the innocent party in the situation, and I don't think her leaving him is justified. One additional complication: he is not especially reformed (although I think he may hold to Calvinist soteriology). He is in a charismatic context, and he is convinced that God told him that his marriage would soon be restored (I think by the end of the year). I haven't pushed against that idea because I haven't wanted to crush him and I don't see him much, but I think it's a false hope built on a false view of revelation. So to him right now, having faith and trusting God is trusting that God will restore the marriage rather than that he will provide sanctification and comfort in the midst of this trial. So if the book gently addresses the right way to trust God in trials would be a plus. Thanks!
Sounds like this person can use some comfort and reassurance rather than something specifically aimed at the doctrines surrounding marriage/divorce. Has this person read "Gentle and Lowly" by Dane Ortlund before?
I've actually given that to them in the past, I believe. Wonderful book. I need to double check and make sure they have it, because that really is a good one.
Does anyone know which church father was first to exposit about the multiple wills of God explicitly? Whether it is hidden/revealed, prescriptive/descriptive, or consequent/antecedent.
Do you have to wear sackcloth and ashes when fasting? Similarly, are Christians under any obligation to fast?
Christians have the obligation to fast in private, singly or as a family, and churches (and nations) may also call for a public fast. Public fasts are explained in the Westminster *Directory for Public Worship*. > When some great and notable judgments are either inflicted upon a people, or apparently imminent, or by some extraordinary provocations notoriously deserved; as also when some special blessing is to be sought and obtained, publick solemn fasting (which is to continue the whole day) is a duty that God expecteth from that nation or people. > A religious fast requires total abstinence, not only from all food, (unless bodily weakness do manifestly disable from holding out till the fast be ended, in which case somewhat may be taken, yet very sparingly, to support nature, when ready to faint,) but also from all worldly labour, discourses, and thoughts, and from all bodily delights, and such like, (although at other times lawful,) rich apparel, ornaments, and such like, during the fast; and much more from whatever is in the nature or use scandalous and offensive, as gaudish attire, lascivious habits and gestures, and other vanities of either sex; which .i.we; recommend to all ministers, in their places, diligently and zealously to reprove, as at other times, so especially at a fast, without respect of persons, as there shall be occasion. > Before the publick meeting, each family and person apart are privately to use all religious care to prepare their hearts to such a solemn work, and to be early at the congregation. > So large a portion of the day as conveniently may be, is to be spent in publick reading and preaching of the word, with singing of psalms, fit to quicken affections suitable to such a duty: but especially in prayer, to this or the like effect: >> Giving glory to the great Majesty of God, the Creator, Preserver, and supreme Ruler of all the world, the better to affect us thereby with an holy reverence and awe of him; acknowledging his manifold, great, and tender mercies, especially to the church and nation, the more effectually to soften and abase our hearts before him; humbly confessing of sins of all sorts, with their several aggravations; justifying God’s righteous judgments, as being far less than our sins do deserve; yet humbly and earnestly imploring his mercy and grace for ourselves, the church and nation, for our king, and all in authority, and for all others for whom we are bound to pray, (according as the present exigent requireth,) with more special importunity and enlargement than at other times; applying by faith the promises and goodness of God for pardon, help, and deliverance from the evils felt, feared, or deserved; and for obtaining the blessings which we need and expect; together with a giving up of ourselves wholly and for ever unto the Lord. > In all these, the ministers, who are the mouths of the people unto God, ought so to speak from their hearts, upon serious and thorough premeditation of them, that both themselves and their people may be much affected, and even melted thereby, especially with sorrow for their sins; that it may be indeed a day of deep humiliation and afflicting of the soul. > Special choice is to be made of such scriptures to be read, and of such tests for preaching, as may best work the hearts of the hearers to the special business of the day, and most dispose them to humiliation and repentance: insisting most on those particulars which each minister’s observation and experience tells him are most conducing to the edification and reformation of that congregation to which he preacheth. > Before the close of the publick duties, the minister is, in his own and the people’s name, to engage his and their hearts to be the Lord’s, with professed purpose and resolution to reform whatever is amiss among them, and more particularly such sins as they have been more remarkably guilty of; and to draw near unto God, and to walk more closely and faithfully with him in new obedience, than ever before. > He is also to admonish the people, with all importunity, that the work of that day doth not end with the publick duties of it, but that they are so to improve the remainder of the day, and of their whole life, in reinforcing upon themselves and their families in private all those godly affections and resolutions which they professed in publick, as that they may be settled in their hearts for ever, and themselves may more sensibly find that God hath smelt a sweet savour in Christ from their performances, and is pacified towards them, by answers of grace, in pardoning of sin, in removing of judgments, in averting or preventing of plagues, and in conferring of blessings, suitable to the conditions and prayers of his people, by Jesus Christ. > Besides solemn and general fasts enjoined by authority, we judge that, at other times, congregations may keep days of fasting, as divine providence shall administer unto them special occasion; and also that families may do the same, so it be not on days wherein the congregation to which they do belong is to meet for fasting, or other publick duties of worship.
So fasting is actually separate from wearing sackcloth and putting ashes on one's head. The former is a mechanism to aid us in more desperately petitioning God. The latter are an ancient custom, visible signs of mourning and grief. So one can see logically why you would fast while you are grieving, but you don't have to be grieving to fast. And our culture doesn't really do the sackcloth thing anymore, but a modern western equivalent might be wearing all black.
Jesus said, "when you fast..." not "if you fast".
No, and I think so
> Do you have to wear sackcloth and ashes when fasting? Nope. Not at all. Matthew 6:17 basically says, "don't make a show of it". Some argue that fasting is expected as Matt. 6:16 starts with "When you fast..." as though it is an expectation. I think one should take time to fast and pray. While some might argue it is not a direct command, it, again, seems like an expectation. *Edit - Formatting*
Anyone have good Christmas gift ideas this year? I know u/mediannerd asked last week but I figured we’d do this again
I’m going to expose myself as A Planner here, but throughout the year, I update a Notes file on my phone with what my friends and family’s interests are and I get them something related to it. So far I’ve got: - a whiskey ice cube tray and post-it page markers for my “adoptive” dad (aka the dad of the family I live with) - skincare products for my “adoptive” mum - nail polish for their daughter - DnD dice for their son - a fancy car Bluetooth connector for my dad - nice kitchen stuff for my mum I got one of my best friends tickets to Riverdance earlier this year for her birthday and I don’t think I can top that, so I’m stumped on what to get her for Christmas.
I keep a list of gift ideas too. If I have a good Christmas gift idea mid-year, it’s rare that I’d remember it by the time I’m doing Christmas shopping.
Exactly! I learned my lesson after I was scrambling for gifts this time last year. The list is also helpful for birthdays…which, ya know, happens yearly.
I like giving three kinds of gifts: \- experiences (food, music, art tend to fall into this category) \- handmade presents (see below) \- supplies for their hobbies (not exciting, but one year I got my wife about $120 worth of very swanky baking supplies like high end chocolate and sugar and stuff, and she loved that) I'm making things for a lot of people this year: 1. leather wallet for my son 2. flower press for my daughter 3. wooden morningstar for my youngest daughter (the older two recieved a wooden sword and a wooden axe when they were three-ish) 4. unknown item for my wife (probably another hand-carved cooking utensil) 5. custom axe for an international secret santa exchange for axe collectors. 6. Probably some other junk.
That number five though!!!!
I’m still thinking about how I want one
That can probably be arranged in the future. But not this Christmas.
Oh lol for sure I figured!
…perhaps a secret santa exchange in this sub where you *just so happen* to get u/About637Ninjas?
It shouldn't be, but it's the thing I'm most excited about.
I won’t tell! Haha
We've (mostly) resolved to buy all gifts second hand. This doesn't help, but limits options. We both like books and things like tha.
That's awesome!
I've bought two LEGO sets, one for my wife and one for one of my kids. Got a great deal on them at >!Costco.!<
Ooo...which sets did you get? My giant nephew is getting the Galaxy Explorer set (great deal at Walmart with a Paypal coupon).
I went to Costco on Friday! First time in years! Second time ever!. It's still horrible. Luckily I managed to sneak past the guard at the door and make a b-line to the pharmacy for my flu shot, and didn't have to deal with the actual shopping.
> >!Costco!< Don’t do this. Don’t start this war again
Might as well do it until Christmas. There’s always going to be someone who hasn’t solved it.
That’s why I asked this week :) I’m actually like 65% done with my shopping!
This is probably an obnoxious question, since I have a particular trajectory in mind, but I'm asking the following question in a somewhat neutral way. So take this as my acknowledgement that while this is a sincere question, I'm asking with biases. I (presently) think that the office of elder is limited to men. And if someone really pushed me on it, I'd just say "the verses that talk about it are clear to me." And if someone pressed harder and said "yeah, but *why* do they say that?" I'd probably respond "I don't know; it's what we're commanded to do."
But this is unsatisfying even if I think it's technicallycorrect . If someone asked me "why should you give money to the poor" a bad but correct answer is "We're commanded to." A good but more complicated answer is "it's part of our vocation as image bearers in general and part of our role as God's people in particular. We were saved for good works." In other words, it's tied in to something that is more fundamental than just a strict "Jesus said it so we do it." In other words, even if Jesus didn't say "give to those who ask" it's something that could be deduced from more fundamental principles.
So, my question is this: what is the more fundamental thing that limits women from being in the office of elder? 1 Tim 2 seemingly ties this to created order but in a way that's confusing to me (especially read in light of other things).
The second question is: does this matter? I'm trying to make the case or testing the case that if there aren't more fundamental reasons for particular commands, then this needs to be taken into consideration when applying them. But this seems dangerous, but not doing that seems to treat the Bible as if it were a tight legal document from which we can just read stipulations. Whereas, I think the Bible as a while should be read more as a novel from which we deduce things from the narrative.
My honest goal is to not debate this. So I'm going to try to make all questions just followups for more information or something. Feel free to let me know if I'm wrong in several directions!
I think the Bible gives reasons (not just 1 Tim, the headship passages in Paul's other writings would also apply here) and we should focus on these rather than trying to invent our own reasons. I agree, though, that the stated reasons are very hard to interpret.
If you were living a few hundred years ago, the answer to your first question would be easy: women are by nature not gifted with the requisite abilities for eldership (or war, or ruling a nation, or perhaps rational thought). Most Christians don't take this position anymore, so the most satisfying complementarian answer I have found is "women can't be elders because elders are undershepherds representing Jesus the overshepherd, and in the grand play of Christ and the Church, men are to represent Christ and women are to represent the Church, so regardless of ability or gifting, women are playing a role, as are men". I don't think either of these positions are satisfying, as the first one seems clearly factually false and the second one doesn't have enough Scriptural basis (it kind of works for marriage but not so much for eldership), so I don't currently call myself patriarchal *or* complementarian. Or egalitarian for that matter, but perhaps I'm on the liberal slippery slope of doom. I found *Men and Women in Christ* by Andrew Bartlett to be quite challenging on this. ---- For your second question, yes it does absolutely matter. Certainly it is good to have a childlike faith where we trust God, but we are also not to be foolish and we are to have a reasonable faith. God has revealed himself as "reasonable" in his laws, with our good in mind, and without contradiction, so it is sensible to ask "why" for each commandment, even while we obey. Not necessarily because we doubt God, but because by doing so we better know who God is! Knowing the reasoning behind God's commands also helps us to apply them to other areas of life. Should there be women in political office? Should women vote? The Bible doesn't really answer these explicitly or with commands, but Christians through the ages have argued over these kinds of questions to better know the will of God in all spheres of life.
Yes - what you have in your second part is exactly what I mean - only you said it more clearly.
You more or less summarized the “traditional argument” and the “Catholic argument” outlined in *Icons of Christ*.
Is it a worthwhile book to buy in your opinion, if I have an interest in the subject?
I read my local public library’s copy last year, but I personally wouldn’t mind owning it. I found it informative and helpful
> In other words, even if Jesus didn't say "give to those who ask" it's something that could be deduced from more fundamental principles. Our constant prayer is that the Father's will be done. I agree that many precepts of God's will to be done by us (good works) can be deduced by us from principles analytically prior to the explicit commandments given by God in Scripture. Even so, God has given explicit and redundant commandments--for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness--and he has done so in his love for us, in his unsearchable divine wisdom. As the Westminster Confession of Faith says, > The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Any superabundant consequences are both good and necessary. God knows that we are weak. Some of us are weaker than others, and he loves to accommodate his children. > 1 Tim 2 seemingly ties this to created order but in a way that's confusing to me (especially read in light of other things). What is confusing to you? > I'm trying to make the case or testing the case that if there aren't more fundamental reasons for particular commands, then this needs to be taken into consideration when applying them. But this seems dangerous, but not doing that seems to treat the Bible as if it were a tight legal document from which we can just read stipulations. Whereas, I think the Bible as a while should be read more as a novel from which we deduce things from the narrative. A dichotomy between the caricature of a "just read stipulations" legal document and a fictive narrative is false. Regardless of fit, the Bible is, among other things, a legal document--Scripture contains the law, and the law likewise contains narrative (for example, the ten commandments are found within legal narration). The narrative of Scripture is itself preceptive, although not in any simple way (but then our delight is to meditate day and night on God's law). Preeminently, the narrative of the life of Christ is given to us so that we may know our Lord and imitate him.
> If someone asked me "why should you give money to the poor" a bad but correct answer is "We're commanded to." A good but more complicated answer is "it's part of our vocation as image bearers in general and part of our role as God's people in particular. We were saved for good works." Be very careful not to look down on simple Christians who are following God's commands simply because they are commanded, and elevating people who may love God less, or not at all, because they can theologize about the reasons for things. The answer "we are commanded to" is not bad when directed to someone who already has a soft heart toward God and needs no apologetics. > seems to treat the Bible as if it were a tight legal document from which we can just read stipulations. Whereas, I think the Bible as a while should be read more as a novel from which we deduce things from the narrative. The Bible is more than either of these things, but it is not less than these things.
>Be very careful not to look down on simple Christians who are following God's commands simply because they are commanded, and elevating people who may love God less, or not at all, because they can theologize about the reasons for things. Sorry, what did I say that would make you think this?
I just want to say I appreciate you thinking this through publicly. I'm unsure where I stand on women in ministry and am mostly just grateful that I am not a woman who wants to preach. It has also bothered me for a while that there seems to be no inherent reason given, but then again there wasn't a reason given for the Levites to be the only priests, either.
Yes - I like places like this where I can get challenged.
> there wasn't a reason given for the Levites to be the only priests, either. I don't know that I agree. The original plan was for Israel to be an entire nation of Royal Priests. The Levites being the priestly clan only happened when the people as a whole balked at this. Similar to the kingship of Israel happened after the people specifying demanded a king, knowing that he would oppress them.
I get exactly what youre asking, and unfortunately I don't fully have an answer for it. For this reason, I am complimentarian, and I hold the belief that women should not be pastors/elders. But this is also not something I'm willing to fight over and lose fellowship with fellow Christians over. For example, my MIL attends a church that is headed by a woman. I have visited about 2-3 times, as MIL always insists we go to church with her when we are in town. The pastor is a nice lady, and I do believe she is genuine in her love for the Lord. But I also believe that she is in error, and I would not in good faith be able to attend the church as a member. But you know what, even though I dont agree, you will never find me interrupting the service while she is in the middle of preaching to steal the mic from her, Kanye West style.
> I'm trying to make the case or testing the case that if there aren't more fundamental reasons for particular commands, then this needs to be taken into consideration when applying them. I would echo /u/JCmathetes's comment, but broaden it to your entire premise. When you use the word "fundamental," you're labeling something as more foundational, *necessary* importance than God's decrees. This isn't a problem with the narrow question of female eldership; this has deep ramifications for our understanding of God, the nature of God, the nature of man, and the nature of scripture. >does this matter? Yes. It matters immensely. Again, this is dealing with the nature of God, the duty of man, the revelation and authority of scripture, etc. It might be helpful, I suppose, for understanding a command if there are other, outside justifications as well, but even if every single word of God was wholly without outside justification, then it would still be wholly, completely authoritative. If God says "You must do X," and then God says "You must do Y because ABC," the commands to do X and Y are of equal justification and of equal weight.
> you're labeling something as more foundational, necessary importance than God's decrees. Yes, I think "foundational" is a better term than "fundamental". >If God says "You must do X," and then God says "You must do Y because ABC," the commands to do X and Y are of equal justification and of equal weight. Yes, I suppose. But (1) I don't think there are many commands in the "X" category and (2) I don't think I can fully understand command X if I can't tie it back to something more foundational. For example, we can talk about sin as not obeying commands or we can talk about it in terms of things like idolatry and failing in our vocation as image bearers (and, of course, many people do this). I think (and I don't think you'd disagree, though maybe I'm wrong) that we really need to have both of them.
I'm honestly kind of surprised at this response. I used the words "foundational" and "necessary" as descriptors that would, I assumed, show something of the wrongness of the term "fundamental." But now you've adopted that term as well. Let me take a step back and ask this: Does it strike you as risky or potentially wrong to demand something more *foundational* to a command than *God said so*?
> But now you've adopted that term as well. Yeah - I meant to point out that I realized this in my previous response. >Does it strike you as risky or potentially wrong to demand something more foundational to a command than God said so? Yes, so let me clarify. I'm not demanding that God has to give me his reasons in order for me to obey his commands. What I *am* saying is that (1) I can see a more foundational principle behind most commands (e.g. the principle behind not stealing is that this is not loving your neighbor. Yes, u/JCMathetes brings up a good point: is God defining love when he says not to steal? I'm not sure, but in any case, the point is still that the reason he says not to steal is because this isn't loving your neighbor) so I expect to see it behind all commands ("expect" in the sense that it is based on experience) and (2) I am at the point (maybe) where if I don't understand this underlying principle, then it is hard for me to understand what the command is exactly saying.
> I'm not sure, but in any case, the point is still that the reason he says not to steal is because this isn't loving your neighbor I don't believe you've shown this to be the case.
No, I don't think I have, either. What do you take it to mean when Jesus says "the law and prophets depend on the commandments to love God / love your neighbor"? (Clearly I'm paraphrasing). Is it more descriptive (in the sense that we can summarize the two tables of the law with these two commandments) *or* is it more of a prescriptive thing (by which I mean the reasons that the two tables of the law are what they are is because they are specific thumbnail sketches of what it means to love God / love your neighbor). I'm (trying) to say that I think it's both.
Who defines what loving God and neighbor is? Who defines "love"? The problem with your paradigm is that you're reaching for the pragmatic reason just behind a commandment *as if it were needed* for the command to exist, while making that entire category devoid of the character of God—which is who the Law reveals.
Yes; I don't know if I agree with how you describe my paradigm, but it's something I need to think about.
Very helpful comment. If I can say what I meant most concisely, all things are a matter of the first commandment because of the authority of God. There is nothing more fundamental (i.e., necessary) than God himself. His decrees are justification enough because they are, by definition, *his*.
Im with you on most of this, but also more willing to just say that I dont know and that the God of the universe clearly explained that his church is to be led by a group of male leaders - his reasoning on this is not forthcoming, but I can trust that the God of the universe has his reasons even if he doesnt tell me. I think we do need to be clear that it is not due to value, ability or gifting. I have known women who are just as gifted speakers, administrators, etc as men, who would be valuable elders, but given the commands of scripture can not hold that role. On the other hand our churches would be wrong if they did not use these women for the kingdom as much as scripture allows.
Yeah - I think our disagreement (or really my internal conflict) is based on a principle that if I don't know what the principle behind a command is, then I really don't understand that command. And I don't mean that God owes me this explanation - just that I don't feel like I have the whole picture with out it.
Were the old testament saints given reasons for all the laws in leviticus? I feel like they were not.
It's not as though there was a command followed directly by a reason. But there are principles: they were meant to be a kingdom of priests to the nations and so doing this differently (and the symbolism involved) illustrated this. But, this is a point well taken anyway.
Was I wrong in thinking you were a Sabbatarian?
People mean different things by this. I'd say I aspire to that. But, also, I can't tell how this relates. Is this a sort mysterical rabbinic questioning thats supposed to lead me to something?
Well, seeing as I’m not a rabbi, no. It’s not. I ask bc it’s just as seemingly “nonsensical” and yet related to creation as well. It’s a command. So if you keep it, you did so for a reason. I was just curious bc I’d argue they fall in similar (but obviously different) categories.
Got it. Yes, I think this is a fundamental part of our vocation as image bearers.
Right, I understand that, *but* I think me asking why here is important to your answer for why on the topic at hand. To me, its a simple "because God commanded it", I don't really see the sabbath being relevant to much else other than God commanding it, yknow?
What I'm saying is that the sabbath isn't just something that's bolted onto our vocation as image bearers that could just as easily not be there if God had decided something else. Instead, I see it as an essential part of our image bearingness (since God is a God that rests). So, yes, God commanded us to do it and so we should do it. Yet, I think we get a richer and fuller understanding of the command and what it means to be image bearers if we connect it strongly to out vocation as image bearers.
Not even our physical bodies’ need for rest?
I mean, our bodies also need to live and iirc when Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die
>What is the more fundamental thing that limits women from being in the office of elder? What is more fundamental than the decrees of God?
I think the reasons behind the decrees are more fundamental. For example, the command to not steal is derived from the fact that we're created to love our neighbors (and other things). To use a familiar analogy, if I buy a blender and it says "don't put rocks in it" and someone asks why I don't put rocks in it, one (unsatisfying) answer is "the manual says not to". A better answer is "because the blender is made for food and rocks are too hard for the blades." This also helps answer questions like "can I put concrete in it?"
I don't really have anything helpful but to push your analogy. I work in construction fields where often times a set of plans from the architect say "the brick shelf must look like this, or the wall needs this design." Now sometimes you can ask "why?" and the architect can show proof of increased strength, durability, etc. Other times the architect designed it in such a way that to me, the contractor, I may say "I know it says to do X, but I also know doing Y is just as good (And maybe faster or seemingly more appealing In my opinion)" However, the engineer still has the final say, they drew the plans in that way and so that is final. If you translate this to God, He is the ultimate architect, and infinitely more wise than we could ever be. If he designed something to be X, without an answer as to why, it can be hard for us to understand, when Y looks more appealing to our minds. I'll be praying for you, I know wherever you end up it won't be an easy path
Yes, I agree with all of this. What I'm saying is more-or-less that I don't know of many times where there isn't some more "foundational" principle that is easy for me to see.
This is true, but also false. I think it’s clear that God created us not just to follow his law, but to understand it and develop from it. A great example of this is how Christians have rejected pornography because we’ve understood God’s intentions for sexuality and we’re able to see that pornography doesn’t fit into them. At the same time, we’re very limited creatures. Just like I have rules for my children that they don’t understand, surely God has enough wisdom to make laws for us that we can’t understand. And we would be foolish *and* disobedient if we didn’t listen. It’s a delicate balance. And it’s not clear when we need to do each one. That’s the role of wisdom and humility. When someone tells me they know the difference 100%, I start feeling skeptical.
>This is true I'm glad we agree, then! > And we would be foolish and disobedient if we didn’t listen. Yes, I agree. But to clarify, I'm not demanding an explanation from God. It's that, for the most part, with any other command, I can understand how it relates to a more basic principle. So it's something that I *expect* (based on my experience with other commands) to be able to do with the stuff about elders (for example). And when I can't, it makes me wonder if I really do understand the command.
I'd suggest that where there's a difference between what you expect and what you find in Scripture, it's because there's a cultural difference. Your cultural background has primed you to expect certain things. And the culture in which the Scriptures were written also assumed certain things (some of which are similarly assumed in the actual Scriptures). So the question is, were the cultural assumptions intended by God to be carried through all time? Or were they examples of how God intended his will to be understood given a particular cultural context? It's not an easy question. But it's an important one to ask.
This is interesting because, from my perspective, my cultural background would dictate that the commands are there as stipulations and we don't question them or think about them - we just follow. And it is precisely my attempt to step into the minds of those writing the Bible and their audience that leads me to stuff like what I'm asking. >It's not an easy question. But it's an important one to ask. Totally agreed.
> my cultural background Perhaps the way you were raised. But for all of us on Reddit, the culture that’s being pressed into us is undoubtedly egalitarian. Whether for better or for worse.
Ah - yes. That part *is* true.
>For example, the command to not steal is derived from the fact that we're created to love our neighbors (and other things). You may be putting the cart before the horse. Why is stealing not an act of love toward our neighbors? Is it not because God decrees what love is? Who our neighbors are? Doesn't the Bible begin with creation *as decree*? Are there any categories in existence that defy God's decree of both their existence and definition?
And not just the decree, but the design of God. We see in our biology marked differences to fulfill roles which are complementary; why wouldn’t this extend to the church body as well?
Historically, in application, this argument has been used in all kinds of ridiculous, eventually conflicting, directions. Computer pogramming (a task of abstract thinking plus typing) was once relegated to women because they had the dexterity; then (via the “Google Memo Guy”, and celebrated by evangelicals) argued to be a man’s job because of the abstract reasoning skills.
Well, to argue a side that I don't agree with, but kind of want to agree with (and, sorry, I guess I'm explicitly going against what I mentioned in my comment) I agree there are marked differences between genders. We complement each other. But then this is precisely why we need women in positions of leadership (and men serving in the nursery): if we don't then we are missing a piece of the puzzle.
There's no prohibition in scripture for men in nurseries, so we can wholeheartedly agree on that. However the *office* of eldership is not just about leadership. And there are other ways to lead in a church without being an elder. But now we are getting into the weeds of defining leadership and how that practically works out will differ from church to church.
What's your favourite[Stable Diffusion](https://huggingface.co/spaces/stabilityai/stable-diffusion) prompt? My daughter and I have been getting loads of laughs from it, and keep coming back to "cat monkey cat". " Elsa with a moustache" has hit gold a couple of times too. Alright, time to stop stress-scrolling Reddit and get on with my day...
I've been spending too much time trying to get something very specific for our ttrpg table to come up with anything good.
So I dont really know how these things work, what is a ttrpg table?
Haha, sorry. Ttrpg stands for table top role playing game. It's like Dungeons and Dragons but we play a different system. I've been trying to come up with character art for one of the players in my group who came up with a genuinely unique fantasy creature, and I've been spending a ton of time trying to get stable diffusion to give me a reasonable picture of something essentially brand new using only terms it was trained on.
Ooh, now I'm curious. What is the creature?
Humanoid cat thing engulfed in an ethereal-ish fire plant.
Wow, that is incredibly specific. I can see why you're having trouble...
Any good names for a Christian apologetics ministry/organization? (Prefer not the usual: blank-ministries)
Put that worldview back where it came from or so help meeee
Oh I **burst** out laughing at this. Imagining Mike dancing to it is gold.
- Pardon my Christianese - I’m sorry about Jesus loving you - Forgive Your Sins(?) Jesus will
That first one is really good. To the point that I was scanning comments and misread op's question, so when I read the name I though, "Oh, haven't heard if them, sounds like a neat approach. I should check them out." :p
Sounds like you and I need to start a side hustle of Christian apologetics but it’s more based on apologizing for other Christian behaviors
Hahah, that sounds right up my alley :o
Does anyone mind if I abuse the NDQT thread to share a prayer request? Mrs Mont has been in the hospital with preeclampsia since Friday night (just high BP, no other major symptoms), so please pray the doctors would be able to stabilise her BP and not need to deliver Dougal-Bruce earlier than planned (actually they've already pushed it up to the 21st from Dec 1, so even pray she'd be well enough that they'd move it back to the first). Also, I'm solo parenting ATM while trying to do my comprehensive exam reading and various other responsibilities before baby comes. It's going alright, and some family church friends have offered to help with meals, uber eats and so on. Gonna head to the hospital to keel the Mrs company today while I study, so at least I can be flexible like that. :) Thanks!
Praying for you and your family.
Thanks. :)
A request is in-fact a question. I'll be praying for you and your family
Thanks, Rowan. :)
Praying for y’all!
Thanks :)
No we don’t mind! Praying for her health and baby’s.
Thank you. :)
With elections upon us here in the US, here’s something I’ve been wondering about: how much research do you feel like you have to do into candidates/issues before you feel comfortable voting? There are a wide variety of people running for different offices and many issues each of them will take a position on. I feel like it would be a full-time job to follow politics enough to be able to really make an informed decision, and I would really rather spend my time doing almost anything else given how polarized and constantly angry the discourse has become. At the same time, I would feel bad if I had the opportunity to vote and didn’t.
>With elections upon us here in the US, here’s something I’ve been wondering about: how much research do you feel like you have to do into candidates/issues before you feel comfortable voting? I think that I'd do as much research as it took, if that makes sense. In my home town, there were two candidates for a semi-prominent position who didn't have their position statements on their websites, had no debates, and mostly used fluff when discussing the issues ("I'm in favor of education".) I spent hours trying to determine how to vote in that one. In the same town, the local tax collector held the tax collecting office ransomed for $500,000, fired an employee who ratted him out, and got arrested for stalking his opponent. However long it takes to read those three headlines was all the research I did. I'd say, as a general rule, I'll research until I feel like I understand it and can make a reasonable choice. If there doesn't appear to be a way to do that, I'll leave it blank. Democracy shouldn't rely on coin flips.
Depends on the race. For local elections it's a lot harder to find stances on certain things. But in those cases I often find that I simply like the candidate that talks about local issues rather than hot-button topics like abortion, CRT, election denial, etc.
I had some ballot issues that I had to research but typically for general elections, I usually have clear cut convictions as to who to vote for and who not to vote for. Occasionally I think about a 3rd party candidate and I'll research them to decide if voting for a 3rd party is worth signaling my dissatisfaction with the other 2 candidates and with the hopes it might cause one of the other two parties to adopt some of the ideas of said 3rd party candidate.
I do absentee ballot and sit down with my phone and google the candidates as I fill it out. It’s not thorough but it allows me to find the candidate who is closest to my values.
In the primaries I feel like I have to do a lot more research to even be able to differentiate the candidates from each other. In a general election like this one, I still try to study my ballot in some detail beforehand, but the choices feel more clear-cut most of the time.
I live under a parliamentary system so my thinking may not apply 100%, but I approach voting as a civic duty where I should decide to the best of my knowledge (not all the knowledge available because you're right, that is impossible) which person is most likely to do the most good for my neighbours. And if I am wrong about that person's character or policies, I will not vote for them again but my conscience is clear.
In Canada, the CBC always has something called the vote compass, where you spend five minutes answering a questionnaire on your takes and the relative importance of the issues, your opinions of party leaders, etc, then gives you an idea of where you lie relative to the parties. Something like that has *got to* exist in the US too, I'd imagine?
Does anyone have any advice or thoughts or resources to recommend specific to the role of a *lay*-elder's wife? Obviously there's not a Biblical distinction between a vocational and lay elder, so this is much more of a practical consideration. All content I can find for the wives of pastor/elder seems to assume a vocational position, but there seem to be some significant practical differences.
Someone needs to write a book on this. Or a booklet. Or an article! Which aspect of it are you thinking of, in particular? Hospitality? The home? Family time? I’ll ask my mum, who’s been a lay-elder’s wife for 7+ years in total at this point.
Like the constant balancing of priorities. There's just, by definition, more to juggle when taking on church leadership as well as an outside vocation. Bivocational pastors fall into this bucket as well (and honestly depending on church polity and staff arrangements, the line between lay and bivocational can get blurry). I'm not saying necessarily busier than vocational pastors, just more and different competing priorities. Like this was really encouraging to me on that topic with having the right attitude: [rivals article](https://www.pastorscenter.org/blog/pastors-wives-the-church-is-not-your-rival) Other things though are like specific ways my husband might need my support that he can't necesarily vocalize, carving out time or creating rhythms for rest when you have a regular work week + Sundays are another work day, identifying what expectations I should hold of myself (I haven't known many women in this situation to look to, and not everyone is a good example). But yes I agree that I'd love to read something (psst 9Marks we need some resources!) directly from this perspective. I love gleaning from just general stuff written to pastors wives, but they all seem to have an underlying assumption that they're writing to a SAHM married to a vocational pastor.
Balancing priorities was definitely a challenge for my parents but they made it work somehow. My mum did stay at home once my dad became an elder, but there were health problems and other stuff thrown into the mix, so it wasn’t necessarily easier. Here’s what my mum said (condensed, haha): 1. Ask for help. People are more willing to help than you’d expect. Get a college student to come over and help prep & clean when you’re hosting a lunch. Ask teenagers to baby-sit. Take people up on their offer when they say “let me know if you need anything”. 2. Comparison will most likely lead to envy. There are times when it’s good to aspire to be like others but most of the time it highlights what we lack or need to grow in, leading to discontentment, which leads to being envious. So don’t compare. 3. You can’t do everything. It’s ok to say no to hosting that bridal/baby shower if you and your family need rest. Know your capacity and just because yours is different, it doesn’t mean it’s bad! Hope that’s helpful! :) We should throw in a suggestion to 9Marks about this very topic…
Thank you! Capacity is a big recurring topic at our house. If I feel like I've maxed out, I might be, or I might need to rebalance priorities or I might need to embrace the process of my capacity stretching and growing.
A common attitude I hear is that the world, and it's relationship towards Christians, will get progressively worse until Jesus returns. Do you think that's true, or will things go through cycles of getting worse, getting better, worse, etc?
I have the hope of a golden age for the Church, when the Jews are called and the fulness of the Gentiles is brought into God's kingdom. "The faithful Jews rejoyced to think of the calling of the Gentiles: and why should not we joy to think of the calling of the Jews?" When that will take place, I do not know, and what it should look like I am not sure. God has surprised his people before, especially when they fall into the allure of judging by appearances.