Over the weekend, I had one of those events occur.  Who could have known something like this would happen and it is a direct result of the work this group of individuals is involved in and that I am apart of and of connections in other ways through other individuals in the past.   So here’s my  “It’s a small world, Charlie Brown” incident.

We  have over 7 billion people on the planet Earth and the connections we
experience that would not have occurred without some form of heavenly guidance
just amaze me.  God does indeed have his hand on this world.  When B. F. and G. F., who live in South Houston, registered for the conference on Gender Equality in the church a couple of months ago, I naturally sent them friend requests.  So, as expected, we became friends because of the conference.  My son-in-law, Rob, who is Kathie’s husband, has been studying for a pilot’s license and is planning to attend commercial pilot’s training at Addison Airport in the Dallas area.   They live in San Angelo, TX and have been commuting to Dallas for classes and license testing.  M.M. is a retired commercial pilot who has been mentoring Rob in his study for his pilot’s written exam, which Rob passed this weekend, and M.’s wife is helping Kathie to prepare to job search in Dallas.  Rob’s parents, who live in Roswell, NM, and are also retired, are friends with M. M. and his wife, who live in  Dallas.  When Kathie and Rob were in Dallas over the weekend, they were in M.’s vehicle going someplace and Kathie saw an Amateur Radio mobile VHF/UHF transceiver mounted on the dash.  She, of course, jumped all over that, having lived with me being an Amateur Radio operator for her whole life.  M. told her he had just passed his radio license test a couple of months ago and was getting into Skywarn storm chasing and had just upgraded his license a couple of days earlier.  I have been involved
in Skywarn since the early 1970’s and had a very small part in helping to perfect a new
program in the early 70’s using volunteers that has since become an essential part of early storm detection, early severe weather reporting, and severe weather tracking across the US.  So, Kathie sends his info and I send her my web site radio pages and email address as M. wanted see my station and to meet me.  We connect on email for the finalization of visit plans and I tell M. to send me a Facebook request.  At about 4:15 am this morning, I open Facebook, get his request, accept it, and look at his Facebook page.  Under mutual friends, there are four names.  Two of the names were totally expected.  Rob, and Rob’s
father.  The third and fourth names are B.F. and G.F.!  Surprise!  It’s a small world Charlie Brown!  The distances involved are the size of the State of Texas and the population in between all the locations probably 15 million or more.  It is 275 miles to South Houston from my house, 90 miles to Dallas, 150 miles to San Angelo and 500 miles to Roswell, NM.  The distances from Dallas are also about the same as Walnut Springs.  There are also huge timelines involved as M.M and his wife have known G.F. and his wife for more than 25 years and were married by G.F., but I have only known G.F. online for a couple of months and M.M. on line for about 24 hours!

The point to that long story is this:

If it were not for this conference on Christian Biblical Equality that I started working on almost 10 months ago, and the desire for of my son-in-law to become a commercial pilot, B.F. and G.F., who I will meet for the first time face to face at the conference they are going to attend, would have been just names on a new Facebook friend list of a new Amateur Radio operator in Dallas who is helping my son-in-law into a new career.  If it were not for my son-in-law desiring to become a commercial pilot and traveling to Dallas to be mentored by a new ham, I would not have met M.M. on line and would not be having the priviledge of meeting him here in Walnut Springs next week.

Some will call that just extreme coincidence or dumb luck.  I prefer to see it as God’s hand on this world bringing people together in ways and for reasons we just do not understand at present but maybe we will understand in the future.

If you are interested in Biblical Gender Equality, then I would like to encourage you to register for our conference that will be held April 27th and 28th at the Heights Church of Christ in Houston.  We have an outstanding line up of speakers!  Here’s the web address for our web site.  Hope to see you there!  http://www.cbehouston.org/Pages/default.aspx

For those of us who are members of Churches of Christ (CoC), the headline itself should scare the Hell out of us!  There’s nothing good about declining numbers.  The CC quotes a
student at David Lipscomb as saying “Our generation wants more Jesus and not
more tradition.”  With this quote, the article seems to imply that this is the reason why young adults are leaving.  I can’t disagree with this because as an old geezer of 63, I have had the same exact thoughts in the last few years when I would hit a point of frustration with our inability to break traditions that are held in a state approaching idolatry!  The article goes on to tell how many souls the Churches of Christ have lost in the last year and even states how many we have lost since 2003.  It then tries to put some positive spin on the problem by saying what three or four young adults have said.

For at least the last three decades, we have heard stories as to how we are losing
souls to the “denominations” and/or “non-denoms”.  The guru of the totals publishes these numbers every year in a Church of Christ directory in book form of the remaining
congregations of the Churches of Christ in all the various factions within in the Churches of Christ.  A couple of years ago, this publisher even reduced the number of congregations by not including congregations that include an instrumental service or who are totally
instrumental, which knocked several of the largest congregation of the Churches
of Christ in the US out of the directory. It was a bad decision on his part and he took some heat for his decision, however, we have always been good at judging our own and excluding them from fellowship over really ridiculous reasons.

While reading this article, I started thinking back on some of our more recent
history and realized there is an upward trend in society that that seems to coincide
to a large part with our downward trend.  Over the last 20 years, we have seen a large increase of very talented and gifted female leaders in our society in general in many roles from CEO’s to politics, to professionals at all levels.  They go to colleges, earn advanced degrees, enter the work place as professionals, have families at the same time, and demonstrate how capable they really are.

When the civil rights movement began in the 1960’s and racial discrimination was
attacked at all levels in the public sector, gender discrimination took a back seat to racial discrimination.  Gender discrimination was still there in all of its ugliness but just not talked about.  Gradually, in the public sector, as racial discrimination decreased through education, legislation, and a general change in thinking in the general populace, other forms of discrimination moved into the light.  The most prominent, in my
opinion, is gender discrimination.  The Equal Rights Amendment of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s was an outgrowth of the Civil Rights movement, and although it did not succeed, it opened the discussion of gender equality in the United States.  It was during the
1980’s that many of us first heard of the problems of loss of membership and
churches closing.  While I cannot Google any studies that have been done on what I am about to say (I spent some time trying!), I believe there is a link to the increase in freedom for women from the discrimination they have lived with for several millennia and the decrease in membership in the Churches of Christ, which has been and still is very
restrictive towards females in general.  The CoC has continued to hold to a four thousand year old patriarchal view that leadership in all areas of life is given to man alone by God, based on some very poorly translated and misunderstood verses in the New Testament.

Around 1986 the patriarchal system of the last two thousand years was redefined by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and a more modern system was coined, one they called complementarianism, which is nothing more than a 1986 politically correct term for patriarchalism.  This new system puts out the idea that men and women are equal but different! In their view, men are to control women because women were made for different roles or jobs in life than men even though men and women are equal.  Men were to make the decisions, women were to take care of the children and submit to their husbands.  Our more traditionalist thinkers in the CoC were quick to pick up on this new concept because it maintained the status quo but the downward trend continued.  At the same time, the upward trend in the public sector continued.  We have seen more and more freedom for women to succeed in the work place, contribute to the family, hold an equal place in general society and help run the greatest nation to ever exist on this planet in all of history. We have even recognized their ability to serve in war on the foreign battlefields.  We have continued to educate our young into a correct thinking mode that men and women are equal, should have the same opportunities in life and should enjoy equal protection under the law, something they did not have until the 20^th Century.  The only problem is that in the CoC, we have failed to see that this is not just a principle that is applicable to only the public.  It is an encompassing principle of both our public and private lives, and that includes our religious lives.  This movement of equality in the public can actually be defined by one clearly translated verse in the NT: Gal 3:28.  Whether one is religious or not, Gal 3:28 is an integral part of the thinking that involves race equality, class equality, and gender equality.  It defines our modern philosophy regarding race, class, and gender.

If we could graph the losses in the Churches of Christ (and most gender restrictive traditional church denominations similar to the CoC for that matter) compared to the gains in freedom in the public, I believe that the graph would consist of two opposing curves.   The first curve would start in the 1960’s with a membership of over twice where we are now.  The second curve would start at the same time but at a very low number on the graph.  As the lines moved forward toward the present, we would see the losses in church membership start a few years after the Civil Rights Act and the beginning of education regarding equality of race, class, and gender.  As education of equal rights and opportunities increases, and we see women becoming more important in the public areas based on their abilities, we would also see that our lack of change has now created a drop in membership.  At some point those lines, one going down and one going up, should level out, but will they?

Since I became involved a number of years ago in the Biblical egalitarian movement in the Churches of Christ, I have heard from both frustrated women and men on many occasions who are tired of hearing women cannot ….., cannot …. cannot… because they are female!  I have heard women say they are tired of feeling like outsiders who are nothing more than place holders on the pews.  I have heard men say they long to hear women in their worship just as they hear men.  I have been told by numerous women that they are looking for a church where they can use their God supplied gifts to be closer to Jesus (remember the comment about “wanting more Jesus and less tradition”) and the name on the sign out front does not have to be Church of Christ.  Some have told me they tried to work with in the congregations they were members of only to hit brick walls of male control. Numerous women have told me they have left the Churches of Christ because of this! They have the freedom to achieve as they are gifted in the public but they still cannot use their gifts in the Churches of Christ.  A good example of this is what I heard one of my elders say a few years back regarding several women who had questioned why they cannot help serve Communion:  “That would never happen as long as (he was) an elder!”  It is this attitude for the last forty years that I believe is a large part of the underlying cause of our membership decline.

To some of us, the decline in our membership was a predictable result of the last forty
years of history because of our own church traditions that we have let become
sacred cows and idols, whether we want to admit this is the case or not.  It just amazes me that so many men and women in our fellowship cannot see this!

April 27 and 28, 2012, at the Heights Church of Christ in Houston, Texas, there will be a
conference regarding Christian Biblical Equality sponsored by CBE Houston.  The web site is http://www.cbehouston.org.  Why not plan to attend and learn more about
gender equality in the church!  If you do decide to attend this conference, do me a favor and let them know where you found out about the conference.

Floyd E. Rose, an African-American minister,  wrote a parable a few years ago in a book he wrote titled An Idea Whose Time Has Come. Bro. Rose wrote in his book:  “In a parable we throw that which is familiar alongside that which is unfamiliar so that the unfamiliar can become familiar. And the sense of a parable is, if you can see and understand that, you ought to be able to see and understand this.” Rose wrote this parable from his point of view as an African-American who has felt the pain of racial discrimination.  The following is my version of Rose’s parable to illustrate a point that has been talked about on many Christian blogs and news web sites.  I used Rose’s parable and changed some words to make it fit a recent, sometimes hot, discussion that has been centered around John Piper, Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and his extreme claims of  “God desires a masculine church”.

“Now the story is this: Once upon a time there was a church whose membership was composed of men and women. 80% of the members were men and 20% of them were women. All of the positions of authority were held by the women. The minister, elders, and the deacons were all women. Those in positions of perceived power–the decision makers–were all women. The song leaders, the announcers and the ushers were women. Although men gave 85% of the money, they could not count it, deposit it, or account for it. They were required to put it in, but they had no input as to what happened to what they had put in. One of the male members was an accountant at the local bank, and was responsible for millions of dollars, but at the female-controlled church, he could not count the $2,000 average offering that was raised on Sunday mornings, or the $450 which was received at the evening worship service.

The male members could pass the collection basket and communion trays to their right and left, and when necessary, over the back of the seat, and might be permitted to pass it across the aisle, but they were not allowed to give it to the first person. The male members could receive the Lord’s Supper, but could never administer it. Only females could do that. Despite the male members being more educated and far better readers, they sat embarrassed while the female members, however illiterate they were, stumbled through the Bible to read the scriptures. For only the female members were allowed to read.

The male members would place announcements in the bulletin, and in fact, a male member laid out and printed the bulletin, but men could not publicly read from the bulletin they printed; only the female members could do that.

However fervently they prayed at home, the male members could not offer the public prayer unless there were no female members present. The presence of even one female member would disqualify all of the male members from praying in the public worship and in Bible study.

The male members could, and more often than the female members, did publicly confess their sins. They told of how they mistreated their families, lied or stole, cheated on their wives. They were allowed to tell about how bad they had been to God, but they could not tell how good God had been to them. Only the female members could do that. In fact, at any time they chose, the female members were free to open the Bible, read a scripture and speak about God, Christ, the Holy Spirit or simply testify about an experience they may have had the previous week with God, but none of the male members were permitted to testify in the public worship.

The male members were allowed to teach, but they could only teach other males. And if a female member entered the room, the male member had to stop teaching, and surrender his right to do so to the female member, regardless of how unqualified or unprepared the female member was.

The male members could not usher, even though the job merely called for the seating of the people as they entered the sanctuary, and giving them a bulletin and an envelope. Only females could do that, that is, unless there was a dead body in the church building. Ushering at a funeral was not considered a position of “authority”, and so males could stand at the door, direct people to their seats, pass out programs and fans, if necessary. The male members were allowed to read the scripture, quote a poem, sing a solo and even stand in the pulpit that was usually reserved for females only, and speak in honor of the dead body lying before them, but they were never allowed to speak in public worship in honor of the risen Christ. Only the female members could do that.

In that church where 80% of the members were male and 20% were female the male members could buy the bread and grape juice, the symbols of the Lord’s broken body and shed blood. They could (before any of the female members entered the building) prepare the communion table, and might even stand silently beside it and whisper a prayer of thanksgiving, but they could not serve it to the members who would assemble later for worship–only the female members could administer the Lord’s Supper. The male members could clean up the table and prepare it for the next time, of course.

The male members could work and earn money with which to buy food. They could prepare, cook and serve it in the fellowship hall of the church, and even tell the female members when it was time for them to eat it, and in most instances, tell them where to sit; but the male members could not give thanks for the food they bought, prepared, cooked and served; only the female members were allowed to offer the prayer of thanksgiving. If they gathered at a private home or at a restaurant, men were never asked to offer the prayer of thanksgiving–only women were asked to pray.

The point is, if it was wrong for women (who did not choose their gender) to assign men (who did not choose their gender either) roles, separate and apart from women based on gender, it is equally wrong for men to assign roles that are also separate and apart from men to women based on gender.  Just as women have no right to discriminate against men because of something for which neither is responsible, men also have no right to discriminate against women because of something for which they are not responsible.”

A totally female controlled church where women are in control and men are assigned roles by the controlling women is indeed from the Far Side.  However, it isn’t any more extreme to one side than the extreme that John Piper’s far side views of a masculine church are to the other side.  Piper’s views of God desires a masculine church are just as extreme as the feminine church I described in the above parable.  It is the middle of the extremes that is what God desires!  It takes both male and female serving side by side without restrictions, with each person, regardless of gender, filling the roles for which God has given them gifts, and working without manmade restrictions such as Piper’s, to successfully further the growth of Christ’s church.  It’s that old Galations 3:26-29 thing again and unless we really listen and believe Paul’s words which came to him through the Holy Spirit, and we get past men like Piper, we will never take the world for Jesus Christ!

For women, it must have been an even tougher life than most of us can imagine.  I have been involved in researching my ancestry for the last several weeks and what I have noticed many times over is how many children women had during these time frames, how many died many years earlier than they should have due to the danger of child birth.  Do you ever give any thought to how tough it was then compared to now for a woman, especially one who is just 17 years old, to enter a man’s world to complete a mission she believes she has been called by God to complete?  Joan did just that.  She believed she was called though the visions she saw to take control of a male fortress of control and lead men to a victory.  Because of this calling by God that she believed she had received, at just 17 years old she became the leader of the French Army in a war against an enemy that had been going on for a number of decades.  Pursueing her desire to follow God’s vision, she was able to go from a peasant girl to the courts of King Charles VII and win his support to become the only female in the French Army and the only female commander in the French army.  She led the French army to several important victories near the end of the Hundred Year War which paved the way for the coronation of Charles VII.  During the time she was in the French army, Joan chose to wear only the clothing of men in the army.  She used the weapons of the French army, which were designed for men, and she used the protective armor of the French army to protect herself both from the fierce fighting she engaged in and the men in her own army in order to maintain her virginity.  When she was about 19 years old she would be captured by the enemy and put on trial.  During that the extremely politically motivated trial, she would demonstrate her remarkable intellect for an illiterate farm girl.  When asked if she knew she was in God’s grace, her answer was: “If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me.’” The question was a scholarly trap because church doctrine held that no one could be certain of being in God’s grace. A yes or no answer would have condemned her to death but her answer was neither.  This kept her from being tried for heresy, which carried a death by burning punishment.  She was forced to wear women’s clothing for a short time, and during that time, had to fight off an English Lord and because of the attack, went back to wearing men’s clothing while in jail, as she had done on the battlefield.  At the conclussion of this travisty of injustice, Joan was found guilty and sentenced to be burned alive at the stake.  The conviction was not because of heresy or witch craft, which was what burning at the stake was usually used for.  She was able to be burned at the stake by the English because of an obscure law that made it illegal for a woman to wear men’s attire.  Joan wore men’s clothes when in the army on the battle field to protect herself, and when in prison after her female clothes were taken from her leaving her with nothing to wear.  About 20 years later, the trial was re-examined and she was exonerated, and eventually declared a martyr.

I think there are some interesting parallels in this story to women in the church in modern times.  Just as the army in the 1400′s was a male only, the pulpit and church leadership has been the last stronghold of male control in our modern society.  The laws of the land we live in do not apply to the church because of the separation of church and state.  When a female comes along who has heard God’s voice calling her into a church leadership position, there is an army of male traditionalists out there that she is going to have to do battle with along with facing the enemy of God.  Some will say almost anything to keep women out of their world.  It’s like what Joan of Arc faced in her calling from God.  She not only went to war to fight an enemy of her country, but she ended up fighting an enemy of gender.  She was wounded in battle several times, but it was the enemy of both her country and the enemy of gender that caused Joan to be burned alive, and she never once backed off of her faith and high moral standards because of that faith.  Our young women who are hearing God’s voice calling them into the battle for souls by being in the pulpits where tradition has allowed only men for centuries, by being in church leadership which is another traditionally male area, or by teaching and actively leading the worship in the 21st Century churches of Christ, are having to not only face Satan in his desire to claim souls but to face a traditional belief by men of women being not capable or not allowed to be equal to men in the battle for souls.  When a woman does succeed in moving into one of those prohibited areas of service, there is an over abundance of narrow minded males who want to tie her to a stake and personally light the fires for trying to follow God’s calling in their lives.  Why do we have to make martyrs of our young women who have heard God calling them?  It would be much more effective for those women who have the ability and desire to lead in the battle against Satan enter the fight head on with the enthusiasm that Joan had.  As the song says, we are an army marching onward into battle.  The only problem is we are leaving half our army silent on the pews and we are killing them spiritually in the process.  I wonder how many 21st Century Christian women will be spiritually burned at the stake for trying to follow the voice of God before we start including them on an equal basis?

There are indeed some interesting ties between Joan of Arc and modern women who have heard God calling them into the fight.

For a more informative write up on Joan of Arc:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc

In Texas, death penalty cases, based against the 1992 dollar, cost more than two times the amount of non-capital cases.  Each death penalty case costs taxpayers about $2.3 million (in 1992 dollars, when this story ran). That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (see: “Executions Cost Texas Millions,” Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).  If you are fiscal conservative, which is what I consider myself,  it is much cheaper to send a convicted felon to prison for life without parole in a maximum security prison than it is to execute that person after 8 to 10 years of legal wrangling.  Texas has had 13 executions in 2011.  The cost to the taxpayer in 1992 dollars is $29.9 million.  The cost to keep these same felons in prison for life without parole (an avg of 40 years ea.) is less than $750, 000 each in 1992 dollars.  For the benefit of easy calculation, we will assign a higher amount for life without parole (esentially 40 years) in max security and say it is $1 million in 1992 dollars.  Now, in order to convert that to 2011 dollars, the Federal Reserve supplies this formula:  2011 price = 1992 price x 2011 CPI/1992 CPI.  When the math is done, the $2.3 million for one execution is now $3.7 million per execution.  For life without parole, the $1 million is now $1.61 million.  In terms of dollars spent to take a felon out of society for the rest of that felon’s life, capital punishment is a HUGE waste of the taxpayer’s dollar as it is much more expensive and much more difficult to bring to a conclussion, not to mention that numerous capital punishment convictions have been overturned in the last several years because of DNA testing that positively cleared the innocent person sitting on death row.  Putting it more simply:  We just can’t afford the death penalty in these bad economic times!!!  If we want to make government less expensive, then doing away with capital punishment in favor of life without parole makes alot of sense and it does away with the possibility of an innocent person being executed.

Wikipedia defines politically correct in this way:  “Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent.”

Politically correct language is not a new concept.  Historical examples of the term can be found going back 200 years, although not used in the same capacity it has come to be used and understood.   James Wilson (1742 – 1798), a major force in drafting the US. Constitution, said: “The states, rather than the people, for whose sake the states exist, are frequently the objects which attract and arrest our principal attention… Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language… ‘The United States,’ instead of the ‘People of the United States,’ is the toast given. This is not politically correct.” So, the terms politically correct and not politically correct have some history in our society long before the present useage.

English is a language of a massive amount of words that is growing every year.  For any given word, there are alternative words that carry the same meaning that can be used.  It is a language that tends to take in new words that might be termed or have their origin in political correctness, on the streets, or invented for a specific situation, and turn them into common language and common thinking as the useage increases.  Other words that were considered common words in the older English dictionaries, because of their particular application, cease being common useage and become politically not correct words.  Words that were used on a common basis twenty-five, fifty, or more years ago such as derogatory names for people of different ethnicity, become not politically correct, then offensive, and then end up on lists of words that are gradually pushed out of useage by the more politically correct words, which then become the norm and quit being considered politically correct, having become accepted normal speech.  Other words that may have had a normal understanding and useage, such as the word gay, which had an original meaning of feelings of being “carefree”, “happy”, or “bright and showy”, and now has a fairly accepted and standardized useage of meaning one who is a homosexual, become standardized in the new useage, and even though the old useage is still appropriate, they cease being used in the more appropriate, older meaning and become almost exclusivily used in the newer meaning.  This process gradually alters our personal thinking processes and we start to think in terms of the newer word useage and consider the older to be undesirable.  When our personal thinking becomes adapted to the present useage, then the word is no longer a politically correct word but just a part of the normal everyday language.

Now, where am I heading with this?  Well, let’s go back to those so-called politically correct translations such as the TNIV and the newer NIV 2011 where some words have been updated in their translation to read more inclusively or carry a slightly different translated meaning.  When the context is inclusive of both genders, instead of reading it as it would be written two thousand years ago in a single gender statement that would have a common understanding by the reader in that time frame as meaning both genders, it is now written in English as our minds would read it.  Example:  When the 2000 year old Greek word for brothers is used in an inclusive sense of both genders, then the translation into the modern English becomes brothers and sisters. The original word in the Greek was a male gender word, brothers, used in a gender inclusive context.  In our modern times, we may understand this single word to be inclusive of everyone in the church.  However, in our society in 2011, there is added clarity in translation by using brothers and sisters, which is the translated meaning in our present thinking.  The inclussive language makes sense because it is now in our present language and our present thinking, which for many of us, is a part of our life style.  It’s not a politically correct issue but more an issue of being able to read an inclusive statement from the New Testatement without having to process the single gender word into an inclusive meaning.  It reads as it was meant to apply–to everyone.  That is what inclusive language is about.  The meaning has not changed in the context.  The translation is just more up to date with our modern English and thinking.

If you don’t own a gender inclusive Bible, maybe it’s time to get one.  No Bible translation will ever fill the needs of every reader but to exclude one just because of a more inclusive language and to label it as a bad translation that is just a politically correct version because it uses gender inclussive language is just as wrong as excluding all other versions of the Bible just because it doesn’t say something like “Authorized Version”.

Earlier this week, I attended Summit at Abilene Christian University.  This event, which is held every year during the third week of September, has become my escape from my box.  I started attending ACU’s Lectureship in Feb. 1995.  About five years ago, ACU decided to move it to September and change the name of Lectureship to Summitt.  This year, the title of Summit was “ENOUGH”, based on Isaiah 1:11-17.  They always offer alot of choice in classes so there is never a lack of finding something to attend.  I chose to attend a sub-track of classes titled Women in Ministry.  I found it to be very interesting with the speakers covering a wide range in this area.  Under the theme of ENOUGH, gender equality in the church is one of those subjects that has been almost taboo to talk about in the past.  Gender discrimination in the church has been hanging on far too long.  Last year, Summit leaders had a small offering of classes which had afairly good attendance.  This year, Summit leaders expanded the discussion and the number of classes, along with the types of speakers.  Obviously, I can’t comment on every class but I will comment on a few.

The first class that I attended was titled “Dating Jesus:  The role of women in the Church”, presented by Susan Campbell.  Susan has published a book under the title “Dating Jesus: A Story of Fundamentalism, Feminism, and The American Girl”.  Susan is an award winning columnist at the Hartford Courant.  She has a history in the Church of Christ and her talk included alot of that history.  Interestingly, what I heard in her talk was much the same thing I have heard from other women around the world whom I have talked with by email and on forums who have been hurt by the lack of inclusion and the less than equal status in the church they felt while growing up and still feel as adults.  Susan was an interesting speaker so if you ever get the chance to hear her, take it.

Jeanene Reese presented two really interesting classes based on her book “Bound and Determined:  Christian men and women in partnership”.  I started reading her book last year right after it came out but during one of many physician’s visits my wife and I made last year, I left it behind.  I guess someone was needing to read it more than I was because I rarily let a book excape like that!  And yes, I purchased another copy of her book which she autographed for me!

For a more technical approach to gender study, I attended Ken Cukrowski’s classes on 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2.  These classes were well attended and interesting.  Ken took on the texts that many believe require silence of women.  His explanations were good and in depth for the amount of time alloted, and presented sound biblical alternative translation and interpretation for the “restrictive” texts.

I took time out from the subject of gender on Tuesday to attend a class titled “Fresh Look At Familiar Texts:  Charismata”, presented by Edward Fudge.  This particular class was one of several highlighst of my trip to Summit.  I have known Edward on line for many years through email and gracEmail newsletter, which I have subscribed to so long that neither he nor I could count the years. However, in all those years I had never met Edward in person.  That class was a real blessing to attend!  Not only is he a great writer, he is also a great teacher!

One very interesting speaker was Rachael Held Evans who spoke on the research and work she put into a book she is going to be writing over the next year.  The book will be called “A Year of Biblical Womanhood” and will be an experimental memoir that creatively investigates the concept of “biblical womanhood”.  Rachael was a truely inergetic speaker who was obviously excited to get to talk about her upcoming book.  Interestingly, she and her husband have an egalitarian marriage so this experiment proved to be quite a challenge to them.  She captivated everyone listening to her with her bubbly enthusiam and warm personality.  The book is supposed to be published about the time of Summit 2012!

Now, if you think I spent all my time sitting in classes, guess again.  There is one activity that I love to participate in when at Summit.  If you know me and guessed “talking”, you are correct!!!  I spent alot of time talking to others in the exhibits area.  I also engaged in a new activity I had not tried before, thanks to the generosity of my brother.  Before I left for Summit, I loaded up a number of boxes of books for children that my brother told me I could give away.  I put the two wheel dolly in with the books and when I was wandering the exhibits building dragging my dolly with boxes of books, I would stop by each children’s home exhibit I came to and offer to give them all the books they needed for their children.  Not one home turned me down, and I got to meet and talk to some very interesting people in the process of giving away the books!  I was able to give away over 300 books to children in the 8 to 14 year old age range.    That was absolutely more fun that going to the classes!!!!!  I made some new friends in the process and enjoyed several hours of conversation on numerous subjects (yeppers–talking again!).   I saw a number of people I knew, several whom I had not seen in several years, and I had dinner at the Bean (ACU’s student cafeteria) with Dr. Lynn Anderson and his wife, whom I have admired for many years.  Some of the new friends I made were in ministries I would never have considered myself being interested in before.

I wish I had the time and space to list all the classes I attended, tell about all the speakers I heard, and tell about the wonderful people I met and the ministries they work for but unfortunately it would take a short book to tell the entire story.  I hope, if you have read this far, you will plan on taking some time off in September of 2012 to attend Summit at Abilene Christian University.  It will definitly be a spiritually uplifting time, a time of renewal, a time of relaxation, a time of pushing on those box walls, and may even be a time of change in  your life.

I know that not everyone will ever agree on what spiritual gifts are and how they are to be used but here are some examples of gifts and applications that affect males and females that all most all of us will agree on:

Prayer: The ability to lead public prayer in front of a large group of believers is indeed a gift from God, and that gift is bestowed on males and females alike.  However, men are expected to lead all prayer in the assembly where men are present, and if it is only one man present, then he must do it all, even though there are women in every congregation who are, in many cases, much better at leading prayer than the men who are chosen to lead those prayers.  Don’t get me wrong on this as there are many men who do lead beautiful, heart felt prayers.  However, men and women approach prayer from different levels and when we only hear one level, we suffer overall.  We need to hear prayer from both genders in our worship.

The Lord’s Supper: Men are expected to do this because they are “supposed” to be the public speakers and this is a “leadership position”.  Why is it that we think a woman cannot do this?  Being able to tell a short story to enhance our participation in that event is a spiritual gift that should not ever be limited to men.  The event itself is open to every Christian present and to limit participation in the leading of this event of worship because of gender is wrong.  We carry this to the nth degree by saying that women cannot even help pass the bread and cup from front to back while standing in the aisle because they would be standing in front of the congregation and that would be a leadership position, even though they are saying nothing at all and are performing an action of service to other Christians.

Preaching: This is indeed a spiritual gift that some have a unique ability to use.  Yet, we limit this to  men only!  Who ever said that God gives that gift to men only?  Preaching is the closest thing we have to the 1st Century gift of prophecy and we know for a Biblically supported fact that both men and women prophesied in the 1st Century church.

Leading worship: Why is it that we insist that a man, who may have a terrible voice and not know anything about reading music or leading singing, must lead the worship when a woman is sitting in the pews who has had years of training in music and planning events.  Everyone around her knows about her gifts in this area and her unique abilities but, because of gender, she cannot be asked or “allowed” to lead the worship and help make the worship experience more meaningful.   Ask any preacher about what will make or break a a time of worship and they will tell you that one of the most important parts of the setting the overall tone in that worship service and helping make his sermon more meaningful is what the worship leader brings to the service before the sermon.

Teaching in Bible classes: Teaching is a specific gift.  In almost all of our churches, women are only allowed to teach other women and children, as long as there are no baptized male children.  Women cannot teach in a Bible class that has mixed adults, even if they posses degrees in theology, ministry, and education.  In some churches, women cannot even read from the Bible out loud in a mixed adult Bible class and they sure cannot lead a prayer.  About all they can do is make a comment occasionaly.

There are many spiritual gifts that can be used for the betterment of the church.  However, when we restrict those gifts in anyone, especially because of gender, we hurt ourselves.

Read what Paul says regarding spiritual gifts and how we are to seek them and use them :

1 Corinthians 12:7 – 11 (NIV) ⁷Now to each one the
manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. ⁸To one there is
given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of
knowledge by means of the same Spirit, ⁹to another faith by
the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, ¹⁰to another
miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between
spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,^£ and to still
another the interpretation of tongues.^{£ 11}All these are the
work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he
determines.

1 Corinthians 12:27 – 31 (NIV) ²⁷Now you are the body
of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. ²⁸And in the church
God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then
workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help
others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different
kinds of tongues. ²⁹Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? ³⁰Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all
interpret? ³¹But eagerly desire^£ the greater gifts.

I wonder how long it will take us to realize just how much we have repressed the spirit in our women by refusing them the right to use their spiritual gifts and how much longer it will take to make the corrections needed to bring everyone into equality in the Churches of Christ.  We have effectively handled the “Jews or Greeks” part of Paul’s statement.  We have effectively handled the “slave or free” part of that statement.  However, what we have failed miserably to handle is the “male or female” part of that statement.  Oh, you say where is the “male or female” in that statement?  It’s included in the inclussiveness of the statement just as the races, the rich and the poor, and the genders are included in the description of what an American citizen is.  However, Paul didn’t leave it to just the Corinthians to figure out and implement.  He also wrote to the Galations and he did include gender in that letter.

Galatians 3:25 - 3:29 (NRSVA) ²⁵But now that faith
has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, ²⁶for in Christ Jesus
you are all children of God through faith. ²⁷As many of you as
were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸There is no longer
Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and
female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹And if you belong to
Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring,^£ heirs according to
the promise.

If we are going to use our God given spiritual gifts to their fullest limits for the uplifting and betterment of all of our brothers and sisters who join in worship on Sunday mornings, we are going to have to deal with gender discrimination in our churches.  Satan loves the fact that we have not done so yet and that we limit the use of spiritual gifts in our congregations to less than half the membership .  That makes his job a whole lot easier!

“It’s certainly not unreasonable to think that in heaven we would have a special connection with the person we were married to during this life.  We’ll have so much history with that person that having a strong relationship on the New Earth is not a far-fetched concept.  So if you’re having difficulty thinking we could have romantic relationships on the New Earth, start by considering what it will be like to see your spouse for the first time in the next life.  The two of you will be without physical problems, without the stress that currently weights us down at nearly every turn, and without the misunderstanding and grudges that might have been brought on by circumstances of life on the fallen earth.  The potential for a better relationship would be extrodinary in God’s restored paradise!”

I find that to be a very interesting view point, especially as one who believes in the biblical egalitarian model of both marriage and church.  Let’s step out of our boxes for a few minutes and think about it.  God made a perfect creation, created a perfect place in the Garden for the beings to live that he would create, and then he created the male, followed by the female, to live in this perfect creation equally, together, neither one being over the other but living together, being each other’s perfect helper and companion.  Sin then enters in and they are removed from the Garden.  Sin then effects their relationship outside the Garden by influencing how men treat women.  The patriarchal system becomes the rule of the earth.  At the cross, this unlevel ground is leveled by Jesus’ sacrifice (see Gal 3:26-29), however, men are slow to change and the patriarchal system, in spite of the example by Jesus of how women should be treated and the teaching by the Apostles, is still the rule of the earth.  This continues for a couple thousand years after the cross when we see Christians slowly opening up to the idea of gender equality in the church based on Gal. 3:28 but we now have those who teach a politically correct version of patriarchal pratices called “complimentarianism” that originates in the latter part of the 20th Century.  Biblical egalitarian beliefs in church and marriage continue to slowly grow in practice as we move into the future but the sinfulness of making one gender lesser than the otherin  both the church and in the home is still there.  Then Jesus returns to claim his followers.  The heavens and earth are purified by fire and God creates a new earth for those who are saved.  The new earth is perfect again.  It is the new Garden where those who are saved may live.  We now meet our spouses from the existence we had on earth before Jesus’ return.  We are in the presence of God who see’s everyone the same: (Gal. 3:28 again)”there is no longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female”.  In heaven, we are all equals as there is no marriage.  There is no longer the sinfulness of men towards women that added inequality or lesser importance than man to women.  We stand there in this new earth with our life mates in the previous life looking at them in a whole new light of equality.  What are we going to be thinking, those of us who have treated our life mates as less than equals in our previous lives?  And for those of us who have treated our life mates with equality and respect in our previous lives, we just might find ourselves to be even happier over seeing our life mates again and the possibilities of relationship with that life mate seems to be endless on a perfect earth.

Of course, what I have just related is mostly pure speculation.  Joe and Lee say it this way:

“To what extent we could see relationships between men and women restored I’ll leave to your own thought and study.”

Yes, there is definitly something to think about in the speculation of what Joe and Lee have proposed.   Again, the book is “The True Heaven” by Joe Beam and Lee Wilson.  I highly recommend it!

Conservative Christianity (also called traditional Christianity) is a term applied to a number of groups or movements seen as giving priority to traditional Christian beliefs and practices.^[1] It is sometimes called conservative theology, an umbrella term covering various movements within Christianity and describing both corporate denominational and personal views of Scripture.

The term conservative Christian is frequently used by Protestant evangelicals and Protestant fundamentalists as a way to distinguish themselves from the more liberal Protestant denominations, which stress the teachings of Jesus rather than the more severe methods of social control advocated in the Old Testament. This often leads to different understanding of what is and is not “conservative”. It is also applied to the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches as well, not only in the case of moral theology, but also more traditional in the sense of the practice of Christianity itself.

Liberal Christianity as defined by Wikipedia

Liberal Christianity, sometimes called liberal theology, is an umbrella term covering diverse, philosophically and biblically informed religious movements and ideas within Christianity from the late 18th century and onward. The word “liberal” in liberal Christianity does not refer to a progressive political agenda or set of beliefs, but rather to the manner of thought and belief associated with the philosophical and religious paradigms developed during the Age of Enlightenment.

Liberal Christianity, broadly speaking, is a method of biblical hermeneutics, an undogmatic method of understanding God through the use of scripture by applying the same modern hermeneutics used to understand any ancient writings. Liberal Christianity does not claim to be a belief structure, and as such is not dependent upon any Church dogma or creedal statements. Unlike conservative varieties of Christianity, it has no unified set of propositional beliefs. The word liberal in liberal Christianity denotes a characteristic willingness to interpret scripture without any preconceived notion of inerrancy of scripture or the correctness of Church dogma.^[1] A liberal Christian, however, may hold certain beliefs in common with traditional, orthodox, or even conservative Christianity.

MY THOUGHTS ON THIS

Over the last few years, in many Christian groups, there has been alot of talk about conservative verses liberal Christian ideas.  Wikipedia uses some more common language to describe these terms but, IMO, it is difficult to classify anyone under these two terms.  My experience with Christians whom I have discussed many subjects has been that it is rare to find a Christian who can be accurately described by the common definitions.  We all seem to have our own ideas on particular subjects.  Most of us, if we really sit down and analyze our thoughts on Scripture, cannot truely say we are a conservative or a liberal on every or possibly any subject.  For that reason, there has been alot of mis-use of these terms and alot of misunderstanding of what a true conservative or true liberal believes.  If you were to call yourself a liberal in some churches, you might even be asked to leave.

When one studies Christian history, the leaders of all the great Christian movements that brought positive change for many believers would be considered liberals.  In some circles, they would be called radicals and/or change agents.  Yet these Christians were dedicated Bible believing men and women who just want to understand and apply God’s words to us in a truer sense.  A look at the American Restoration Movcment leader Alexander Campbell is one of those examples that can be viewed both ways.  He was a classic change agent by modern standards.  He pushed for simpler Christianity while re-evaluating all his previously held ideas.  He came up with some radical ideas for the time that are not at all radical to us now.  At the time of his ministry, if classified by our standards today, he would be a liberal Christian.  However, his views, having been accepted over the last 190 years as correct by many, are seen today by many as being conservative.  This holds true for many of the great leaders through the centuries.  It seems to me that conservative and liberal are really just terms of relativity defined by the time frame in which they exist.  Alexander Campbell was a liberal 190 years ago and is a conservative in the present.

Have you given any thought to where you were when you became a Christian, where you are now, and where you will be in the future compared to where you are now and in the past?  Can you really say you are a conservative or liberal or something in between when the terms can be so nebulous in nature and variable in time?  Our views and understanding of Scripture change as we study.  The more we study the more we change.  Looking at my own personal views and how general views on many subjects have changed over the last few years, I am part of the nebulous factor as I have views that fall in some of the more so called conservative areas and views that fall into the more so called liberal areas.  Personally,  I think of myself as just a Christian trying to move closer to Jesus than closer to the church.  In the past, I used to call that a being a conservative Christian, however, I have been called liberal so many times by those who call themselves conservatives that it is hard to tell anymore!  I guess I am a liberal who is conservative and a change agent who believes that change must be supported by scriptural understanding before change occurs which is a conservative principle.  Oh well.

Where’s the Ibuprofin bottle?  I have a headache from trying to figure this one out!