Comments on: Three spheres of subordination shrinks to two

By: Cheryl Schatz

Cheryl Schatz — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:48:18 +0000

Mary,

Thank you so much for your encouragement! Also welcome to this blog and I hope you find the material and the comments and those who comment here to be very encouraging.

By: Mary

Mary — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:59:22 +0000

Hi Cheryl,
Just a note to thank you for your diligent study of God’s Word and it’s application to the church and women in particular. May God bless your continuing efforts.

By: Cheryl Schatz

Cheryl Schatz — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:46:21 +0000

Lin and Don, thanks! The word needs to get out. I don’t think most comps who follow CBMW realize that they changed from their original mandate. I believe that CBMW should be willing to do as Gushee challenged them as it would be an honorable admission.

By: Cheryl Schatz

Cheryl Schatz — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:44:51 +0000

ZZMike,
Thanks for your comments and welcome to this blog!

We are hoping that somehow we can cause people to realize the contradictions so that they start to think instead of just following man’s traditions.

By: Don

Don — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:21:24 +0000

I posted an extract of the above post on Denny Burk’s blog, however it was in a thread on Gushee from last month, as that was most appropriate.

By: Pinklight

Pinklight — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:30:22 +0000

‘And it’s a bit disappointing to hear that these arguments are going on in mainstream churches. I would expect them from the snake-handlers, but not from educated Christians.’

Hey! Now that makes sense!

By: Lin

Lin — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:26:02 +0000

Cheryl, This is excellent!

The Danvers Statement was a response to the CULTURE. CBMW has been culture driven since day one. This latest position, with Palin, is more of the same: A response to the culture of Obama.

By: ZZMike

ZZMike — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:02:23 +0000

“The God-given sense of responsibility for leadership in a mature man will not generally allow him to flourish long under personal, directive leadership of a female superior. (pg 52 RBMW)”

How medieval.

Just ask the British how well they got along under Margaret Thatcher.

Or, just for fun, Queen Victroria - leader for 64 years, and one of the most flourishing periods in English history.

Trying to make the best of a lost cause by saying, “OK out there, but in the home and in the church, we’ll keep you in a virtual burkha”, doesn’t help even a little.

So Gov Palin, should she get to be VP, would be expected to come home after a hard day helping run the country, and start scrubbing the floors, and bring Mr Palin his coffee and slippers.

I don’t think so.

It is a lost cause.

Over at Kruse Kronicle you wrote, “…This is the time to rethink these hard passages of scripture on the issue of women…”

I posted a link there to Kenneth E. Bailey, “Women in the New Testament”, where (in my opinion) he leaves that tired old argument in the dust.

And it’s a bit disappointing to hear that these arguments are going on in mainstream churches. I would expect them from the snake-handlers, but not from educated Christians.

By: Cheryl Schatz

Cheryl Schatz — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:40:53 +0000

By: Don

Don — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:38:13 +0000

Sure, makes sense. The title as a teaser.
What could she possibly mean by THAT?
I will read it to find out.