1. I happily accept the *Bible’s* teaching regarding qualified male leadership in the church. It is our practice at our church.
2. I am *not* a misogynistic, culture-warring “pastor” who thinks women preaching and pastoring is “a gospel issue.”
/1
I understand and accept that faithful Christians with genuine conviction and even scholarly understanding of the Bible May arrive at different positions on the issue.
Some of them have even written your favorite commentaries and books. Are even Herod to the theobros.
Truthfully, there has not been one theologically evangelical woman in pastoral ministry who has ever been a threat to the gospel, a threat to my household, a threat to my church, or an attacker and opponent on this bird app. Not one.
I’ll take a faithful gospel preaching sister over any of these culture warriors dividing the church any day of the week—and, yes, especially twice on Sunday since their labors bear the mark of discipleship far more fully and winsomely than these unloving, divisive jerks.
So, get over yourself and get off my TL. I will gladly acknowledge a woman pastor in a room that has them in the audience and on stage. Not only because they kindly accepted the invitation to a debate. But because they are my sisters, having a human experience, making their way.
If you can’t muster at least that level of courtesy, then YOU are the problem no matter how “correct” theology. And if you think it good to attack someone being respectful, then YOU are the one poisoning the unity of the church.
Gird your loins and prepare for God’s accounting.
*heroes* to the theobros
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The following tweet is apropos nothing. There’s no person, controversy or issue in mind. It’s just a thought I had walking from one room in my house to another. It’s surely shaped by the current arguments and comments online.
But it’s not specifically or directly addresses.
/1
Here goes:
If you can support a theological, biblical or ministry claim…
without using writers and leaders who were slaveholders, white supremacists, segregationists, misogynists, etc…
then you should.
/2
But if you make your points with the support of racists, slave holders, white supremacists, segregationists, misogynists, etc…
when there are other writers making the same point w/o being those things…
then it’s understandable if others think the point wasn’t theology, etc
/3
I always chuckle at the folks on here who try to pushback on my entertainment takes by claiming to be “purists” and saying, “It’s in the original comics.”
/1
They don’t seem to understand:
A. A thing can be in the original comics and still be corny, or make for bad TV/movies, or that the original comic could have been whack.
B. That appealing to original comic is more @ their nostalgia than the quality of the on-screen product.
/2
This nostalgia is what made #WandaVision so popular. The advantage of that show was it very transparently appealed to nostalgic pop culture.
This is good, life-preserving, danger-facing policing. W want this for everyone: “After 12-hour standoff at Pinellas Park hotel, officers arrest man with long criminal history” fox13news.com/news/barricade…
This is bad, life-endangering, excessive force policing. We do not want this for anyone: “Virginia man shot by sheriff’s deputy after calling 911 for help”. He was unarmed and shot 10 times.
The difference between restraint AFTER an officer was attacked in the first case and excessive use of force WITHOUT any attack of the officer is the wide gulf we must close in these incidents and in policing. It’s why policing needs radical redesign and standardization.
We can not negate our way to a positive vision of anything.
At some point, no matter the issue, we must become positive, constructive. There is no way to build otherwise.
And we must learn that negating and subtracting is the easiest, lowest form of theorizing. If we wish to move forward, we shouldn’t be too impressed with a litany of assertive “I disagree” as much as we look for a compendium of “I propose.”
Someone needs to write a comparative article or series on the effect of CRT/IS on congregations vs. the effect of those who oppose it?
From what I can tell, the opponents have had a much bigger and far more negative effect on local churches than CRT/IS ever did or could.
/1
For example, faithful pastors in sound churches across the country are reporting the loss of significant portions of their membership and loss of long-time friends who have been influenced by the anti-CRT crowd. I'm talking small churches and megachurches.
/2
I'm hearing (been hearing for a couple of years!) from large church pastors who have lost 15-25 percent of their memberships after some folks get involved in anti-CRT writing and slander. Those folks leave after 1st slandering their pastors insisting on CRT's influence.
/3
Can we talk about this a little? I don’t want to discourage anyone’s effort at diversity, but a couple of pointers are in order here:
“IMB celebrates Black missionary and church planter George Liele; designates February as Diversity in Missions month” imb.org/2021/02/01/imb…
2/ Let’s start with the renaming of Black History Month. That’s not a good look. The month begins with Negro History Week, which was, in part, a pushback against to erasure of Black people from history and a counter to white supremacist narratives. You can’t just rename that.
3/ Then there’s the use of George Liele. Liele is a Christian hero to be sure. I like the idea of honoring him.
But don’t be selective w/ his history and his theology. The article omits any reference to the Baptist Wars of Jamaica which were critical in Jamaica’s independence.