<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d12585839\x26blogName\x3dthe+old+SHLOG+(moved+to+shaungroves.c...\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://readshlog.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://readshlog.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-6606949357892583233', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

5/16/2006

THE OLDEST BATTLE

Tonight at ikon we enter the oldest battle in the bible: the battle of the sexes. Does God value women less than men? Does the apostle Paul? Are men and women equal or not? Different or the same?

The early church in Corinth has some questions about the sexes sure, but the real core of their confusion centered around trying to live like people declared free by God in a culture potentially offended by the exercise of that freedom. How do we live like there is no longer male or female, Jew not Greek, in a society that still operates as if there is? What if exercising our freedom actually hinders the believability of the Jesus story?

But Paul's answer to these questions are full of references to the culture for which they were written. This poses a problem for modern American Christians doesn't it? how much of Paul's answer still applies today? Here's a piece of it:

1 Corinthians 11:7-12 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

We'll ask all this and more tonight at 8PM. See you there Nashvillians.

21 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shaun -
I was thinking about your friend that went to work in Rome. Do they happen to have a blog? I was wanting to keep up with their work there and hear about all God is doing.
DC

5/16/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shaun -
I was thinking about your friend that went to work in Rome. Do they happen to have a blog? I was wanting to keep up with their work there and hear about all God is doing.
DC

5/16/2006  
Anonymous tunz4jesus said...

Shaun,
Got Mark Driscoll's book in the mail yesterday. Looking forward to spending a little time with it. Thanks for the hook up.
Shari Brown

5/16/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul was radical in regards to women, just got done reading/learning Ch 7, and he makes the statement:

3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

In that culture, that is a crazy, liberal thing to say!

5/16/2006  
Blogger Shaun Groves said...

Hey, Shloggers, I'm glad you all are posting but it sure would help me if everyone could sign in as something other than anonymous. Is there a technical issue with doing that?

Thanks,
SG

5/16/2006  
Anonymous T. J. said...

works fine, i think

5/16/2006  
Blogger GrovesFan said...

The radical feminist movement of the late 60's and 70's has served no purpose but to shatter the family (the basis of our nation afterall) and leave many, many of the children without any role models. They have no solid fathers to look up to and no mothers either. Lines of responsibility and roles are so confused that no one knows what they really are anymore.

A small example; my Grandfather ALWAYS opened doors for my Grandmother. He'd have been mortified if she'd done it herself. My dad was the same way with my mom. On the rare occassion that she'd try to open it herself, he'd gently tell her to be patient, he was getting there as fast as he could. I asked him why this small thing was so important to him one day. He said that he did it out of respect for my mother. She was a gift to him from God and he intended to let her know that everyday. They had a wonderful marriage that they worked very hard at for 40 years before they died. Since God never makes mistakes, or ever changes anything He's set forth for us to live by, it would be safe to say that the Biblical standard for husbands, wives, children, and men and women in general is THE standard by which we should live. Difficult, yes, but well worth the effort.

5/16/2006  
Blogger Shaun Groves said...

Is that culturally or biblically defined roles? Or a mix of both?

SG

PS. No boys date my daughters if the don't open doors.

5/16/2006  
Anonymous Jen said...

"the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."

And all the women say, "Amen."

5/16/2006  
Blogger GrovesFan said...

Since culture changes constantly, I'd have to say Biblically defined roles. Since our times, cultures, technologies, etc. have changed, we can certainly adapt, but the roles shouldn't change. Men are called by God to be the leaders of our homes, churches, countries, etc. Women should not be in these roles unless there's no other choice. By that I mean, if a husband dies, then obviously the wife would be the head of the home and make those decisions for her kids, etc. I would not ever sit under the authority of a female pastor (Bible Study teachers, yes; in women's studies) or vote for a woman president. When we allow these things to happen, we circumvent God's plan for our lives and good does not ever come from that.

I know I'll catch some flack for my thinking, but that's OK. I'm a big girl and I can handle it. I am very stubborn, headstrong, and a definitely a type "A" personality as the saying goes. I'm comfortable in leadership positions and manage things well most of the time. I began my marriage as the spiritual head of our home because my husband wasn't a Christian when we married (we thought so, but we were wrong). Although we discussed things, I usually made the decisions, etc. I controlled the finances and made the decisions about most daily things. It's only after having some serious marital issues come to a head and really discover that my role as a wife was not the one I was playing, were we able to change roles. It was very hard for me to step back and let my husband lead because, frankly, he wasn't very good at it and I was very impatient. I felt that giving up that control was like giving up my freedom and it was hard to say the least. Finally (I said I was stubborn), I realized that I really needed let him lead no matter what so he could get good at it. After 18 years of marriage, it's still a struggle at times, but I've seen my husband grow to become a mature Christian, the head of our home, and a solid husband and father. Our son has a good role model and so do our three daughters.

BTW, our daughters may not even date no matter how many doors are opened for them! We haven't really come to grips with that yet as the oldest is only 13. Our 16 year old son however isn't interested in dating now. I asked him why one time and he said he didn't need the pressure. There was plenty of time. He does however open doors for girls, see them home safely when necessary and will not ever enter their home unless their parents are present (and awake!). I did not teach him that specific rule but when I asked him why (he was taking a friend home from school), he said that her parents were not home so he didn't want to just drive away and leave her alone as it was fairly late. He waited in the car though. He said he didn't want anyone to think bad things about her if they saw him enter her home with her parents not home. Good for him! "Old fashioned," yes. On his way to being a very good man, husband and father with strong values who can lead well.

Beth

5/16/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Shaun,

Just discovered your music, and I just discovered your blog too.

Wow. Many have so much to say on this topic.

I'm just a kid (17), so I don't know very much. This year my parents divorced. My Dad is a believer that the man is the leader within the home. The church we go to also believes the same thing.

But as far as I can tell, the people in the church actually talked Mom into leaving, and she did. She left last December.

I asked Dad why? He said that she wasn't happy with him. I asked if he cheated on her, and he said no.

I went to church with my Mom last weekend, and I don't trust them there. I don't think they live out what the Bible clearly teaches about marriage.

I'm trying to figure out who is right in all this mess. What do you think?

Debra.

I saw the bit about signing in, but I have to ask my Dad first, and I don't wanna cause I don't want him reading my questions. I hope this is OK.

5/16/2006  
Blogger The Cachinnator said...

Phoebe. Junias. Romans 16.

5/17/2006  
Anonymous keith said...

Phoebe = servant (deaconess)
Junias = outstanding among the apostles (messengers)

Were these elders, teachers, presidents, florists? This information is not given in the text.

5/17/2006  
Blogger Kathryn said...

Debra. . i'm so sorry to hear that your parents split up. I know you addressed your questions to Shaun, but I felt bad when i read your comment.

First of all, love the picture! LOL. Maybe you can post about how the teaching/discussion went with your group? I'd be interested to hear highlights.

men and women have a complicated history! I like how the Bible says Jesus treated women. That's the model there. As far as I can see, both genders were made by God and both messed up and both had to pay consequences. I don't see that either gender is superior and I don't see that either should act as if they are. I love that women and men have their unique qualities and that together they can be a great team.

5/17/2006  
Anonymous Miss Munky said...

Okay here's my string of thoughts on this, good luck piecing them together.
That picture is disturbing...and hysterical! It's like Betty White vs. the Grampa from the Waltons. ROFLOL!
I know that when I took it upon myself to be the leader of my home (because I didn't like the job my dh was doing) we were all miserable.
I am now learning to follow him and he is doing a wonderful job supported by my prayers rather than being nagged. Yeah I can admit being a nag.
I think it's harder to follow than to lead sometimes, so I think in a sense the woman has the harder role.
I have 4 daughters that will never date, period. But that's another subject, LOL!

5/17/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Kathryn. I guess it was silly of me to post that here. I just don't have very many places to turn. Everyone seems to want to comfort me instead of answer my questions about the faith.

I just don't think people believe what they claim, and it hurts.

Debra.

5/17/2006  
Blogger The Cachinnator said...

And yet in Greek the words used for Phoebe and Junia, diakonon and apostolois, are the same exact words used for men. Yet for some reason we feel the need to change the meaning to diminish the roles these women played. If there are multiple possible meanings, then it surely must be recognized that Paul very well could be calling these women deacons and apostles, thus making them authoritative leaders in the church. And if he meant something different than he meant in other places, why not use a different word?

5/17/2006  
Anonymous keith said...

It is my understanding that 'deacon' and 'apostle' are broad terms for 'servant' and 'messenger', respectively, that can also have a more specific meaning depending on context when referring to an "office" in the church. Even if Pheobe held a special position called 'deacon', however, I would hesitate to call her, or any other male deacon, an authoritative leader. The most leadership authority, I believe, rests with the elders. Here's a good short article on women deacons that mentions Phoebe.

5/18/2006  
Blogger Amy said...

I definitely wish I could have been there. I feel like a part of my week is missing because I couldn't be at Ikon! Please post up the new messages soon! I want to at least try to follow what is going on while I'm in the states!

5/18/2006  
Blogger The Cachinnator said...

This is obviously a bigger discussion than can be had here, but I will say that church hierarchy is not as clear as anyone who says they model the first century church thinks it is. There was no first century church. There were first century churches. And they functioned differently, faced different challenges, needed different councel. And women held different roles in them often related to the culture in which they were. To believe that the author of Timothy was making a prohibition for all Christians in all churches at all times is absurd given the variety of roles for women in numerous other parts of Scripture. And it is sad that we scrutinize the words diakonos and apostolos when used to describe a woman but we never even bring them up regarding men.

5/19/2006  
Blogger Nancy Tyler said...

Hey Debra (and everybody else reading this) come hang out with us on Shaun's message board: http://shaungroves.com/phpBB2/

You can post a question or comment on anything that's on your mind. The people are cool and friendly. It's a safe place to be real.

nancy
(the msg board admin/moderator)

5/19/2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home