"Video Games aren't sinful, they're just stupid"

ahh that's a bummer to hear. I think you are missing out on some solid and relevant teaching if you go that route. I agree its hard to swallow at times, but in my case it is only because I know I need to hear it and my flesh resists.
 
Last edited:
ewoksrule said:
ahh that's a bummer to hear. I think you are missing out on some solid and relevant teaching if you go that route. I agree its hard to swallow at times, but in my case it is only because I know I need to hear it and my flesh resists.
Click to expand...

I know the difference...but when someone says that women that work and men who don't are cursed...I don't hold much else they have to say in any relevance... :-/
 
I hope you realize the context that he makes that comment in. Once again, its one that is hard to hear but I cannot disagree with him. I had to agree with that sermon that he said that, it was actually a good wake up call for me.
 
Like many New Calvinists, Driscoll advocates traditional gender roles, called “complementarianism” in theological parlance. Men and women are “equal spiritually, and it’s a difference of functionality, not intrinsic worth,” says Danielle Blazer, a 34-year-old Mars Hill member. Women may work outside the home, but they must submit to their husbands, and they are forbidden from taking on preaching roles in the church . http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11punk-t.html?pagewanted=all
Click to expand...

I don't see "cursed" there at all.
 
I think the "traditional gender roles" is a bunch of hooey. People have severely ignored the historical context of the New Testament writers (specifically Paul) and used a few utterances of purpose as a suppression tool.

Paul held women leaders in high regard and even appointed them as leaders of some of the churches he created (Rom 16:1). He specifically used masculine forms of the words he used for elder, pastor, and teacher to show that these women weren't just watching the kids or serving meals, but actively leading the churches. He even goes as far as to make the women in Romans 16 the first people he mentions.

If we were writing a letter to the people of importance in the US government in 1862, we wouldn't start with the minority whip, speaker of the house, or even the Vice President. We would start our letter by addressing President Abraham Lincoln. The same is true in Paul's letter.

You can't just look at one place and say "Paul says women shouldn't speak in church" (based on 1 Cor 14:34) without addressing the reason he said it.... because it directly conflicts with what he said in other places. No honest Bible scholar will claim you can directly take something that is said (even in the New Testament) and apply it to modern life without looking at the context of the passage and taking their culture and our culture both into consideration.

Paul's letters are very well thought out. There's a reason he includes women the way he does (in early, prominent positions). They're not just deaconesses serving dinner - they are leaders.

To take the same topic a step farther, I'll repeat what I already said in the mens' forum. If my wife is good at turning wrenches and I'm good at cooking a roast, there's no reason for me to break the oil filter and her burn dinner. If she's good at balancing a checkbook and I'm good at mulching flowerbeds, there's no reason for me to get overdraft fees while she pulls flowers instead of weeds. If she's good at being a leader in a business and I'm good with raising kids, why would I try to get fired while she's changing diapers?

God gave us all specific abilities. To ignore them based on society's definition of gender-based responsibilities (based on misapplied scripture) is plain stupid.
 
ewoksrule said:
I hope you realize the context that he makes that comment in. Once again, its one that is hard to hear but I cannot disagree with him. I had to agree with that sermon that he said that, it was actually a good wake up call for me.
Click to expand...

I believe that Christ broke every curse...including the one causing pain for women in child birth, and the one about men working... I know people who have not experienced any pain in childbirth because they believe this...

Just saying :p
 
Paul's letters are very well thought out. There's a reason he includes women the way he does (in early, prominent positions). They're not just deaconesses serving dinner - they are leaders.
Click to expand...

Timothy (author Paul) lays it out pretty well. Complementarian views allow the freedom for both male and female to be leaders, but not elders and deacons.
 
Last edited:
I think you have it backwards. Complementarianism usually allows women to serve, but not lead. This is the position that Paul writes from in 1 Tim 2:12. However, he also outlines his reasoning in chapters 3 and 4 when he says that leaders, overseers, and deacons should not be recent converts to Christianity. They should have extensive scriptural knowledge...

The problem is that the Ephesian women typically weren't very well educated because in 1st century Jewish culture, they weren't allowed to study. Therefore, they didn't have the solid scriptural knowledge to teach. Paul knew there were a many problems with the Ephesians being lured into false teachings, and didn't want it to hurt the fledgling church at Ephesus. So he said the women that didn't yet have the deep knowledge shouldn't teach.

Yet being the operative word in that last sentence.

Paul went to Ephesus at least two other times, and taught there for three years before he wrote his letter to the Ephesians. In Ephesians, he wrote about submission to one another (chapter 5) and unity in the body of Christ, regardless of gender, social rank, or nationality (chapter 6). If Paul intended to prevent women from leading, teaching, and serving, he would have done it in Ephesians.

But that wasn't the case. It was about 4 years later that Paul wrote to Timothy. At this point, the church at Ephesus was growing, but faced incredible pressure since Ephesus was one of the major Roman cities in the Mediterranean region. It was still a major city that had shrines to Diana, and significant polytheistic influences. Paul was concerned that women that had only began studying in the last few years could be easily corrupted and mislead the church.

Again, not a generalization that women should never teach or preach or lead, but merely that their situation was less than ideal for that expansion of women's rights into church leadership at that point.

In today's society, women are equally as educated as men (some would argue that many women are smarter and therefore more equipped to teach)
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism

Honesting it sounds like you are twisting the book to make it do what you want it to. Paul was clear in Timothy an elder or a deacon must be a husband of one wife. Don't add to scripture. Jesus didn't have a female disciple, but I suppose (as you might explain to me) they weren't educated enough to be?

I'm not trying to persuade you and I know this is tantamount to full-on thread hijack so I'll just stop. I have many friends who are Egalitarian and its just an area on which we agree to disagree. Doesn't stop us from loving each other as brothers (and sisters).

I'll try and move it back to topic, why did Driscoll single out the guys with video games? Do virtual gender roles affect our viewpoints in the real world. Notice how in all MMOs there is virtually no difference between a man and a woman characters other than appearance? Functionally the same.
 
Last edited:
CS Cowles wrote an excellent book titled A Woman's Place? Leadership in the Church. He provides an excellent commentary on the Bible and explains how some of Paul's writings could be taken out of context and prevent women from holding leadership positions. He looks at the historical context behind the passages to properly interpret them.

Personally, I see no reason why a woman shouldn't be able to hold the title of "pastor" or "deacon".

Link to the book on Amazon
 
Lloren said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism

...I'll try and move it back to topic, why did Driscoll single out the guys with video games? Do virtual gender roles affect our viewpoints in the real world. Notice how in all MMOs there is virtually no difference between a man and a woman characters other than appearance? Functionally the same.
Click to expand...

I had this same thought actually. Much of how Driscoll approaches this topic is quite the same conceptually as John Eldredge's Wild at Heart. The problem I see that interrupts his presented line of thought is the amount of female gamers that are evident online. For his illustration to hold water he is using the stereotypical view that only boys/men are gamers. (Eldredge's book works towards how men search to find purpose in life by looking for a battle to fight, a cause to stand for, a beauty to rescue - that sort of thing.) I obviously do not believe this to be exclusively true and indeed think that females love this same sort of 'mission' or role playing as well - be it in life or in a game.

Through experience I have found that I always end up caring more about the people I play with instead of the game that I am playing with them. This is the good that I find that exists in health behind why I play WoW with The Forgiven in particular. It is community. We encourage each other, pray for each other, spur each other on, etc. I also hope that we work towards loving others in game the same way Christ loves us - this is where I know I need personal growth in. It just seems so much easier to respond sarcastically in trade to someone, to back talk against a horrible random heroic group rather than trying to encourage or support someone to help them become a better player, etc.

Actually, on the topic of a bad player and/or a bad random group how do we usually respond? Yes, this is directed back at me as well. Are we being gracious towards those who don't 'deserve' it? What kind of an effect are we having on said player/groups if we just jump ship because we don't want to tolerate sloppy play? an egotistical tank? I often fall into the mode of 'it's my free time; I want to be efficient with my time. I'm not putting up with this junk.' So then am I really loving others as myself? Maybe I should consider people that I play with my 'neighbours' (sorry, I'm Canadian and that's how it's supposed to be spelled) and 'love them as you love yourself' (Gal 5:14)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top