Links to this post:

  <$BlogBacklinkTitle$>  

<$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

11 Comments:

women shouldn't be pastors because there weaker nature causes them to stumble more. iT's the female nature.

By  Anonymous, at November 16, 2007 8:24 PM  

I find it interesting how, when a male pastor stumbles, the general cry is that we need to be forgiving and that we are all sinners, and that it is the same sinful, human nature in all of us that caused him to fall.

However, when a woman pastor or teacher falls, it has nothing to do with human nature or sinful nature, but is often -- either directly put or insinuated -- blamed on the "female" nature. As if this "female" nature was imbued with more sinful tendencies and more weaknesses than the male.

That is the implication when gender-based "weakness" is ever used, no matter how gently, to account for what truly is the sinful human nature that we all have.

What about being a woman is weak? What do women go through, what have the gone through in history -- what, I ask -- has ever upheld the idea that women are weak?

Women are strong. Our nature is no better or worse than a man's. Being different is not a hierarchical given; it is, in this case, a horizontal difference.

By  Julie R. Neidlinger, at November 16, 2007 8:29 PM  

For posterity's sake, here are the follow-up comments over at Old Truth, and the one I just left but hasn't made it online yet.

-----

Jim: I agree with Chad (no surprise there). He is not making a moral equivalent between transgenders and females; he is saying they are both wrong as pastors. And the fact that you will find others (today) that believe that female pastors are compatible with the bible is not proof that it is biblically permissible. Julie, I seem to remember you commenting here before and labeling me as being a "sexist", which was objected to by other females here who know me personally. With that said, is there any chance that you might be holding on to some feminist views that are interfering with your interpretation of the bible on this topic? If not, how about interacting with Chad on the text of God's Word?

PS: I had read that Pyro post and thought it was great. My teenage daughter's bookshelf is full of hundreds of dollars worth of books that I bought her - by women of faith and about women (biographies). At the same time as I hold these ladies in high esteem, I've trained my daughters to follow the bible's command that women can not be pastors under any circumstances. Churches that have them, forfeit the right to be called a Christian church.

Posted by: Jim B. on Friday, November 16, 2007

-----

Jim: Chad:

Within a couple of hours of the comments above, Julie has written us up on the watchdog of watchdogs site as well on her own blog. It looks like we are being misunderstood on a number of points. Do you want to write a separate post to respond to this or should we just let it go?

It's interesting how Julie brings "Calvinism" into this on her blog; Arminians like the Wesley's would say nothing different than we have. It's only as of recent decades that "women pastors" has become a mainstream issue, and that's yet another reason why church history is so valuable to study. Women pastors has nothing to do with soteriology. And speaking of which, we should also point out that Chad and I have made no statements here about the salvation of "woman pastors", those who attend their churches, or of Julie herself. (I just want to make sure that doesn't get twisted into the topic at hand.)

Posted by: Jim B. on Friday, November 16, 2007

-----

Chad: Well, the first thing one may notice on the Watchdoggies site is that Julie says that I used the Adam and Eve story to prove that Eve was deceived. Actually I just quoted the apostle Paul. She also says that I'm using the order of creation to say that men are superior. Well, I never said that men were superior but, again, the apostle Paul writing under inspiration of the Holy Spirit makes the argument for the doctrine that a woman may not hold pastoral office from the fact that the man was first created.

That's the inspired exposition of the creation and the fall as recorded in 1 Tim. When some one sets themselves against the plain teaching of the Word of God they set themselves against God.

So Julie, your problem is with God's Word. Not me.

Matt 12:36 "I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

Posted by: Chad V. on Friday, November 16, 2007

-----

Sarah-Luvmom: Hey, is this the same Julie whose nickname is Prairie Princes (or something like that)? If so, I've read her site and it sounds more like someone with an unredeemed heart who loves the god of her imagination and hates the God of the Bible. Rebellion is as witchcraft and when you rebel against the Bible...

Posted by: sarah-luvvom on Friday, November 16, 2007

-----

Chad: Jim, now that I've applied Proverbs 26:5

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Now that I've done that I think it's time to apply Proverbs 26:4

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.

Also Matt. 15:14 "Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."

Posted by: Chad V. on Friday, November 16, 2007

-----

Chad: I almost forgot this one,

Matt 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you."

Posted by: Chad V. on Friday, November 16, 2007

-----

Jim: For anyone interested in a more detailed look at
the bible's prohibition of women as pastors, read:

A Biblical Look at the Ordination of Women

Short Excerpt:
Before attempting to apply the 'cultural relevance' argument to any biblical teaching, we must be very careful to honestly evaluate what the Bible as a whole is saying on the subject. We must also carefully examine our own hearts to see if we havean attitude of rebellion against the revealed will of God in Scripture and are sinfully looking for a way to ignore its commands. Again, let us heed the words of the Apostle: 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works' (2 Timothy 3:16).

It is important to note that the Apostle declared that all Scripture 'is profitable,' not merely those isolated texts which may be employed to support our personal belief system. We cannot pick and choose when it comes to obedience to God's Word; it is an 'all or nothing' affair.

It is tragic how a generation of professing Christians can be so blind to the clear teaching of Scripture, and would rather hearken to the liberal agenda of the modern feminist movement than adhere to God's clear commandments. The Bible is clear in its denunciation of such people as these: 'They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate' (Titus 1:16)

Posted by: Jim B. on Friday, November 16, 2007

-----

Me: According to these comments:

1. An unredeemed heart: "If so, I've read her site and it sounds more like someone with an unredeemed heart who loves the god of her imagination and hates the God of the Bible."

2. I am a blind fool.

3. Comparative to a dog or pig.

Jim, I appreciate your information that you shared here on ordained women, but your proof is a link to a site that will definitely support your view in this matter. There are other web sites and Christian authors who interpret this differently. I can't say that your passage here proves anything, other than pointing out where you believe the best source for this reference to be. It is, again, merely the interpretation of a human. Which is, of course, what any links I would provide would also be. I appreciate it, but I do not fully agree.

Yes, you are correct that I had a previous discussion on things to do with women. That post is here. You may want to read it to see the update I put on it, though, I have to say after being told by some woman who has in no way, shape, or form read any serious amount of my writing (including the Sunday school lessons and such that I've put online) to determine that my heart is unredeemed, and to have a writer here basically call me a fool and a dog, I'm thinking I was wrong in my change of heart in the update.

Do you think enough about your own fallibility to consider how you respond to people you do not really know well enough? My response to Chad on CRN.info was not personal, but on a discussion level based on his quotes. You have been rather cruel to a fellow Christian, though I suppose Chad will find some fine scripture to point out something about my itching ears and how following Christ will make the world hate us.

This has been incredibly disappointing. In no way do I consider myself some kind of liberal feminist though I seem to be assumed of as much. You always talk about your love for your daughters - what would your thoughts be if they disagreed with a Christian on a web site and were told they were the three things I listed above? I again wonder why I came back to this web site.

I would note that I didn't touch on the transgender issue because that would just be preaching to the choir; it didn't even register for me to debate.

Thank you for your time. Good day.

----------------------

I have to say that though I knew there was bound to be disagreement and such, the way Chad used the Bible to cut me down into some sort of nothing, and the way that "Sarah" judged me as being unredeemed and rebellious... that really hurt.

I am not rebellious. I do not have an unredeemed heart. I love Jesus very much and I believe people who know me and have been around me would not say any of these things.

I am surprised at the turn those comments over at Old Truth took. I didn't think I could be caught off guard like that. Gloating and gleefully judging and using scripture as little more than for a parry and riposte...

"Now that I've applied this scripture, I'll apply this other one, and this one, and then Bingo! I've proved my theorem."

Christians are cruel. No wonder people despise the religion.

By  Julie R. Neidlinger, at November 17, 2007 12:09 AM  

I left one other comment. I don't think I'll be back to see if it is posted or if they respond, because I can't take another round of that and not feel hurt. Weird. Usually things don't get to me. Anyway, here you go:

Perhaps, Chad, you, as well as all of us, ought to try applying Proverbs 15:1. It carries as much weight as the other verses, even the ones that seem to tell us to go out and fight.

I am not your adversary or enemy. (That would be applying Ephesians 6:12.)

By  Julie R. Neidlinger, at November 17, 2007 12:17 AM  

Julie:

I don't believe that I was cruel to you in the post that you are linking to on my blog, though I see where you would feel that way from comments made by others. I didn't censor them, just like I didn't censor you. I've been taking inbound fire from your site for a while now, and I suppose I could say that your attempts at painting me as a sexist falls into the "Christians can be cruel" category as well. That is especially the case being that I have not brought up my daughters that way, nor do I treat my wife that way.

I thought we had somewhat of 'truce' going for a few months there, so it was surprising to find you writing both of your challenge-posts tonight, rather than talking to us further in the comments. Your post on CRaM.info had misrepresentations in it, and you were putting words in Chad's mouth in several places, which made him look like he said things that he didn't. When people do that, as is often the case with CRaM.info, I have no netiquette conscience-concerns whatsoever about any inbound links being jammed; not in the least.

The "Calvinist Complementarian" Pyro "fan club" stuff is some interesting speculation, but I know you don't like it when people equate you to Emergent due to your interest in the Emerging-friendly CRaM.info site that you are now a contributor on.

I would prefer in the future - that we would be friends, and if possible discuss these matters totally from scripture without all of the rhetoric. I can't guarantee you what others will say, but I will do my best to treat you in a fair way and try to stick to scripture. I would like you to reconsider some of the blog posts you've written about me on your site through the last year or more, as they contain a lot of things that really are not accurate about me. But, it's your site, and that's up to you.

I probably won't be back on this thread, but I do wish you well and pray for God's best for you.

--Jim

By  Anonymous, at November 17, 2007 3:49 AM  

Good Lord!

First of all,

Chad: "That chruch loses the right ot call itself Christian. They stand directly opposed to godliness and the teaching of the gospel. It has become a synagogue of Satan."

Chad: "They forefit the right to call them selves Christians anymore."

Jim: "Churches that have them, forfeit the right to be called a Christian church."

And then this, incredibly, from Jim: "Chad and I have made no statements here about the salvation of 'woman pastors', those who attend their churches, or of Julie herself. (I just want to make sure that doesn't get twisted into the topic at hand.)"

No statements about the salvation of women pastors and those who attend their churches?????? What does, "Forfeit the right to call themselves Christians" mean? If that's their position, then the least they could do is be consistent and stick with it, not try to slither out so that the actual topic at hand "doesn't get twisted into the topic at hand."

I think that there is room for disagreement on the complementarian issue, and I have known sincere, godly complementarians who simply think that that is the way Scripture is to be understood, without any negative attitudes toward women or their abilities. Some of them are women.

But it's certainly not something for which people's salvation should be questioned. Which, despite what Jim may want to protest, is exactly what he and Chad are doing.

By  Keith Schooley, at November 17, 2007 5:55 AM  

A "truce" does not mean no disagreement. Since the sexist post I have changed my tone towards you and not written much about things from your website making the inbound fire for "some time" a dubious claim.

Even in disagreement, I did not call your salvation, or that of your commenters, into question.

You may not censor your commenters, but you did let the things they said go by with nary a gentle reprimand while you offered my comments no such grace. Your actions show support of what they say whether you do or not. Particularly since you wrote in support of the woman who said those things about me after she emailed you.

Reproof and correction can be had by all, and I'm getting my fair share. Perhaps you should work on some your own commenters instead of just hiding behind the "I don't censor" when I know you don't always post comments if you don't like them.

It is cowardly of you and, as I said, disappointing. I had changed my mind on what you were about but have since reversed that opinion. I'm sure you're a fine husband and father, but you need some work in your use of the Bible for reproof and correction instead of smashing people over the head with it and suggesting they're just not saved.

Regarding the CRN.info site, certainly there are writers and commenters there I do not agree with. You'll see it in the comments of various posts. However, Chris L. doesn't ask people to write based on perfection in agreement, but whether or not they offer a view that is different or may be of value. He asked me because they have no other female, pentecostal, small-church writers. It is ridiculous for you to even lump into anything emergent or "emergent-friendly" because I finally took up the offer to write something. The problem with that site and people like you and Chad and all your readers that you send over there for another round of your own "inbound fire" is that you have them so trained to think that anyone writing there is "emergent" and that isn't the case. Some of my writings on my regular blog and this blog are anything but emergent, and some are critiques of the traditional church.

I'm not into lockstep living; I don't just pick a "side" and glom on and follow those talking points. So I get to be called unredeemed and have scripture "applied" by people like Chad and you and the others who went over to CRN.info all a twitter and ready to do battle with the evil emergents who attacked me personally and wondered whether or not I was "emotional" and a lot of other silliness that had nothing to do with the topic at hand. Because surely, if I'm not in exact agreement with you, I must be emergent. I'm not Calvinist through and through, so I must be emergent. I'm not out there claiming to be reformed and telling people which document I adhere to, so I must be emergent.

Emergent has become some kind of catch-all category for Christians you don't like.

Really quite ridiculous.

So go be that great husband and father; I'm sure you are. My own father would likely be crushed and angry were he to read what you and Chad have said about his own daughter. Maybe you could carry some of that grace you allow the real people in you life to affect how you treat "virtual" people who were deeply affected hurt by being said they are fools, blind, dogs, pigs, and unredeemed. That isn't the truth, and I think you know it. Anyone who knows me or reads my blogs with any regularity knows it.

Regarding past blog posts - I do not delete, even if I would like to, since that seems dishonest. I do offer "updates" and links to posts that are related, which I have done with you. I noted one such update and linked to a post in which I felt we cleared the air. However, my readers can't get to your site because you bounce the URL back, so I guess until you reconsider some of your own issues, there's nothing I can do for the people who don't know how to handle that. I had considered putting relevant updates and links on other such posts, but after this shining moment of the sun which occurred last night, that will not be happening. Get your own commenters in check with gentle reproof when they call another Christian all these things before you ask me to edit my own blog for "fairness sake."

By  Julie R. Neidlinger, at November 17, 2007 10:27 AM  

Keith said: "No statements about the salvation of women pastors and those who attend their churches?????? What does, "Forfeit the right to call themselves Christians" mean? If that's their position, then the least they could do is be consistent and stick with it, not try to slither out so that the actual topic at hand "doesn't get twisted into the topic at hand."

Keith, you have misquoted us. The words "Forfeit the right to call themselves Christians" appears nowhere on our site related to women pastors or those who attend their churches.

Julie, the comment above by Keith could have been corrected on your part. Yet, you want me to correct those who make comments that you don't like, on my site. And if I don't, then you "refuse to give me UPDATES"? Come on Julie!

Anyway, I thought I would come over here and extend an olive branch, but I can see now that this is not going to work. I still wish you well and have you in my prayers.

--Jim

By  Anonymous, at November 17, 2007 1:20 PM  

Jim, Keith is only referring to what Chad said in his comment, which I pasted exactly in my post above.

Read the comments section of your own post. I post it yet again. Chad says:

" Julie, Women are stricly forbidden from the pastorate. Transgender is just a P/C way of labeling sexual perversion. To allow either one to be a pastor is to deny the plain teaching of scripture. Scripture is so clear on these two issues that for a church to deny them is to deny the bible. It's open defiance of the command of Christ. They forefit the right to call them selves Christians anymore. (Emphasis mine

1 Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

I didn't equate women pastors and transgender pastors. It's not a sin to be a woman but it is a sin to be a woman pastor. It is also sin to be transgender. Men and women are both created in the image of God but they are different. They have different God defined roles. Women are forbidden from the pastorate.

Posted by: Chad V. on Friday, November 16, 2007 "

That is why I didn't correct Keith. There was nothing to correct. That is, indeed, something found on your site in reference to women pastors and those attending their churches.

I did leave an update, of sorts, on my earlier posts. I doubt it was what you had in mind, but as I see this continuing on this path, it was the best option.

By  Julie R. Neidlinger, at November 17, 2007 1:39 PM  

Julie:
I'm really not afraid of your "updates" regardless of what they might say, I said what I said to you about your prior posts because I think they are not accurate. It's up to you and your conscience what you do with them.

I would however like to apologize for the inaccuracy of my last comment (above). I went back and checked what Chad wrote and you have reported him accurately on that paragraph. With that in mind, I have now posted a comment on my blog clarifying my position. It says:

"It has been pointed out on Julie's blog that we are saying women pastors are unbelievers. I certainly do not believe that in all cases. So while I agree that these are not Christian churches who have women pastors, I don't think it's impossible for a woman to be in disobedience to the bible and yet be unsaved. Chad and others are free to disagree with that, but I felt this needed clarification, especially since the topic is being side-tracked (as I predicted it would) on other people's blogs. The issue ought to be "women pastors" and instead has turned into "judging salvation", which deflects from the real issue at hand and gives wiggle room to those who disagree with what scripture says about women pastors to vilify our position."

There you have it Julie. Hopefully that's my last comment here.
--Jim

By  Anonymous, at November 17, 2007 2:20 PM  

You aren't meant to be afraid of "updates." Who would be?

Thank you for acknowledging the comment inaccuracy. At least, for one shining moment in my God-blogging life, I was not a liar or rebellious woman of deceit and the emergent church, but was telling the truth.

I do appreciate your comment update, though I suppose I could, if I were a stupid glutton for punishment, argue about some points you've said in your apology. I cannot change my opinion on your web site, however. I do need to not visit there again. It does not edify, but tears down people like me.

Best wishes.

By  Julie R. Neidlinger, at November 17, 2007 2:33 PM  

Post a Comment

LONE PRAIRIE STUDIES LINKS

Studies Home

Get Lone Prairie Studies on your cell phone!

SUBSCRIPTIONS

PREVIOUS POSTS

ARCHIVES

ABOUT THIS BLOG

TIP JAR

TODAY'S HEADLINES

TOPICS

art

bible

bible studies

christianity

creation

critique

discussion

education

fall

guest blogging

health

history

homosexuality

idea generation

journals

language

literature

love

media

music

patriotism

personal

philosophy

post background

religion

relationships

science

teaching

unexplained

women

worship