A short sermon in the form of a poem by Kaitlin Hardy Shetler, an advocate for women and justice and an occasional preacher within Churches of Christ circles, likely reached over twice as many people as there are Churches of Christ members in the United States within just 48 hours of its December 17 publication on social media. The sermon likely reached more people than there are Churches of Christ members in the world not long after. It may have now reached 10 million people or more.
Multiple themes are found among the poem’s imagery, including of Mary birthing and breastfeeding baby Jesus and Mary’s exclusion from the pulpit, as well as in its commentary on male preachers’ actions and position contrasted with the humanity and reality of Mary and her baby.
Prompting thousands of glowing comments — “beautiful,” “this made me cry,” “just stunning,” “powerful,” “lovely” — and more than 60,000 shares and 75,000 loves, likes, and other reactions on social media to date, Shetler reached a diverse group of people — women and men, Christians and non-Christians, a variety of denominations, and multiple races and nationalities.
The poem has been quoted in sermons, printed in church bulletins, shared in moms’ groups, reviewed by theologians, called out as inspirational by atheists and Christians, cited as eye-opening, praised by poetry critics, weeped over by young mothers, and widely discussed.
Ignoring, Irony: Reaching Millions, While Women Restricted in Churches of Christ
Shetler’s message went viral, with each share broadcast to more people and the shares, reactions, and comments fueling even greater attention for it. Over half of the shares to date came in the first 48 hours of publication. This adds up to Shetler reaching an estimated 2.5 million – 8.2 million people within 48 hours and 4.3 million – 14.2 million so far.
For anyone from the Churches of Christ (Restoration Movement) to reach an audience of such size is notable, but Churches of Christ internet media and leaders seem to have largely ignored, missed, or foregone publicly reporting or commenting on Shetler’s poem.
For a woman from the Churches of Christ to reach, with a short sermon, an audience of such a size presents considerable irony.
Churches of Christ congregations, with a membership of around 1.1 million in the United States, are among the most restrictive on service of women and girls in the church, making up most of the 1-4% or less of U.S. Christianity that generally completely excludes women from speaking, leading, and otherwise publicly and actively serving in any way during their worship services — no leading singing, no leading prayer, no preaching, no helping with communion, no reading scripture for the congregation, no singing a musical solo or duet, etc.
Virtually all the rest of Christianity either does not exclude or only partially excludes, from preaching for example, and some are reconsidering.
Comes at a Time of Re-thinking Prohibitions on Women and Girls
Shetler’s message comes at a time when many in the Churches of Christ are re-thinking its doctrine extensively prohibiting women and girls (women and girls are not only prohibited as described in the worship assembly, but women are also generally prohibited from serving as elders and deacons, teaching men and boys above the age of 10, leading prayer in mixed company in the church, and from various other service functions, and girls are similarly prohibited).
Much of the reconsideration is centered around scriptural interpretation. There has been recognition, too, that such prohibitions can harm girls and women long-term.
Churches of Christ in Decline, Recent Acceleration
It also comes at a time when there is a growing realization that the decline in membership of the Churches of Christ accelerated in recent years and that the Churches of Christ has been shrinking in times and places that other evangelical denominations were growing or staying steady.
Churches of Christ Members in the U.S. (1990 – 2019), Based on Data from 21st Century Christian
Some Maintain That Letting Women Speak Won’t Help Membership, Make Disciples
Some within the Churches of Christ maintain that its doctrine involving prohibitions on women and girls does not play a significant role in its membership decline, asserting its ability to “make disciples” — to go and make disciples of all — and its ability to replace dying members with new ones has not been significantly impacted by such prohibitions on women and girls.
But Shetler Reaching Millions Suggests Otherwise
But that Shetler’s homily, one that is uniquely feminine, reached far more people than there are members of the Churches of Christ in the first place in just 48 hours — while the denomination wonders how it can reach more people and if it is doing what it should to “teach all nations” and communicate the Gospel — seems to suggest that its doctrine involving prohibiting women and girls has meant enormous missed opportunities to reach people and gain members and continues to mean missing such opportunities.
Some Churches of Christ congregations have changed such that women now preach, but it is a small minority. Of course, it will take a wide-ranging change, as well as time, for the Churches of Christ to shed the brand-association it has, the reputation it has for prohibiting women and girls.
An Interview with Kaitlin Hardy Shetler, the Poem
I interviewed Kaitlin Hardy Shetler about her poem and her experience. It will be published in early February at this link: here.
Her December 17 Advent poem, the one that went viral, can be found at her Facebook page at this link: here.
Magnitude of Achievement: Comparing With Other Churches of Christ Outlets and the NY Times
Since its publication on December 17, initially on Facebook, Shetler’s poem has been shared more than 60,000 times, including over 30,000 times from her Facebook page, over 26,000 from the Facebook page of Traci Blackmon, Executive Minister of Justice and Witness at United Church of Christ, and many more via Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, e-mail, and other means. Those have seen over 75,000 reactions (like and love clicks, etc.).
Below is a table showing the number of shares and reactions of the most-shared and most-reacted-to posts for several Churches of Christ-oriented Facebook pages over the past year, as well as the noted posts by Shetler and Blackmon, and then the aggregated number mentioned above, for purposes of having a sense of the scale of Shetler’s poem’s reach.
The most-shared article from The Christian Chronicle Facebook page in the past year by far was the one reporting the shooting in late December at the West Freeway Church of Christ, which was shared approximately 3600 times (next closest was around 1400 shares, about Botham Jean’s brother offering forgiveness to and hugging Amber Guyger).
As further comparison, from the New York Times Facebook page, the August 10, 2019 post titled “Breaking News: Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide at a Manhattan jail, officials said. …” had been shared 18,000 times as of January 14, 2020, five months later.
Shetler, Known for Speaking Up
Shetler is known among many in Churches of Christ circles for speaking out in bold theological and moral terms against restrictions on women in the church, spiritual abuse, and violence against women, and for justice and mercy.
A writer and commentator on topics related to the Churches of Christ at her blog, The Skeptiletptic, and other places, she has preached at Lipscomb University, All Saints Church of Christ, and the New Garden Church.
Her new Kaitlin Hardy poetry page can be found at this link: here. A collection of her poetry can be found at this link: here.
After graduating from Harding, she received a masters of social work from the University of Tennessee Knoxville. She served as director of disability services at Lipscomb University for five years and as a Title IX investigator, working with students experiencing sexual assault, stalking, harassment, and discrimination. She currently works for a large, national non-profit organization that seeks to build and improve justice systems.
Impact
Thousands of people took the time to make comments after reading Kaitlin Hardy Shetler’s words, including:
“I really loved this poem.”
“Seriously. Crying.”
“Best sermon this poem holds.”
“This is awe inspiring – wow!”
“Amazing”
“One of the best things I’ve ever read.”
“This is beautiful.”
“Powerful”
“Amen!”
“Thank you for this!”
“Wow … preach sister.”
———————————————————–
——————————–
————–
If you would like to be notified of other articles on the Churches of Christ and similar topics, please sign up to follow Authentic Theology by “Liking” on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/AuthenticTheology/
Sources & Notes
Kaitlin Hardy Shetler’s Advent poem can be found at this link: here.
Interview, once it is posted, will be at this link: here.
It closes with hashtags #poemsfortheresistance and #advent.
For example, the poem was quoted in a Baptist sermon, reprinted in a Catholic church bulletin, posted to a Lutheran church Facebook page, criticized by an author associated with John Piper’s Desiring God who is addressed by by folks commenting on the criticism, Mennonite commenters shared it, discussed by many bloggers (see, e.g., https://littlereview.livejournal.com/1742224.html, https://medium.com/@kristenbarner/tis-the-season-of-my-ridiculousness-814fa4decaa3, and https://www.deaconbob94.org/?p=2462), ….
Total U.S. membership of the Churches of Christ (around 1.1 million): See Steve Gardner, “Church of Christ Decline Worsens, 2400 a Month Depart, Treatment of Women & Girls Factor,” AuthenticTheology.com (November 13, 2019).
Worldwide: The only in-depth, researched study of the membership of the Churches of Christ worldwide of which I am aware published in the last 5 years is Bob Waldron, “The Global Status of Churches of Christ,” Missio Dei: A Journal of Missional Theology and Praxis 8, no. 1 (Winter–Spring 2017), http://missiodeijournal.com/issues/md-8-1/authors/md-8-1-waldron2, which concludes, based on a 2015 survey, that the Churches of Christ likely has “as many as” 2.4 million members outside the United States and Canada. One of the notable things about the study is that little mention is made of China. There is a different group that uses a version of the Church of Christ name in China, but query the presence of the Churches of Christ (Restoration Movement) in China. The study reports substantial growth in Africa and India in the preceding decades. It is difficult to know whether that growth has continued for the Churches of Christ there. Reading some of the background material suggests that funding, impetus, and personnel fueling much of the growth came from the United States. With the acceleration of the decline of the Churches of Christ in the United States over the past 15 years, and particularly in the past 5-10, it has and will almost certainly have an impact on church giving and funding available, which will in turn impact funding of overseas efforts. A Wikipedia entry lists 5.0 million for Churches of Christ, with no source cite. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members)
For purposes of this article, I used 4.0 million as the current worldwide membership number (2.4 million + 1.1 million + assume some growth outside the United States since the study + wondering about China + some room for error to that Wikipedia number).
Estimates for reach: I used data and guidance from professional studies, a Facebook group I administer, and a Facebook page I administer to estimate reach. Pew Research found that, in 2014, the average Facebook user had 338 Facebook friends. See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/what-people-like-dislike-about-facebook/ ; https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/facebook-statistics/ . I suspect that the number increased. I used, however, a range around 338. Business Insider reports that “[e]ach user post on Facebook is seen by an average 35% of the user’s friends, according to a comprehensive recent study led by Stanford University researcher Michael Bernstein, who collaborated with three Facebook data scientists.” https://www.businessinsider.com/35-percent-of-friends-see-your-facebook-posts-2013-8. “According to the study, posts that do not receive likes or comments tend to be seen by less friends: an average 28.9% of a user’s network. Over the course of one month, Facebook users in the study had at least one of their posts seen by an average of 61% of their friends.” https://www.businessinsider.com/35-percent-of-friends-see-your-facebook-posts-2013-8. This was in 2013. Facebook’s algorithm changed in 2018 in a way that favors posts like this one, increasing its appearance. See, e.g., https://blog.hootsuite.com/facebook-algorithm/. That is, a post with a greater number of shares, reactions, and comments will likely be seen by a greater percentage of people. Of course, it seems likely that the algorithm changed multiple times between 2013 and 2018 and even before December 2019. But these data points suggest that the Facebook algorithm is likely to show an above-average percentage of friends such a post that is receiving such a large number of shares, comments, and reactions in such a short period when it is shared. Factored in to this is that the number of shares, comments, etc., would make it go up, but also there will be some overlap among friends, so adjust down. Those sharing, commenting, etc., appear relatively diverse, and the groups reached by Blackmon’s post appears relatively diverse from that reached by Shetler’s post, so the overlap is probably below average, though. The estimates are also based on data from a Facebook group that I administer, with a typical post without comments or reactions (or very few) is seen, for example, by about 50 out of 188 (27%) members and those with an above-average number of comments or reactions typically reaches 70 or more (37% or more). None of the posts have very many comments or reactions, though (most would say few). It also is based on data from the Authentic Theology Facebook page and the “reach” data I see there. I used a range consistent with the above, with higher percentages used for the first 48 hour time-period, during the time-period the poem was receiving a high-intensity, viral treatment. I refer to a user seeing a post with the poem as “reaching” a person with her message. This is the way Facebook uses the term “reach.” Example calculations: 60,000 x 388 x 0.61 = 14,201,000; 60,000 x 338 x 0.61 =12.3 million; 60,000 x 338 x 0.35 =7,098,000; 60,000 x 338 x 0.25 = 5,070,000; 60,000 x 287 x 0.25 = 4,305,000; 35,000 x 388 x 0.75 = 10,185,000; 35,000 x 388 x 0.61 = 8.2 million; 35,000 x 338 x 0.45 = 5,323,500; 35,000 x 338 x 0.25 = 2,957,500; 35,000 x 287 x 0.25 = 2,511,250.
Given that the sermon was quite short and in the original post, it seems likely that a reasonably high percentage of those that it reached read at least part of it, if not the whole thing. At least 75,000 reacted to the poem and at least 60,000 shared it, it seems likely that this makes up at least 100,000 different people (there would be some overlap— that is, some would react or share and some would do both). Given my experience and observation on the ratio of the number of people who click on articles to those who comment on, react, or share it, the conclusion that the ratio is above 11:1, which would make it above the number of Churches of Christ members in the United States, is easy to reach. The conclusion that the ratio if above 40:1 or 50:1, which would make it above the number of members in the world, is a distinct possibility, too. Thus, while the number who read the whole poem is difficult to say with certainty, I am confident, given the number of shares and reactions and the length of the poem, that the number exceeds the U.S. membership and might exceed the worldwide membership.
“1-4% or less of U.S. Christianity that completely excludes women from speaking, leading, or otherwise publicly and actively serving in any way during their worship services”: See Steve Gardner, “Church of Christ Decline Worsens, 2400 a Month Depart, Treatment of Women & Girls Factor,” AuthenticTheology.com (November 13, 2019). It may be less than l%, given that Churches of Christ membership is around 1.1 million and about 65% of U.S. adults identify as Christian. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States.
Graph in body of article: The graph focuses on the acceleration. See Steve Gardner, “Church of Christ Decline Worsens, 2400 a Month Depart, Treatment of Women & Girls Factor,” AuthenticTheology.com (November 13, 2019).
“table showing the number of shares and reactions of the most-shared and most-reacted-to posts for several Churches of Christ-oriented Facebook pages over the past year”: I researched this by scrolling through the page’s posts over the past year between January 14 and January 27, 2020 and making note of the most-shared / reacted-to.
… harm: See, e.g., Steve Gardner, “Church of Christ Practice Harms Girls Long-Term, Suggests 2018 Study,” AuthenticTheology.com (November 28, 2018).
The Skeptileptic site is here.
With such significant engagement with the posts, through shares, comments, and reactions, it is likely that the reading-rate for the post was well above average.
From the Authentic Theology Facebook page, a post had 177 shares and 352 reactions. The Plain Simple Faith Facebook page had 1142 shares and 101 reactions on a post. A post on the Radically Christian Facebook page had 949 shares, and another had 556 reactions. For the Wineskins Facebook page, the most-shared post had 36 shares and was also the most-reacted-to, at 115 reactions.
The most-shared post on John Mark Hicks’ Facebook page had 104 shares. The one with the most reactions had 642 reactions, a personal post, with 327 reactions on another. A post on Bobby Valentine’s Facebook page was shared 342 times. The one with the most reactions had 413, a personal post, and another had 345 reactions. Siburt Institute, which includes several articles from Mosaic, had a post with 15 shares and another post with 78 reactions.
Updated: 1:23 pm, 3:37 pm 1/28 fixed reaction numbers in Hicks and Valentine rows (had used the non-personal high numbers); non-substantive fix of some awkward sentences; moved links to poetry pages. 1/29 10:37 am Corrected New Garden Church name.
Picture: Picture of Kaitlin Hardy Shetler speaking at church.
For more on the scripture relating to this issue, see:
Start here for a discussion regarding scripture on this issue: Steve Gardner, “20 Passages Asking Women to Speak, Teach, Lead, and Have Authority Over Men, In the Assembly and Elsewhere,” AuthenticTheology.com (September 3, 2018).
For a discussion regarding 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, see Steve Gardner, “Most Church of Christ Colleges No Longer Exclude Women From Leading in Worship Services: … 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 …,” AuthenticTheology.com (May 22, 2018).
For a discussion regarding 1 Timothy 2:12, see Steve Gardner, “10 Churches of Christ Where Women Speak in the Assembly: 1 Timothy 2:12, “Teach or Usurp Authority” (Part 3),” AuthenticTheology.com (April 9, 2019).
For a discussion regarding 1 Timothy 2:11-15, see Steve Gardner, “Most Church of Christ Colleges No Longer Exclude Women From Leading in Worship Services: … 1 Timothy 2:12 …,” AuthenticTheology.com (May 30, 2018).
For a discussion regarding female elders, see Steve Gardner, “10 Churches of Christ Where Women Speak in the Assembly: Female Elders (Part 2),” AuthenticTheology.com (April 3, 2019).
For a discussion regarding Christ’s example, see Steve Gardner, “One of Largest Churches of Christ Opens Preaching Role to Women — And Some Questions,” AuthenticTheology.com (September 17, 2019).
For scriptural discussions from various Churches of Christ, see these three articles: Steve Gardner, “10 Churches of Christ Where Women Speak in the Assembly: List and Links (Part 1),” AuthenticTheology.com (March 26, 2019); Steve Gardner, “Another 10 Churches of Christ Where Women Speak in the Assembly: Their Reasons & a Quiz,” AuthenticTheology.com (April 24, 2019); and Steve Gardner, “4 More Churches of Christ Open Speaking Roles to Women,” AuthenticTheology.com (November 26, 2019).
Please share this article with others using the buttons below
Like this:
Like Loading...
I have spent most of the afternoon reading through a number of articles published by you on this topic. For now, I would like to stick to this particular article, and the problems I have with your reasoning.
One of my favorite chapters is Romans 16. As you know, Paul thanks and commends a number of people,
Many of those named are women, and are referred to as fellow workers for the Gospel. About a 1,000 years ago, Dr. John Wilson, at that time associated with the student ministry in at Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, MO had a series of lectures on Romans. When he got to ch 16, he made a comment that I have (not yet) forgotten: “These women are not thanked for serving coffee and cookies after the Gospel meeting.”
I have always taken that to heart – and applied it to the role of women in missions. In other words, proclaiming the message of the Risen Christ outside the assemblies of groups of believers.
In classes with Dr. Osburn, almost as long ago, the conversation of how to apply 1 Cor 14:34, 35 came up. Some of the problems he shared at that time were:
a) the statement is not limited to a specific group of women
b) the assumption that there was a group of unruly women, addressed by Paul, does not fit the context
c) there would be a very obvious contradiction between chapter 11 and 14 (f we ignore the “move” of Paul from “what you have written about…” and “But in the following instructions…”) in Paul’s argument
Through the years I have argued against four issues:
1) Who decided that starting a song was a “leadership role?”
2) Who decided that handing out the plates/cup(s) from the front is a “leadership role” but handing it across the aisle is not?
3) Who decided that the reading of a Biblical text is acceptable in a class situation, but not in “the most holy” place aka the Auditorium, sanctuary?
4) When was i decided that the role of ‘deacon’ was a role of leadership?
There are so many roles which can be filled by our women, some of which are much more important than who holds the microphone, roles which are ignored by many of our women.
We have women in the congregation who are such great examples as wives and mothers – but do not teach younger women those roles.
We have women in the congregation who have an enormous influence on their colleagues and friends and neighbors – but do not fulfil those (Men, too, have that problem!).
Hi Rudy,
Thank you for your comment. Good to hear from you. Hope you are doing well.
You mentioned at the beginning “problems I have with your reasoning,” but I didn’t see that you pointed out any problem with my reasoning. Maybe I missed it. I am not sure what you mean relative to Dr. Osborn.
I agree with what I perceive as part of your line of thinking in 1-4. Though, I think all roles in the normal Sunday service constitute serving others, or should, and certainly are not authentein as used in 1 Tim 2:12. The preacher — sharing a word, proclaiming — is serving. All are.
Take care, Steve
Your perception is one thing. Whether that perception is the expected one, is a different matter all together.
As far as your reasoning is concerned, I did not want to get started on pointing out where I believe your reasoning is problematic.
One of the problems I have is with the use of Galatians 3:28. It seems to be used as role-defining, while there is nothing in the context that has anything to do with roles! The context is baptism, and the fact that ALL are acceptable to God, and nationality/gender/position have no impact.
But to read that passage, and conclude that the text does away with role definitions? Bad theology! AND bad hermeneutics, too.
Romans makes it clear that women played an important in the sharing of the message of Christ. In Philippians 2 Paul commends 2 women for their “co-workership.”
The idea that 1 Corinthians 11 has women praying/prophesying in the assembly is shaky, as well. He does not start on his discussion on the assembly until he has completed the issue of prayer/prophesying. Apart from that, the early part of the deals with roles – and that is totally overlooked!
Anyway, my boss is calling me…
Hi Rudy,
Thank you for your comment.
I didn’t understand the first paragraph, so I’ll skip that. If you want to expand on it, I can address it.
A
I’m not sure why you picked out Galatians 3:28, as it does not even appear in the first 20 passages I discuss on this topic, but I’ll say a few things about it. Here is a link to 20 passages asking women to speak to, teach, lead, and have authority over men, in an assembly and elsewhere. https://authentictheology.com/2018/09/03/20-scripture-passages-telling-women-to-speak-teach-lead-and-have-authority-over-men-in-the-assembly-and-elsewhere/
You said “It seems to be used as role-defining, while there is nothing in the context that has anything to do with roles!” Well, that’s part of the point, the Bible does not defines “roles” based on sex. The term role is nowhere to be found. The concept of “roles” based on sex is something made up. There are no “role definitions” based on sex to do away with in the first place.
B
You say the context of Galatians 3:28 “is baptism, and the fact that ALL are acceptable to God, and nationality/gender/position have no impact.” You go on to claim that, as a result, “to read that passage, and conclude that the text does away with role definitions? Bad theology! AND bad hermeneutics, too.”
But what you say there is incorrect.
The context of Galatians 3:28 is not baptism. Nor is it who is acceptable to God. The context is not people being baptized or wanting to be baptized or anything like that and is not looking at, as you say, who is “acceptable to God.”
Instead it is written to people *** who have already been baptized — they were baptized already *** and telling those who have already been baptized what that means to them. It means they are all children of God, there is no male or female, Jew of Gentile, etc. in God’s view now that they are in Jesus, and they are all heirs.
C
Galatians 3:23-29, the passage in which 3:28 appears, says this: “23 Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
In other words, Paul writes to the Galatians to say that before faith in Christ, we were under the Law of Moses. Before, it was our guardian, allowing us to be justified by faith. But now that we have Christ, we are not longer under the Law of Moses. (vv. 23-25) Through Christ, we are “all children of God” — “all” — because, Paul says to the Galatians, “all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (vv. 26-27). OK, all are children of God because they were baptized. Once baptized, though, are we viewed differently from one another by God? In God’s eyes, no, we are “all one in Christ Jesus.” In Christ, which we all are, we are all “one.” “One.” “One.”
Paul uses the actual Greek term there for one, the number 1: heis. It is not implied there, but spelled out that he means heis, “one.”
Well, all of God’s children, everyone, is viewed by God as “one.”
That’s nice but surely God views some children differently. Surely God views us Jews — God’s people — differently from those Gentiles. And surely God views us free persons differently from those slaves. And surely God views men as differently than women.
Verse 28 explains “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
All of those are just “one” in God’s eyes.
V. 29 continues “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
All that are part of that “one” are Abraham’s seed, all heirs.
So, this doesn’t say who is “acceptable to God” or have as its context baptism, as you claimed. Instead, it is written to those already baptized to tell them about that being in Christ means. And some of the things it means is they are all “one” and there is no male and female in God’s eyes.
D
Since all are all God’s children and “one,” that some of those “one” are claiming authority or claiming a greater inherietance or claiming any difference in God’s due to their freedom status, sex, or nationality is plainly wrong, as “one” is the same and cannot claim authority over itself or inherit differently from itself, etc. One.
And v. 28 makes it even clearer to those already-baptized people: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Don’t claim, God says, that there are differences in God’s eyes between these for they are all “one.”
E
Yet, some claim differences for one set of those, claiming in God’s eyes that female are to have only certain roles.
How can “one” be prohibited from certain roles? It can’t, for it is one. heis. And God has said clearly there is not “male or female” in God’s eyes.
So that people arguing that God views women as inappropriate for preaching, for leading prayer, for teaching Bible class, for serving as a deacon, etc., contradicts what Gal 3:28 says, that God views women and men as “one” and that being “one” includes that, in God’s eyes, there is no male and female, Jew and Gentile, etc.
F
You said that the idea that 1 Cor 11 is about an assembly when mentioning women praying and prophesying is shaky, but that’s not true either.
We know 1 Cor 11 refers to in the assembly for lots of reasons, including because the passage refers to what is happening in “the churches of God” (v. 16), the assemblies of God. Another reason is that 1 Cor 11 discusses the Lord’s Supper (vv. 17-34), obviously something happening in the assembly. And discussing women praying and prophesying with veils on to such an extent in vv. 5-16 would not have been necessary if it weren’t in an assembly, before both men and women. And, of course, regardless, an assembly of all women is still an assembly.
And 1 Cor 11:2-34 is a single, unified discussion-block, with one part set off with “I praise you …” (v. 2) and the second part with “I have no praise for you …” (v. 17). Both parts begin with a note on praise (vv. 2, 17) and end with an “If anyone …” statement (vv. 16, 34). Both express throughout that the discussion-block activities of an assembly, referring to praying an prophesying (v.5), those in “the churches” (v. 16), “your meetings,” (v.17), and “when you come together as a church” (v.18), Lord’s supper (v. ), as well as noting throughout that the discussion-block is concerned with one’s relationship to others (e.g., not dishonoring one another, Christ, and God (vv. 3-5, 7-12) and avoiding “divisions among you” (v. 18)).
This is the same description Paul uses in 1 Cor 14 to describe the assembly, praying and prophesying (vv. ), when the “whole church comes together,” etc., and concerned with one’s relationship to others and paying attention to mutual edification (v. 26).
And v.5 does not deal with “roles.” “Head” (kephale) there does not mean authority over, but means non-hierarchical source / representative kind of head (as in headwater or head of the line). Throughout vv. 6-16, the context is source / representative, except when the actual word for authority is used, indicating Paul would have used the normal word for authority-type if that is what he meant in v.5.
So, that 1 Cor 11 is about the assembly and shows women praying and prophesying in an assembly seems very difficult to dispute. The only ones who do that I know of are fundamentalists trying to minimize women’s activities in the Bible in order to justify prohibiting them from speaking and leading in the church.
I hope I’ve clarified with this. Let me know if questions.
Thanks, Steve
It is nothing new that error is more popular than truth. She calls Mary “the mother of God” which she is not. That such a poem should be so popular with people who give only lip-service to the gospel is not surprising. In reality, the poem is anti-christian, since it and its author rebel against the teaching of Christ’s apostles.
Hi Roy,
Thank you for your comment.
You should look at the Bible, as it contradicts most of what you said.
John 1:1, for example, explains that “The Word” — Jesus — “was God.” Mary was Jesus’s mother. Hence, Mary was the mother of God.
There’s a lot of other verses you should read, too. Here are 20+ passages in which God asks women to speak to, teach, lead, and have authority over men. https://authentictheology.com/2018/09/03/20-scripture-passages-telling-women-to-speak-teach-lead-and-have-authority-over-men-in-the-assembly-and-elsewhere/
The same article explains briefly why the 2-3 verses some people use to discriminate against women in the church do not mean what they say. The easiest way to realize this is to read the Bible — reading the context of those 2-3 verses.
The poem was popular with a lot of people, including with those who have been oppressed and discriminated against by men who do things like accuse others of only giving lip-service to the gospel and accuse others of being anti-christian while those men engage in sex discrimination against little girls and women, images of God.
Sometime, too, you should read about what Jesus said about Christians loving others. You might start with John 13. Also 1 John 4 is good to read regarding love. Discrimination by humans against other humans based on race or sex is not love. Asserting a right to authority over girls and women, other images of God, solely because of one’s sex when we are all heirs of God and his children is not love. Selection of one interpretation that calls for sex discrimination when there are others that are at least as (I think much more) reasonable and that are consistent with other scripture is not love.
Take a look sometime.
Take care,
Steve
I am extremely disappointed in your response, Steve. I guess you are not very familiar with Roman Catholic Doctrine. “Mother of God” is a loaded phrase. I suggest you check the Catechism on that one.
Not only that, but the poem’s author used is as a, well, poetic statement, rather than a theological. Mary was the mother to Jesus-in-the-flesh. And that, were you to take a look at John 1, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
Not “the Word kept his nature of deity, but took on the nature of humanity.” Hence, Mary is indeed, not the mother of God. Your reasoning to that conclusion is somewhat strange!
Your reference to “discrimination: is uncalled for, as well. Are we discriminating single men when we do not appoint them as elders? Are we discriminating against men when women are to teach “younger women?” Are we discriminating against young men when we do not appoint them as elders? New members when we do not appoint them as elders?
You have a double standard here, Steve, and that is indeed, a form of discrimination!
Apart from that, how would you describe this, “But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”
Or, “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.”
And, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ…”
Also, “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.”
As far as your “twenty verses” go, I have not time to even start with pointing out the gymnastics involved with those applications.
Do we need to take a serious look at who men and women serve? Of course. But throwing the baby out with the bath water, on shaky hermeneutics and bad theology is not the answer, either.
Hi Rudy,
Thanks for your comment.
I am familiar with the argument that Mary is not the mother of God.
Plainly, of course, Mary is the mother of God, as (1) Mary is the mother of Jesus and (2) Jesus is God. Which do you claim is false, (1) or (2)?
Prohibiting women and girls from speaking because they are female is the very definition of discrimination. A person might think it is God-ordained discrimination, but that does not make it not discrimination.
To answer your questions, yes, we are discriminating based on marital status if that is their status as a single person is why they are not considered for a position. If men are barred from teaching people because of their status as a male, yes, we are discriminating based on sex. If we are barring someone from a position because of their age, we are discriminating based on age.
Another question for you — Is discrimination against a black person based on race not properly called discrimination if the person doing the discriminating thinks God wants them to do it?
You quoted several things with no context and without the surrounding passage, just asking how I would describe it, which isn’t really a coherent question.
You had time to skip all 20 and go down to a passage I quoted below them, Galatians 3:28, and to discuss it, and to comment on a response I made to someone else, so I am not sure about your comment that you did not have time to start with pointing out anything about those 20. No hurry. I think you’ll find some surprises when you go through them. I look forward to receiving your comments on them.
Take care,
Steve
Hi Rudy,
Thanks for your comment.
I am familiar with the argument that Mary is not the mother of God.
Plainly, of course, Mary is the mother of God, as (1) Mary is the mother of Jesus and (2) Jesus is God. Which do you claim is false, (1) or (2)?
>>> False dichotomy, Steve. Mary is the mother of the human Jesus, not the divine Jesus. As I mentioned in my notes, John 1:14 is the pivotal point where nature His nature changed from divine to human. That, plus John 7, Philippians 2 makes that change abundantly clear.
Prohibiting women and girls from speaking because they are female is the very definition of discrimination. A person might think it is God-ordained discrimination, but that does not make it not discrimination.
>>> Incorrect generalization, Steve. It is not a blanket “forbidding to speak.” It is based on circumstances/locations where the “forbidding to speak” is found. But, when you read the text, you would call it discrimination when someone who is speaking in tongues is told to stop speaking – following your reasoning.
To answer your questions, yes, we are discriminating based on marital status if that is their status as a single person is why they are not considered for a position. If men are barred from teaching people because of their status as a male, yes, we are discriminating based on sex. If we are barring someone from a position because of their age, we are discriminating based on age.
>>> Thank you for being consistent. Incorrect, 😉, but consistent, anyway. So, what about the “recent convert,” Steve? Is that discrimination, as well? And let me add another case, a total non-member? In your thinking, that would have to be a “yes.”
Another question for you — Is discrimination against a black person based on race not properly called discrimination if the person doing the discriminating thinks God wants them to do it?
>>>Well, as much as I try, I cannot find any place where God said something about people associated with the color of their skin. Or their nationality. Or the shape of their noses. Or their eyesight, or their ability to hear, or speak. So, this is an unrelated topic.
You quoted several things with no context and without the surrounding passage, just asking how I would describe it, which isn’t really a coherent question.
You had time to skip all 20 and go down to a passage I quoted below them, Galatians 3:28, and to discuss it, and to comment on a response I made to someone else, so I am not sure about your comment that you did not have time to start with pointing out anything about those 20. No hurry. I think you’ll find some surprises when you go through them. I look forward to receiving your comments on them.
>>>Yes, Steve, I have had the time. Allow me to put it all together in one single statement. You ripped many of the quoted passages out of their context, trying to make your point. Simple as that. I am working on a sheet where I make the argument for each of your passages. That will take a little longer, I am afraid.
As far as Galatians 3 is concerned, your application is wrong, based on context. I have tried to find a way to connect this passage (3:28, mostly) with the 8 or so passages where the Bible does speak about role-differences between males and females. But there is no way this is to be found in Galatians.
Paul speaks of the relationship between Jews (Those under the law) and Gentiles (Those not under the law). He does the same in Romans – but in neither passage does he address what men can/should do, and what women can/should do.
Pivotal statement in the Galatian context, “So in Christ, you are all children of God through faith,” because (or: occasioned by) having been “…baptized into Christ, having put on Christ.” AND it is that act, or re-enactment, that the differentiation between those who would be acceptable to God or not, that there is that oneness in Christ.
That this oneness then makes everyone the same, with the same roles, is not the intent of this passage. When you look at the same words, but in Colossians (Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all) which is then followed by, “Col 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged. Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord).
Which matches what Paul writes to the Ephesians, “Eph 5:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body…”
Also, “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” THOSE are “role” passages. And, whether you like it or not, they are different than the context of Galatians 3.
I worked with an U.S. Air Force congregation for a number of years. And there are many roles in the military! Your Airman is at the bottom of the totem pole, and the base commander is the top. During the time the congregation is together, that relationship is based on their oneness in Christ, so Joe and Tom are acceptable ways of addressing each other. But come Monday morning, Airman Joe better address the base commander as “sir.
Both husband and wife may be a member of the Body of Christ, but the submission/love her as your own body statements do not go away. For that matter, even if the spouse is not a member of Christ’s Body, the member STILL has the responsibility to “submit” and love as his own body.
The interesting thing is, that where Paul makes the statement about the oneness in Galatians, there is nothing to be found about the relationships/roles. But in Colossians, he FIRST states, “Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.” And later has the “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them” statement. What a great place to abandon this submission stuff – but he did not! Not only that, but left out the male/female section in the earlier statement.
Now, from where I sit, if Galatians 3:28/Colossians 3:11 does no mean what YOU (and others) make it mean, the rest of the argument falls to pieces, as well. The submission passages, the limitations on speaking, on leadership stand.
Are there issues withing our congregations? Of course there are – we are humans. Are their husbands who take their role as “head” way beyond intent? I am sure there are. Has the “submit” idea been abused beyond imagination? Probably. But let’s work on that balance, rather than dumping and re-writing the Biblical texts.
Rudy Schellekens (Not a lawyer, but father-in-law to one)
Hi Rudy,
Thank you for your reply. You didn’t give a direct answer to either of the straightforward questions I asked and didn’t address the substance of what I had to say, however, even though I answered yours directly and took the time to engage substantively with each of your points directly.
You are welcome to respond to the below, but don’t bother unless you answer my questions directly (the ones I asked previously and the 4 below) and respond substantively to what I had to say (previously and below). I am perfectly fine with engaging on the substance, but I am not going to take my time to engage with someone who will not answer questions directly and who fails to address the substance pointed out.
(1)
You claim Mary is not the mother of God. I asked “Plainly, of course, Mary is the mother of God, as (1) Mary is the mother of Jesus and (2) Jesus is God. Which do you claim is false, (1) or (2)?”
Your reply did not answer the question.
You responded with the non-Biblical, heretical assertion that Jesus became divine at some point in his post-birth life, as you asserted “Mary is the mother of the human Jesus, not the divine Jesus. As I mentioned in my notes, John 1:14 is the pivotal point where nature His nature changed from divine to human.”
Jesus was God from the beginning, including at the time of his birth. John 1:1 — “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Jesus was God when Mary became pregnant with and gave birth to Jesus. Jesus was God when Mary raised him. Jesus was God in the beginning.
Third question for you: Yes or no, Jesus was God from the beginning?
(2)
Next, you make the bizarre claim that discriminating based on sex is not “discrimination” if it is based on circumstances or location.
Nearly all discrimination is based on circumstance or location. Discrimination against women in the workplace is indeed discrimination even though it is based on circumstances and location. That a person only discriminates against women in the workplace does not mean that what they are doing is not “discrimination.”
Yes re recent convert and the other question.
(3)
And to highlight the bizarre nature of your assertion about “discrimination,” I asked a straightforward question “Is discrimination against a black person based on race not properly called discrimination if the person doing the discriminating thinks God wants them to do it?”
You again did not answer.
You claimed it was an “unrelated topic.” Looking for a direct answer if you reply.
(4)
Then you made an assertion about 20 passages of scripture that you were and will continue to be unable to back up. Anyone can make assertions. You didn’t even answer the two straightforward questions I asked.
(5)
On Gal 3:28, I pointed out to you — in A — that “the Bible does not defines “roles” based on sex. The term role is nowhere to be found. The concept of “roles” based on sex is something made up.”
You could not rebut this, so you did not. That should end it. Yet, you insist on discriminating against women.
(6)
Then, in B, I pointed out to you that your assertion that the context of Galatians 3:28 “is baptism, and the fact that ALL are acceptable to God, and nationality/gender/position have no impact” is flat wrong.
As I pointed out, Gal 3:23-29 is a passage written to people who already have been baptized to explain what that means to them. Here it is:
“23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
It is written to people who have been baptized already — they were baptized already. The passage tells its audience: they are all children of God, there is no male or female, Jew of Gentile, etc. in God’s view now that they are in Jesus, and they are all heirs.
In response, you (a) failed to respond to what I said, (b) misquoted and edited the Bible.
(a) You failed to respond to what I said in B – E of my response to you. You said zero to address any piece of it.
(b) Then, you misquoted the Bible, quoting 3:26-27 as this: “So in Christ, you are all children of God through faith,” because (or: occasioned by) having been “…baptized into Christ, having put on Christ.”
My fourth question to you: What translation is that, that says “So in Christ,” that says “having put on Christ,” etc.?
You changed it to try to fit what you claim.
It ** isn’t ** “having” been baptized & “having” put on, as you changed the verses to say.
You say “having,” but the Bible and I say “have” or “were.”
The verse states “all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”
Were. Have.
They were baptized already. They have been baptized. The passage was written to people who have already been baptized.
Your assertion that the context of this passage is baptism and who is “acceptable” is far off.
You can’t edit the Bible to try to have it fit what you say.
(7)
You continue your theme of ignoring inconvenient parts of the Bible and failing to respond to what I said.
I pointed out to you above — in F — that your claims about 1 Cor 11 were wrong. You didn’t rebut it because you could not.
In addition to reasserting 1 Cor 11, you pointed to Col 3 and Ephesians 5:22 (“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.”) to try to claim that sexes have strict “roles.”
First, what you pointed to is what you call “roles” for husbands and “roles” for wives and “roles” for slaves and “roles” for masters and “roles” for parents and “roles” for children. Those are not “roles” for men and women. Some men get married, some don’t. Some are parents, some are not. Those are not “roles” for sexes.
Second, Paul encouraging wives to submit to their husband and husbands to love and die for their wives are not “roles.” Paul, when encouraging husbands to love their wives did not mean that wives are not to love their husbands. Paul, when encouraging wives to submit to their husbands did not mean that husbands are not to submit to their wives. These are not roles. People are not actors.
Third, you tried to give the impression that submission is a one-way street. It is not. It is a two-way street.
You left out the verse that comes right before, Ephesians 5:21:
“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
Husbands are to submit to wives, and wives are to submit to husbands. “To one another.” It is a two-way street, not the one-way you tried to make it out to be in furtherance of discrimination.
My fifth question to you: Are husbands to submit to their wives, yes or no?
And you ignored the 20+ passages in which God asks women to lead, speak to, teach, and have authority over men.
My sixth question to you: Does God ask women in the Bible to lead, speak to, teach, and have authority over men, yes or no?
(8)
So, you ignore that submission is to be to each other, not just wives to husbands. (e.g., Eph 5:21)
And you try to create “roles” for sexes when the Bible says no such thing.
And you fail to address what I pointed out to you about Galatians 3 (B – E).
And you try to edit Galatians 3:28 to say what you want.
And you fail to address what I pointed out to you about 1 Cor 11 (F).
And you try to mangle the Bible into expressing “roles” for sexes.
And you try to make verses exclusive and restrictive when they are obviously not.
And you ignore the 20+ passages in which God asks women to lead, speak to, teach, and have authority over men.
And you did not answer the straightforward questions asked.
All of this while defending discrimination against Christian girls and women.
“Therefore, [David] being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption” (Acts 2:30-31).
“Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3).
Israelites “of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God” (Romans 9:5).
“According to the flesh” Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ. She was not the mother of God. Catholics worship Mary as the Mother Of God. Do you?
Hi Roy, Thank you for your reply. It’s an odd one, though, and ignores lots of scripture.
A
You claim Mary “was the mother of Jesus Christ” but “was not the mother of God.”
Thus, you claim that Jesus was not God when Mary gave birth to or raised Jesus.
Your claim that Mary was not the mother of God is a heretical, non-Biblical one.
Jesus was God from the beginning, including when Mary gave birth to and raised him.
See, for example, John 1:1 — “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
B
In my response to your original comment, I pointed the above scripture out to you, explaining “John 1:1, for example, explains that “The Word” — Jesus — “was God.” Mary was Jesus’s mother. Hence, Mary was the mother of God.”
But you completely ignored that scripture in your reply.
C
In my response, I also pointed out to you (a) 20+ passages in which God asks women to speak to, teach, lead, and have authority over men, (b) why the 2-3 verses some people use to discriminate against women in the church do not mean what those people say, (c) what Jesus said about Christians loving others, including in John 13 and 1 John 4, (d) discrimination by humans against other humans based on race or sex is not love, (e) asserting a right to authority over girls and women, other images of God, solely because of one’s sex when we are all heirs of God and his children is not love, and (f) selection of one interpretation that calls for sex discrimination when there are others that are at least as (I think much more) reasonable and that are consistent with other scripture is not love.
And you completely ignored all that scripture and points in your reply, too.
That’s a lot of scripture you ignored!
D
Somewhat bizarrely, you quote passages and emphasize “according to the flesh.” — passages that indicate what no one disputes, that Jesus — God — was born and came in human form.
None of those three passages support your non-Biblical, heretical claim that Jesus was not God when Mary gave birth to or raised Jesus, that Mary was not the mother of God.
E
Continuing your theme of ignoring scripture, you ignored lots of other passages, like these, that the child Jesus when born was God and the Everlasting Father, that Mary would give birth to the divine one, that the child Jesus was divine, and that Jesus was God in the flesh:
Isaiah 9:6:
“For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
Luke 1:35
“And the angel answered and said to [Mary], “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.”
Luke 2:49:
And [Jesus, 12 years old or so,] said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?”
1 Tim 3:16:
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.”
F
You asked if I worship Mary. The answer is no, I don’t.
I also don’t attempt to denigrate God’s appointed mother of God by trying to downplay her importance or what she did, in an effort to support discrimination against girls and women today.
You mistakenly claim that I think Jesus was not deity from His birth. The Bible states that Jesus was the son of Mary and the son of David “according to the flesh.” The Bible does not say that Mary was the mother of God. Please explain how God could appoint Mary to be His mother. Here is my article on the deity of Christ: http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/deity.html
Hi Roy, Thank you for your second reply, but your assertions are not making sense and you are not addressing what I said substantively.
The only way you could claim what you did is to claim that Jesus was not deity from his birth, but now you are saying that you don’t.
If you acknowledge that (1) Jesus Christ was God at birth and (2) Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, then you acknowledge that Mary is the mother of God.
That the Bible doesn’t say the exact phrase “Mary was the mother of God” does not mean anything. The Bible doesn’t say the exact phrase “Jesus Christ is God, now and forever” either. Do you deny that Jesus Christ is God, now and forever, because the Bible does not have that exact phrase in it? Anyone can read the text and see that is what it means, just like anyone can read it and see that Mary is the mother of God.
You asked me to “Please explain how God could appoint Mary to be His mother.”
I addressed the scripture you cited, including the “according to the flesh,” but you just reassert the same thing and you ignored the scripture I showed you before and you continue to do so.
I’ve already showed you the scripture showing how God appointed Mary to be His mother.
Here you go, for the second time: “And the angel answered and said to [Mary], “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.”” (Luke 1:35)
God, by the way, can do anything. It would be profitable for you to do some thinking on the Trinity.
It’s adding up! —- You’ve ignored: (a) 20+ passages in which God asks women to speak to, teach, lead, and have authority over men, (b) why the 2-3 verses some people use to discriminate against women in the church do not mean what those people say, (c) what Jesus said about Christians loving others, including in John 13 and 1 John 4, (d) discrimination by humans against other humans based on race or sex is not love, (e) asserting a right to authority over girls and women, other images of God, solely because of one’s sex when we are all heirs of God and his children is not love, (f) selection of one interpretation that calls for sex discrimination when there are others that are at least as (I think much more) reasonable and that are consistent with other scripture is not love, (g) almost all the points I made in my reply, (h) John 1:1, (i) Isaiah 9:6, (j) Luke 1:35, (k) Luke 2:49, and (l) 1 Tim 3:16.
That’s quite a list.
You are welcome to respond again, but, if you do, please address these things substantively. I am glad to discuss things substantively, but your failing to do so and just casting aspersions on Ms. Shetler, trying to take away from Mary — God’s appointed —, making unfounded assertions, and not addressing what I point out to you at a substantive level is obviously baseless and wasting my time. Thank you.