As always, no endorsement of these websites nor agreement with ideas expressed; these are just things I think are worth reading:
In absence of guidelines for healthy and polite social media etiquette, we are left to determine our own boundaries for navigating the seemingly endless opportunities available to us.
Before we snap one more picture of our hot chocolate topped with a foam leaf, perhaps we would benefit from a brief pause—an extra 30 seconds to ask five simple questions might suggest it’s time to unplug, or at least reconsider when and how we use social media.
I simply want to point out that egalitarian hermeneutics are not benign. They cater to the egalitarian spirit of the age by suppressing what the Bible actually teaches. I am reminded of Ligon Duncan’s remarks in this regard:
The gymnastics required to get from “I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man,” in the Bible, to “I do allow a woman to teach and to exercise authority over a man” in the actual practice of the local church, are devastating to the functional authority of the Scripture in the life of the people of God.
By the way, this is one reason why I think we just don’t see many strongly inerrantist-egalitarians… in the younger generation of evangelicalism. Many if not most evangelical egalitarians today have significant qualms about inerrancy, and are embracing things like trajectory hermeneutics, etc., to justify their positions. Inerrancy or egalitarianism, one or the other, eventually wins out.
We are not playing games here. The hermeneutics of egalitarianism are serious error and are harmful.
The bottom line is that in light of current biblical scholarship it’s time to acknowledge that there are too many problems with this passage to continue using it as a weapon against women called to church ministry.
Pruett’s argument is that fathers often engage their children in ways that differ from the ways in which mothers engage their children. Yes, there are exceptions, and, yes, parents also engage their children in ways that are not specifically gendered. But there are at least four ways, spelled out in my new book, Gender and Parenthood: Biological and Social Scientific Perspectives (co-edited with Kathleen Kovner Kline), that today’s dads tend to make distinctive contributions to their children’s lives.
There is a difference, of course, between healthy criticsim which seeks to instruct and improve. I see the apostle Paul engaged in this kind of criticism as he dealt with the first century churches. He pointed out their flaws; their sins, but always with the goal of correcting them in the most productive way in Jesus. He never engaged in bashing. His was redemptive criticism. Some, who survey the church today and offer a critique do so in the same spirit and for the same purpose. We need that. It is healthy.
What we do not need is the type of critcism reflective in my five reasons. It is counterproductive and damaging.
This is a part of our family devotional—a time to gather as a family, read and reflect on God’s Word, and pray and worship together. I told them we would be acting out the story before I read it. This helped them stay engaged as I read. Then we did an impromptu reenactment.
If you are still raising your little PK’s, ask the Spirit to show you where your children are adversely affected by your actions. Humbly ask their forgiveness—even if they are preschool. Then, raise a generation of PK’s who see their parents in need of a Redeemer and who are resting in the grace of God more than they fear the accusations of a congregation.
So I ask you, “How are you willing to suffer?”
Because you have to choose something. You can’t have a pain-free life. It can’t all be roses and unicorns.
Choose how you are willing to suffer.
Because that’s the hard question that matters. Pleasure is an easy question. And pretty much all of us have the same answer.
The more interesting question is the pain. What is the pain that you want to sustain?
So enjoy accessing your Internet videos from Netflix and Aunt Edna. They may not be so easy to watch in the future — if you can watch them at all.
“Basically, if you arrive from Mars and design a food system, you probably couldn’t design a worse one than what we have today on Earth,” Oxfam’s Max Lawson tells The Salt. “There is enough food overall in the world to feed everyone. But 900 million people still don’t have enough to eat, and 1 billion people are obese. It’s a crazy situation.”