Some evangelicals consistently pride themselves in staying 'true to the Word' while reducing the role of women to secondary status.

These people will cherish the all encompassing retort, "read and obey the Bible; 1 Timothy 2:12,"

do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

Of course, anybody who has done just that--read the Bible--will recognize that when it comes to 'proving a point' there exist spectrums of understanding throughout scripture. Where one passage will tell women to be silent, another will praise those who preach and prophesy (1 Cor 11:2-16).

....woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

Of course, if you're still a literalist then you should, in fact MUST, conclude women CAN pray and prophesy yet they MUST wear a head covering too.

So what are we to make of these seemingly contradictory statements?

What's clear is this: context matters deeply.

Also, only a fool would state, "Read your Bible and obey" as a proof that women can't be pastors. And being made different, male and female, does not imply inequality in leadership.

From OT to NT women had core roles, particularly in the ministry with Jesus Christ who elevated women to unheard of status (which was quickly usurped by the male dominated leadership of the early institutionalized church).

From prophetesses (see Miriam) to apostles (see Phoebe and Junia), women did far more than sit silent, and far more than run the children's choir.

Now, it's possible to make an argument that women should never be 'over' a man, and most conservative churches operate in this fashion.

What seems to be the more likely in the early church is leadership that is gifts based and not gender exclusive.

Let's leave this debate in the hands of NT Wright.

No penis no go: Women in Leadership is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Did you hear? A parish of 70 people in Calgary decided to buck their liberal Anglican roots and opt for the Pope's invite, made to pad dwindling Catholic numbers, and join the Roman Catholic church.

Guess what? NOBODY cares.

Maybe in the 50's, perhaps the 60's, and dare I say the 70's, when people were mostly a part of Christian culture in North America, it mattered what 'kind of Christian' you were.

Not so today.

I have no issue with the change, but I can tell you this, not a single person outside this church gives a damn. In fact, they probably have no clue what the difference between Anglican and Catholic is.

Why is this even news?

The church will be closed in a single generation when the aging 70 members pass away.

Chalk this one up as a rare occasion when a dying breed of people who, bless their souls, still think they live in a country that pays attention to them.

St. John the Evangelist Anglican Church Joins the Catholics and Nobody Cares is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Technorati Tags: anglican, catholic

This is the wrong way to go about church planting because no church plant would ever succeed without a form of innovation. You can't take (despite what many book crazed pastors think) an idea from a study guide and use it as your own. You have to contextualize.

But you can't innovate or contextualize if you don't actually PLANT A CHURCH.

No amount of books, conferences, study guides, guest speakers, models, or observations will prepare you for something new unless you actually try it out for yourself.

Too often leaders want to be sure they've covered all their basis before taking the leap. But the leap itself, and the process of letting 'the leap' unfold, is perhaps the greatest teaching model.

Some of the most powerful church plating leaders are those who are willing to risk behind a new idea. They amount to greatness for the Kingdom.

Others spend their careers bouncing from model conference to 'round table' to book study. Yet these people, out of fear of failure and perhaps lack of experience, do'nt actually plant anything.

Let's get inspired to take a leap and try things out, that risk should be tolerated and in fact embraced in our denominations. Innovation to make ideas our own will be the greatest teaching tool on how to plant the next one.

Trying to make sure you have an error free model BEFORE actually trying a new idea out is a sure fire way to never succeed.

Time to put your ideas into motion. Gather some Kingdom inspiration and then DO IT.

Too many people are afraid of failure, but to never put forth action is failure in itself. hing truly unique, props to you).

Innovation requires action. Risk is exciting, not an impediment.

Time to put your ideas into motion. Gather some inspiration and then DO IT.

Too many people are afraid of failure, but to never put forth action is failure in itself and stymies the gospel at the hands of cowardice.

Afraid of Failure = No Church Plants is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

The Christian Zionist movement is cleverly shrouded behind the guise of evangelical fundamentalism, yet it looks more like a well-oiled Republican warmongering machine bent on destroying all hell-bound Arabs in the name of their American Jesus.

Make no mistake, there is not one ounce of truth behind their reasoning.

Don't forget, YOUR brothers and sisters in the region aren't Jews, they are the indigenous CHRISTIAN ARAB PALESTINIANS. (And no, this isn't a call to anti-Semitism.)

Pastor Hagee in Jerusalem 3/8/10 (Part II) from Max J Blumenthal on Vimeo.

Ridicule Christian Zionists is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Nonetheless, let me encourage churches and denominational leaders to connect and involve themselves in online networking in lieu of expensive flights, meals, lodging, etc., of conferences abroad.

Case in point, thenines conference this year on 09.09.09. IT was a FANTASTIC idea that probably had a HUGE following online. THe concept? Big names, brief talks, all for free, all online. No expenses!

Perhaps it's necessary to meet folks face to face, but more often than not you can do away with that component. Take for example the aforementioned Leadership Summit headed by Willow Creek and Bill Hybels. They do it all by live feed. Now, I"m not sure why it's still costs 100 bucks a person, but the concept is at least emerging.

Perhaps the leaders of conferences can start opting for the live feed/online conferencing feature over flights, appearance fees, meals, lodging, etc.. Imagine the THOUSANDS upon hundreds of THOUSANDS per year that could go BACK into community while still maintaining the apparent necessity of 'leadership development'.

So cudos to you Brian McLaren for an attempt to reduce the carbon footprint while simultaneously saving everyone money. Hats off to you and to others who are leading this charge.

How Christians Should Do Conferences is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Technorati Tags: conferences

Simply put, to remove the Bible from the equation because its details on homosexuality are scant will mean adjusting your church community into a simple community club. Furthermore, you throw away the only manual on why these people should be included in community. You would become like so many United Church's in Canada: one dying club of old people gathered in the name of cross-stitch and bingo instead of Jesus. In fact, it is my strong opinion that Jesus is primarily revealed through two things, the scriptures about him and the community about him.

Are we to disregard the entirety of scripture because the Bible says little about homosexuality? From my perspective, and hey I'm willing to be wrong too, the Bible is explicitly clear that the act of homosexuality is condemned. But before you conservatives in the crowd sing your heavenly praises, remember homosexuality is a sin among many (that you commit yourself). I also don't buy the thought we live in a society that is more inclusive and progressive (egalitarian, etc.). Ancient Rome, Corinth, *insert wild city here*, would put present day Las Vegas to shame (barely). The difference resides in our interpretation of marriage--more on that later.

Certainly Jesus Christ was counter-cultural when he included the oppressed, women, etc., in his daily commute. He also failed with one in the inner-circle. But that does not open the door to every office and leadership position for practicing homosexuals, just as it wouldn't for straight folks. So, the argument goes, if straight or gay people are not in a loving marriage then they should not be affirmed into leadership positions for a community that emphasizes holiness. The statement now becomes, 'so let same-sex couples marry' and the solution to our inclusion problem is solved. So what constitutes marriage? That's a post for another time which won't be solved here.....

It's quite simple and safe to believe that those with homosexual tendencies can certainly be included in the kingdom of God. It's quite simple and safe to believe that 'Christians' who spawn hate--even to their own kids--are either stupid or sheep in the ultra-conservative pasture. The very nature of many evangelical churches is to be missionary

Nonetheless, observe how it's possible to retain the Bible and still dialogue and be friends with your friends (why label them homosexuals, they're just friends....)

Jesus is the big dot in the middle. The first community square is most conservative churches--using the bible to define who's in and who's out while they worship their little Jesus in the middle. Adam is right, the Bible has too much prominence to the point many don't know the difference between the Word and their zondervan made 'word'.

The second community is open and defines each person as a small dot, some journeying closer to Jesus, the Bible still present yet interpreted through community rather than imposed. That's a post-modernism response to homosexuality and the Bible.

I can see many crying foul that any community can interpret as they please. In a sense, many do, and the nature of our God is that he can be revealed in all of them. However, a smart community will attempt to remain within the bounds of the greater church community rather than creating their own box somewhere further out in the distance.

The Bible isn't an impediment to acceptance, it contains the supreme example of how we need to conduct ourselves to engage God's plan to redeem humanity.

Left-Wing Pomos Comment on Bible v Homosexuality is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

-John Graham, a servant of the Living God.

Democracy is the head of the Alliance church is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

The gospel says, "Go," but our church buildings say, "Stay". The gospel says, "Seek the lost," but our churches say, "Let the lost seek the church." pg. 70

Well put, and that was in the 70's. The result of his words? The explosion of attractional 'seeker sensitive' churches in the 90's that are suddenly finding themselves irrelevant to the world around them.

Why Attractional Churches Suck is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Picture below, must be 8 years old or over to view.

The real issue is the fact the six women are pastors. Southern Baptist's refuse to allow women preachers, elders, or regular preachers. So screw you Gov. Palin, because you don't have a penis you could be president but you couldn't pastor over a gaggle of rednecks.

Time to update you theology--or is headship/submission the only way you view the Godhead?

NSFW – Gospel Today Cover Shows Women is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Tyson Gay Homosexual is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Technorati Tags: gay, homosexual