|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 31, 2019 10:57:13 GMT -5
I was going to reply to this earlier, but I drank a margarita instead. The non-denominational/Baptist distinction you keep making is such a stretch (coming from someone who went to a non-denominational church in high school). Same cake, different icing. The "non-denominational" phenomenon really is just 1) a branding effort that coincides with contemporary music and casual dress and 2) the retirement of some of the antiquated political structures in certain denominations, such as deacons or elders. Many of the non-denominational churches in Central Texas, were once Baptist churches struggling with congregation numbers. In some ways, they actually feel more Evangelical, due to the heightened "spirituality" they preach (i.e. ritual is dumb, it's all about your spiritual relationship with God). But the textualist, "make disciples of all men," spirit is still very predominant. Just because the youth pastor has tattoos, doesn't mean it changes his views on Ephesians. Edit: For the record, not taking away anything you said about his character in your previous reply to my post. I'm trying not to comment on his character, I don't know the guy. But I don't think the "non-denominational" shift carries as much weight as you're suggesting. Having been raised in both Baptist and non-denominational churches, there definite contrasts between the two. Go to any southern Baptist church and it’ll be hard to find a woman in a position of leadership. That can’t be said about non-denominational churches. Take a survey of a Baptist church and more than likely you’ll find the majority to be conservative. You won’t get the same result at a non-denominational church. As you alluded to, non-denominational churches support more of an individual approach to a relationship with God. With that allows more diversity of thought, emotion and approach to the Bible. That, combined with the demographics of the congregation, create a striking difference between the two. It’s more than just the atmosphere and outfits. Yes both still aim to spread the Gospel because that’s what Christ has called us to do. But the approach to that looks different as non-denominational churches are tending to create a more accepting environment that seeks to understand the individual. The defining characteristic of non-denominational churches is that they are LOCAL. That means that your claims are very likely true for *some* of them -- but also very likely false for *some* of them. Because they are not all the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by houstonbear15 on Dec 31, 2019 11:16:00 GMT -5
Having been raised in both Baptist and non-denominational churches, there definite contrasts between the two. Go to any southern Baptist church and it’ll be hard to find a woman in a position of leadership. That can’t be said about non-denominational churches. Take a survey of a Baptist church and more than likely you’ll find the majority to be conservative. You won’t get the same result at a non-denominational church. As you alluded to, non-denominational churches support more of an individual approach to a relationship with God. With that allows more diversity of thought, emotion and approach to the Bible. That, combined with the demographics of the congregation, create a striking difference between the two. It’s more than just the atmosphere and outfits. Yes both still aim to spread the Gospel because that’s what Christ has called us to do. But the approach to that looks different as non-denominational churches are tending to create a more accepting environment that seeks to understand the individual. The defining characteristic of non-denominational churches is that they are LOCAL. That means that your claims are very likely true for *some* of them -- but also very likely false for *some* of them. Because they are not all the same thing. The defining characteristic of a non-denominational church is that they don’t align with a specific denomination and in turn separate themselves from traditions and customs that you would find in traditional denominations. Instead of finding authority within customs, non-denominational churches hold the Bible to its true authority.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 31, 2019 11:22:10 GMT -5
The defining characteristic of non-denominational churches is that they are LOCAL. That means that your claims are very likely true for *some* of them -- but also very likely false for *some* of them. Because they are not all the same thing. The defining characteristic of a non-denominational church is that they don’t align with a specific denomination and in turn separate themselves from traditions and customs that you would find in traditional denominations. Instead of finding authority within customs, non-denominational churches hold the Bible to its true authority. *Some* "non-denominational churches hold the Bible to its true authority".
|
|
|
Post by donut on Dec 31, 2019 11:33:22 GMT -5
I understand what the definition of a non-denominational church is. Looks like I over-simplified my argument. Here are my observations about non-denominational churches in Texas ( mikegarrison I'm fairly confident the denominational churches in Seattle are on average quite different than the ones in Waco), especially in rural areas: 1) Many, if not most of them have significant Baptist roots, 2) the underlying doctrine is still significantly Evangelical and textualist. My main point being I just don't think saying "well the student body is shifting non-denominational" carries much weight when we're discussing doctrinal beliefs. This is also my POV after living in the Northeast for most of my adult life: reflecting as an outsider, the differences seem much smaller than when you're an insider. I definitely reject the notion that being non-denominational automatically makes them less "conservative" and more "accepting." Like Mike said, I'm sure there is variance, but in my personal experience, many non-denominational believers, because their relationship with God is more "spiritual and personal," feel their disapproval for gays, abortions, etc. with more fervor. I once had a church friend from a non-denominational church randomly fly to see me in college to tell me he disapproved of my sexuality, and had to get on the flight because he was moved to tears by God telling him to. I've attended non-denominational churches where the pastor heals members of the congregation, and where people begin to speak in tongues. For what it's worth, the only Baptist church in my hometown (where I am currently) just changed to a non-denominational church. My parents say it's because of declining congregation numbers. I've seen that happen countless times in my area, and still maintain it's a pretty common narrative in suburban/rural Texas. (^For the record, I obviously have personal biases in this conversation and I'm aware of them. Some of the most intolerant people I've ever met are youth/worship pastors now at very contemporary (Hillsong-style) churches, and have full tattoo sleeves and wear beanies and artsy instagrams, etc. And I've heard people comment that individuals like that, because of their outward appearance and "hip" persona, must be accepting and cool! In honesty, it's a smart move by the church, but I think it's hard to deny that it is (at least in part) motivated by a national/global marketing/branding conscious cultural movement to make church relevant again to younger persons, and the lights and the music and the clothing kind of just veil the same underlying beliefs.)
|
|
|
Post by donut on Dec 31, 2019 11:50:27 GMT -5
Blue, this is bad. You're going to accuse others of taking verses out of context, when you literally skip over verse 23? And leave out the rest of 25? And how about verse 33? The analogy is crystal clear (and this is without even touching the reasoning behind why a husband should love his wife in verses 27-31). Christ = the husband, the church = the wife. Again, it is totally fine if you have a different "modern" interpretation of this text (which really isn't an interpretation of this text but rather a qualification or contradiction but I digress), but the bible (I'm even using the predominantly 'modern' version) says what it says. And textualist/Evangelical churches teach to the bible. So what you've done, is rationalized around this conflict between the bible and your conscience (modern ideology of gender equality), and you're assuming that MacGuyre has done the same thing. Even we accept what you're saying is true about Evangelical teachings (which I disagree with, again, based on personal experience), the way I see it then is either 1) Evangelical/Baptist teachings are no longer textualist and there is a huge radical movement away from the above verses OR 2) they are still mostly textualist and MacGuyre's comments most likely stem (perhaps subconsciously) from the above patriarchal relationship between man and wife. Not really planning on getting into a Biblical discussion/debate - not really sure that VT is the appropriate place. I am just giving you a glimpse of how a Christian Man views Ephesians 5 which gets into the probable intent implied by Ryan McGuyer's remarks. Several have claimed that the remarks represent a viewpoint that women are below men - and I know that this is not what is in the Bible or in Ephesians 5. I didn't intentionally skip verses in Ephesians 5 - I was only pointing out how verse 23 is almost always taken out of context. I would be more than happy to go through every verse in the Bible - but this really isn't the place for that. BTW, I am among the 'textualist/Evangelical' readers of the Bible - and I can assure you that no Christian husband believes he is = to Christ. And I also believe that the English translation 'love' used in Ephesians 5 is not the same as the Greek word 'Agope' used in that verse. That Ephesians 5 is very clear that both the husband and wife is to 'submit to one another out of reverence for Christ'. I respect your views and appreciate the healthy conversation, but I think this is "selective textualism" at best, which, to be frank, is pretty common and probably the only practical option for Evangelicals. My issue with it is selectively deciding which verses to look at with "context," and which verses to take a face value (i.e. the verses on homosexuality). It always feels to me that the decision is arbitrarily based on supporting pre-existing beliefs/judgments. Regardless, I'm not refuting your personal reading of Ephesians 5, but 1) I think it's hard to dispute Ephesians 5 communicates a hierarchal and submissive relationship between husband and wife from an objective reading of the entire chapter, and 2) I don't think you can claim that your reading is the "probable intent implied by Ryan McGuyer," or that the phrase "serve your husband" doesn't at least in part steam from the patriarchal nature of Ephesians 5.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 31, 2019 12:07:43 GMT -5
Not really planning on getting into a Biblical discussion/debate - not really sure that VT is the appropriate place. I am just giving you a glimpse of how a Christian Man views Ephesians 5 which gets into the probable intent implied by Ryan McGuyer's remarks. Several have claimed that the remarks represent a viewpoint that women are below men - and I know that this is not what is in the Bible or in Ephesians 5. I didn't intentionally skip verses in Ephesians 5 - I was only pointing out how verse 23 is almost always taken out of context. I would be more than happy to go through every verse in the Bible - but this really isn't the place for that. BTW, I am among the 'textualist/Evangelical' readers of the Bible - and I can assure you that no Christian husband believes he is = to Christ. And I also believe that the English translation 'love' used in Ephesians 5 is not the same as the Greek word 'Agope' used in that verse. That Ephesians 5 is very clear that both the husband and wife is to 'submit to one another out of reverence for Christ'. I respect your views and appreciate the healthy conversation, but I think this is "selective textualism" at best, which, to be frank, is pretty common and probably the only practical option for Evangelicals. My issue with it is selectively deciding which verses to look at with "context," and which verses to take a face value (i.e. the verses on homosexuality). It always feels to me that the decision is arbitrarily based on supporting pre-existing beliefs/judgments. Regardless, I'm not refuting your personal reading of Ephesians 5, but 1) I think it's hard to dispute Ephesians 5 communicates a hierarchal and submissive relationship between husband and wife from an objective reading of the entire chapter, and 2) I don't think you can claim that your reading is the "probable intent implied by Ryan McGuyer," or that the phrase "serve your husband" doesn't at least in part steam from the patriarchal nature of Ephesians 5. As I said in the previous page, there are a lot of convenient rationalizations involved. It's all literally true and vastly important except that certain inconvenient parts only apply to Jews, or only applied before Jesus, or etc. etc. You are likely wrong if you think some of this stuff isn't happening in the Northwest. That takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was linked to Christian groups up here. We have a state legislator who was involved in it. The same guy also wrote up a document he called "Biblical basis for war" that advocated: a) the US was intended to be a Christian nation b) Christian men need to retake control by any means including violence c) the enemy must "surrender on terms" of no abortions, no same-sex marriage, no communism and "must obey Biblical law", then continued: "If they do not yield — kill all males" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_SheaHe got that from the Bible, of course. The whole bit about conquering Canaan is very clearly genocidal. If they didn't kill everybody, then often they would just kill the males and take the females as slaves and rape victims. And it clearly states that God ordered it all and was instrumental in making it happen.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,440
|
Post by bluepenquin on Dec 31, 2019 12:17:26 GMT -5
Not really planning on getting into a Biblical discussion/debate - not really sure that VT is the appropriate place. I am just giving you a glimpse of how a Christian Man views Ephesians 5 which gets into the probable intent implied by Ryan McGuyer's remarks. Several have claimed that the remarks represent a viewpoint that women are below men - and I know that this is not what is in the Bible or in Ephesians 5. I didn't intentionally skip verses in Ephesians 5 - I was only pointing out how verse 23 is almost always taken out of context. I would be more than happy to go through every verse in the Bible - but this really isn't the place for that. BTW, I am among the 'textualist/Evangelical' readers of the Bible - and I can assure you that no Christian husband believes he is = to Christ. And I also believe that the English translation 'love' used in Ephesians 5 is not the same as the Greek word 'Agope' used in that verse. That Ephesians 5 is very clear that both the husband and wife is to 'submit to one another out of reverence for Christ'. I respect your views and appreciate the healthy conversation, but I think this is "selective textualism" at best, which, to be frank, is pretty common and probably the only practical option for Evangelicals. My issue with it is selectively deciding which verses to look at with "context," and which verses to take a face value (i.e. the verses on homosexuality). It always feels to me that the decision is arbitrarily based on supporting pre-existing beliefs/judgments. Regardless, I'm not refuting your personal reading of Ephesians 5, but 1) I think it's hard to dispute Ephesians 5 communicates a hierarchal and submissive relationship between husband and wife from an objective reading of the entire chapter, and 2) I don't think you can claim that your reading is the "probable intent implied by Ryan McGuyer," or that the phrase "serve your husband" doesn't at least in part steam from the patriarchal nature of Ephesians 5. I don't know the answer to #2 any better than you. I don't know McGuyer and his opinion on the verse. Him using 'serve' instead of 'submit' makes me think he has some understanding of the social impact of his words, but I really don't know what he was thinking. I think the key is how Stafford viewed the phrase? #1 - I even read last night James Dobson's 'focus on the family' interpretation of Ephesians 5 and saw it was similar to my viewpoint. Men and Women are different with different roles - but neither is subservient to the other and both are to be submissive to the other. I don't have an opinion on James Dobson - but I believe he would be among the more public conservative Evangelicals that many would attach the worst Bible interpretation of Ephesians. Christian men are taught to be spiritual leaders, but also to have great reverence for their wives - at least that is the plan. This subject has come up and something I hesitate to mention. The Christian view of homosexuality. My experience - this viewpoint has evolving by generation among Christians as it has among the non religious. I ask my very Christian daughter and son in law about the subject and it will be wildly different than people among my age. I have hope we are moving in the 'right' direction - maybe just not as fast as the rest of the country. I mean - didn't Obama campaign against same sex marriage? We have come a long way among liberals since 2008. Anyway, among many of the older Christian friends - I don't understand the obsession with gay lifestyle in that they don't have the same reaction to a young couple living together before getting married, adultery, adultery of the eyes, etc... This friend that was compelled to talk to you - was he equally compelled to talk to others? Anyway - I live with sin just about every day. On the other side - I am not a fan of people stereotyping all Christians on the subject of homosexuality or defining them as trying to prevent their lifestyle choice.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 31, 2019 12:24:36 GMT -5
This is my issue with the prayer. Baylor is inviting other teams in an effort to “spread the gospel as Christ has called them to do”. You can say that doesn’t intend harm necessarily, but there is certainly intent to spread religious ideals, which is why I find it so inappropriate involving nonreligious uni’sz How about just accepting the gesture in the spirit it was intended, and graciously decline if that's your wish? Are you so sure you know "the spirit it was intended"? How do you know the intentions of other people? Anyway, I think the main thing that triggered all this was not the prayer itself but rather the reactions from people (here, in the media, etc.) that went along the lines of: "Oh, how beautiful. So very gracious to invite the other team too." Granted, people have the right to have that opinion about it. But that also means people have the right to have other opinions too.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Dec 31, 2019 12:56:03 GMT -5
You basically said Baylor shouldn’t express anything at all but I’m not sure whether that’s because you disagree with the belief or because you think a university shouldn’t be expressing religious beliefs. Where did I ever say that? Jeez... Yes, I disagree with what was said. I said so, and why. I'm not opposed to a private university expressing religious beliefs, but don't believe those beliefs should be exempt from criticism. It was at a public event (to which the public was invited), where impressionable young girls and boys (not "parishioners") were likely present, which is what drew me to express my dissent to what was said. Service is admirable; servitude is not.
|
|
|
Post by houstonbear15 on Dec 31, 2019 13:02:59 GMT -5
How about just accepting the gesture in the spirit it was intended, and graciously decline if that's your wish? Are you so sure you know "the spirit it was intended"? How do you know the intentions of other people? Anyway, I think the main thing that triggered all this was not the prayer itself but rather the reactions from people (here, in the media, etc.) that went along the lines of: "Oh, how beautiful. So very gracious to invite the other team too." Granted, people have the right to have that opinion about it. But that also means people have the right to have other opinions too. The same thing about intent can be said the other way though.
|
|
|
Post by houstonbear15 on Dec 31, 2019 13:10:00 GMT -5
You basically said Baylor shouldn’t express anything at all but I’m not sure whether that’s because you disagree with the belief or because you think a university shouldn’t be expressing religious beliefs. Where did I ever say that? Jeez... Yes, I disagree with what was said. I said so, and why. I'm not opposed to a private university expressing religious beliefs, but don't believe those beliefs should be exempt from criticism. It was at a public event (to which the public was invited), where impressionable young girls and boys (not "parishioners") were likely present, which is what drew me to express my dissent to what was said. Service is admirable; servitude is not. “It becomes a public concern when proffered in a public arena, including impressionable young girls and boys. I couldn't care less what they choose to believe in their own homes or churches, except where it negatively impinges on the public interest.” If that’s not you saying you don’t think Baylor shouldn’t have expressed a belief, than I misinterpreted. You basically said they can believe what they want behind closed doors but shouldn’t express that in public. Once again, it’s insane to think that a Christian university shouldn’t be allowed to express their Christian beliefs. If that’s not the case and you think they should be allowed to express their beliefs, then it seems that you are just stating that they shouldn’t express a specific belief because you don’t agree with it. It’s fine to not agree with a belief, but that doesn’t mean it needs to stay behind closed doors.
|
|
|
Post by houstonbear15 on Dec 31, 2019 13:32:39 GMT -5
I understand what the definition of a non-denominational church is. Looks like I over-simplified my argument. Here are my observations about non-denominational churches in Texas ( mikegarrison I'm fairly confident the denominational churches in Seattle are on average quite different than the ones in Waco), especially in rural areas: 1) Many, if not most of them have significant Baptist roots, 2) the underlying doctrine is still significantly Evangelical and textualist. My main point being I just don't think saying "well the student body is shifting non-denominational" carries much weight when we're discussing doctrinal beliefs. This is also my POV after living in the Northeast for most of my adult life: reflecting as an outsider, the differences seem much smaller than when you're an insider. I definitely reject the notion that being non-denominational automatically makes them less "conservative" and more "accepting." Like Mike said, I'm sure there is variance, but in my personal experience, many non-denominational believers, because their relationship with God is more "spiritual and personal," feel their disapproval for gays, abortions, etc. with more fervor. I once had a church friend from a non-denominational church randomly fly to see me in college to tell me he disapproved of my sexuality, and had to get on the flight because he was moved to tears by God telling him to. I've attended non-denominational churches where the pastor heals members of the congregation, and where people begin to speak in tongues. For what it's worth, the only Baptist church in my hometown (where I am currently) just changed to a non-denominational church. My parents say it's because of declining congregation numbers. I've seen that happen countless times in my area, and still maintain it's a pretty common narrative in suburban/rural Texas. (^For the record, I obviously have personal biases in this conversation and I'm aware of them. Some of the most intolerant people I've ever met are youth/worship pastors now at very contemporary (Hillsong-style) churches, and have full tattoo sleeves and wear beanies and artsy instagrams, etc. And I've heard people comment that individuals like that, because of their outward appearance and "hip" persona, must be accepting and cool! In honesty, it's a smart move by the church, but I think it's hard to deny that it is (at least in part) motivated by a national/global marketing/branding conscious cultural movement to make church relevant again to younger persons, and the lights and the music and the clothing kind of just veil the same underlying beliefs.) Thanks for sharing this insight and I totally understand where you’re coming from. I definitely agree with your a lot of your statements, including the idea that being non-denom doesn’t automatically make you conservative or more accepting, and that’s not exactly what I intended to convey. My point was that that is a trend that is being seen as the younger generation steps into positions of leadership and attracts other people from my generation. A shift away from traditional Baptist customs on campus definitely makes a difference as we approach topics like homosexuality, abortion, and the foundation of this forum, “serving your husband”. We discuss these things in religion classes at Baylor, but do so without the customs of a tradition Baptist heritage impeding the process of forming our own thoughts and opinions. Like I mentioned earlier, about 20% of the student population identifies as Baptist, which means 80% brings a different background than traditional Baptist beliefs. I understand your very valid point about how non-denom can actually lead to more disapproval because of the spiritual aspect and really had never even thought about that before, but the exact opposite could very well happen through the individual relationship that is fostered. That is a transition that has been seen on the Baylor campus through discussions and conversations that I have witnessed in an academic setting. How does that apply to the topic that McGuyre and Stafford are involved in? Well Stafford, who is apart of my generation and who has taken the same religion courses that I have, could very well have a different approach to the idea of serving your husband. If you look at that under traditional Baptist teaching, it almost definitely makes the wife out to be under servitude to her husband. But who is to say that’s how Stafford interprets the message. Maybe she believes that a husband and wife are in service to one another, an idea that is much more likely to be present in a non-denom church than in a traditional Baptist one. Remember the message was intended for her, so her reception of it is what seems most important. We don’t know what discussions they have had amongst themselves, so it’s hard to analyze a message that could mean something so different than what has been suggested. It’s important to note that McGuyre indeed said serve your husband instead of submit to your husband. Service and submission are not equal.
|
|
|
Post by dokterrudi on Dec 31, 2019 13:36:29 GMT -5
Flying Buttress!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Dec 31, 2019 13:40:49 GMT -5
Where did I ever say that? Jeez... Yes, I disagree with what was said. I said so, and why. I'm not opposed to a private university expressing religious beliefs, but don't believe those beliefs should be exempt from criticism. It was at a public event (to which the public was invited), where impressionable young girls and boys (not "parishioners") were likely present, which is what drew me to express my dissent to what was said. Service is admirable; servitude is not. “It becomes a public concern when proffered in a public arena, including impressionable young girls and boys. I couldn't care less what they choose to believe in their own homes or churches, except where it negatively impinges on the public interest.” If that’s not you saying you don’t think Baylor shouldn’t have expressed a belief, than I misinterpreted. You basically said they can believe what they want behind closed doors but shouldn’t express that in public. Once again, it’s insane to think that a Christian university shouldn’t be allowed to express their Christian beliefs. If that’s not the case and you think they should be allowed to express their beliefs, then it seems that you are just stating that they shouldn’t express a specific belief because you don’t agree with it. It’s fine to not agree with a belief, but that doesn’t mean it needs to stay behind closed doors. I said nothing of the sort. Note the start of my statement: " It becomes a public concern when proffered in a public arena, including impressionable young girls and boys." By all means, express away - just don't expect others to remain silent. What you seem to be saying, however, is that any expression of any religious belief should be exempt from criticism. That's the Caliphate, not America.
|
|
|
Post by houstonbear15 on Dec 31, 2019 13:50:15 GMT -5
“It becomes a public concern when proffered in a public arena, including impressionable young girls and boys. I couldn't care less what they choose to believe in their own homes or churches, except where it negatively impinges on the public interest.” If that’s not you saying you don’t think Baylor shouldn’t have expressed a belief, than I misinterpreted. You basically said they can believe what they want behind closed doors but shouldn’t express that in public. Once again, it’s insane to think that a Christian university shouldn’t be allowed to express their Christian beliefs. If that’s not the case and you think they should be allowed to express their beliefs, then it seems that you are just stating that they shouldn’t express a specific belief because you don’t agree with it. It’s fine to not agree with a belief, but that doesn’t mean it needs to stay behind closed doors. I said nothing of the sort. Note the start of my statement: " It becomes a public concern when proffered in a public arena, including impressionable young girls and boys." By all means, express away - just don't expect others to remain silent. What you seem to be saying, however, is that any expression of any religious belief should be exempt from criticism. That's the Caliphate, not America. No I’m not saying that, but I think I misunderstood the second sentence of your statement. After reading your last post, and correct me if I’m wrong, you are saying people can believe what they want behind closed doors but as soon as they express it in public then it is open to criticism (which I agree with). At first, I interpreted it as you saying that they can believe what they want behind closed doors and it should stay there if it’s negative to your opinion.
|
|