***
Manly man and open-air evangelist Tony Miano, shares words of wisdom to women on blogging, speaking, preaching, and teaching.
***
Christian Women Bloggers: Maintaining God-Intended Femininity http://t.co/k9L2bjlCn1 Addressing the question of women and #evangelism online
— Tony Miano (@TonyMiano) November 7, 2013
***
Open-air street evangelist, Tony Miano, has been the recipient of correspondence from Christian women after his book, Should She Preach, was published. In a recent blog post, he stated that some women asked in a “sincere and thoughtful way,” while others asked with “venom in their words, ready for a fight.”
He then conceded that sometimes Christians can behave as badly as unbelievers in their online communications and readily admits that he has been guilty as charged, too.
Umm, yea:
***
He seems to be very concerned about women and how they conduct themselves verbally and otherwise. (I’ve split up the excerpt for easier reading.)
***
As a result of my book, I’ve found myself on the receiving end of some very nasty comments by Christian women on blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and via email. In each instance, the professing Christian woman acts and talks as if she were asking me to “step outside.”
In each instance, the woman acted and talked like an angry man–asserting authority she does not have, boisterously making demands and proclamations and, with no sense of biblical propriety and in mixed online company, throwing her weight around as a teacher–weight the Lord has not given her.
And just so there is not mistake; just so there is no ambiguity seen in my position; I believe such behavior among Christian women is masculine, unbiblical, sinful, and embarrassing. Such behavior is untoward, unattractive, unflattering, and ungodly.
Such behavior violates God’s created order and design for women, violates a woman’s role in the Body of Christ, and flies in the face of the gentle and quiet spirit God has intended for all women–certainly His redeemed, born-again, adopted daughters.
***
Miano then shared that he had received an e-mail from a college student who “ascribes to what the Bible teaches regarding the limitations placed upon women in the areas of preaching/teaching and exercising authority over men.” The gist of the e-mail is the young lady wanted to have a clearer understanding of what was biblically acceptable for her to say on her blog with regard to conversations with men who had commented.
***
A few times, men have commented on the journals (usually atheists) and I have gotten into long debates with them on the subjects. I don’t seek out these conversations, they simply post on the journal and I reply.
My question is, do these journal postings and/or subsequent one-on-one conversations qualify as teaching/preaching? If so, should I delete my previous journals, or should I simply stop making them? Finally, if this is preaching/teaching, do you know of any other ways I can evangelize online while staying in the will of God?
***
Here is part of Miano’s reply:
Thank you for contacting me. I hope your studies are going well.
You ask a very good question. And I’m very glad to hear you hold to a biblical understanding of a woman’s role in the Body of Christ regarding teaching and the exercise of authority over men.
I do not believe that writing a public journal, in which you express your Christian beliefs and your theological thoughts about the same rises to the level of teaching and/or exercising authority over men.
Now, with that said, writing about the truths of Scripture certainly is teaching Scripture. There’s no way around that. When we communicate biblical truth, we are teaching biblical truth. However, the onus for the teaching, in the case of written material, is upon the recipient and not the writer. What I mean by that is it is the responsibility of men to avoid sitting under your teaching. It is the responsibility of Christian men not to put themselves under the authority of your teaching.
***
Hey now – – – wait just one minute. Do you remember this: Question for Tony Miano: Did Joni Preach? It sure looks like he didn’t heed his own words when he heard Joni Eareckson Tada “teach” scripture at the Strange Fire conference. He even wrote a whole post trying to convince everyone she wasn’t preaching/teaching:
Did I listen to Joni speak? Yes, I drank in every word as if they were sips from a cool glass of water. I am blessed every time I listen to Joni speak. She is a wonderful example of biblical womanhood and a true encouragement. I listened to Joni speak during the Strange Fire conference without so much as a twinge of discomfort, apprehension, compromise, or hypocrisy. (Source)
Whatever, Tony, we see how it works. If whatever she is teaching lines up with your beliefs, then you’ll listen to a woman teaching, but if it’s someone like Joyce Meyer, then look at the insulting words he uses:
“She carries herself like a man, sounds like a man, and preaches like a man.”
Going back to Miano’s correspondence with the young lady:
While it is not unbiblical for you to engage men in evangelistic conversations, you will have to decide if, in doing so, you are sacrificing any of your femininity in the process. In other words, you will have to determine if you are sounding like a man in your correspondence. One of the three reasons women should not open-air preach, teach men, or exercise authority over men, which I explain in my book, is that a woman cannot help but to sound and act like a man in the process, thus sacrificing some of her beautiful, God-given femininity.
This is the best part. Miano then gives words of advice to Christian women bloggers:
It might be wise for Christian women bloggers to give some written indication on their blog that their primary audience, if their blog is directed toward the Christian community, is Christian women. This might help fend off unwanted, unbelieving men from posting comments, and it might help in rightly discouraging Christian men from placing themselves under the teaching of a Christian woman.
Uh-oh, I have not done this. I hope I have not caused any of my men readers to stumble.
Just so there is no confusion or misinterpretation of my words, I will close with this. I am not suggesting all Christian women should abandon their blogs. I am not suggesting all Christian women should flee from social media. Christian women, like Christian men, have much to say. And I’m all for Christian women saying it–so long as they communicate in a biblical manner. So, to my blogging sisters in Christ, keep blogging. Keep blogging, so long as you do so while maintaining God’s intended order, your role in the Bride of Christ, and your God-designed, God-intended, beautiful femininity. (Source)
***
Spiritual Sounding Board 
“Maybe he just cynically depends on them to be deceived. IMO only the deceived, whether male or female, would be willing to support him. Maybe he thinks he is picking on the easiest targets.”
But Gary, he would have to control the form of deception at all times. Once he allows them out in the world, they are subject to being easily deceived by other influencers. In fact, the freedom to work could easily turn the head of a perpetually deceived female.
Perhaps Tony’s desire not to work in a real job providing for his family overrides the fact that his womenfolk are apt to be easily deceived out in the world.
BTW: Thinking things through deeply and the application of said beliefs is not a criterion for this movement.
LikeLike
“Thinking things through deeply and the application of said beliefs is not a criterion for this movement.”
Yep. I used the word “cynically,” not “wisely.” Not accusing anybody of anything. Just asking the questions.
LikeLike
John, Did you see the quotes Paul Dohse pulled from the writings of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson on Plato? Great stuff! They got it.
So where does the Triune God fit into the Aristotle/Plato dichotomy? After all, these are simply philosophy’s used to explain things.
Did He create beings with volition? Did He force the world into what we now see as the Platonic construct after the Fall? As in, all the material world is evil only spiritual is good? Man is totally depraved with no volition?
I can remember reading up on Augustine going back and forth between his “doctrinal writings” and the historical record and being astonished to find he wanted the Donatists wiped out because they were refusing to cooperate with corrupt priests. This was a precursor to his “just war” theory. Kill them because they refuse to go along. And yes, sex was evil to him as he incorporated his training in Mani with Christianity because he had a long time concubine he fathered a child with and then banished her when he converted and she was never to see her son again.
I am glad the Greek inspired philosophical defintion of total depravity was absent from our Founders, those pesky “Deists”. It meant we have a God given right to exist outside the divine right of kings. It took a while to get there! Almost a few thousand years.
LikeLike
Carmen said: “The question is this: Do you think women are equal to men or don’t you? To most intelligent people, there’s only one answer.”
Actually, historically the “intelligent” people concluded that the answer to this question was a resounding NO.
The concept of equality … whether it be female/male equality or white/black racial equality is a very, very new idea. And for millennia the intelligentsia was the advocate of social subordination. And the leading thinkers were in fact Christian. Suffrage for slaves and suffrage for women as a political conclusion is a philosophical phenomenon only about three hundred years old. And it was the Presbyterian Church in the south. (Read Reformed theology church) that was the leading advocate of both slavery and patriarchy. It was in fact the Methodist church (and Deists) in the north that advocated racial equality and eventually women’s suffrage.
Carmen, your comment goes to one of my points: you presume that only “intelligent:” people presume equality. But historically the dividing line has been the philosophical: Enlightenment vs Dark Ages or Aristotle vs Plato. And it wasn’t until some of the most potent Enlightenment thinkers took Aristotelian thought to its logical conclusion that the concept of equality had any real political life.
While Joss Whedon’s question sounds simple it is in fact incomplete. Once you answer the question: yes women are equal, the next question is, WHY are they equal? And this is of course requires that one demonstrate epistemological equality.
You think this conclusion is self-evident, but that is because you accept the Enlightenment premise. You are in fact a daughter of the enlightenment.
LikeLike
An Attorney said: John, I agree with your analysis and the conclusion. However, if we are Christians, we have an authority, the Holy Spirit, and it is the only authority we need in regard to faith and life. No earthly authority should intervene, b/c to do so is to attempt to supplant God, which is sin many times over.
Well, this still concedes the premise that Authority is the empowering force of human capacity to grasp TRUTH. It doesn’t really matter if we confer that authority on the “Holy spirit”, or “scripture” or “Elders”, or “ Men.”
The argument still boils down to “authority” being the vetting factor of Man’s life. In this instance you are saying that since there is a prevailing manifestation of Holy Spirit authority to all men, there should be no specific interference from “worldly authorities.” That is to say the TRUE authority is the Holy Spirit and the counterfeit authority is worldly.
This of course is pretty much what I said here: “As long as people concede that Man’s means of truth is “authority” the ONLY argument to have is WHO is qualified to have authority.”
Of course Tony Miano (and other members of the 2 inch club) insist that the same Holy Spirit that you appeal to for a prevailing authority is the same one who calls them to a specific authority.
Who then is right?
The answer is simple: he who is willing to use the most force in service to his “Authority”
LikeLike
Hey Lydia,
No I haven’t’ seen those quotes. I’ll hit Paul up for them.
“So where does the Triune God fit into the Aristotle/Plato dichotomy? After all, these are simply philosophy’s used to explain things.”
Well, the doctrine of the Trinity has a long and sordid history that is very hard to summarize. (if you care for a VERY thorough evaluation of the doctrinal madness might I recommend Richard Patrick Crosland Hanson: The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381)
But it turns out that the concept of Trinity that most Christians hold as a doctrinal absolute come from a uniquely Aristotelian concept of homoousia.
(It has been a while since I review this so forgive my imprecision please)
As Aristotle was developing this Axioms: The law of identity; The law of the excluded middle; The law of non-contradiction he needed a means to identify the roots of particulars.
I won’t bore you all with a discussion of the Problem of Universals and its impact on philosophy but the root question is how do we know we have dog-ness, or man-ness or house-ness . . .how do we know A is in fact A.
Aristotle took the concept homoousia from ancient pagan philosophy and used it to identify the essence of a substance. Or in modern speak Homoousia was his technical term for dog-ness. It was the –NESS of the particular that specifically set that thing apart from all other things. Its Homoousia was its –ness.
Now fast forward about … what… 700 years and the council of Nicaea (325 to 380ish)… awash in all manner of political wrangling over the –NESS of God and its relationship to Jesus that the Homoousian camp expropriated the Aristotelian concept and integrated it in “Christian” doctrine. Up until this time the Homoian camp—Jesus was not of the same substance but proceeded from the father had dominated Christian doctrine. Indeed it was considered the orthodox position from roughly 150 AD to about 325 in the east. And remained the dominate doctrine in the west until Charlemagne—I think. (Don’t quote me on that… but I’m close.)—and they cut off the heads of the “heretics” to wipe out that school of thought.
So strictly speaking the doctrine of the Trinity is a pagan concept. (LOL… that will get some of you riled up.)
As for what kind of creature did God create?
I merely point out that Man’s metaphysical starting place is God’s declaration that he was GOOD. Man’s charge was to “be fruitful and multiply, rule and subdue the earth”; A charge that was never rescinded, that necessitates metaphysical value, epistemological efficacy, and their corollary: volitional action. There is no such thing as the “Fall of Man” (yet one more odious doctrine born from Augustine’s warped mind.—May his name live in infamy.) and THE requirement of all life is volitional action toward values. Without this axiom of existence there is no such thing as life. There is only death.
LikeLike
john, I’m still not entirely clear on what the point of your thesis is – perhaps you could enlighten me.
LikeLike
“It was in fact the Methodist church (and Deists) in the north that advocated racial equality and eventually women’s suffrage.”
Another score for the Methodists. I think I know what denomination I will consider if I ever attend another institutional church.
LikeLike
Hi, Lydia! Paul was the first i have heard to bring up the Platonic vs Aristotelian construct; brain bending perspective shift. You counseled me to read the Gospels (I am), but onsm also a bit obsessed in this truth quest as I diacover how many of these supposed Christian doctrinal groups all end up back in this same spot.. And how many of them are experiencing spectacular public disasters, be they fringe (doug Wilson) or megachurch (james Macdonald). Your question about how the triune God fits in the 2nd worldview is exactly my question!!
🙂 Lisa
LikeLike
@ JA~
“hmm, I just typed a post.”
LOL-yes, you did. Great comment. Your whole comment/post was right on. I have all those questions too.
“Wouldn’t it be more Christian to apologize for wrong teaching and give the book for free?”
I asked on his FB before I WAS BANNED from commenting about if the book would be available for free on his website and the reply I got was…Diane, it will be in paperback so that won’t cost very much. Also on kindle.
LOL-iow, no, not free.
LikeLike
To put this in a nutshell: “I can’t tolerate a woman disagreeing with me. And I especially can’t tolerate her looking me in the eye while she does it.”
LikeLike
That just about sums it up!
LikeLike
Diane – how dare you ask such an insulting question to a man! Control freak! I’m sorry, if I’m snarkier than usual, it’s because I’ve been researching and keep reading stories about men and their god-given right to rule over women, suppress and oppress them.
LikeLike
John, excellent comments. I love this thought in particular: it isn’t the difference between the intelligent and the thick, but a difference in fundamental philosophy. So true.
The main stumbling block to your ideas is that they presuppose existential and moral equality between man and God. And this is of course true. If it is by each person’s context–which is their LIFE–that they can know anything and declare it truth, even if it is a “truth” which contradicts their own life, then on cannot get around the fact tht this must mean that man IS in the same way God IS. And if there is a relationship between the two (an exchange of value) than the IS of being (existing) must be equal. And if man is equal in existence he must be equal in truth, which means he must be equally GOOD.
All of this makes the life of the individual the only authority by which any truth can be known or proclaimed. And from this point all hell breaks loose and you get booted from the discernment blogs.
It is an uphill battle because everyone wants to concede equality of physical, metaphysical and epistemological value, but this must inexorably lead to equality with God in the same sense…and people are terrified to accept this.
LikeLike
“So strictly speaking the doctrine of the Trinity is a pagan concept. (LOL… that will get some of you riled up.)”
John, A few things:
First of all your comment sounds strangely like Servetus. :o) And you know what happened to him. He questioned the “A Trinity”. Not the concept of Yahweh, mind you. However, he and his writings were burned so we only have the notations of the star chamber trial and Calvin’s Defensio. (I might add that the OT communicates “The One True God” and then we know the Pagans called the Jews and Christians “Athiests” because they only had one God.
One thing I would like to add is that when we give ourselves permission to question the historical “councils of men”, which were political, then there is much freedom to question such things and even freedom to view Yahweh in a glorious way.
I am so glad you are not in danger of burning, imprisonment or even banishment for your comments here. But, I cannot promise you there won’t be charges of heresy. Some of our man made constructs are so ingrained we hardly know how to communicate without them. But those very ingrained constructs keep us in boxes constructed by man. If there is one word I have deleted from my personal lexicon it is “orthodox”. That, was freeing in and of itself.
LikeLike
“It is an uphill battle because everyone wants to concede equality of physical, metaphysical and epistemological value, but this must inexorably lead to equality with God in the same sense…and people are terrified to accept this.”
It goes back to what does it mean that both male and female were created in God’s Image. What does that mean? People are so preoccupied with the Fall (Separation from God) they ignore this part and the fact that the cross and resurrection reconciled us to God if we choose. Even while we live in corrupted bodies on a corrupted earth.
I would love to hear from folks what they think it means that we were created in the Image of God.
LikeLike
“And how many of them are experiencing spectacular public disasters, be they fringe (doug Wilson) or megachurch (james Macdonald).”
Here is my take on this. Without physical force it is hard to keep followers long term. People are fickle and if they are the follower type will simply find a new guru when the PR disaster hits.
“Your question about how the triune God fits in the 2nd worldview is exactly my question!!”
Problem is these are not sound bite discussions. They take a lot of time. But I will say that coming to the understanding that the OT was written as a contrast to the surrounding Pagan culture really helped me come to terms with so much of it and my understanding grew quite a bit. Those pagan constructs evolved into other constructs such as Greek Philosophy which I am just understanding how really ingrained it was even into tenure of Roman rule.
One thing is I am starting to think Pelagius got a bad rap from Augustine.
LikeLike
Hey Carmen,
Yes, I see that my answer was incomplete. Or maybe I didn’t understand the point you were making. As I read it … it seemed that you were saying … well at least implying that those of the Tony Miano ilk were in fact stupid. (Or if not stupid then maybe ignorant because the presumption of equality was in fact obvious to the “intelligent.”)
My reply was twofold—well it should have been two fold.
What I should have said is that it is easy to dismiss Tony’s doctrine as merely an outworking of his failed intelligence. But female/male equality (just like racial equality) is in fact a very vey new concept. That is the product of specifically Enlightenment ideals. And conversely “Doctrinal” inferiority has a long standing history driven by the intelligentsia. It isn’t stupidity (or ignorance) driving Tony Miano, It is a long standing, deeply rooted presumption about the nature of human existence.
So then my thesis is that to beat the Tony Miano “authority as truth” epistemological standard one must reject the root of the standard. One must be able to answer the question: “Why is Man’s epistemology effective.” And this of course means Man as a whole species, which would of course include women. Once this question is successfully answered then Joss Wheden’s question is in fact obvious to those with the same presumption of Aristotelian epistemology.
LikeLike
Here is another way to ask the same question. God created us equal and in His Image. So why did it take thousands of years after the separation for that truth to even be considered?
I do not think the answer is solely based on what we view as intelligence but also on the spiritual. Which should send chills down our spines. What else are we believing that is a direct contradiction to God just because it was announced as “orthodox” by guys with power titles?
LikeLike
http://paulspassingthoughts.com/2013/11/05/colonial-puritanism-was-commonly-known-as-platonic-christianity/
for those of you interested, here is the blog article I mentioned with the John Adams/Thomas Jefferson quotes on Plato.
LikeLike
“Carmen, your comment goes to one of my points: you presume that only “intelligent:” people presume equality. But historically the dividing line has been the philosophical: Enlightenment vs Dark Ages or Aristotle vs Plato. And it wasn’t until some of the most potent Enlightenment thinkers took Aristotelian thought to its logical conclusion that the concept of equality had any real political life. ”
John, I am a homeschool Mom… for history, we studied the Middle Ages last year & the enlightenment is EXACTLY what we are studying right now.
As a student, I was no lover of history. A bunch of boring facts & dates I had no patience for. Then I was forced into it. It was required teaching & I was the teacher! However, It’s a blessing, re-learning history has opened my eyes. It’s been an invaluable blessing at this point in my life as I have tried to make sense of what’s going on in American Christianity.
So, we learned about the middle/dark ages, the suffering, the socioeconomic positions people were born into/lived/died in. The majority of folks really looked to the after-world to end their suffering. They were just surviving. Their minds were on freedom & happiness, which wouldn’t occur in this life, but the next. Their minds were on death to relieve their suffering.
After the dark ages, the enlightenment period came next. It ushered in the idea of human ability. The idea of man to think, to solve problems, to solve problems in this life. Effort was focused on making this life better. A focus on ending suffering now. It was based on the idea that man CAN do good.
I see parallels today:
+ Those who are suffering are sometimes encouraged to “remove” themselves from this world or reality, & think about eternity instead. However, today is just as important as eternity & WE are to help them. And they can help themselves.
+ I see teaching that we are crap on God’s shoe. Broken. Depraved.
+ I see teachers teaching a feudal or caste system in Christianity. A hierarchy of control.
Many intelligents (college grads) misunderstand that we can’t have order & peace in churches & marriages without a hierarchy!
It really is enlightenment vs. dark ages thinking. It really isn’t a Biblical issue at all (meaning you don’t have to be a Christian to understand this). It’s an issue of humanity, kindness, love. Think of how far some “Christians” have strayed, that unbelievers totally get this, while these “Christians” are still…. in the dark.
LikeLike
“It really is enlightenment vs. dark ages thinking. It really isn’t a Biblical issue at all (meaning you don’t have to be a Christian to understand this). It’s an issue of humanity, kindness, love. Think of how far some “Christians” have strayed, that unbelievers totally get this, while these “Christians” are still…. in the dark.”
What a great way to put it. It is about the value and quality of human life on earth. Christians should’ve gotten that one. but it did not take long for the thirst of power and force to take over. Christian history is a bloody mess.
LikeLike
“It isn’t stupidity (or ignorance) driving Tony Miano, It is a long standing, deeply rooted presumption about the nature of human existence. ”
I agree.
And it’s also an issue of trust. And whether humans are capable of being trusted to begin with or are they monsters from birth.
What Miano is saying is NO. People are monsters from birth. So of course, women are not to be trusted. Which is why they need to be ruled, or why an authority needs to be in place. And his interpretation of the Bible will agree with him.
And this type of thinking is predictable. This thinking will always put itself above others. And others as less than. Female isn’t the real issue. It can be any issue, any topic. He will say he is right & point to the Bible to back him up. So the Bible isn’t the “authority”. In all actuality, he is the authority. He gets to do what he wants & call the shots because the Bible backs him up.
Love must be the only authority. And the Bible will always sing in harmony with love. God is love. When love is removed as the plumb line, it doesn’t really matter what the Bible says. You will be told you are a broken, depraved, a monster. And you need to submit.
LikeLike
A Mom & Lydia – I guess, for me, I cannot accept that any intelligent person – – no matter what they know of history, no matter what sex they are, no matter HOW they rationalize their beliefs — would have any philosophical stand but the one that recognizes equality for all people. It seems to me that if we don’t have this as our mantra all kinds of negative consequences follow. It matters not to me how it evolved, but that we believe it to be an intrinsic part of basic humanity.
LikeLike
Oh, Julie. Ugh … just ugh. I can’t even begin to digest Miano’s level of hypocrisy and his warped version of even the most strictly literal reading of Paul’s words. To me, he fails at every turn. Thank you for alerting me to this dialogue and situation, even though it is revolting and frustrating. I can’t help but imagine that there have to be complementarians out there cringing at his words as much as the egalitarians.
LikeLike
Carmen, that is ok. Just remember that guys like Tony appeal to a certain historical orthodoxy they claim as God’s law. And that law is we must interpret Paul for today. Paul was not writing to a 1st Century audience that viewed women as unequal, even chattel, but to us, today in 21st Century Free West. Never forget that “brilliant” men like James Boyce, educated at Princeton and founded SBTS, were pro slavery and said it was the biblical position.
Our point is to focus on WHY guys like Tony believe what they believe and point out how the root premise is really pagan….and evil.
LikeLike
Thanks for commenting, Tamara. Sadly, I have not seen anyone from the comp camp speak out against it.
LikeLike
Carmen,
I hear you. I know. How can someone who is intelligent buy into this stuff?
I had a rude awakening. There are educated, intelligent people who look for answers, of course, to suffering. One answer is that God ordains or is sovereign over it. I bought that for a short while, I’m ashamed to say. But thankfully I continued to think & remembered it isn’t compatible with who God is. God lets us decide & sometimes we decide wrong.
Back to God ordaining suffering. Once you buy that, the rest goes down easy. So you’re suffering from cancer? It’s meant to be. Be content in that. So you’ve lost your job? God ordained it. God has a plan for you. Spiritual abuse? God wants you to grow. Any difficulties? You’re right where God wants you to be. SUBMIT.
See it? There is an underlying theme here on what the “Biblical” solution is to suffering. And it isn’t action. It’s acceptance. Lay down & die.
It’s enlightenment vs. dark ages thinking. It’s life vs. death at the most basic level.
LikeLike
“Our point is to focus on WHY guys like Tony believe what they believe and point out how the root premise is really pagan….and evil.”
Yes, it is evil.
Anyone telling anyone else to submit, accept, suffer in the body of Christ is teaching death at a most basic level.
Sounds like the Doug Wilson chant. He: penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. Others: receives, surrenders, accepts.
LikeLike
“Sounds like the Doug Wilson chant. He: penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. Others: receives, surrenders, accepts.”
This message isn’t just for women. It’s for anyone who disagrees.
LikeLike
A Mom,
Re: your points on the Bible. The Bible can only be true insofar as it affirms the LIFE of man as THE context by which anything claimed to be TRUTH is vetted. If the Bible contradicts human individual life as the plumb line for TRUTH, then the Bible either a.) is not itself true, or b.) the interpretation of the bible is not true. Your analysis in this thread has been spot on.
It is important to remember that without man (and woman) their is no bible and there is no Messiah. For I submit that neither can precede man…yes, that means Jesus exists BECAUSE man exists FIRST.
LikeLike
I guess this a good spot for me to put in what I believe to be true – that the Bible is not the word of God, but the word of men. . men with an agenda, just like Miano’s. Which is why I refer to it as my ‘Least Favourite Fiction’. I’ll also repeat what I’ve said before – the people on this Blog, IMO, are good people with or without God. That’s why you ‘get it’.
LikeLike
carmen,
This is exactly what I think John Immel was saying. 🙂
People are good, know what good is, can do good. Which is the opposite of teaching that says people are depraved, broken, monsters. Which is why the submission comes into play. Due to color, gender, race, roles, tone of voice, stature, age, etc. You name it.
LikeLike
Lydia,
As for sounding like Michael Servitus. LOL I consider that great company. He was a brave man and displayed enormous courage . . . whatever the truth or error of his ideas he refused to bow to tyranny.
But I figure that if merely recounting the facts of reality brings the title “heritic” then the indictment is not of me but of the nature of Christian ideology.
“One thing is I am starting to think Pelagius got a bad rap from Augustine.”
Actually I went to a conference earlier this year and one of the speakers talked about Pelagius. He said that not only did he get a bad rap from Augustine, what he actually taught was suppressed by the Catholic Church. There are evidently recent historical finds that sheds a lot of light on Pelagius . . . I unfortunately didn’t get his source on this.
LikeLike
Hey A Mom…
I tell you what. You have come a long way. I remember reading some of your early comments on Paul’s blog when you were first wrestling with the ideas underlying tyranny . . . and the contrast between then and now is profound. It is very apparent that you have done a lot of work. You are articulating the crucial elements at the foundations of historic philosophy.
it is impressive and inspiring to read.
Keep going. We need people just like you in this dealeo.
LikeLike
Yes. I have wrestled with my own understanding. With what others say. With what the Bible means. I will not obediently take for fact what someone tells me just because they have a title. I don’t care about charisma, style, popularity. I want to know truth & right. Thank God for the internet.
As a result, I feel like I’ve been freed, again. Free to do right. Free to express myself. Free to disagree. Free to get to know God myself. I will continue to wrestle. I will not take my beliefs served to me in a ready-made systematic bundle. God does not fit into an easy peasy man-made system, IMO.
This sitting under & pastor over business in the body of Christ is somewhat new to me. The preoccupation with authority in church is growing, IMO. Authority. That’s the ONLY whip people use when they stop by to admonish us here: Who has control over someone & who doesn’t. And why aren’t you obeying/submitting to your pastor/elder/husband/me?
There are those who want to keep us from thinking, no doubt about it. I fear for those who don’t wrestle.
LikeLike
That’s a true statement.
LikeLike
No…the sermon reading will not be free….plus he needs $700 to get it going.
“Classic Sermons with Tony Miano
I’ve often been told I have a face for radio. Others actually believe I have the voice for it. I’ve been on radio, in one form or another, for the last eight years. I really love the medium. I really look forward to Sunday afternoons, when we broadcast Cross Encounters Radio.
Well, as if we aren’t busy enough, we’re kicking around the idea of having me make audio recordings of classic sermons by great preachers like Edwards, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, and others. The project, if we determine there will be an audience, will be called Classic Sermons with Tony Miano.
No, I won’t be doing impersonations of great preachers. I will simply read classic sermons, with the voice God has given me.
We estimate the start-up costs for this project will be approximately $700. This amount will cover the various pieces of equipment we will need to make studio quality recordings from home, using my computer. In the long run, this will be much less expensive than renting studio time to make the recordings.
Our hope is this project will also serve as a fundraiser for the ministry. We will likely ask for donations of $1-$2 per sermon download. Keep in mind, some individual sermons are longer than entire music albums.”
(Crossencounters Newsletter November 11, 2013 / Volume 2, Issue 36)
LikeLike
And…..
“What’s on the Calendar for 2014
I thought 2013 has been a busy year. Well, it appears the Lord has much more in store for me in 2014. Here are the trips I’ve already confirmed for next year.
Jan 5-14 Pert, Scotland
Jan 14-27 Stavanger, Norway
Feb 4-7 Escondido, CA
Mar 5-7 Sun Valley, CA
Mar 10-16 Redding, CA
Apr 6-19 Sydney, Australia
Jul 7-14 Calgary, Canada
Jul 18-28 Jakobstad, Finland
Aug 11-17 Beaverton, OR
Oct TBD St. Louis, MO
Nov – Will Not Travel, Staying Close to Home
Dec – Will Not Travel, Staying Close to Home
Other trips in the United States are in the works. They will be added to the calendar as soon as they are confirmed.”
(Crossencounters Newsletter November 11, 2013 / Volume 2, Issue 36)
It is too bad his wife cannot go with him as he sees the world. That is a nice vacation schedule right there. Scotland, Norway, Australia, Canada and Finland.
LikeLike
Diane – I saw that calendar. It looks like he will be visiting my former pastor in Beaverton as he did last summer. Remember Chuck O’Neal of Beaverton Grace Bible Church who decided that his ways were better than the Bible’s ways and sued 5 people, wasting probably close to $100K because he didn’t like people talking negatively about him – – – the same guy who lost his minister’s license and is currently in church discipline – – – Chuck O’Neal. Unreal.
LikeLike
LOL JA~
Of course I remember….the same CON who made Miano a missionary of his church!!
(And an adopted uncle to one of his family members.)
It’s a family reunion….that little trip in August.
LikeLike
Oh yes, how could I forget. But meanwhile, back at the ranch, Mrs. Mahria Miano will be working to bring home the bacon.
LikeLike
Miano, “Well, it appears the Lord has much more in store for me in 2014. Here are the trips I’ve already confirmed for next year.”
I’ve noticed Miano, when he writes/tweets, usually equates his personal decisions as ordained by God: “what the Lord has in store” and on & on.
Basically, he is of the mindset that his actions were predestined by God before the beginning of time. Get out of the way of God, folks! 😉
LikeLike
It’s hard to argue with God, isn’t it?
LikeLike
JA, I’ve noticed a double-standard with Miano.
In your August 25th post, you provided Tony’s tweet to a woman:
https://twitter.com/TonyMiano/statuses/371488888239312896
Tony does not respond the same way to the young lady in this post who “engaged a Christian man she didn’t know”. He actually thanks her for contacting him!!!
The “Moral of Miano”? If you disagree, submit to your authority pastor/husband. If you think Tony is your “authority”, by all means he’ll tell you what to do, in great detail. If you do what he says (submit to your pastor/husband), you’ll end up at his feet, where he WILL tell you what to do.
He is one of many with this type of morality. The morality of their own authority over others. Their mainly interested in their authority to tell everyone else what to do.
LikeLike
Shout out to fiat pax for putting the actual tweet in there. You’re awesome. 🙂
LikeLike
Ack, I have been meaning to mention it for a while, but keep forgetting. FP has decided to change direction for now, so he’s no longer helping out here, unfortunately. Bummer for me. We’re still in touch and he’s well, so that’s all good.
Anyway, I embedded it because I’m working on a quickie post. It’s too good to leave hidden in the comments.
LikeLike
Diane,
Scotland, Norway, Canada, Finland, Australia? And he begs for Walmart gift cards to buy groceries for his family, because it’s just sooooo tight this time of year? ROFL We’re in the wrong business! Maybe I should beg for Walmart gift cards, and save my grocery money for a nice overseas vacay. Hey, I’ll even visit a few churches while I’m there to validate it. How cheesy!
LikeLike
Glad he is well. You have a lot on your plate then. I don’t know how you do it.
You are totally awesome. 🙂
LikeLike
BTDT, Right! I don’t think he sees himself. I guess self-awareness isn’t necessary when you have the authority. Just keep the income flowing in, ya’ll wimmins.
LikeLike
Question–did Miano himself tweet that? Or did one of his associates do it? I don’t see a TM after the tweet. It’s confusing to know which ones technically originate from him.
LikeLike
Diane – if you are talking about his Aug. 25 tweet, that’s Tony. He hadn’t turned over his FB and Twitter account passwords yet.
LikeLike
Exactly BTDT and A Mom. Definitely we are in the wrong business.
What a great life he has chiseled…I mean God has chiseled out for him. God must really love him bunches to send him all over the world. His wife…not so much, imo. She must stay home and bring home the manly bacon that the patriarchs are supposed to be bringing home. I imagine she does it femininely enough, though. (sarcasm)
LikeLike
Thanks for clarifying that for me, JA. I was not sure. You are on it!!
LikeLike
Diane: I only know because I was part of that conversation and he hasn’t spoken to me publicly like that since he turned over his passwords.
LikeLike
wow this guy is amazing. I am sorry i missed this post Julie, where do you find these guys? speak 2 ur husband/pastor 2receive some clarity hahahahaa I think I snorted when I got to that tweet. 😀
LikeLike
@A Mom:
Wasn’t homosexual gang rape (“making a woman out of him” in prison parlance) a common way to put a defeated enemy in his place?
Public Rape: An ANIMAL’s forced-dominance display.
PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!
PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!
PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!
LikeLike
I don’t agree with Tony’s overall stance and I don’t care for some of his responses to JA, but I know this about Tony… He truly loves the Lord so much. He truly loves others. He is speaking out of genuine, personal conviction, and finally, he’d jump in front of bullet in a heartbeat for every single person on this thread – no matter what they’ve written. We may not agree with him on everything, but he’s a good man and more importantly, he’s our blood bought brother in Christ.
LikeLike
Well, Arclight, if he truly loves others, he has a very odd way of showing it. He has treated me and many other people so rudely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know, I saw the posts, hence, “I don’t care for some of his responses to JA…” and I am right there with you on your position regarding the topic at hand. Still, we all need grace. In spite of some ungracious words, he really is that man who would take the hit for us. I am beyond over some of the male egotism I see in the reformed church, but I also know none of us have it all down pat. None of us are fit for heaven yet. 🙂
LikeLike
I would challenge you on him being a man who would take the hit when he refuses to have a cordial conversation with a strangers who may question him or have a differing opinion. I’ve seen it countless times on Twitter and even in the videos he has published on YouTube. That behavior is wrong.
LikeLike
Maybe he’s really changed in the past few years. I hope not, but from what you are saying, its certainly possible. I’m so disappointed when I see Christian men online being rude or sarcastic, but I honestly see a good deal of it with Christian women too.
LikeLike
“Still, we all need grace. In spite of some ungracious words, he really is that man who would take the hit for us. I am beyond over some of the male egotism I see in the reformed church, but I also know none of us have it all down pat. None of us are fit for heaven yet. ”
Arclight, You have made some declarative statements here that need to be analyzed because they seem to be quite vague and really communicate nothing to back up your declarations.
We all need “grace”. How does this fit with what Tony has made his “spiritual focus”? Evidently, In his God construct, gender roles are salvic. Can you elaborate on what you mean by “grace”? Does it mean we do not analyze errant teaching or a public teachers behavior? Or how ungraceful these men have been toward JA? Tony is partnering with the reprobate “pastor” who sued her. How ungraceful can you get?
How do you know Tony would take a “hit” for any of us if there is no proof? His consistent behavior demeaning others communicates something different. Yet, I am to believe you?
Arclight, your comments are what really scare me the most about what is passing for Christendom out there. You like Tony, so you are willing to overlook his public consistent teaching and behavior to defend what you think you know about him. This is non thinking and I beg you to stop it.
As to “none of us are fit for heaven yet”……this is the most confusing drivel I have ever heard. If we are “not fit” we will not spend eternity with our Savior. If you think this life is NOT a preparation for living with our Savior, then you don’t have a clue. His will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven. If you believe in the determinist god then you won’t get this and I pray that will change. There are saints “fit for heaven” who die every day. We must grow in Holiness. Your declarative statement does nothing but excuse deception and evil for believers here and now. It is not a good thing.
“
LikeLike
Lydia, I don’t have the time I had last night to respond, but you have said some things about me personally now and I hope you can reread them and see the very assumptions ad ungraciousness that Tony has apparently shown in recent years. The very things you don’t like. We all need grace. We are all being sanctified. All of our worthiness depends on Christ alone and no merit of our own. I am not defending the things Tony has said recently. I’m very disappointed in what I have read. I simply added another side to it. How we as women present ourselves online is just as relevant as how the men present themselves. You don’t know my story, nor my theology or the innumerable ways I have personally been hurt by some of these men – but I’m not going to fuel their fire against women bloggers by using sarcasm and venting my anger in an unhealthy way for all to see. I look at these things objectively. I can see why they say some of the things they say about women. That doesn’t mean that I agree with them or that I don’t think they also need to look at the whole picture, but here is an example – you have basically implied that my faith is false by saying it is what passes for Christendom. You have also used the term “drivel” to describe what I wrote. Isn’t this the very thing you don’t like? That’s rhetorical – but please consider it. We all need grace – I’m a sinner. You are. Tony is. But I would guess you also have very good qualities and wouldn’t discount those things for anything. After all – even though you were unkind, as has been Tony, you are sincerely trying to earnestly contend for the faith as you see it – as is Tony. I can see that. We need balance. We need to extend a little grace – we received a great deal. No, that doesn’t mean we say something is okay that’s not okay… But should any of us throw the baby out with the bathwater? Jesus didn’t.
LikeLike
I posted this over at TWW and wanted to post it here, too. It’s related to the thread topic here.
——————–
Regarding the link Deb and Dee placed on the top of the home page,
Someone left this post on the page, which I thought was very astute:
It is strange and, IMO, anti- biblical, that some Christians obsessively focus on the whole “biblical manhood and womanhood” thing.
You have this guy Julie Anne debates with at her blog [or on Twitter], who has written books where he constantly wrings his hands in worry that Christian women are “not being feminine” or, are in ‘danger of giving away their femininity.’
This guy has said that while he once supported women in “open air preaching,” he is now against it, or he’s against women “authoritatively” answering men in blogs, lest they ‘lose their femininity’ in the process.
How does one ‘lose her femininity’? Even if you, a woman, answer a guy “authoritatively” (I’m not sure what that even really means), you still retain your female gender-ness; you do not turn into a man physically.
I think these sorts of guys define “femininity” not by the Bible alone, but based upon their viewing of secular pop culture, 1950s TV sit com, American nuclear family, Brady Bunch / Leave It To Beaver scenario, where the woman is married, she wore pearls while mopping the floor, stayed at home all day, dad went to his 9 to 5 office job, and she had cookies waiting on the counter for her kids when they got home from school.
Why is this guy bickering with Julie Anne (and those like him) so fixated on what I, or other women, do or do not do?
What’s it to him if I blog, open air preach, practice karate, go kayaking, watch TV, collect stamps, or play tiddly winks or do whatever?
Why does this guy think he, or any other man, gets to draw the line at what is or is not “feminine,” or if something I do or think is not “feminine enough.”
Shouldn’t a woman be allowed to dictate what the parameters of what femininity are, (if there should be any)? Why do men get to define womanhood for women?
Would these men enjoy women defining what constitutes manhood for Christian men, and also telling them not to step outside of those lines?
How about if I state that it is not biblical manhood for a man to correct a woman on a blog or to debate her, ever, for any reason?
Off the top of my head, about the only verse these types of guys can draw from is the one about women learning in meekness and quietness and having a gentle spirit, but what do they do with all the verses and stories of women in the Bible who were vocal, who were not gentle all the time, who stood up to men with God’s approval, who led men, who taught men?
The Bible does not present a one dimensional, flat, portrayal of one, and only one, acceptable way of being a woman, so I’m more than tired of some religious guys trying to tell us, “it is wrong for a woman to do X, but she may do Z.”
And they can’t even always agree on the rules.
Some of the gender complementarians say,
“I think it’s wrong for a woman to do ‘X,’ unless in situations 1, 2, 3,”
while another guy will say,
“No, it’s always wrong for women to do X,”
while yet another male gender complementarian will say,
“It’s okay for women to do X, but only under conditions a, c, and sometimes q, or q is okay if her husband permits her.”(*)
*(single women need not apply)
Anyway, there is something wrong with Christians (and it’s usually males, it seems) who are forever fixated on gender roles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like Romans 16. That chapter says a lot regardless of how I have heard it discounted by some men. These women were not just changing diapers in the nursery. But why these men say some of the things they do is obvious. They truly believe they are contending for the faith regarding this secondary issue – just like we do.
LikeLike
@ Gary who said,
Yes, this really bothers me.
These Christian men think they are defending the Bible or the faith against secular feminism, but they are really upholding sexism and are being sexist.
How they treat and view women is in marked difference from how Jesus Christ treated women, but they don’t seem to notice or care about that, or they try to define their sexism as being for a woman’s own good.
Some of these groups, especially the patriarchy endorsers, really think women are less than males… some of them teach that because women are only “indirectly” created from males (Eve was made from Adam’s rib) that women are therefore not as fully human, or something.
But the Bible does not make that qualification or distinction, as it simply says (paraphrasing), “both male and female did He create them.”
Genesis does not say, “Because Eve was made from Adam’s rib, and not fully from the dust of the ground as was he, she is therefore lesser than Adam in some way.”
It’s also ironic that this gesture, which I think was meant by God to show that males and females need each other, that they are inter-dependent, and are equally created in God’s image (God made them both, whether by dirt or by rib), that the gender comps perversely twist this all around to make it the opposite of what it is: to say females are not as human, or not as much as much in God’s image, as are males.
It is so perverse how they twist Scripture to support their sexism.
I think these guys are more concerned with holding on to privilege and perks, in what holding women down can bring to them, than anything. There’s more power and benefits for them if they keep all the goodies for themselves and they therefore make up Bible twisting rationalizations to keep women out of positions of authority or influence.
What’s even sadder is that most women are not interested in power pe se – these guys will say women who debate them are trying to “usurp male authority,” when most do not care about that all all; they are asking for an equal place at the table, but even that is perceived or depicted as “women trying to steal man’s authority.”
Well, why are these guys so obsessed with holding on to their (supposed) God given authority?
Jesus Christ told His followers, “the Gentiles lord authority over one another, that shall not be the case with you,” and, “whoever wants to be the greatest must be the servant of all.” If you are trying to protect what you feel is your God given authority, or arguing that the wimmin folk are trying to steal it, you have already disobeyed the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Anyhow, yes, I think these guys are sexist. I’d say most of them are probably not racist against black people (which is good, of course), but they are fine with discriminating against people based on gender.
Even more disorienting for me is that there is a black gentlemen, I think he’s Reformed? (Thabiti Anyabwile), who points out racism of white (usually Reformed/ or Vision Forum) guys on his blog when he sees it, but, he defends limiting women based on gender complementarian views.
He’s against discrimination based on skin color but will defend it if it’s based on gender. Most remarkable and sadly ironic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh. P.S. based on my post above, where I said,
Shouldn’t a woman be allowed to dictate what the parameters of what femininity are, (if there should be any)? Why do men get to define womanhood for women?
BTW, is Miano not in error for instructing a young woman about anything? The Bible says something like “let older women instruct younger women.”
Is Miano a man or an older woman?
He’s not an older woman, so he should not be advising young women. He is in violation of the Bible. ha ha.
Titus 2:
According to Titus 2, instructing younger women is a duty for older women, not for men. Miano is not qualified to be telling a female university student if, when, or how she may blog.
LikeLike
Julie Anne asked,
Most excellent point.
I also wonder, given the New Testament comments about older women urging or leading younger women, why a man thinks it’s his place to tell a younger woman what to do or how to act?
But your point is very good too, and points out the hypocrisy and other double standards these guys hold.
LikeLike
Diane said,
I used to have a friend, mostly on the internet, though we did phone each other so often (he committed suicide years ago), who was a gender complementarian.
He pretty much despised Christian gender egalitarianism, or strongly disliked it, and when he saw I was drifting that way more and more, he would go on about how it’s wrong for a woman to be in charge, or be feminist, etc.
He assumed any person who rejects the gender comp view was influenced by secular feminism.
He also seemed a little against women who did not care to live out the 1950s “Leave It To Beaver” type of model. He seemed to feel it’s a woman place to be a wife and mother, and to have a husband who has a job and supports everyone.
I asked him how he could reconcile his views, considering he lived with and off his grandmother into his late twenties!
When he got married in his late 20s, his wife’s job paid their rent and other bills (he did not get a job until a year or so into their marriage, and even then, I think his wife was the primary bread winner, as his little part time job was minimum wage). Even after they married, I think his wife, in addition to holding a job, also cooked all their dinners at home.
I think his grandma used to do his meals and laundry for him, too, before he married and was living with her.
Here he was living off and depending on women, but then criticizing women for not being dependent on men.
The guy had mental health issues, which was evident in the years before he killed himself, and I think those problems prevented him from holding down a full time job.
I’m not against the fact he had problems or relied on his grandma and wife as a result (I’m sympathetic about his mental problems), but the double standard he had in the midst of that about gender roles grated on my nerves like you would not believe.
How could he dictate that women be nothing but stay at home mothers, rely on a spouse, not lead or teach men in church, etc. – but here he was, living off the women in his life? 🙄
He was not practicing what he preached to me. He, a man, was first supported by his grandma and later, by his wife.
LikeLike
Diane quoting Miano,
Holy cow, dude has no shame.
Would he turn down gift cards supplied by females who earned them from their jobs?
You notice there are no stipulations, or I did not see any. He does NOT state, “By the way, if you are a woman, please do not send me a gift card.”
So I am assuming he is fine with taking money/gift cards from women. So he can shut his pie hole about what he thinks women can or cannot do concerning preaching, bloggging, whatever else, or what is or is not feminine.
Even though I’ve grown more egalitarian in my views as I’ve gotten older, I have a hard time with the notion of men taking money off women (not that I am against a situation where a husband gets laid off, so the couple HAS to rely on the wife’s income, I understand that). I was brought up in a traditional family where my father supported us all.
I’ve seen boyfriends and husbands financially exploit my sister and other female relatives (including some men who would not get jobs and help pay bills at all, some would take their tiny incomes and instead of helping pay bills, would buy “toys” for themselves, etc.)
My ex fiance exploited me financially.
So, this might be one of the few issues I am a bit of a hypocrite on, but I had it deeply ingrained in me by my family that one aspect of a guy being a “real man,” a man being respectable, is supporting his family or wife, and not to leech or beg money off women.
It’s funny this guy dictates what he thinks women may or may not do in life, but I guess he does not have a problem taking money from them, women he does not even know or is not related to.
LikeLike
“Women are not required to submit to men in general, just their husbands ( which they should get to pick out themselves ! )”
And remember, I’m in my 40s, a woman, and I’ve never married. Some women choose not to marry, or due to circumstances, just never marry.
Ephesians says all believers are to submit to each other. That verse is always ignored. I don’t share the interpretation of “wife submitting to husband” to mean that the husband is the “boss” of the wife, but it’s often portrayed that way by gender comps.
There is no verse in the Bible, outside of the general “everyone submit to each other” ones, saying un-married women such as me are to submit or be under any man in authority, but the gender comps pervert their gender role views to try to extend the rules to even single women.
LikeLike
Someone said,
That is true, but I feel the need when I see these sorts of comments to mention that people do have self control.
It’s not true that males and females cannot be friends, that friendship always leads to sex, etc.
One stereotype of men among Christians (and even Non Christians) is that they cannot “help themselves.” That is a cop out. Yes, males can control themselves. They don’t have to have affairs or rape women.
Single women are depicted (even in Christian preaching and literature) as being man stealing, over sexed hussies.
I am over 40 and still a virgin because I was waiting for marriage to have sex, so in all honesty, what chance do you really think there is that I would bed a married guy at this point in life?
My sexual ethics are pretty strict and higher than even a lot of married Christians, but still, it’s assumed by some Christians that all single women are harlots with men, we cannot be trusted.
I’ve had married men who I was having platonic, nice chit chats with on Christian forums cut me off after awhile because they “didn’t want anything to happen,” or they claimed they “were afraid what the wife must think.” All of which I found insulting.
First off, I did not find these men physically attractive (for the ones who did post photos in their forum avatars) and would not reproduce with them if we were the last two people on the planet (or if they were single), and secondly, they just assume I am so loose I would fall into bed with them, or would not be able to help myself.
LikeLike
I agree with 99% of your comment except the part where we don’t need men to act like men. We most certainly do. Jesus is THE MODEL of a TRUE man- so every professing Christian man should strive to become the ‘man’ he was.
LikeLike
john said,
Christians believe that God instructs them via the Bible. Many Christians are sola scriptura.
In the pages of the Bible itself, is the idea that God is the ultimate or final authority on all things, and to learn about him and what he thinks, Christians are to utilize the Scriptures, which become another sort of authority in spiritual matters.
I’m not sure I buy into this idea you seem to be putting forth that because some Christians disagree on some topic or another that this automatically should invalidate an ‘appeal to authority,’ or the use of the Bible as an authority, or the Holy Spirit.
(I hope you are not trying to stealth argue that because Baptists and Protestants cannot always agree on everything that we should all convert to Roman Catholicism and adhere to Roman Catholic authority, ie, Papal decrees (ex cathedra) or Magisterium biblical intepretations?)
The Bible itself says that humanity’s reasoning, will, and/or intellect has been tainted by sin.
There are many Bible verses which touch upon that, as well as some of the other topics you raised, such as…
Romans 12:2
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will.
1 Cor 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
Jesus Christ, in debates with Satan and Pharisees, appealed to the written word as authoritative, e.g.,
Luke 4:8
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'”
Matthew 19:4 (referring to Genesis when talking to religious leaders)
And he [Jesus] answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made [them] from the beginning made them male and female…
Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Revelation 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
2 Cor 4.4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Romans 1
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
2 Cor 11
For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
2 Corinthians 3:14
But their [Jews who rejected Jesus] minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.
LikeLike
Amen and Amen!!!
LikeLike
Allie said,
BeenThereDoneThat –
I was brought up Baptist, but there are Pentecostals and some Methodists in the family tree.
I don’t mean to put down all Methodists everywhere, or anything, but I have seen some of the most intense hostility against Baptists by Methodists.
I had a friend who converted from Baptist to Methodist who likes to put down Baptists, even though she knows that is the flavor of Christian I am.
And that despite the fact I have never insulted Methodists with her or anyone.
I had a friend who was a Methodist who HATED Baptists, and in his e-mails over the years, would never cease to remind me of how awful Baptists were.
I stayed silent for about a year, but I could no longer take the anti Baptist bashing he kept doing in his e mails to me (which I did nothing to provoke or start) and asked him in an e mail,
“Have you forgotten that myself and your other pal Frank, who I am dating, who you introduced me to, are Baptists??????”
So this friend writes back and was all like,
“Yeah, I know you and Frank are Baptists. I don’t mean you two specifically. You guys are okay. But Baptists are jerks, blankety blanks, judgment idiots, and mean to Roman Catholics, and my mom is a catholic, and baptists are the scum of the earth, I cannot stand Baptists!! Baptists are uneducated, stupid, mean, rude….” (etc etc etc)
I sat there with my mouth open. He was a Methodist. (I think he later changed denoms to something else and flipped back to Methodist.) But I had to take regular Baptist slamming attitudes from this guy for a few years, and I was a Baptist (and I never once criticized Methodists, even to him, and not even in reply to his Baptist hating).
LikeLike
Yes- of COURSE we are to both emulate Jesus. That’s a given.
LikeLike
Argo said,
Er, maybe that is frou frou intellectualizing and the point is sailing right over my head, or in a round about way you are saying Jesus had to become incarnate to save sinful man, but the cults teach that Jesus was created and not the eternal Son of God.
The Bible paints a picture that there was God in eternity, who then created angels, who then rebelled, and then God created mankind. (Jesus came first, not humanity.)
John 1,
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.
John 8:
LikeLike
“For I submit that neither can precede man…yes, that means Jesus exists BECAUSE man exists FIRST.”
Daisy references Scripture from which I suppose it is safe to say that the Word is eternal. Jn 1:14 goes on to say that “the Word became flesh.” Psalm 2:27 and Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 speak of the Son having been begotten. It may have been from these verses that Miguel Servetus argued to the effect that Jesus as the Word is eternal, while His sonship is not. Rather, Jesus became Son at a point in time, specifically at His conception as the son of Mary. Certainly Scripture does not refer to the eternal Son.
Trouble is, Servetus was burned at the stake, ostensibly (though not actually) for his heresy.
Frou frou intellectualizing? Maybe. However, if one is willing to entertain a distinction between the eternal Word and the begotten-in-time Son, it makes it much easier accept the Shema at face value, without resort to a fair modicum intellectual gymnastics: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Deuteronomy 6:4, ESV)
O.K. That was off topic, except maybe by way of making the point that, while I endeavor to take Scripture at face value, I do not take anything said by the likes of Tony Miano, or any other man, as authoritative and beyond dispute. I have come to realize that even the great creeds are subject to the injunction to test everything. 1 Thessalonians 5:21.
LikeLike
“You like Tony, so you are willing to overlook his public consistent teaching and behavior to defend what you think you know about him. This is non thinking and I beg you to stop it.”
This is such a dangerous trap. This is what has happened with people who turn a blind eye to CON, CJ Mahaney, and I also mentioned this on the Doug Phillips thread. We must be careful about not letting our “like” blinding us from the reality of the evident fruit.
LikeLike
Daisy,
Please don’t take my reference to Methodists as endorsement. Abuse exists in every denomination. I am simply stumped at this point in time for any institutional church to attend. Currently, the individuals we know who have displayed mercy, long suffering, and kindness happen to be Methodist. So, I simply pay attention when I read something regarding the Methodist church. Truth is I may never again attend another church. I’m simply burned out. I will probably always consider myself a believer, and enjoy the fellowship, albeit virtually, with other believers of any denomination.
LikeLike
JA, You quoted Lydia’s comment to me, but it was an assumption on her part. She also assumed my faith is that which simply passes for Christendom. She assumes a lot about me using one comment I have made – THAT is the trap. We also must not let the opposite of what you wrote be true. Because we don’t like something, should we be blinded to absolutely anything that may be good? We don’t like what he has written – we can all agree on that. He has made some ugly comments, etc in the past few years – most unfortunate, but our being sarcastic, judgmental, snarky because we don’t like someone who is being sarcastic, etc. makes no sense at all. I am not referring to you specifically – but about many of the comments on this thread. It cuts both ways. I’m not talking about turning a blind eye, but our enemy is not flesh and blood.
LikeLike
A note from Spurgeon:
“The Lord is slow to anger,” because He is GREAT IN POWER. He is truly great in power who hath power over himself. When God’s power doth restrain Himself, then it is power indeed: the power that binds omnipotence is omnipotence surpassed. A man who has a strong mind can bear to be insulted long, and only resents the wrong when a sense of right demands his action. The weak mind is irritated at a little: the strong mind bears it like a rock which moveth not, though a thousand breakers dash upon it, and cast their pitiful malice in spray upon its summit. God marketh His enemies, and yet He bestirs not Himself, but holdeth in His anger.
LikeLike
Arclight, when I posted that comment, I was not directing it to you personally, but making a general statement of what I have seen time and again.
LikeLike
Lydia . . . unfortunately a lot of comments have passed since you made the observation that Arclight’s comments needed to be evaluated, so my thoughts might be a little late to the party. But you are correct . . . they do … comments that absolve the philosophical assumptions that Tony Miano is offering to the world as divine inspiration must be address thoroughly refuted for the disaster they represent.
Arclight said: “I don’t agree with Tony’s overall stance and I don’t care for some of his responses to JA, but I know this about Tony… He truly loves the Lord so much. He truly loves others.”
Analysis: The need to distance herself from Tony’s intellectual conclusions revealing but I want to draw your attention to an implicit conflict in Tony’s two loves: “Love of the Lord” and “Love” of other people.
Let me preface by saying this. Love is merely an expression of values. A person loves what he values, and what he values is determined by context and is therefore hierarchical. For example you might LOVE peanut butter on a jelly sandwich, but you don’t value peanut butter over say your ten year old, because presumably the ten year old has a higher value than the peanut butter. This is but one example of the basic principle that value is contextual, and by the nature of context determines the relationship to higher values.
So it is a problem to speak of “love” generally because it is impossible to VALUE generally. It is impossible to say you love the lord, love people and love peanut butter generally.
So then Arclight’s comment begs the question how does Tony “value” the lord? Well, such values must be expressed in context to something. So the only way to do that is to take on the “lords” values.
Where do those values come from?
That is a great question that might yield many different answers. But here is what we do know. Tony Miano has decided that the “lord” has declared authority as a value. More specifically that Maleness is a predicate to authority and female subordination as a primary value. Since he “loves the Lord” it follows that Tony values authority in service to his love of the “lord.” Therefore, since Tony believes that the “Lord” told him—however that happens in his mind—that women should shut up and sit down he demonstrates his “Love” by telling women what the “lord” said.
And herein is the implicit conflict. In as much as Tony’s Love of the lord is the highest value he will subordinate his love for people accordingly, which is of course why he can, without a blush of embarrassment demand female subordination.
Well, if you are a woman, his love for you is entirely subordinated to his quest for authority. So in context women are second to authority. This means that whatever his “love” for people, he subordinates them on the value hierarchy scale below his “love of the lord.”
Then the question that must be asked then is what else will Tony Miano subordinate to is “Love of the Lord?”
Arclight said: “He is speaking out of genuine, personal conviction, and finally, he’d jump in front of bullet in a heartbeat for every single person on this thread – no matter what they’ve written. “
Analysis: The first part of this sentence presumes is that “personal conviction” is the defining measure of truth. And this really makes the nature of truth subjective. As long as you have “genuine personal conviction” it doesn’t really matter how factual, reasonable or logical a doctrine is.
So what Arclight really said is this: Because Tony Miano “genuinely” believes what he is saying, he can’t be criticized for his rational errors.
That should fill everyone with shivers and shakes.
The second part of the sentence ascribes to Tony the highest ethical action e.g. he is the greatest altruist. He would die for people “No matter what they have written,” which means he would die even for people who were mean to him.
This is of course the full disaster of altruist thinking on parade. Altruism says that man’s highest ethical action is sacrifice for other men. And so by extension because Tony Miano would “take a bullet” he is of the highest moral stature. This is of course all rubbish. Man gains no moral virtue by merely wishing. And you can’t confer moral status on another human being with a magic wand. Ethical action is just that . . . Action. And it is a specific kind of action: Action tied to values.
And the action we have seen Tony take is contained in his response to Julie Ann. His stated ethical standard is not his willingness to take a bullet, but rather the demand for female subordination. I said this before the appeal to authority is the appeal to government, and the appeal to government is really the appeal to force. It is the expectation that government has the power to compel subordination and compelling subordination is really tantamount to advocating slavery. And some people already keyed in to the similarities between doctrinal racism and doctrinal sexism. They are exactly right. Tony is openly advocates gender slavery. There is no morally redeeming quality in this.
Arclight said: “We may not agree with him on everything, but he’s a good man and more importantly, he’s our blood bought brother in Christ.”
Analysis: “We don’t have to agree on everything.” Of course we don’t have to agree on “EVERYTHING” most people would concede that truism. This post is not about “everything”. This post is a specific evaluation of Tony Miano’s doctrine regarding women and biblical authority and how that DOCTRINE impacts how he treated another human being.
And this directly impacts the definition of being a GOOD man. The question is by what standard is Tony Good? What is the ethical criteria we are using to measure that good? If the definition of good is merely how passionate he is about his doctrine then maybe he is “good”. IF the definition of good is demanding the intellectual subordination of women is Good, then maybe he is good. But if the definition of good is rational equality, and individual liberty then Tony Miano’s doctrine is an unrelenting evil which means he is NOT good.
Arclight sad: “Still, we all need grace. In spite of some ungracious words, he really is that man who would take the hit for us. I am beyond over some of the male egotism I see in the reformed church, but I also know none of us have it all down pat. None of us are fit for heaven yet. :)”
Analysis: This is what Arclight is really saying. We are all evil, the nature of our evil means we believe wrong things and since none of us can claim moral value we should grant Tony a pass.
Beyond the truly disastrous soteriology (. . . None of us are fit for heaven yet. :)) beware if the appeal to moral equivalency: we are all just sinners so no one judge anyone of anything.
It is comments like this that convince me that the doctrine of pervasive depravity is merely the flip side of the antinomian coin. The antinomian say there is no moral standard. The pervasive depravity people say man can’t keep a moral standard. The end of both perspectives is the same: ethics is meaningless.
When someone says that we are all just sinners therefore no one is qualified to judge know that they are really advocating the wreckage of all moral action. It is a demand that we all abandon critical thinking in the name of virtue.
This is disaster. Man cannot live without critical thinking, he can’t live without judgment, and he most certainly can’t live without moral action. So Arclight’s appeal to moral equivalency—is really an appeal to our collective death.
LikeLike
Hey Miss Daisy flower…
Not sure what there is to “buy into” and I’m not sure where the stealth is . . . . I’ve been making these same observations on my blog for the better part of 8 years.
In context to this issue, I’m merely pointing out that if “authority” is the plumb line of truth then the only real discussion is WHO has authority …. Reason, facts, logic are irrelevant to the discussion. And if this is true then there is no such thing as rational equality. Meaning, I don’t care how many scriptures you THINK you understand if you are not the authority your conclusions are disqualified.
And the moment we start disqualifying rational equality in the name of “Biblical authority” then whey isn’t Tony Miano is correct in his assertion? It isn’t like he has to make up his doctrine. He can proof text female intellectual subordination just like you did in your comment. So whose proof texts are the right ones? Who has the authority to decide?
LikeLike
Arclight,
You quote Spurgeon as saying ““The Lord is slow to anger,” because He is GREAT IN POWER.” Aside from the fact that it is surely love, not power, that drives God’s slowness to anger, I’m not sure I am following your point. Are you saying that those of us who are angered by Miano’s views on and treatment of women are un-Godly because we are not slow to anger?
Also, if you are up to it, what is your response to johnimmel’s brilliant observations at 8:13 PM? I suspect you will agree with a large part of what he says, but I also rather expect you could counter him on a number of points.
LikeLike
Hi Gary,
Well, one would certainly really need to be “up to it” to respond to John’s “brilliance” but I am a single mom and I don’t have the kind of time he seems to have. 😉
I have said a number of times that I disagreed with Tony’s position on this but John has extrapolated the meanings of some pretty simple statements to the point that it is clear he must know me better than I know myself. Maybe better than God does. Hence, the problem on both sides – ratcheting stuff out about the entirety of a person based on theological differences – (and I DO realize that Tony has been unkind in his words as of the past year or so in some cases and believe me, that kills me – but I find it more important to pray for him now that I have learned that than to attack him). Its very interesting to be “analyzed” by someone like John who has never met me and hasn’t ask me to clarify a single thing, so I will repeat – I disagree with Tony’s stance on this. And I agree with those who genuinely want to defend women in this regard. Nonetheless – I have no respect for online ranting, spewing, sarcasm, and such no matter what the topic is or who it is about. I will guess that maybe no one actually writing here has ever met Tony in person or seen him outside of this context. I have spent time with him, but it was when he allowed women to street preach, so obviously a lot has changed. I am grieved at what I have learned about him here, but that doesn’t mean I will attack him, slander him, or anything like that. Even he he DOES do that to others, should we do the same? If people say this behavior is what they hate about him, why on earth would they turn around and do what they say they hate? I DO see the pride, I DO see the arrogance, but I see it on ALL sides. So about the anger – Jesus was reviled and did not revile in return. Its HIS approval that I want and not man’s. So, no… I am not saying that anyone is ungodly because they are angry with Miano’s views. I am simply saying that he’s not an evil villain and we can disagree with him and do so strongly without bringing reproach on the name of Christ in the process. Again, we know that our enemy is not flesh and blood. Don’t we? Tony is not the problem. The book is merely a symptom of a much, much larger problem. I loathe and despise the boys’ club mentality in the reformed church more than I can say and have been personally very hurt by some in that crowd, BUT to spew online? Not only would that be a quick check to see that something would be very wrong with me spiritually speaking, its just seriously lacking in judgment.
Now Gary, all that said – (Dear John, try not to read so much into all this ;)) I do like the polite manner in which you inquired of me. Unless you were being sarcastic (I choose to believe the best – call me crazy), you came across as genuine and sincere and I really appreciate that.
I’m not going to be able to devote much more time to this thread.
Blessings.
LikeLike
Arclight,
Thank you for your thoughtful and well considered response. While I do not enjoy having it suggested that I have participated in “online ranting, spewing, sarcasm, and such,” I think there is some truth in the suggestion. My hope is that any online ranting, spewing, sarcasm, etc. on my part have been directed at actions and false teaching rather than at the people Jesus Himself referred to as wolves, pigs, vipers, whitewashed tombs and hypocrites. To tell you the truth, I deem those who make themselves enemies of women to be enemies of the One who died for women as well as men. We are commanded to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. I submit that I can do these things while at the same time calling out their error. I may in the process appear to be mocking the wolves and not just their ideas. But then again, maybe some felt they were being mocked by Jesus Himself when he admonished people to take the log out of their own eye before attempting to remove a mote out of the eye of another.
LikeLike
I’m not understanding this, Arclight. It sounds like you are saying that Tony is a victim. Are you saying Tony is not choosing his own words when he engages people?
LikeLike
Hi Gary,
I was not referring to you regarding the sarcasm, etc., but regarding some of the other comments I had read. I’d love to say I was never sarcastic, etc. but that would be far from true. That said, I do recognize it as a sinful response and at least while taking the time to write online, I can slow down a bit and really think through my choice of words and their impact. I have to ask God’s forgiveness a great deal, so I hope I am not coming off as judgmental, but simply as one who is urging caution for us all. Something to consider is that this blog and others like it attract the spiritually abused. Courteous, respectful, polite and solution oriented online conversations make it a much “safer” place for these people to find fellowship and engage in a way that honors Christ.
Hi Julie Anne,
I’m not implying Tony is a victim, but that we need to look beyond the personalities to see the reality of what is behind all this in order to engage effectively. When we do that, we can engage in real solutions beginning with prayer and recognizing our own need for humility.
LikeLike
I agree with you in part, but in reality, how does one engage effectively if he has virtually shut down conversation by blasting me with words that I need to repent, etc.
My initial correspondence was a sincere attempt to warn him that having ties with my former pastor could be dangerous to his ministry – – – and to ask if he want to be connected to a man who sued people, had his license revoked.
Since that time, any dialogue we have exchanged has been met with the same hostility.
LikeLike
Arclight,
I can see that courteous, respectful, polite and solution oriented online conversation make sense for those who have not themselves been abused. But what about those who have been abused? What about those who deeply identify with those who have been abused? To heap an expectation of such congeniality on them comes across as just one more attempt to enforce an insidious and all too commonly imposed do-not-talk rule. Whether or not abuse is intended (and you certainly do not intend it), to be told, in effect, to stifle the expression of trauma-induced pain will be experienced as just one more instance of trauma-inducing abuse.
It has been said that we repress to express. I contend that anger must be expressed. If it is not, it will eventually, at an unexpected time, come out sideways, thereby doing great damage to all concerned.
Doubtless there are both healthy and unhealthy ways of expressing anger, but not just anybody is qualified to counsel victims of spiritual abuse on the matter. For one thing, not everybody can be heard. Only those who have themselves been victimized can be heard. Maybe non-victims who have taken the time to listen and listen deeply can contribute, but they will never have the credibility of actual victims who have walked through trauma to healing and wholeness.
None of this is intended to criticize you, but maybe it will help you to understand why you are getting some pushback.
So, here’s my suggestion: Hang around. Contribute. Show us by example how you would communicate. Bite your tongue when others are less congenial than you yourself choose to be. Do not lecture or admonish. At least do not do so until you have become a recognized part of the SSB community. It will then be much easier for others to receive what you have to say, although even then I would encourage caution. Sometimes suggestions are best put in the form of cautious questions, questions that leave room for the possibility that the questioner may not possess all the answers.
Hope this helps.
LikeLike
Oh, I meant engage here with each other in order to encourage each other despite teachings like his. The book is not going to disappear, but we can encourage other women who are confused, etc. about it. As far as engaging with anyone who is being hostile, my experience tells me to disengage. Once you have laid out the concern, like with your former pastor, and the warning goes unheeded, you have done what you can and the burden is on the other person. Staying engaged when its not going well, however well intentioned, tends to minimize the real problem and take away from the need for the other person to really think things through. I don’t see this doctrine regarding women going away any time soon so I think we need to stay spiritually healthy and not get sucked into debates that go nowhere. That way we can focus on the ones that God does bring onto our path and help and encourage them as much as possible. So, for clarity, I am not saying we should not engage in a healthy debate – but if it gets unhealthy, we move on. If that doesn’t make sense – allow me one more cup of coffee. 🙂
LikeLike
” Once you have laid out the concern, like with your former pastor, and the warning goes unheeded, you have done what you can and the burden is on the other person. Staying engaged when its not going well, however well intentioned, tends to minimize the real problem and take away from the need for the other person to really think things through.”
I don’t know. Maybe this makes sense if the issue is private, affecting only the parties to the conversation. I contend that Julie Anne, and others, are well advised to carry on — not by way of attempting the impossible task of turning wolves into sheep (only Jesus can accomplish that), but by way of warning, encouraging, and even arming others. I see it as a prophetic role (although I am not necessarily claiming that Julie Anne is a prophet — she certainly is not one in the Old Testament sense of the term).
LikeLike
Arclight,
By the way, although I am disagreeing with you, you do make sense. Indulge that extra cup of coffee.
LikeLike
Hi Gary –
I began by saying there was another side to Tony – that was not mentioned to lecture or admonish. If this is a place to vent and be sarcastic as a part of “healing” then so be it. If the people on this thread are venting as a result of spiritual abuse, and this blog was created for that, I apologize – that was unclear as there seems to be a place JA has established specifically for that on her site and is private. However, I thought I had made clear that I was also a victim of spiritual abuse. If it is unacceptable to encourage other Christians to handle things in a way that honor Christ – I am certainly in the wrong place (maybe I am mistaken – this IS a Christian blog, right?). What you nicely call “pushback” was actually very sarcastic and mean spirited criticism and I tried to be as gracious as I know how in spite of it.
LikeLike
Gary, I like your sensitive, sensible comments at 7:18. I confess to being one of the responders who has been less than congenial at times – I’m working on this (I have many on-line mentors). I tend to be as subtle as a sledgehammer at times – I recognize this. But, to respond to Arclight’s contention as to ‘this doctrine regarding women (not) going away anytime soon – I think perhaps this statement is why we use strong language.
This doctrine MUST go away, and the sooner, the better. Perhaps this is why Julie Anne tries works so diligently to give a voice to all women in this circumstance – indeed, it’s the ONLY way it is going to go away.
LikeLike
“not by way of attempting the impossible task of turning wolves into sheep (only Jesus can accomplish that), but by way of warning, encouraging, and even arming others”
Right. Agreed. This is why its important to disengage with someone who is being hostile. Its wasting precious time that can be better spent.
For the record, I have agonized in prayer, beat tear stained pillows, and gone through the gamut of responses to severe spiritual abuse having worked in ministry for ten years and having lived through hell under an impossible board of elders – all this as a single mom with little to no support. In spite of all the pain and heartache, I still contend that to handle things in a God honoring way is the strongest path to freedom.
Off to a soccer game to support the sweetest kid on earth 🙂
LikeLike