Happy Mother's Day to all of you WD-reading Mothers! I hope your day is filled with love and joy!I want to take this Mother's Day as an opportunity to encourage all men who read this blog - for the good of your mothers, wives, daughters, and granddaughters - to consider that you just might be wrong about what the scriptures say about women and their subordinate role they must play in the church.
I know that the prevailing thought based on scriptures such as 1 Timothy 2 and the account of the fall in Genesis 3 is that women should be subservient to men, and that men should have authority over women, and that women are forbidden from teaching men, or holding certain offices in church.
I know, because I was taught that in Southern Baptist Churches my entire Christian life. I've been taught it by people in my family and by my baptist pastors for over two decades. It was when I heard of the firing of Dr. Sheri Klouda by Paige Patterson that I first considered that perhaps this doctrine that led to this tragic action taken by Patterson was wrong. I read a good portion of Patterson's deposition in the Klouda case a couple of years ago, and the absurdity of statements made by Patterson under questioning of Klouda's lawyer, Gary Richardson, further led me to believe that this doctrine of male authority in the church is counter to scripture and the will of God and required my further investigation.
And I have to say one of the turning points that caused me to dig even deeper, is last year when I came across Ergun Caner's "joke" at the 2007 Ohio Free Will Baptists Men's Retreat when he said that he believed women should be behind the pulpit...how else could they get back there to vacuum....and his jokes about "mutant granddaughters" barking like dogs. It made me sick that this sort of thing came from one of the most popular baptist preaching-circuit personalities.
So after much reading and research I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong, that in fact the bible does NOT teach that God's plan is for men to have authority over women, and that the Bible does NOT teach women are exempted from having leadership positions over men in the church. I may explore this topic in future posts as to the particular arguments for what I believe, but I want to in this post simply implore men to consider an alternative view by a conservative teacher that can be trusted in this area. His name is Jon Zens.
Jon Zens is a preacher and author that has spoken around the world, but mostly outside the institutional church which is why many Southern Baptists have not heard of him. He is a pastor of a church, but does not draw a salary. He has taught and lived out for years a different model of pastor, not of a pastor having authority over people, but of serving and being amongst the congregation as a servant. You can read Jon's bio here. Jon is a good friend of author Frank Viola ("Pagan Christianity"), and also of Cal Thomas who uses Jon as a reviewer and editor of his work. Jon and his wife Dottie are sweet Christians who in recent years have been involved in traveling to the Philippines to help women and children
get out of the sex-slave trade.I had the privilege of meeting Jon for lunch last September when he was in Jacksonville to do some teaching at a home church group here in Jacksonville, after which he traveled down to Gainesville to meet his friend Frank Viola and minister in that city. We talked over lunch about my family's experience at First Baptist, the journey I have traveled through my blog, and my views on tithing which Jon has written about for quite some time. Jon graciously shared with me a bag full of books and other materials related to topics I was writing about on my blog that he had written about.
What I would recommend for men (and women!) who are willing to just possibly consider they have been taught wrongly what the bible say about women is to listen to Jon Zens' 8-part teaching series he delivered at Wade Burleson's church last September. Click here to go to Emmanuel Baptist Church's video archive, and scroll down to September 2010 to see this teaching series. Also, Jon has written a book entitled "What's With Paul and Women", and another one out this year entitled "No Will of My Own - How Patriarchy Smothers Female Dignity and Personhood". Read Wade Burleson's forward to this latest book here at Wade's blog.
Let me give you a quote from Wade Burleson's foreward he wrote for Jon's book "What's With Paul and Women":
"The viper known as 'the doctrine of male authority' has bitten the church. the toxin emitted by this errant teaching affects the females within our assemblies. It debilitates their God-given gifts, denigrates their Spirit-led ministry, and downplays their role as new Covenant priests. Those of us who have seen the church bitten need assistance, and help has arrived. This book will help you suck out the venom of male-only authority within the church. It will do so by helping you be able to articulate Jesus' view of the equality of women and then revealing for you how Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2 are consistent with Jesus' own teaching and ministry. You will be able to point out to others how the modern institutional church has misconstrued and misinterpreted Paul's writings on the subject, while at the same time ignoring Jesus' words and life on the same subject."So I hope this Mother's Day you will commit to at least consider the possibility that you have learned wrongly what the Bible says about women, and do further investigation starting with Jon Zens' bible teachings in this area. I believe this is so very, very important. I believe this wrong teaching that has infected our churches for so long is why we are reading about so much sexual abuse and cover-ups in our churches as Christa Brown has chronicled for years. I also firmly believe that the absence of women from any serious positions of leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention or in our churches is why there is no movement at all toward reaching out at a denominational level to victims of pastoral abuse or establishing a database of credibly accused ministers to keep predator pastors from freely moving from church to church. Many of the problems we see in the SBC, I believe, are related to having women on the outside of the leadership circle.
So Happy Mother's Day...and please, men....as a gift to the women in your life, be open to what God might speak to you in this important area.
49 comments:
There is also a podcast of Jon talking about this book on undermuchgrace blog.
If you feel so strongly about it why do you attend a Sbc denominational church?
Why would I not attend an SBC church?
Amen.
Under Much Grace [Cindy Kunsman] > Jon Zens Talks About His New Book: No Will of My Own (How Patriarchy Smothers Female Dignity and Personhood)
Watchdog,
Good for You. No one has a right to proclaim a belief until they have wrestled with it.
Believing something simply beacue your Grandmother said it or your Preacher said it is never sufficeint cause to believe.
Since we are Christians, I believe that every belief must be brought under the microscope of the teachings of Christ. When Paul and Jesus seem to disagree, I choose the teachings of Jesus.
WD this post is one of the finest you have written. Many blessings to you and to your family and to your readers.
The Bible is clear...
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.(1st Cor. 14:34-35)
It's in there for a reason.
Happy Mother's Day to all you Mom's and know that God knows best for you.
STS - so many of the seminarians who preach what you preach tell us we must interpret scripture in context, but when it comes to verses like that, no context.
Thy Peace - thanks.
Off Topic: Watchdog earns a cerebral "gold star".
"Why would I not attend an SBC church?"
Why you ask? Because they do not support your position. I do not belong to or support any organization that I do not agree with.
That to me is hypocritical.
That's ok, there are many things I don't agree with at any single church or denomination. I don't consider this to be a primary doctrine either, unlike the SBC which DOES, and will kick out any church that hires a woman pastor.
"That's ok, there are many things I don't agree with at any single church or denomination."
Good answer. I do not think trashing the SBC for their stand on women pastors is a MAJOR DOCTRINE either. The Catholic Church like most denominations do not support a female cleric either including or Muslim friends.
Daawg, Do you know if the military accepts female chaplains? If they don't does that make them wrong too?
FYI, First Baptist Church Memphis does have a female pastor.
"The Bible is clear...
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.(1st Cor. 14:34-35)
It's in there for a reason."
----------------
Yes, STS, it's in there for a reason. You've just missed what that reason is.
(As referred to in earlier posts, if Dr. Mohler, et al, want to rid the church of spiritual "ignorance" through their pulpits and positions, they should start right HERE!)
#1 - this is a message to a specific church (Corinth) with a specific culture and a specific issue. Read a little about the Corinthians and how men and women interacted publicly.
#2 - this is a message about church unity, not about the woman's role in the church.
It wouldn't be politically correct, but I wonder if the "Authority Over Women" stalwarts could be pressed to admit that women's suffrage is against Christian principles.
Would they teach that a wife must vote as her husband insists?
LA
"When Paul and Jesus seem to disagree, I choose the teachings of Jesus."
Where do Paul and Jesus disagree? If this is true, wouldn't that mean the bible is in contradiction with itself? Did God inspire Paul to pen error? Did Paul write on his own and therefore portions of the bible are not divinely inspired?
Your statement leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Can you give some insight to your statement while answering the questions above?
Jon - obviously that person means that if you believe that Paul was laying down doctrine for all time for all women in all churches, then to take that position would be in contrast to Jesus' view of women.
Watchdog
Thank you for this wonderful post. It needs to be said by men and I am grateful that you are putting yourself on the line, once again.
Tom -
Thank you for the clarification. I did not want to read into what was written, so I asked some simple questions.
Can I ask you? Where did Jesus promote the equal authority of women and women within His church? If it is there, I would like to see it. I have studied this and have come to a different conclusion. Not because of some previous teaching but of diligent study.
Jon - I'm not a seminarian, but I don't believe Jesus would have said it either way in his earthly ministry since the church was not established until after the holy spirit came to the church.
But the total of Jesus' ministry was one of inclusion of women. He broke all barriers of women - he actually spoke to a woman at the well, he had female disciples in Galilee, and it was clear throughout scripture he wanted them involved in his discipleship movement.
Jesus began a new creation, moving back to the original plan: men and women functioning together equally in spiritual things within the church.
I hear preachers go to great lengths to explain doctrines that are not clear by teaching the "context" and pulling in scriptures from all over the Bible, rightly saying that if we start with the premise the bible doesn't contradict, then context and other passages that might SEEM to contradict need to be brought to bear on a single passage. But not on 1 Tim 2...Paul said it, and thus it must be true for all women, all churches, all time. I don't think so.
Thanks, Dee. I know this won't be popular amongst most of my readers. It isn't even within my own extended family. :)
Tom -
Where I find discord with your position with Jesus and His making the order of things equal within the organization of the family (home and church) is the context.
I agree Jesus brought about the inclusion of women in the things of culture. He did not degrade them, nor did he place a woman over a man.
In my terminology, many men have degraded women, both in the home, culture and church. This is wrong. Yet, I can not find where including women in the daily things Jesus did (like choose twelve men to train and use to plant the first church) included them in positions of authority over men.
When God sets an order into something, He is not making anyone a doormat but is setting things in order as He sees fit.
The fine line in the sand is "having authority over men in the church". Internally, I wish it were more inclusive but it is not.
One of many things that continues to bother me about those who say Jesus tore down walls so women could serve in the church over men is (as stated earlier), why didn't Jesus choose at least one woman.
Tom - I also find difficulty that when Paul was writing to the church at Corinth that what He wrote was only a limited truth. Not a truth for other churches of that time or for all eternity. This thought keeps getting swept under the rug instead of dealt with.
Good post and something worth discussing.
Daawg, Do you know if the military accepts female chaplains? If they don't does that make them wrong too?
Wade Burleson > Those Who Make the BFM Say What It Doesn't
It is time that we Southern Baptists recognized that there may be a few people in leadership positions within our Convention who would seek to force upon the convention things regarding women that we have never offically adopted - like prohibitions on missionaries possessing a private prayer language, or prohibitions on women teaching Hebrew in our seminaries, or prohibitions on women serving as chaplains, etc . . . In my next post (I'm still researching for it) I will tell you the story of Regimental Army Chaplain, Major Paige Heard, who is now stationed at historic West Point Military Academy. Major Heard is a life-long Southern Baptist, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, New Orleans Seminary, and has faithfully served Christ as an endorsed chaplain of the Southern Baptist Convention. Paige is a conservative. She believes the Bible is infallible, inerrant, and sufficient. Yet, she is now only one of five female Southern Baptist chaplains left in the Army. In 2004 the trustees of the North American Misson Board voted to stop endorsing female chaplains. Major Heard had been endorsed prior to the 2004 prohibition and was 'grandfathered' in.
Wade Burleson > A Southern Baptist Chaplain Ministering Christ
Jon - keep in mind...I'm asking people - lay people - to simply consider they may have it wrong because they've been taught wrong by pastors.
I don't expect any pastors to do anything but dismiss people who hold to this view and label them as "liberals". At least you haven't done that, so that is good. :)
For a pastor to change their views on this would require them to lose their job, be shunned by their peers as being a liberal and risk being called a heretic.
Tom, excellent post. For those of us who feel spirit-led to a different position than the politicians leading the SBC not be afraid to raise this topic for honest, open discussion. Thank you for doing that.
Also, while an earlier post pointed out that Catholics and Mulsims don't have female leaders, many other mainline denominations do, and the world does not seemed to have caved in around them. No punishment from above for being heretics.
Please continue to be a champion for individual study and soul-searching on topics like these.
"Where I find discord with your position with Jesus and His making the order of things equal within the organization of the family (home and church) is the context."
WOW!
Are you serious?
I just added five years to my life. That made me laugh so hard.
This comes from the same guy who ignores all of the context in Psalm 105 so that he can sneak in a self-serving eisogesis of the passage.
You have zero credibility in this area my friend.
"For a pastor to change their views on this would require them to lose their job, be shunned by their peers as being a liberal and risk being called a heretic."
The same could be said for the teaching of the tithe. With the added incentive that this doctrine helps to line your own pockets.
Why you ask? Because they do not support your position. I do not belong to or support any organization that I do not agree with.
That to me is hypocritical.
May 8, 2011 10:46 PM
So, you are always in agreement with your spouse or your workplace?
Les Puryear apologizes to reformed pastors:
http://sbcview.blogspot.com/2011/04/apology-to-sbc-reformed-pastors.html
Yes, STS, it's in there for a reason. You've just missed what that reason is.
(As referred to in earlier posts, if Dr. Mohler, et al, want to rid the church of spiritual "ignorance" through their pulpits and positions, they should start right HERE!)
#1 - this is a message to a specific church (Corinth) with a specific culture and a specific issue. Read a little about the Corinthians and how men and women interacted publicly.
#2 - this is a message about church unity, not about the woman's role in the church.
May 9, 2011 7:15 AM
Actually, 1 Corin is full of questions Paul answers. The Greek did not have punctuation marks. Some translations put quotation marks around other quotes such as in chapter 6. But some do not.
If you study the Greek, Paul refutes 34-35 in verse 36. The KJ is a good translation of this. Paul says "What"?! The word of God came ORIGINALLY FROM YOU?
The quote in vs 34-35 is almost word for word from the Mishna/Talmud. The Judaizers were at it again.
In fact, if you can point me to the "law" Paul refers to, I would appreciate it. God is always clear about his laws.
this was from the Oral law. And Paul refutes it in verse 36.
Another problem is the word for silent means total silence and that would include in the synagogue no singing or even saying hello. Then there is the problem that the early church was full of widows so who would they ask when they got home. To think Paul would say ask your husbands is just silly. That was a Jewish tradition from the Oral law. the oral law states that a woman's voice is lewd and filthy. A rabbi did not even talk to his own wife in public!
Then you have the problem of women praying and prophesying in the Body in 1 Corin 11. The question was should they do it with their heads covered or not. So we do not have Paul affirming this in one part of his letter then prohibiting it in another part.
There is no prohibition to women teaching or leading men in the OT. There is NO NEW Law on this matter in the New Covenant.
It wouldn't be politically correct, but I wonder if the "Authority Over Women" stalwarts could be pressed to admit that women's suffrage is against Christian principles.
Would they teach that a wife must vote as her husband insists?
LA
May 9, 2011 7:44 AM
Yes, in fact, may patriarchal groups already teach this.
The first Seneca Falls convention was founded by quite a few Christian women. Mostly Quakers and Methodist.
"The fine line in the sand is "having authority over men in the church". Internally, I wish it were more inclusive but it is not."
The problem is the premise of human authority in the Body. Certain people will hang onto this with a death grip. It defines who they are and they are very afraid.
But it negates the Holy Spirit in EVERY believers life. Jesus Christ is the authority. The rest of us are mere messengers.
Like Tom, I do not expect those who follow men or those who make their living from ministry to ever even consider translations or interpretations that go against this wrong premise of "human authority" in the Body.
"Where I find discord with your position with Jesus and His making the order of things equal within the organization of the family (home and church) is the context."
Creation "order" is a red herring. Adam (which means Human) was created in Gen 1. They were "formed" later.
They wording is "they" when speaking of creating the "human".
Eve was "formed" after animals. Surely, you do not think this means that pigs are more important than women?
Creation order is mentioned in 1 Timothy because Paul is refuting the teaching of the fertility cult in the Temple of Artemis that Eve was created first.
They were concerned about dying in childbirth. That is why Paul has a play on words with "the childbearing" (a noun) where he is referring to women being saved in the Childbearing as in the birth of Messiah. Yes, they might die in childbirth but they are saved because a Messiah was born.
It breaks my heart that so many pastors teach a "work" of salvation in this passage for women only by saying it refers to their "role". Not all women can bear children and Jesus Christ would never have a "work" of salvation for women. It is a blasphemous teaching that INSULTS our Savior and His Atoning Sacrifice.
As to family "order". Some should check the word in 1 Tim 5 where it says that certain women in Ephesus should "manage" the home. The word in Greek is where we get our word for despot. She is to be the co-
ruler of the home. the despot.
In fact, many have "head" all wrong. Kephale in the 1st Century was understood as a literal head which was the "source" for the life of the Body. Food, water, breathing, etc.
The 1st Century husband was the source of "life" for his wife. Jesus Christ is the source of life for the Body of Christ.
It is a metaphor. Had Paul wanted to communicate "authority" in this passage he would have been inspired to write exousia or arche. Clear Greek words for authority.
In the 1st Century, they believed all thinking and decision making took place in the heart. You can even search for many passages where Paul refers to the heart for such things as thinking and decision making.
Historically, there have many issues that the SBC has insisted is right and Godly and supported with scripture but no longer teaches. The first, slavery was followed by Jim Crow. Both were supported in SBC teaching as being Biblical and of God.
Is there a preacher today who would preach it is right for white men to enslave others or that God has ordained that dark skinned people are to submit to white men? Scripture has been used by preachers to support both of these ungodly positions.
So is the stand against women serving as pastors or teaching men just another in a line of teaching that will be discarded in the future?
"The problem is the premise of human authority in the Body. Certain people will hang onto this with a death grip. It defines who they are and they are very afraid."
Why should I be afraid of what you believe? That's silly. What I am afraid of is going against God and His written word.
"But it negates the Holy Spirit in EVERY believers life. Jesus Christ is the authority. The rest of us are mere messengers."
My position in no way negates the Holy Spirit. My position supports what the Holy Spirit already spoke to in His inspiration of mere men to pen His word.
I could say the same thing to you about your position but I don't see it as helpful to the discussion. If you would like to discuss the subject instead of personalizing it with derogatory words, I'd be glad to discuss this with you.
"Like Tom, I do not expect those who follow men or those who make their living from ministry to ever even consider translations or interpretations that go against this wrong premise of "human authority" in the Body."
Here you go again. You offer nothing of substance to support your position but belittle anyone who differs. Why?
she did discuss the issue, Jon. So far all you have said is that you won't go against God. How is that different? You are implying that she is going against God.
FBC Jax Watchdog said...
I know this won't be popular amongst most of my readers.
Well, it is with me. My view is that if one is going to require their church or organization to abide by the tenents of male-only authority (& the many other stipulations & guidelines that the patriarchal / complementarian perspective generates), then such decision maker(s) really need to understand the ramifications of it.
In short, there are many ugly sides to this perspective that will deeply hurt and tear down on an individual level and also on a corporate level. If one really feels the need to enforce the male-only authority model, wisdom makes it incumbent to honestly & thoroulghly research all sides of the issue before subjecting the group and its individuals to it.
Watchdog, I truly appreciate your post today.
Tom,
not to change the direction of your post, but you are incorrect about when the "church" started.
Jesus did establish His church during His earthly ministry. It was fully functioning as a church before the day of Pentecost came.
On the day of Pentecost, the already existing church was "empowered" by the Holy Spirit, in the physical absence of it's Formal Head, and True Shepherd.
Now you can categorically dismiss that statement because I'm the one that made it, or you can study the scriptures for yourself and see that it's in there.
I am currently listening to the Zens seminar, and taking notes.
He makes very many good, clear, exegetical points. None of which I will argue, at this point, or in this place.
However, there are some mistaken assumptions that he makes, that need not be assumed; The NT speaks speaks to; and explains clearly, some things he is assuming to be true; but not quite. (will not take up your blog to address them.)
As a Pastor, I am completely devoted to the "rightly dividing" of the Word of God. Willing to listen to Zen's points with pen in hand, and ears open; and a "testing spirit."
So far - some good, some wrong;
(One last thing. Critics will always say to Pastors they don't like, who preach things they don't like. "That's what you say the Bible says" or "that's just your interpretation." And then slander their character as being dishonest. To which every pastor could resort back the same argument to the critic. - Some could say to Zens - "that's what YOU say the Bible says" or "that's merely your opinion.", and then slander his character - of which I will not, he seems honest, intelligent, and not ill motivated.)
This kind of argument guarantees that the error and the division will always continue.
No ill will.
"On the day of Pentecost, the already existing church was "empowered" by the Holy Spirit, in the physical absence of it's Formal Head, and True Shepherd."
The Joel prophecy was not for ONE day. It is for the church age.
"(One last thing. Critics will always say to Pastors they don't like, who preach things they don't like. "That's what you say the Bible says" or "that's just your interpretation." And then slander their character as being dishonest. To which every pastor could resort back the same argument to the critic. - Some could say to Zens - "that's what YOU say the Bible says" or "that's merely your opinion.", and then slander his character - of which I will not, he seems honest, intelligent, and not ill motivated.)"
But "pastors" are paid to know it and interpret it correctly. So, when they elevate a B issue to a salvic one, beware. And they do this by saying, I believe what God said. As if the one who disagrees does not. Just like Lin wrote about about authenteo. Some do not do their homework and just believe what they are taught in seminary. And what they decide to believe benefits them. The whole authority teaching benefits them from a financial and human power perspective.
Often times they are teaching a religion of works and are no different than the priests in the OT that God railed against.
"This kind of argument guarantees that the error and the division will always continue."
Just like slavery question and the Baptists that held on to biblical affirmation of owning humans to labor for them. (Ignoring Philemon who was begged by Paul to treat Oni as a "brother in Christ)
In that case, it took a war to get some Christians to give up their power and position over other humans.
Isn't it strange how we pay someone to study the Word for us? Something we should be doing ourselves.
When Paul and Jesus seem to disagree, I choose the teachings of Jesus.
May 8, 2011 10:48 AM
This did not happen.
What happens is that translators make some dubious word choices for many reasons. For example, why would the Monk Pagnini change "turning" to "desire/lust" in Gen 3 in his translation in the 13th Century when it had been translated as "turning" up to that point?
Translators have also been known to ADD words to the translation that are not in the Greek. Such as "office".
If I read my Bible right, God made husbands the leaders of their wives/families because Adam sinned against God knowingly, without being deceived into doing it. If he got a worse punishment than Eve did (who was deceived when she sinned), then to lead a wife is a very scary responsibility, not a cushy one.
then to lead a wife is a very scary responsibility, not a cushy one.
I do not believe one can really lead a wife in the sense of being in charge. That concept runs against the fabric of most if not all women. Both have built in mechanisms that benefit each other. To say one is in charge is corporate and worldly. Both can be saved and is useful in spreading the Good News.
Jeff H says:
"As a Pastor, I am completely devoted to the "rightly dividing" of the Word of God. Willing to listen to Zen's points with pen in hand, and ears open; and a "testing spirit."
That is great, glad that you don't dismiss this topic out of hand.
As a gay man, it is encouraging to see this dialogue about women and their role in the church. Reading the Bible "in context" is crucial to a more complete understanding of Holy Scripture. When I see conversations like this one that basically says "well, perhaps what the Bible is really saying is not exactly what I have heard from the pulpit all these years" then I know that we are searching God's word and we are on a journey to "rightly divide the word of truth." And, in my experience at First Baptist, I always wondered how Lindsay and Vines squared having staff members like Guinelle Freeman and Fran Hawk and then toeing the "women must be silent" line because those two women were many things, but silent they were not.
Dear Anonymous, Keep studying and in the Greek. You will find there is NO correlation between women spreading the Gospel led by the Holy Spirit (instead of a husband) and "practicing" the sin of homosexuality as a professing believer.
The issues are not related culturally or biblically.
In fact, Patriarchal cultures throughout history have been very homosexual and somewhat incestual. And still are. It is a mainstay in Muslim cultures where it is, ironically, banned.
There is actually more evidence for homosexuality being practised under patriarchy (and in the pedophile form) than there is under egal cultures where the rights of individuals is the focus.
The difference today is that it is no longer hidden from view due to people redefining sin,the 24/7 media and technology.
Just check out the paterfamilias of Rome and Greece and homosexuality.
Both were extreme patriarchal cultures. Aristotle wrote horrid things about women and their lack of worth. It was a celebration of "maleness" and the penis was a typical object of art forms
"When Paul and Jesus seem to disagree, I choose the teachings of Jesus."
Can you say false dichotomy?
Paul and Jesus are on the same team.
Who said anything about pedophiles??! Oh wait, were you speaking of the former pastor of Trinity Baptist? Or perhaps the former pastor of Shiloh Metropolitan? Maybe you had in mind a former (I think former) FBC deacon and close personal friend of Jerry Vines? I bet you a $100 that all three of these characters would say they were straight, not gay. In fact, the deacon told everyone that would listen "I am not gay." Just because someone identifies as being gay does not mean they get their kicks with kids. Can we please retire this moronic notion that gays are pedophiles?
Post a Comment