"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

A Woman Cannot Have Authority Over Boys?

Jack Beavers sent me an email with the following article from the February 13, 2008 Sports Illustrated online site.

Kansas activities officials are investigating an allegation that a religious school refused to let a female referee call a boys high school basketball game earlier this month.

The Kansas State High School Activities Association said referees reported that Michelle Campbell was preparing to officiate at St. Mary's Academy near Topeka, Kan., on Feb. 2 when a school official insisted that Campbell could not call the game. The reason given, according to the referees: Campbell, as a woman, could not be put in a position of authority over boys because of the academy's beliefs.

St. Mary's Academy is about 25 miles northwest of Topeka, Kansas.

Read the entire Sports Illustrated article here. I guess gender discrimination is alive in well in other places besides our convention.

60 comments:

Dave Miller said...

As I read scripture, a woman is commanded to yield authority to her husband (voluntarily, not by the man's coercion) and the key leadership positions in a church are restricted to men (pastor/elder/deacon).

Believing that, I see nothing in the Bible that says women should be submissive in the workplace, at school, or in society in general.

Having coached for decades, I would be more concerned about whether she has good eyes.

As a complementarian who believes certain gender roles were designed by our creator and are part of his plan - this stuff embarrasses me.

Rev. said...

While I might disagree with St. Mary's Academy, is their position necessarily discrimination? What is the difference between conviction and discrimination?

What if a homosexual man wanted to apply for a position at Immanuel but was told he would not be hired because of his homosexuality? I imagine he would declare he was being discriminated against while the church maintained it was holding to its convictions.

We may not always agree with others in regard to their beliefs, but we should always be careful in assessing their motives.

Bob Cleveland said...

If the lady cannot call a basketball game, as it would be usurping authority over a "man", what does that tell the boys their attitude ought to be about discipline at the hand of their mothers?

As Joseph Garlington said, those who think they see, don't.

Matt said...

So they have no problem with naming their school after a woman, but they won't let a woman referee a basketball game?

irreverend fox said...

now that is WAY over the top...why...it's not like she was trying to teach those boys ancient Hebrew or anything!

sheesh!

legalists...

Steve said...

If I hurry I might be able to arrange some indulgences at this school to cover some of the stuff I used to claim on my Form 1040s, and maybe some lines I trolled babes with back at college!
Hey, they are said to be very old-fashioned!

davidbmclaughlin.com said...

Dave,

I'm admittedly doing a drive by reading of this but I'm chuckling to myself trying to figure out how one can be "commanded to yield authority (voluntarily)". I'll have to chew on this.

Shibboleth,
David Mc

Jack Maddox said...

I may not agree with SM
I would not send my kids to SM
I would not contribute to SM

however, do they not have the right as a private institution to set policy based upon their deeply held religious beliefs. I agree with Rev...this may be stupid, but is it discrimination?

blessings
Jack

ps - blogging on my new Macbook and I Mac is super cool...it is good to be back among the MAC NATION!

Lin said...

I'm admittedly doing a drive by reading of this but I'm chuckling to myself trying to figure out how one can be "commanded to yield authority (voluntarily)". I'll have to chew on this."

Better get a Charleston Chew. :o)

Dave Miller said...

David,

My point (worded poorly perhaps) is that the command to submit comes from God, not the husband. A wife yields authority to her husband out of obedience to Christ, not because the husband demands it.

Of course, my real point is that this kind of silliness is a real embarrassment to people like me who believe the complementarian position is what the Bible teaches.

Its as embarrassing as Ann Coulter to good Republicans. (Sorry, cheap shot)

Anonymous said...

Are all their teachers and administrators men? Can a school secretary there I guess women are allowed to do that sort of thing) send a student on an errand?

They simply seem to be taking such beliefs to the logical conclusion.

In the churches that teach that women should not teach men, are all the Sunday School teachers from the nursery up men? I know men who gladly work with small children, but how many men in general would be willing to crawl on the floor with toddlers or change diapers, especially men whose egos are such that they need to believe women are inferior? Or is there an age at which boys beccome male enough to reject all female authority? If so, what is it?

And, yes, what does that idea say about the authority of a mother over a son until he is out on his own?

Oh well, if the logic that we are all human doesn't override at least some of this silliness, I guess there is no way to convince them.

Susie

Jack Maddox said...

Susie

Although I think the SM decision is silly and a misunderstanding of scripture, you also twist to a great degree what church's and individuals who do hold to a position which forbids women to hold ecclesiastical authority over men. What you have done, although I believe unintentionally, is set up a straw man. Those of us who do believe that a woman is not to hold authority over a man in areas of pastoral teaching and biblical eldership need to be the first to work in the nursery...thats what leaders do. Now I gotta run and change my grandsons diaper...why? because I am a good grandpa? Nah, because my wife told me to! : )

blessings
Jack

Rex Ray said...

Dave Miller,
You said, “As I read Scripture, a woman is commanded to yield authority to her husband.”

I suppose you, along with Paul, are referring to: “You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16 NLT)

We will agree this is a curse from God. This curse destroyed the perfect relationship Adam and Eve enjoyed with each other.

When husband and wife are reunited with God as Christians, they submit to the Holy Spirit and to each other. The destroyed relationship no longer exists. Man and woman share their relationship as partners that was once with Adam and Eve.

Once Genesis 3:16 is understood; the ‘male pastor’ goes out the window.

On another point, Paul told Timothy, “I remember your genuine faith, for you share the faith that first filled your grandmother, Lois and your mother, Eunice.” (Second Timothy 1:5)

Women taught faith to their boys, and as men, they still were to obey those teachings.

My aunt taught me: ‘When in Rome, do as Romans SHOULD do.”

Jack Maddox, besides the dipper, I’ll bet your wife also tells you when you have the wrong pair of pants on.

Jack Maddox said...

Rex

What's a 'dipper" ?

and no, not the pants, but she does correct an errant tie from time to time.

blessings
Jack

Anonymous said...

Jack were did you come up with this idear? That is, you have an errant tie? Now you know there is not, a perfit tie?

"Old Gray Fox"

cody busby said...

As a church St. Mary's has a protected right to operate according to their beliefs, even in matters of referee selection. However, this does not put them above scrutiny. If an organization were beyond scrutiny simply for being a church then we would not cry out against the horrors of St. Mary's neighbors at Westboro Baptist "Church".

I imagine a female Governor sitting in Topeka drives the good people at St. Mary's crazy, and that Romans 13:1 comes with a great deal of qualifiers. Too bad for the children under their care.

he's only chasing safety said...

Rex Ray, if you're implying that Adam and Eve were considered to have equal roles before the fall, well . . . I think you're wrong. It seems clear that Adam was given headship over Eve and that is what was lost after the fall. Since then, we are working to retain the relationship and roles that God created to be good.

Rev, comparing homosexuality to gender is not good. I see no parallel there.

Anyway, any woman that knows basketball well enough to referee a game is way okay in my book.

CB Scott said...

He's Only Chasing Safety,

Wisdom has visited your heart. You are the future. Care for it till Jesus comes.

cb

Lin said...

"Those of us who do believe that a woman is not to hold authority over a man in areas of pastoral teaching"

I have never understood this. How does one have 'authority' over someone when teaching?

Lin said...

Rex, I love your name. It reminds me of a super hero with incredible powers.

But I gotta disagree. Adam nor Eve were cursed. Only the land and serpent. But what God told them would be a consequence or result of their sin. Those labor pains do feel like a curse, though! ;O) But, I know it is
God reminding me of my fallen state.

Rev. said...

HOCS:

I'm not comparing homosexuality to gender, but asking a question related to discrimination/conviction, which is relevant in this discussion. Nonetheless, the issue of women in the church has historically led to the issue of homosexuality in the church. You may not notice the parallels, but many others have and argue accordingly.

he's only chasing safety said...

I understand that one conversation has historically led to the other, and I'm just saying that I don't think that it should. I understand the idea, I just think it's silly.

Nonetheless, you are right that it does exist, and you have the right to bring it up. I apologize if I offended you.

Rex Ray said...

Today, the Dallas Morning News said Al Mohler said in a news release that health concerns would keep him out of the race for president of the SBC.

“He was recently found to have a pre-cancerous tumor in his colon, which means more tests and possible another operation.”

I’m sure our prayers will be with him.

Lin said...

"Nonetheless, the issue of women in the church has historically led to the issue of homosexuality in the church. "

Which came first?

I could argue that the teaching of male headship leads to domestic violence in the home.

Which came first?

Aaron New said...

Chasing,

I'm not offering acceptance or rejection of your position. I am just offering these words from a textbook I am using in class as food for thought....

“The question about whether the man was created first and therefore is in a special position of authority over the woman is still debated in Christian circles today. Genesis 2:18 proclaims that it was not good for man to be alone, so a helper was made for him. This particular verse needs to be interpreted with care and clarity. ….Helper in the original language (ezer) refers to God as the helper of humankind fifteen of the sixteen times it is used in the Bible. This verse is the one exception in which it is used to describe the relationship between human beings, namely, Eve and Adam. …Even the most inventive exegete would have to make a huge stretch to conclude that God, as our ezer, is subordinate to humankind and therefore it is beyond such an interpretation when it comes to subordination between the man and woman.”

Aaron

Only By His Grace said...

Did we miss something very key? Yes, the essential thing unless I misread. It is the STATE Tournament.

Why in the world is St. Marys trying to tell the STATE how they can run THEIR tournament? I think the Jews call it chuzpah.

They did not have to play in this tournament and I would hope the STATE would say to them, "You came on those buses, and you can leave on them right now."

Phil in Norman

GeneMBridges said...

“The question about whether the man was created first and therefore is in a special position of authority over the woman is still debated in Christian circles today. Genesis 2:18 proclaims that it was not good for man to be alone, so a helper was made for him. This particular verse needs to be interpreted with care and clarity. ….Helper in the original language (ezer) refers to God as the helper of humankind fifteen of the sixteen times it is used in the Bible. This verse is the one exception in which it is used to describe the relationship between human beings, namely, Eve and Adam. …Even the most inventive exegete would have to make a huge stretch to conclude that God, as our ezer, is subordinate to humankind and therefore it is beyond such an interpretation when it comes to subordination between the man and woman.”

Of course, we don't define concepts by the meaning of individual words. To do that commits the word-concept fallacy. That's why using the word "helper" to justify male-headship is a precarious position to take. Rather, to make that connection, others must be made.

But, by of reply beyond that...

A careful reading of the creation and fall narratives shows that is to be read in parallel with other texts in the Pentateuch, namely the construction of the ark, the construction and organization of the tabernacle and priesthood, and, in the case of the fall, the story of Balaam.

Some examples: The elements of the Tabernacle recall the creation. The construction of the ark recalls Genesis 1 (3 tiered ark/3 tiered creation. This, by the way explains how light can exist before stars. Stars appear because, like Noah opened the roof the ark for light, God opens the "roof" of the Earth to reveal stars). The Garden is a type of tabernacle. The two trees in the center, one of Life and the other of Knowledge of Good and Evil allude to the Most Holy Place, where the Mercy Seat (Life) stands over the Ark containing the rod of Aaron, manna, and the Tablets of Law (which would allude to the power of God and the Law of God, and God's provision for His people). Adam is viewed as the high priest, like Aaron, and Eve as a standard priest. The standard priests were subordinate to Aaron. The Fall, in which she eats the fruit first, recalls the sin of Aaron's children who offered strange fire. See, for example, the work of Meredith Kline, who has recently passed on.

Male "headship," is taken by the way Paul relates the husband wife relationship to the creation narrative. Unless you are willing to place the Church and Christ on a par, you're going to run into trouble. Christ is over the church as its head and this, in turn, is the way Paul depicts husbands and wives.

In the local church, in the Corinthian letters, Paul's emphasis is not on headship but on the mystical union. Men need women and women need men. This too is analogous to Christ and the Church, for we too are in mystical union. We are "one flesh" in Christ and in marriage.

The argument for male headship, when we add children, is also based on the economic Trinity. The Reformed tradition, while not strictly adhering to Nicene subordination as it was interpreted in the Middle Ages, has largely been careful to say that the Son is "autotheos" as are the other Divine Persons. We place our emphasis on the economic, not the ontological Trinity. Egalitarians tend to emphasize the ontological, not the economic.

Male headship in the church's eldership and in the home draws on an analogy with the economic Trinity. The Father embodies "paternity." The Son embodies "filiation." The Spirit embodies "spiration."

In marriage, in the original created order, the husband embodies "paternity." The wife embodies "filiation." Children are "spirated" from them both.

In the church, the elders embody "paternity." The deacons' service and position between the members and the elders embodies a mediatorial role, derivative of the eldership, thus "filiation." The members "spirate," proceeding in their service among mankind.

GeneMBridges said...

Oh, and this would men that women stand over male children because they are children. It would also mean that discrimination between men and women is only relative to highly prescribed areas, related to specific roles, and in all cases the overarching idea is that, regardless of role: Men need women and women need men and children need their parents/adults the same way that the 3 Divine Persons need each other. If the Son is not God, there is no God. If the Spirit is not God, there is no God. If the Father is not God, there is no God - and we are without hope in this life.

greg.w.h said...

Gene:

In your opinion: was the creation story to the Mosaic system explicitly or implicitly connected?

Similarly, did Paul explicitly or implicitly connect the NT symbols?

The words "filiate" and "spirate" make a sane man want to cry tears of genuine grief over the complexity men sometimes bring to otherwise simple theological concepts. ;)

Greg Harvey

Rev. said...

HOCS:
Not offended whatsoever... just discussing the issue at hand.

LIN:
Looking at the issue from a merely historical perspective, the matter of women's issues arose first. You could argue that the teaching of male headship leads to domestic violence, and many actually do just that, but what's your point? My original point was this - that there is a difference between conviction and discrimination and we should always be careful in assessing the motives of others.

Anonymous said...

Certainly St. Mary's has a religous right to interpret this and apply it as they wish. To call it 'religous bigotry' says more about you than it does them. I personally wouldn't apply the Scripture this way...but St. Mary's didn't call and ask for my opinion either. Why not just let them 'do their 'thing' and not jump on them as the secular media has?
Don't you have bigger 'fish' to fry like 'tongues and baptisms'?
:)

Dave Miller said...

Rex Ray, Rex Ray, Rex Ray!

First, you build a straw man, then you knock it down. My belief is not based on Genesis 3:16 as you say, (which I think you might not be interpreting correctly anyway). It is based several New Testament scriptures.

You know better than that young man. Go to your room!

Valerie Calderon said...

Only By His Grace,

Your response is the slam dunk for this particular case scenario.

All,

Can anyone establish a biblical case for the disturbing implication that there is a point in time in which a young man ought not submit to the authority of an older female? It seems Timothy owed his maturity in the faith to such leadership.

I pray my sons grow to demonstrate polite, and yes, gracious submission to those in authority over them, both male and female, unless such submission compromises a clear biblical mandate. Humility is a virtue in much too short supply, and given the scenario, it is little wonder.

Finally, conviction ought always to be shaped by discernment of the scriptures, not simply knowledge of them.

Rex Ray said...

Jack Maddox,
A ‘dipper’ has a long handle to hold for dipping water from a bucket. My father asked an old woman with snuff running down her chin for a drink. He twisted his arm around and drank from the ‘backside’ of the dipper. She said: “That’s strange; you hold the dipper just like I do.”
No charge for this information.

I’ll blame ‘spell check’ for ‘dipper’ as I misspelled ‘diaper’.

He’s only chasing safety,
You said, “Adam was given headship over Eve and that is what was lost after the fall.”

How does plain dirt have “headship” over refined dirt? Also it was not a toe bone, but a rib bone, but even if Adam was the “headship”, the neck turns the head. smile

Lin,
OK…I was wrong about men and women being cursed by God. I agree what God told them was a result of their sin. “For on the DAY you eat from it, you will certainly die.” (Genesis 2:17)

When God told them, “You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you”, they were SPIRITUAL DEAD.

On October 10, 2006, Wade wrote, “Death only means separation, and when Adam and Eve died, they were separated from God.”

This result was for dead separated people, but now that we are made alive and reunited with God by Christ, this ‘wrong’ relationship between husband and wife has change to a partnership in following what God calls each to do.

Lin, you said, “Those labor pains do feel like a curse, thought! But, I know it is God reminding me of my fallen state.”
Are you a woman?

‘When she holds her new-born, she remembers her pain no more.’ (forgot where that’s written) My daughter-in-law said, “That was obviously written by a man.”

As for my name, I’m glad it wasn’t Sue.

Aaron,
Sounds like you have good reasoning in knowing the meaning of words.

Dave Miller,
You just about made my day by calling me “young man”, but that will never be until we meet on the other side.

In the last few days, I think there are about 5 questions I’ve asked you that you have yet to answer. May I ask why? (Now it’s six.)

On this post, you have written: “I read in Scripture…, I see nothing in the Bible that says…, the command to commit comes from God…, my belief is not based on Genesis 3:16; it is based on several New Testament Scriptures.”

Are we to accept your beliefs without knowing what Scripture you base them on? (seven)

Is the fox guarding the hen-house with ‘no women pastors allowed’? (eight)

Will heaven be divided into those saved by male and female pastors? (nine)

If heaven is divided, will one group be lower than the other? (ten)

I know I’m being sarcastic, but I’m reminded of the warning of Jesus: “They teach man-made ideas as the commands from God.” (Matthew 15:9)

I think man-made ideas is what Wade has been fighting against for two years.

Anonymous said...

The New Testament is clear: the husband has the awesome/terrible responsibility of answering to God now and ultimately for the leadership of his home because Adam "looked the Lord straight in the eye" as he ate the fruit forbidden to him in the Garden, while Eve was deceived and ate the same fruit at the same time (i.e., the husband's leadership role is a greater punishment, not a blessing/privilege). Wives can sigh with relief, Fundamentaist theologians can ease-up, husbands can knuckle-down and lead well.

David

Debbie Kaufman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Debbie Kaufman said...

Thank you for this post.

Rex Ray said...

David,
You’re right that Adam’s sin was greater because he knew what he was doing; while Eve was deceived.

Paul: “I never let women teach men…because…it was NOT Adam who was fooled by Satan, but Eve, and sin was the result.” (1 Timothy 2:12-14)

Hmmmm…This verse says sin was the result of Eve being fooled and not Adam. Adam gets off the hook.

Has this been said before in the Bible? Think about this. “It was the woman YOU gave me who gave me the fruit, and I ate it.” (Genesis 3:12)
Again, Adam gets off the hook.

BUT God didn’t buy what Adam said; did he? No! Since God didn’t buy what Adam said, why would he approve Paul saying the same thing?

AND since God didn’t approve what Paul said, why should we let fundamentalist use Paul’s words to prevent women from being pastors?

David, I don’t follow you’re saying the bigger sinner should lead. If that were true the most sinful people should be our preachers.

Are you trying to be funny?

Anonymous said...

Wade,
How very interesting. I grew up and attended high school at St Marys High School, (The Public school is just across the street from this radical Catholic private school). I attended the public school. It is actually named St. Marys beacuse the Town takes it's name from the mission that was established by jesuits in the 1800's, so we have a private school, a public school and the name of the town itself all sharing the name St Marys. While I was growing up, I had an uncle and aunt who were very diligent and dedicated members of this cultic sect. They refused the Roman Catholic reforms of Vatican II and considered those who attended mass in English as heretics. SOme of the students who went to the catholic school would get special dispensation from their bishop to come to our public school so that they could play football, basketball etc. so I knew some of the kids who were raised under that system. They are more legalistic than any baptist I ever met. I am grateful for their influence in my life, they showed me more and more reason to leave the RCC. It is when I was leaving the RCC that I heard the gospel and believed. I had good friends who came out of that system, but our friendship was always strained by my refusal to go along with their legalism. I have kept up by way of blogs and web sites with the movement there in St Mary's, and they are growing and their influence has had a large impact on that town. The school has grown to be able to support the major sports at their school, but they are still on the outs with the Pope. Very interesting that they took this stand now. I had always thought they would have taken this position much earlier.

Jeff Rogers

Rex Ray said...

Dave Miller,
In case you forgot, here are some questions I asked you:

On Wade’s February 12 post:
“I was wondering what happened to your reply [about Dilday] of Saturday October 9. Or are you pulling a ‘Patterson’? smile” [February 15]


On Wade’s February 9 post:
“Let’s see…I quoted that Patterson agreed Dilday was a conservative. Who did you quote?” [that he wasn’t February 13]
“Let’s see…what did you say? [about the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy]
1. ‘Illusions’ does not refer to the Bible.
2. ‘Illusions’ refer to those apparent contradiction in the Bible.
3. The contradiction is an illusion.
4. No part of the Bible is an illusion.”

BTW in the last 36 days, Wade has averaged 1,425 hits per day. Does anyone know about how many people that involves?

Anonymous said...

Rex:

Adam--and the husband--didn't get off "scot free"; he has the awesome/terrible responsibility of standing before Jesus at the Judgment Seat of Christ answering for how he led his family. How will you and I have done, in Jesus' view? Good question, huh? NOT trying to be funny.


David

Dave Miller said...

Rex Ray,

I have seen no questions on any blog that you have asked me. I never saw them.

If they are on this site, I will wander back through the archives and try to respond to your questions.

Dave Miller said...

I tell you what, Rex Ray. I can't find the questions you mention. Frankly, (I wish this were a joke) I have had West Nile Virus, a bad back, cluster migraines and other physical problems. Unfortunately, I spent most of the fall in a drug induced stupor.

I have a blog (which, of course, few have read) about SBC issues. Rather than carry on a conversation here on Wade's blog, if you would like to challenge and debate me, I would be glad to respond on my blog - "This Tent's Just Right."

http://thistentsjustright.blogspot.com/

Come on over. We'll get out the good steak knives and chew on this thing a while.

Emily Hunter McGowin said...

David,

If the NT is "clear" about the point you make, then I must have missed it.

Where in the Bible does it say that "the husband has the awesome/terrible responsibility of answering to God...for the leadership of his home"? Where in the NT does it say that men will be "standing before Jesus at the Judgment Seat of Christ answering for how he led his family"?

Grace and peace,

Emily

Dave Miller said...

I am planning to petition my congressman for a new law to be enacted that NO MORE DAVES or DAVIDS can blog.

I just want to note that I am not the David who Emily refers to. I believe I will stand and give account to God for how I fulfilled all my responsibilities here on earth.

But its a different David.

I think we need to be Dave 1, Dave 2, Dave 3, Dave 4...

And, by the way, I am having a moral quandary about posting this. I think it might be a sin to type in the letters of the "Word Verification" that I have to to get this posted. Oh well...

Debbie Kaufman said...

David: I am an adult, I do not need to be lead. My husband is not responsible for my sin, I am. I do however need an encourager, someone who loves me for who I am and probably many of the same qualities you desire in a mate. I want a part in the decision making, it shows my husband trusts me enough to ask me what I think. That is the highest compliment.

Rex Ray said...

David and NOT Dave Miller,
(I think Miller is still on too much medication as I think no one has gotten him mixed up with you. I believe he is looking for something to howl about instead of answering questions.)

Sorry about dog-piling you on your statement of a husband facing judgment, but I think the most shameful answer we’ll give at judgment will be the number we’ve led to Christ compared to the number we COULD have.

Never the less, our judgment is not dependent on our works but on His Grace.

Dave Miller said...

Rex Ray,

I can't tell if it is your eyesight that is failing or your memory.

If you look above, I offered to answer any questions you put to me and debate any issue you wish, but I'm not sure we should do it here on Wade's site.

I offered my site as a location (see address above).

Come on over.

And get your eyes checked, dude.

Darby Livingston said...

Just a thought: Might it be inferred from the submission of the wife to her husband that he would then be responsible as a steward of her submission in the end? Either way, I'm thankful that I will slide through the judgment on the merit of Christ rather than my ability to lead my wife.

Rex Ray said...

Dave Miller,
Thank you…you’ve made my day. I don’t laugh much, but your comment resembled today’s comic strip, ‘Pearls Before Swine’, so much, I had to.

The comic strip:
Rat: “I’ve concluded that every singe gym [blog] has one smelly guy who doesn’t seem to know he’s smelly because no one wants to tell him”

Goat: “So?”

Rat: “So now there’s ‘SMELLY GUY AWAY’!...for just $9.99, I will write a letter to that individual tactfully apprising him of the situation…Here, read a sample…”

Goat reads: “Dude, you stink.”

Goat: “I must have missed the ‘tactful’ part.”

Rat: “It’s all in the ‘Dude’.”

BTW did the Rat’s $9.99 come from the church budget?

PS Your ‘site’ is reached by clicking your name, and I’ve already started a comment to it but am having to work around lightning.

steve said...

Maybe St Mary's high-scoring point guard had the flu and that was the best that coach could come up with on the spur of the moment? Sadly, I doubt it. Sadder still is that we have some just like him "coaching" our CPMs worldwide.
Steve

Dave Miller said...

Rex Ray,

Do you think the lightning could be a message?

Rex Ray said...

Dave Miller,
If you want me to say it, I guess I’ll have to agree that lightning is warning me not to comment on your blog. (I did it anyway.)

You’re not going to give me your sickness are you? I have enough of my own.

Do you remember when you wrote on the 16 of February: “I have seen no questions on any blog that you have asked me. I never saw them.”

Two comments above your comment, I asked you to explain what you meant about the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy when you wrote :
1. ‘Illusions’ does not refer to the Bible.
2. ‘Illusions’ refer to those apparent contradiction in the Bible.
3. The contradiction is an illusion.
4. No part of the Bible is an illusion.”

Since you didn’t see them then, can you see them now, or is: “There’s none so blind that refuse to see.”

Will you explain what your 4 statements mean?

Rex Ray said...

Dave Miller,
On February 16 you said, “I’ll wander back through the archives and try to respond to your questions.”

Let me help you on the “ARCHIVES”:

1. On Wade’s November 29 post, your wrote on December 2, 2007 in replying to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy:

“The phrase ‘illusions’ in the exposition does not refer to the Bible, but to those apparent contradictions in the Bible. No part of the Bible is an illusion, but the contradiction itself is an illusion.”

2. On Wade’s February 9 post…last comment (February 13): I quoted what you wrote on December 2, 2007 and said,

“Let’s see…what did you say? 1. ‘Illusions’ does not refer to the Bible. 2. ‘Illusions’ refer to those apparent contradiction in the Bible. 3. The contradiction is an illusion. 4. No part of the Bible is an illusion. Yep, that’s what you said. The only trouble; #2 and #3 contradict #1 and #4.”

3. On Wade’s February 12 post, next to the last comment (February 15):

I asked if you were “pulling a Patterson” by not replying to my February 13 question. (If you don’t know what “pulling a Patterson” means, it means Patterson replies to hard questions with silence.)

Again I will ask: Will you explain your December 2, 2007 statement on Inerrancy?

Anonymous said...

Debbie:

We ALL need to be led, adults or children alike. Sometimes we all follow, sometimes we all lead, sometimes we all just get out of the way. And, true leadership is encouragement and etc.--what you mentioned.


Emily:

New Testament. Find the passages yourself; interpret them as you wish.


Rex:

I agree.


David Miller:

Hang in there, brother.



David

Becca said...

As a private institution, St Mary's has a right to interpret scripture as they see fit, but when they choose to participate in the Kansas state association activities, they have to give up some of their rules.
I teach choir. Under St Mary's 'rules' that would also mean that a choir with men could not participate in a competition with female judges. Seems rather silly to me.

davidbmclaughlin.com said...

I think we need to be Dave 1, Dave 2, Dave 3, Dave 4...

I agree! Can I be Dave 1? Just so it's easy for me to remember or of course!

Lin said...

"We ALL need to be led, adults or children alike. Sometimes we all follow, sometimes we all lead, sometimes we all just get out of the way. And, true leadership is "

If all adults who profess to be Christians are not being led by the Holy Spirit then they are in trouble.

The whole earthly 'leadership' issue in Christendom is a myth. We are supposed to be a Holy Priesthood. (Men and Women)

R. L. Vaughn said...

St. Mary's Academy is a private religious school. It gets its rules/theology/whatever from its archbishop or whatever religious authority it recognizes. According to the U. S. first amendment, this school can set its religious beliefs, regardless of what they rest of us think.

The Kansas State High School Activities Association is a "private/non-profit association of accredited member schools, whose purpose is to administer a program of interscholastic activities, festivals, clinics and contests among member schools."

Ultimately it seems to me that St. Mary's should set its own standards of beliefs, and that the KSHSA Association can set standards for its members. If these standards are not acceptable to St. Mary's, then St. Mary's has every right to keep her convictions and play basketball in any venue that she can find that is in keeping with her religious standards. Neither should be forced to change to fit someone else's standards. KSHSAA and St. Mary's just need to go on their separate ways. I suppose they could also work out a compromise, but that doesn't seem likely.

sexy said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,A片,A片,A片,A片,A片,A片,情趣用品,A片,情趣用品,A片,情趣用品,a片,情趣用品

A片,A片,AV女優,色情,成人,做愛,情色,AIO,視訊聊天室,SEX,聊天室,自拍,AV,情色,成人,情色,aio,sex,成人,情色

免費A片,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛

情色文學,色情A片,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,言情小說,愛情小說,AV片,A漫,AVDVD,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,成人交友,成人電影,成人貼圖,成人小說,成人文章,成人圖片區,成人遊戲,愛情公寓,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,成人論壇


情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,aio,av女優,AV,免費A片,日本a片,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,聊天室,美女交友,成人光碟

視訊聊天室,聊天室,視訊,,情色視訊,視訊交友,視訊交友90739,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,視訊聊天,UT聊天室,聊天室,美女視訊,視訊交友網,豆豆聊天室,A片,尋夢園聊天室,色情聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,成人聊天室,中部人聊天室,一夜情聊天室,情色聊天室,080中部人聊天室,080聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊