Bible Literalist Church

You've got a real problem with women? Sure sounds like it.The tyranny of the most selfish is exactly what women have had to put up throughout history.Anyway, even if I knew of such a bunch of losers (and they are not hard to find in Scotland) I probably woudln't tell you. The sooner they wither on their twisted vine, the better by me.

I'm a Bible Literalist who is trying very honestly to obey all the commands, I cut off the long hair, stopped sleeping around, started honoring my parents, am trying to obey those in authority over me, traffic laws, all of it. I don't work on Saturdays, I go to church on Sundays, I won't get remarried because of my divorce... I'm really serious about it. When something seems to contradict itself in the Bible, I assume that it is a problem with me, and my understanding of God. Sometimes I figure it out, too. I just want to find a church to join. One that is simple and literal.

I have no problem with women or Scottish people.

My dad (a university professor and of generally sensible intellect) has more or less the same assumption. Now, he's no biblical literalist (although his church is, he, as a man of letters, sees how things can be mythically true - that is, express truth while not being a historically literal account) but his assumption is that if he doesn't understand some dogmatic point, the fault is with him and not the dogma. (He's got a big problem with the Trinity. As he says, "I can count to three, and three isn't one.")What I can't understand is why a reasonable person would come to such an assumption. If it can't be made to make sense - not only by you but by anyone - why assume the fault lies with all humanity? Personally I reject ineffability arguments. If a just, loving god exists, why would he be so ineffable? His assumed "infinte" power is not an answer. We can understand infinity. We use it in math all the time. It's not easy but it's possible. Even an infinite god could be understood.

quote:

---

have no problem with women ...

---

Strange, then, how the only issue you mention is to do with women keeping quiet in church.I presume, as this is the only issue you mention, that you have managed to find churches which do believe in executing people for idolatry (all those American Indians and Hindus are for the chop), blasphemy, heresy, homosexual behavior etc. And of course they celebrate the Jubilee by returning land to original owners, and bind debtors into slavery, and can beat such slaves almost to death so long as they recover in a suitable time. Or sell their daughters into slavery.Quite why such churches, which you have presumably already found to meet your requirements in all other respects - after all, you only mention one issue - why they are so lax about women teaching or preaching, I am not at all sure. Funny, fickle people, some of these fundamentalists![This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-23-2003]

Bible Literalist churches that agree with you on the topics you mentioned:German Baptist Brethren
Old Brethren
Dunkard Brethren (I think)
Most conservative Mennonite churches
The Amish
Charity Christian Fellowship, I think they're in Kentucky or somewhere around there
Finger Mennonite Church (in Finger, TN, birth place of Buford Pusser)And I have a Bible contradiction for you. Jesus offered the unity of his disciples as proof that he was sent from God. If Christians in general are generally in disunity and disagreement, it's nothing compared to how bad the groups I listed above divide. Give them enough time, and they will splinter into individual families. Once that has happened, I supposed they'll have to rescind their views on divorce in order to keep dividing.I did everything you talked about, but what was killing me was seeing that it didn't produce the unity and love Jesus spoke of.Now I'm not a Bible literalist, and I have found the unity and love he spoke of; everything Acts talks about. This isn't the thread for me to go on about that, but I didn't think it was off topic since you asked about those churches. With time I could probably think of more. I know there was one in Kalispell, Montana at one time, and Modesto and Merced in California have lots of that type of brethren church.I don't recommend them, though.

Dear Truthlover;
Thanks for your considerate answer to my question. I believe your demeanor towards me qualifies as unity. We can disagree, but still be in unity. You afforded me dignity, like a Christian should. I believe that obedience will produce unity, but one can't unite with the disobedient who feign unity for the sake of preserving error. The division in those churches is probably due to a lack of respect for the other person's dignity (God's image.)I would be very interested to hear the rest of your story. There are addresses on my website that you can use to contact me if you are willing to share your experiences with me.Oddly enough, the Mennonite church here in Austin has a female pastor.David

As a Biblical literalist, how do you resolve the paintings and figurative art on your web site (some of which are admirable, I must say) with the second commandment?To remind those who are a bit shaky on the commandments, this is found in Deuteronomy 5:8 - "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth" (my italics)I'm not getting at you, btw. I was raised in a community of very strict Biblical literalists and I'm quite used to their ways, so I was quite flabbergasted, given your avowed literalism, to see paintings of people on your web site. I would be very interested in your response[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-24-2003]

Most of the "Biblical literalist" churches I listed have bishops, and many of them even call them bishops. The Greek work translated bishop in Paul and Peter's letters is literally "overseer." Paul and Peter use bishop, pastor, and elder interchangeably, although pastor (or shepherd, same word) is used as a verb, not as the position's title (Acts 20:20-28, I think, and 1 Pet 5:1-5; please, this is not the place to discuss whether Acts really represents Paul's words or whether Peter wrote 1 Peter; I'm not arguing authorship, just pointing out the interchangeability of bishop and elder in the NT in response to a question).Later, Polycarp uses bishop and elder interchangeably in his letter, as does Clement of Rome. Ignatius, from the same time period does not, and eventually all early Christian writers used bishop to mean the head elder only. The most logical explanation, I think, is that Paul and Peter started churches with a group of elders who all has a position of overseer/bishop, while John's churches only called the head elder bishop.Anyway, any modern church with a pastor and elders could reasonably be said to have a bishop, although the title has changed. However, as I pointed out, the churches I listed mostly have a bishop and elders with those titles.Again, let me point out that I don't recommend them and I'm not defending them.

David,Yeah, I was careful to list "conservative" Mennonite churches, because Mennonites can also be the most non-literal and anti-literal churches there are. The Old Order groups (Amish, German Baptist, Mennonite) use the liberal Mennonite churches as an example of why they won't bend any of their rules, even their dress code, not even a little. One step in a looser direction, they say, and you start a slippery slide that leads you way to the other side of the "worldly" churches.I was in San Antonio for a few months back when I would still have been interested in a conservative Mennonite church, and I didn't find one. I know there's a more modern and evangelical, but still very conservative, Mennonite group in Grand Prairie, or something like that, and Paris, TX and Italy, TX are loaded with little home school style groups that would believe the things you listed.

Mr. P.;
Thanks for the nice words about my paintings. I especially appreciate you coming at me with scripture. I can be convinced of things that way. My defence of my actions stems from my reading of the KJV without their added words (to help with the flow.) It reads like this without the italicized extras;
"You shall not make for yourself an idol any likeness what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth." I'm not making any idols, although I suspect that they could be used that way. I'm opposed to Icons. I would not be as comfortable with this if the representational aspects of the tabernacle and temple didn't exist. The palm branches, pomegranites, angels, and other representational elements would exist in contradiction with a forbidding of all representational artwork. If it becomes clear to me that I should not paint, I'll definitely stop painting, though.

Those homeschool only rules bother me. Moses most likely went to a really serious pagan school, and Daniel. I'm partly ok with homeschooling, but the Bible doesn't command it, so I'm not helping anyone bash heads for non-compliance to their homeschool rule. I was homeschooled for 3rd grade and it screwed me up- I never learned cursive.If it helps anyone here to know it, I was an adamant feminist for years. I have daughters whom I love dearly. I was even in a Lesbian folk duo, if you can believe that. My family came out of the Aimee Semple McPhearson church (4Square.) Mom's childhood pastor was female. I used to defend this really well. Unfortunately the same logic I used to defend this worked really well to rationalize sleeping around, and wild partying. It hurt everyone when I did that, so I'm being very careful with the Bible now.

quote:

---

My defence of my actions stems from my reading of the KJV without their added words (to help with the flow.) ... I would not be as comfortable with this if the representational aspects of the tabernacle and temple didn't exist.

---

I think your post here and your previous posts on women in the church represents very nicely the "fundamental" flaw - pun intended.The plain sense of the authorized version in English contradicts the existence of representational art elsewhere in the Bible. So you have to go beyond the plain sense of the translated words to resolve the contradiction.There is no great problem with that, except for a literalist, because it requires the exercise of a great deal of human judgement to move from text to action, from scripture to scriptural living. Human judgement, of course, is entirely caught up with language, culture and psychology to the extent that these are now as much part of your chosen path as the text you chose to interpet.You may, of course, object that it did not require a "great deal" of judgement - which I would strenuously argue with - but even were I to agree, it would help your case but little: for now your problem is what degree of interpretation is appropriate for a literalist? But deciding that, is itself an act of judgement, subject to culture, psychology and language.The objection may be raised that this approach leads to pure relativism, but the objection is a simple error of logic. Of course, the approach can lead to pure relativism, but it need not. This "slippery slope" can be checked by - you've guyessed it - the same exercise of judgement. What, therefore, do we have to guide us, to check this slide? The Anglican approach has been "scripture, tradition and reason." The literalist approach appears to be "exercise every rhetorical, textual and linguistic gymnastic necessary to resolve the seeming problem."When it comes down to it, we can see the profound influence of language, culture and psychology in your posts:
your wish to follow 1 Tim 2:12 "to the letter";
your decision to interpret the second commandment by drilling into the hebrew and resolving it with other texts;
your description of mutual submission as "insanity", despite the clear meaning of Ephesians 5:21.You see, when it comes down to it you are not really a literalist. You are, no doubt, striving to live as you believe God wants you to live. But you are doing so with the exercise of your God-given judgement, which is, after all, what Christ commanded in Luke 12:57 "Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?"Now if you happen to want to join a church with your chosen attitude to women, that is your choice. but you're kidding yourself if you think this is anything but a choice. It comes from the heart and mind of David O and how he responds to the a selected text, not from any objectively verifiable, incontrovertible commandment.

That argument amounts to solipsism.

I don't see that at all. Maybe you could explain why you think so. Dismissing a well-formed reply with a single, barely applicable word doesn't help your case a whole lot.