Yeah, you guys have lived a grand adventure. Along the way, you have gained a perspective that few have. I'm proud of you both.

The journey wouldn't be what it is without you, my love. BTW - I'm gonna start flexing like that all the time now. "DO IT!" Grrrrrr.

You and I are restless souls - huh? Both a curse and blessing.

Thanks, Rita. Also, thanks for the prayers. That means a lot to me. I hope we get a chance to share time again in the future down the road a piece.

One of the core values of Immanuel is, "We will live with and toward one another, but not rely on each other for what only God can provide." Easier said than done, huh?

Thanks, Holl's! It is a challenging thing. In this way, I thing and I are quite alike. Bummer for you. ;)

Thanks for writing William. While it not a completely easy thing to explain in a comment, the gist of how I would deal with those particular texts would be to read them forward. What I mean by that is I would read them in light of Paul’s other comments regarding new creation (II Corinthians 5; Col 3:11 - how we see each other in light of Christ’s work) which does not make the same distinctions regarding male and female. Some are comfortable with Paul’s language regarding female submission, while side-stepping, their exegesis when it comes to head covers, braids, jewelry and expensive clothing, and women being silent in church. In Christ, we are new creations! The guiding question for me is, when that new creation is consummated, will women be subjugated to men? While some may be able to conjure that image, in light of Paul’s language, it does not seem to be the way. So, in my comment about reading the text front ways or back, if we read back we make those texts referring to subjugating woman literal. If we read forward, we interpret them through the lens of equality. I am not writing to persuade you one way or the other. It may not be satisfactory for you, but for me it seems to embrace a more sensible, honorable and whole Bible approach. Again, thanks for weighing in. I really appreciate it.

Is "the" Dave McConkey? Sheesh! If it is, how are you? It has been way too long. How are you? Sorry for the use of the word "subjugation." Certainly not the right word. It really just muddied the waters regarding the real issue. I apologize. As for the rest, I am honestly not attempting to sidestep the challenging texts anymore than anyone else. The real conundrum is seeing how many handle the challenging texts, picking and choosing which ones are applicable to their context and which ones are not. I am referring to the no braids, head covers and jewelry stuff. We share the same history in as much as I held a complementarian position, but did a dance around the incongruent sections. In other words, I was forced into contextualizing some of it, while holding on to the “women not teaching or no authority” part…even though I do not know an evangelical church that literally silences women completely (although, that doesn’t mean there aren’t any – I just don’t know of them). I am simply trying to live into an interpretive approach that is as consistent as possible. The Directional Hermeneutic that I have sketched out is the closest to that consistency I have found. Lastly, and I say this ever so humbly because I don’t want you to think that this is why I changed my position, I thought I liked women before too. The grieving part for me was, it wasn’t until I struggled my way to a non-complementarian position that women in my life were honest enough to tell me that I had hurt them with my position. Don’t get me wrong…they were kind and gracious and patient, but confided that they felt diminished and disempowered by me. In a word, I may have thought I liked women, but they didn’t feel completely liked. Frankly, that breaks my heart. Thanks for your thoughts. I wish we could hang out face to face. Peace!

Thanks Diane. I am glad that the post was helpful. For me, a more eschatological approach is both freeing and in many ways de-complicating.

Thanks for dropping in Andrew. I am a slow learner. But, I am also a committed learner. :) Peace to you my friend.

Without an approach to reading and interpreting the Bible, a person is left with a myopic literalist only view. Scripture insists on being read with a variety of approaches. As we talked about earlier this week, a missional hermeneutic insures we are reading along the grain that God intended taking into consideration that directional pull of its "telos" or goal. Without this redemptive approach, we are stuck with things that made sense in context (ex. - OT sacrificial practices and NT Holy Kissing) but may not be as applicable for the unfolding story. The real challenge then is discerning which is which. One of the tools I use is described in the blog. Where is the story going and how does it impact the particular text being looked at?