It's great to be able to disagree without being damned to hell. I very much appreciate your irenic spirit (I learned that word from James Deforest Murch in "Christians Only." It's not one that gets used much in the Churches of Christ.)

Glad to hear from you. And thanks for the kind words. It's been a hard week so far, so nice to be appreciated.

But I'm fixated on your screen name. How do you pronounce "Helez"?

My eye keeps wanting to read "Helen" and then it realizes that the N is sideways, and I just can't get past it.

Is it …

In Texas they might call it Helen with a lazy N.

Heal EZ?

Heels?

Hell EZ?

He lez?

Heals?

I remain uncomfortable (to put it gently) with the sheer number of passages that must be reinterpreted in order to sustain your position. On virtually every passage, the argument for the new position is unpersuasive to me. The cumulative effect of the weakness of all of those arguments is overwhelming evidence against your position IMO.

However, I have probably posted too often to express my deep disagreement on this series. If I have done so I apologize. The irony is that both you and I hold that this is not the sort of disagreement that should divide brothers. Yet we have strongly held and diametrically opposed views on this particular topic. I think the real importance of this topic to our relationship is this: it is the platform from which we can demonstrate how unity deals with disagreement. That is a message that needs to be communicated throughout the Restoration Movement, but especially among churches of Christ.

Now, how many times have you heard a CENI-tradition speaker speak of the necessity of raising holy hands, the holy kiss, washing feet, or anointing a sick saint with oil? Have you ever heard anyone speak against church buildings because of “lack of authorization” in scripture? We hear about and teach the command for baptism, and rightfully so, but have you ever heard a sermon based on “The absolute necessity of forgiving others for the remission of our sins (and understanding that's what it's for)” (Matthew 6:14,15)?

Scripture is indeed inspired, but it was reveled through the hands of human writers in historical contexts. Similarly, our zeitgeist and traditions deeply color our reading of scripture. We’re simply comfortable, and we’re comfortable with what we’ve been told. It’s the easy road, and it’s understandable… we’re human. We're not lazy, but we do fear. Contrary to what many teach, however, "the perfect" is not yet revealed to the world. Still, Jesus had no trouble discerning God’s will and setting the record straight – “You have heard that it was said…”

We must learn to be confident in the Spirit, and not deny the power of our Godliness. We must learn to shed the baggage of tradition and set our hearts and minds on Jesus, and learn to know God. It isn’t as easy as following a set of laws, or a creed (written or unwritten), but we’re commanded to do so. What more could we desire, as Christians?

The times are changing, not only for our tradition but for all traditions. Not all of the changes are bad. Some will fall to legalism, some to relativism… let’s pray for all of Christendom, that we should stay strong in the spirit and in the truth until all things are made clear.

2. For much of history, the church has taught error on any number of subjects. Indeed, this is the essence of Church of Christ theology. Bishops ruling over churches goes back to the Second Century. Many other errors are quite old.

3. Someone has done a great job of compiling the Patristic texts that refer to the role of women at http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/overv_fa.asp

The earliest reflect a positive view of women. However, by the 3rd Century, the texts become decidedly bigoted, beginning with Tertullian. The bishop found that only the male is made in God's image.

"And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? … On account of your desert – that is, death – even the Son of God had to die.”

http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/tertul.asp

By the 4th century, even sex in marriage was frowned on. Jerome wrote:

Letter 71. To Lucinius, § 3. (Lucinius was a wealthy Spaniard who had made a vow of continence with his wife Theodora).

“You have with you one who was once your partner in the flesh but is now your partner in the spirit; once your wife but now your sister; once a woman but now a man; once an inferior but now an equal. Under the same yoke as you she hastens toward the same heavenly kingdom.”

In Jerome's thinking, when a woman has sex with her husband, she became his inferior. By remaining a virgin, even in marriage, she becomes "now a man."

Augustine teaches that husbands should despise having sex with their own wives:

Thus a good Christian is found to love in one and the same woman the creature of God, whom he desires to be transformed and renewed; but to hate the corruptible and mortal conjugal connection and sexual intercourse: i.e. to love in her what is characteristic of a human being, to hate what belongs to her as a wife.

And the story continues through the centuries. Even only a few decades ago, it was commonplace in the Churches of Christ — and many other denominations — to defend the traditional interpretation of Paul's writings on the premise of female gullibility and inferiority.

Burton Coffman, who is normally a very sensible commentator, in a note captioned “On the Deceivableness of Women” (1978), states,

It is a gross mistake to view the natural capacity of women for being deceived as in any manner whatever a reflection upon womankind. It is positively her most adorable characteristic. …

But are there not historical examples of strong-willed, powerful women, impossible to deceive, who now and again have held the rod of empire or the affairs of state with great ability? Yes, indeed! But exceptions do not make the rule. Wherever such leadership exists in women, it is still a masculine trait. … Nature produces a two-headed calf now and then, but that is not the rule.

This is hardly the sort of history that we should emulate.

For nearly 2,000 years, the idea of women being uniformly and inherently gullible and incapable seemed obvious and shows up in commentaries from many denominations.

Of course, today, now that women are being given greater opportunities than ever before, universities are having to develop affirmative action plans for men, because on entirely objective criteria, there'd be far more women than men on our campuses.

if we find a command that violates God’s own principles, we’ve misunderstood the command.

Or else we've misunderstood God's own principles.

To introduce a novel interpretation of so many scriptures in the 21st century, on the basis that God's own principles demand that interpretation, seems highly presumptuous. to me. What makes us think we're so much better at understanding scripture than the best minds in the church for almost 2000 years?