Chosen?

I commented to a post on FreeGrace blog on Ephesians 1:

You wrote: "Verses 4-6 expound on how the Father is involved in the church’s salvation: He chose us."

They DO NOT. This passage is not about salvation, but about  the blessings from God by our position as saints based on our being 'in Christ'. This phrase or its analogue 'in him' is the drum-beat of the first chapter, and they are all showing that our blessings revolved around our being 'in him'.

The passage is about Christ not about us. It is about us, being regenerated we are 'in Christ' for the purpose that we would be holy and blameless being in him.

Correspondingly, we are not predestined for salvation, but being saved we have a destination previously set by God for those who would be in Christ: adoption as sons!

 Incidentally, if we are talking about salvation, the order of salvation is set out in 1:13, 14:

In him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in him with the Holy Spirit of promise, ¹⁴ who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

See the order: Listened--Believed--Sealed (regenerated).

We could set it out thus:

    "In him, you also, after

    listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also

    believed, you were

    sealed in him with the Holy Spirit of promise, ¹⁴ who is given as a pledge of our inheritance,

[For?]

    with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory."

 

Train, educate, or get out of the way!

Great video. I was one of those arrogant Calvinists! Happily no longer, so I know the feeling you are talking about.

What started me on the Calvinist path, many decades ago, was a Bible study group that an old (but not that close) friend invited me to join. In my church I was demographically and intellectually isolated. My friend's group was people of my age and all university qualified. Even here, though, the Calvinism was trickled. Firstly by recommending books (the tedious Puritans), and finally a Bible college where I did some summer courses and made some friends, including with the principal and his son. But what distinguished this church to mine was an emphasis on knowledge, on reading theology and 'pious' conversations about what we read.

My church was intellectually  barren. One deacon in discussion vowed to read the italics in his Bible with due emphasis, not being aware that italicized words were translators' additions. An elder, when I asked about a Schaeffer book, told me it had 'too many big words' (it didn't). In this church I was given youth teaching and 'leading' roles for which I was unequipped and given no training. In fact, no one was trained for anything. This intellectual (knowledge) vacuum made me ripe for not only Calvinism, but would have made me ripe for any cult that promised knowledge of the Bible. It also rendered me useless for the roles given. Note, this was way before the Internet age and resources were hard to find and expensive...and I was not even aware that they might exist.

Here's what I now would expect for all new Christians, or Christians from the age of, say 16: a one year course of maybe fortnightly sessions during school terms on Bible basics, an outline of church history, and a thorough grounding in soteriology, if not Christology at the appropriate level. It might also include 'workshops' on the basic questions Christians get asked. A couple of weekend 'consolidation' conferences could be added in.

Similar, but shorter courses should have been available, perhaps at the denominational/conference level on Sunday School teaching and youth ministry. These being ubiquitous and constant needs in 'volunteer' ministry.

The fact that most churches rely on either a weekly 'talk' (aka the sermon) and other forms of osmotic learning is a real derogation of the duty of the church to make disciples. Our biggest effort should be training to 'make disciples' rather than no training, which makes for ineffectiveness or complete passivity.

How you say it.

My church has started some well thought-out training seminars, brief, but targeted, to help people fine-tune their skills in talking about our faith.

The announcement at this morning's assembly was along the lines of: "we are having a training session for people who are not so confident in communicating the gospel. Please put your hand up if you are planning to attend."

Three people did.

I made the observation to the convenor that no one is going to nominate themselves as lacking confidence. I suggested that playing to people's presumed strengths would be better.

Something like: "We are holding some short seminars to help people fine-tune their skills in gospel conversations. If you could contribute your experience and attend that would be wonderful."

This presumes expertise and experience from the get go, rather than presume a deficiency. Anyone who nominated to attend would feel like they were experts giving a hand and not gormless newbies, lazy for the gospel.

Chance and Necessity?

In a useful article on Wikipedia, this is written about Jack Monod's 'Chance and Necessity':

Chance and Necessity: Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology (French: Le Hasard et la Nécessité: Essai sur la philosophie naturelle de la biologie moderne) is a 1970 book by Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod. Aimed at a general audience, the book describes the basic characteristics of life, reviews findings of modern biochemistry and molecular biology, and argues that life arose by blind chance guided by natural selection, could not have been predicted, and does not have a higher purpose.

It may seem odd, but Isaiah also writes about Chance and Necessity:

But you who forsake the Lord,
Who forget My holy mountain,
Who set a table for Fortune,
And who fill cups with mixed wine for Destiny

                                                             Isaiah 65:11

Now, let's look at some words.

The word translated 'Fortune' in Isaiah is 'Gad', a Babylonian deity, the 'god' of 'fortune'.

'Destiny' in the passage translates 'Meni', the Babylonian 'god' of 'fate'.

Israel forsook Yahweh (the great I AM) for Babylonian imposter gods: demons, perhaps.

Today, modern materialistic naturalism adds a third 'god' Cronus, or Chronos: 'time'. But rather than Chronos representing the destructive ravages of time (see for corroboration Romans 8:18-24, where the creation is subject to corruption and, by implication the ravages of time), it produces benefits!

Here's the connection: modern evolutionary speculation couples 'chance' and a form of 'necessity'* over time; but the great deceit is that here time, instead of  exerting its ravages, does the very reverse and brings about increasingly capable and sophisticated organisms, culminating (so far?) in mankind.

This perhaps represents the greatest vanity: a deceit that instead of time diminishing us (we all die) it paradoxically is the engine of idealist benefit. No 'one' benefits, but things are asserted to get better*. This inverts the ancient's recognition of the true effect of time on events and substitutes a deceit that time makes for the better, denying Sanford's 'genetic entropy', an observable decline to genetic catastrophe.

Now do you understand the parlous implications of Darwinian Evolution? 

Many thanks to M for his insight into this passage in Isaiah.

*Darwin's ideas were congruent with Victorian optimism that saw things inevitably getting better. He mistook the additive growth of knowledge, in line with mankind's imageness of God, with some form of ontological 'progress'. Thus I call his idea a 'mid-Victorian gross-morphology pipe-dream'.

Whence the Trinity?

A lot of scuttlebutt on the Internet seems to assert that the Trinity is 'invented'. But, as Greg Koukl points out, the Trinity is a solution, not a problem.

Bob from Speakers' Corner in the UK put this logical set of Bible references together:

1. There is one God

Isaiah 45:5

“I am the Lord, and there is no other;
Besides Me there is no God.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me;

2. The Father is that God

John 17:1-3

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

3. Jesus is also called that God

Titus 2:13

looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

4. The Holy Spirit is called that God

Acts 5:3-4

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? ⁴ While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

5. Christ promises a 'helper'

John 15:26

“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,

6. The Holy Spirit is the helper promised by Christ

Acts 2:1-4

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. ² And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. ³ And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. ⁴ And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

7. Jesus aligns himself with God via the Old Testament

John 8:54-59

Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’; ⁵⁵ and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. ⁵⁶ Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” ⁵⁷ So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” ⁵⁸ Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” ⁵⁹ Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

The new thanksgiving

Our curate likes to play around with the liturgy. At least, I think it's he.

I think the latest adaptation of the Thanksgiving needs some work, though.

Here's an upgrade, based on "A General Thanksgiving" (2007 Version)

Father in heaven, we praise and thank you for your grace towards us and your working all things together for our good.

We thank you for the splendor of your creation, for the beauty of this world that shines through its fallen corruption, for the wonder of life, and for the mystery of your love towards us.

We thank you for the blessing of family and friends, and for the loving care which surrounds us on every side and for the community of your saints.

We thank you for setting before us opportunities which ask our efforts, and for equpping us to grow in accomplishments which satisfy and delight us.

We thank you also that in those disappointments and failures that can beset us we learn to acknowledge our dependence on you alone.

Above all, we thank you for your Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ; for the truth of his Word and the example of his life; for his steadfast obedience, by which he overcame temptation; for his dying for our sin and for his rising to life in defeat of death, and in which we are raised to the life of your kingdom.

Grant us the gift of your Spirit, we pray, that we may know Christ and make him known; and through him, at all times and in all places, may give thanks to you in all things.
 

Conversations--with atheists

Atheists do not form an homogeneous group. When you have a conversation with one it is essential to know which type of 'atheist' you are talking to.

1--Atheist proper: this person denies that there is such a thing as 'god' of any type. The 'a' before 'theist' means precisely that. It is a statement about reality.

The strategy I'd use here is simply to ask why? What reason do they have for their claim, then seek clarification on particulars that need it.

Then go to paragraph three under point 2, below, starting 'If they are genuine'.

2--Fake atheist: this person simply does not believe in god. They have a 'non-belief' in any god, but usually, particularly the Creator God proclaimed by Christians These are non-theists. They express an internal belief state that is theirs. It is not a claim about reality. About reality they may be either indifferent, or actually agnostic; if they are genuine, of course. Yet, we have to assume genuineness, or gently test for it.

The test for genuineness is not, I think, at least in most cases, asking if there was sufficient evidence, or reason, would they consider the call of Christ to repent. Of course, using relevant vernacular that would make sense to the listener. The question  would be, how would you evaluate evidence or reasoning that might establish, on balance, that the existence of God was more likely than not...because that's all we get in this world.

If they, on the other hand persist in their non-theism, I'd probe why they think that their internal state (of disbelief) is of any interest to anyone.

If they are genuine, I'd ask about the consequences of their belief in terms of the actual state of the world, or how their belief makes sense of the actual state of the world: how knowledge is possible, what drives their 'meta-ethic', how they establish real value in states of affairs, what is love, really, if merely chemical collisions, is your consciousness real or merely a random result of the evolution of chemicals, etc. along the lines of Plantinga's naturalism's self refutation.

3--Uncertain atheist, or, properly, agnostic. If this person is genuine, they show a level of honesty that must be respected. BUT, you have to check this out first, IMO.

Because an agnostic is like a non-theist, but less determined, see the third paragraph above.

In any case, I'd suggest avoiding the evangelical 'secret sauce' of a personal 'testimony', unless it becomes really relevant, or if it is asked for; such as 'tell me, why are you Christian?' or, 'how did you become a Christian?'

The reason to avoid a 'testimony', is because it is personal: far better to discuss objective reasons in the shared reality of the objective world.

 

Foundations for local churches

Our diocese has great plans to increase gospel connections by...huffing and puffing: just try harder type deal, without understanding the underlying system that prevents this very thing our worthies seek.

We did this a decade or so ago with a slogan-based campaign to 'try harder'. But, again, no understanding of the system that was in the way so as to change the system.

Management (they would say 'leadership') by slogan is known to fail as a matter of course but it grabs headlines, so remains popular to the neglect of the hard work of: 'Check--Plan--Do'. Check what the system produces and why. Plan adjustments, changes and resourcing for same, then do them. Then repeat.

So this letter went to the chief servant at our Bible college.

I was encouraged by the latest issue of College News.

Much is 'on' and that's good...as far as it goes.

The real challenge is to equip every Christian to be able to at least casually evangelize in their own circle. I doubt that we do this, but this was the way of the early Church. Sure, there were 'evangelists' gifted for a more focused role, but Peter sets before us that all need to be able to 'give a defence'.

How many can confidently and effectively do this?

I daresay, from many decades experience in many parishes, as I've moved around Sydney, London, Cambridge and New York, not many.

And at none of the half-dozen or so Anglican churches I've been a part of has this aspect of our mission been advanced.

That is, at none have we as a church experienced a consistent parish commitment to true training in talking out our faith and dealing with the challenges typically brought to it. Nor indeed, at none have I seen consistent training in the foundations of faith that is more than confirmation classes.

Most parishes hope the set-piece sermon will do. It won't! For most, the sermon drops out of mind as soon as they pop out of the auditorium (which is what our assembly halls have become). Some use Alpha or Christianity Explored, etc., and these are OK as first step 'in-drag' efforts, but where to next?

Sermons/lectures are not effective means of teaching transformational content that will see people changed. What is, is immersive discussion-based training sessions, with plenty of to and fro, where adults can test their ideas and understanding, having 'simulations' of dialogues and debates, with set readings to be discussed and mulled over. The 'tutorial' more than the 'lecture'.

Now, how might this play out in the parish, or for greater efficiency, and fellowship, in groups of parishes?

My 'top of mind' program could pan out like this:

Based on a church of my recent experience, and not of this diocese, I'd expect that we separate learning and the Sunday gathering. Let's keep this for edificational sharing, prayer and a meal (with a short talk to add to this). The 'learning' stream at this church had three adult bible classes: questioners, explorers, and  developers, reflecting 'beginners', intermediates' and 'further study' These met during school term time on a three year cycle of topics. New facilitators/conveners were also trained up in these cycles.

Alongside this would be three 'Recharge' weekends a year, to focus respectively on Bible (Lent?), evangelism (Pentecost?) and apologetics/society (Advent?).

The Bible stream would start with the whole Bible overview as a picture of soteriological reality from Creation to New Creation and how all the parts fit to this theme. It would then introduce all the books in logical groups: Pentateuch, History, etc.

The evangelism stream would start with the '7 basic questions' people have of our faith...and that most Christians would be hard pressed to answer  cogently, confidently and accurately.

To my mind these questions are:

-- Why are you a Christian?

-- Why do you believe in God?

-- Why is Jesus the only way to God/don't all religions teach the same thing?/that's your truth not mine/ I'm spiritual, not  religious.

-- Why do you 'attend' church (actually it is 'why are you a part of a church)?

-- Hasn't science disproved the Bible?

-- Why does a good God allow evil in the world (this is often given a very personal aspect)?

-- Why do you read the Bible?

The apologetic stream might start with a very ripe opportunity we have at the moment in Islam.

There are also 7 challenges Muslims typically bring to Christian faith. Working through these would be of value with other Docetic/Arian views and delve into some important theological matters.

These 7 are:

1. The Bible has been corrupted (the Quran is perfect).

2. The Trinity makes no sense (Allah is one not three).

3. Where did Jesus say 'I am God worship me'?

4. Why did Jesus pray to God if he is God?

5. How can God die (i.e., the crucifixion, which they don't accept)?

6. How can God punish one person for the sins of another (misreading the already confused penal substitution theory)?

7. If Jesus died for your sins, can't you sin all you want?

Both these lists would occupy a full day of interactive group sessions, as the first Recharge of a cycle, with groups trialing and discussing based on input segments. The only way to make the material one's own in skills acquisition: guided practice and not 'chalk and talk' sessions.

Along with these sessions I'd see the distribution of relevant published articles, or prepared for the session, as pre-readings, and 'tip-sheets' along with Bible studies for private study afterwards.

These Recharges would also follow a three-year cycle of themes, with actual content being continually updated, in line with the 'recharge' idea, giving opportunities at presentation and facilitation roles for people to develop capability.

All up, the vision we should have for the local church, the local 'gathering of holy ones', to use Paul's wording, is not a passivizing ceremonial 'worship' event weekly, but an active community engaged in learning, practicing and outreaching, with practical service for brethren in need and the local community.

Outreach would be real outreach: conversations in coffee shops, on the street, at work or school, none having to 'conclude' but always to 'plant a seed'. Some formal 'outreach' would also be beneficial in the many ways parishes might do this: community seminars, short topic-based 'courses', discussion and support groups for people with varying interests, etc.

A great example could be shown both at Moore and at St Andrew's Cathedral. St Andrew's has thousands of people walk by every day. It should get rid of the Muslims, Falun Gong, Mormons and JWs on its doorstep ( and maybe its own land) and have its own stall offering water or a small coffee, a sit down chat, Bibles in a number of languages, including Arabic (not Two Ways to Live, please) or just a brief street encounter using (provocative) handouts. The Bibles should have a short introduction as to what the Bible is/is about and a reading guide. All this would be low key, but not on the back foot. The current state of affairs is a real indictment of the Cathedral's surrender to evil in making way for the enemies of Christ.

College could do similarly in Newport, and on the [nearby] campus with 'walk-up' chats and simple tables where we have discussions with people. Muslims and Trotsyites do it, why don't we? Indeed these two groups offer us a great training opportunity: go and discuss with them: by first asking simple questions, then demanding questions, then critical questions.

Evil rears its head: so what is the god of the philosophers doing about it?

I comment on a fine speech by John Lennox at Pepperdine University in 2013:

Epicurus starts with the 'god of the philosophers' not the creator God of the Bible. As do most who enter this type of discussion. So we ask the wrong question, we misunderstand the Creator God and we under-estimate ourselves. We prefer to think of God as the puppet-master fairy god mother god and we as the poor waifs that he will wipe the nose of.

The first thing people do in questioning evil is to distance themselves from it: we fail as people to recognize that however 'good' we think we or others are, we are full of evil: selfishness, pride, and disdain for others. We match the 'evil' of this corrupt world perfectly as the corruption is the outcome of Adam's rejection of 'god-ward-ness' We continue on the path Adam identified. Thus Paul in Romans 8:18ff (compare Psalm 115:16).

This is so because we are in God's image (Genesis 1:26: ponder on it) and our words and actions have real meaning; but without 'god-ward-ness' our words and actions are corrupt and as the stewards of the creation, our corruption drags it down as God, like Elvis, has 'left the room'. Yet he stays to seek our good by our repentance; our rejection of 'not-god-ness'.

So, the world is a broken place, given over to futility and corruption. Why?

 

    1. Because we could not 'fit' as corrupt people if the cosmos was uncorrupted: the would be an unbridgeable existential rift that would make life impossible.

 

    2. That we have enough of God's imageness to understand that the world is broken and we can detect that it ain't right, even though we are part of the not-right-ness.

The benefit of this is that our being out of synch with the God of life (Jesus: the way, truth and life) who is love, rubs us up the wrong way at every turn. We are reminded of the disjunct in everything we do, think and hope. We all face death all the time: it looms at our end. Thus, when Jesus was asked about the Siloam construction accident (Luke 13:4) he said: repent, lest this also happen to you (that is, die without repenting?). That's how we deal with 'the problem of evil', repent! Turn to Christ for new life.

Now, that's how the Bible leads us to think about evil: we experience it because our 'mannishness' is 'god-like', and that is the constant alarm siren that things are not as they should be. But pastorally, we don't handle it this way: we share the other's grief, we listen kindly, we be with them, we give any practical support and succor we can. We show our love by our actions and seek to bring peace to them.

 

Here's my addendum, a comment to a question to Frank Turek:

 

God can't just forgive all sinners? He has, but its up to sinners to take up the forgiveness by repenting of their rejection of God and so rejoin his family. God does not impose himself on sinners (God is not a Calvinist!).

 

Its about life transformation, and doesn't work with people who want to remain in rejection of God. Too much moralism which characterizes much of US evangelicalism. It under-does the gospel and misleads people. Sin is at base our willful alienation from God: it is us saying "no, God, get gone" The gospel is about being in fellowship with God and having new life in Christ to enable this.

 

And it is something we must come to realize: that we are cut off from such by our corruption in a corrupt world. The scheme of Salvation is about fellowship, God over-restoring the world if Genesis 3:8a where he was in fellowship with Adam and Eve. The 'over-restoring' is the new creation, with this veil of tears 'rolled up' and superseded.

Woman conducting an 'Outpost' of Stand to Reason

This is my thinking on a question asked by a woman on a talk-back podcast questioning her congregation's limit on her ambitions to convene an apologetic 'Outpost' for Stand to Reason.

Dear G,

I was fascinated by your discussion with the sister who wanted to organize an Outpost.

It is sad that her congregation won't support her desire; doubtlessly a godly desire, given her humble demeanour and evident motivation.

Her 'pastor' seems to be the gum in the works.

His role, along with the other equipping ministries (Eph 4:11-12) is to equip the saints for the work of ministry. I'm sure our sister aforementioned had in mind taking some responsibility to convene a work of ministry, which would also be part of the 'equipping of the saints' activities within the congregation.

Now, we run into two things:

1-      1 Tim 2:5-8 where Paul is taken by some to issue a blanket prohibition on women teaching or 'usurping authority' over men and

2-      Modern–post-reformation–congregational organization that make a minister or ‘pastor’ the authority giver, rather than the overseeing shepherd: to coach, instruct, counsel, encourage.

 

Together, these play merry hell with our practice with respect to our sisters in our congregations.

Note I use Coverdale’s translation of ekklesia, rather than the Jamesian usage ‘church’. I do so to make a point, and the point is that our understanding of the gatherings of Christians has been skewed away from a NT vision of an orderly charismatic (not in the modern popular sense) community of the holy ones, to an inherently authoritarian vision that comes to us via the un-reforming Reformation from Rome.

This plays out under the impetus of that strange Greek word authentein. Seemingly to endorse that men qua men have authority over women! I don't think that ‘authority' is given to any elder/presbyter/teacher/evangelist in this blunt terminology. The language used (hupeiko) suggests dialogue not command.

Before we start, we must set the scene with Paul's relevant general statements: Gal 3:28, 1 Cor 11:11 and 11:13-15, where there is no sex-based distinguishing of gifts. Put this alongside Joel 2:28/Acts 2:17 and the numerous unqualified mentions of Paul's female teachers and helpers/apostles (Junia) and we are in difficult hermeneutical waters. Our general hermeneutic policy is to use the less specific passages to interpret and modify the more specific.

On this basis, as well as the study of the word authentein, we must conclude that Paul’s Timothean statement is circumstantial. I mean specific to circumstances. Both the word itself, albeit translated in the NT on the basis of second and third century usage, rather than its earlier usage, and the immediate context with reference to the order of creation. Here he seems to be correcting something that was contradictory to scripture in the content of the women’s assertions of an 'authority' over men. That is they were putting the female as generative to the male rather than in the creation order. Paul also touches this theme in 1 Cor. 11:12

With the nature of the Ephesian setting that Timothy was in, Kroeger (1979, "Ancient Heresies and a Strange Greek Verb" Reformed Journal) hypothesizes that the Creation reference is there to overturn pagan-inspired heresies that attach women to the superiority of the goddess Diana, to the detriment of men: thus the 'authority' of women over men being taught. An 'authority' like no other teaching reference in the NT and one not aligned with the words of prophesy (in its various forms) that women are gifted to deliver.

But the church we are discussing also seems to have elevated the 'pastor' to a rank that exceeds that of an overseer who is to guide, and as we would say today to mentor the other sheep. The pastor as modern role bears more resemblance to a Roman (Catholic) priest than a biblical elder/overseer. But then if we do apply the surface and I must say anachronistic reading that seems to be popular in the modern church, it would prohibit all women from teaching or any appearance of exercise of 'authority' over a man. Paul does not limit this to the gathering of the church as we might characterize it today.

A little excursus here. Our modern conception of the church gathered: as a liturgical spectator ceremony, has nothing to do with the early church gatherings, which were informal, multiply communicative, community-edification gatherings. Firstly, they were constituted when (at least) two or three were gathered in Christ's name; so, any faith-oriented gathering should come under the Timothean rubric. Out go women university lecturers, seminary teachers, study group conveners, skills trainers, or Christian workers of any andragogic manner: conductors of any discussion group in a Christian gathering, offerer of opinions on STRAsk...a whole lot of permitted practices of the saints are out the window. Although I'd guess that one might place this as an action under the President of the organization. Still, a bit of a long bow, perhaps in this modern restrictive usage.

My conclusion is that as long as women don't assert over men a disordered creation of a 'goddess-earth-mother' that prioritizes the female over the male, to the disparagement of the male contra Genesis 1-2 and Gal 3:28, that they are free to exercise their gifts, irrespective of any dubious 'authority' of a male. And the NT is full of women doing just this, arguably! Titus 2, for example.

And even if one wanted to apply a rigid misreading to the Timothy passage, one could argue that the 'pastor' (or better, the board of elders) provided the umbrella for our women's work.

 Either way, Let's call the enquirer and tell her to 'get cracking' and start her Outpost and set aside the casuistry she has been subjected to.