Friday!

Man, this is like a new record for my blog posts. I kinda like updating on fridays. It's so hard to get work done at Minford church for reasons I will say again: slow internet, spotty cell reception, no one here ever, silly printer that doesn't work on my laptop (have to post docs to google docs, then print from its local computer).

Anyway, what should I talk about? How about 1 timothy 2? My biblestudy which still doesn't have a name studied it 2 weeks ago. That's the passage were Paul says "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor usurp authority over a man." This passage GREATLY frustrates me. The bible says God is not a God of confusion, but I beg to differ. Well, I take it back. I know the Bible is infallible and I am not, so TO ME, God seems confusing when He has Paul write this passage.

There seem to be two interpretations available for this passage:
1.) Cultural relevance
2.) Literal

Cultural relevance says that Paul was only referring to women of that time period, therefore, women can teach men today and have authority over them. Only one problem with that: the explanation that Paul uses goes back to creation! He talks about the curse, which doesn't go away until Jesus comes back. Please hurry Lord! So, if his argument comes from creation and the curse, which still exists today, then his application still applies. If his explanation had ANYTHING to do with culture, then maybe this view of the passage would be true. If Paul said something like, "Look, christian women are taking their christian liberties to dress like our local prostitutes. you shouldn't dress like prostitutes", I could totally buy into that. But he didn't. He referenced the everpresent curse on women. Don't be angry women, men have a curse on them too.

But the literal interpretation provides even more problems. If indeed, women are not supposed to teach or have authority over a man, that becomes impossible to carry out. Example: my relationship with my mom. She has authority over me. To a degree, she will always have some authority over me, a man. Is this contrary to what Paul wants?! In my mind, it could be argued yes. She is a woman and she has authority over me, a man. And if women are not allowed to teach, well we already have a shortage of teachers in america! Take out all the women and we have no educational system. We don't even have to talk about women pastors to see the dilemma here.

So, I get frustrated by that passage. The cultural interpretation disregards scripture by using extra biblical arguments while the literal interpretation is untenable. I guess I'll have to rethink my definition of what it means that God is not the author of confusion.


In non-biblical news, I still don't have my tax refund! however, I went ahead and bought that tempurpedic bed. I know what you're saying, "Alex! Don't spend money before you have it!" and I say "You're right. I didn't". I can afford to pay off this bed if my return never comes. Now, I'm hoping it does, but this bed has an 8 months no interest deal with it. So I have 8 months to pay it off. Once that's done, I'll be back to only one debt in my life: my mortgage. I kind of have a budget in mind that I've been secretly wanting to implement as soon as my return comes, but I should probably start using it now. Basically, I need to get my emergency fund back up to par, then i'll start blasting away at my mortgage. Do you guys think it's better to throw all my spare money at the mortgage, or save part of it and pay over a longer time? I'm leaning towards save and pay, but I also know that the sooner I pay off my house, the better. Maybe I'll go 75/25. 25% to save, 75% to house. I dunno. I think I'll just work that budget out now and make it happen. If you're lucky enough to be a family member, I'll show it to you if you like!