- Some evangelical sorts are against women “headship” based on an interpretation of Paul. I wonder how they feel about the Queen of England. And that she’s technically the, well, head of the Church of England…
- I truly wonder how those who believe themselves to be biblical literalists buy their meat. Every time I go to the supermarket, I somehow miss the section for meats with no blood in them that haven’t been strangled. No—I’m not talking OT food laws, I mean the New Testament ones in Acts 15…
i can’t speak to the meat but when it comes to women, if there’s no man available, a woman will do. If there had been a male heir, he should have been king (obviously) but barring that, a queen is a tolerable substitute. the system remains intact.
I would think that “evangelical sorts” object to the Church of England on so many other points that the Queen’s titular position is so far down the list that no one even bothers to complain about it.
Good question, Derek….
It’s a question I have asked repeatedly: what formal Synod or Council overrode and disqualified the APOSTOLIC instructions to Gentiles in Acts 15? When and where was the formal decision of the APOSTLES in the Council of Jerusalem set aside?
I have never been able to find an answer. So, as far as I can tell, literalists are all still bound to keep their meat-eating kosher and blood-less — although Paul seems more-or-less to take off on his own (i.e., contrary to the Council’s instructions given directly to him) in 1 Corinthians.