Now, this gets my goat

After posting here, I took a little trip to Pyromaniacs, where John MacArthur has a guest post on the issue "Who Killed Jesus?" No doubt, the theological pundits will be at good old Team Pyro in full force today flexing their muscles.

What caught my attention was a comment by Adrian Warnock. He left a link to a post he'd done in a similar vein. Apparently, over the weekend, he took a few hits for his position on the issue. In his comments box, there was a commenter, a woman named Kristie, who left this comment:

If God didn't kill Jesus, then God didn't punish sin. Just as God can use someone else as a means to bless, He can use someone else as a means to punish. True, God used men to place Christ on the cross, but it was his purpose, his sovereignty, his intent to put him there. Jesus willingly clothed himself in our sin, took our place and therefore took our punishment. The punishment for sin is death. No man has the ultimate authority to punish our sin. That authority belongs to the God who made us and whom we have sinned against. If he didn't punish Jesus, who took our sin upon himself and stood in our place, by turning his face away from him and killing him, then he has not exercised his authority to punish sin and Romans 8 is false and we still stand condemned.

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Romans 8:1-4

By the way, Romans 8 is not false.

Peter Kirk, had this to say about this woman's comment:

Well, Adrian, you have found someone to agree with you. But a quick glance at Kristie's blog, with some lovely pictures of her children, doesn't suggest that your supporter is a theological heavyweight. And she doesn't seem to realise the moral distinction between allowing something to happen and being an active agent of it. I'm afraid I still prefer to side with John Stott on this one.

Now, since when does having children and wanting to post pictures of them indicate that the speaker is not a theogolical heavyweight? And why does she have to be a "heavyweight" to be correct? Do only the theological "heavyweights" have the means and intelligence to be correct? Are we saying that there is some kind of hierarchy in the church, whereby the heavyweights know everything and the "little people" must go to them for counsel? Mr. Kirk's attitude toward this woman is not generous or gracioius at all. Clearly, he thinks that simply because she posts picture of her children on her blog it means she doesn't have anything valuable to say. We can't get to know this commenter strictly through her blog; we have to talk to her and spend time with her. To make a conclusion about her based on her blog seems a little bit hasty to me.

This bugs me. It bugs me big time. It bugs me, because I am a mother who likes to delve into theology. Will I always be considered a "lightweight" simply because I also post picture of my kids on my blog? Does knowing theology and being astute with regard to it (if I ever get there) mean that I have to pretend that I am not a woman and a mother? You want to know why some women don't write blog posts about theology? Because they are afraid of criticism. They are afraid of exactly this criticism that Mr. Kirk levelled at this commenter. They are afraid, so they stick to that which they feel they know better; mothering. Surely, women are allowed to be a little more diverse than that.

It's comments like Mr. Kirk's that make women not want to offer their opinion.

***UPDATE***

Since someone mentioned it in the comments, this is Kristie's response to Peter Kirk. This is what I call a classy, well-spoken lady. Dan used the word "devestating" to describe her response, and I agree with him:

Peter - Thanks for the comment about my lovely photos, however, I didn't think that my "weighing" as much as you was a prerequisite for commenting. Be careful not to disregard someone's theology simply because he does not fit your mold of a theologian. It won't serve you in the long run.

As for John Stott, I would prefer to side with him also because he is much smarter than me. However, I cannot ignore God's sovereignty and his active involvement in every detail of our lives, especially the ones we erroneously think we are in control of - even the crucifixion.

Thanks for letting me chime in, but I must go now - I have kids to bathe and some theology to walk out.

This girl sounds like my kind of lady.

I would like Mr. Kirk to post something domestic in nature and let the domestic divas take him to task.