If it was your wife...

[Tom Wetmore]

Not sure if my previous post in another topic was purposefully ignored, overlooked, or just overwhelmed by the avalanche of tangential arguments that took over that thread, but I never got any answer from anyone in the anti-WO camp. So I am reposting it as a new topic. Anyone willing to honestly answer this one?

... Let's assume you wife, after much thoughtful reflection, study and prayer, told you that she fully supported WO and women in church leadership. What are you as a man and husband going to do about that? And what would you do if she further told you that she was under the growing conviction that God was calling her to become a pastor and that she had decided that she would follow that calling wherever it lead should such an opportunity present itself to her? And what would you do if a conference president called her and offered her a pastoral assignment?

[Neil D]

that's easy, Tom....I'd divorce her....................

[olger]

It's a straw man hypothetical. One could turn around and ask you "What would you do if your wife said 'I have studied the Bible and concluded that WO is wrong, and I am opposed to it from this day forward.'" Both hypothetical.

[CoAspen]

Not an answer to the question...as posed. To make it simple, what would you, personally do? People answer to hypothetical questions every day, part of life. Are they all, 'straw people' to you?

[Neil D]

It's a straw man hypothetical. One could turn around and ask you "What would you do if your wife said 'I have studied the Bible and concluded that WO is wrong, and I am opposed to it from this day forward.'" Both hypothetical.

Here are a couple of answers-

scenerio #1 sitting at a table, reading the newspaper

That's nice, dear....bring me a cup of tea, please....

Scenerio #2 six monthes later-

I thought we had something. You met my family, made me dinner, called me "honey". Now you're suddenly a "waitress" who was "doing her job"....?

[Tom Wetmore]

Strange that….

But seems to me that I read very recently about someone considering the hypothetical possibility of taking up a new sport, golf to be specific. That person considered hypothetically that he couldn't do it since he assumed he wouldn't hypothetically look good in lime green pants. Not sure he needed to actually try them on to know that. Nor even try the sport to draw a conclusion that he wouldn't like the sport very much as compared to more active and exciting sports more to his liking.

Seems that one can consider a multitude of hypothetical possibilities if one has an open mind or is just willing to stop and think about it.

So Ger, what would you do if your house caught on fire? Or is that too hypothetical for you to think about and consider articulating an appropriate course of action?

Now don't be afraid. The house won't burn down if you just think about it.

[olger]

That's easy - I would put on my brown pants.

[Tom Wetmore]

It's a straw man hypothetical. One could turn around and ask you "What would you do if your wife said 'I have studied the Bible and concluded that WO is wrong, and I am opposed to it from this day forward.'" Both hypothetical.

But here is a difference apparently between you and me. For me to answer your turnabout question is not so difficult. If my wife said that to me, I would ask her to tell me how she arrived at that conclusion. I would then explain to her why I disagreed with her (as if she didn't already know). And not really expecting or needing to dissuade her, I would respect her decision and would not expect her to become ordained or participate in any ordination service of women. Yes, it would be disappointing to me. But it would not be the end of all things. It certainly would not be the first thing of importance on which we disagreed. And it most certainly would not change our relationship. It would raise a practical dilemma of which Adventist church we would be members of, since our current membership is in a church that has ordained women as elders and deacons and has had a women as an associate pastor for as long as we have been members (20+ years). I would assume that if she became convinced that ordaining women was wrong she would no longer be comfortable there.

OK. your turn, Ger.

[phkrause]

You see Tom, that is exactly the difference! From the posts I've been reading, and everyone has a right to except WO or not. The problem I see is those that are for WO seem not to have a problem actually answering your question, because to them, if there spouse were to announce that they were against WO, it would be very exceptable. Now those that are against WO seem to not be able to answer the question, because now if there spouses said they were for WO, what would they do? They couldn't handle it. Because according to there thinking, they would now believe that there spouse had a problem with them being head of the household. What a shame that would bring to the family. Well that's my opinion of the issue or question you present.

[lazarus]

Now don't be afraid. The house won't burn down if you just think about it.

Lol.

On a serious note. Sometimes folks refuse to think about or discuss certain things because the possibility is too frightening or disturbing to entertain. It's a defense mechanism. Thinking about these issues on a practical, personal level sometimes shows us how much our huffing and puffing is just hot air.

[phkrause]

Lol.

On a serious note. Sometimes folks refuse to think about or discuss certain things because the possibility is too frightening or disturbing to entertain. It's a defense mechanism. Thinking about these issues on a practical, personal level sometimes shows us how much our huffing and puffing is just hot air.

[Tom Wetmore]

You see Tom, that is exactly the difference! From the posts I've been reading, and everyone has a right to except WO or not. The problem I see is those that are for WO seem not to have a problem actually answering your question, because to them, if there spouse were to announce that they were against WO, it would be very exceptable. Now those that are against WO seem to not be able to answer the question, because now if there spouses said they were for WO, what would they do? They couldn't handle it. Because according to there thinking, they would now believe that there spouse had a problem with them being head of the household. What a shame that would bring to the family. Well that's my opinion of the issue or question you present.

I agree. That is what is particularly troubling about this whole issue. THose that support WO and/or women in ministry generally, seem better able to tolerate and accept differences of opinion on the matter and allow for freedom of choice and practice on the matter. But those opposed, seem less able to accept and tolerate that others may differ from their perspective and seem more likely to want to impose absolutely their view on others.

That is why those opposed are more likely to see this issue splitting or destroying the church. Those of us who have lived with not having our view accepted know that it is not those in favor that will split it, since after 150 years of this question going unresolved the fact is the church hasn't split. Those opposed are so unwilling to live with the possibility of allowing that which they so strongly oppose that they can only envision it destroying and splitting up the church.

That is precisely why I ask the question be faced on a personal level in the context of a marriage. I know it wouldn't destroy my marriage if my wife and I strongly disagreed on this. So why would I think it would destroy the Church? But those that think of it as so divisive and destructive to Church harmony apparently are unwilling to face the question of how it might play out if they were on opposite sides of this issue with their spouse. They maybe are afraid they just couldn't live with a spouse that disagreed with them on this. If true, that is kind of sad, really.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

It's a straw man hypothetical. One could turn around and ask you "What would you do if your wife said 'I have studied the Bible and concluded that WO is wrong, and I am opposed to it from this day forward.'" Both hypothetical.

I would say: Blessings on your for your Biblical study and conviction.

Neither my wife nor I consider ourselves to be the spiritual ruler of the other. We each hold the individual to be personally responsible to God and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

We would have a sense of where the other one was and why. But we would be quite willing to live with each other.

It is the same with our politics and the way that we vote. While we often vote the same. There are some issues that carry emotional baggage on which we may vote differently. WE each may ask the other why and what? But, that will be the end of it. One of us does not make the decision for the other.

[olger]

When you guys are done with your group hug, lemme know.

[CoAspen]

Waiting...waiting...still no answer.....wondering....why.....surely a manly leader can answer the question...eh?

[M. T. Cross]

... Let's assume you wife, after much thoughtful reflection, study and prayer, told you that she fully supported WO and women in church leadership. What are you as a man and husband going to do about that?

[Green Cochoa]

Tom, Gregory, et al.

The pen of inspiration tells the men what they should do. There is no need to be confused on this point.

First, as it relates to this particular question.

The husband is the head of the family, as Christ is the head of the church; and any course which the wife may pursue to lessen his influence and lead him to come down from that dignified, responsible position is displeasing to God. It is the duty of the wife to yield her wishes and will to her husband. Both should be yielding, but the Word of God gives preference to the judgment of the husband. And it will not detract from the dignity of the wife to yield to him whom she has chosen to be her counselor, adviser, and protector. The husband should maintain his position in his family with all meekness, yet with decision.--1T 307, 308 (1862). {1MCP 161.1}

[ClubV12]

I would offer my opinion the same way I have here, as you cannot force anyone to do anything.

If her decision is out of harmony with the G.C. position, she is on very dangerous ground. I could not support her in any regard in such a case.

If she chose to leave over the issue, I would let her go.

Actually I faced this situation years ago as it regards her decision to leave to further her career. I refused to move, we had moved enough times already to further her career. I had a career too! I stayed, told her she was willing to sacrafice the family to gain a career advantage, when her career was doing well where we were. She left and filed for divorce. So she could get that to the next step in her career. I've seen TWO commissioned lady Pastors taking the same track. They have spent a lot on school, they want to get ahead, their angry. They couch it in terms of following God, I don't think so. It was clear to me they wanted to further their career as they dragged their husband along behind. Been there....

Now Tom's scenario, we assume, is a sincere desire to follow God. IF SO, they would also have a sincere desire to honor the authority of the Church. IF they violate THAT, you can be sure, they are in delusion, however sincere they may be.

[Kevin H]

Pastor: If you had 500 sheep, would you give 50 to the Lord?

Member: If I had 500 sheep, I would gladly give 50 to the Lord!

Pastor: If you had 100 cows, would you give 10 to the Lord?

Member: If I had 100 cows, I'd gladly give 10 to the Lord!

Pastor: If you had 10 pigs...

Member: Just a minute pastor, you know I have 10 pigs!

[Gregory Matthews]

So, Green if Sally, a Methodist, becomes convinced of the Sabbath wants to join the SDA church, and her husband, Jim choses to remain in the Methodist Church, should Sally decide that God wants her to follow the direction of her husband and remain in the Methodist Chruch?

I assume that you will say that Sally should only follow her husband as long as he is doing what God wants.

Well, the Biblical position is that of individual responsibility to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.

So, if Sally beleives that God is calling her into ministry and her husband is not convinced, would you say that Sally should violate what she beleives to be the leading of the HS?

In all that EGW said about the role of men in a marital relationship I do not believe that she ever said that women should follow their husbands in violation of the leading of the Holy Spirit.

[Green Cochoa]

So, Green if Sally, a Methodist, becomes convinced of the Sabbath wants to join the SDA church, and her husband, Jim choses to remain in the Methodist Church, should Sally decide that God wants her to follow the direction of her husband and remain in the Methodist Chruch?

I assume that you will say that Sally should only follow her husband as long as he is doing what God wants.

Well, the Biblical position is that of individual responsibility to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.

So, if Sally beleives that God is calling her into ministry and her husband is not convinced, would you say that Sally should violate what she beleives to be the leading of the HS?

In all that EGW said about the role of men in a marital relationship I do not believe that she ever said that women should follow their husbands in violation of the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Gregory,

I do not believe Mrs. White spoke to us against the leading of the Holy Spirit, do you? Therefore, any interpretation or belief that one is being led against the counsels of Mrs. White, I would be highly suspicious of.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Green Cochoa]

Gregory,

I presume you are aware, as a long-time Adventist who is acquainted with Mrs. White's writings, that one can be an Adventist and yet be praying to Satan unawares. Satan can answer those prayers, and can give people light and much power, but Satan does not give any love, joy or peace.

I have taken these truths seriously, and have ever questioned my own experience with God to make sure that I am not praying to the wrong god.

It is my firm belief that many are being led of Satan who think they are led of God. This is part of the last great deception in which many are self-deceived. We live in solemn times, and only those whose minds are "fortified with the truths of the Bible" will be able to stand.

I believe many are sincere in believing the Holy Spirit is guiding them to rebel against the church authority. They are sincerely deceived. God is not the author of confusion, as the Bible says. He is a God of order and of obedience. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. David, even when he was anointed legitimately to be king over Israel, never rebelled against Saul. Such should be the mind of our members today. If God sees fit that women should be ordained, God Himself is well able to bring it to pass in His own time and way. This rebellion is not His way.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[olger]

It is possible to warm a pew for 40-years in the church and not know on the inside what it is all about.

"A unique problem of third and fourth generational members" (Morris L. Venden)

[Neil D]

I believe many are sincere in believing the Holy Spirit is guiding them to rebel against the church authority. They are sincerely deceived. God is not the author of confusion, as the Bible says. He is a God of order and of obedience. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. David, even when he was anointed legitimately to be king over Israel, never rebelled against Saul. Such should be the mind of our members today. If God sees fit that women should be ordained, God Himself is well able to bring it to pass in His own time and way. This rebellion is not His way.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

John 10:27-29

27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.

When God sent Jesus to convince the nation of Judah to change thier ways, was Jesus led by Satan? Why?

Was not Jesus going against Church Authority?

Was not the people confused and some of them questioning the authority of thier priests? Were they wrong to question?

So, how can you say that people are being lead of Satan and they know it not?

[Green Cochoa]

Neil,

You cite Jesus as going against church authority. However, you fail to recollect that that "church authority" was not given them by Him. The rules they made and enforced were not according to His will.

The Seventh-day Adventist church organization, on the other hand, was established by His wisdom and under His authority. He declared to us through Mrs. White that decisions of the General Conference in Session should be submitted to by the membership.

There is no such declaration of Jesus that the decisions of the Pharisees or Sanhedrin were to be implicitly followed. And there is never any declaration of His that we are to obey man over God where the two come into conflict.

Some have opinions that conflict with the position of the world church. The problem is, the position of the world church that women are not to be ordained does not conflict with the Bible, nor with Mrs. White. If it did, we might say that it was right to rebel. But it doesn't. Paul is very clear in the Bible that men were not to allow women to have authority over them in matters pertaining to the church. Jesus Himself selected and ordained 12 men.

It is my personal opinion, not Biblical now, that the wife of an ordained pastor or elder is, by extension, ordained with him to the service of the Lord. She is his support. She can do much to help him in his work, and she should.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.