Change of Focus

[GayatfootofCross]

Excerpted from ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS Chapter 6 
"INTO ACTION" (Page 83-84)

If we are painstaking about this phase of our development, we will be amazed before we are half way through.

1. We are going to know a new freedom and a new happiness.
2. We will not regret the past nor wish to shut the door on it.
3. We will comprehend the word serenity
4. and we will know peace.
5. No matter how far down the scale we have gone, we will see how our experience can benefit others.
6. That feeling of uselessness and self-pity will disappear.
7. We will lose interest in selfish things and gain insight into our fellows.
8. Self-seeking will slip away.
9. Our whole attitude and outlook upon life will change.
10. Fear of people and of economic insecurity will leave us.
11. We will intuitively know how to handle situations which used to baffle us.
12. We will suddenly realize that God is doing for us what we could not do for outselves.

Are these extravagant promises? We think not. They are being fulfilled among us - sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. They will always materialize if we work for them.

Copy n Paste!

[brotherly love]

My impression is that it is those with their minds firmly made up in opposition to WO that are the source of the overwhelming majority of those calling for more time, or insisting the people within their territories need more time to study and more information or any number of efforts to delay or change the subject. Obviously those convinced of the propriety of recognizing women as full participants in the gospel ministry are not asking for more time.  What is disturbing is that in many areas of the Church, leadership opposed to WO make no real effort to actually educate the membership on the issue in an honest and balance way, if at all.  It is far from a priority.  And  it seems a bit disingenuous for those who have failed to provide education for the people to call for more time when they have not taken the time they have been urged to take in the last few years.

The time is now. We cannot afford to bury another generation and be forced to start over yet again.

This post seems a bit disengenuous on the subject. In reality, this site should make any opposing view of womens ordination against the forum rules. This is what is taking place anyways. There is no honest or balanced education on this subject as those who share in the viewpoints of the administrations and moderators can levy any unsubstantiated personal attack against that person, and if the person under attack responds to these-only then is it off topic.

This in effect allows the person to be openly defamed at will, and defamed again if he responds. This cycle usually takes place after a well balanced post is given from the bible. The word heresy has been made with the topic, and the actions speak louder than words

Very little attempt has been made to open the bible

Edited July 23, 2015 by brotherly love

[JoeMo]

If people are against WO, they should simply go to a church with a male pastor. Personally, I like female pastors. I've been avoiding the WO debate lately because IMO it is not a salvational issue; and no one is going to convice anyone else to "switch sides".  If the Bible were crystal clear on this issue maybe we wouldn't be having these debates.

[pierrepaul]

and no one is going to convice anyone else to "switch sides".

This is not always true. I switched sides so to speak.

[Tom Wetmore]

There is a few problems with what you have written.

Firstly, what you have provided in acts 5 is a classic proof text taken out of context. The words of Gamaliel are a witness against himself and the Sanhedrin. Not any doctrine you may disagree with.

He used a few examples of movements that were not from God and were human in origin...and they failed. These words are a witness against the Sanhedrin as they opposed God and then failed to exist themselves, along with the Temple they resided over-effectively making the religion of the Torah impossible to practice.

The logical outcome of how you have used this verse would be ripe with confusion. Islam,  Satanism, Buddism, Hinduism and a whole host of other movements would then also have to be accepted as being from God.

Secondly, with your strong implication of "fighting against God" in the passage you would have to believe that the gates of hell did prevail against the bride of Christ despite His words otherwise. remember, this has been the belief and practice of the church for almost 1900 years.

 

 

 

Wrong once again. Completely missing the point. And reading into what I said what is simply not there. 

Not a proof text, nor was it presented as such.  It was applied well within the context.  That you cannot see the rather obvious application of the the wisdom of Gamaliel is not within my reach to fix.

As in the Acts 5 context, this is not about any doctrinal dispute.

What I posted is hardly original with me.  And by wonderful coincidence my men's small group had Acts 5 as the focus of its reading and study.  We specifically talked about this application of Gamaliel's wisdom to the current dispute over women in ministry. The consensus was affirming what I have posted. The pastor in the group mentioned a specific Church that was opposed to having the women as a pastor that was appointed to them by the conference.  Within a few months of her ministry to them they changed there collective minds and now are very supportive of her and women in ministry in general.  One of the members most opposed actually mentioned the story of Gamaliel in Acts 5 as instructive to him and instrumental in his change of heart and mind on the matter.  I know the this woman pastor.  She is indeed capable and deserves the confidence in her ministry that they now have in her. Hard to find a better pastor.

[brotherly love]

Wrong once again. Completely missing the point. And reading into what I said what is simply not there. 

Not a proof text, nor was it presented as such.  It was applied well within the context.  That you cannot see the rather obvious application of the the wisdom of Gamaliel is not within my reach to fix.

As in the Acts 5 context, this is not about any doctrinal dispute.

What I posted is hardly original with me.  And by wonderful coincidence my men's small group had Acts 5 as the focus of its reading and study.  We specifically talked about this application of Gamaliel's wisdom to the current dispute over women in ministry. The consensus was affirming what I have posted. The pastor in the group mentioned a specific Church that was opposed to having the women as a pastor that was appointed to them by the conference.  Within a few months of her ministry to them they changed there collective minds and now are very supportive of her and women in ministry in general.  One of the members most opposed actually mentioned the story of Gamaliel in Acts 5 as instructive to him and instrumental in his change of heart and mind on the matter.  I know the this woman pastor.  She is indeed capable and deserves the confidence in her ministry that they now have in her. Hard to find a better pastor.

I guess small mens groups that study a passage together makes it reality!!! What you consider Gamaliels wisdom was actually his foolishness, and his own words were witness against himself and the sanhedrin. This is the point of it being included in scripture. You missed the point completely because you are interested in your own agenda, and ignore the agenda of the Bible.

You have made the same mistake as another poster has done to a passage, strip it of its intended message, and then pressed your own principle into the passage out of context. Anyone could do the same, just remove the intended message and fill in the blank in order to fit!!

Based on this, then i can claim the text as my own, it is against womens ordination...there you go. The next person can change this to another subject he or she presses into the text.

It does not take a rocket scientist to see what I am talking about.

When you veer off the intended message of scripture and into your own agenda, then exegetical liabilities appear. This is what happens with this passage, people claim that Islam, Wicca, Satanism is also from God since it has not been destroyed and stood the test of time.

 

 

[Tom Wetmore]

This post seems a bit disengenuous on the subject. In reality, this site should make any opposing view of womens ordination against the forum rules. This is what is taking place anyways. There is no honest or balanced education on this subject as those who share in the viewpoints of the administrations and moderators can levy any unsubstantiated personal attack against that person, and if the person under attack responds to these-only then is it off topic.

This in effect allows the person to be openly defamed at will, and defamed again if he responds. This cycle usually takes place after a well balanced post is given from the bible. The word heresy has been made with the topic, and the actions speak louder than words

Very little attempt has been made to open the bible

A laughably familiar accusation that has been recklessly tossed around before by a few others opposed to women in ministry with nothing of real substantive value to add to the discussion.  When I say familiar, It is an understatement.  We have heard this almost verbatim, as if you are simply repeating the accusation of some else who was once active here that left in a major huff over the matter.  Hmmmm.... He was even given the opportunity to  have his very own subforum to moderate where he could post all things opposed to WO and women in ministry without interference to correct what he also claimed as an imbalanced perspective on the issue around here. But before he left in a huff, he completely wiped out, deleted, everything on his subform.

When I  say laughable, I am simply noting the absurdity of suggesting there is a lack of anything of substance allowed in opposition, that this is a biased and one sided discussion. Yes, of course there are more here that are participating that are in favor of women in ministry.  But to say no other point of view is allowed is the absurdity, especially from someone being given ample opportunity to openly express and defend his position of opposition to WO.  There is in fact plenty of material in opposition posted. If you would spend the time actually going back through and reading the considerable volume of topics collected in this subforum of discussions over a considerable number of years, you will see that there have have been many vigorous discussions actually in quite some depth covering all sides and facets of the subject. Your accusations, including  no attempt to open the Bible, clearly reflect a lack of awareness of the literally decades of discussion most of us have been engaged in on the topic, both here and elsewhere.  We do get tired of repeating ourselves to those unwilling to dig into the substantial volume of resources posted,  just in the pinned topics at the top of the menu for this subforum.  

Those same accusations and pleas for more time and a need for more study are the continued disingenuous refrain from many adamantly opposed  to women in ministry and WO to which I referred.  This has been exhaustively studied and well documented for 4 decades at least. (Actually by most reasonable accounts this issue has been a part of the entire history of the Adventist Church.) That some choose not to avail themselves of the resources that are available or that claim ignorance really have a very thin excuse.

And finally, regarding personal attacks, you seem to confuse any opposition to your point of view or challenge to your ideas and arguments as a personal attack.  That is not personal.  It is not defaming anyone.  You cannot defame an idea.  Just because your ideas and arguments are attacked does not mean you are attacked.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Tom Wetmore

[brotherly love]

A laughably familiar accusation that has been recklessly tossed around before by a few others opposed to women in ministry with nothing of real substantive value to add to the discussion.  When I say familiar, It is an understatement.  We have heard this almost verbatim, as if you are simply repeating the accusation of some else who was once active here that left in a major huff over the matter.  Hmmmm.... He was even given the opportunity to  have his very own subforum to moderate where he could post all things opposed to WO and women in ministry without interference to correct what he also claimed as an imbalanced perspective on the issue around here. But before he left in a huff, he completely wiped out, deleted, everything on his subform.

When I  say laughable, I am simply noting the absurdity of suggesting there is a lack of anything of substance allowed in opposition, that this is a biased and one sided discussion. Yes, of course there are more here that are participating that are in favor of women in ministry.  But to say no other point of view is allowed is the absurdity, especially from someone being given ample opportunity to openly express and defend his position of opposition to WO.  There is in fact plenty of material in opposition posted. If you would spend the time actually going back through and reading the considerable volume of topics collected in this subforum of discussions over a considerable number of years, you will see that there have have been many vigorous discussions actually in quite some depth covering all sides and facets of the subject. Your accusations, including  no attempt to open the Bible, clearly reflect a lack of awareness of the literally decades of discussion most of us have been engaged in on the topic, both here and elsewhere.  We do get tired of repeating ourselves to those unwilling to dig into the substantial volume of resources posted,  just in the pinned topics at the top of the menu for this subforum.  

Those same accusations and pleas for more time and a need for more study are the continued disingenuous refrain from many adamantly opposed  to women in ministry and WO to which I referred.  This has been exhaustively studied and well documented for 4 decades at least. (Actually by most reasonable accounts this issue has been a part of the entire history of the Adventist Church.) That some choose not to avail themselves of the resources that are available or that claim ignorance really have a very thin excuse.

And finally, regarding personal attacks, you seem to confuse any opposition to your point of view or challenge to your ideas and arguments as a personal attack.  That is not personal.  It is not defaming anyone.  You cannot defame an idea.  Just because your ideas and arguments are attacked does not mean you are attacked.

This may seem real to you, but it is not reality. Many are watching on my side of the fence and the method of operation is quite predictable. I will exegete scripture, and instead of dealing with the subject matter the personal attacks come. I cant even defend myself from them because the admin here all think the same and come with a life preserver to the rescue.

That is fine and dandy and I am up to the challenge,

Saying that you are tired of the same old responses is a cop out-this is a forum and in order to not hear the same old story you would have to close it to new membership. Secondly, how would you know I have the same old story-I have not been able to exegete more than one post before the personal attacks come and people fly off the rails. Lets look the last response to me

brotherly love, why are you lying? I am not using the text out of context. I am using it exactly the way it is written, in the clear manner in which it was intended. May the Holy Spirit directly intervene and convinct you of the truth, so you will see your false characterizations in their true light, as God sees it. It is HIS WORD you are handling dishonestly.

Here I am accused of being a liar who the holy spirit needs to intervene with. Any credible forum would not allow this-this is amateur.

This type of responses actually undermine your position, many are watching who dont post-and it has helped many on my side of the fence see that this issue is religious in nature and not theological. Religion is about man, and theology is about God.

[pierrepaul]

 

... this issue is religious in nature and not theological.

The issue has never been about theology; it's always been about ecclesiology.

[brotherly love]

The issue has never been about theology; it's always been about ecclesiology.

I disagree to a point. Ecclesiology is about study of the church, but this is pointless if it theology is not studied because a church is meaningless as worship is about God.

Studying the church can be religious, and religion is not theology. Catholics are noted for doing this

Edited July 24, 2015 by brotherly love

[Tom Wetmore]

* * *

Saying that you are tired of the same old responses is a cop out-this is a forum and in order to not hear the same old story you would have to close it to new membership. Secondly, how would you know I have the same old story-I have not been able to exegete more than one post before the personal attacks come and people fly off the rails. Lets look the last response to me

brotherly love, why are you lying? I am not using the text out of context. I am using it exactly the way it is written, in the clear manner in which it was intended. May the Holy Spirit directly intervene and convinct you of the truth, so you will see your false characterizations in their true light, as God sees it. It is HIS WORD you are handling dishonestly.

Here I am accused of being a liar who the holy spirit needs to intervene with. Any credible forum would not allow this-this is amateur.

This type of responses actually undermine your position, many are watching who dont post-and it has helped many on my side of the fence see that this issue is religious in nature and not theological. Religion is about man, and theology is about God.

Administrative Note:

You  are conveniently leaving out the moderator response that followed directly after that exchange. Had Gregory not responded before I read it I would have responded similarly.  As you can se we do not tolerate personal attacks. We don't always see them, but when we do we take action to correct that unacceptable behavior.  But the context of your repeated accusation has been more about getting strong push back for your ideas that are not attacking you personally, but rather your ideas and opinions, and methods of interaction.   There is a difference. Learn that difference.  Enough of this derailment.  Back to the topic.