NO PLACE FOR EMOTIONALISM

[B/W Photodude]

NO PLACE FOR EMOTIONALISM

"First of all, I was disturbed to observe that many Adventists use their emotions to make spiritual decisions. Secondly, I observed that many resorted to manipulative means to convince others to view women’s ordination through the same lenses as they. I also observed that there were many on both sides of the issue who chose to present arguments based on careful study of the Bible. Good people can, of course, disagree about biblical interpretation."

http://advindicate.com/articles/2015/8/11/no-place-for-emotionalism

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

so, who is Mark Sheffield, and what are his qualifications to pontificate on "manipulative emotionalism" and other assorted psychological inferences?  Poor form by AdVindicate not to qualify the author... imho

[B/W Photodude]

 

Rudywoofs wrote: so, who is Mark Sheffield, and what are his qualifications to pontificate on "manipulative emotionalism" and other assorted psychological inferences?  Poor form by AdVindicate not to qualify the author... imho

 

That's funny right there! I mean, like who is even qualified to speak? I suspect most writing here are not "qualified" to write.

What are your qualifications to be critical regarding this writer? So, show in his writing that he is wrong and don't make it about him.

And how exactly is Advindicate supposed to "qualify" a writer.They are not exactly a peer reviewed type publication.

 

Edited September 6, 2015 by B/W Photodude

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Advindicate is not a forum.  C/A is a forum.  Big difference.

The proper thing to do is at the end of an article is to state who the person is, and what they do... if someone is the Editor, then that is stated.  If the author is employed somewhere, that is usually stated.  If the person is retired, that is usually stated.

It's not a complicated task..

[Naomi]

Perhaps they would appreciate your assistance in helping them function in a proper manner. 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

 

Perhaps they would appreciate your assistance in helping them function in a proper manner. 

I'm not an Advindicate type of person.  But thanks for thinking I have talent and perception enough to know the proper form and layout, Naomi..

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

You know, Naomi and Photodude, I only asked because I was curious about who the person was who wrote the article.  I didn't know that was inappropriate to ask.  If you look at most any journal or magazine, even SDA ones, you will see a tag at the bottom, explaining who the author of the article is.

I get tired of being the target of juvenile games.

**stepping out of this thread**  (I'm sure to your satisfaction.)

 

[CoAspen]

Its okay Pam, I'm with you. Would have thought they would give up by now...samo-samo....just more religious spam. The subject has been beat to death.  Talk about zombies!!!

[B/W Photodude]

Mark seems to be self appointed, and I highly doubt he is any kind of "authority" with anything written in such a publication. As some one said above: "religious spam."

OK, I am getting it now. Whatever you don't like, just dismiss it as spam. Works for some I guess when you can't be bothered to thoughtfully come up with a response.

[Tom Wetmore]

It seems rather strange to try to remove emotions from spirituality. It is kind of like removing breathing from life.  Look at all of the emotionalism in the the Psalms. The whole range of emotions get covered there. A major author of them was described as a man after God's own heart.   If emotional responses and motivations are wrong how do we reconcile that with simple texts like "Jesus wept"?  Frequently, Jesus is described as being "moved with compassion".  And lets not overlook the several times he was described as being angry.  Emotional Jesus.  We are his followers.  

To deny emotions should have a part in our religious/spiritual life is to strip it of its essential meaning.  God is love.  And don't try to neuter love by saying it is just a principle.  Because then you really don't have love.  You have duty.  

 

[Tom Wetmore]

That's funny right there! I mean, like who is even qualified to speak? I suspect most writing here are not "qualified" to write.

What are your qualifications to be critical regarding this writer? So, show in his writing that he is wrong and don't make it about him. 

And how exactly is Advindicate supposed to "qualify" a writer.They are not exactly a peer reviewed type publication.

* * * 

 

OK, I am getting it now. Whatever you don't like, just dismiss it as spam. Works for some I guess when you can't be bothered to thoughtfully come up with a response.

 

Seems rather obviously an emotional reaction to a logical and rational observation/question.

 

Also seems to reveal a sentiment (there's that ugly emotionalism again...) that one is easily upset (can't avoid expressions of emotion...)  when that which one likes is questioned, criticized, or challenged, even quite modestly and reasonably so.

[B/W Photodude]

Seem rather obviously an emotional reaction to a logical and rational observation/question.

Also seems to reveal a sentiment (there's that ugly emotionalism again...) one is easily upset (can't avoid expressions of emotion...)  when that which one likes is questioned, criticized, or challenged, even quite modestly so.

Yeah, I know what you mean. When you have so much antipathy to a topic, you just dismiss something as spam. And name calling of posts are not really a logical and rational observations.

FWIW, neither the author of the article nor I ever said there was any thing wrong with emotions. Just emotions should not be the basis of making ethical decision. And as for emotions, I am not Mr. Spock.

And your emotions are a bit transparent as you attempt to trash most anything I write here!

[Tom Wetmore]

[B/W Photodude]

 

Well; the scriptures are filled with "emotions" and God seems to have this odd way of accepting and loving everyone where they are at. God's ways seem quite at odds with the idea that "there is no place for emotions." It is my un-educated guess that there is even "emotions" implied in this post you have made. I mean; lets think about it. If God disapproved of "emotions" why would He make us with them? Yes; I will provide some scripture next time I post in this topic.

I do not believe that either the author of the article believes there is any thing wrong with emotions. And it is not something I have said either. But too many people want to make their decisions regarding right and wrong behaviors based on whether they will feel good about it or whether someone else will feel good about it. When you start making an emotion the desired end of an action you can get into all kinds of trouble. It really reminds me of the slogan from a long time ago "if it feels good, do it". And you hear all kinds of arguments that something should be legalized because they are victimless crimes. More specific examples of this would take a more thorough discussion of the various systems of philosophies. 

So, again, there is nothing wrong with emotions, but a feel good solution to ethical issues are not really the best way to go.

[CoAspen]

But too many people want to make their decisions regarding right and wrong behaviors based on whether they will feel good about it or whether someone else will feel good about it.

That would seem to indicate, again, that feelings or emotions which are a natural part of humans and created within them, is some how not correct. If one doesn't feel good about what they are doing, perhaps they shouldn't do it. If you feel good about giving flowers to you spouse, do it. Is it ethical to give flowers?

Oh...just don't do that in spiritual maters! Well perhaps not if one doesn't feel their spiritual experience is up to par! Who we are and what we are made of can not be excluded from decision making. Anything can be over done, overwrought so to speak. Just because something can be overdone does not excluded it from the natural part of life. The author of the article and others like it are trying to suggest that WO is just an issue that all emotions should be excluded from. The insinuation is that right, rational, which has emotions removed, thinking will lead to the understanding that God does want women as leaders in the church.

Sort of like trying to remove the interaction of taste buds and smell.

[Tom Wetmore]

Having read this article multiple times I have to say that it really misses the mark.  Despite what one might assume to be a basis of logic and reason as the preferred alternative, I find both quite lacking in this rambling opinion.  There seems to be a faulty assumption that culture and emotion go hand in hand and almost seem to be one and the same. While they may overlap there really isn't always strong correlation and they certainly are not the same thing.  The opinion also seems to overlook the obvious emotional and cultural elements strongly present among those opposed to WO.  While rightly noting that many on both sides "present arguments based on careful study of the Bible", the overall thrust of the article seems to be premised on the sadly mistaken view that those opposed to WO are largely free of cultural or emotional influences, and by implication are the ones more apt to be relying only on Biblically sound and intellectually dispassionate reasoning. 

 

[B/W Photodude]

I appreciate the point you are trying to make, and can see after re reading here a bit that you are concerned about people making decisions re Biblical doctrines using the wrong criteria. So that, in and of itself is good. I hope you can see I am mostly addressing the article of the OP here and not you personally.

Well, I am not taking anything personal out of it, but I would hope you can learn to not develop the habit of calling material that others post as spam. For one thing, if someone post something, it had some meaning. So, indirectly, calling what others post as spam, even if they didn't write it, it is an indirect insult. And shows a lack of intellectual honesty (i.e., intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways: One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;). Unfortunately, it happens too much here at C/A and even demonstrates an unhealthy over reaction to something not liked.

I "feel" that his accusation of "emotional manipulation" is quite out of place in the kind of thing he is attempting to oppose.  For one example, he comes across as very emotional himself in his fervent appeals, Whose seat is he putting himself in when he judges people who were crying about this decision regarding WO? 

As I have already written, the article was not against emotions and being emotionally invested in a discussion is not the problem. The examples of emotional manipulation offered by the author seemed to me to be very much as he said. I found it bizarre the story of the scientists who felt vilified because the  “people with limited qualifications” and “little or no understanding” chose to follow their Bibles rather than the scientist opinions. And persecuted like Galileo?

And the youth pastor writing regarding caring for the "wounded" reported that the youth of the church were wounded by the actions of the church. He suggested they needed counseling and therapeutic referrals. The author wrote, "From what I could see, Martin did not offer the Bible or prayer as a source of comfort. What he offered was “togetherness” to stand in place of “the touch of God.” In fact, his counsel is based on emotionalism. It is anti-intellectual and it is anti-biblical."

This reminds me of the state of things in some of our public universities today. A woman who defines herself as a feminist came to the university to speak. Apparently she wasn't radical enough for the student body and feminist professors. They were so distressed at what they were hearing or even the presence of this person that they had to establish "safe rooms"! Sometimes, you do need to grow up and get along with dissenting opinions.

To use their tears as an emotional appeal crutch in opposing WO just does not make sound theological sense. I do not support much of the theological hub bub we are seeing about this doctrine but I do object to the author of this article and how he chose to "oppose" it.

I have read too many stories of those who "felt called" to the ministry and their distress at not being ordained because it is seen by the majority as unbiblical. The appeals to their emotional state as the basis of changing the practices of the church does not seem to me to be a valid reason. 

What may be on some peoples mind is if the Scripture indeed calls for men only for leadership of God's church, can women really have an authentic leadership calling? 

 

Edited September 7, 2015 by B/W Photodude

[phkrause]

You know, Naomi and Photodude, I only asked because I was curious about who the person was who wrote the article.  I didn't know that was inappropriate to ask.  If you look at most any journal or magazine, even SDA ones, you will see a tag at the bottom, explaining who the author of the article is.

I get tired of being the target of juvenile games.

**stepping out of this thread**  (I'm sure to your satisfaction.)

 

I don't think Naomi had you in mind with her post! Just a thought, but I could be wrong!!

[Naomi]

No Phkrause you are not wrong ... perhaps I could have used different wording;  emotions or vocal inflections are difficult to read into the written word.  I chose not to respond to the response because I didn't wish to add to what appeared to have the potential of developing into a volatile situation.  

Thank you.

[LifeHiscost]

 I chose not to respond to the response because I didn't wish to add to what appeared to have the potential of developing into a volatile situation.  

Thank you.

I just inadvertently switched from white to black background with Microsoft 10 and am supposing I'll be doing just that a lot for awhile unless I can figure out how to get back to white background. I'm really glad especially for this promise at times like this.

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.....Romans 8
 

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[Unchained]

First of all, that the qualification/workplace of the guy who wrote this piece isn't listed is not really a problem. Some websites/publications might do it, while others abstain from satisfying our curiosity in this way. In any case it's generally not seen as customary on those kind of websites.

* * *

Now, the author of the article makes the suggestion that those who support WO do so based on “emotions” and “cultural assumptions”, not scriptural evidence. They are “sentimental”, “manipulative”, “childish” and “aggrieved”. That's essentially a cheap way to dismiss the supporters of WO without even bothering looking into their arguments. In fact, what he does here is to invoke typical stereotypes of what is perceived as negative “feminine” traits and apply these en masse to those who supported WO.

Of course the discussion has been passionate and emotional on both sides of this issue, but this is ultimately a question of Bible interpretation. (On a side note, I disagree with those who have claimed that this matter merely is a question of Church policy, it's clearly more than that.) The root of the disagreement regarding WO is first and foremost a clash of different hermeneutics.

To give the impression that the supporters of WO somehow are more “emotional” than those who opposed it, is dishonest and obscures what this issue really is about. It's mudslinging, nothing more.

 

[B/W Photodude]

Now, the author of the article makes the suggestion that those who support WO do so based on “emotions” and “cultural assumptions”, not scriptural evidence. They are “sentimental”, “manipulative”, “childish” and “aggrieved”. That's essentially a cheap way to dismiss the supporters of WO without even bothering looking into their arguments. In fact, what he does here is to invoke typical stereotypes of what is perceived as negative “feminine” traits and apply these en masse to those who supported WO.

Of course the discussion has been passionate and emotional on both sides of this issue, but this is ultimately a question of Bible interpretation. (On a side note, I disagree with those who have claimed that this matter merely is a question of Church policy, it's clearly more than that.) The root of the disagreement regarding WO is first and foremost a clash of different hermeneutics.

To give the impression that the supporters of WO somehow are more “emotional” than those who opposed it, is dishonest and obscures what this issue really is about. It's mudslinging, nothing more.

I think you are not making clear distinction between using an emotions as a basis of an argument and being emotionally invested in an argument. It is a big difference and as such it is a stretch to accuse those who are concerned about using emotions as a basis for changing practices as dishonest and mudslingers.

You are correct in saying that it is a clash of different hermeneutics. And some do not seem to like a plain interpretation of Scripture and others seem to think it is acceptable to come up with different meanings that are not plainly written. So, when you get into changing meaning of Scripture, you are treading on dangerous ground.

Again, it is not helpful to portray those who do not support WO as using  "a cheap way to dismiss the supporters of WO without even bothering looking into their arguments." You seem to make the assumption that "if" they did, they would automatically change their opinions. It is a bit disingenuous to accuse one side or the other of not even studying the issue.

[Kevin H]

 

 

The root of the disagreement regarding WO is first and foremost a clash of different hermeneutics.

 

 

I really really like your post, although I do have trouble with the above line. Those who oppose women's ordination use this phrase and say "We are using the Hermeneutics of those who believe the Bible; while those who support women's ordination are using the hermeneutics of those who do not believe the Bible is inspired."  Many of us are using the same hermeneutics, good solid Bible believing methods. However the differences are the information that we have to plug into our hermeneutic system, and other ideas that we are trying to deal with.

Since the mid 1800s (interesting) there has been an explosion in Biblical knowledge. Knowledge in history, culture, customs, language, poetic structures and what they mean etc. And even though we are using the same hermeneutics, we have different sets of information that we can plug into them.  Also there is a tendency among the anti-ordination leaders to have a different agenda that dates back to the 1888 General Conference.

[Gail]

Is emotionalism connected to the spirit which one is holding? I don't mean to accuse anyone of having a satanic spirit, but why are folks so emotional about this subject in particular? Besides searching Scripture to gain information we are supposed to also test the spirits (some Bible versions interpret this as the spirit of a thing)

We might learn more than what we have bargained for.

[Gail]

I really really like your post, although I do have trouble with the above line. Those who oppose women's ordination use this phrase and say "We are using the Hermeneutics of those who believe the Bible; while those who support women's ordination are using the hermeneutics of those who do not believe the Bible is inspired."  Many of us are using the same hermeneutics, good solid Bible believing methods. However the differences are the information that we have to plug into our hermeneutic system, and other ideas that we are trying to deal with.

Since the mid 1800s (interesting) there has been an explosion in Biblical knowledge. Knowledge in history, culture, customs, language, poetic structures and what they mean etc. And even though we are using the same hermeneutics, we have different sets of information that we can plug into them.  Also there is a tendency among the anti-ordination leaders to have a different agenda that dates back to the 1888 General Conference.

To add to your comment, we can only make a decision according to the information we have. One more piece of information can make a difference in one's opinion.