Leaderboard

But the issue is not about "authority" and "control". Consider carefully the meaning of the words "minister" and "pastor". It seems that many of those opposed to WO make this error. Perhaps it is because they themselves wish or seek to make the role of a pastor or minister all about power, control and authority.

This is a really interesting article that I came across re response to a gay male who wrote to the Senior Minister at Ashland Baptist and asked if he would be accepted there as a gay man. I would like to put it up for critical review by the group here. --------------------------------------------------------------- “Will I be fully accepted at your church as a gay man?” Below is my response to an email I received that asked the following question: “I believe church should be for all of God’s children. No exceptions. I am a gay man. My question is, would I be fully accepted with no judgment and fully welcome and able to serve at Ashland Avenue Baptist Church?” I have changed all of the identifying information, but other than that, my response is in full below. I hope that it will be helpful to others facing similar questions. Dear D, Welcome home to the beautiful Bluegrass. It is great to hear from you and to hear of your previous connection with Ashland. What a ministry this church has had for almost 100 years. As to your question, it depends on what you mean by “I am a gay man” and what you mean by “accepted completely with no judgment and fully welcome and able to serve at Ashland Avenue?” If by “I am a gay man” you mean that you struggle with same-sex attraction, recognizing any sexual activity outside of a covenant marriage between a man and a woman is sinful and that you desire Christian discipleship to walk in line with the Gospel as you struggle with this temptation, then we would rejoice at your honesty and openness and receive you gladly at Ashland. We have faithful and accountable members right now in that very situation and attempting to live celibate lives to the glory of Christ. Of course, this is really no different than a man who struggles with heterosexual sexually immoral desires or any of the myriads of sinful desires we all struggle with as disciples of Christ. Sin is an equal opportunity offender and something that every Christian struggles with in unique ways. If by “I am a gay man” you mean that you embrace a lifestyle of homosexual activity and you refuse recognize it as sin no matter what the Scripture says and you are looking for a church that will affirm homosexual activity and/or same-sex marriage that would be a different matter entirely. But there is no uniqueness to homosexual sin in regard to this approach. The same would be true if a man came to us and said “I am a ‘name the sin’ man” and by that he meant he planned to keep on sinning in that way and embracing it as a lifestyle no matter what the Scripture says. There is a world of difference between struggling with a sin and embracing a sin. God saves us where we are, but loves us too much too leave us where we are. He is at work conforming his people into the image of Christ. As far as whether or not you would “be accepted completely with no judgment and fully welcome and able to serve at Ashland Avenue” that would depend on what you mean as well. We welcome all to attend our public worship services. Consider this your invitation to worship with us. We would love to have you in attendance. If you mean that you desire help in an accountable community of faith to struggle against sin then I would say that we are a community of believers whose hope is in the finished work of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins—not our goodness. We are all struggling sinners attempting to follow our Lord and Savior and encouraging one another to do so. On the other hand, if you mean that you want a church where any behavior you participate in will be affirmed and accepted in the membership of the church then the answer would be “no.” I do not think you would want to be a part of a congregation would tolerate any behavior or action among its members. We are all broken in our sin and are in great need of acceptance by God through the atoning work of Jesus Christ. We are all guilty sinners who have rebelled against a holy God and who desperately need to respond to Christ in repentant faith. It is the awareness of our sin that reveals our need for redemption in Christ. Self-acceptance must not replace repentance and the liberating love of Christ that delivers us from bondage to our sins. Faith, sin and repentance are Christ-directed. Self-justification is man-directed and fashions God as a sort of divine therapist who helps us to accept ourselves. You are right that God’s gospel is about his “love, acceptance, non-judging, and forgiveness for all” but such is the fruit of believers who trust God and agree with God about their sin in repentant faith. The comfortable and convenient thing would be to do away with the notion of sin altogether but such an approach would abandon the biblical gospel and would not be a demonstration of Christian love. The apostle Paul told the church at Corinth, Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Paul paints a beautiful picture of love, acceptance, and forgiveness for those who come to Christ in faith and repentance of sin. If we lose Paul’s grammar, we lose his gospel. If we shift his words to the present tense and say, “And such are some of you,” we are left with no one washed, no one sanctified, and no one justified. I hope this response provides you respectful and direct answers to your honest questions. I struggle with my own sins so I could easily remove “homosexuality” from this letter and put my sins in those spaces and apply this letter to myself. The good news is that I do not have to be defined by my sins and neither do you. We can be forgiven of our sins and have our identity rooted in Christ and his grace. I am thankful for the dialogue and your interest in my thoughts. I hope to see you soon at Ashland. Blessings in Christ, David E. Prince

A VERY well-balanced letter showing love and concern for a struggling brother, yet true to God's principles. I especially liked the first few paragraphs asking what D meant by "I am a gay man" and "be accepted completely". I can think of several people here who would be blessed to read that letter - people on both sides of the discussion.

That just begs the question of why the misdirection of making up the straw man argument that WO is about seeking to be the head of anything?

It sounds like you are telling us that a woman who wants to pastor a congregation is neither godly nor modest. Is that what you wanted to tell us?

These ladies are already being spiritually effective. A vote at GC will not change that. God Spirit is not governed by a vote of the majority. Women are already baptizing, preaching with power, marrying, etc. The GC cannot create or stop that. Paul did not wait for the Jeruslem council's sanction to bring the gospel to the gentiles. He began the work that God for him to do. Jerusalem caught up. I hope GC catches up!

But today we hear some in our remnant church teaching that men are to be "heads" in the church. Is it consistent? Does that mean all men are heads (mini-popes), or just some are considered heads (mini-popes) over other men?

Just a question,more curious than anything else. One on one how far would you be willing to go to support my husband and myself?On a large scale that is what the taxpayer does for those on welfare. I do think you would be one to help someone in need,but how far. Due to my husband's health issues he was forced into retirement before we were ready. Happens to a lot of people. Knowing I am perfectly capable of earning a income and thankfully I can do it from home would you expect me to continue to help ourselves? It is not always easy. It can get pretty tedious. So if I use "I can't '" as excuse how long would you be willing to carry my husband and myself. What if I continue to demand from you while I sunbathe or snowmobile,after all I am poor. Take your hard earned money and purchase junk for my children to eat,it takes an effort to learn to cook tastefully and economically. But as long as you keep giving me I don't have to. Those that would expect me to are labeled haters of the poor. Those that are elderly and handicapped manning our food shelf owe me their time,after all I am young and poor. Probably can throw a child or two in there that I shouldn't have had to begin with. If welfare weren't as lucrative without effort as it is people wouldn't be so adverse to work. Welfare should be temporary help with the recipient doing everything possible to help themselves. But that has been labeled as hate.

​I think the drug addicted person is a good way to picture all of us and our sin problem. The addict KNOWS that what he's doing is not legal. He doesn't care. He KNOWS that it's killing him. Does that stop him? No! Even when he is convicted and jailed, as soon as he is released from jail, he's at it again - and this after he went through rehab and detox. He just LOVES that feeling - that "high". Sometimes - not very often - a family intervention, where each one says how he/she has been HURT by the drug addict's behavior, - sometimes, that will get the addict's attention, and reach something inside him, that he will stay "clean" next time. Humans are addicts. They are addicted - to sin. Some know, and some do not - that what they are doing is not legal (in God's Book). Some also know they will DIE for their sins. But knowing THAT is not enough to stop them. It is only learning of God's love for them, and of how their addiction has HURT Him - that finally get's a few to turn from their sins. Does the addict have a legal problem. Of course. Does the addict have a health problem. Yes!!! He desperately NEEDS healing. You cannot focus ONLY on the legal problem.

​Yes, according to the Bible. Not evil intentions, but misplaced intentions. There are always exceptions, but a generalization-Yes, it is immodest and ungodly because it i in opposition to the plain meaning and wisdom of scripture.

Right. Work should pay more than welfare. That can happen by welfare going down or by wages for work going up. It's an argument *for* lifting the minimum wage, not against.

​ That's like a tiny sliver of the Gospel. The gospel is that God so loved you that He gave His Son to die the most cruel of deaths, willing to renounce His eternal life to secure yours. The gospel is that God is just like His Son, and the cruels lies of the enemy have been disproven. The Gospel is that the powers of darkness have been defeated, and we are fighting against a fallen foe. All of these are more prominent both in important and in representation (i.e., many more texts are devoted to these themes) than any legal question. You wrote because our character is faulty we are placed in death row. This way of putting it makes it sound as if it were a legal problem. Our problem is real. If we hate God and the principles of His government, we must repent (involving a change of mind), be converted, so that we love God, His Son, and everything about Him. This is in no way a problem that doing anything having to do only with the law can fix. The problem is us. *We* need to be fixed.

​"Semitic languages, Hebrew in particular, have a unique feature: application of consonant roots on word patterns (mishqalim in Hebrew). It's the most powerful tool of Hebrew morphology (i.e. word building). You take a root, like K-T-V (meaning: write/writing), combine it with different patterns, and that's how you get words like "writing", "book", "to write", "to dictate", "reporter", etc" (http://www.ulpan.net/hebrew-roots-and-patterns) Are you suggesting that words that are built from the same root are the same word after they have been modified? A reporter writes, but words built from the root are not all reporters. Apples and oranges are both fruits, but they are not the same.

​The 1940 book said that "in the case of large congregations, particularly in cities, ordained ministers are sometimes appointed as pastors." I tried to see if the quote contained the word ordained, and discovered that what I read in the 1940 His Many Mansions was actually taken from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, a statement appearing in its publications in at least 1910, 1919, and 1941. The 1941 publication added the words "by the conference" after the word "appointed." ​1. Where do you see in Rom. 16:1 or elsewhere a commission by Paul for Phoebe to lead the believers in Rome? 2. "Husbands of one wife" is aner (man, husband) of one gune (woman, wife). Can you provide any other Bible example where both a woman is called a man, and a man is called a woman? 3. Did you not mean that this resolves the idea promoted by both WO opposers and WO supporters that husband of one wife applied to qualifications for specific roles of those in the church, since TOSC's position #3, which was for allowing WO, said that being a male was a requirement for these roles, based on these verses?

#366 Insults Come From Ignorance Rabbi Yitzhak Meltzin never got angry with another person. If someone insulted him, he always ignored it. He said, "It is wrong to insult someone, and if this person insulted me it is because he lacks the necessary understanding. So why should I be angry at someone for his ignorance?" (Tnuas Hamussar; Rabbi Pliskin's Gateway to Happiness)

​Me too! I taught at a school where one of my daughters was a student as a 4 and 5 year old and definitely enjoyed hanging out with her on the way to and from school. She's 21 and a lawyer now... but we still love to hang out.

​ IMHO, a very well written response. Would we all very carefully consider it. I really like the quoted sentence. We do not have to be defined by what we struggle with. We can be sons and daughters of God today! The only definition we need. Satan will continue to attempt to define us by our sins and some even chose to be defined by them.

I walk to work whenever I can. It's about 3.5 km, or about 2 miles, and takes me about half an hour. I could take my motorbike, but by the time I gear up, ride and park and gear down, that probably takes 15 minutes anyway. I do tend to go the long way, though, so the walk in to work can vary from 2 miles to more than 8. I might try taking a photo this morning to share where I walk. I sometimes work at another campus an hour's drive away, and on those days I take the motorbike. Either way I tend to listen to music or podcasts - some comedy, some science, some politics. Sometimes I do walk with 'naked ears' and listen to the world around me, but I spend at least 10 hours a week walking and 2 or 4 or 6 riding (depending on how often I have to go to the other campus), so I like to keep my mind occupied.

​Answer to Question 1: Very effective in the body of Christ; even if not very effective in the SDA denomination. The denomination does NOT determine the impact a pastor has on a congregation. Answer to Question 2: Yes. There was a time when the whole RCC was wrong except for the disgruntled. It was called the Protestant Reformation. Answer to Question 3: Do you REALLY think WO is a sign of the end times ?

​Ya gotta watch that Stan guy! Another one from http://barelyadventist.com

Bob, I will respond to your question as to doctrine vs. policy. In responding, I will say that "Doctrine" is something that is taught clearly enough in the Bible that one can say that it is a clear teaching. It may or may not be essential to salvation. But, it was important enough for the Biblical record to be definitive enough for one to say that the Bible does teach it, even if there are some Biblical passages that do not seem to fit the Biblical norm. This is in contrast to some Biblical passages that area very limited in scope and for which there are not a plethora of passages in the Bible that provide additional support. An example of such a passage, in my opinion and only hat, is Job 1:6-7. I have a personal opinion on that passage, but I would never elevate it to the point where I called my opinion a Biblical doctrine. There are people on both sides of the WO debate who believe that the Bible is abundantly clear in supporting their position and therefore, they call it a Biblical doctrine. There are others who acknowledge that each group has some Biblical support. I belong to this group. They consider people on both sides to be sincere and wanting to follow what the Bible teaches. Because they believe that the Bible does not clearly support one and only one position they are more likely to say that this is not a doctrinal issue bout is only a policy issue. Again, this is where I am. Bob, I am not in any way attempting to convince you of the correctness of my personal position. I am simply attempting to respond to a question that you asked of Tom, who can better speak for himself. I am only speaking for myself. By the way, I appreciate the attempts you have made to engage in civil discussion. Discussion can bed civil and s till frank. That is O.K. with me. I Do not consider it to be my God-given mission to change you, and probably will not engage in challenging you very often.

....and you never heard anything said by a 'male' pastor that you didn't approve of......what does the Bible say about gossiping......

I used to be a REALLY conservative Adventist (some would use the words "historic" or "taliban"). A vegan teatotaller and a Sabbath Nazi as well as a total believer in every word that came from the mouth of a well-known and "inspired" SDA writer; condemning everyone that didn't believe exactly as I did (kind of like a few posters here whose handles I won't mention). Friends from the church were kind and concerned enough to point out some of the inconsistencies of my beliefs; and challenged me to broaden my horizons. When I did, I learned that Jesus was more interested in me as a person than me as a set of behaviors. I saw people from other Christian faiths having much deeper relationships with Jesus and having much more spiritual power and discipline than I did. I saw God manifesting His Spirit much more powerfully in Non SDA churches than the SDA churches I had been attending. I began to feel people loving me unconditionally rather than inspecting and critiquing me and my behaviors; and showing their concern by gossiping about me. I read "When heaven Invades Earth" by Bill Johnson and "destined to Reign" by Joseph Prince. These grace "bombshells" shook me to the foundations of my faith and revised/revived my love for and trust in Jesus. It changed me forever. I am still a cultural generic SDA; but I have no problem worshipping and fellowshipping with non-SDAs (in fact sometimes I prefer it).

Several imperfect analogies help to understand the idea of God's foreknowledge in that does not eliminate our free will. It is like a chess master knowing from each move you make, the many ways the game will end. He has a game plan to win and knows the moves that will get him to that end at each move you make. Each time you move it either plays into his plan or causes a recalculation on his part to recalibrate his plan to win. If he has played with you before, he will know better how to predict what moves you are most likely to make in a given situation and therefore more precisely predict the series of moves that will end the game. Another analogy is that it is like a fairly sophisticated computer program, perhaps a computer game with multiple outcomes. Each choice you make the program knows what decision tree of choices will get you to the end goal. Someone who knows the program very well can watch you play and predict how it will turn out at certain critical junctions. A variant of this that many of us experience is how a GPS works. You set your current location and destination and the mapping algorithm can offer multiple paths to the destination. Not heading its instructions will cause it to recalculate to either get you back on course or map an alternate. You will arrive at your destination, maybe not in the best time or shortest route, but you will arrive. I recall only stumping a GPS once to the point it "gave up" and quit giving me alternatives or rerouting instructions. I intentionally disregarded it knowing that their would be a point at which there would be no alternatives to get where I needed to go with the parameters I had set. Open theism gives room for a very wise God knowing how every choice or event or situation alters the course of human and individual history and what it will take to keep things moving inevitable toward His ultimate goal to save mankind. Each choice we make will either confirm His planned course of events for us or cause Him to make a recalculation. Unlike the limitations of the GPS, He can always find a viable alternative. I may not be easy or smooth sailing, but He can show us a path to our destination. He just have to trust his directions.