What is our church doing about this?

[John317]

..You suggest that Lot was somehow virtuous because he was going to send his daughters out, because that would be less offensive than having them raping a man. Plus there is nothing "natural" about raping a woman.

Raping women is certainly a great sin, an abomination in God's eyes. No doubt about it. But it is a "natural" act in the sense that the book of Romans uses the word "natural". God meant the female for the male for his sexual pleasure. He did not mean the male to find sexual pleasure in other males. That is why the Bible calls homosexual sin "against nature," "unnatural," "shameful lusts," "debased," "vile passions," "abomination" (Lev. 18: 22), etc.

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for "unnatural" [tebel-- "mixture, ie. bestiality] is only used twice, and this is in reference to a woman's having sex with an animal (Lev. 18: 23) and to a man having sex with his daughter-in-law (Lev. 20: 12).

Romans 1 calls sex between a male and female "the natural use of the woman."

When it comes to the Bible's descriptions of heterosexual rape, here are some of the words it uses: "disgraceful" (2 Sam. 13: 12; cf. v. 13); "this evil" (v. 16); "violated" (Gen. 34: 2); "defiled Dinah" (Gen. 34: 5) "a disgraceful thing" (Gen. 34: 7); "a thing which ought not to be done" (Gen. 34: 7); "defiled" (Gen. 34: 13); "treat our sister like a harlot" (Gen. 34: 31); "this great wickedness," (Gen. 39:9); "sin against God" (Gen. 39: 9).

Compare these with the way the Bible describes homosexual rape and homosexual sex: "against nature," "perversion," "shameful lust," "unnatural."

No one is saying that they are not both great sins. They are and were.

Quote:

Lot was a coward and had no respect for women.

You have to understand the circumstances, the times in which he lived, and Lot's thinking. The Bible twice calls Lot a righteous man and says his "righteous soul was tormented by the lawless deeds that he saw and heard day after day while he lived among" that immoral and lawless (amoral) group of people.

Some have suggested that one reason he offered his two girls to the men is that he knew the men and realized they wouldn't accept the daughters for sex, anyway. So perhaps Lot was trying to stall for time, as we say today. Perhaps so. But at the same time Lot had to realize that there was a chance that the men would accept his offer. He had to take that into account when he made it.

Quote:

If respect for God's plan causes me to send out my children to be raped, then that god is a crazy god.

God cannot be blamed for the responses and thoughts that go through a man's mind when he is faced with the situation that Lot faced that fateful morning in Sodom. Even if Lot thinks that he is doing the best thing morally by offering his girls to those men, you can't rightly blame God. Perhaps Lot was wrong to do what he did. All we really know is that Lot felt desperate. He was between a rock and hard place, as we say. He felt bound to respect the sacredly held ancient custom of hospitality, and he hated his neighbor's lawless acts that he had been witnessing ever since he came to live there.

Lot was a worshipper of the One true Creator God whose name (character and reputation) was defiled by the abominations and sins that His people committed (Ezekiel 43: 8). Lot was probably aware that such terrible sins also defiled the land so that it would "vomit out the people" if those sins continued to be practiced (Lev. 18: 27, 28; Lev. 20: 22; Number 35: 33, 34). Lots said, "Do not commit such a wrong" or "do not act so wickedly" (The Torah; NRSV; cf. NKJV).

His righteous soul clearly felt tormented over these evils just as the Bible says. He made the decision that the worst of the two evils would be to allow the angel/men to be raped. If he didn't think that, it's hard to understand why he made the decision as he did. So he suggested that the men take his own beloved daughters for their sexual pleasure. I'm sure he hoped that the men wouldn't have any interested in them and that this would give him time to think of some other way of escape from the situation. Lo and behold it worked. The men refused the daughters, just as Lot might have expected. It was all the time they needed. The door was quickly bolted shut after which he was amazed to see the "men" cause his neighbors outside the door to be struck blind. He was a very fortunately father indeed. (By the way, I myself would not have made the same decision as Lot did, not as I think today. I'm a middle class white guy living in Los Angeles. If a mob comes to my house demanding someone to rape, you can bet I'm not going to send my daughters out to them.)

Quote:

And I think you will find that I did not call you a terrorist. I never said terrorist, but compared your reasoning to Islamic reasoning. I said you were ignorant. I said that this type of reasoning is the basis of the devaluing of women and reflects a similar reliance on ancient texts, rather than reasoning to determine ethical behavior.

I am not even talking about what my personal view is on women or on sex. I am talking about what the Bible's view is of some of these things.

I suppose you see a relationship between "my reasoning" (which is really the Bible's view) and Islamic reasoning, because those are both from similar cultures with many shared values systems. I'm neither Muslim nor Israelite but am a white middle class American living in Los Angeles. If you think I am sharing with you my own personal reasoning about women and life, all I can say is you couldn't be more wrong. As I have said before, I am only trying to understand the Bible's point of view about Sodom and Gomorrah, which, of course, is quite different from that of our society today.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Perhaps you misunderstood me ... I was saying it was more destructive to have "membership" than to not have "membership" as a tradition. But since we have the tradition ... I have to abide by the decision for the sake of unity. Not that I believe in it. But because that is the way it is now.

Yes, I would prefer if there was NO membership. But I am not going to throw away my membership as you suggest ... just because I see it as counter productive for the church as a whole.

"As far as SDA Membership .... I have no comment. You can do what you want with that. I don't believe in it. At least at the minimum ... I see NO reason for it. It is more destructive than it is good. Yes, I do maintain my membership but I do so because that is the tradition at present."

OK, thanks for that explanation.

I just read it as meaning that you see no reason for membership and that, " It [the SDA membership] is more destructive than it is good."

[Neil D]

1 Cor. 6: 9-11 relates to those who "used" to be practicing homosexuals or thieves drunkards or extortioners but who are no longer doing those sins. They confessed and forsook their sins. They did not deny they were sins and continue doing them.

Could you please explain the part about misapplying scriptures?

If you will look at the text that you are using to prevent members from joining the SDA church, you will see that paul is talking to those who are sinning and yet already in the church. They are already members. He is teaching them the standards from within the church. He does not with hold the right to become sons of God...but he does educate them within the church.

What you are saying is that you have to have already achieved the goal of being straight or at least a non-practicing homosexual before you can become a member of the SDA church. It is better to have brought one into the church where they can get the help and fellowship that they need rather than to dangle the carrot in front of them....

We are given the right to become sons of the King of the Universe. Shall we withhold what heaven has emptied out on OUR behalf and prevent one who seeks what we have strove for? Who are we to prevent the joining of the child who seeks God? And Who are we to educate an erring brother?

You decide...which is a better relationship...to guide a member with fellowship or to set standards for a person to achieve from outside our fold? If a member can not achieve the standards, and he fails, he still has fellowship....If a person fails outside our fold, he will withdraw himself...You decide, which scenerio is more in keeping with God's new testament church?

[John317]

What standards then, do you think, should the church have for accepting someone into membership?

What do you understand the standards to be today in the Seventh-day Adventist church?

[cardw]

Quote:

Raping women is certainly a great sin, an abomination in God's eyes. No doubt about it. But it is a "natural" act in the sense that the book of Romans uses the word "natural".

Rape is not a natural act in any way, shape, or form. If I were to rate sins I would clearly see the act of rape as far worse than consensual sex between two men or two women. If the Bible states that rape is natural then the Bible is just plain evil.

In my experience violence causes far more damage than most sexual sins. Unfortunately the god of the Bible seems to rather freely use violence and seems to get bent out of shape because two people want to have sex. It seems rather unfair since this so called god gave them a very powerful instinct to mate. On the other hand violence tends to be something that is taught to be inflicted on those that are labelled evil and if you don't participate in that violence you are killed. An example from the Bible, is there is a law that if you find your neighbor committing adultery and you don't kill him then the tribe is to kill you along with your neighbor.

Quote:

Romans 1 calls sex between a male and female "the natural use of the woman."

That's the problem with the Bible. Women are seen as things to be used. The Bible is not this deep book of wisdom. Its iron age ethics that needs to be taken far less seriously. Sure there are some parts that have some wisdom, but you can find diamonds in just about anything.

Quote:

You have to understand the circumstances, the times in which he lived, and Lot's thinking. The Bible twice calls Lot a righteous man and says his "righteous soul was tormented by the lawless deeds that he saw and heard day after day while he lived among" that immoral and lawless (amoral) group of people.

Well if he was so tormented why didn't he move to a safer neighborhood? There is nothing about Lot's actions that would indicate that he was righteous. Righteousness means that you DO right things.

Quote:

God cannot be blamed for the responses and thoughts that go through a man's mind when he is faced with the situation that Lot faced that fateful morning in Sodom.

If that God is more offended by the rape of men because he considers it to more perverted than the "natural" rape of Lot's daughters and teaches this thinking to Lot, then that God is evil.

Quote:

I am not even talking about what my personal view is on women or on sex. I am talking about what the Bible's view is of some of these things.

That's one of my points. The Bible's view on a lot of these things is horrible. The Bible evidently doesn't see Lot's decision to give up his daughters as anything remotely horrible because the Bible only sees them as property to be used. The only offense would be that they stole from Lot. But, technically they wouldn't even be prosecuted for stealing since Lot offered them.

The Bible never condemns slavery. During the civil war the South was certainly on the Biblical side. There is a law in the OT that states that its alright to beat your slave as long as you don't knock out any teeth or an eye. If they fall unconscious and get up in a couple days, everything is alright. If they don't, you are fined. It isn't considered murder.

You really believe this was the best that some god could come up with? And if this is the best ethical system god could come up with, I find it very hard to accept its ideas around sexual sin.

To me, violence is a far greater blight on society than any adults having consensual sex. To me that's obvious from simply observing the effects of both. When problems come from sex its usually because some religious system so shames people that they feel crappy about themselves.

Quote:

If you think I am sharing with you my own personal reasoning about women and life, all I can say is you couldn't be more wrong. As I have said before, I am only trying to understand the Bible's point of view about Sodom and Gomorrah, which, of course, is quite different from that of our society today.

My guess is that your personal view of women is probably better than the Bible's.

[Gregory Matthews]

John, my friend, I must disagree with some of what you have stated in regard to women, their being created for the sexual pleasure of men, and thinking that the Bible supports such:

Quote:

Raping women is certainly a great sin, an abomination in God's eyes. No doubt about it. But it is a "natural" act in the sense that the book of Romans uses the word "natural".

Sexual inercourse is a natural act. It is natural for both men and women to obtain pleasure from an act of sexual intercourse. But, rape is not about sex. Rape is about violence. Rape is an act of violence against the one raped. From the standpoint that rape is not an act of sex, rape is never a natural act. Rape is a pervison.

Quote:

God meant the female for the male for his sexual pleasure.

That is certainly an interesting view of the role and place of women. They were created, at least in part, for the sexual pleasure of men.

You could have balanced your comment by stating that men were created, in part, for the sexual pleasure of women. But, you did not. The implication of your post is that men and women do not have equality in roles. Women were created, in part, for the sexual pleasure of men, but there is no equality in having men created for their sexual pleasure.

Quote:

Romans 1 calls sex between a male and female "the natural use of the woman."

I do not find any verse in Romans 1 that says: "Sex between a male and female is the natural use of women."

I assume you base your thinking on the following:

Quote:

Even the women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Romans 1:26b NIV

and

Quote:

In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women. . .Romans 1:27a NIV

Let me note first that the above Biblical passage deal with the sexuality of both men and women. You have focused on men and the women who were created, in part, for their sexual pleasure. While the Bible in the above passage (whatever it means) has treated men and women equally, you have not.

Secondly, the above quotes does tell us that there is a natural sexual relationship for both women and for men. But, it does not tell us in either case that one was created for the sexual pleasure of the other.

John, you have gone beyond what the Bible says in your comment that women were created, in part, for the sexual pleasure of men.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

What standards then, do you think, should the church have for accepting someone into membership?

What do you understand the standards to be today in the Seventh-day Adventist church?

John, you have raised some verry good questions. They are important.

I happen to agree that the SDA chruch should have standards.

Let me make some suggestions that will not be all inclusive. People should:

1) Want to join the SDA church.

2) Have accepted Christ as Lord and Savior.

NOTE: There is a disctinction between Lord and Savior. To accept Christ as Lord implies that the person wants to follow the guidance that Christ has given for the person's life.

I will suggest that the above two are fundamental to the issue of membership.

This raises the issue of what should be done with imperfect people who are struggling, but who have not achieved perfection.

I will suggsst that such people can be accepted into membership.

Yes, a line must be drawn somewhere. But, in SDA policy, it is the local congregation that draws that line. They make the decision.

There is also another issue that may be raised. That is the question as to whether or not membership is required for leadership. If non-members are allowed to assume positions of leadership, what are the limitations on the leadership that they can take?

NOTE: I once pastored a SDA Chruch that had two people, who were not Seventh-day Adventists in positions of leadership. After I left that congregation, that situation continued to exist for many years. The non-SDA women gave effective leadership, and served the congregation well.

There was once a desire on the part of the local Conference to reach the homosexual people of San Francisco. To do this, they established a congregation where all were welcomed, and all who attended could fill leadership roles. However, some were excluded from membership in the SDA chruch. In other words, non-SDAs were welcomed to attend, and to fill leadership roles.

That congregation worked effectively and well.

Unfortunately the pastor in charge of that congregation left denominational employment. [NOTE: He did not come out of the closet, so to speak, and become a homosexual.] I am uncertain as to the present status of that congregation.

John, your questions deserve discussion.

[Gregory Matthews]

I will comment on the two women, not SDA, who were given positions of leadership in the local SDA chruch.

One was a former SDA. She had left the chruch. In her spiritual journey she decided to attend and participate in our congregational life.

The second was an active Methodist. On Sundays she attended a local Methodist chruch. On Saturdays, and at my Wedmesday Prayer Meetings, she was in our services.

Her two sons joined the SDA chruch, and if my memory is accurate, one graduated from Loma Linda as a physician.

At the time I lost track of the people in that congregation, neither of the women had joined the SDA chruch. But both continued to attend and to participate.

Over the years, the Methodist woman became more active in the congregational life of the SDA congregation.

John, feel free to comment.

What lessons can we learn from this?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Rape is about violence.

According to the Women's Studies courses I had to take in college, there is more than one type of rape - some are sexual acts and some are violent. What the men in Sodom wanted to do to the angels clearly appears to have been of the violent variety. But let's not get confused with the idea that all rape is an act of violence. Most date rape occurs when the victim is under the influence of alcohol or other drugs and often times appears to be willing - which is also why much of it is never reported.

Quote:

You could have balanced your comment by stating that men were created, in part, for the sexual pleasure of women.

According the the Bible, man was created first. God saw it was not good for man to be alone so He created woman. One of the many reasons He created woman was for sexual union.

Since man is instructed to love his wife as Christ loved the church, and since God doesn't change, one can logically conclude that Adam loved Eve as Christ loves the church. I am not sure it is helpful to get obsessed with the "equality" of the relationship since the Bible doesn't use that terminology but most certainly Adam loved Eve more than he loved himself which is evident by his eating of the forbidden fruit after she did.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

I am not sure it is helpful to get obsessed with the "equality" of the relationship since the Bible doesn't use that terminology but most certainly Adam loved Eve more than he loved himself which is evident by his eating of the forbidden fruit after she did.

Shane:

Quote:

I will make him a helper comparable to him. Genesis 2:18 NKJV

The Hebrew word that has been translated in the above clearly indicates an equality, at the time of human creation, with both the male and the female. The New King James, as I have quoted it, correctly translates it.

After the entry of sin, a lot changed. But, God's ideal, and God's creation was that of an equality in relationship.

Eve was comparable to Adam. Eve was equal to Adam in role. Adam and Eve worked cooperatively together in an equal relationship to each other.

Obsessed, who is obsessed. Is correctly understanding what the Bible says obsession? Is it obsession to suggest to another that they have misapplied the Bible?

[Tom Wetmore]

Gregory,

Just adding on to your thought...

Further evidence of God's intent of equality for male and female at their creation:

Quote:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule overthe fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground. - Gen 1:27,28

This shows no distinction between the man and the woman with regard to their position, role and function within the natual order of things. The both were directed to multiply, fill, subdue and rule all creation, together.

Tom

[olger]

Hi Greg. Been a while.

Quote:

"Eve was equal to Adam in role."

Thank you for your statement.

However, Biblical internal evidence reveals that Adam's role differed from Eve's prior to the entrance of sin. After sin, God emphasized how sin would affect those differing roles. Five years ago I completed a study on Genesis that allowed me to see this more clearly.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

As to the discussion on church membership, sometimes we fail to draw a line of connection between progressive "ideas" and the terrible state of affairs that they often lead to. For instance:

If we were to adopt an "anything goes" criteria for church membership, then we cannot restrict church leadership to people for any reason either. Thus when our children are taught how to participate in destructive sins by these "leaders" we may weep alone at their funerals.

In all kindness my friends. There is little difference between this paraboloic illustration and those who offered their children to Molech (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-6; 1 Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 23:10; Jer 32:35; Amos 5:26).

And in fact, the example of Lot serves as a Biblical warning to all who would lead their children into friendship with the world (1 John 2:15). Let us love people and help them find freedom from the iniquities of the world.

If we invite the sins of the world into our family rooms (via TV for instance), we should expect to see those sins reincarnated in the lives of our children.

How do we love people? By putting our arm around their shoulder, and offering to pray with them, by caring about the things they struggle with. By humbling ourselves and acknowledging how we have struggled in the past, and sharing how Christ set us free from those sins. This will bring people into the church with God’s timing.

If we baptize paganism, we actually strengthen rebellion in the hearts of all believers. Rather let us throw back the stronghold of satan by obedience (Romans 1:5). “Tolerance” towards the bondage of sin is hatred towards the liberating power of grace.

Bless each one,

oG

[Woody]

Quote:

If we were to adopt an "anything goes" criteria for church membership, then we cannot restrict church leadership to people for any reason either. Thus when our children are taught how to participate in destructive sins by these "leaders" we may weep alone at their funerals.

Leadership IS severely restricted. It is restricted by the gifts of the Spirit. Those that don't have the gifts are not put into office. Just because you are a member ... you are not entitled to leadership. Leadership is requested for those who have been deemed to possess the gift and are asked by the Nominating Committee after much prayer and counsel.

New members need to be nurtured and instructed. You do not throw someone into leadership just because they are a "member". A little common sense is always of good use.

[olger]

Gregory,

Just adding on to your thought...

Further evidence of God's intent of equality for male and female at their creation:

Quote:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule overthe fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground. - Gen 1:27,28

This shows no distinction between the man and the woman with regard to their position, role and function within the natual order of things. The both were directed to multiply, fill, subdue and rule all creation, together.

Tom

Let's consider the assertion that there was no role distinction between male & female prior to the Fall. True, or not?

Adam under Christ. Adam was the God-ordained authority with whom Eve was to be in harmony. Even before the fall, his authority was evident in several ways. The curse after the fall introduced no new functions, but explained how sin would affect the existing duties & functions that God had already ordained. Let’s note several of them.

• The curse says “In pain shalt thou bring forth children.” It assumes that it is already God’s will that the woman would bring forth children “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). The curse then simply states how this God-ordained function would be affected by sin. There is now a tangible opposition factor in the physical realm of her being that renders fruit-bearing laborious & painful. There is a profound object-lesson herein.

• Cursed is the ground for your sake” In toil ye shall eat of it. Both thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you. In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread.” Again this assumes that it is God’s will that man work the ground in gardening but it states how that labor will now be affected on account of sin. There is now again a tangible opposition factor to the created order—it has been subjected to sin & selfishness. Thus all of Adam’s efforts to bear fruit from the ground will be painful & laborious. But Adam had been instructed to fill the earth and subdue it. He’s been told to tend the Garden and keep it already. This was not a new dimension to man’s experience, but rather an adverse effect brought on by sin.

The blessing of submission. In the same manner, the aspect of the curse that said “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” assumes already the reality of Eve’s God-ordained role–namely to be Adam’s help-meet. This was her purpose for existence. What the curse now says is—that which God previously ordained will now become difficult because of an opposition factor within her. Her submission to his will, will no longer be natural or spontaneous. Indeed now that submission will require self-sacrifice and self-denial. In this submission, she shares in the Law of heaven–the law of love. The curse becomes a blessing.

Adam as Federal head. There are other aspects as well that indicate Adam’s God-ordained position of authority, even prior to the fall. For instance Adam was created first, and as such he was the legal representative—the federal head of the entire human race—a type of Christ, the second Adam (Luke 3:38). He was a type of Christ. By virtue of his position, he had authority over the entire race–his wife included. This is pointed out in the fact that the consequences of transgression were not realized by the human race until Adam sinned. You recall in Genesis 3:6 “she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” Then, after he sinned (the federal legal representative of the human race) — then the eyes of both of them were opened and they knew that they were naked. Adam was in a position of authority even over his wife as the legal representative of his race. It is also significant to note in this context, Ellen White’s comment, that had Adam not yielded to the woman’s temptation, Eve would have been replaced. Adam was most definitely in a position of authority, even prior to sin.

Another indication of this position of authority is that he was designated the lawgiver by God, that through Adam , God communicated his expressed command regarding the tree of knowledge of good & evil—even prior to her creation. She received God’s commandment through her house-band, her lawgiver Adam.

Another aspect that points out Adam’s position of authority over Eve even prior to the fall is that he was the one who named her. Adam manifested his dominion over the entire earth in that he named the animals that Friday afternoon as they paraded by him. It’s interesting to note the parallel structure in Genesis 2:19-2-23. Out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field and then brought them to Adam to see what He would call them. Whatever Adam called each individual creature—that was its name. This manifested Adam’s dominion over the created order—the right to name the creatures. Note the parallel “he took one of his ribs and made a woman from the rib and brought her to Adam. He says “Bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman.” He names her even prior to sin manifesting his position of authority.

He was also in a position of authority over her in that she was given to him by God to be his help-meet, not vice-versa. Thus woman is the glory of man, as Paul says, not vice versa. Note the way Paul states this “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not from the woman; but the woman from the man. Nor was man created for the woman; but the woman for man. For this reason and because of the angels, woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head” (in this context it refers to a veil).

Now, having sought to establish that Adam was in a position of authority over the woman even prior to the fall, we hasten to add that in no sense did that make him superior. How difficult it is for Christian brothers & sisters to keep that in mind. Our natural gentile hearts are quick to equate a position of authority with superiority. That simply is not the case! To be subject does not mean to be inferior—there is a classic example of this truth. Jesus Christ! He was subject in every sense to the authority of the Father, yet perfectly equal. We must never forget this.

In fact I submit that Jesus Christ, the son of God, was in a position of submission to the Father even prior to sin. Does not His very name indicates this? The Word. “And the word was with God.” As word is to the thought, so Christ is to the Father. What is the author of our words? It is our thoughts. Christ was under the authority of the father as the Word of God. His title of Michael the Archangel is another example of his submission. He was in command, Lucifer was under Him. And over them was the Father. Again, submission does not equal inferiority—keep that out of your thinking.

Submission before the Fall. Submission prior to the rebellion of sin was unrecognized by both angels and woman. The woman prior to the fall was in perfect harmony with the will of her husband. Her commitment to his will was totally natural, even more than natural it was her principal desire, her highest pleasure, her personal preference, her constant choice. Her purpose for existence was to yield to his will and help him fulfill it as his help-meet. It was therefore not even conceived of her as being subjection (in a negative sense)—just as it was in heaven prior to rebellion. She never had to think in terms of denying self, because there was no rebellious self to deny. By the same token Adam was not thought of as ruling over her, but as one through whom God had revealed her greatest privilege & pleasure—glorifying Him through and with her husband. Law & lordship remain virtually unrecognized when there is perfect and natural harmony with the will of the Lord and lawgiver.

But when sin (that is, lawlessness) became part of man’s nature, all changed. Thus the curse “He shall rule over you.” That which was totally natural prior to sin, now becomes unnatural. Now it requires a conscious choice to submit her will to her husband. Now that authority which was previously unrecognized before the fall became very much a factor. She was aware that she was under the authority of another.

Heaven a Parallel. As already stated, the awful birth of sin in heaven provides an exact parallel. Prior to that rebellion, law was virtually unrecognized, though it’s subjects found their highest delight in doing His service (MB page 109). There is perfect unity between them and their Creator. According to Patriarchs & Prophets “There had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer's envy and misrepresentation and his claims to equality with Christ had made necessary a statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from the beginning.” Do you see the parallel? It was necessary for God to state the position of authority for Adam, because that authority had been challenged by his help-meet.

A very fundamental principle regarding Law & sin is pointed out in Romans 5:13. Just as it takes the law to reveal sin, so it takes sin to reveal the law! (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Conversely, we submit that law is not recognized until sin draws it’s judgement. Prior to that, the law is an expression of love only (This reveals the unmistakable principles underlying the Gospel). Law is not recognized when there is no sin. Thus the law that had always been, now became a curse. The law that was always a blessing to woman prior to sin—on account of her spirit of rebellion became to her a curse.

No longer natural, now it becomes a struggle for her to submit. But herein, lies the greatest blessing in the curse for it requires one to dies to self, if we are to give glory to God and bear fruit to Him.

The law is a blessing, even now. When the curse that was pronounced upon the woman is rightly related to it can serve as a tremendous blessing. The function of the law is threefold—to restrict, convict and instruct. In these aspects, the law has a tremendous blessing for the woman if she will rightly relate to it.

• Restrict. It can serve to maintain harmony in the marriage union when differences arise. Because the law requires that a woman restrict herself and submit her will to the will of her husband.

• Convict. But particularly this law is a blessing in the aspect of conviction. This is one of the primary functions of the law of God, it is to discover to us (or reveal) our naturally rebellious hearts that resist and resent the requirements of the Law of God. Paul refers to this aspect of the Law of God when he writes in Romans 7:7 “I would not have known sin…(except what?) through the law.” The law “thou shall not covet” discovered within Paul a nature that was out of harmony with God. This is the function of the law as Paul refers to it as a schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24). It’s purpose is to lead us to Christ where we may be justified. There, at the foot of the cross He gives us pardon and power. It is here we are converted, accepting the invitation to deny self, sharing in His sufferings. We will also share in His glory! (Romans 8:17). For women this aspect is a blessing, as it can help reveal a nature that needs crucified with Him.

• Instruct. This is another rich blessing that the curse holds for us. In Bible commentary volume 1, page 4 we read this statement “In the law every specification is the character of the infinite God.” This includes the law that says “she shall be subject to her husband” for this is a specification of the character of God. God’s character subjects itself to the authority of Law. As a woman submits to its authority, this Law serves to develop a character likeness with Jesus Christ. A willingness to deny self and submit to God-ordained authority. The law in this function serves a s a transcript of God‘s character. A blueprint whereby one in submitting to it may “build” a Chistlike character.

Let’s consider the blessing of the curse of both man & woman in this aspect. The blessing of the curse. First of all, the law required of man—perseverance—for the ground was cursed; it would bring forth thorns and thistles to oppose him. Diligent effort lay before him to make it bring forth fruit. This curse was intended to foster in man the development of stronger masculine virtues, the stronger masculine character traits. Regarding the husband and father, “He is to illustrate in his own manly bearing the sterner virtues, energy, integrity, patience, courage, diligence and practical usefulness.” (Adventist Home page 212). These character traits are fostered by the curse pronounced upon man. Thus the curse promotes the cultivation of not only the earth, but leadership qualities in man. But, these masculine virtues need to be softened & countered by the feminine virtues. These feminine virtues are fostered and encouraged in women by the curse pronounced upon her. Pain in childbirth, and subject to her husband “He shall rule over her” were to develop in her a spirit of meekness, a heart that was willing to make sacrifice. What a sacrifice a woman makes just to bring a child into this world. The spirit of self-denial–submitting her will to the will of her house-band. These beautiful feminine character virtues are fostered in the wife. But the beauty is, that in the marriage relationship, as man accepts the aspects of the curse pronounced upon him, and as woman accepts the aspects of the curse pronounced upon her, those characters traits are fostered in them and they bring those together to compliment each other and to minister their strengths to each other. Thus there is a beautiful fulfilling in the marriage as God ordained it.

I like to think of the marriage between Jacob & his wife, having been responsible for the reference that is so beautiful in Genesis 33 “I will lead on softly.” It is within the marriage union that these traits become balanced between the man & woman each complimenting the other. Masculine virtues without the feminine virtues are imbalanced. Feminine virtues without the masculine virtues are imbalanced. But the beauty of an accordant blend will be found in a home that turns the curse into a blessing by God’s grace. “God made from the man a woman, to be a companion and helpmeet for him, to be one with him, to cheer, encourage, and bless him, he in his turn to be her strong helper. All who enter into matrimonial relations with a holy purpose--the husband to obtain the pure affections of a woman's heart, the wife to soften and improve her husband's character and give it completeness--fulfill God's purpose for them” (AH 99). I submit that one of the most beautiful blessings in the curse pronounced upon the woman is that as she rightly relates to is, and allows those feminine virtues to be developed in her, she can then, joining with her husband, soften and improve his character. This is how true equality is to be attained. If you want to be equal with your husband, seek equality in the way that God seeks equality, Not by grasping, but by giving! Give to Him your beautiful character traits; but you cannot give them to Him unless you have accepted the God-ordained role and been blessed thereby. This alone is the equality Christ sought on our behalf “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich” (2 Cor. 8:9).

The equality of the spirit of Satan is an equality that is grasped. The equality of the spirit of Christ is an equality that is given! Godly women may give to their husbands, may give to the men in their church fellowship– the beautiful character traits of submission. They in turn will give to you their strength. As this happens, we will find that the curse is no longer a curse—but a blessing.

oG

[olger]

Quote:

If we were to adopt an "anything goes" criteria for church membership, then we cannot restrict church leadership to people for any reason either. Thus when our children are taught how to participate in destructive sins by these "leaders" we may weep alone at their funerals.

Leadership IS severely restricted. It is restricted by the gifts of the Spirit. Those that don't have the gifts are not put into office. Just because you are a member ... you are not entitled to leadership. Leadership is requested for those who have been deemed to possess the gift and are asked by the Nominating Committee after much prayer and counsel.

Hi Redwood. Thanks for the good post here.

oG

[Bravus]

More confusion about whether 'equal' means 'identical', I think. It doesn't. It is possible for male and female roles to be equal but different.

[olger]

Hello Bravus. I agree that the roles are different yet complimentary. How's the family?

oG

[Gregory Matthews]

Several isolated comments which may not be related:

1) I began this week thinking that my week was set, and I could make up some of the time I had lost in the Internet forums during vacation. Then early this AM, my week changed. I don't have that now.

2) In a review of my posts, I can see that I may not have been clear. I intended to state that Adam and Eve were equal, prior to sin, in whatever roles that they may have had, and that sin changed that equality. I don't think I meant to say that their individual reles were exactly the same.

3) I do believe in standards for chruch membership. I do not believe in "anything goes."

4) I beleive that one can have different standards for leadership than for membership, and different standards for leadership based upon different leadership roles.

5) I also belive that there is a place for church discipline.

6) I tend to look at individual situations, and to not have rigid locked in concrete rules and applications of those rules.

7) My views today are not exactly as they were at a previous time.

8) I often mention how things are done in the denomination with no intent to indicate whether or not I agree or disagree. So, just becasue I mention something, do not draw conclusions as to where I am on it. Often I am mentioning it from the intent to throw it out for discussion.

9) My comments in regard to rape being an act of violence, and not of sex were not intended to cover some examples of statuatory rape. I should have been more clear on that. One might, in some cases, argue that some instances of statuatory rape are acts of sex,and not violence. Thank you Shane for correctly pointing this out.

[cardw]

Quote:

But let's not get confused with the idea that all rape is an act of violence. Most date rape occurs when the victim is under the influence of alcohol or other drugs and often times appears to be willing - which is also why much of it is never reported.

I'm not clear what you are saying here. Another term for rape is sexual assault. This is clearly an act of violence. It is violence because it is done without the consent of another. It requires force to carry out that act. Now if someone is a willing participant it is no longer rape.

I know of instances where a teen girl has become drunk and every male at the party has a go at her. In some cases the girl believes it was her own fault and doesn't report it. Now a male would generally not be in danger of getting raped if they are drunk. Your views here seem to reflect an insensitivity to this experience.

In this country 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men are victims of sexual assault. Fortunately since 1993 this is down, but when you look around and realize that 1 in every 6 women has experienced sexual assault this doesn't seem to be much consolation. It would seem that women, in general, have far better self control in this matter.

Quote:

According the the Bible, man was created first. God saw it was not good for man to be alone so He created woman. One of the many reasons He created woman was for sexual union.

This suggests that unless men didn't need women than women don't have any value as beings in their own right. Biologically we are all women first. The development of male characteristics doesn't occur until about 9 weeks.

If we were to interpret the biological "book" like we do the Bible some people might conclude that males are deformed females. Your reasoning suggests that you don't believe women are equal to men.

Quote:

I am not sure it is helpful to get obsessed with the "equality" of the relationship

I wish more people were obsessed with equality.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I will make him a helper comparable to him. Genesis 2:18 NKJV

The Bible doesn't say equal. The translators do not translate it equal. So why must we use the word equal? Why don't we stick with the language of the Bible?

Because of an obsession to appease a secular women's rights movement.

Quote:

Obsessed, who is obsessed?

Scores of books, sermons and debates have focused on this issue. It is an obsession of many people.

I have no issue with women's rights. I favor ordaining women as pastors. I favored the ERA. I am all for equal pay for equal work. I support a woman's right to vote both in politics and in the church. I support a woman's right to divorce, own property, have her own bank account, etc. etc. My wife is very independent and at times has questioned my love for her due to my lack of jealousy (but that is cultural). I strongly believe in women's equality. But I am not going to twist and turn the Bible to make it say something it doesn't. I have to take the Bible as it reads. Comparable is comparable. Equal is equal. And nothing is equal to Sweet N Low LOL (that's a knee-slapper)

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Now if someone is a willing participant it is no longer rape.

Here is the crux of the issue. Many cases of date rape involve a male who gets a female drunk or drugged and then takes advantage of her. The male doesn't believe he raped her because no force was used. However, her state of mind draws into question her ability to be willing. This is especially true when GHB, Rohypnol or Ketamine are used although in the United States, alcohol is legally considered a date-rape drug.

That is not to say all date-rape is sexual. From what I understand, it is not. From what I understand, most date rape starts of as sexual until the female resists, then it turns violent. Yet, because of a compromised ability to make sound judgments, often times a date-rape victim does not resist and here is no violence.

Violence is a turn off for healthy men. It is not healthy to be able to maintain sexual arousal while being violent. So a man that is turned on sexually by violence has some serious problems to work through. And that is the type of man that becomes a rapist.

Quote:

If we were to interpret the biological "book" like we do the Bible...

Each of us must choose one of three things o place our faith in.

• Some type of sacred writings
• An organization, such as a church, etc.
• Or man's intellect

I choose the Bible. I don't trust my intellect and I don't trust the intellect of others either. Since organizations are all made up of sinners like me, I don't trust them either. I choose to place my trust in the Bible. The B - I - B - L - E, yes thats the book for me, I stand alone on the Word of God, the

B - I - B - L - E

[cardw]

Quote:

I don't trust my intellect and I don't trust the intellect of others either.

Well that explains a lot. Its quite evident that you don't use your intellect to read the Bible either.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

The Bible doesn't say equal. The translators do not translate it equal. So why must we use the word equal? Why don't we stick with the language of the Bible?

Shane, the dictionaly defination of comparable is:

Quote:

similar or equivalent

The dictionary defination of equivalent is:

Quote:

Equal in substance, degree, value, force, or meaning.tantamount, equal,

In a nutshell, the defination of comparable equal. By using the term comparable in the translation that I quoted, the Bible is using the term equal.

[Tom Wetmore]

...The Bible doesn't say equal. The translators do not translate it equal. So why must we use the word equal? Why don't we stick with the language of the Bible?...

Shane, well actually it does. I would invite you to consider the text (Genesis 1:27-28) I referenced that shows no distinction between them in the natural order of the world. No distinction certain means equal.

And more significantly, there is a first person eye witness account of the creation story by one of the key participants that says they were created in equal relationship. Jesus'(He was there...) commentary regarding the relationship between man and woman as God intended at creation was that they were "one". Oneness has a whole lot to do with equality.

Tom

[Tom Wetmore]

Ger,

You missed my point by a country mile. I was speaking of how God created man and woman and His intent for them before sin. You base you whole premise on the corrupted natural order of things as a result of sin. The text I quoted, in order to reach your conclusion you have to totally ignore it, since it directly refutes your Federal head heresy. But what you have done very well is to mirror Catholic doctrine on that topic.

Tom