Women in Ministry

[there buster]

Quote:

I am urging you to take that and study it prayerfully.

Lovely example of manipulation. That's one for the book!

My first memory of the use of this tactic was when the Mormon missionaries said that if I 'prayed sincerely' I would see that the Book of Mormon was inspired. Since I didn't agree, they had the unmitigated temerity to declare that then I "hadn't actually prayed sincerely."

Using God-talk to manipulate is common in Adventism, but it's still ugly.

[Woody]

Just to clarify ... Ich was responding to Norman. I did not make the statement referenced to me.

[John317]

Quote:

I am urging you to take that and study it prayerfully.

Lovely example of manipulation. That's one for the book!...Using God-talk to manipulate is common in Adventism, but it's still ugly.

I assume you're SDA.

Since when is saying this to a fellow believing Seventh-day Adventist "ugly and manipulation" ? I don't think of it that way when either non-SDA Christians or SDAs say this to me. If we can't say this to our fellow believers, then we're in pretty bad spiritual condition.

I apologize to Norman for a fellow SDA's saying such a thing.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

One option John would be for Ich to say the same thing back to Norman. I think it is a given that we are SDAs here and will and are praying and studying. To tell someone that can be a form of spiritual manipulation and abuse. I will not get into the merits of this particular case. But as Ich mentioned ... it IS used by SOME as abuse or manipulation.

[John317]

Quote:

You still haven't understood why Paul told the women to be silent in church because it is a law. I am urging you to take that and study it prayerfully.

... Shame . This was true because both Greek and Jewish custom dictated that women should be kept in the background in public affairs. Violation of this custom would be looked upon as disgraceful and would bring reproach upon the church. /b]

As I first indicated -- this was a cultural norm that does not apply to us today.

Beryl

If we compare 1 Cor. 14: 34 and 1 Tim. 2: 9-14, we find that the reason given is "the law" and the fact that Adam was formed first and that Eve was deceived rather than Adam. The "law" has reference to the whole of the Old Testament but specifically to Gen. 3: 17 where it speaks to the issue of woman's being in subjection to her man, or husband. No where does Paul mention that women in church are not to do certain things due to Greek or Jewish custom.

In verse 37, Paul assures the reader that his instructions about conduct, including that of women, in the church, is the commandment of the Lord.

Paul's reference in v. 33 to "all the churches of the saints" appears to be saying that the rules regarding behavior in the church apply to all the churches, and not just to a local church.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

One option John would be for Ich to say the same thing back to Norman. I think it is a given that we are SDAs here and will and are praying and studying.

I've learned from experience here that one can't assume people on CA are SDA. I'm glad that's the case, too. I think it's great that everyone can participate irrespective of whether they are SDA or not.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

Quote:

I've learned from experience here that one can't assume people on CA are SDA.

The people in this discussion and for whom the comment was addressed are clearly SDAs and would clearly pray and study without anyone having to be told by someone to 'work' at it. Like I say ... we could get into a tit for tat and say it back to each other. "Well you need to study and pray about this" The evidence was clear that there had been study and prayer by those in the discussion.

This goes back to the discussion that some here think that "their" interpretation is the ONLY correct way and all others are just opinions and not of the Bible. We need to respect each other more than this. No one here has a corner on gospel truth. We each "study" and "pray" and come to honest differences. I would hope we can leave it at that. WE don't need to look down on others because they have "studied" and "prayed" and come to different conclusions as to what the Bible says.

[John317]

To tell someone that can be a form of spiritual manipulation and abuse. I will not get into the merits of this particular case. But as Ich mentioned ... it IS used by SOME as abuse or manipulation.

Is it really "abuse" when someone urges someone else to read and pray about something? I think we have to take their words at face value and assume they have a good and sincere purpose.

Maybe some have manipulated others by asking them to read and pray about something, but I'd rather be manipulated a hundred times than falsely accuse someone of trying to abuse and manipulate me when all they were actually doing was trying their best to help me.

I reserve the word "abuse" for serious things, not for someone showing me a verse and telling me to pray about it. If that's abuse, let me have lots of it! Pour it on.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Taylor]

The thing is that both sides don't seem to understand is that both sides can study with all sincerity and openness of heart and come to a different conclusion. Therefore people's positions have to be respected even if each side doesn't agree with the other side and thinks "the other side is wrong". It often seems that peopl believe that if "the other side studied enough" then everyone would come to the same conclusion. While I believe the evidence is conclusive and clear, so do people on the other side believe the evidence is conclusive and clear to support their position. I think that on this issue the only solution is agree to disagree. That is precisely why the GC is supportive of women elders, women pastors etc but stops short of ordination because it would bring about too much division.

[Woody]

I am not saying this case WAS abuse or manipulation. I am pointing out how it CAN be VIEWED this way.

One clue is that both sides had given an outline of their "study" on the issue. It was obvious to me personally that both sides had given this much thought and prayer.

But then one person decided to tell the other that THEY needed to study and pray. The word YOU was used. The word WE was not. This could be considered as condescending to another Christian. Saying you need to pray and study ... when it was obvious that both had taken place ... would say to me that one person was looking down on the others study and felt that THEY needed to pray.

As a rule it is better to look at ourselves and do OUR best rather than to instruct other on how THEY need to WORK at it. Otherwise at a forum like this ... even good intentions can be taken wrong. Let's think of the best in others.

However ... Spiritual Abuse IS a serious thing and has harmed many. In fact it is more serious than physical abuse in my opinion. I would recommend the book "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by Johnson and VanVonderen" if you would like to better understand the power of spiritual abuse and how serious it is. Good Reading. Mine is full of underlining.

[Woody]

Quote:

That is precisely why the GC is supportive of women elders, women pastors etc but stops short of ordination because it would bring about too much division.

I agree with you Taylor. This is good. But you have to understand that John317 respectfully sees things differently. Despite being shown to the contrary ... he belives in the following ...

Quote:

"The distinction is clear by the fact that the General Conference voted against ordaining women to be elders." John317

[Taylor]

As far as I understand that is not the case. The GC has ok'd and supported women elders and for sure women pastors. They support women pastors not because they are liberal and are going to be ordaining currently practicing gay pastors next, as some fear, but because they truely believe it is Biblical for women to be pastors and gay pastors doesn't even come into the equation. There is no comparison. True some in the GC no doubt don't support women pastors but there are many many who do from their study of scripture and from the incredible value it has brought to the church. Of course, are there women pastors who shouldn't be pastors? I am sure that could be the case but then again that could be the case for some male pastors too. No matter the subject matter there will be people who strongly oppose matters and there are always people who will strongly support matters. What is important is that the Bible is studied for ourselves and when it is, it is equally important that the conscience and careful study of each individual is respected.

[there buster]

Here's the whole statement.

Quote:

You still haven't understood why Paul told the women to be silent in church because it is a law. I am urging you to take that and study it prayerfully.

The clear implication -- and manipulation is almost always implicit rather than explicit-- is that 'you would understand it (my way) if you really studied it prayerfully.

Quote:

If we can't say this to our fellow believers, then we're in pretty bad spiritual condition.

I apologize to Norman for a fellow SDA's saying such a thing.

That's even more deft than the first. Don't accuse someone else of something, apologize for them having done it. And throw in "we're in pretty bad condition."

No doubt many will agree with you.

So many of our congregations have become so full of this God-talk that we no longer realize how offensive it is. What David Augsberger calls "this sticky cotton-candy 'it's all for your own good'" sort of manipulation.

[olger]

`lo taylor: On the basis of contemporary arguments, church leaders' council deliberations in the 1970s and 80s, made outside GC in session, voted to: (a) allow women to do all the essential functions of the ordained ministry, and ( ordain women as local elders. Encouraged by these Annual Council actions of church leaders, a proposal was presented at the 1990 Indianapolis GC session to ordain women as pastors. By a 3 to 1 margin (1173 to 377) the world church rejected the proposal--suggesting that the above arguments were not convincing to the entire church.

The woman elders thing (according to Ted N.C. Wilson) was made to address situations in communist China where many men languished in prisons and only the women were left. The problem occurs/occured when these abstract examples are eagerly siezed upon as an excuse to get the camel fully into the tent.

oG

[there buster]

Yes, we think it's a sin to say, "I'm angry with you for your stubbornness," but it's quite all right to say, "God resists pride, brother!" or, in other words, "I'm not angry with you. God is."

We so easily claim God is on our side in a dispute that we no longer recognize how arrogant it is.

[Taylor]

`lo taylor: On the basis of contemporary arguments, church leaders' council deliberations in the 1970s and 80s, made outside GC in session, voted to: (a) allow women to do all the essential functions of the ordained ministry, and ( ordain women as local elders. Encouraged by these Annual Council actions of church leaders, a proposal was presented at the 1990 Indianapolis GC session to ordain women as pastors. By a 3 to 1 margin (1173 to 377) the world church rejected the proposal--suggesting that the above arguments were not convincing to the entire church.

oG

It would be interesting to note that in many of the countries that voted against women being pastors also have a host of other issues, culturally, that they deal with that the USA and other places do not deal with. Of course some are scripturally convinced but they are also "scripturally convinced" that woemn should be kept out of a host of other positions as well. Then there are those both here and abroad who think that it only applies to pastoring but that all other leadership positions for a women is ok. It is complicated a great deal by culture even if some don't recognize it. The key is, all the above doesn't discount the votes for women pastors from honest people who FULLY believe that no matter how "unpopular" it is the right thing to do and scripturally sound.

[Woody]

Quote:

We so easily claim God is on our side in a dispute that we no longer recognize how arrogant it is.

So many of our congregations have become so full of this God-talk that we no longer realize how offensive it is.

Thanks, I have been thinking that for some time and was afraid of posting for fear of being called a heretic or some such. That is exactly my thoughts about much of the postings. Through a text on the wall and see if it sticks!

Thanks to Ich and CoA for these great comments. It very clearly identifies the real problem here. And there is no better way to describe it except EGO. Now I am not saying they know what they are doing ... but they are doing it. And from what I have studied ... it is clearly called Spiritual Abuse and Arrogance.

[Tom Wetmore]

...The woman elders thing (according to Ted N.C. Wilson) was made to address situations in communist China where many men languished in prisons and only the women were left. The problem occurs/occured when these abstract examples are eagerly siezed upon as an excuse to get the camel fully into the tent.

That makes no sense, Gerry, since the whole discussion and actions regarding female elders started in the North American Division. (See recent history of female elders and pastors ...) NAD wouldn't have been trying to solve things for China. And even if it was for China, it being the right thing to do for the believers in China would seem to mean that it is not a hard and fast rule that no women can be in that role as you and others seem to be so adamantly insisting. And if they could make an exception for one area of the world to do things differently... Now wait just a minute, isn't that what NAD was asking for in 1995?!?! hs

Tom

[Gregory Matthews]

Taylor:

Your point is well taken. All to often people are convinced that their understanding of the Bible is so accurate that they cannot concieve of any sincere, informed, person seeing it in any other way. The implication then is that one is wrong either because they have not sincerely studied it, or have not studied it at all.

I happen to beleive that the Bible is not totally clear on many of the issues that people often want to debate. Of course, many of these issues are not really important to our salvation. e.g. Does the Bible really teach that there is life on other planets?

As to the role of women: I have an opinion, based upon how I understand the Bible. But, I also understand how some would differ with me.

I have got to go.

[Taylor]

Exactly Gregory. I have no problem with someone thinking that women shouldn't be pastors. Everyone has to follow their convictions. As you say, what is concerning is when people are convinced that their understanding of the ible is so accurate that they cannot conceive of any sincere, informed person seeing it any other way.

[melvin mccarty]

Let's have a discussion now on women wearing hats or "coverings" such as our Menonnite friends do. Paul was quite specific about that also wasn't he? :-) Do we really need to consider all that Paul wrote to be applicable to all times and places? That is what I think is the real issue.

mel

[Taylor]

All women must get out their head coverings and all men must wear robes and grow beards. Pretty soon you won't be able to tell who is an SDA and who is a Amish. (Amish people are great but....) I hope you realize that is tongue in cheek. Actually the idea is amusing in a way. In another way it just shows that some things in the Bible are cultural or for a specific time period. One has to be careful not to lump everything into that catagory or we could get rid of every teaching in the Bible that is why careful study is necessary. (And by the way I have had Amish friends. They are great people as are the Mennonites. I just don't think God calls us to dress like them.)

[Woody]

Let's have a discussion now on women wearing hats or "coverings" such as our Menonnite friends do. Paul was quite specific about that also wasn't he?

mel

[melvin mccarty]

Wow!!! Now we are making progress ROFL

mel

[carolaa]

Just curious...did EGW always wear a bonnet?