Batchelor correct? Women less IQ than men?

[Gregory Matthews]

Please review:

http://www.atoday.com/male-and-female-created-he-them-intelligent

The above coments (plural) present a FEW of the aspects of this subject of which people who have studied the issue are aware. Those reasons and more, are why I have ssuggested that Dooug Batchelor simply does not understand this complex issue.

[Tom Wetmore]

Interesting and informative. It does confirm a point I made elsewhere that certain feminine atributes and areas of social and communication intelligence/abilties are most necessary for effective pastoral ministry. Different should not mean unequal. The overriding point is that God created man and woman to be equal and both in the image of God, to work together.

[karl]

Quote:

To argue that men and women should have different roles it is not necessary to argue that men are smarter in terms of general intelligence, only that men and women have difference types of intelligence. And the research clearly confirms that men and women do have different types of intelligence.

What a mind-blowing thought - men are different from women. Who woulda thunk it?

[Tom Wetmore]

...and karl is different from Tom. But what does that mean and what difference should it make in the church?

[karl]

...and karl is different from Tom. But what does that mean and what difference should it make in the church?

Unhelpful, Tom. Individual differences do not equal gender differences. I am surprised you would employ this.

This greatly bugs me about the debate and the WO movement. From sneak ordination to bogus arguments to grasping at straws. IMHO it is of grave concern to have this stuff being promoted in our church.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: ....certain feminine atributes and areas of social and communication intelligence/abilties are most necessary for effective pastoral ministry. Different should not mean unequal. The overriding point is that God created man and woman to be equal and both in the image of God, to work together.

I agree with the above. Yet none of those points is a valid argument for WO. I think all SDAs agree that woman are called to do many different kinds of ministries. Doug Batchelor certainly agrees with that.

We were created to be equal, and before God we are all equal in terms of His love and in terms of our opportunities to be saved.

At the same time, equal does not mean there are no differences in our responsibilities and in the work we do. For instance, Ellen White wrote, "The husband and father is the head of the household," and, "All members of the family center in the father. He is the lawmaker... The father is in one sense the priest in the household." "The father represents the divine Lawgiver in his family... The father must not betray his sacred trust. He must not, on any point, yield up his parental authority." AH 211, 212 (Read entire chapter and the chapter on the mother's position and responsibilities.)

Your thoughts?

[Tom Wetmore]

For the specific purposes of pastoral ministry how are individual differences different from gender differences?

In other words, what individual differences between two men would make one qualified for pastoral ministry and the other not? Now apply those same qualification differences to women. What is the difference now? Is that helpful?

What will you do when the church does approve the ordination of women? Will you leave the Church? Will you stay and accept it and support the Church's decision? Or will you stay and continue to oppose it and work to have that decision changed?

[John317]

I would completely agree that evidently Doug Batchelor doesn't understand the complex issue of the differences between men and women's intelligence. But that isn't really at the foundation of the question of WO. The foundation is theological and biblical, not Doug Batchelor's illustration or explanation.

What he said about women was wrong but he had a right to say it. He's expressing his personal opinion and explaining a possible reason for the Bible's teaching on the headship of the male. I think he would have done a better job if he hadn't made those particular remarks. To say the least, they didn't advance his argument. I don't believe them, anyway, but I do believe much of the rest of his sermon is valid. I haven't yet seen a response to Doug's sermon that successfully rebuts his essential points that are based on the teachings of the Bible.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore:

What will you do when the church does approve the ordination of women? Will you leave the Church?

Absolutely not.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: Will you stay and accept it and support the Church's decision?

If that time should come, I would stay and accept it in the sense that I wouldn't speak out publicly against it, nor would I say things that would cause division in the church. The only place I've ever either talked or written about it is right here on the Forum.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: Or will you stay and continue to oppose it and work to have that decision changed?

This would depend on the reasons for the approval of ordination of women. If the church studies it and shows valid Bible reasons for it, I'd definitely support it.

But that hasn't been done yet. You pointed to an article by John Brunt in the Sep. 1988 of Ministry magazine as an example of a good biblical defense of WO, but his article doesn't do the job. Sometime we could discuss the article, and I believe I can show you there are serious problems with a number of the author's arguments. I think that is the main reason the church as a whole has so far refused to support WO. In the final analysis, the question can't be, and won't be, solved by pointing to previous practices. Practices can be, and often are, wrong.

[Woody]

Quote:

In the final analysis, the question can't be, and won't be, solved by pointing to previous practices. Practices can be, and often are, wrong.

Yes John317. I would agree with you here. And the practice of gender discrimination is not only contrary to scripture ... but it is 'wrong'... especially in the light of scripture.

[karl]

At the same time, equal does not mean there are no differences in our responsibilities and in the work we do. For instance, Ellen White wrote, "The husband and father is the head of the household," and, "All members of the family center in the father. He is the lawmaker... The father is in one sense the priest in the household." "The father represents the divine Lawgiver in his family... The father must not betray his sacred trust. He must not, on any point, yield up his parental authority." AH 211, 212 (Read entire chapter and the chapter on the mother's position and responsibilities.)

Doesn't jive with modern liberal cultural conditions. Single mom raising kids can't relate. Doesn't matter that this is not God's will for the family (or the church.) The thinking is that the Gospel is not relevant unless it bows to modern culture.

The puritan ideal that culture should bow to God is almost forgotten in our world.

[John317]

Quote:

Woody: Yes John317. I would agree with you here. And the practice of gender discrimination is not only contrary to scripture ... but it is 'wrong'... especially in the light of scripture.

Was it gender discrimination for God to make Adam and all other husbands the head of the home?

How about God's decision to make Adam taller and stronger?

How about God making Adam first and giving him the responsiblity of naming all the animals, including his wife? (Ge. 2: 23; 3: 20.

How about God making Eve for Adam and not Adam for Eve?

Or making Eve from Adam and not Adam from Eve? (1 Cor. 11: 8)

Or telling Eve to be sure to stay at Adam's side in the Garden in order to make it less likely that Satan would be able to trick her into sinning? See PP

And finally was it gender discrimination for God to choose all men as Kings, for priests, and for Christ's 12 disciples?

Are any of the above gender discrimination, in your judgment?

It would be interesting, I think, to do a poll and find out how many of the above points are agreed to by those who support WO. I might post such a poll on the Forum some time but it would only be valid if we can trust people to be honest about whether they favor WO or not. What do you think?

[Woody]

Quote:

was it gender discrimination for God to choose all men as Kings

"The God-selected shepherds are contrasted with Israel's kings, appointed, not by God." 4 BC 367

Today ... God chooses both men and women to serve as His shepherds (pastors). Who are we to question Him. When 'men' do the appointing ... we get in trouble. But as with all things ... God knows best.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

At the same time, equal does not mean there are no differences in our responsibilities and in the work we do. For instance, Ellen White wrote, "The husband and father is the head of the household," and, "All members of the family center in the father. He is the lawmaker... The father is in one sense the priest in the household." "The father represents the divine Lawgiver in his family... The father must not betray his sacred trust. He must not, on any point, yield up his parental authority." AH 211, 212 (Read entire chapter and the chapter on the mother's position and responsibilities.)

Quote:

Karl: Doesn't jive with modern liberal cultural conditions. Single mom raising kids can't relate. Doesn't matter that this is not God's will for the family (or the church.) The thinking is that the Gospel is not relevant unless it bows to modern culture.

The puritan ideal that culture should bow to God is almost forgotten in our world.

Yes, you're absolutely right. I believe that's the reason for the Three Angels Messages-- to call people out of false beliefs and into God's true light. It calls for some radical changes and separation from the "world." It commands us to be different from the world and not to conform our minds to it but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds by the Holy Spirit.

But it's certainly true that most people will do what's deemed right and acceptable by society and tradition but will reject the commands of God. I think that's one meaning of Christ's question, "When the Son of man returns, will He find [true] faith on the earth?"

(I don't mean this only, or even primarily, in regard to WO. That is really kind of a side-issue as far as I'm concerned. Certainly not a fundamental doctrine of the Bible or the church.)

[John317]

Quote:

Woody:

"The God-selected shepherds are contrasted with Israel's kings, appointed, not by God." 4 BC 367

...God knows best.

But God did definitely select Saul and David and Solomon. What I'm pointing to is a clear pattern of male leadership in both the Old and New Testaments, a leadership picked by God, not by humans.

The fact that many of those men did evil is not an argument against God's choosing men as the kings and priests, judges and prophets (with very few exceptions among the latter two groups, and none among the former). I just don't see how we can view these facts as insignificant or dismiss them as irrelevent to the question. It seems to me that is what's often done when the subject comes up.

[Woody]

God knows best. :)

[SivartM]

How about God's decision to make Adam taller and stronger?

[Neil D]

I would completely agree that evidently Doug Batchelor doesn't understand the complex issue of the differences between men and women's intelligence. But that isn't really at the foundation of the question of WO. The foundation is theological and biblical, not Doug Batchelor's illustration or explanation.

What he said about women was wrong but he had a right to say it. He's expressing his personal opinion and explaining a possible reason for the Bible's teaching on the headship of the male. I think he would have done a better job if he hadn't made those particular remarks. To say the least, they didn't advance his argument. I don't believe them, anyway, but I do believe much of the rest of his sermon is valid. I haven't yet seen a response to Doug's sermon that successfully rebuts his essential points that are based on the teachings of the Bible.

At what point does Women's Ordination have to do with this thread?

May I remind you, John, that this is short sighted here and does NOT contribute directly toward the thread and could seriously be considered as highjacking the thread by an impartial moderator....

May I remind you that you might need to step back from the thread, and remain true to the thread, and not to your opinion, no matter how valid that opinion might be?

[Neil D]

Doesn't jive with modern liberal cultural conditions. Single mom raising kids can't relate. Doesn't matter that this is not God's will for the family (or the church.) The thinking is that the Gospel is not relevant unless it bows to modern culture.

The puritan ideal that culture should bow to God is almost forgotten in our world.

But we don't live in a "puritan ideal" and if the Gospel is not adequate for our culture, then that says more about US than about the Gospel. If the Gospel is about standards rather than relationships, we have indeed failed God and our culture and ourselves...

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

Doesn't jive with modern liberal cultural conditions. Single mom raising kids can't relate. Doesn't matter that this is not God's will for the family (or the church.) The thinking is that the Gospel is not relevant unless it bows to modern culture.

The puritan ideal that culture should bow to God is almost forgotten in our world.

But we don't live in a "puritan ideal" and if the Gospel is not adequate for our culture, then that says more about US than about the Gospel. If the Gospel is about standards rather than relationships, we have indeed failed God and our culture and ourselves...

If God's standards don't govern our relationships, we are not a Christians.

The commonly peddled "social gospel" is basically an application of situation ethics. The ends do NOT justify the means, Neil. He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much.

If God's standards bow to the prevailing culture, who is being worshipped?

Man is.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

How about God's decision to make Adam taller and stronger?

Quote:

SivartM: Where does the Bible say this? How on earth do you know how big Adam was?

Do you believe in, and read, Ellen White's writings?

See the chapter in Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 45, the chapter on the creation of Adam and Eve.

God made the male taller and physically stronger for a good reason. Most of the world recognizes that men are generally stronger, which women are glad for when it comes to their needing protection. It also means that females don't compete in Football and other sports against males.

Do you consider this gender discrimination? Was God discriminating when He made Adam stronger and taller than Eve? Wouldn't you think that the fact that the average man has always been bigger and taller than the average woman is an indication that God made the first man physically bigger and stronger than the first woman? I think it's pretty good reason to believe Ellen White on this point.

Quote:

John3:17: How about God making Adam first and giving him the responsiblity of naming all the animals, including his wife? (Ge. 2: 23; 3: 20.

Quote:

SivartM: Um, God never told Adam to name Eve (Eve didn't even have a name until after sin, and she didn't exist when Adam named the animals).

Adam gave her the name "Woman" and also gave her a personal name, "Eve."

It's true that Eve did not exist when Adam named the animals, and that is not coincidental, is it? I think we can be sure that it happened that way for a reason. God chose to do it that way. He does nothing without a reason.

It's significant that God did not give Eve her name. Adam did.

It's obviously also significant that Adam is the one who named all the animals, and that he did it before God made Eve for him. Remember that Adam noticed that all the other animals had mates and that he alone didn't have one? He was by himself, and then when he knew he was by himself and wanted a mate, God made him one and brought her to Adam and gave her to the man. See Gen. 2: 18-22. As a woman customarily is walked down the aisle by her father and is given away to the groom, so Eve's father, God, gave her away to her husband, Adam. See PP 46. "God Himself gave Adam a companion.... God celebrated the first marriage."

Quote:

SivartM: And Eve was not an animal. I dearly hope that you did not intend to say what you actually said, though. "All the animals, including his wife"? When you say, "including", it generally precedes a subset of the previously named group.

Yes, that's true.

If humans are not included in the animal kingdom, what then are we? I'm not suggesting that we're not different in some major ways from the other animals. For one thing, God created us with his hands and breathed his own breath into our nostrils. He made us in his image and gave us the ability to commune with Him, which the other animals cannot do.

Check out the wikipedia:

The word "animal" comes from the Latin word animal (meaning with soul, from anima, soul). In everyday colloquial usage, the word usually refers to non-human animals. Frequently only closer relatives of humans such as vertebrates or mammals are meant in colloquial use. The biological definition of the word refers to all members of the Kingdom Animalia, encompassing creatures ranging from insects to humans.

And this:

Animal: any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animal like nutrition modes.

Having said this, I acknowledge, as I said above, that there are some major ways in which humans are a distinct and different kind of animal from all others. Yet we share fundamental similarities with the other animals so as to make us one of the animal kingdom.

Quote:

John 3:17: How about God making Eve for Adam and not Adam for Eve?

Quote:

SivartM: Reference? As I recall they were made for each other. If Adam wasn't made for Eve also then I guess women are nothing more than slaves. So much for the principle of mutual submission.

Read 1 Cor. 11: 9-- "Man was not created for woman's sake, but woman was for man's sake."

That's pretty clear, isn't it? :-)

Quote:

John 3: 17: And finally was it gender discrimination for God to choose all men as Kings, for priests, and for Christ's 12 disciples?

Quote:

SivartM: Was it racial discrimination that all of those people were Jews? How dare you let Gentiles into the church?

No, it wasn't. It was by God's design. He intended that the Jews teach the rest of the world's population about Him.

Quote:

John3:17: Are any of the above gender discrimination, in your judgment?

Quote:

SivartM: The part about women being animals, yes.

It's a fact. We're not trees or plants or chemicals or bacteria. I would say that we're animals made in the image of God, which the other animals are not.

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D:

But we don't live in a "puritan ideal" and if the Gospel is not adequate for our culture, then that says more about US than about the Gospel. If the Gospel is about standards rather than relationships, we have indeed failed God and our culture and ourselves...

Quote:

Karl: If God's standards don't govern our relationships, we are not a Christians.

The commonly peddled "social gospel" is basically an application of situation ethics. The ends do NOT justify the means, Neil. He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much.

If God's standards bow to the prevailing culture, who is being worshipped?

Man is.

What do you think, Neil?

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

I would completely agree that evidently Doug Batchelor doesn't understand the complex issue of the differences between men and women's intelligence. But that isn't really at the foundation of the question of WO. The foundation is theological and biblical, not Doug Batchelor's illustration or explanation.

What he said about women was wrong but he had a right to say it. He's expressing his personal opinion and explaining a possible reason for the Bible's teaching on the headship of the male. I think he would have done a better job if he hadn't made those particular remarks. To say the least, they didn't advance his argument. I don't believe them, anyway, but I do believe much of the rest of his sermon is valid. I haven't yet seen a response to Doug's sermon that successfully rebuts his essential points that are based on the teachings of the Bible.

Quote:

Neil D: At what point does Women's Ordination have to do with this thread?

Why did Doug Batchelor bring up women's IQ? Didn't that have to do with his argument against WO?

So the answer is, at the beginning point as well as at the end, where Doug Batchelor was talking about women's IQ in relationship to their being ordained as ministers and elders.

It's quite apropos, actually, don't you think?

Quote:

Neil D: May I remind you, John, that this is short sighted here and does NOT contribute directly toward the thread and could seriously be considered as highjacking the thread by an impartial moderator. May I remind you that you might need to step back from the thread, and remain true to the thread, and not to your opinion, no matter how valid that opinion might be?

If you'd like to make these kinds of comments, Neil, they're better off sent to me by PM than put on the public threads.

[SivartM]

Do you believe in, and read, Ellen White's writings? It's in them.

[olger]

Travis, I make a suggestion that we clear the table for a moment and ask an objective question. What does the Bible mean here "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

Thanks

g