Chuck,

You have exposed the dogmatists and dared to speak out against such thinking which has kept the church imprisoned to tradition since its inception. The perfect "traditional" model is to be found in the Roman Catholic church: the continued defense of celibate priests and excusing of their bishop's covering up is a prime example of the effects of "tradition" of male-only clergy. No mother or father would have "covered" up children's abuse in such a manner.

No one but the ingrained misogynists of Adventism could still maintain such an archaic and unChristian attitude toward women--the first evangelist, and the preservers of the church since its beginning.

I don't think everyone who is opposed to the ordination of female pastors is a misogynist. We certainly disagree on the interpretation of scripture, but that doesn't make a person a bigot.
On either side of the controversy we need to realize that those who disagree are just as sincere in their beliefs as we are. Internet tirades are cathartic but ultimately useless in the motivation for change. The only way to get a traditional dogmatist to change his mind is to demonstrate that God has called persons of every color, economic status, intellect, and sex to his work. One cannot prove from scripture that the Holy Spirit works in women and men alike to advance the Kingdom; that can only be proven by demonstration.

Chuck, you have a pretty good vocabulary for pushing buttons:
Dogmatist
Superiority
Slavery
misogyny
scoundrel

What if God meant for women to have a specific role after the Fall, and we try to corrupt that plan?

You, Spectrum Staff, LLU, LaSierra Faculty members have tried to link the injustices of slavery to the issue of Homosexual Marriage which even the Blacks resent. Maybe, just maybe, your arguments, and vocabulary have their own agenda.

The real travesty in this, is our Universities, and Seminary allowing women to take classes that assume that at some point ordination is going to be allowed, not just Women' Ministry positions. Let's settle it before messing with people's lives that will resent it, and possibly even find another denomination with their act together. As a leader of one of our fine educational institutions, this should concern you.

Frank,
You are comparing Christ's resurrection to creation? Moses wasn't present at creation. In fact Moses wasn't present after his own death to describe the entrance into Canaan. So where did all this information come from - to Moses, so he could sit down and write it all out as he was wandering through the wilderness for forty years.

If you're going to compare Bible stories let's try Genesis and Revelation. If the monsters in the futuristic book of Revelation are symbolic (I certainly hope), then why not descriptions of events where nobody was equally not present?

Christ's resurrection included historical events and people who witnessed them. Whether we believe them or not, is another matter.

- just reacting to a ridiculous comparison

pcress-

You well explain the path to biblical validation of bigotry and misogamy ... 'interpretation of scripture.'
Indeed, policies and preferences the results of which are indistinguishable from bigotry and misogamy when supported by scripture-quoting women and men are the exclusive domain of 'interpretation' ... fortunately.

frank7-

Not that Chuck needs any help from me, or that he would affirm this line of thinking necessarily ... and about Genesis 3.

The word 'sin' is not used in the first three chapters of Genesis ... Indeed, the result of what happened in Genesis 3 is this: "22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

Reading this literally, one would be hard pressed to interpret what has just happened as humanity becoming sinful without conceding that the LORD God is also sinful. So does God know good and evil in ways different from us? If so, how can our knowing good an evil make us really like God?

Of course there is the rest of verse 22 "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

This banishment from the tree of life is historically interpreted as punishment of some kind ... usually bolstered by quoting the NT statement: "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom 6:23

Yet the quote by God in Gen 3:22 is just as well interpreted as the experience of death is essential for the full knowledge of evil, as death is evil.

Oh, and the full knowledge of goodness demands being on the receiving end of God's Grace, which is pointless should we arrive in the life beyond enshrouded with so much as a gossamer fleck of our own merit.

Admittedly it is all in the interpretation, with due acknowledgment to pcress.

Sirje...

Yes, I admit, not a neat one to one correspondence. The resurrection accounts describe eyewitnesses as opposed to Genesis. But, taking the demythologizing view to its fullest extent as some do on this site, those who wish to debunk the resurrection discount the biblical accounts of eyewitnesses as simply myth, legend and tradition that grew up in the early Christian community. An apology to generate a cult around Jesus of Nazareth.

Do I agree with this? No. But, my point is that the literal meaning of "non-symbolic" portions of the biblical text can be explained away by anyone on various bases. The flavor du jour is often science. When an event like the resurrection is held up to scientific scrutiny like creation, it is regarded as being implausible by those who can't accept the idea of any subversion of the observed natural order. The literal six day creation is often rejected primarily on this basis, not on the basis of textual evidence. On this same basis alone, resurrection is just as implausible. And, those who out and out accept evolution as a belief system often do not base their primary argument against six day creation on the grounds of an ill conceived comparison between apocalyptic such as Revelation, an obviously symbolic genre, and the opening of Genesis, where there is no such universal, scholarly consensus of such.

In the end, faith must come into play to accept either event, biblical creation or resurrection, as true. To reject the truth of either, to me, is to seriously compromise the integrity of the entire biblical narrative, especially in relation to sin and redemption. If some form of theistic evolution is true, how in the world did sin ever enter the picture? What does one do with Paul's explanation in Romans of the first and second Adam, and his explanation of sin entering the world " through one man?" Is God to be charged with making a morally defective and rebellious creation? What sense does the death of Jesus make without such a definitive description of the breaking in of sin into this world?
I have not seen an evolutionary, or theistic evolutionary model that comes close to answering these questions for me in a satisfactory manner.

Thanks...

Frank

That's no different than any school refusing to allow a student to take courses for which there may not be a job opening when they complete those studies. Schools are not able, nor is their purpose to guarantee employment upon graduation.

However, if a school discriminated on the basis of sex, it could introduce a lawsuit. It should be considered that all theology students may not necessarily apply for work in the SDA denomination. There are other churches that seek pastors from time-to-time, as seen in the classified section of Christianity Today. I know women who are employed as chaplains and other positions, but not by the SDA church. There are other churches.

I always kinda wonder about tellin' peoples they needa grow in grace, sorta like my shirttail reltive tellin' his wife she needa work on her meek an' quite spirit.

(An' see how them three fingers is a pointin' back at me when I opens my mouth an' point my finger ta say a word? Ain't no gettin away from it....)

Anyways, if Genesis 2 is metaforical, then I reckon mebbe that Tree was metaphorical, and mebbe the Fall of Mankind was metaphorical, so shucks, why did Jesus have to die, if you get my meanin'?

Maybe the Resurrection was metaforical, shucks, mebbe Jesus was metaforical.

Fore ya know it, it all goes ta skimmins....

Oh, mebbe y'all don't know what I mean by skimmins....

I herd tell a of this ole black man said his preacher said God put us in da fire of affliction ta turn us inta gold, but first He hasta skim off all the dross.

He said he thought sure he wuz gonna all go ta skimmins. That's what happens, shore nuf.

Frank,
I keep falling back on the Bible's appeal to REASON as it invites us join in a "reasonable" discussion. Where our "reason" must be laid aside, and some form of faith picked up, is murky at best. If the entire Bible and its many topics are to be taken purely on "faith" then why do we bother to appeal to archeology, digging all over the Middle East; and in any type of science to uphold it? Why not just settle into a belief system that is exclusively based on faith, without proof? Why are we looking for the Ark in Turkey and why are we engaging proof comparisons about the age of the earth and the truth of a world-wide flood?

My reason tells me that since creation deals with a time where nobody was present except God (taken purely by faith), no one can know what went on there, day by day, epoch by epoch, except as science is finding out through painstaking investigation. We can dismiss science in this area, but then, we have to dismiss it in other areas of our lives as well and revert back to curing people in the same way they tried to cure them in the Bible. Anybody willing to place their faith in Bible medicine?

The SDA denomination has made health issues front and center of the institution, thanking God for curing people when the SCIENCE of our doctors have managed to cure someone. But when it comes to other scientific discoveries that impinge on pet issues (like the unique teaching about the Sabbath), we scoff and we dismiss the discoveries as possibly even Satanic, and try to come up with pseudo science to PROVE our version of creation.

How did sin enter the human experience, who knows! I'm sure the ancients used to wonder as well; and since no eye witnesses were ever around to tell them, they relied on the story about the "garden" that had been passed on to them by the cultures around them, attributing the creation to their God - no problem. Do I need to know how exactly the God of the universe made everything, and how much time it took, before there was any way to tell time - I think not. Maybe we need to put our money where out mouths are, and actually use the FAITH that we talk so much about, and put it where its needed most - at the BEGINNING of all things and just say, GOD DID IT - period.

Yes, Paul references Adam, and even calls Christ the second Adam. (But here too, our theology has to interfere and make sure the second Adam came in the form of the sinning Adam, except without sinning - makes no sense to me, but hey...). The point is, that Paul references all the Jewish beliefs since he was a Jew, talking to the Jews, at the time.

(Actually, Paul is the pivotal character in all this. He didn't see Jesus in person, and he wasn't present when all the miracles happened, but yet, he did have great, and sudden, faith in all of it. Gives the rest of us hope for a faith equally strong.)

I think one of the most important points made by Scriven is Jesus' statement about the Holy Spirit as it would lead to truths, not acceptable AT THAT TIME. This leaves the door of knowledge and interpretation wide open for subsequent generations. IF SOME TRUTHS WERE NOT GIVEN BECAUSE IT WOULD BE TOO DIFFICULT FOR THE "BELIEVERS" TO ACCEPT, what makes us think that they would be easily accepted today? If the Holy Spirit leads to progressive truths, then some of the old "truths" must of necessity change. For example, we do know that procreation does not come from fully formed little people implanted into women's wombs - which was the whole basis of many of the laws and practices of the OT Bible stories. In fact, the whole Jewish culture dismisses women on that basis (in the OT). Are we supposed to assimilate those attitudes and practices just because they are in the Bible? Or, has SCIENCE enlightened us on the subject sufficiently enough so that our laws and customs (of inheritance for example) don't rely on such misunderstandings. Apparently not!

If we are to take the Bible literally, then let's do that, and not cherry pick our way through it and call the book of Revelation "obviously symbolic", but a poetic description how the world came into being, factual truth, written centuries after the fact, by a writer whose authorship is not provable (except through faith).

So we have a story that defies science as we know it; maybe written by someone centuries later, who we believe was shown the truth of it in visions not reported even in the Bible; and we base our entire denominational theology on that kind of foundation. Our struggle for faith needs to be placed in more crucial issues that really matter according to the mission handed to us by Christ, who didn't come to preserve ancient knowledge, but to free both men and women to accept a hopeful future.

Thanks Dr. Scriven, and thanks to all the Spectrum Staff, LLU, and La Sierra Faculty members that work hard to proclaim the mission of Jesus; to bring His kingdom to earth - the kingdom that is very different from the earthly one that recongizes and rewards racial bias, status, gender, domination and myriad forms of discrimination. The early followers of Jesus had a hard time reconciling with His kingdom as well. The kingdom of relentless love is not our nature. When I was young I remember being told that Seventh-Day Adventists were a peculiar people, peculiar because of their love. Although I did not particulalry like the term as a child growing up, the type of love Jesus was trying to typify when he was here on earth is worthy of the label peculiar. Do we still believe in that unconditional peculiar love demonstrated by Jesus? Where have all the peculiar adventists gone?

Sirje,

The fact remains that you do not believe in a literal 6-day creation because ‘science has proven the old age of our planet’. The standard for discerning ‘biblical truths’ is therefore not your interpretation of the scripture but the last word of ‘scientific truths’. In that sense, since science is superior to exegesis, we should prove all things written first through the scientific method and then (upon its approval) safely continue believing in what the scripture tells us.

And this is where you are not being consistent. Actually you are being anti-scientific, replacing reason and logic with a belief in some ‘Jesus-stories’. The same science which has proven the earth old has also proven that it is physically impossible to walk on water or transform water into wine. Medical science has proven that it is impossible to reattach ears within seconds after being cut off or for women to get pregnant ‘by spirits’.

In other words, it seems you are happy to accept the authority of science over ‘creation-stories’ and at the same time refuse to accept the authority of science over ‘Jesus-stories’.

Talking about ‘truths which were not given because it would be too difficult for believers to accept it’. One of the first lessons I learnt in my studies (secular, worldly university) is to put all arrogance and bias by side. There is simply no way of knowing that the brains of ancient Israelites would be exploding left right and center if they were confronted with the theory of evolution. Is this why God deliberately inspired people to believe in lies (thus himself telling lies), because the mental capacity of the very people he created was insufficient to comprehend the ‘origin of species’? Strangely enough those same people managed to deal with the concept of GOD.

"pedajazoo"
It seems to me that the chasm between religion and science is contrived by extremists on both sides. Both started out as innocent quests for knowledge - "who are we; where did we come from; where are we going"; both open to manipulation; and both employ a healthy dose of faith. What once started out on tracks laid side by side, have at this point taken off in opposite directions in the popular culture. And it is our culture that eggs us on the paths we find ourselves on here.

I understand why you see no difference in belief in Jesus, as Son of God, coming to redeem mankind; and the universe being created in six rotations of the earth, both fantastic claims. But I maintain that the two issues are not on the same level when it comes to faith (meaning "belief").

Redemption through Christ is totally unprovable. It is a spiritual experience when we're confronted with the story. I don't have faith in Christ because he walked on water; or fed a crowd of people with a little boy's lunch. Even the miracles aren't all on the same level. The healing miracles, in particular, are part of the Gospel message. Jesus was demonstrating (preaching through actions) what his message was ll about - "good news about the coming reign of God". In this "new order" men's souls would be healed, symbolized by the healing of their bodies. There is nothing normative about Jesus' message or the manifestations that go along with it - it's a mystery.

Creation is also a mystery, but it's open to study and investigation. In order for it to be literally true, God would have to have built AGE into every crevasse; and manipulated the very laws of nature to look like it's been here for billions of years. He would have had to "kill" organisms to build up coral reefs; layer ice cores at the poles; invent the "red shift" of stars etc. and why?

Sorry to have wandered so far afield here.

Charles Schriven wrote:

Jesus himself said things — think of his story about Abraham and Lazarus — whose deep truth comes through by way of metaphor. But for dogmatists (as I will say for short) this seems irrelevant; it seems not to matter.

Jesus also didn't deny the literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. He specifically supported this account on many occasions. He also talked very directly about the real nature of death and the resurrection. This is how we know that he was in fact speaking metaphorically in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

You see, it is fine to speak metaphorically as long as everyone knows what you're doing. It is not fine to make it appear that you are undermining what is in fact important truth. It is good to be "dogmatic" when it comes to important truth.

You are no exception in this regard. You are very dogmatic in your understanding of the truth regarding the need for women's ordination. You think you're right - clearly so. You think you're so right that you have no problem using the strongest and derogatory of language against those who oppose you on this issue.

I'm not saying your position on women's ordination is wrong. I happen to sympathize with your views on this issue. However, you are mistaken in your suggestion that you aren't just as dogmatic and passionate about those things you think are true and obvious realities and should not be presented in "metaphorical" language as is anyone with whom you disagree on this or other topics you list.

In short, its Ok to think that you're right about an idea of truth that is worth standing up for and defending as important... even when others might call you "dogmatic".

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Why does no one answer Maggies point?
There are 2 sides of this issue. One they want to make, saying "See what the bad people are doing and I will do whatever I have to to bring down this abomination", and the other where we see the turn the other cheek position described by Jesus and written by Isaiah in 50:6

5The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back.
6I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.

7For the Lord GOD will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.

Sean, I like what you say and how you say it. :)

Michael, thanks - I forgot that one. If the church is not to schism at the very time it is needed most, both sides need Jesus.

Rondo: "What if God meant for women to have a specific role after the Fall, and we try to corrupt that plan?"

Are you trying to say that God is embracing the fall as the ideal? I don't really like to get into "what if"s, but I believe that God sent Jesus to testify to the true nature of God and God's character - the character that we are supposed to emulate here on earth. The beatitudes are God's alternative to the ways of human's - categorizing, competing and dominating. I do not find evidence in scripture that the fall and the ways of men are God's ideal for a way to treat each other.

Other protestant churches that restrict women in leadership on Biblical grounds also worship on Sunday on Biblical grounds and believe in Hell on Biblical grounds. I differ from these churches on all three of these beliefs - also on Biblical grounds.

Kerbyco

You could benefit from reading what God set up between man, woman and God and their roles. Like God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit having roles, so I think God gave roles to men and women. Now you may be able to argue that those roles don't fit today's realities like the Homosexual Marriage issue, but being Solo Scriptura will be a little harder, IMO.

If the Bible is to be our guide for today, we better take a careful look at the polygamy that was practiced, with no condemnation by God; at the slave-holding--again with God's silence; with his approval of taking virgins for wives without their permission and as booty; of his commanding Abraham to offer his son as a sacrifice; and telling Hosea to marry a prostitute, and continue bringing her back after her repeated practice of her profession.

How far should we go in practicing the Bible's stated order? Were all those not ordered or allowed by God? Were they PRESCRIPTIVE or DESCRPITIVE? Should it matter?

Do we rely on the Bible for our best and latest medical advice on how to treat disease? Why then, do we prefer the Bible over all other scientific findings? Should the time make any difference, or is the Bible to be the final guide in all ways we live today?

Better take a closer look: for adulterers they should be stoned. Anyone volunteering to take up stones for all those who have broken that law? Or sabbath-breakers--anyone ready for a stoning party? Or should we practice the law of Sharia and not allow our women to speak with all males who are not blood relatives? Should they be stoned today? Should barren women be told they are cursed by God because their sole role is producing babies?

Were these God's plan? Was woman's subordination God's original plan? Should we live by the curse which followed sin, or restore the original plan?

Name Calling:

Name calling occurs often in politics and wartime scenarios, but very seldom in advertising.

It is another of the seven main techniques designated by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis.

It is the use of derogatory language or words that carry a negative connotation when describing an enemy.

The propaganda attempts to arouse prejudice among the public by labeling the target something that the public dislikes.

Often, name calling is employed using sarcasm and ridicule, and shows up often in political cartoons or writings.

When examining name calling propaganda, we should attempt to separate our feelings about the name and our feelings about the actual idea or proposal.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm

I wrote my first essays, in Adventist publications, on the equality of women almost 40 years ago, when I was one of the editors of the then-new Insight magazine. It’s true that my discourse was somewhat more measured in those days. I’m impatient with the persistence of evil, more so, at least on this issue, than I was then. ~Chuck Scriven~

Persistence of evil? Says who? You? So what must we conclude? The world according to Chuck trumps the bible?

"...the prophets, including Jesus himself, could work up a whole lot of indignation at the sight of religious posturing in the service of oppression."

If that is true then someone has to benefit from not ordaining women.
Who benefits from not ordaining women? Not male Pastors. Some are already ordained, or as Joselito continues to point out, NOT ordained. Certainly men or women in the church that dont believe ordination is biblical gain nothing by holding that belief.
So what is this bilge about religious posturing in the service of oppression? Believing in a biblical standard as written is now religious posturing in Chuck world?

I actually agree with the statement here; "...the prophets, including Jesus himself, could work up a whole lot of indignation at the sight of religious posturing in the service of oppression."
The problem is your stupendous misapplication of the principal.

This text explodes the whole premise of the ordination of women: II Timothy 11:11-14 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

Why can't we base this doctrine of what the Bible says, instead of what the culture around us is saying? The Bible gives us a model of leadership: 1st in rank-God, 2nd in rank- Adam and his Godly offspring,3rd in rank-Eve and her Godly offspring. Its all about God's order which Jesus designed.

To Elaine Nelson: What church are you a member of? Do you find perfect people and pure doctrine in the church that you are currently a member of?

People live in cohesive paradigms. Even though there are inconsistencies in every paradigm, the paradigm itself coheres because it expresses the individual's best estimation of reality at the time, and is at least roughly in resonance with others in the person's community.

One doesn't abandon a paradigm just because one discovers an inconsistency within it, just as science didn't embrace quantum mechanics immediately just because Newtonian physics didn't explain certain anomalies. Einstein died trying to disprove a view of the universe which he wasn't comfortable with, even though it had much evidence to support it.

People generally don't just take flying leaps into the epistemological void at the first sign of trouble on the paradigm frontier.

And if they are ridiculed, maligned or otherwise marginalized, the effect is often to make them entrenched in their present thinking.

If this is something other than a calculated power grab, I would expect to see dialog rather than diatribe.

E,

That's why New Covenant Theology is coming in to it's own. It teaches the Discontinuity of the Covenants and the Continuity of the Abrahamic Promise which enables us to be part of Spiritual Israel.

Christ's Law that Paul says is under, do not allow the things that you speak of. Look at the directives that are part of Christ's Law:

http://cranfordville.com/NTViceLists.html
http://cranfordville.com/NTVirtureLists.html

As far as situational ethics, at the Fall, certain individuals were involved, spoken to directly by God and given their "punishment". Without Biblical authority, nullifying those words of God, SDAs would hand a majority of Christiandom the wrong reason to justify Sunday worship. Study NCT for the right reason, to continue worshipping on Saturday, but understanding the fulfillment of the Sabbath in Jesus Christ, our True Rest. Col 2:16,17 and Heb 4. What is that other day God has set, TODAY? If you are on Wednesday, the new Rest Day is Wednesday??? NCT has that answer.

"And if they are ridiculed, maligned or otherwise marginalized, the effect is often to make them entrenched in their present thinking."

Well said, Maggie, as usual, but you could go further and say that an obnoxious argument can drive fence-sitters into the opposing camp. Take me, for example. I was somewhat agnostic on the subject of women's ordination, since Scripture isn't clear one way or the other. But now that I know what Charles Scriven stands for, I know what to stand against.

Maggie said,
And if they are ridiculed, maligned or otherwise marginalized, the effect is often to make them entrenched in their present thinking.

True. Case in point - this present firestorm wasn't initiated by a bunch of women wanting out of the mother's room and the kitchen to suddenly leap onto the podium. It is the result of Doug Batchlor's "clarification" of the role of women in the church. If he didn't know that this would set of a conflagration ... obtuse comes to mind.

Let's be clear, the only reason Paulson warned everyone that women's ordination wasn't going to be on the agenda in Atlanta is because of the CULTURAL limits still in place on women in the third world countries, and not because of some Bible based moral resilience. The delegates from these countries are going to outnumber the rest and are going to control the conference. Certainly there are old time veterans of the Lord's army that are equally intransigent but most of them are dozing in the back rows of churches and won't be there.

This is a much larger issue than just ordaining women, of course. There is a whole culture that relegates women to reading The Joy of Cooking, while keeping the home fires burning, and believe that our culture is going to sheol in a hand basket because women got the vote. If this isn't dealt with now, when?

Chuck,
You add to your arrogance on this topic by judging "for us" what the Holy Spirit is saying, "Equality for women."

Can I ask a question, in the attempt to fin out what the Holy Spirit might be saying. "Why was the Devil cast out of heaven?"

No tell me again what the Holy Spirit is telling you on the subject of "equality".

Chuck

You have children. The two sons are salaried it appears (teacher, HR Analyst) while the daughter has the traditional punching-the-clock role of Nurse. Did you have any influence on her being a nurse instead of an MD? Why did she choose nursing? Has she tried to move up to an PA or NP?

Organized religion attempts to "conserve" the past. It, by nature, is "conservative". The traditional roles of males/females has been thrown into disarray by "The World", including secularism and feminism. The idea any supernatural Spirit is leading religious people to accept the steady improvements of civilization exposes religion's true character- a stodgy institution dragging along behind the inevitable moral improvements of humanity. Whether its the current acceptance of movies for SDA's or gay priests for the C of E the force at work is the same. This force has nothing to do with any revelation from a god or prodding by a foreign spirit but is the natural progress of culture, civilization, and humans.

I have to agree with an earlier comment by Maggie along the lines that nobody is required to be a member of the SDA church.

Women are accepted as equals in every professional role that I have had. It was a benefit to the industry to have more than testosterone in on decisions. Why a female would complain about ordination when she would have had to have been ignorant of the fact that she was wanting to work for an institution that can legally discriminate against her is beyond me.

Possibly they should check their rights before entering the ministerial track? We have a relative that is a female associate pastor. Two whole years she has slaved away and is discouraged and unhappy. Wow. Now wants to go back to school for maybe a PhD. And then they wonder why they are not listened to? They volunatrily signed up for the job in the patriarchal fundamentalist organization yet complain that they are not treated properly, equally, etc. Since when are pastors DRAFTED by FORCE?

Good, Rondo. Now you're equating women having equal human rights with the devil wanting equality with Christ? What's next - burning heretical women at the stake?

Elain Nelson wrote:

On what basis do you say that the story of Abraham and Lazarus was only metaphorical? The current belief in Judaism about an afterlife would have made sense to them at the time. Just because we later Christians are "enlightened" about death does not imply that the Jews believed in the resurrection. For most of Judaism's history there was no afterlife.

While there were many in Jewish culture at the time of Christ who did in fact believe many erroneous views about death, we know that Jesus himself did not believe or teach such views as reality. He clearly taught that death was a form of unconscious "sleep" until the resurrection. Even his parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus was so over the top, even rather humorous in its exaggerations, even by the thinking of those in his day, that it is very clear that he was speaking in metaphorical terms (just one drop of water to cool the tongue... etc).

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Thanks for continuing the conversation:

Keafan,

I am taken aback by the hardheartedness of much of Christianity, including Adventist. Before you dismiss the cultural influence of the Christian vision, you had been read, say, David Bentley Hart on "Atheist Delusions."

Several who have commented on the Lazarus story (thanks, Sean):

Jews simply did not believe in the immortality of the soul. And in addition to this, according to N. T. Wright ("Surprised by Hope"; most think of Wright as one of best NT scholars of his generation): No Jews in Jesus' time believed anyone would be RAISED from the dead "in advance of the general resurrection."

Chuck

Chuck,

The Lazarus story was merely a reflection of the current belief in Judaism. It was not until after the story of Jesus' resurrection began circulating first by Paul, and later by the Gospel writers that it gradually became foundational to Christian faith. It is a paradox that while Adventism adopts some of Christian doctrines, they also "marry" many of Judaism's concepts to found a religion that is neither all Christian nor Jewish. Attempting to combine both it becomes a bridge from nowhere ending in a confusing mismash.

Keafan has a very salient point.
Why do women go into the seminary expecting to be Pastors when it is known that employment is scarce?
Further, if they are one of the few that are hired, why are they not happy that they have beat the odds and can serve where they felt called?

Maggie,
HOW? By making these kinds of cultural issues REGIONAL ISSUES dealt by individual conferences or even churches. Better yet, do away with ORDINATION. OK, OK, I know that has to be voted on as well. So, I guess all we can do is ignore the issue WHICH IS BEING OFFICIALLY IGNORED BY THE WORLD CHURCH, AND GO AHEAD AND MAKE IT A REGIONAL ISSUE. Let them deal with the insubordination ten years from now. What are they going to do, disfellowship a whole conference?

Posted by: Sirje Walkowiak (not verified) | 02 May 2010 at 4:02

First, the bible is not a regional book. Second you are speaking of ways to accomplish an objective. Methodology and how one could do it are possible as you say but are hardly the solution to what is clearly spoken of in scripture.

Its as if the liberals have discovered a new weapon. How to use the bible against itself to get what you want.
Homosexuality forbidden in the bible? No problem, just say, christian equality supersedes that. Women's positions of service a problem? Just say, christian equality supersedes that too.
Now instead of the bible being the rule of faith and practice, it is simply an archive of proof texting bits one uses to make it say whatever you want. Case in point.

Here a woman is healed by Jesus in church, but what do they extrapolate?

"Jesus not only healed HER, he was intentionally and deliberately healing ALL womankind of their second class status..."
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/articles/column/2010/04/23/jesus_ordains...

Maggie, ...but at some point there has to be a birth. I think the nine months have been up for a while now.

Look, I realize there has to be sensitivity toward other cultures and past paradigms, but just as with our kids, it's much more productive to model good behavior than to preach it. Maybe, if the governing body of the church stepped up and demonstrated what it means to live by the Gospel of Christ - the lessons taught by Jesus' life, those who still live within their crippling legacies just might begin some sort of thought processes.

Sirje, my point in mentioning Lucifer's fall, is that it is not much different from man's fall. After all, what did Lucifer as the serpent say to Eve:

Gen 3:5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

If God has a Plan for Salvation, and roles for his created beings, maybe we should respect those unlike Lucifer did, eh?? This may not just be a cultural progressive issue, there may be something more to it.

BUT... as others have pointed out, you don't have to be an SDA to be saved, and if you know that there is no ordained position for you when you finish paying the tab at an SDA school (or at least start paying the loans off) maybe, just maybe, you only have yourself to blame for not picking the denomination that allows for ordination. JUST MAYBE!!! BTW, the PCA Denomination believes their is Biblical reason not to ordinate women, and schism have happened over the point. This is not just "NO GIRLS ALLOWED" pettiness that Chuck started with. JUST MAYBE!!!

Michael,

All the major doctrines of the Christian church were voted on by men. Why doesn't that imply that all those beliefs we not called immoveable were the products of a male vote? If you like, there is a very long list of those that have been adopted and accepted by all Christians that were chosen by vote.

Just as Paulsen has explained: the vote on women's ordination was not based on scriptural interpretation but on political reasons: the majority of the church would not accept it! Others may disagree, but it seems that he, and the G.C. divisions have the vote, not biblical interpretation, much as it is defended by scripture for either position. What man votes can also be changed by later vote.

How else were the 28 Fundamentals not decided if not by vote? Man is very fallible, as there have been many changes in Christianity's long history.

All religions that claim to use the Bible as their final source for beliefs and authority, selectively choose those that affirm their positions. This is the M.O. of all, regardless of which side is chosen as the Bible has many internal contradictions, so each person has texts to support his position.

There seems no way around it: It's all a matter of whose positions meets our rational interpretation.

some code to break the bold...

Sirje

The 10 counted women as property, like a dog or house or goat.

Wife acquisition was by capture or barter.

The only church they had was the tent filled with smoke which the women were not even allowed to enter. If the male prospective priest even had a crushed testicle he was barred from the priesthood, yet a woman was to go out of the camp for a week a month. Who fills in while the woman pastor is menstruating? Keep a sub pastor on call?

Why do women go into the seminary expecting to be Pastors when it is known that employment is scarce?
Further, if they are one of the few that are hired, why are they not happy that they have beat the odds and can serve where they felt called?
Posted by: Michael | 02 May 2010 at 6:13

In regard to why do women go into the seminary: how about God is calling them?

In regard to "why are they not happy": may be the same reason the slaves in the south were not happy.

In regard to "why are they not happy": may be the same reason the slaves in the south were not happy.

Posted by: Mike MacLennan (not verified) | 03 May 2010 at 1:59
That has to be TIC because that is a pretty bad comparison.
As to the first, if they are called by God then why do they come to the church for employment as Pastors? Is it Pastors or nothing? Why not a bible worker, missionary or any of 100 other same soul winning jobs in the vinyard?

Elaine,
There was no time element mentioned in the vote or the findings of the committee looking into WO at that GC session.

The now you refer to is Paulsons statement.

Posted by: Sirje Walkowiak | 02 May 2010 at 1:32

Maggie, ...but at some point there has to be a birth. I think the nine months have been up for a while now.

I don't think the baby's been conceived yet.

Chuck's been getting madder for 20 years. What that tells me is that he hasn't done his forgiveness work.

Chuck, if you want to truly lead, do your forgiveness work, and then see what comes out of your mouth.

You can do what I did and tear up the family in outrage over the evil done in Adventism, but you will one day repent face down in the dirt for the heart work you could have done, but didn't do, and for the damage you caused.

You don't have to learn this the hard way.

Rondo,

"We have heard that the voice of the General Conference is the voice of God. Every time I have heard this, I have thought it was almost blasphemy." Manuscript 37, Ap. 1 1901

"That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the General Conference to be - this is past." Gen.Conf. Bulletin 1901 pp. 23,25

EGW

Maggie

Was the Holy Spirit working when Luther nailed his list of debate issues on the Church door? He, after all, was a monk under the tent of the Pope!

David

Generic definitions are inaquate to individuals. We define men and women by their gonads not their brains, talents, occupations, ambitions. We define people set aside for the ministry, by their preparation, commitment, experience, and fidelity to a doctrinal agenda.

Christ twice drove the money changers out of the temple court with cords. Chuck just used a keyboard.

Chucks anger seems to be (is) over the check-list mentality of ordination.

seminary - check.

male - check.

husdand of one wife - check

internship - check

converstion - ?

competency - ?

Does He pay an honest tithe - Check.

I seriously doubt if many or any Conference Presidents have listened to or sat through three homilies of the man they put their hands on in ordination.

Finally

Even in the days of the dedication of Jesus in the temple, we find in the narrative of the Evangelist Luke that the Prophetess Anna gave both thanks and witness to the baby Jesus " to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem."

She was given equal billing to Simeon

The priests that preformed all things of the law are not even named.

Let us face it: The issue is cultural not theological. Paul in his letter to the Ephesians makes it quite clear that Jesus came to break down the walls of partition between us--culture by culture. Tom

Beth, I have to wonder...

Has Chuck wept over the souls of those who disagree with him?

Is he ready and willing, and does he consider it his mission, to die for them? Die for the "abominations?"

That is leadership in the manner of Jesus.

I think when we use the example of Jesus to justify being harsh with each other, whether it's Sorensen or Chuck or me upbraiding my husband for the Ellen White mess that he wouldn't acknowledge, we are seizing an archetype that we are absolutely not prepared to embody.

It's like sticking a screwdriver in a 220 outlet - no one can integrate the energy.

Jesus is the only one who loved enough to earn the privilege of upbraiding in such a way. For the rest of us, we'd better make sure we've done our inner repentance work and have the long-term good of the whole Body deep in our hearts.

And has Chuck, or anyone, considered the damage and decades of confusion that would occur if the church were to rupture over this?

I have. My youngest son's ten-year-old daughter is being raised Adventist, and she's had enough pain and confusion in her life.

There were no women pastors, that I know of, when I grew up, but my college roomate went on to be Loma Linda pastor. It's not like nothing is happening.

The Bible says to be angry and sin not. There's a universe of meaning in that. Who of us are able to drink the cup that Jesus drank?

I know that I am not.

It is rather easy to compare Jesus' death with our ability to suffer. Christians believe that he had a much larger mission to fulfill and that his death fulfilled his father's wishes.

Which one of us has been given that identical mission? Being willing to die for an idea is light-years beyond Jesus and it caricatures his death to even equate it in the same breath.

There have been hundreds, even thousands who preferred dying than give up the faith in Christ. There have been many, like MLK and others who have given their life to free those in bondage. Whether this WO is the same depends on one's idea of freedom in Christ and whether Paul really meant it when he said there are no differences between male and female, we are all one in Christ. That specific idea has not yet been realized in the SDA church. Chuck has long been a pastor in this organization, and as such, he has every right to speak out on the inequality as he sees it.
As others have explained, it is much more inequality of pay, than merely ordination. (See the recent Walmart suit.) We do not have to agree with him, and many don't. But suggesting that he should be ready to die for that idea is more than ridiculous. The church has repeatedly had schisms on much less important ideas than this, and will continue as long as it is led by humans.

Excellent points Maggie,
Also there is no doubt that Jesus acted inline with biblical principals.
It is debateable given the clear words in scripture that the proponents of homosexuality and WO are doing the same thing.

Its not enough to say Jesus cast out the moneychangers and therefore I can assault those who I believe are not being as I think they should.

One is fighting for Gods principals and the other is just thinking you are.

Sirje, against all reason, I believe Adventism is unique.

As Euclid said, things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.

Truly surrendered leadership is not going to cause traumatic ruptures in the Body.

There is such thing as Truth, none of us possess it, but Christ embodies it.

People who are surrendered to Christ are members one of another.

Look, I don't even own a Bible or an EGW book...I know you guys can figure this out.

Peace.

Elaine, the differences between men and women go far beyond the biological. That the cognoscenti of the present age do not understand that, or feign not to understand it, is the mark of their stupidity. (Beyond that, I am starting to realize that comment on Spectrum is dominated by long-retired octogenarians who've forgotten the dilemma of the urgency and primacy of sexuality for a young person.)

Bevin, to the contrary, what I've written about the sexual organization of society has been experimentally validated by every society significant enough for history to notice. There is also plenty of evidence that the destruction of the old sexual constitution in the West is leading directly to declining birth rates. In other words, obliterate sex roles and you cut way down on sexual reproduction. (Of course, it could be a chicken and egg phenomenon: cut way down on sexual reproduction and traditional sex roles seem quaint and outmoded.)

There's also evidence that cultures that quit reproducing themselves immediately give way to cultures that still do. This seems to be happening in Europe, with the Muslim invasion, and to a lesser extent in the U.S. with its massive latino immigration.

Combine low birth rates with social welfare states constructed like ponzi schemes and you have a recipe for disaster. This is what Mark Steyn has been warning us about for several years now. Anyone interested in some insight into the problem should read his article: "It's the Demography, Stupid.": http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760.

Bevin, I know that you, as someone who fancies himself a scientific savant, will be interested in the predictive value of Mark Steyn's theories. Well, in the 2006 article linked to above, he wrote:

"To avoid collapse, European nations will need to take in immigrants at a rate no stable society has ever attempted. The CIA is predicting the EU will collapse by 2020. Given that the CIA's got pretty much everything wrong for half a century, that would suggest the EU is a shoo-in to be the colossus of the new millennium. But even a flop spook is right twice a generation. If anything, the date of EU collapse is rather a cautious estimate. It seems more likely that within the next couple of European election cycles, the internal contradictions of the EU will manifest themselves in the usual way, and that by 2010 we'll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on American network news every night."

Well, here it is 2010, and what are we watching on TV? Street riots in Greece, because their social welfare structure has become completely unsustainable. They haven't taken in massive numbers of immigrants, and their birth rate is 1.37, hovering just above a societal death spiral: http://www.indexmundi.com/greece/total_fertility_rate.html.

How's that for predictive value?

Liberals have been living in a fantasy world in which you think you can destroy the sexual constitution, erase sex roles and distinctions, and still have a sexually functional society, i.e., a society that reproduces itself. Reality has a rude shock in store for you.

Maggie,
You kinda hit me upside my head. I have been licking my wounds just a little bit too long, I think. It's time to let it go ahead and heal. Actually, I've been thinking about it. The trick is to focus on people, not the organization. Oddly enough, they are two distinct entities. Despite the fact that the institution is made up of individuals, it has a life and character of its own, often totally different than the poeple that form it.

Why is it that a group of really decent people, when formed into an enclosure, like an ideology, end up with a corporate product that has such an unacceptable character? But I think I know the answer - the institution becomes the ideology and must be protected at all cost.

Anyway, I think I need to close the lid and top it with rose pedals, and go my way.

And then after it is all said and done it is ALL metaphysical, it is all a perception occurring in the minds of men. The truth is we don't know how we got here or where we came from or for sure where we are going but we all have HOPE and hope is what keeps us going. So we concoct scenario's that give us hope. HOPE springs eternal as long as there is concious thought.

However if I were God, Jehovah, El Elohim, the all mighty etc, etc here is how I would do it. I would create creatures that I wanted to have a relationship with, but wanting the relationship to be one based on free will, free choice, (other HUMAN words which are just symbols of idea's could be inserted here) I would create, organize, assemble, ( here again in the metaphysical arena feel free to insert your HUMAN word/idea as you like)them with a perfect harddrive (read brain/mind/heart/three dimentional being in a single entity)and then place them (through one method or another) into a real life world/planet/universe etc.) where the very experience itself would do the programming. I would give them some guidelines as to how to treat each other long enough to learn about the basic principles that it takes to survive as a community of "others" with lots of different features and then after a period of time guide them so that they would come to understand the concepts of love, equality, compassion, etc (here again insert the word that fits your perception the best). I would interact to whatever level I could without violating their learning expereince but send every helpful bit of information to them that I could to see that they learn how to live together without totally destroying the experiment/experience before they would have time to learn the lessons that promote sustain and keep life going on so that eventually all those creatures could learn to get along. And eventually I would see to it that they all came to be able to live within those parameters because they truly understand how it works. In the process there will be a terrible struggle but eventually the power of the principle of LOVE would win out and then life in it's next phase would become better but still have the possiblity of learning and growing.

Of course this idea will never fly within any given group but it is where I am currently at. I leave tomorrow open for even greater possibilties and I do so with FAITH/TRUST/BELIEF/HOPE/LOVE ( here again pick your word/idea) and I do so while wishing ALL "others" the very best. Life is a learning experince that I believe can go on forever under better circumstances than we currently have. The JOY is to be found in the journey NOT the arrival.

The discussions here are admirable and are a part of the experience of JOY.

Carry on with the very best for all the participants.

KEEP HOPE ALIVE.

Invite ALL comers and share idea's that will help us grow and learn, but do so with respect and love.

SINCERELY.

Jay

"On the matter of women and leadership, dogmatic traditionalists are an abomination. They may call themselves 'defenders of the faith' but they are as much on the scoundrel side of history as any Papist or Protestant who ever made the Bible an excuse for looking the other way at the auction block."

Jesus called the Pharisees a "generation of snakes." I guess if Chuck had used the word "Pharisees" - nobody would have blinked an eye-lid, but the words Chuck used come too close to home.

When the Holy Spirit really touches our hearts because we are so over-whelmed by God's grace and acceptance of us, our decisions will be controlled by unselfish love, and we will seek to build up each other. I believe that this not only means that we will be kind and sensitive to women's issues, but we'll also be kind to animals and the environment. That's the picture I have of Jesus Christ.

I introduce this study on the above subject:

http://bible.org/seriespage/male-female-equality-and-male-headship-genes...

I felt it was even handed, even giving a cautionary note about male headship, versus male domination. Woman was created as a "helper to man, and named the "species" "MAN". Significant, read the piece.

Rondo, ah, er, ahem Bob Sands:

The operative word is "subjugate".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjugate

The SdA Church has twice voted via its General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, to "subjugate" women and give carte blanche to its ayatollah misogynist Amazing Facts Batchelor's in the pulpit

In the interest of ethics, shouldn't SdA evangelists disclose these votes as part of their truthiness gospel series?

Tom, you and your buddy Charles, ought to get together and read the link piece I gave, then come back with your "divisive" remarks. Plenty of women I am sure are happy with the roles they have in the church and their family and feel the Holy Spirit as much or more than Charles, you or Chuck Scriven. Sounds like all three believe what Scriven feels is opposition to what you want to be SDAs "persistence of evil". Sheeeeeeeeeeeshh!!!!

Mike MacLennan
I heard one of the better SDA sermons when in College at Andrews from HMS Richards Jr. The gist of his sermon, Principles remain, rules change. To go from God's words in Genesis 1-3 to what you are suggesting is more than rule change, it is PRINCIPLE change. Read the link piece I gave, give it some thought.

Sirje

I have been shown that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered. Testimonies volume 3 page 492

Of course, LATER, when Ellen didn't like some decisions of the GC then she said they did not have the "signature of heaven" (I believe that is a quote but not certain).

She made it up as she went along as all but the ignorant now know.

God had order before the fall and after the fall. It is hardly chauvinistic to study to find out what both were. It is rude of you to suggest what you have suggested. Nothing I see in the study demonstrates the attitude you suggest. Maybe time for a mirror check.

..."Men are expendable, women are not"...
....David Read from some arguments above...

and that is why TODAY its women and children into the lifeboats first.

but that is this generations notion of chivalry...today we know that one remaining man can father all the children we need.... while in the olde daze, it was men who were the scribes and storytellers, and selfishly, they wanted access to the lifeboats first!!! you could always use your slave girl, or raid a nearby village with your "best man" for a captive, and restart your family!!!

in the Olde Daze, women and children didn't matter...unless of course, the women were virginal, and could be "used" to expand the tribe.

A man could simply inject his "seed" into another woman, even a slave...even a captive, if she was a virgin. Way back then mankind did not know that women provided half of the genetics to child conception. Women were just property...ovens..incubaters...to carry a man's "seed" of little people...and King Henry the eighth the eighth the eighth swaped or "discarded" ovens at will in an effort to achieve an heir.

And if God knew, He certainly did not explain it well.
God was even said to have helped jacob cheat his Uncle Laban by modifying the genetics and thereby speckled coats of baby goats by blessing Jacob's use of the "magic striped stick method"!!!!! which today we know is simply an olde wives tale...a mythtake..

However, the Bible claims that "God BLESSED JACOB IN THIS MANNER".....USING A FALSE GENETIC METHOD....TO CHEAT HIS UNCLE.

The entire Bible, especially the Old Test, seems based on the ancients scientific ignorance of conception, and that women did not matter. Jesus geneology is even traced back thru women of ill repute...because the ovens did not matter..it was the "seed" of the forefathers which mattered. except for the miracle of how Holy Mother Mary became pregnant and with whose "seed".

Fundamentalists today seem to want to live in the past...along with the scientific ignorance that requires.

can the church not change now that we know better?
Does the church still stone to death anybody who lights a fire on the Lords special rotation of the earth?
or has the church modified that requirement to accomodate those of us who live in Northern climates... and if we do admit that some change has been advisable, like talking to our unruly sons instead of asking the neighbors to help stone our bad kids at the city gates....

why not admit that "we've come a long way, baby", and treat women with the respect they deserve, and not with the ignorance and disdain the Bible seems to indicate was the culture of the past.

(probably fundys oppose this change because it involves stepping on the slippery slope of change...which might next require admission that
...the earth is older than 6000 yrs, and
...that there is no good scientific evidence for a worldwide flood, and
...that all the limestone on the earth is far older than 6000 yrs and
...that it represents mega "death before the Fall" if the "fall" was only 6-10kyo....and
...that the magic number "7" probably came NOT from a literal 144 hr, 6 day instant creation, but more likely from the 5 "wandering" planets visible to the ancient, superstitious naked eye plus the sun and moon after which we inherited our 7 daze of the week.)

Rondo

You entirely miss my points.

1. To headline a paragraph with the phrase What God Intended at Creation is highly presumptive and ego centric.

2. The obvious stated intention was that man not sin.

3. If so, then there was on initial intention for a priesthood, preacher, pastor, cleric, or any other form of mediator, teacher, Gospel Worker, Pastor, elder, or any ordination other than Adam as the first man to be the Federal head of a perfect race of humans.

4. If such, there is no possible way to use the creation event as a reference model of what God intended following the fall.

5. The head of household argument fails to carry over into career choices.

6. One does not need a mirror. one need only the ability to read and to understand what he/she has read. Obviously your favorate expositor jumped several track of logic in his haste to make a preconcieved point--and apparantly you bought his line. Sorry--you seemed much to discriminating to fall for such a poorly constructed argument. As what God intended at the Creation. What God intended obviously didn't happen or we wouldn't be in this mess.

The Christ Event would not have taken place. The redemptive story of the Gospel would not have been necessary. Evangelists would not be a calling for either male or female. Adam would still be with us. Christ would walk with us and we would get the real skinny from Him while the dew was still on the Roses.

You asked me to read your link and I did and I found it full of contrived points build out of hot air.

Only one with a pre-set bias could possibly see any rationality in any of it. It presumed to link a pre-creation intent with a post-creation reality. The only thing revealed to us is that prior to Creation the Godhead entered into a Covenant of Redemption that if Adam failed, then Christ, the every Son of God, would take Adam's place. live a perfect live, die a substitutionary death to satisfied the purfect love and justice of God's Character and offer that life and sacrifice to all those who believed on Him as their Redeemer, Advocate, and Lord. Having completed His work of atonement, Christ commanded all those who believed to go and teach all nations. The command makes no reference to gender. All we do know is that the first one given that command was a woman in the garden of the tomb. The Glory of the Open Tomb was first carried by a woman. That seems much more relevant that the contrived logic of "What God Intended at the Creation".

I have looked in the mirror and found an old man in need of the Redemptive Grace of God. I am glad I first heard it from a woman, my mother. I next heard it as my father and mother sang the hymns out of the Old Gospel and Songs, as mother played the old Cable Nelson piano in the old farm house just outside of Berrien Springs, Michigan. One of their favorites was: "My Hope is Built on Nothing Less Than Jesus' Blood and Righteousness." I still cling to that hope and highly recommend it to all with whom I have opportunity to converse. A male voice or a felmale voice brings the same thrill of acceptance to my mind and heart. Now that is what God intended when he blessed the marriage of my father and mother. I plan to go to the Judgment upon those words. Praise be to God for His intentions spanned the Creation Event. Tom

Thank you Charles. I think you are too kind and restrained in your expression, and I admire you for that.
I also lost patience long ago with the arguments that continue to be brought in by the dogma driven conservatives. You've said thing better and more level-headed and polite than I ever could.

Also Sirje has it spot on: the only reason Jan Paulsen decided to have WO of the agenda in Atlanta is for cultural reasons. Way to risky to offend the majority. Nothing to do with any "Biblical" argument. At least he admitted as much.

Rondo

I stand by my critcal appraisal of the link: God's intention at the Creation. I understand you stand by yours. Further exploration would be vain. Have a good day. Tom

Matt Burdette:

Note from the link

http://bible.org/seriespage/male-female-equality-and-male-headship-genes...

this statement:

" Some contend that, in principle, one ought not to refer to the human race as “man.” Such terminology is unfair to half the population, they insist. I am not arguing that one must always use “man” in social and theological discourse to avoid misrepresenting the truth. I am arguing, however, that, in light of Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-2, one may not call this linguistic practice unjust or insensitive without impugning the wisdom and goodness of God. "

The point the author, Ortlund, is making, that God picks man's name not woman's name and does not create another independent name to name the race he had just created. This may be a minor point, but he builds on it.

Matt, continuing:

" In the conspicuous phrase, “a helper suitable for him”(2:18, 20),20 we encounter the paradox of manhood and womanhood. On the one hand, the woman alone, out of all the creatures, was “suitable for him.” She alone was Adam’s equal. A man may enjoy a form of companionship with a dog, but only on the dog’s level. With a wife, a man finds companionship on his own level, for she is his equal.

" On the other side of the paradox, the woman is the man’s helper. The man was not created to help the woman, but the reverse. Doesn’t this striking fact suggest that manhood and womanhood are distinct and non-reversible? Doesn’t this make sense if we allow that, while the man and the woman are to love each other as equals, they are not to love each other in the same way?21 The man is to love his wife by accepting the primary responsibility for making their partnership a platform displaying God’s glory, and the woman is to love her husband by supporting him in that godly undertaking.

" So, was Eve Adam’s equal? Yes and no. She was his spiritual equal and, unlike the animals, “suitable for him.” But she was not his equal in that she was his helper. God did not create man and woman in an undifferentiated way, and their mere maleness and femaleness identify their respective roles. A man, just by virtue of his manhood, is called to lead for God. A woman, just by virtue of her womanhood, is called to help for God.

" Must the male headship side of the paradox be construed as an insult or threat to women? Not at all, because Eve was Adam’s equal in the only sense in which equality is significant for personal worth. Woman is just as gifted as man with all the attributes requisite to attaining wisdom, righteousness and life.22 In a parallel sense, a church member has as much freedom and opportunity to achieve real significance as does a church elder; but the elder is to lead, and the member is to support. There is no cause for offense.

"..."

Here the author gets to the heart of his point. Is it significant enough for you? I think Moses, directed by God, wrote these inspired words to show the relationship He desired between man and woman.

So this is why my husband said that women are genetically disposed to change diapers!

It took a while for the church to realize that women employees are sort of equal to males. When I first taught school in the system I had to fight like all get out to get declared "head of house" to get a moving allowance, my curtains paid for, and some other "perks", as my husband was attending school full time. Another teacher tried the same thing and was turned down. And then there was Merikay... . Sometimes I guess we need the ungodly civil laws to make things right. I wonder if unequal pay at the podium is actionable...

Chuck

You recommended that I read a book titled "Atheist Delusions" which you think has the correct understanding of christian influence on the West's current secular ethics.

First, for 1,500 years every single thing written or spoken in "The West" could be claimed to have come from a christian. Why? Because anybody that said/wrote that they were not a christian were KILLED. The growth industry was for tools to torture like the "pear" device which was inserted into a woman's uterus and expand via a screw until her internal organs ruptured.

Second, after the ability of the church to condemn a person as a heretic or enemy of the church to be tortured/murdered by the princes of the church was removed they went to non-fatal punishments such as the stock or merely boring a hole through a person's tongue.

Wasn't it David Hume's "Dialogues" that were written and put aside to be published after his death so that the church could not punish/banish/kill him? And that was in the 18th century. The last person RECORDED to have been murdered by the church in Scotland was in the late 17th century (1695). His death was the result of making the seemingly harmless comment that it was so cold he wished that he was in hell as it would at least be warm.

Even now in our Congress we have only one Representative that has had the courage to say that he is an atheist. Therefore, christians can claim that all of our laws are written and passed by christians. The truth is that politicians HAVE to say that they are "believers" otherwise the superstitious voters would not elect them to office.

Therefore, to say or think that progress which is contradictory to Biblical teachings have been promoted by christians is false. The progress has come in SPITE of organized religion, not because of organized religion.

Keafan,

I suggest you read, and you don't. Confront Hart before you repeat cliches.

If without nuance I attributed the twentieth-century pogroms and concentrations camps to atheism, atheists would kick up a protest, too.)

Now, I do give this to the critics of Christianity: post-Constantinian Christianity has been, for all its virtues, deeply flawed. As an Adventist, I argue for a pre-Constantinian version of Christian faith, and you won't find anyone killing heretics, or even participating in violence, during the the first centuries of the church's life.

Chuck

Keafan

Being a nut on the left is just as bad as being a nut on the right. You have proved that sin comes in many forms and ideologies. Please read "In My Father's House" for a sincere Christian view of God. That thread represents the Evangel in its best form on this Website in many a month. Tom

You have proved that sin comes in many forms and ideologies.

Tom

Mt Sinai, the Sinai Plain, and the associated "Sin" are, in common terms, the Mt of the Moon God Sin, the Plain of the Moon God Sin, and committing (or the thought crime of THINKING) something against the Lunar Deity SIN.

A couple years ago I saw in an archeology journal that archeologists think they have discovered Mt Sinai because they have found altars with the crescent moon hewn into the stones with remnants of white in the carvings.

So, you may believe that the Israelites gathered on the Plain of the Moon God Sin, or that Moses went up onto the sacred Mt of the Moon God Sin to receive instructions concerning "sins" but I don't.

Therefore, as there is not any such thing as an act against the God Sin (or any descendant gods of the ANE tribes including Yahweh (Jesus in the NT)) your claim that my writings have proved something about "Sin" are not credible to me or any other non Judeo derivative religion on this planet.

"We don't see things as they are...We see things as we are." Anais Nin

Elaine wrote, "...the quite different story tells of Adam was created before any plants, then animals..."

Maybe not the plants, but it does seem to be the case with the animals. But then it could be argued, there's no concern for sequence in that account.

I stand corrected, I sometimes read too hastily. In addition, Gen 1:5-18 not only appears to have day and night being created twice, but, more importantly, has the sun, moon and stars scattered across the sky simply for the purpose of lighting the earth after it had been completed and was about ready to be inhabited. For the first three days, there clearly was (not that this would be beyond the scope of Omnipotence) daylight without the sun.

Get the book: http://www.holditpreacher.com