Print
The Upper Room, Part II*
Throughout his ministry Jesus deliberately and intentionally broke and challenged societal stereotypes and cultural taboos. He spoke to women publically; he encouraged women to speak out publically. He taught women equally with men; he gave them the Spirit of understanding and freedom to study. The apostle chosen by him to take the news of the resurrection to the disciples was a woman. “Go and tell,” he said to Mary.
For forty days following his resurrection the upper room became a classroom for both women and men. The book of Acts records that his instruction was given “through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.” Their time together was reminiscent of the forty days the seventy elders ate and drank with Moses on the mountain. Moses said to that group, “Wait here until we come to you again” now Jesus said to his followers, wait,” in a little while you will see me again.” (Acts 1:2; Exodus 24:14, 18; John 16:16)
As Jesus departed from their sight, his final words were, “You (men and women) will be my witnesses… to the ends of the earth.” “And lifting up his hands, he blessed them (women and men) and was carried up into heaven.” (Acts 1:8; Luke 24:50)
The Upper Room
Following Jesus’ ascension, this group of 120 persons returned to the upper room. Jesus had just given them their marching orders; their first mission would be to Jerusalem. The group quickly realized that in a very short time, the city would be filled with pilgrims, arriving from all over the known world, both Jews and God-fearers. How were they to carry out the commission entrusted to them?
We have generally believed that the 10 days preceding Pentecost were spent passively, sharing memories, reminding each other of the events of the past three and ½ years and encouraging one another with the hope of seeing Jesus again. While the men may have studied and the women continued to care for their physical needs, they all just mainly prayed and waited.
May I suggest that this pivotal time was spent actively, organizing an evangelistic effort, coordinating plans and resources, and utilizing the skills and abilities of all persons present. I believe the upper room became a conference room where vital and important preparatory work took place. The previous forty days spent with Jesus had opened their minds to the Scriptures and had solidified their understanding of the Messianic event. They knew their message and now they needed a plan of action.
One hundred and twenty apostles had 10 days to get it together, to get it right.
I believe that “certain women” were an integral part of those deliberations. These women were actively involved in the organization and the implementation of the Pentecost event at a leadership level. After selecting Peter to preach, the group now turned to the question as to what was to be done when people responded to his baptismal call; how were new converts to be instructed in The Way. Perhaps it was a woman who suggested, “Pilgrims need food and lodging. We should provide places to gather, provide for food, and then in table fellowship give them instruction.”
And so the Scripture records, “When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together.” When the day arrived the group had coalesced; they had come together; they were ready.
Pentecost
Then “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.” God recognized the labor and work of these Galilean women and men and gifted them with ability to speak intelligibly with power and conviction to the educated Jews and God-fearers gathered for the feast.
It was not by accident that Peter chose as his opening “key text” a passage from the book of Joel. To the gathered crowds he proclaimed, “THIS (the witness of these men and women) is what was spoken though the prophet Joel: ‘In the last days it will be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon All Flesh and your sons AND YOUR DAUGHTERS shall prophesy.’ ” It was essential that those gathered in Jerusalem believe the witness of the women as well as the men.
On the day of Pentecost, women actively engaged in the work of evangelization. They had been eye-witnesses of the Christ event; they had been recipients of the gifts of the Spirit; they had been chosen by Christ as ‘apostelos ‘. Now the Holy Spirit’s gift of communication allowed them to bear witness of what they had seen, heard and experienced. Now the men and women combined their efforts and “Those who welcomed his (Peter’s) message were baptized, and that day about three thousandpersons were added. They devoted themselves to the APOSTLE’S (men and women’s) teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” (Acts 2:42)
Imagine baptizing 3,000 individuals! There is some historical indication that women baptized women in the early church and continued to do so until about the third century AD. For a woman to go into the water and be touched publically by a non- related man would have been scandalous. Jesus’ commission however was clear: all his followers were to make disciples, baptize and teach. There was no provision in the Great Commission for this activity to be done solely by males.
“Day by day they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread from house to house and ate their food with glad and generous hearts.”
Hospitality was offered in private homes and food was prepared and served by the disciples. Food doesn’t just magically appear! Meals take preparation, feeding large numbers takes organization. Table fellowship with its corresponding opportunity to share instruction in The Way was the method planned by this select group of 120. “… and day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.” (Acts 2: 46, 47)
Opposition came to both men and women at the leadership level
Evidence that women were in early leadership positions, comes via the record that indicates that it was not just men who were targeted by the Jewish establishment for elimination. After Saul approved the killing of the disciple, Steven, he “ravaged the church by entering house after house dragging off both men and women and confining them in prison.” (Acts 8:3) It was in the homes, or house churches, where instruction in The Way and the “breaking of bread” was being given by Jesus’ followers.
It was not the new converts to The Way that Saul was concerned about, he knew if he could silence the leadership, if he could eliminate the eye- witnesses, he could stop the movement. It was the women and men who had followed Jesus from the beginning, who had been empowered to spread the good news of Jesus’ resurrection and soon coming Lord that Saul targeted and sought to eliminate.
Saul “still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord,went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus so that if he found any who belonged to The Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:1,2)
Conclusion
Our church organization, with its gospel commission has largely left women out of leadership, policy-making and planning positions. Women have not had a place at the conference table where governance issues regarding our mission are being decided or where resources are being allocated.
What we can learn from the upper room is that when Jesus breathed his Spirit, it was on allpresent. When he opened minds to the understanding of the Scriptures, it was to both women and men. When he proclaimed “you are my witnesses” he did not specify a particular gender. Women, as well as men, were sent out as apostles. When he raised his hands in blessing, all were included.
In the upper room it was the combined effort of both men and women in planning, praying and working jointly together that precipitated Pentecost. When the Spirit descended it was the combined preaching and ministry of both men and women that shook the world. Pentecostal power will again come to the church when the Spirit is welcome to breathe on all, when all who have received the Spirit’s gifts are acknowledged and utilized.
*Note to my readers: It might be helpful to review part I from 8/26/11 for background
http://spectrummagazine.org/article/column/2011/08/26/upper-room-part-1-2
User login
Recent
- Rescued LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Defender of THE Faith Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Roger S The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- George Tichy Pacific Union Conference Calls Special Constituency Meeting to Authorize Equality in Ordination
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Pagophilus Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Fred Eastman Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
Newsletter
Organizations
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
It seems that many have forgotten that the first evangelists of the good news were women: the first at the tomb who saw Jesus and they were the ones who told the disciples. Where were the male disciples? Who was most caring after Jesus' death?
Elaine
I'm not the first one to observe that Adventism has become a mirror image of Roman Catolicism. While there are deeply spiritual people in both streams of Christianity, their leadership is patriarchal and out of touch with the real world - and out of touch with the teaching of Jesus too. Ecclesiastical tradition is no longer Christian, but has become a caricature of Christianity the way it was intended. And this probably explains why early Christianity grew, and modern ecclesiastical Christianity is shrinking.
This world has discovered when more women are educated and begin filling roles previously unopened to them, there is always progression; new blood; new ideas; and new energy. Rejecting the views of more than half of Adventism's members has caused a patriarchial system that is withering and dying in all first world countries. It can no longer be ignored that only in the patriarchial areas of the world is Adventism growing. There's a reason: women no longer feel heard, or able to contribute fully in the life of the church.
Elaine
I think it is so unbelievably ironic that men have co-opted this church that was formed by women & men with E.G. White in such authority. I see this as very bizarre & strange...& still the continual outcry against ordaining women! But there are so many things I view as strange including worship that means sitting in pews facing a podium..much prefer homes,outdoors, upper rooms,etc...
Renee Hernandez
Thank-you, Donna, for another good article.
As long as we have a non-progressive SDA church system and culture we will continue to have a patriarchal system. Women will also continue to be denied their rightful (righteous) places within all spheres of the Adventist church. Such a waste of mind and talents by excluding females in nearly all top administrative positions!
At this point in my life, I have come to view the SDA administrative branches with their plethora of men leaders as the "religious good 'ole boys club". I'm positive that there are God fearing and serving men there but what I'd really like are to see are some God fearing and serving women there also.
If things don't change in the gender equality department it will be just another reason for the young to find the Adventist church not relevant...
Kim
It is no longer just women who view this inequality as an "old boys' club." The young men of today work side-by-side with very competent, accomplished women and see it as a male-ordered religion that denies human equality. They are not attracted to such an environment when all churches operate voluntarily. Why would they want to perpetuate such a system of discrimination?
Elaine
We need a female Doug Batchelor or David Asscherick. In my mind it makes no sense waiting if you feel compelled to minister. Step out on your own.
"...organization and the implementation of the Pentecost event at a leadership level..."
I don't know what to say, Donna.
Tami to the rescue:
Tami Cinquemani:
Revelation-style worship is worshipping with the realization that worship is all we’ve got left. It’s what gives us life and breath and hope and joy. It’s worship in desperation for our Savior, for His grace, mercy, and peace. It’s setting aside all those things that have bound us in the past and falling deeply and hopelessly in love with the One who redeems and saves. It’s complete vulnerability, the raw exposure of ourselves with the unwavering assurance that the righteousness of Christ is the only thing that can cover us and make us whole.
http://spectrummagazine.org/article/sabbath-school/2011/09/23/worship-bo...
Donna,
Another powerful reminder that women do not need a man's permission (or a church) to share the gospel. Imagine if all at once the women - specifically in the Sda church - realized their power and rose up together. The skies would split in two!
I encourage those women who read this and who have a desire to speak up - gather your resources, purchase or rent a venue and get it going on. For what it's worth - I believe in you and so does God!
- Stacie
The power of women: from the Economist:
Seven of the 14 women identified on Forbes magazine's list of self-made billionaires are Chinese (this is where the SDA women have baptized thousands). Young middle-class women are overtaking their male peers when it comes to education. In the UAE 65% of university graduates are female. In Brazil and China the figures are 60% and 47% respectively. In Russian 57% of college-age women are enrolled in tertiary education; only 43% of men are. More nations now have females as head of state than ever before.
While this is in business and politics, both of those are well-represented in the SDA by present theology graduates. The same skills that enable women to achieve in other fields are no less qualifiications for pastoral and administrative work. Today, they are shut out of most positions because of one thing: lack of ordination--which, although does not enhance or add to anyone's acumen is still a necessary requirement in the Adventist church for any advancement. They are pastoring large churches, but have not received the church's recognition of equality with their male counterparts. How can the church pray for God's blessing when it continues to practice discrimination?
Elaine
Elaine,
For the first time, I AGREE with you.
Alberto
Beautifully said, Donna. Thank you!
Donna, an excellent piece. Good writing. Thought-provoking. Crisp and to the point!
Re: ordination of women in our tradition:
This isn't a theological issue; it's political. The top-down organization serves the interests of the political clerics. Too many progressives don't appear to understand this is hard-ball politics. The conservatives know this and they practice the same kind of politics as some of these nutty tea-party types--although they always frame their arguments with theological veneer.
Progressives can argue and pray until they're blue in the face; nothing will change as a result of that. They need to treat this issue like any other political hot-potato. If the women, and the men who support them, inform their pastors they are going to redirect their tithe and offerings to other organizations (LSU would be an excellent choice), political realism will set in for the boys on top. Don't rant; don't argue; pray for those who willfully shut more than half of Adventist out of ordination and other leadership positions. Politicians understand money. When the pool they need to keep their top-heavy structure going suddenly runs dry, they''ll have a sudden revelation (much like the Mornon president had a few years ago when he said God wanted African-americans in the priesthood afterall. Realism! Not wishful thinking.
Blessings on all,
Jeris E. Bragan
Jeris, you are right - The lack of women's presence in church administration is more political than theological. . Elaine hit the nail on the head when she said,
"The same skills that enable women to achieve in other fields are no less qualifications for pastoral and administrative work. Today, they are shut out of most positions because of one thing: lack of ordination--which, although does not enhance or add to anyone's acumen is still a necessary requirement in the Adventist church for any advancement."
As with any profession, one must be credentialed in order to serve. No matter how talented, gifted or called by God a woman may be, her services are not being appropriated at the governance and administrative level in our church.
In the Upper Room, Jesus made it clear that was not the pattern he desired for his church.
Bravo, Donna! You are so right. But as one who has seen more than my share of church politics, I fear that reason falls on deaf ears in the church heirarchy. Money may talk, but it's hard to feel "Christian" when using that method to play politics.
Carol, I think I understand what you mean by "it's hard to feel Christian when using that method to play politics.
First, whether in the sacred or secular arena, politics itself isn't a bad word. Politics is the art of getting people to form an agreeable group who either agree, disagree, or find a compromise.
One of the fundamental differences between Adventist progressive and Adventist fundamentalist is this: Progressives at the core believe in debate, discussion, rational argumentation. But they are unwilling to play hardball. Fundamentalists also believe in debate, discussion and rational argumentation but all of that must lead to pre-ordained conclusions. If that doesn't work, the will play hardball, using every trick in the book, every lever of power, to get their way. They clearly don't care who they hurt, who loses their career and so forth. And they always couch it all in religious verbiage, smiling kindly while they throw their fire on the pile.
Another difference is that progressives are generally hopeful, optimistic people. Fundamentalists are conspiracy buffs, they're coming to get us, these people (progressives) are demonic in nature and must be purged from the church. Be afraid! Be very afraid! is their mantra. Like the current Republican tea-part folk, their common currancy is fear, which they use will to manipulative and motivate people who are already afraid.
There's playing politics well and honestly. There's politics played poorly, believing oneself to pious and good to muddy their hands--even with people who are determined to destroy progressives. To them, we're all essentially evil people, more kindly, deluded, but skating on the thin ice over hell.
Shalom!
Jeris E. Bragan
"One of the fundamental differences between Adventist progressive and Adventist fundamentalist is this: Progressives at the core believe in debate, discussion, rational argumentation. But they are unwilling to play hardball. Fundamentalists also believe in debate, discussion and rational argumentation but all of that must lead to pre-ordained conclusions. If that doesn't work, the will play hardball, using every trick in the book, every lever of power, to get their way. They clearly don't care who they hurt, who loses their career and so forth. And they always couch it all in religious verbiage, smiling kindly while they throw their fire on the pile.'
Brilliant and insightful Jeris! With the whole of your comment you demonstrated very clear and perceptive analysis of the situation. Of course it is generalised and doesn't always apply, but overall you've captured the essence very well. Our debates really need to be about the things you have talked about - the philosophical, emotional and perceptual ways of approaching situations. When we all see the games we are playing then perhaps there could be more humility and less attempts at control and manipulation.
Jeris E. Bragan said:
---
"One of the fundamental differences between Adventist progressive and Adventist fundamentalist is this: Progressives at the core believe in debate, discussion, rational argumentation. But they are unwilling to play hardball. Fundamentalists also believe in debate, discussion and rational argumentation but all of that must lead to pre-ordained conclusions. If that doesn't work, the will play hardball, using every trick in the book, every lever of power, to get their way. They clearly don't care who they hurt, who loses their career and so forth. And they always couch it all in religious verbiage, smiling kindly while they throw their fire on the pile."
---
But Mr. Bragan, it could be that liberals just don't have access to the power to behave in the same way.
I get what you're saying though in a sense.
There is something absolutely disheartening about how conservatives use power and too many times they lack the self-reflective or critical spirit to analyze exactly what they are doing and who they are hurting.
You also said:
---
"Another difference is that progressives are generally hopeful, optimistic people. Fundamentalists are conspiracy buffs, they're coming to get us, these people (progressives) are demonic in nature and must be purged from the church. Be afraid! Be very afraid! is their mantra. Like the current Republican tea-part folk, their common currancy is fear, which they use will to manipulative and motivate people who are already afraid."
---
That is the weakness of conservatism. I have always felt that our church does not understand its own weaknesses. Not all outcomes are equally likely, and in my opinion many of these campaigns against "liberal" influences (like evolution) are misplaced.
They show that many people in leadership don't understand Adventism's natural proclivities. We always veer off into the right-side ditch (Koresh, Houteff, Traveser etc). If we can be aware of that we will avoid a lot of misfortune.
(Related to this, I am of the strong view that conspiracy theories are destroying our prophetic heritage. All manner of sensationalism is taking root in many churches--eg. "Dwight Nelson is a Jesuit!" etc.; yet we are off playing games with bogeyman evolutionists whose views will never gain traction in our church; even if left entirely alone).
Peta and Trinadad, I appreciate your comments and feedback. Yet, Peta, I did generalize to make a point. There are many exceptions to the rule. One of my best friends is a very conservative Adventist theologian. He has the kind disposition of Polycarp.
There is a third difference between progressives and fundamentalists. Progressives tend to favor flattened/communal authority structures, to reach out to others to be as inclusive as possible.
Fundamentalists tend to be very authoritarian. They want control. Like Santa Claus they like to check out who's been naughty or nice so they purge from their ranks people who aren't in lock-step with them. They, too, want to be inclusive--but only with those who believe as they do. If theydon't, they can trot on down the road to some other organization.
I use the term fundamentalist, rather than "historic Adventism, because I remember what those folks were like when I was coming of age in the 50's and 60's. These were not good people.
Trinadad, of couse some progressives can get as full of themselves as fundamentalists. But most progressives, as I mentioned above, are trying to bring "outsiders" into the inside of the People of God. I've never met a progressive who gleefully hurt anybody or wanted to see them lose their jobs, careers, homes, and even family. It's not because we lack clarity of faith issues; we just think loving people is our first and primary task.
Donna, forgive my wandering too mcuh?
Shalom!
Jeris E. Bragan
The nature of adventist approaches lends itself to negativity, mean spiritedness and looking for conspiracies. The Great Controversy theme and book teaches us to not trust people, to believe things are going to get really bad, that friends are going to be enemies, and that all is not as it seems. We look for the bad and rejoice in it because it proves our case. We seek to find enemies where no one else sees them. We seek to attribute mixed misguided and/or evil motives to people and organisations. We know we are alone in a world we only we are right and everyone else is wrong. And that we can't even trust the people in our religious community because deep down so many of them are apostates as well.
You're forgiven Jeris. Now take care of Peta...
A good administrator surveys the situation, studies and asks questions before he makes decisions. A poor administrator jumps in and immediately sends directives and orders withour ever determining what is required.
This has been clearly demonstrated in the GC "changing of the guard: adapting to entirely different managerial styles is difficult for those who now have little or say and haven't even been asked.
Elaine
so are we guys here to understand that you gals as 2nd created, and only there because we asked, are no longer are willing to be guided by DIVINE ly inspired ancient scripture, as explained here? and you want to have it all?despite Paul's suggestion that women are better obscene and not heard? and that the wisest man who ever lived said it is better to live on the roof than....
well, read it here:
http://letgodbetrue.com/proverbs/21_09.htm
it took a while before I understood the wonderful concept of the roof top in the ancient world :
we guys come home from a Joshua-long day raiding the neighbors, pillaging their stuff, putting to the sword any women who have had sex (believe me, its NOT always rewarding trying to find out) tho "saving the virgins" can be a blast...., but at the end of a long day its great to wipe the blood off, grab a bowl of sheep entrails as the flat earth suddenly becomes dark, climb the ladder to the rooftop, and grab a warm bud (or light one), and enjoy the quiet coolth of the evening:
maybe a breeze blowing the plague of grasshoppers away, nice view of the 12 signs of the zodiac, (which is why any self respecting patriarch has multiple wives and keeps trying for 12 kids ) watching for miraculous signs in the sky for that annual sale on camels, all the while enjoying some good incense or an adult brew with the guys, or scoping out the nubile nekkid neighbor nymph bath(shebba)-ing on the adjoining roof. Time away from all the negative, nattering, nagging wives downstairs complaining about having to do the dishes without water while trying to housebreak the goats and kids, except for thaaaaat one week each month that they all have to leave camp and I have to perform their duties....
alone...unless..........unless that neighbor were willing to come over and "help out"......
"Its good to be king"....David, or Mel Brooks
QED/TIC
where there's a will and a heavy counterbalance, there's a way.
http://www.wimp.com/mastbridge/
kinda hard to believe isn't it, John
Typical feminist propaganda with a lot of unsupported statements. "Just what was God's plan? The prophet continues in Patriarchs and Prophets, page 59: “In their efforts to reach positions for which He has not fitted them, many are leaving vacant the place where they might be a blessing. In their desire for a higher sphere, many have sacrificed true womanly dignity and nobility of character, and have left undone the very work that Heaven appointed them.”
Take a look at the following article by a WOMAN!!
http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/article.php?id=156
I double dare you to read it.
Why should we raise our blood pressure by reading anything from that rag.
Elaine
You compliment it, Elaine, with that description?!
Dear Friend,
You are right. I would never advocate for a woman (Or a man) to "reach positions for which He has not fitted them". What I do advocate for is that women (and men) be allowed to fill the positions which God has "fitted" and gifted and called them to fill. To deny either men or women that ability is ignoring God's will. Christ recognized that women and men were needed to fulfill his commission - and they are needed today as well.
Notice how carefully the article to which I referred cites authority and is a calm recitation of fact. Notice, by contrast, how the above article uses "may" and has to use parentheses to enclose words that do not appear in the original. Nowhere in Scripture is there a denial of the fact that the male is in a position of headship and, in fact, it is confirmed in the Bible.
I'm positive, as one can be, that under the current church leadership there will be no more concessions to cultural aspirations of females and their supporters and to adapting a thus saith the Lord to a thus saith the feminists. Paul spoke eloquently on the issue and I need not repeat it. Anyone care to admit to having read the article to which I show a link?
@Your Friend
I've read the article, but I believe Mrs. Damsteegt is incorrect in her interpretation of the curses as prescriptive rather than descriptive (an interpretation she doesn't trouble to explain). It seems clear that the curses in Genesis 3 describe the evils resulting from sin's entrance into the world. The curses as prescriptive remedies make no sense whatsoever. How are painful childbirth and ground that produces thorns and thistles helpful or desirable remedies for sin? They are obviously the evil consequences of the fall - not things we should seek to cultivate. The same goes for male dominance - it is an evil consequence of sin - not the way things were meant to be or something we should strive to maintain. Jesus' treatment of women clearly defied the patriarchal culture of his time - shouldn't we as His followers try to do as He did?
Mrs. Damsteeegt also says things like "Scripture is of no private interpretation," seemingly oblivious to the fact that every person who reads scripture also interprets it within the context of their own culture and understanding of the world, of religion and of God. Choosing to ignore or declare irrelevant the impact of the historical and cultural context in which the Bible was written is choosing ignorance over understanding - and I can't believe the God who gave us the ability to reason would approve of that.
"Your Friend:
You are living proof of one of the Old Testament stories: A jackass can speak!
Amen, Jeris 2!
Now, now, Jeris & Josh - that's no way to treat a friend. :-) There but for the grace of God any of us... Our friend was raised to believe in the patriarchal system - he is no different that Jesus' 12 disciples - and think how hard it was for them to accept women as equal heirs and fellow workers.
Dear Friend,
Yes, I've read Ms. Damsteegt article. (And many, many books over the years with the same point of view) There are enough holes in her argument to drive a Mack truck through. But as Jesus said, Let him who has eyes to see...
Let me ask you - Do men become pastors because they want honor and prestige or because they recognize his call and want to serve God as his humble servants? Do they sacrifice nobility of character by proclaiming God's word?
You obviously respect Ms. Damsteegt and her written counsel on this subject - If she gave it orally as a sermon would that negate her witness? If truth is proclaimed and souls are won to God by the public witness of a woman - should we not allow her to baptize her converts or would that "act" that be giving her glory? Is baptism an act that belongs rightfully to a man. Does he covet the "glory" of preforming the act? Is not a workman worthy of his hire? Should a woman be paid less than a man when doing the same job, when her employer refuses to grant her certification to do her work?
The wind bloweth where it will - and the Spirit's gifts are given indiscriminately... Did Jesus actually say, "Go,you men, and make disciples, baptizing them and teaching them all that I have commanded you." Is that really the great commission?
.."think how hard it was for them to accept women as equal "........
because the ancients were ignorant of the biologic facts of how a child was conceived.
God not only never told his prophets about this, but God even perpetuated the ignorance by commanding Joshua in Numb 31 to "kill any women who have had sex, but to "save" the virgins".
God had told the Hebrews (according to their autobiography) that He wanted them to remain a ""separate people", yet even God failed to notice how using virgins "saved" from the ethnic cleansing that was done to the neighbors would dilute his chosen peoples genetic uniqueness.
Either that or the story is based on the ignorance of the people involved, and not on God's inspiration.
But the result is the duplicitous standards applied to women..... if it was not known that women provided half of the genes for reproduction, they could be ignored except as ovens and house maids.
One of the stories that resulted from this was Lots incest in the cave, where the daughters knew that they could not inherit their fathers goats if he croaked, only a son could, so writers of this tale exceeded all expectations by having a drunk old guy get it up two nights in a row without knowing it was his daughters, and both daughters KNEW the following morning that they were pregnant.
The other method to the madness of this story is that the eldest daughter's son was the father of the Moabites. So after being lost for 40 yrs in the desert, Moses could tell joshua to have his soldiers kill all the moabites, since they were SOB's and could not legally (according to hebrew inheritance regs) trace their inheritance to Olde Abe thru proper marriage, and therefore they could not keep the land they were on . Which the Israelites then could claim.
que Andy Williams and "Exodus"...."this land is mine, God gave it here to me"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEYmomUuveU&feature=related
where there's a will and a heavy counterbalance, there's a way.
http://www.wimp.com/mastbridge/
Toni Morrison in Newsweek has, in her most eloquent manner, described the current situation in much of the world but that was also the same followed during Bible times:
"Historically the control of women--not only their movement, their speech, but especially their uteri, their ova, their fetuses--is one of the major foundations of soverign nations. (They) cling to male guardian laws as a singular characteristic of power. For them an ovum is a matter of state; sperm is not. The raped is responsible for her assault; the rapist is not."
Maybe "Your Friend" would like to return to those Bible times where the best she could hope for was to bear many sons--the one and only way to fulfill her God-given role at that time: In the kitchen, barefoot, and pregnant. Who is the most beatified woman in the Bible? And that was achieved solely by pregnancy!
Elaine
The the link to the Damsteegt talk at Andrews: "The “curses” were not so much punishment as helps in dealing with this horrible problem called sin, and they will continue until the problem of sin is swallowed up in victory. Picking up at Genesis 3, verses 16-19, we read: “Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband , and he shall rule over thee. "
How on earth is this not but punishment but rather beneficent help? Another example of warped thinking styles used to rationalise a predetermined position.
@ Your Friend,
I took you up on the double dare on reading the linked article and it was not compelling enough to change my "feminist" viewpoint.
The author of the article had a few things that I agreed with but most I did not. She does need to understand that there was a more radicalized form of feminism that took root in America than that which was introduced into England for example.
The author is also not correct in assuming that all feminist have the same goals or agendas. Unless she can cite more recent studies/polls a few of her assertions/opinions cannot be proven. I am pointing this out because of your claims that our posts are without foundation, etc.
I would expect under the current administration that there may be no more "feminist"concessions...that may well be, but more of the younger generation does not embrace the "patriarchal ideal". And this, Your Friend, you will not be able to control.
Kim
Donna said: "In the upper room it was the combined effort of both men and women in planning, praying and working jointly together that precipitated Pentecost.
I don't know what to say, Donna.
Andrew Murray to the rescue:
"All that the Church and its members need for the manifestation of the mighty power of God in the world, is the return to our true place, the place that belongs to us, both in creation and redemption, the place of absolute and unceasing dependence upon God. Let us strive to see what the elements are that make up this most blessed and needful waiting upon God: it may help us to discover the reasons why this grace is so little cultivated, and to feel how infinitely desirable it is that the Church, that we ourselves, should at any price learn its blessed secret.
The deep need for this waiting on God lies equally in the nature of man and the nature of God. God, as Creator, formed man, to be a vessel in which He could show forth His power and goodness. Man was not to have in himself a fountain of life, or strength, or happiness: the ever-living and only living One was each moment to be the Communicator to him of all that he needed. Man's glory and blessedness was not to be independent, or dependent upon himself, but dependent on a God of such infinite riches and love. Man was to have the joy of receiving every moment out of the fulness of God. This was his blessedness as an unfallen creature.
When he fell from God, he was still more absolutely dependent on Him. There was not the slightest hope of his recovery out of his state of death, but in God, His power and mercy. It is God alone who began the work of redemption; it is God alone who continues and carries it on each moment in each individual believer. Even in the regenerate man there is no power of goodness in himself: he has and can have nothing that he does not each moment receive; and waiting on God is just as indispensable, and must be just as continuous and unbroken, as the breathing that maintains his natural life.
It is, then, because Christians do not know their relation to God of absolute poverty and helplessness, that they have no sense of the need of absolute and unceasing dependence, or the unspeakable blessedness of continual waiting on God. But when once a believer begins to see it, and consent to it, that he by the Holy Spirit must each moment receive what God each moment works, waiting on God becomes his brightest hope and joy. As he apprehends how God, as God, as Infinite Love, delights to impart His own nature to His child as fully as He can, how God is not weary of each moment keeping charge of his life and strength, he wonders that he ever thought otherwise of God than as a God to be waited on all the day.
God unceasingly giving and working; His child unceasingly waiting and receiving: this is the blessed life."
Andrew Murray, Waiting on God:
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/murray/waiting/waiting.htm
Galatians 3: "Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?"
My soul, wait thou only upon God!
Maggie, why did not the "one accord" of the disciples "precipitate" the coming of the Holy Spirit? What were the conditions for the Holy Spirit? Or, are there certain conditions?
Elaine
Jeris, I can pretty much agree with your summary of progressives and conservatives. I think progressives say, "Can't we all just get along? We can agree to disagree and still be friends." But conservatives can't resist trying to force everyone to see things their way.
Maggie,
Yes - I debated the use of the term "precipitated" for the very reasons that you mention. Perhaps a better word could have been used. I used it in the sense that they were fully prepared for their task.
I do believe that God does wait for human agents to be receptive to his gifts. I believe that Jesus had sowed the seeds of mutual service among his disciples (male & female) and because they "believed", because they "trusted" his words - that they acted jointly in their preparations. Jesus told them to witness first in the city of Jerusalem - they took seriously his commission - and they were ready when the time arrived. The Holy Spirit validated their commitment by giving them the energy and the power and the abilities to carry out their mission. Would you be more comfortable with another word - such as, they anticipated the coming of the Spirit's power and God validated their trust.
Had the group just sat on their hands and not been fully prepared or had the men ignored the witness and the gifts of the women what we know today as Pentecost probably would not have happened. Their actions prior to the day of the feast precipitated the endorsement and favor of God
Thank you, Donna for this wonderful meditation. The first apostle appointed after the resurrection was a woman! The spirit your essay breathes--of support, encouragement, life and purpose--is so much more attractive than the negativity and nay-saying of the few who oppose a full Christian life and role for woman alongside men.
Keep writing....I can't wait to see what you have to say next!
Graeme
1) How many days were they in the Upper Room Waiting?
2) Did the stay in the Upper Room the entire time or was it more like come and go?
Add your comment