I don't get it Darryl. I know your committees considered this carefully. I feel sorry for men and women and children being raised in the church. If people are comfortable with this policy (I guess if you are a member you are or have to be) I wonder for some pastors if it is like leading a group of sheep that want easy pastures? This has to be tough on pastors and churches that believe everyone is uniquely called to serve. How disheartening.
Praise God for the gumption of the majority to stand against this post-modern downgrade. Praise God that the new hermeneutic did not win the day. But win or lose, if I'm right or not, praise God that His plans will prevail.
Bene: I'm disappointed, both in the process and the result. It will be interesting to see how things unfold. Trish: Yes, there are a lot of people happy. I'm hoping that they will be humble and charitable in their victory.
Isn't it true that many church denominations that have dealt with this issue in the past and have gone the egalitarian way are now having the discussion on the same sex issues?
George: I don't know of any, but I'm sure they're out there. On the other hand, Pentecostals in Canada dealt with this issue long ago and they aren't considering the same sex issue.
It'll be interesting to see if the egalitarian's will be able to humbly submit to the convictions of the majority on this one. Darryl, will you be able to stay? Jacob.
I'm not making any sudden moves. I won't blame anyone if their conscience doesn't allow them to stay, just as I wouldn't have blamed the other side if they felt they had to leave the Fellowship if it had adopted an egalitarian view.
This is in regard to same-sex comment: Living a life in acting out homosexuality is a sin; however no matter how much we may want it to be, being a woman is not a sin. So there is no correlation.
Jacob - it has been very interesting to observe the expectation that egalitarians, and those who were open to extending fellowship to them, should submit to the vote result. The issue of women in leadership was brought to the convention for three years in no less than five, possibly six, votes. In the course of early dialogue those supporting an open position on the issue were "encouraged" to submit should they lose the vote. Godly submission, it seems in this particular situation, is something to be observed only once those of a closed position obtain the vote result of their preference.
It is a question I posed on Ed's site as well. Does the tradition of male only pastors reflect back to the fact that Jesus (male) chose only men to be his disciples? Are there any reference in the bible that say women should not be pastors (and why)?
Ian: Some very good questions that demand a fuller answer than I can give here. There are passages that restrict a woman's role, but you have the question of context and culture. Mark Roberts has a good article here: http://tinyurl.com/6lnt7" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/6lnt7
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 1:03PM
Reader Comments (11)
I don't get it Darryl. I know your committees considered this carefully. I feel sorry for men and women and children being raised in the church. If people are comfortable with this policy (I guess if you are a member you are or have to be) I wonder for some pastors if it is like leading a group of sheep that want easy pastures? This has to be tough on pastors and churches that believe everyone is uniquely called to serve. How disheartening.
Praise God for the gumption of the majority to stand against this post-modern downgrade. Praise God that the new hermeneutic did not win the day. But win or lose, if I'm right or not, praise God that His plans will prevail.
Bene: I'm disappointed, both in the process and the result. It will be interesting to see how things unfold. Trish: Yes, there are a lot of people happy. I'm hoping that they will be humble and charitable in their victory.
Isn't it true that many church denominations that have dealt with this issue in the past and have gone the egalitarian way are now having the discussion on the same sex issues?
George: I don't know of any, but I'm sure they're out there. On the other hand, Pentecostals in Canada dealt with this issue long ago and they aren't considering the same sex issue.
It'll be interesting to see if the egalitarian's will be able to humbly submit to the convictions of the majority on this one. Darryl, will you be able to stay? Jacob.
I'm not making any sudden moves. I won't blame anyone if their conscience doesn't allow them to stay, just as I wouldn't have blamed the other side if they felt they had to leave the Fellowship if it had adopted an egalitarian view.
This is in regard to same-sex comment: Living a life in acting out homosexuality is a sin; however no matter how much we may want it to be, being a woman is not a sin. So there is no correlation.
Jacob - it has been very interesting to observe the expectation that egalitarians, and those who were open to extending fellowship to them, should submit to the vote result. The issue of women in leadership was brought to the convention for three years in no less than five, possibly six, votes. In the course of early dialogue those supporting an open position on the issue were "encouraged" to submit should they lose the vote. Godly submission, it seems in this particular situation, is something to be observed only once those of a closed position obtain the vote result of their preference.
It is a question I posed on Ed's site as well. Does the tradition of male only pastors reflect back to the fact that Jesus (male) chose only men to be his disciples? Are there any reference in the bible that say women should not be pastors (and why)?
Ian: Some very good questions that demand a fuller answer than I can give here. There are passages that restrict a woman's role, but you have the question of context and culture. Mark Roberts has a good article here: http://tinyurl.com/6lnt7" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/6lnt7