Does What We Believe Save Us?

(Johnny Carson) #101

Actually, power is not the real issue. The real issue is fear.

(Frankmer7) #102

There were no lifetime, salaried, local pastors in the NT…that is a fact.
There was no ecclesiastical bureaucracy in the NT…that is a fact.
There was no move to overturn or protest slavery in the NT…that is a fact.
There were no church buildings in the NT…that is a fact.
There were no three point sermons delivered from a pulpit in the NT…that is a fact.

Should all of these things be eliminated today because they weren’t in the NT? Should women be kept from ordination for the same reason? The point is, how valid is this line of reasoning, in the first place?


(George Tichy) #103

Oh, no doubt about it. Power & Control, powered by fear and insecurity, are the ultimate reason for all this craziness.
The anti-WO is only one aspect of discrimination. And discrimination is only one aspect of the “Power & Control” engine. All those talks about “God’s will” on WO are nothing but malarkey developed/promoted by males who have “Power & Control” issues.

(reliquum) #104

And yet—the one person–a WOMAN! Gasp, and a SAMARIAN!! was set aside FIRST, without tutelage, to evangelize an entire town. Imagine! Doing a mans work! Aspiring to have power in his sphere, role jumper extraordinaire, A PHENOM!

And those men, under the tutelage of that rebel Jesus?

What of them??

Jesus sent then off to do a womans work-fetching vittles…

Using your logic, what does this story infer …?

OK men, its time for cradle roll, childrens story, and potluck.
And you can wash the footwashing towels, wipe the pans, and bake the communion wafers.
Then sit-QUIETLY-you cannot speak in church!

Do you ever try to develop an inward look? Do you realize how this all comes across?

(Ikswezdyr) #105

This is one of the best articles I have read in Spectrum. Well thought out and fresh ideas asking questions I have frequently asked.

(Allen Shepherd) #106

Well, the other side argues that there were no women set apart to do ministry in the NT. And they are right, there were none.

So, by example, they are following Christ’s practice. The things you bring up are not even relevant, for they are not a point of contention. The issue is: Should we do as Christ did in this instance?

They answer yes, you answer no. You say we should not follow his example here.

The onus is then on you to explain why we should do WO. You say the culture of Jesus’ day was patriarchal, and we can ignore his practice on that basis. I am not opposed to that argument.

But they have a point, and are not amiss to assert as they do. it is a valid line of reasoning. And since they won the vote, it should be respected to avoid chaos.

(Allen Shepherd) #107

This is a reach, Timo, and you know it. The disciples were set apart specifically. This woman was not. She left her jar and went into the city. She was not ordained.

No, Timo, I try to avoid an inward look. You know it is SOOO inconvenient! An outward look is just not my style.

Timo, ad hominems do not help your case. Stick with the issues and arguments at hand rather than doing personal attacks.

(Allen Shepherd) #108

This is what I really object to here. Evil characterization of the other side because they disagree with you. There can be legitimate reasons for taking this stand. Not just evil desire.

(reliquum) #109

Allen, if you consider this (an invitation to self-awareness) an ad hominem, well, this revelation is highly instructive.

No wonder you continue spreading the false news that " since the church voted" (3 times, you say) against womens ordination. Your view of “formal ordination” (by men, only) is so very sacerodotal, but you will not admit it. I’m trying to help you regain some consistency, but seems a futile prospect.

Permit me to warn you (i feel it is the least I can do), answering Jesus question that can cost you your soul “what have you done for Me”, twisting scripture and the vote and braiding a whip to disinivite people from church may be less effective in the long run than pleading mercy
“I was wrong, please forgive me”. Sadly, there are far too many people who can fain afford to courageously admit they might be wrong. Adam had the same problem, you are in pretty good company.

(Allen Shepherd) #110

Timo, I don’t care whether the church ordains women or not. I wish they had voted to do it to avoid all the trouble we are having now. I do not have a consistency problem. I just don’t think you and yours have made your case. WO is not a moral issue, but a cultural one. And since it is, a vote for or against is not a moral vote, but a cultural one.


Where am I wrong? You brought up the Samaritan woman as if that proved something about ordination. I have heard this before from WO advocates. She was converted. She spread the gospel, but that is the duty of every convertee, Jesus set the apostles apart in a special way. She was not handled that way at all.

So if, you are going to be this great WO pro, get a better argument. Unfortunately, there is none accept that you believe it, and you are a westerner with a certain view of what “equality” means.

(George Tichy) #111

Who said, “evil desire?” I didn’t say that, you are saying it.

Though I am kind of inclined to agree with your statement. But, because of my training in human behavior and psychology, I don’t call it “evil desire,” but rather “human tendency.” The desire to control others is very strong in many people, especially males.
I wish the mental mechanisms of Power & Control, and fear & insecurity, were better understood. Unfortunately those themes are still unknown to many people.

I wonder if calling them “fools” is actually a perfect example of what you said to be “evil characterization”… :thinking: :thinking:

(George Tichy) #112

This is baffling! Anyone reading your countless posts in defense of the anti-WO idea, and your calls for what is undoubtedly discrimination of women, will certainly be baffled by the statement above. It appears that you really believe that there are many “fools” here, at least those who disagree with you, right? It’s actually pretty much obvious.

(reliquum) #113

ANTI-WO is an immoral issue.
ANTI-WO is also the cultural one.

Non-discriminatory ordination (and church administration, its kissin-cousin redheaded illegitimate stepchild) is not a cultural issue at all.

Male supremacy is as egregious as white supremacy.

We do have precedent in history.

BTW, pls name one single black man ordained by Jesus.
Or, for that matter, European.

(Frankmer7) #114

Christ did not contest or seek to abolish slavery. Neither did Paul. So why did later Christians do so, Allen? On what scriptural basis?

Nor did Christ ever give directions to set up a multi tiered organization as his church. On what basis did later Christians do so?

Nor did he ever ordain anyone, male or female, as lifetime , salaried pastors. He set aside apostles…a different calling.

All this is to say that the argument of what Christ did or didn’t explicitly do, falls apart upon these other issues…as it does in opposition of WO. I’m especially interested to hear your take on he biblical basis for the abolition of literal slavery…quoting how Christ did this, chapter and verse.


(Allen Shepherd) #115

My last post on this topic. Even Spectrum has stopped article on WO, have you noticed?

George: Baffling indeed! I keep this up because I would try to avoid a break up.

Timo: WO not even mentioned in scripture, how can it be a moral issue?

Frank: WO not akin to slavery etc.

You all need to respect the other side. Can’t do that when you take positions that they are evil; people have differing views of things. They should have let you, but understanding their viewpoint rather than blanket condemnation might go a ways at reconciliation.

(Frankmer7) #116

You need to answer the questions posed from a scriptural basis, rather than just telling us all to sit down and shut up.



Slavery is discrimination against the ethnicity of the slave.

Anti-WO is discrimination against the gender of the pastor.


(reliquum) #118

Neither is anti-WO mentioned in the bible.

Your arguments are simply the refried racism “proofs”.
Male supremacy, pure and simple, is malignant masculinism desperately trying to tuck behind a clerical cassock and collar…

(Kevin Seidel) #119

Respect is earned and disrespect is earned. Unfortunately the anti-WO has been earning a lot of disrespect. Even this statement comes across as a gaslighting attempt and further earns disrespect.

(Patrick Travis) #120

How about another framing of the question. Can what we choose not to believe cause us to be lost?