Is the Church Already Unified on the Issue of Women’s Ordination?

(Kim Green) #121

So it appears…with the idolatrous belief that the Gospel is the 28 FBs at it’s base. Christ won’t be coming anytime soon…but not for the reasons they think.

If Christ’s “character” is to be replicated within us- there needs to be evidence of “Fruit”. It is hard to see this among those who wish to keep women as Second Class Citizens.

(George Tichy) #122

Any person who supports discrimination of women, or any other kind of, should rethink what being a Christian actually means. If/when they understand what the Christian movement actually is, they should rethink their discriminator status.

A discriminating Christian is an oxymoron. People need to decide which one they want to be.

(Tim Teichman) #123

Never said it was. There is no need to make such a statement in response to my post.

(Kevin Seidel) #124

Compromise has been tried and rejected by the anti, so you are correct there is no way to resolve this until both side are willing to compromise. BTW I call it Headship Heresy because it was rejected by annual council and not just because I disagree with it and also to distinguish it from the headship doctrine that Christ is the Head of the church.

(Ian m fraser) #125

I am encouraged George, you have converted cincerity to the move of the GC to Africa!! Now you just need to persuade the MH churches they will be supported in the USA by the NAD where unity in diversity is valued. Of course they could have their own MH NAD under the African GC separately.but in unity.and in saving a lot of tithe money. I wonder when someone with financial expertise will figure out how huge that will be. Evangelism could be deluged with funds!

(Ian m fraser) #126

They just need to find the lowest cost of living area in Africa and set up the GC with eferybody on a living wage to te realize theses tremendous tithe savings compared to the massive costs in Silver Spring, MD, USA


There may be more cards if we stop calling them clergy :slight_smile:

(George Tichy) #128

I suggest the GC Headquarters should be moved to either Mungamba or Nabumda. Low cost of living (saving tithe $), isolated from the civilized world (good for us), and nobody understands English (staff will have their privacy assured)… :roll_eyes:

WDYT??? :thinking:

(Ian m fraser) #129

Great but most of the staff there will not be English speakers so it will be fine. Maybe a couple of Americans represent sending the 5 percent from NAD.

(Kim Green) #130

No, he had no need to “convert” me to the idea…I came by it quite some time ago (just so you know :slight_smile: ).

(Ian m fraser) #131

Wonderful, women and men are equal and both should be ordained!

(Kim Green) #132

I heartily endorse this view. :smiley:


Male headship is not heresy. Maybe it is by your definition.
Gen. 3:16 God is talking.
I Cor. 11:3 Paul is talking. And my margin refers this text back to Gen. 3:16
My guess if you are not interested in more texts that support male headship. Am I correct?


Only men throughout the Bible were appointed or anointed or ordained to be spiritual leaders.
If both are equal, why didn’t Jesus select six men and six women to be apostles?
Is Jesus guilty of discrimination like I am being accused of?
Did Paul discriminate like Jesus did?

(Ian m fraser) #135

Galatians 3:28-29 King James Version (KJV)

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

You are one with your wife in Christ Jesus. Blessings on you.

(reliquum) #136

If one is not (one with his wife), is he not unequally yoked?
Male headship heresy immediately destroys marriage.
The curse of unequally yoked is no joke, for either mate (or master)

(reliquum) #137

My edit of your post reveals a flaw in your method of logic.
With this metric (based only on cultural imprimatur), women literally are not under the law at all…at least the ninth (or tenth, depending on version).

Originally this commandment forbade male Israelites from having sexual intercourse with the wife of another Israelite; the prohibition did not extend to their own slaves. Sexual intercourse between an Israelite man, married or not, and a woman who was neither married nor betrothed was not considered adultery. This concept of adultery stems from the economic aspect of Israelite marriage whereby the husband has an exclusive right to his wife, whereas the wife, as the husband’s possession, did not have an exclusive right to her husband.

Louis Ginzberg argued that the tenth commandment ( Covet not thy neighbor’s wife ) is directed against a sin which may lead to a trespassing of all Ten Commandments.

This says nothing about a woman, and it says a woman is mans possession. Are you certain you wish to defend such a conclusion? I’d hearken you reconsider your stance with this premise. Culturally, until a mere hundred and fifty years ago, men have always controlled everything-government, religion, war, power, office, land ownership. Do you really believe God intended a “second class citizen” status, forever, for women? Don’t forget that ultimately the concept subjugates Jesus as likewise lesser than the others of the Godhead he is “one” with.


You changed my words and you didn’t answer any of my three questions.


Gal. 3:28 has nothing to do with different roles that men and women have. It is so often misused in support of WO. Read in context, it is talking about salvation. We are all equal when it comes to that. God does not show partiality when it comes to saving human beings. He saves all regardless of nationality or race or position or gender. Read the entire chapter 3.

Why not answer my questions?

(Tim Teichman) #140