Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Instead of giving your opinion to others, why not approach the ass't
    pastor and simply say, "I didn't understand your last sermon, could you
    clarify this for me?"
    
    And see what happens.  It would be forthright, honorable and would show
    the pastor that you are interested in understanding what she has to
    say... and based on your note, yes I think you are.
    
    :-)
    

    Hi Rose,
    
    I'd second Nancy's advice on this one.  One on one is always much
    better (at least to start with) on matters like this one.  Given that
    you believe that she has a real calling and is dedicated, as opposed to
    someone preaching completely heresy, it's probably best to speak to her
    one on one and hopefully everybody can learn something from it and end up
    better off.
    
    By talking to other people about it, there is always a risk that divisions
    within the church can result from it no matter how well intentioned the
    original conversation (with other people) is.   This is probably the last
    thing that you'd want to happen over something like this, but I've seen
    divisions develop in chuches before over things similar to this, and
    they are usually devastating, at least to some.
    
    Pray on it a bunch too, before doing anything. 
    
    God Bless,
    Guido
         

There is also the possibility, in a New England "mainline" protestant
church, especially Congregational and Episcopal churches, that many
pastors, especially women, _are_ preaching total gobbledygook that
has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and is, instead,
just basic New England liberalism wrapped up in words about God
instead of the Word of God.

/john

If you do, at some point, decide to try to find out if you are alone in what
you are thinking, then a potluck is probably NOT the best place.  It's a
relatively public setting, and if you DO find that people agree, a table of
people talking about the assistant pastor in a negative way at a church
dinner is probably not a good thing.  It could easily turn into a gossipy
mindset that could wind up wounding the assistant pastor and the church.

Another important question is to search your own motives in bringing this up
(something I'm agonizing over at the moment in areas of my own life).  Ask
yourself the question: what do you hope to accomplish?  You've noted
something that is a problem, what would be a solution to this that would be
of benefit to everybody?  Perhaps the best solution would be to begin to
search for ways to help her improve her preaching?  If her delivery is
confusing and disjointed, then it could be of great benefit for her to get
that feedback, if it is handled well.  Nancy's suggestion is a good one for a
start.

You might privately ask some close friends in the church who you trust if
they have noted the same thing, and how you together can help her.  You might
at some point approach the Sr pastor, not with a complaint, but with a
concern and an offering of help.

Everything depends on your attitude as you bring it up, regardless of where
you bring it up.  If it's an attitude of complaint, even if the complaints
are justified, then it will probably wind up being more hurtful than helpful.
If it's an attitude of service, then you stand a better chance of healing the
situation in a way that is beneficial to everyone.

Paul

    I agree with Nancy, too. I don't want to create a ruckus
    I did want to find out if it was just the two
    of us who thought this way.  Were we the only ones confused? 
    That was my motive.  If others agree then fine. If not then fine too.
    I will be discrete.  Maybe Sr. Pastor agrees with her
    structure. I don't know.  
    
    Thanks for the advice
    Rose

 I'd be very careful.  My pastor frequently says that if we have a problem/
 question with anything coming from the pulpit to call/speak to him about it
 rather than going to other church members.  In the case of the associate
 pastor, I believe he might also prefer that he (pastor) be contacted and 
 let him deal with the associate on whatever the issue.



 Jim

    based on my experience, I agree totally with .3 . There are always 
    exceptions but based on statistics and what I've seen this is probably
    the cold hard reality [possibly -- I don't know in this case]. 
    I'd go ask him what he meant, check the scripture references and see if
    what he said makes sense to you. and for an instant check of his
    'theology', ask him what 'born again' in the BIBLICAL sense means. My
    GUESS is you won't get a straight answer. Course that depends on if YOU
    know what it means.
    
    jk  
    
    
     
    
    

    
    	I'd recommend an honest talk with the Senior Pastor.
    
    	Explain, just as you did here, what is giving you difficulty,
    	and ask the pastor if he has any recommendations for you.
    
    	Karen
    

RE: <<< Note 828.0 by ASDG::HORTERT >>>

        Greetings in the Lord, dear sister.  Please consider the Word of
        God expressed by Paul in 1st Timothy.  This is not a popular
        passage, especially today, but, alas it is in the Scripture.

	1st Timothy 2
	(11) Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
	(12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over
	the man, but to be in silence.
	(13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
	(14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in
	the transgression.
	(15) Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they
	continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

	This message is in the inerrant, Holy Spirit-breathed, plenary Word
	of God.  It is not meant for itching ears.  The problem was never
	God's commandments, but SIN, which is people doing things their own
	way, irrespective of the commandments of God.

	Please forgive me if, in my faltering humanity, I have offended
	you.  However, be neither offended nor ashamed of the Word of God.

	Mark 8:38
	  "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in
	  this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son
	  of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with
	  the holy angels."

	Peace,
		TonyC
	

Replies generated as responses to 828.9, which are discussing the general
question of women preaching, as opposed to the specific situation brought up
in the base note, have been moved to note 363.

Please continue the discussion about women preaching there, and leave this
note to address the specifics of the situation in Rose's church.

Paul, wearing moderator hat

    My suggestion is that we move Tony C's note to its own topic,
    and slog through it again there. (I think this passage has been
    discussed in the past). The original question posed in this note,
    what to do when the sermon or message is one which you have 
    difficulties with because it is rambling, not clear, or because
    there are theological difficulties, is an important one that should
    not get side-tracked because the speaker was a woman. This particular
    issue could happen whether the speaker were a man or a woman. In fact 
    we left a church for partly that same thing (there were other factors 
    involved). In our case the speaker was a man.

    Regarding the particulars of the passage Tony posted, and the 
    discussion that it is generating, I have much to say, but it will 
    have to be said later when I have time to carefully put it together.

    Leslie

Beat you to it, Leslie!  :-)

Paul

I was just about to open a topic dealing with this, so instead will ask
Nancy if she'd be kind enough to post this for me anon. I would rather not
identify my congregation, which is in a Boston suburb.

I joined my congregation about 18 months ago, at the suggestion of a friend
who I share a rented house with. Three of us from church live in this 
apartment currently and we are divided on the following issues. 

Until recent months I have always enjoyed our pastor's sermons. A few weeks 
back he worked suicide into the sermon, commenting in a recent dual suicide
of two teen agers who killed themselves after their parents forbade them to 
see one another. He kept referring to the two deceased as if they are resting
with the Lord now. I can see his point, that only God knows the hearts of men,
but this is the second time he has brought up suicide in a morally neutral
way, tragic, but morally neutral.

A few weeks ago, the sermon was about "Thanksgiving", the season, and in 
general giving thanks to God for our daily blessings. He told the congregation
that a letter would be mailed out, asking for a special Thanksgiving donation.
The letter arrived the following week, and I had to read it three times to
make sure I understood the contents. Page one spoke about being thankful in
general, and charitable to those less fortunate. Up to now, I agreed in full.
Page two began by "be thankful, you do not have a pregnant teen age daughter.
Be thankful your son knows how to properly put on a condom. Be thankful your
son or daughter is not using drugs, but if they are, be thankful they know
enough to use clean needles. Be aware that there are those not so fortunate
to know these things, or able to afford clean needles or condoms." The appeal
was for a special collection to be taken up to support organizations who give
out needles and condoms and safe sex/drug education. Until I read the second
page I was all set to write a check for the collection. I was expecting it to 
be for food or dinner for homeless people, but I could not move myself to
donate money for this cause; not from church at least. A few of us discussed
this with the pastor, who re-affirmed this was every bit as Christian a 
mission.

One house mate was much more appalled than I was and the other felt even more
attached to our congregation, stating that the Holy Spirit was "truly" active
in our midst. One house mate's parents, who belonged to our congregation for
40 years, no longer attend services at our church. They feel since reverend
Mark arrived it is not the Holy Spirit, but another that is there. 

A few weeks ago our pastor was out of town and two women filled in to preside
over the service. A lot of the sermon was about the feminine side of Jesus and
God the Father/Mother, and Earth our mother. I really did not find this
service appropriate.

In a number of services our pastor has mentioned his own embarrassment 
regarding the mention of sin, wage of sin, punishment. 

Prior to joining this congregation I moved around a lot; Catholic, Baptist,
Lutheran and Episopal. I have noticed in every congregation references to
Hindu, Buddhist, American Indian and African tribal beliefs being woven into
the service. I was left with the feeling that all roads lead to the one God,
and it's just a cultural variant on the same theme. In one Baptist church I
attended the pastor apologized to women in the congregation who had placed
complaints on comment cards. He began to refer to Jesus as our great Earth
brother/sister and God the father as Mother/Father figure. References to 
"him" were replaced with "God". The same thing has taken place in my current
congregation. Three new male members have joined our congregation and I found
out complained to the pastor about the sexist wording that would alienate
women. Two of the three are now teaching Sunday school in our congregation,
and seem to have become instant hits with the kids. My house mate noticed a
rainbow flag hanging in the classrooms with "celebrate diversity" slogans
all over the church. Some people have just stopped attending services here,
and a lot of new people have begun attending. Some people have called me
old fashioned, dinosaur, Nazi, fascist, hate monger. All I did was ask if 
anyone felt the way I did about all these trappings not belonging in the
Lord's house.

This falls on the heels of some other news I recently got from a friend I
had not talked with in about 6 months. The pastor of the Baptist church I
was attending introduced me to Donald and Marie, a very warm couple who
were expecting their first child. They were quite devout and I learned a lot
from both. Donald and I shared similar struggles which was one reason the
pastor thought we'd be good for one another. The last time I saw Don and
Marie was last Spring, when I was setting up a couple of new PC's in their
home office for them. Don was seriously considering entering seminary school
and he wanted to be a preacher. 

Last week, I decided to call Don to wish the family a happy holiday. He was
glad to hear from me, and as usual it became a 2 hour phone conversation,
with Marie another extension. I began to share my concerns over what is
currently going on in my congregation. Usually Don would say, "I think it's
time you begin to look for another church." His reaction was, "so what is
the problem?" he then went on to tell me about a lot of hard soul searching
he and Marie have been doing since we last talked. He no longer considers
himself a Christian and admitted that they were deeply involved in the new
age, and he had joined a pagan group. At first I asked, "this is a joke,
right! You are yanking my chain, no?" Don assured me that this was no joke
and he had his pastor's approval to pursue this further. He then went on to
tell me that Paganism is more genuine than Christianity ever was, the faith
ripping off most of it's beliefs from the much older Pagan religions. The
last time we spoke he and Marie were going to Christian home school their
son. When I asked about this, he said that he did not want his child exposed
to so much bigotry and ignorance; it would be public school for their kid.
His wife was on the other phone telling me how anal retentive I was and to
chill out a little.

Far be it for me to judge, since I am not a Bible banging believer. I have
spent 20 years struggling through the hurt and dogma I was raised on, of
raging fundamentalism, most of who did not practive what they were preaching.
I spent years in therapy and 12 step recovery groups getting over the hurt
and pain. Through It all, the only God I felt comfortable believing in is
the one from Genesis to Revelations. There have been some wonderful "real"
Christians who have loved me through it all, who I hope exemplify Christ's
love. Now I'm at an impasse, a crossroads. It seems no matter what church I
go to, the new age message is mixed in at different levels. Maybe this is not
evil or bad. At this point I am a bit confused "will the real savior please
stand up." It is amazing to me to what extent the church has been infiltrated
with other Gospels. In closing, I am far from righteous myself, counting my
own faults and sins among the worst and most embarrassing. I take it up with
God daily, and ask for guidance through all the confusion that is in his
church today.

         In Christ, a reader

 
    

Dear, dear anonymous reader:

*YOU* are on the right track.

Hear what the Risen Lord had to say to the seven churches:

"To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life,
which is in the paradise of God."
							Rev 2:7

"He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death."

							Rev 2:11

"To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna.  I will also
give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who
receives it."
							Rev 2:17

"To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over
the nations ... just as I have received authority from my Father.  I will
also give him the morning star."
							Rev 2:26-27

"He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white.  I will never blot
out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my
Father and his angels."
							Rev 3:5

"Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God.  Never again
will he leave it.  I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the
city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my
God; and I will also write on him my new name."

							Rev 3:12

"To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne,
just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne."

							Rev 3:21

The word "overcome" used in all these passages means:  To conquer, to hold
fast through faith even unto death against foes, temptations, and
persecutions."

Overcome, my brother or sister.  Hold fast to the end.  Though those around
us are compromising, compromising, compromising and turning faith in YHWH and
His son Jesus Christ into some unholy conglomeration of different faiths,
hold fast.  "Do His will until the end."

Did you ever wonder how it happened in ancient Israel?  They compromised
incredibly, when Josiah cleared out the temple there were altars to Baal,
Asherah poles, and ritual prostitutes all within the temple itself.  Did you
ever wonder how they got there?  It's a safe bet that they got there by
*EXACTLY* the same sort of creeping compromise that we see today.  I doubt
that anyone ever said "Forget YHWH, if He's there let's really bug Him and
worship these other gods."  Far from it.  The same sweetly-perfumed poison of
"Don't be so judgemental" "Why can't you respect my view of God?" "Surely God
wouldn't object to inclusiveness?" etc, etc was almost certainly used then
just as it is today.

The result?  Destruction of their homes, and exile from the promised land.

Hold fast.  Hold fast.  Hold fast.

I can't say it strongly enough.

HOLD FAST!

Paul

 Amen, Paul.  

re .14

I'm not surprised that this is happening, especially in the parish you're
attending (I know who you are; I've recognized your writing before).

Your parish is one of the many I drive past to go somewhere where there
is guaranteed sound preaching, but only because the rector is adamant about
the true faith even in the face of determined opposition from a very vocal
group of people who feel that his message is not inclusive enough.

The Gospel is inclusive of all people, but it requires conversion from the
ways of the world.

/john

    praise the Lord that we do have a self reforming church.

Malachi 3:6a  For I am the LORD, I change not 



Hebrews 13:8  Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. 

>    praise the Lord that we do have a self reforming church.

I disagree, but you knew that. :-)  I wouldn't have bothered to note it, but
the form of your comment really illuminates what I believe to be an enormous
part of the problem:

  We have a 'self' reforming church, a church that is re-forming around 
  'self' instead of being formed around Jesus Christ.

I'm sorry, but I just can't praise the Lord for that.  I will praise the Lord
in the day that His church re-forms around HIM.

Paul

    .20
    
    Actually I was going to make that point, but you beat me to it!
    
    :-)

    Praise the Lord indeed!
    
    Praise God that there are those who are the faithful remnant, with the
    wisdom and insight to recognise error and faithlessness for what it is.
    To call out that what they see is not Christian, and to call for a
    'reformation' of the church to its' roots of the Scriptures Alone, by
    Christ Alone, By Faith Alone.
    
    Amen, thank you Lord for a self-reforming church which You see fit to
    raise out of a hunger for Your Word and for Your Truth.

>    Actually I was going to make that point, but you beat me to it!

Again!  :-)

    Jesus Christ may be the same yesterday, today, and forever.
    
    But let us hope that our knowledge of  God incarnate in humanity
    keeps growing.

>    But let us hope that our knowledge of  God incarnate in humanity
>    keeps growing.

True, very true.  It was the motto of the Reformation.

But the motto was not, as is often misquoted:

"The church reformed, ever reforming"

but

"The church reformed, ever subject to reform by the Word of God."

Paul

    
>    But let us hope that our knowledge of  God incarnate in humanity
>    keeps growing.


  Within the bounds of the Word of God, of course.




 Jim

    Jim,
    
    Are you trying to place limits on God's means of revealing Godself to
    humanity?

    
>    Are you trying to place limits on God's means of revealing Godself to
>    humanity?


   No, but I am saying that we are to measure whatever "revelation" we receive
   against the standard of the Word of God.  If there's disagreement between
   the two, then the "revelation" is not of God.





 Jim

>    Are you trying to place limits on God's means of revealing Godself to
>    humanity?

"No limits" sounds nice, but unfortunately is subject to deception and
destruction.  God has been gracious enough to us to provide us with
protection against being led away to our eternal deaths by sweet-sounding
pipers.

And yes, as per the stated foundation of this conference, we very
intentionally and explicitly place limits on God's means of revealing
Himself.  If the Bible is to be believed at all, and we do, then God Himself
placed some pretty explicit limits around who He is and how He is to be
worshipped.

To call into question whether the Word should be used as a basis for
determining who God is and how He is to be worshipped is to call into
question the basis for this conference, and will not be allowed here.

Paul, with moderator hat not on, but within reach

    Ephesians 4:8  Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led 
    captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 
      9  (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first
    into the lower parts of the earth? 
     10  He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all 
    heavens, that he might fill all things.) 
     11  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some,
    evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 
     12  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry,
    for the edifying of the body of Christ: 
     13  Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge
    of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature 
    of the fulness of Christ: 
     14  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and
    carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and 
    cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 
     15  But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all
    things, which is the head, even Christ: 
     16  From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by
    that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the
    measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of 
    itself in love. 
     17  This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth
    walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 
     18  Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life
    of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of
    their heart: 
    

    	re .14 (anonymous)
    
    	As I started reading your entry I thought that it was going
    	to parallel something we've been encountering in the church
    	I attend, but it didn't take long for me to realize that your
    	church is facing problems much deeper than I was going to 
    	mention.
    
    	Yikes!

    Re: .0
    
    Women pastors aren't Biblical.  This causes me to believe that John in
    .3 is 100% correct.
    
    Mike

>And yes, as per the stated foundation of this conference, we very
>intentionally and explicitly place limits on God's means of revealing
>Himself.
    
    
    Paul, then we are in 100% agreement that you are explicitly attempting
    to  place limits on God's means of revealing himself 
    
    
>To call into question whether the Word should be used as a basis for
>determining who God is and how He is to be worshipped is to call into
>question the basis for this conference, and will not be allowed here.
    
    I am bound to a higher standard than conference guidelines.   You are
    acknowledging what you are doing and doing it intentionally.  I won't
    argue with you except on the basis of what is in the Bible.

    Mike, 
    
    re 828.32
    
    In spite of the wealth of evidence presented in this note, you still
    insist that women pastors aren't biblical.  So be it.  That is an issue
    for you and for your denomination.
    
    I am proud of the fact that my denomination is one of the few
    denominations if not the only denomination that is approaching 50%
    woman ministers.  It is a wonderful achievement in my eyes and enhances
    the ability of the UU church to minister to both women and men from
    their own gender perspective and from the opposite gender perspective.
    
    Both in my opinion are important.  I believe the luckiest churches may
    be those with a shared ministry between husband and wife.
    
    
                                  Patricia

>    Paul, then we are in 100% agreement that you are explicitly attempting
>    to  place limits on God's means of revealing himself 

Not quite.  I'm not personally placing limits on God's revealing Himself, I'm
accepting the limits which He Himself created, such as "You shall have no
other Gods before me," and "You shall not craft for yourself an image of
diety and worship that image" (Commandments 1 and 2 of 10) There's an
enormous difference.

>    I am bound to a higher standard than conference guidelines.

And I am too, of course.  For me, and for this conference, that higher
standard is the Word.  If you want to participate here, please keep that in
mind.

>You are acknowledging what you are doing and doing it intentionally.

You seem to be taking some sort of glee in 'wringing' from me an 'admission'
that I 'place limits on God.'  As if that were a horrible thing that you have
'caught' me in.  And I do agree that creating our own limitations and forcing
God to fit into them IS a terrible thing, so if I were doing that then you'd
have some reason for feeling that you 'caught' me.

But the limits I place on God are simple:  I really do believe that this
entity who revealed Himself to the Israelites about 4 millenia ago was (is)
the actual creator of all that is - God.  So I really believe that the things
He said about Himself to the Jews are true.  And I really do believe that
Jesus was this very same God, incarnated in human flesh.  So I really believe
that the things He said about Himself, and about His Father in Heaven, are
true.  So I accept the limits that He placed on Himself, to use the
terminology that you are using.  More accurately, I accept His definition of
who He is, and reject definitions of God which contradict who He said He is.

Explicitly, definitions of God which contradict what He has revealed of
Himself in the Bible, I reject.  Explicitly, definitively, and unashamedly.
You can't 'catch' me in that 'admission,' because I'll proclaim it.

And, by the way, though you disparage 'placing limits on God,' you've placed
some pretty severe limits on God yourself.  For example, the limit that God
couldn't possibly deny eternal salvation to anyone.  Or the limit that God
couldn't possibly have communicated His true nature through the Bible.  Or
the limit that God couldn't possibly have intended different roles for men
and women.  So it's not as if I'm the only one placing limits on God.  Did I
'catch' you? :-)

>I won't argue with you except on the basis of what is in the Bible.

That would be delightful.  Could you start by addressing the Scriptures that
Tony brought up?

Paul

I thought the discussion about women as pastors and teachers was moved to
another note?

As far as how to deal with sermons which you do not understand or disagree
with, I'd go straight to the one you're having problems with first. Start off
neutral, "In your message on ____________________, there were some points
that I did not understand, could you answer a few questions? In the course of
going over the questions, you can have discussion on what you disagreed with.
If you do not feel that issues have been resolved, then go to the senior pastor.

Its odd, in the church we left, I never confronted the pastor with whom I was
disappointed, but last night I dreamt a situation where I point blank blurted
out, "there are some things you say and do that bother me".  I was very shocked 
at myself in the dream because I am not usually that blunt, especially face to
face. Must have been this topic re-opened some feelings about that situation.

Leslie

Thank you, Leslie.

    God proves Himself ever more glorious when He continually shows He is
    God in keeping with His Word.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 828.38 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| God proves Himself ever more glorious when He continually shows He is
| God in keeping with His Word.

	Mike, I see no problem with God keeping with His Word. It's when humans
get ahold of it problems start. 


Glen

    amen, brother Glen!

    Glen, humans are no problem to God.

| <<< Note 828.41 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Glen, humans are no problem to God.

	Mike, the problem is when humans get ahold of His Word. Too many
differences of interpretation! :-)  That's where the problem begins.

                   <<< Note 828.42 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Mike, the problem is when humans get ahold of His Word. Too many
>differences of interpretation! :-)  That's where the problem begins.

    	Ah.  At least you are beginning to see that it is the human
    	that is the problem.  In the past you've been using the
    	multiplicity of interpretation to indict the Word itself.
    

>	Mike, the problem is when humans get ahold of His Word. Too many
>differences of interpretation! :-)  That's where the problem begins.
    
    When the Holy Spirit is in and guiding the believer, there are no "bad"
    interpretations.

|   Both in my opinion are important.  I believe the luckiest churches may
|   be those with a shared ministry between husband and wife.

** Actually, this was a subject I hoped might be broached as a result of the
   observation I posed in note 363.150.  I thought the concept of a shared
   ministry between husband and wife warranted some consideration.  Clearly
   there is a significant ministry of (older) women to (younger) women
   suggested in Titus 2:3-5.

   My personal opinion is that much damage has been done by men in leader-
   ship positions feeling empowered to admonish/teach women how to be godly
   while crying foul should women even suggest ways for men to be godly!  I
   believe there is a much better way, yea verily, a Biblical pattern for
   such instruction.

   I do not share some of your interpretation of Scripture regarding the role
   of women, but I wholeheartedly agree that women have been done a serious
   disservice in the church.  I do not think men, in particular, have fully
   understood the ramifications, i.e., the mind of Christ, in "submitting
   yourselves one to another in the fear of God." (Eph 5:21, KJV)

   I submit that 1Ti 2:12 ("But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to USURP
   AUTHORITY over the man, but to be in silence.") has been misunderstood,
   if not abused.  The Greek word authenteo conveys the sense of exercising
   authority on one's own account or to domineer over.  The root meaning
   would derive from autos, self, and hentes, probably signifying working.
   In other words, I believe the force of the Holy Spirit's intent is that
   women not work or seek to rule over men by self-empowerment.

   My bottom-line is that Scripture would not be violated if appropriate
   authority were delegated to women.  Then dialog should center on what
   might be appropriate rather than around whether women should have any
   position of authority in the church.  In particular, I feel men teaching
   "women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be
   discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands,
   that the word of God be not blasphemed" is inappropriate, especially when
   feedback from women is disallowed, i.e., when women are expected to be
   silent.  I could not in good conscience, however, join with a fellowship
   in which a woman served as the Senior Pastor or as chairman of a group
   responsible for (spiritual) oversight.

   Okay, folks, take your shots! :-)  I imagine I've offended some by going
   too far and others by not going far enough.  All I would ask is that we
   first (re)consider what mutual submission might imply.  1Co 16:19 says
   that a church was in the house of Aquila AND Priscilla.  In verse 16 of
   the same chapter, the apostle Paul asks "that ye submit yourselves unto
   such (men), and to EVERYONE THAT HELPETH WITH US, AND LABOURETH." (KJV)

   My provocative question (hopefully unto "love and to good works"):  I
   believe Scripture clearly says women should not WORK TO TAKE authority
   over men.  But might men be wrong in not delegating appropriate authority
   to women, or otherwise submitting to their leadership in certain areas?

   May the Spirit of the Word commend the Truth of His Word to our hearts.

/Wayne

    .45
    
    I find no fault in what you've written. :-)

    RE: .46
    
    Aw, come on, Nancy!  Don't be a wimp and let me off the hook so easily.
    Must I wait for someone else to call me an hairy tick, er, heretic.
    
    On the other hand, saying you find no fault in what I've written is not
    the same as saying you agree with what I've written.
    
    Clever lady! :-)

| <<< Note 828.43 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| At least you are beginning to see that it is the human that is the problem.  

	Joe, I have ALWAYS said that humans are the problem when it comes to
interpreting what is in the Bible. 

| In the past you've been using the multiplicity of interpretation to indict 
| the Word itself.

	That is false. 


Glen

| <<< Note 828.44 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| When the Holy Spirit is in and guiding the believer, there are no "bad"
| interpretations.

	Again, the key word is WHEN. 

RE: <<< Note 828.45 by ROCK::PARKER >>>

	Hi, Wayne.

        I agree.  Thanks for articulating this position so clearly. 
        Husband and wife are one flesh. When a man is called into ministry,
        so, also, is his wife.

	  "For this cause shall a man leave his father, and cleave to his
	  wife; and they TWAIN shall be ONE FLESH: so then they are NO MORE
	  TWAIN, BUT ONE FLESH."
		Jesus in Mark 10:7-8

	God's peace,
		TonyC

    Wayne,
    
    From my understanding of what you have written, you believe that a
    woman should not on her own seek authority over men, but if delegated
    such authority then it would be OK, especially if a man were in the
    senior leadership position.
    
    I believe that people who become clergy are called by God to the
    position.  No man or women should follow that road without a clear call
    from God.  
    
    If that be true, and if I have interpreted what you have written
    correctly, that would allow women into any leadership position within
    the church to which she is called by God.  It would also allow any man
    into any leadership position to which he was called by God.
    
    Women and men would thus be equal under God and equally created in the
    image of God.

 I know my pastor's wife is very much a part of his ministry, as are the wives
 of all of the pastors with which I'm familiar.  






 Jim

Well articulated, Wayne.  I agree with you pretty much right down the line,
so you're not going to get a 'heretic' accusation from me.  As I've said
before, for centuries (millenia), men (as a group) have abused their position
and denied women their rightful position as co-heirs of grace, in a blatantly
anti-scriptural and anti-loving way.  And praise God that correction is
finally being made to that grevious error.  But as is our pattern as human
beings, we're pushing the pendulum right on past where it is supposed to be,
and blowing past scripture in the other direction.

Paul

>    If that be true, and if I have interpreted what you have written
>    correctly, that would allow women into any leadership position within
>    the church to which she is called by God.  It would also allow any man
    
    God doesn't contradict His Word.

Precisely, Mike - I was about to put that, but you beat me to it. Patricia,
you have to understand that we postulate the Bible as the conference
guideline, not as just a suitable common denominator, but because this is
the revealed and inspired Word of God.  I'm not sure if that's how you see
us as representing it, from 828.33, where you refer to a 'higher authority
than conference guidelines'.  God *is* the highest authority, and He does
not contradict His Word.  That is why we base this conference on the Bible
- because it is the truth and guide which alone is not coloured by the men
who were used to express it. 

Therefore, where God says that men and women are uniquely different, and
fulfil specific (albiet overlapping) roles in this world, to deny it and
set up a church in opposition to God's specification denigrates those who
are thereby occupying a role inappropriate to the basis God has laid down. 

Certainly women have their own ministry roles - some areas are indicated in
the Bible, as may likely have been mentioned already.  They do not have to
degrade themselves by doing what God has specified is a role appropriate to 
men. 

								Andrew

    Andrew,
    
    Be clear with yourself.
    
    God is the higher authority.
    
    Conference guideline or not, it is a human assumption that the Bible
    accurately represents God's word.  It is a faith assumption about the
    nature of the Bible and not about the nature of God. Often, I find many
    people do not understand the difference.

    gee,
    
    Why have the women in here gone silent on this topic!   Does silence
    represent assent or disagreement with your vocal brothers.
    
                                         Patricia

�    Be clear with yourself.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

�    God is the higher authority.

Higher than what?  God is the ultimate authority, and will never contradict 
any expression of Himself.  The Bible is an expression of God, and it is 
upon that foundation that we base this conference.  Obviously, accepting 
that is a part of the faith which is needed for salvation.  It is also a 
part of the revelation and conviction work of the Holy Spirit.

� It is a faith assumption about the nature of the Bible and not about the
� nature of God. 
You can only say this about accepting the Divine inspiration of the Bible
if you personally reject that inspiration, because moving it into the realm 
of human action implies that God does not have an active, involved interest 
in our recognition of Him where He reveals Himself.

						Andrew

    Patricia,
    
    Perhaps because many of us recognize Truth when we see it.  Your
    assumption that women are oppressed because they cannot be Pastors is
    false.  I am NOT oppressed.  I am empowered to be all that God created
    me to be.   
    
    There seems to be some struggle over which is the "better" calling. 
    That the calling of a man in the Bible is "superior" to the calling of
    a woman in the Bible.
    
    This is perception based, for no where in the Bible do I see God saying
    men are superior to women or vice versa.  God calls for mutual
    submission, but when there is conflict has given authority to the male
    in the home to lead.
    
    I find nothing wrong with this to the contrary I find comfort in this.
    The reason I find comfort is that I live life today not for the things
    of this world but for laying up treasures in heaven [eternity].
    
    I do believe that is the crux of understanding God's roles and
    following them.  Are you living for today or in preparation for the
    Savior's kingdom?
    
    Nancy

    
>    God is the higher authority.
 

     as revealed in the Bible, His Word.  Without that, we know, and can know,
     nothing about God.





 Jim

I posted a position statement on the subject of "Women and Authority", 
with an introduction in note 363.180.

RE: .51

Hi, Patricia.

What you said is preceded by |.  My comments are preceded by **.  My overriding
concern is that you base your conclusions not on your interpretation of what I
say, but rather on what the Word of God says.

That said:

|   From my understanding of what you have written, you believe that a
|   woman should not on her own seek authority over men, but if delegated
|   such authority then it would be OK, especially if a man were in the
|   senior leadership position.

** I said:  "I believe Scripture clearly says women should not WORK TO TAKE
   authority over men."  I shared my exegesis of 1Ti 2:12 to establish the
   basis of my belief.  If you or any other reader regards my belief as just
   another opinion, then I would appreciate seeing your detailed exegesis of
   the same passage to show that my belief is just an opinion rather than a
   proper interpretation/application of the Word of God.

   I also said:  "My bottom-line is that Scripture would not be violated if
   appropriate authority were delegated to women."  I feel that view allows
   a good deal of flexibility within God's established order while standing
   against opinions that women should have no authority in the church.

   I went on to say:  "I could not in good conscience, however, join with a
   fellowship in which a woman served as the Senior Pastor or as chairman of
   a group responsible for (spiritual) oversight."  What that means is
   delegating authority to women would be proper ONLY IF a man retained final
   authority.  I see no ambiguity in God's model for (temporal and spiritual)
   families:  "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the
   head of the church: and He is the saviour of the body." (Ep 5:23, KJV)
    
|   I believe that people who become clergy are called by God to the
|   position.  No man or women should follow that road without a clear call
|   from God.

** I totally agree.  I have understood and experienced that confirmation is
   part and parcel of God's call, and I hold the inspired, inerrant written
   Word of God as the final standard for faith and conduct; therefore, no
   call can contradict Scripture.  If a call opposes Scripture, then the call
   is invalid, NOT Scripture.
    
|   If that be true, and if I have interpreted what you have written
|   correctly, that would allow women into any leadership position within
|   the church to which she is called by God.  It would also allow any man
|   into any leadership position to which he was called by God.

** Yes, given my understanding of "call."  Based on my understanding of
   Scripture, I would deem invalid any "call" for a woman to grasp (final)
   authority over men in the church.  I would affirm a woman's call to any
   ministry consistent with, i.e., not in violation of, Scripture.  If any
   call were from God, then a person's call would be confirmed both in
   Scripture (either explicitly by prescription or implicitly by lack of
   prosciption) AND in the hearts (by the Holy Spirit bearing witness with
   the spirits) of the divinely appointed authority to which she or he has
   submitted.
    
|   Women and men would thus be equal under God and equally created in the
|   image of God.

** Yes, with the following clarification:  Humankind was created in the
   image of God, male and female.  The image of our Creator is seen in men
   and women taken together, both in similarity and difference.  That there
   are similar and different roles for men and women should not come as a
   surprise.  Different roles in God's established order does NOT necessarily
   imply superiority or inferiority.  The Holy Spirit through the apostle
   Paul admonishes us "not to think of himself more highly than he ought to
   think; but to think soberly, according as God has dealt to every man the
   measure of faith." (Ro 12:3, KJV)  For the record, I hold this admonition
   equally applicable to men and women alike.  Moreover, I believe careful
   exegesis shows the force of the Holy Spirit's intent to be that we value
   ourselves as God values us, neither better nor worse.  In the context of
   authority, this means that those who render obedience as leaders and those
   who submit to (put themselves under) authority, both as unto God, are
   equally pleasing to God.

   Christ spoke to the human heart by saying "But many that are first shall
   be last; and the last shall be first." (Mat 19:30, KJV and elsewhere).  If
   anything, those who submit to authority are likely to be found ahead of
   those in authority.  Why would I say that?  People on top tend to run over
   others to get and stay on top.  Often a choice to be lower is harder
   wrought than a choice to be higher.  Those who would seek authority or
   leadership roles would be prudent to SERIOUSLY check their motives.

/Wayne

    RE: .61
    
    Thanks for sharing the fruit of your labor, Garth.  I very much
    appreciate your respect for, and careful handling of, God's Word.
    
    I have not read your postings on this subject in older notesfiles, but
    I enjoyed your essays on creation and comments on other subjects
    scattered throughout this conference.
    
    Proverbs 21:30,31
    
    /Wayne

    re: 828.59
    
    What would you position be if your ex husband, father of your two sons
    insisted that your children not attend the Baptist church and instead
    attend a UU Church or a UCC Church?
    
    What role do you allow him to have regarding the spiritual leadership
    of his children?
    
    I'm just trying to get a feel for how you as a strong woman put in
    practice your belief about the spiritual leadership of men!.
    
    Others can answer as well.  If a man wants his children to attend a
    liberal church and the woman wants them to attend a "Bible Believing"
    church, whose opinion goes in this situation?
    
    Patricia

    Hi Patricia,

    Silence in my case, means basically not enough time to delve into the
    fray!, and maybe some ambiguity in my own thinking. I lean more to the
    position that this whole man is the authority, woman must take a 
    secondary role thing has been taken way too far by most of the church,
    most of society, most of the time. However the whole concept has been
    so ingrained in my upbringing that I have a hard time fighting it sometimes.

    Also, as a believer that the Bible is God's truth revealed to us through
    human beings via the guiding of the Holy Spirit, I want to be very care-
    ful in my understanding and use of His Word. I would like to present some
    ideas to the group, backed up with Scripture and what scholars have to 
    say about the Scriptures, but do not have the time right now. I have an
    idea for a paper, but have two more books to read on the subject before
    I am ready to write it.

    Leslie

    PS. I think that if man is the authority and woman is secondary in all
    decision making, especially spiritual decision making, then it is part 
    of the corruption of the world through the Fall, and not what was meant 
    when God created woman to be an aizer k'negdo (parallel power) to man.

    PSS. Patricia, you really should hear the tape series by Clay Maclean.
    I remember what you told me before, but I think you'd be very surprised.

    Patricia,
    
    The question you ask is a very good one.  However, it is a moot point
    for me.  When my husband chose his way of life over our marriage, he
    relinquished all authority over me and the decisions in our home
    regarding our children spiritually.  When they are in custody this
    includes the church they attend.
    
    If he believes strongly that Christianity is wrong for his children I
    do believe that he'd have to prove that it was harmful or abusive for
    any court in the land to order me not to take them to church.
    
    

    Nancy,
    
    My question was based on spiritual authority not legal authority.  What
    spiritual leadership does a man have over his children.  Is that
    spritual leadership only intact when the man has phsical custody of his
    children?

There does come a point where all believers are called to "Obey God rather
than men."  (Acts 5:29) Romans 13 goes into pretty explicit detail about the
god-given authority of government officials, and the christian duty to obey
them.  Yet most of the disciples were at some point either imprisoned or
killed by the government officials, when those officials tried to prevent
them from speaking of Christ.

The fact that in extremity in questions of faith authority must be
disregarded, does not negate that authority.

Paul

    Paul,
    
    Are you saying that there are times when the Bible calls a person to do
    two contradictory things. i.e. obey authority and preach the Gospel. 
    And when this happens the Christian is responsible for choosing which
    requirement has the greater authority?
    
    So if a woman feels a strong call from God to preach the Gospel in
    accordance with the Great commission, but scripture says women should be
    silent in church, which is the greater claim?

 "Train your child up in the way he should go and when he is old he will
 not depart from it".  It appears that Nancy's ex husband is not upholding
 this command to parents.  Nancy is entirely justified in raising her children
 under the nurture and admonition of the Lord.



 Jim

    Jim,
    
    Nancy may be so justified, but she has in fact usurped the father of
    the children in terms of spiritual leadership of the children.
    
    If the man is the spiritual leader of the household, then in all cases
    where the father wants to go to one faith community and the mother to a
    different one, then the father should choose.
    
    
    If the father objects to the family attending a Sunday night or
    Wednesday night service, then the family should not attend.  Not if you
    believe the father to be the spiritual leader of the household.

 First, as I understand the Bible, there are some serious questions as to
 the Biblical basis for the UU "faith community".  Thus,  I do not believe
 the father to be a spiritual leader as his faith is contrabiblical.  The 
 mother is still responsible for her children's spiritual growth, and if
 we are to take it literally, based on 1Corinthians, she is entitled to 
 leave her husband as he is not a believer.




 Jim

    RE: .69
    
    Hi, Patricia.
    
    Again I ask, how is a woman's "strong call from God" confirmed?
    
    You might say if she has obeyed out of love and speaks truly, then she
    obviously was called by God to preach, or, in the context of this
    discussion, to exercise authority over men.  Then I would ask how you
    verify that what she says is True?
    
    "And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto
    Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.  These
    were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the
    word with all readiness of mind, and SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY,
    WHETHER THOSE THINGS WERE SO. Therefore many of them believed; also of
    honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few."
    (Ac 17:10-12, KJV)
    
    I take that to mean people became believers in the Gospel when the
    words they heard were confirmed to be true in Scripture.  I think this
    establishes that the Scriptures can be used to verify truth.
    
    What I'm asking is how you would validate whatever standard of truth
    you might suggest.  At some point, we must all assume something to be
    absolutely True, and prudence would dictate that we have a firm basis
    for that assumption.
    
    /Wayne

    So authority ultimately rests in the Faith communities interpretation
    of the scripture.

    A woman's call would be confirmed exactly the same way a man's call
    would be confirmed.
    
    Did not God call Moses, Aaron, and Miriam?      (Micah 6:4)

    RE: .75
    
    That wasn't my question.  I asked how a call is confirmed, and,
    ultimately, how we verify truth.
    
    I agree that a call would be confirmed the same between a man and a
    woman.  I'm NOT saying that men can be called and women can't.
    
    In the case of Moses, Aaron and Miriam, are you suggesting that they
    were equal in authority?  Through whom did the Law come?
    
    /Wayne

        That wasn't my question.  I asked how a call is confirmed, and,
        ultimately, how we verify truth.
    Thats a good question.  I try to verify it in scripture.  But its
    not always clear just from reading...
    
    Jill2

    Micah 6:4 presents a structure that show the three as equal.
    Numbers 12 makes clear that Moses takes priority.  God speaks with him
    face to face but to the others through dreams and visions.
    
    Normalizing the two texts I would say that Moses was the leader and
    Miriam and Aaron were equals both under Moses.

    RE: .77
    
    Okay.  What to do when we can't "see" Christ, when we can't understand
    Scipture?
    
    Jesus said "If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the
    Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with
    you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive,
    because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He
    dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (Jn 14:15-17, KJV)
    
    "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send
    in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
    remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Peace I leave with you,
    my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let
    not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." (Jn 14:26&27,
    KJV)
    
    "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
    Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He
    shall testify of me." (Jn 15:26, KJV)
    
    The Holy Spirit points to Christ who is the Word of God revealed.  The
    Holy Spirit (bearing witness with our spirit) leads us into truth when
    we cannot understand what we see.  God is one, and the Spirit will
    never contradict the Son (revealed Word) of God.
    
    The Word and the Spirit together establish and confirm truth.  Split
    them apart and the basis for truth is lost.
    
    /Wayne

>    Micah 6:4 presents a structure that show the three as equal.

Not at all.  Micah 6:4 says: "Indeed, I brought you up from the land of Egypt
and ransomed you from the house of slavery, and I sent before you Moses,
Aaron and Miriam."  It says nothing about equality at all, it simply says
that the three were sent.  And it can't mean equality anyway, because as you
note other parts of scripture are clear that Moses was in a different
relationship with God.  So if Moses isn't equal to the other two, then
there's nothing to be said about the equality of those other two.

As for Aaron and Miriam, it is very true that Miriam was a prophetess, and
heard directly from the Lord.  And I understand and agree with you that many
christians and jews have ignored women of consequence in the Bible and have
unbiblically pushed women out of roles that they have clearly been called to
by God.  But you hurt your own cause by consistently overstating the case for
women in leadership.  When your overstatement is shown to be erroneous, then
you lose your credibility.

For example, it is an overstatement to assert that Aaron and Miriam were
equals under Moses.  Looking with Logos, there are 800 references in the
Bible to Moses, 407 to Aaron, and 13 to Miriam.  The only events recorded for
Miriam are her leading the women in song after the Egyptian army was drowned
in the Red Sea, and the unsavory incident in Numbers 12 when she and Aaron
defied Moses' authority and Miriam was struck with leprosy for seven days. 
Aaron went with Moses and was the spokesperson before Pharaoh, and was the
first high priest.

Now if there were two people in scripture, one a man and one a woman, and the
man was referenced only a dozen times, with only two events recorded in his
life (one negative), and the woman was referenced hundreds of times, was the
spokesperson in one of the largest confrontations in the Bible, and founded
the priesthood, would you be willing to say the two were 'equals?'

If not, then don't assert it when the genders are reversed.  Simply stick to
what is in the Word and say this: Miriam was a prophet, called by God to
proclaim His Word and His truth.  It's true, it's in the Word, and anyone who
desires to follow God's Word has to take it into account.  She is clearly in
a position of leadership more noteworthy than many men - with the possible
exception of Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, there are no other men referenced
in Exodus with the prominence of Miriam.  It's truth enough to shake up a
male-only position.

Paul

    Patricia,
    
    Ever hear the term unequally yoked together?  What does this mean
    to you?
    
    Based on your understanding of this Biblical principle will determine
    how I continue to clarify an answer to your question.  I'm not feeling
    very well today, as a matter of fact I am at home today.  So, please
    forgive me if I don't answer you right away.
    
    Nancy

    Paul,
    
    Do you feel that because there is more information given in the
    scripture about Aaron than about Miriam, that it confirms the Aaron was
    the more important of the two?
    
    WHat other reasons might there be from your perspective that there are
    more stories about men in the scripture than about women?
    
    By the way, if you want to move this all to a more appropriate note,
    please feel free.
                                        Patricia
            

>    Do you feel that because there is more information given in the
>    scripture about Aaron than about Miriam, that it confirms the Aaron was
>    the more important of the two?

In this case, certainly.  Aaron had some remarkably important roles, and the
disparity between the information on the two of them is quite extreme.  If
the information given were more even, then of course it would be hard to tell.

But I don't generally think in those terms anyway, as to who is 'more
important' than someone else.  I was only responding in this case to your
needing to elevate Miriam far beyond what the scriptures provide.  I noted
the same thing last week when you tried to assert that Paul recognized
Priscilla's authority over Aquilla, because he said her name first, not
knowing that it's not always that way.

Again, simply stating the fact that Miriam was a prophet of God, in a
position of leadership during the Exodus, or that Priscilla was in a position
of leadership in the early church, seems more than adequate to assert that
women *were* in positions of leadership in the Bible.   When you try to
exaggerate their positions you only discredit yourself.

As I've said, Patricia, I'm with you to some extent on this one.  Women were
in positions of leadership in the Bible, and because it's in the Word, I
believe women can be called to positions of leadership today.  I do not yet
fully understand what the Scriptures which call women not to usurp authority
over men mean, but I agree with you that they do not mean that women cannot
be in any leadership positions.

I am unwilling, however, to discount those scriptures, as you are, and to
assert that there is no difference in roles in God's plan between men and
women.

Paul

    I believe that there is also some cultural reasons why the Bible does
    not speak more about women.  I believe that we happen to know a whole
    lot more about Moses and Aaron but that does not reflect that Miriam
    was not equally as active as both a leader and a priest.  I believe
    that the term prophet used in Early Israel is different than the term
    used later.  

>    I believe that there is also some cultural reasons why the Bible does
>    not speak more about women.  I believe that we happen to know a whole
>    lot more about Moses and Aaron but that does not reflect that Miriam
>    was not equally as active as both a leader and a priest.

Now you're stepping outside of the Word and therefore outside the bounds of
this conference.  What this essentially says is that the Word is biased and
incorrect.

I know that it frustrates you terribly that we don't want to listen to your
reasons why we shouldn't trust the Bible, or the ideas that you then believe
because you've discounted the Bible, but we don't.  We will remain based on
the Word.  

I'm very sorry that you don't like that.  But that's the way it is, and if
you keep trying to fight against it then conversations here are going to
follow this same path and wind up being very frustrating for you.  We will be
able to converse to a point, and then you are going to get backed into a
place where you can no longer uphold your position without discrediting the
Bible, and then you will be frustrated once again because we will shut down
the conversation at that point.

That point has been reached.  Any further notes discrediting the Bible will
be deleted.

Paul, with moderator hat in hand

    This horse was dead months ago...

| <<< Note 828.88 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>

| Now you're stepping outside of the Word and therefore outside the bounds of
| this conference.  What this essentially says is that the Word is biased and
| incorrect.

	How did you get that out of what she said? Wow. 

| I know that it frustrates you terribly that we don't want to listen to your
| reasons why we shouldn't trust the Bible, or the ideas that you then believe
| because you've discounted the Bible, but we don't.  We will remain based on
| the Word.

	I've always liked this type of response. I mean, people will say they
want dialogue, but only under the stricktest of conditions. THEIR conditions. 
Did Jesus say I won't talk to ANYONE who won't talk just the way He wants them
to? If that were the case, how could he have talked to � of the people He did?
While yes, you do have a conference that has strict rules, but sometimes I have
to wonder how much of God is present.

| Paul, with moderator hat in hand

	Yup... give some a little power and.....


Glen

My new pastor is great - he has a lot of sauce. 

\C

    Since I opened this topic can I close it? I agree with Nancy that this
    is a mute point. We can go on and on until there are 2000 replies and
    there will not be agreement.  Being a woman I'm not being silent, but
    wise. I know why the Lord has placed me here and it is not to gain
    power, status, position or glorification.  And boy am I glad! Too much
    stress that I can do without.
    
    Let's agree not to agree and go on.
    
    Rose
    

	You HAVE to keep the topic open for 7 more replies. Why? Cuz somebody
has to have a snarf! :-)

    Paul, 
    
    re 828.88
    
    I have not said anything in my note that was contra biblical.
    
    I stated that there is much more said about men in the Bible than about
    women.  do you disagree with this?  Count the number of men identified
    by name and count the number of women identified by name.
    
    I am very interested in knowing how women who hold the bible to be
    inerrant interpret that fact.
    
    I stated that the Bible tells us some things about Miriam, but that it
    is possible that she did a lot more things than are described in the
    Bible.  I stated that it is possible that the Bible tells us more about
    Aaron than about Miriam, simply because it tells us more about one than
    the other and not because Aaron was a more important leader than
    Miriam.
    
    Are these statements outside of the conferences understanding of the
    bible?
    
    Might Miriam also have been a priest as well as a prophet given that
    she did lead the Israeli women in ritual dance in honor of Yahweh.  She
    is clearly shown in the geneologies as descending from Levi where it is
    very uncommon for women except for the queen mothers to  be identified
    in geneologies.  
    
    Do we know all we need to know about Miriam's leadership role based on
    what is in the Bible, or is it possible that there is more that we do
    not know?
    
                                  Patricia

    
>    Do we know all we need to know about Miriam's leadership role based on
>    what is in the Bible, or is it possible that there is more that we do
>    not know?
 


   We can speculate on that til the Lord comes back.  We can make up whatever
 we like and feel all warm and fuzzy about it.  In the meantime, souls are
 dying and going to Hell, while we worry about one gender being mentioned
 more than the other, or some such silly nonsense.  We have what we have 
 with the Bible.  It tells us that we are all sinners, and we are all doomed
 to Hell because of our sin.  It also tells us that Christ died for our sins,
 and if we believe that, and put our trust in Him and are born again, we can
 spend eternity with Him (where I believe all of our questions will be answered)
 It also tells us that we have a responsibility to see others come to know
 Christ.


 Anything that diverts us from that is of questionable orgin.



 Jim

>Did Jesus say I won't talk to ANYONE who won't talk just the way He wants them
>to? If that were the case, how could he have talked to � of the people He did?
    
    ...and Jesus further showed His deity by still dumbfounding the
    Pharisees and the like while engaging them on the foundation of their
    rules as well as His own Word.  Christ Himself used His Word as a
    foundation for testing and dialogue, why should we be any less of an
    example?  It also reinforces what I've been saying: God has no
    problems in dealing with humans.
    
    Mike

    Great note, Jim!

    Jim,
    
    Your 828.95 has a clear message that we should concentrate on the
    afterlife and not worry about what happens here on earth.   
    
    I believe asking the question of who Miriam is and what did she do is
    very relevent for how we live our lifes today, here and now. 
    
    Your advice only addresses half the issue.  Jesus tells us it is also
    very important to work for justice here on earth.
    
    "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on EARTH as it is in heaven"  The
    whole book of Luke addresses social justice here on earth.  My question
    is What is God's will for women, here on earth!  What does God want and
    expect of me.  What does God want and expect of Leslie and Nancy and
    all the other women in this file.
    
    Please don't ask me to pick and choose only those sections that deal
    with heavenly salvation!

| <<< Note 828.96 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Christ Himself used His Word as a foundation for testing and dialogue, why 
| should we be any less of an example?  

	Christ could interpret His Word 100% correctly EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Humans can not.



Glen

snarf!

    RE: .90
    
    Hi, Glen.
    
    Patricia said "I believe there is also some cultural reasons why the
    Bible does not speak more about women.  I believe that we happen to
    know a whole lot more about Moses and Aaron but that does not reflect
    that Miriam was not equally as active as both a leader and a priest."
    
    You asked how Paul got that Patricia was "stepping outside of the Word"
    and how she was essentially saying "that the Word is biased and
    incorrect."
    
    First, to say there were cultural reasons for the Bible not speaking
    more about women is to say that Scripture given to us does not present
    all the truth God would have us know.  In other words, the Holy Spirit
    did not elicit or create truth in the writers, rather the writers
    chose what to chronicle according to their biases.  If that were true,
    then we would have to find another source outside the written Word of
    God to determine what God really wanted us to know.
    
    Second, to say that what the Bible says about Moses and Aaron does not
    reflect more that could have been said about Miriam is true.  However,
    the point is the Bible does talk more about Moses and Aaron and less
    about Miriam.  To say the Bible should have more completely and
    accurately portrayed Miriam is to say the Bible is incomplete and/or
    inaccurate.  If that is true, then we would have to find another source
    outside the written Word of God to provide information that God really
    wanted us to know.
    
    Third, the notion that Miriam was equally as active as Moses and/or
    Aaron as both a leader and a priest cannot be validated with Scripture,
    whereas the Bible does have a lot to say about her brothers.  To say
    Miriam was as active or as visible a leader as her brothers is a
    stretch, let alone presuming that she was a priest.  The Bible just
    does not say that.  To deem something factual because the Bible does
    not contradict your premise is certainly a less sure base than taking
    as fact what the Bible explicitly affirms. 
    
    We are faced with two alternatives:
    
     1 - The Bible does reveal all that God wants us to know and we can
         reliably base our faith and conduct on what is revealed.  The
         Bible then stands as the touchstone for Truth.
    
         OR
    
     2 - The Bible incompletely or inaccurately reveals what God wants us
         to know and we cannot be sure of what He wants without going out-
         side Scripture.  Moreover, there would be no way to verify either
         truth in the Bible or in other sources.  What we believe and do
         then is empirical and subjective.
    
    I choose the first alternative because I am fully convinced by the Holy
    Spirit's bearing witness with my spirit that the written Word of God
    says what God means and means what God says.  For me to seek Truth
    outside the revealed Word of God is sin.  "Faith cometh by hearing, and
    hearing by the word of God." (Ro 10:17, KJV)  "Hast thou faith? have it
    to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that
    thing which he alloweth. And he that <discerneth and putteth a
    difference between meats> is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of
    faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (Ro 14:22&23, KJV)
    
    "My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in
    deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and
    shall assure our hearts before Him. For if our heart condemn us, God is
    greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart
    condemn us not, then we have confidence toward God. And whatsoever we
    ask, we receive of Him, because we keep His commandments, and do those
    things that are pleasing in His sight. And this is His commandment,
    That we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love
    one another, as He gave us commandment. And he that keepeth His
    commandments dwelleth in Him, and He in him. And hereby know that He
    abideth in us, by the Spirit which He hath given us." (1Jn 3:18-24,
    KJV)
    
    Glen, if I were to judge you because you don't speak and act as I
    would, then the Word of God says I'm wrong.  Your faith is yours before
    God.  If your conscience is not violated in regarding the written Word
    of God as fallible and seeking knowledge of God outside His written
    Word, then have confidence toward Him.  Please understand that for me
    and many others not taking the written Word of God as the touchstone
    for Truth is a violation of conscience.  When consciences are violated,
    judgmental attitudes and actions arise.
    
    Thanks.  May "the trial of our faith, being much more precious than of
    gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto
    praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: Whom
    having not seen, we love; in whom, though now we see Him not, yet
    believing, we rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: Receiving
    the end of our faith, even the salvation of our souls." (1Pe 1:7-9,
    KJV)
    
    /Wayne

    Jesus said: 
    
    Mark 9:35
    And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man
    desire to be first, [the same] shall be last of all, and servant of all. 
    
    Why is there so much concern about who is in charge of who?    
    
    
    Jill2

    
>    Your 828.95 has a clear message that we should concentrate on the
>    afterlife and not worry about what happens here on earth.   
    
 
   No, it does not. And are you saying that the afterlife is of no consequence?
   helping divert those who are on their way to spend eternity (not just a
   few months/years but *eternity*) in Hell is not important?

   John 3:16 says that those who believe (place their trust) in Him should
   not perish, but have everlasting life..that also tells us that there are
   those who WILL perish.

   Paul, in prison, was not most concerned about prisoners rights..he was
   interested in seeing them saved, coming to know Christ.

   Peter, in prison was interested in the same thing.  The disciples immediate
   concern after the assension of Christ was not to make sure everybody 
   was comfortable and happy..it was to see people saved


   Yes, we are to be concerned with people here on earth today, and in some
   cases the Christian Church fails miserably.  But, above all, we are to
   see people come to know Christ as Lord and Savior.  What better gift can
   be given, than to spend eternity in Heaven, with Christ?


    
>    "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on EARTH as it is in heaven"  The
>    whole book of Luke addresses social justice here on earth.  My question
>    is What is God's will for women, here on earth!  What does God want and
>    expect of me.  What does God want and expect of Leslie and Nancy and
>    all the other women in this file.
    
 
      Its in the Book.


>   Please don't ask me to pick and choose only those sections that deal
>    with heavenly salvation!


 I beg your pardon, but it appears to me that someone else is doing the 
 picking and choosing.




 Jim

I don't have time to respond today, but I will respond tomorrow.

Paul

>| Christ Himself used His Word as a foundation for testing and dialogue, why 
>| should we be any less of an example?  

>	Christ could interpret His Word 100% correctly EVERY SINGLE TIME.
>Humans can not.


 So, what do we do then?  

| <<< Note 828.101 by ROCK::PARKER >>>

Hi Wayne!

| You asked how Paul got that Patricia was "stepping outside of the Word" and 
| how she was essentially saying "that the Word is biased and incorrect."

	If Patricia says this is not what she meant, then you will agree that
we are still left with the same question about how did Paul get that out of
what she wrote, right? People can interprete things to mean anything. I think
we all know that. :-) But people should find out what the other means FIRST, and
not make a blanket statement.

	I can't comment on your #1 or 2, as I would get set hidden if I did.

| Third, the notion that Miriam was equally as active as Moses and/or Aaron as 
| both a leader and a priest cannot be validated with Scripture, whereas the 
| Bible does have a lot to say about her brothers. To say Miriam was as active 
| or as visible a leader as her brothers is a stretch, let alone presuming that 
| she was a priest. The Bible just does not say that.  

	The Bible does not say a lot of things, yet they are presumed to be
true. I can't go into the things here, as it would be deleted. 

	There are far more choices than the 2 you listed here, Wayne. I do
understand that you have your beliefs, and you live by them. That's cool. But
the world is not as cut and dry as you have made it sound in this note. 

| Glen, if I were to judge you because you don't speak and act as I would, then 
| the Word of God says I'm wrong. Your faith is yours before God. If your 
| conscience is not violated in regarding the written Word of God as fallible 
| and seeking knowledge of God outside His written Word, then have confidence 
| toward Him.  

	That I do, Wayne...that I do. He guides me. He loves me. What more can
a person ask for?




Glen

| <<< Note 828.105 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend, will you be ready?" >>>

| So, what do we do then?

	The best we can. 

>| So, what do we do then?

>	The best we can. 


  and there's no standard by which our "best" can be measured..we just fumble
 along and hope we get it right, eh?  

 Is that how you approach your job?  Your boss gives you no idea of what 
 he/she expects?  You have no idea of what your job and expectations are?

 In college, did you take an exam with the instructor saying "I'm not going
 to tell you what I expect..you just do the best you can, and if you pass,
 great, and if you fail, too bad.."?

    Jill 
    re 102.
    
    The concern more precisely stated would be
    
    If God really does call women to leadership positions and women do not
    respond to that call, then is that not sinning against God.
    
    If God really does call women to leadership positions and men prohibit
    or otherwise prevent women from responding to the call of God, then is
    that not sinning against God.
    
    I believe that God calls both women and men to leadership position and
    that many men actively prevent women from assuming the positions to
    which they are being called.
    
    The people who prohibitted another from answering a legitimate call
    from God are not only being unjust to the person, but they are also
    sinning against  God.
    
    My research into Miriam and her call as recorded in the bible is so
    that I can better understand what God wants from me and what God wants
    from my sisters.  It seems to me from reading the Bible and it seems to
    Rita Burns who commentary I am reading that Miriam was called to be a
    priest.  Unfortunately the information in the Bible about Miriam is
    scarce.  I am seeking to understand why the information in the bible
    about Miriam is so scarce.
    
    The cultural basis of the answer could be that many women could not be
    effective as priests, prophets and other leaders because of the
    cultural forces that would prohibit them from doing more.
    
    It is very plausible, that today when women have the freedom to serve
    in many different capacities, that God in facts calls women to
    leadership position because God wants both women and men to use all
    their talents in support of God's purpose for humankind.
    
    I personally see leadership as power with and not power over, but
    unfortunately leadership is still seen mainly as power over.  That is
    one area where I believe that women in leadership could make an
    enourmous contribution.
    
    The passion I feel for promoting the equality of women and men is about
    making it possible for all women and all men to answer the call of God
    in the vocation in which God calls each.

Hi, Glen.

No more argument from me.  If I have spoken truly, then the truth shall remain.
If I have misunderstood to speak falsely, then that shall pass away.

| That I do, Wayne...that I do. He guides me. He loves me. What more can
| a person ask for?

** Nothing.  May the peace of God keep our hearts and minds through Christ
   Jesus. (see Philippians 4:4-9)

/Wayne

� It seems to me from reading the Bible ...that Miriam was called to be a
� priest.  Unfortunately the information in the Bible about Miriam is
� scarce.  I am seeking to understand why the information in the bible
� about Miriam is so scarce.
    
� The cultural basis of the answer could be that many women could not be
� effective as priests, prophets and other leaders because of the
� cultural forces that would prohibit them from doing more.

That basis of investigation relies on the Bible as being the product of the 
mind of man, and subject to local and temporal cultural forces, rather than 
being the inspired word of God, as the basis of this conference holds.

If you regard the Bible as humanly concocted, your natural conclusion would
be to find problems in accepting its principles wherever it displays
differences with your culture or even with your personal taste, because in 
that context, you yourself are the ultimate authority.  You effectively 
deny that God directly controlled all the principles and rules the Bible 
represents Him as giving.

However, if you regard the presence of God as postulated in the Bible as 
truly representing the mind and character of the supreme Creator God, then 
you can realise that omissions in detail, or in certain areas are because 
they are not a part of what God, in His infinite knowledge and wisdom, sees 
necessary for us.  They might form a part of our curiosity domain, but not 
a positive portion of our soul/character forming domain.

Your [Rita Burns] idea that Miriam ever had any priestly call or role
conflicts with the Biblical principle, from God's instruction, of priests
being in the male line. God does not make rules lightly.  He does not break
them lightly either!

Patricia, do you think that God designed and laid down the laws of Exodus
through Deuteronomy, or do you think that Moses derived them from cultural
mores and experiences of the times? 

If you believe the former, there is no basis for questioning them - it's
like a child in school arguing over whether 2 + 2 = 4 or not - they won't
learn any more until they accept that it does.  The fact that there *are*
situations where 2+2 are not = 4 is irrelevant.  They are most unlikely to
understand those cases until they understand the general principle that 2 +
2 = 4. God knows the best way to instruct us according to the design that
He has made us to.  For us to be determined to find 'any other way' is to
reduce the trust He can place in us; not increase it - just like the
devil's temptation in the Garden of Eden: 
	'Disobey, and you will become on a par with God!'
Only instead of finding themselves equal with God, they found themselves 
cut off from God...

If you believe the latter, you are effectively saying that there is no God 
in the Bible who has the intelligence or authority of Patricia, and that 
your decision on what to include or exclude of the principles and statements
of the Bible is final.  That demands either that we should all follow your 
ideas, or that everyone follows their own ideas, and reduces 'wisdom' to 
personal opinion and force of character.  This is clearly invalid.

If there should be such a Being as God, the very title indicates that His 
Word is	absolute.  That is why we regard the Bible, the Word of God, as 
final, and not under question.

The stance you put forward does not admit room for the existance of this God.


								Andrew

    Re: 828.109
    
    Hi Patricia -
    
        If God really does call women to leadership positions and women do
        not respond to that call, then is that not sinning against God.
        
        If God really does call women to leadership positions and men
        prohibit or otherwise prevent women from responding to the call of God, then
        is that not sinning against God.
    Absolutely.
    
    
        The cultural basis of the answer could be that many women could not
        be effective as priests, prophets and other leaders because of the
        cultural forces that would prohibit them from doing more.
    I don't agree with this.  If God is behind them, He *will* make a way.
    
    
        It is very plausible, that today when women have the freedom to
        serve in many different capacities, that God in facts calls women to
        leadership position because God wants both women and men to use all
        their talents in support of God's purpose for humankind.
    Your saying, in a way, that the bible is out of date, and that God is
    asking women to take on different roles now because society will allow
    this.  But the Word says that Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to
    day, and for ever.  (Hebrews 13:8).  Since Jesus is the Word, neither
    change.
    
    I do believe that God calls women to use the talents He gave them to
    support His purpose for humankind.  I just believe that there are so
    many ways which are fully supported by the bible to do this.  Being a
    Pastor is not the only way to teach or guide.
    
    
        I personally see leadership as power with and not power over, but
        unfortunately leadership is still seen mainly as power over.  That
        is one area where I believe that women in leadership could make an
        enourmous contribution.
    I agree with this too.  Women could teach a lot of men quite a lot
    about what Jesus meant by leadership.  But not by taking up power that
    is not theirs to take in order to force men to see the truth.  Two
    wrongs do not make a right.  Jesus taught gentleness and love.
    
        The passion I feel for promoting the equality of women and men is
        about making it possible for all women and all men to answer the 
        call of God in the vocation in which God calls each.
    Now this I can't agree with at all.  I don't believe that man and
    women are equal and identical.  God created us to fit together to make
    one whole.  Both halves are not complete without the other.  Both
    halves are equally important and precious to Him, but different.
    
    I also, as I said before, believe that if God is calling *He* will
    make a way.  And His way will not conflict with His word.
    
    
    We often try to out-guess God.  This in a way limits His ability to
    work with us.  I believe that He calls women to teach and lead, but in
    His way.  Often it turns out to be in a way that we could never even
    have hoped for or imagined.  But it is usually a surprise.  The best
    thing is to wait on the Lord and trust Him to show the way.
    
    Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we
    ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us (Ephesians
    3:20)
    
    They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall
    mount up with wings as eagles (Isaiah 40:31)
    
    I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will
    counsel you and watch over you.  Do not be like the horse or the mule,
    which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle
    or they will not come to you. (Psalm 32:8-9)
    
    
    Jill2
    
        

      I really appreciate Jim's reply where he discussed salvation.
      My views on this matter align very closely with Wayne's, but
      regardless of whether or not they were close to Wayne's or
      Patricia's, I just think that this is a relatively particular
      matter of the law compared to love and mercy.
    
    						Tony

    Andrew,
    
    The fact is that there are many women in the Bible the play different
    roles.  I guess whether I identify Miriam as priest as well as prophet
    only really makes a difference to those churches that still have
    priests.  Priests did become specialized in Israel to those that
    offered the blood sacrifice.  Women did not offer blood sacrifices.
    
    Now I suppose that Roman Catholics could argue that there is still a
    blood sacrifice involved in communion and therefore women should not
    participate.  I do appologize if I am misrepresenting the Catholic
    ritual and I know someone will help me be more specific here if this is
    not the case.  I don't really see that Jesus' disciples were priest as
    priest were identified in Israel.  
    
     I believe that protestant churches understand the ritual
    to be symbolic and Jesus command to "Do this in rememberance of Me" was
    a call to all the disciples to participate in the communion and not a
    call to a small group to administer the communion.  In fact it is the
    deacons and deaconess in many protestant church that distribute the
    communion bread and wine.  Therefore given all that, and given amble
    evidence of women such as Miriam, Junias, and Priscilla of women in
    leadership roles, women prophets, and women apostles, there is no
    biblical reason for not allowing women to fulfill their call to become
    pastors and ministers.
    
    My question regarding what should we believe when the Bible is silent
    on a subject absolutely has to be answered.  
    
    There are many things in are modern life that are not addressed in the
    Bible and as people of God, we are called to participate in those
    things under the guidance of God.
    
    Are we allowed to fly in Airplanes?  Would the tower of babel story
    indicate that we should not be moving toward the heavens in any form?
    
    Are heart and liver transplants allowable?
    
    How about artificial insemination?
    
    Blood tranfusions?
    
    There are lots of questions that one can answer only by extrapolating
    from what is in the Bible.
    
    The question of woman's role in the twentieth century is one of those
    questions for which there is only limited culturally oriented language
    in the bible.  We need to research, analyse, and understand everything
    we can about what is there so we can make reasonable extrapolations.
    
    I happen to believe that there is better evidence that you should not
    fly in an airplane, than there is information about women serving as
    ministers and pastors.
    
    
                                           Patricia
                                     

>    Now I suppose that Roman Catholics could argue that there is still a
>    blood sacrifice involved in communion and therefore women should not
>    participate.

Specifically, the Mass is a _making_present_ of the _one_sufficient_sacrifice_
of Christ on the Cross.  The priest acts in persona Christi offering the same
sacrifice (not a new sacrifice, there can be no new sacrifice, for Christ has
done it once and for all) along with the souls and bodies of all the faithful
to the Father in heaven.

There really is only one Mass: the one Jesus is constantly offering to the
Father in heaven.  The priest, following Christ's command to _do_this_, makes
the benefits of this sacrifice available sacramentally to those who have faith.

Just as is attested in the bible, women assist in the logistical aspects of
communion, and are allowed to distribute the Blessed Sacrament to the people.

/john

>	Christ could interpret His Word 100% correctly EVERY SINGLE TIME.
>Humans can not.
    
    FALSE.  The believer who yields their will to God and His Word will
    have 100% correct interpretations via the Holy Spirit as well.
    
    Mike

    >	The best we can. 
    
    Not good enough.  The tools, techniques, and methods are there for you
    to "overachieve."

    Re: .111
    
    Andrew, that reply was simply AWESOME!

  >  Your saying, in a way, that the bible is out of date, and that God is
  >  asking women to take on different roles now because society will allow
  >  this.  
   
    No, I'm saying that God works with the reality of the day moving
    humankind to even greater appreciation of God.  There are some things
    that are not addressed in the Bible, because they were not a reality in
    the ancient world.
     
    >I do believe that God calls women to use the talents He gave them to
    >support His purpose for humankind.  I just believe that there are so
    >many ways which are fully supported by the bible to do this.  Being a
    >Pastor is not the only way to teach or guide.
    
    But being a pastor is one way to teach and guide.  And if God calls a
    woman to be a pastor, then the woman should obey.
    
     >  Two wrongs do not make a right.  Jesus taught gentleness and love.
    
    So is a woman is called, a woman should obey?
    
    >>    The passion I feel for promoting the equality of women and men is
    >>    about making it possible for all women and all men to answer the 
    >>    call of God in the vocation in which God calls each.
   
    > Now this I can't agree with at all.  I don't believe that man and
    >women are equal and identical.
    Do you not believe that they are equal or do you not believe that they
    are identical?  I believe that women are equal.  I do not believe that
    women are identical to men.  there are some obvious differences.
    
    >  God created us to fit together to make
    >one whole.  Both halves are not complete without the other.  Both
    >halves are equally important and precious to Him, but different.
    
    I agree.  both halves though are more alike than different.  Since both
    are created in the image of God, both are very much alike.
    
    
    >I also, as I said before, believe that if God is calling *He* will
    >make a way.  And His way will not conflict with His word.
   
    Well God is making a way.  More and more women are being ordained. 
    There are still many women and men kicking and screaming and trying
    there best to get in the way! 
    
   > We often try to out-guess God.  This in a way limits His ability to
   > work with us.  I believe that He calls women to teach and lead, but in
   > His way.  Often it turns out to be in a way that we could never even
   > have hoped for or imagined.  But it is usually a surprise.  The best
   > thing is to wait on the Lord and trust Him to show the way.
    
    What is our responsibility as humans!  Jesus tells us to do lots of
    things, not just sit and wait.

    
>    They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall
>    mount up with wings as eagles (Isaiah 40:31)
 
    Would you hinder someone from waiting upon the Lord?
       
    >I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will
    >counsel you and watch over you.  Do not be like the horse or the mule,
    >which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle
    >or they will not come to you. (Psalm 32:8-9)
    
    Are you open to be surprise by God's will?
    
    Jill2
    
        

>    leadership roles, women prophets, and women apostles, there is no
>    biblical reason for not allowing women to fulfill their call to become
>    pastors and ministers.
    
    Okay then, since you say there is no Biblical reason to disallow, please 
    provide BCV where it says it's allowed.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

| <<< Note 828.108 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend, will you be ready?" >>>


| and there's no standard by which our "best" can be measured..we just fumble
| along and hope we get it right, eh?

	God's standard. But it doesn't mean that WE as humans will get the
correct interpretation of the perfect standard.

| Is that how you approach your job?  Your boss gives you no idea of what
| he/she expects?  You have no idea of what your job and expectations are?

	Actually, job expectations change, so I'm not sure you could use that
as a comparrison to God's standards. It would fit more into the interpretation
standard, though. As when the first interpretation of how my job was to be for
the next year was thought to be right, but it hasn't been that way at a 100%
clip yet, regardless of where I have worked. Why? Cuz humans were involved.
With God, every message He gives us is 100% Right, 100% of how He wants the
message given to us. How we interpret His perfect message leaves a lot to be
desired many a time.

| In college, did you take an exam with the instructor saying "I'm not going
| to tell you what I expect..you just do the best you can, and if you pass,
| great, and if you fail, too bad.."?

	Jim, where did I ever say if you fail, too bad? If we don't get His
perfect message right, then that is a sad thing. We do the best we can to get
it right, but with humans involved, we aren't always going to get it right.


Glen

    Exodus 15:20  Micah 6:4  Corinthians?  i.e. Priscilla

Hi Patricia,

� The fact is that there are many women in the Bible the play different roles.  

But we don't need to base principles of doctrine on assumed roles on which 
the Bible is silent, or on presumed roles which the Bible seems to preclude.

� I guess whether I identify Miriam as priest as well as prophet only really
� makes a difference to those churches that still have priests.  

All churches with Christians in them have priests, according to 1 Peter 2:9.  
A royal priesthood.  However, that is not a priest in the order of the Old
Testament prisethood, but rather a priesthood of all believers.  It is 
irrelevant to the role of Miriam, and whether yuo identify her as a priest or 
not depends rather on whether you are following scripture, or your own ideas.
If you are following your own ideas, you can assume absolutely anything - but 
it doesn't lead to heaven.

Certainly Miriam had a ministry, about which the Bible says very little.  To 
identify it with the priesthood, about which the Bible says a lot (especially 
in connection with Aaron, and the sons of his line) is to force-fit her into an 
unscriptural pattern - to go way beyond scripture.

� I don't really see that Jesus' disciples were priest as priest were identified
� in Israel. 
I don't think anyone would!

I am not sure why you associate the adminstration of the communion elements 
with a pastoral role?  The elders and deacons specifically aren't teh pastors, 
and administering communion is not a teaching role, but a serving one.  I
actually make out the rota for serving communion in my church, and because of
the number of people needed in this work, we call on members who are not office
holders to serve as well.  That has nothing to do with who is or is not
permitted to practise a teaching ministry.  In theory, [and in my view] there
is no problem with a woman serving communion, and she should only be subject to 
the same qualifications of life as a man would be expected to in that position. 
However, different churches are likely to have different preferences in this 
detail, and it is hardly a matter to break fellowship over.

� My question regarding what should we believe when the Bible is silent on a
� subject absolutely has to be answered. 

Sorry.  I missed that question, as I've been having system problems and other 
complications recently.

� There are many things in are modern life that are not addressed in the Bible
� and as people of God, we are called to participate in those things under the
� guidance of God. 

Agreed.  But the LORD's people should individually be able to hear the Holy
Spirit, who dwells within, to know His particular leading on unspecified 
points.

� Are we allowed to fly in Airplanes?  Would the tower of babel story indicate
� that we should not be moving toward the heavens in any form? 

No.  The message of the Tower of Babel is much simpler and more profound than
that.  In context, it is a clear revelation of man's continuing rebellion 
towards God, and God's mercy towards man.  But it is hardly relevant to diverge 
into a discussion of that here!

� There are lots of questions that one can answer only by extrapolating
� from what is in the Bible.

Plus - the Holy Spirit, as we are told in John 10:4, 14:26, Ephesians 1:13b-14, 
etc.

� The question of woman's role in the twentieth century is one of those
� questions for which there is only limited culturally oriented language
� in the bible.  We need to research, analyse, and understand everything
� we can about what is there so we can make reasonable extrapolations.

Now there, you go beyond the Word.  By relegating Biblical teaching to a 
cultural limit, you assume that God's Word is localised and wearing out.  I see 
no reason to limit God in that way, especially as the more I study the Word, 
the more relevant I find it is to the 20th century, and the more culture-bound 
I find we are today, in comparison with the blessed freedom of God's directives 
for living.  There certainly are areas where we have to apply the Word where no 
explicit command has been given, but general lifestyles and roles are not 
included here.

� I happen to believe that there is better evidence that you should not
� fly in an airplane, than there is information about women serving as
� ministers and pastors.

You;'re welcome to start a discussion on the moral depravity of flight, but 
those who take the Bible as the inspired Word of God are in no doubt about what 
is meant where 1 Timothy 2:12 says that it is inappropriate for a woman to have 
teaching authority over men.  There is a spiritual design difference which 
makes that expression an inversion of God's design, and rebellion against Him.
That does not make one better or worse; it just means they are different, and 
get the most  - and best - out of God's design by exploiting the difference 
rather than trying to deny it.

Hope this doesn't sound too abrupt, but I've been hurrying because it's time 
for me to be away tonight!

						God bless
								Andrew 

| <<< Note 828.116 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| FALSE.  The believer who yields their will to God and His Word will
| have 100% correct interpretations via the Holy Spirit as well.

	When you're human body is dead and your spirit is with Him, then I 
believe the above can happen. But as long as we're still flesh, I don't think
the above is possible 100% of the time. 


Glen

    >    Exodus 15:20  Micah 6:4  Corinthians?  i.e. Priscilla
    
    "And Miriam the prophetess, Aaron's sister, took the timbrel in her 
    hand, and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with 
    dancing."  Exodus 15:20 (NAS)
    
    No mention of women being priests or pastors here.
    
    "Indeed, I brought you up from the land of Egypt
     And ransomed you from the house of slavery,
     And I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam." Micah 6:4 (NAS)
    
    No mention of women being priests or pastors here.
    
    Re: Priscilla
    
    She's only mentioned in Acts 18:2,18,26; Romans 16:3; and 1 Corinthians
    16:19 and there is no mention of her being a priest or pastor.
    
    Mike

>  >  Your saying, in a way, that the bible is out of date, and that God is
>  >  asking women to take on different roles now because society will allow
>  >  this.  
   
>    No, I'm saying that God works with the reality of the day moving
>    humankind to even greater appreciation of God.  There are some things
>    that are not addressed in the Bible, because they were not a reality in
>    the ancient world.
     
 
    "I am the Lord and I change not.." according to Malachi 3:6 "Jesus Christ
     is the same yesterday, today and forever"

     Yes, things change in society.  But sin is still sin, God is still
     God, each gender has responsibilities which only in the latter part of
     this century are being challenged.  God is not changed by political
     movements or citizenry unrest or dissatisfaction with His will for
     our lives.


    


 Jim





   

>All churches with Christians in them have priests, according to 1 Peter 2:9.  
>A royal priesthood.  However, that is not a priest in the order of the Old
>Testament prisethood, but rather a priesthood of all believers.
    
    Therefore all women believers are already priests so I don't have to
    study Exodus any further to attempt to decide whether Miriam was or was
    not a priest.
    
    Unless of course you exclude women from the priesthood of all
    believers.
    
    
    
     
>irrelevant to the role of Miriam, and whether yuo identify her as a priest or 
>not depends rather on whether you are following scripture, or your own ideas.
>If you are following your own ideas, you can assume absolutely anything - but 
>it doesn't lead to heaven.

    I provided the biblical evidence for all my assumptions. You did not
    listen to the evidence in your haste to attempt to prove me wrong.
    
>Certainly Miriam had a ministry, about which the Bible says very little.  To 
>identify it with the priesthood, about which the Bible says a lot (especially 
>in connection with Aaron, and the sons of his line) is to force-fit her into
    > an unscriptural pattern - to go way beyond scripture.
    
    No, I identified the priestly role that she played.  Singing and
    dancing in a ritual honoring Yahweh.  Ex 15:20

� I don't really see that Jesus' disciples were priest as priest were identified
� in Israel. 
    
>I don't think anyone would!

    If we establish that Jesus is not calling people to priesthood in the
    sense of the Levitical priesthood, then why are you arguing with me.
    
>I am not sure why you associate the adminstration of the communion elements 
>with a pastoral role?
    
    Making the sacrifice to God was the important ingredient in the Israelite
    priesthood.  Women did not participate in blood sacrifices.  I was
    making the point that blood sacrifices are no longer made and therefore
    any prohibition based on not allowing women to participate in blood
    sacrifices is outdated.  I included the caveat for the Catholic Church
    because I know they have a different understanding of communion than
    the protestant churches.


� There are many things in are modern life that are not addressed in the Bible
� and as people of God, we are called to participate in those things under the
� guidance of God. 

>Agreed.  But the LORD's people should individually be able to hear the Holy
>Spirit, who dwells within, to know His particular leading on unspecified 
>points.

    I agree
    
� Are we allowed to fly in Airplanes?  Would the tower of babel story indicate
� that we should not be moving toward the heavens in any form? 

>No.  The message of the Tower of Babel is much simpler and more profound than
>that.  In context, it is a clear revelation of man's continuing rebellion 
>towards God, and God's mercy towards man.
    
    My, My,  You mean you don't read the story literally.  How do you
    choose which stories to read literally and which to read symbolically?
    
� There are lots of questions that one can answer only by extrapolating
� from what is in the Bible.

>Plus - the Holy Spirit, as we are told in John 10:4, 14:26, Ephesians 1:13b-14, 
>etc.
    I agree

� The question of woman's role in the twentieth century is one of those
� questions for which there is only limited culturally oriented language
� in the bible.  We need to research, analyse, and understand everything
� we can about what is there so we can make reasonable extrapolations.

> There certainly are areas where we have to apply the Word where no 
>explicit command has been given, but general lifestyles and roles are not 
>included here.

    You make quite a few of your own interpretations to get to that
    conclusion.

>You;'re welcome to start a discussion on the moral depravity of flight, but 
    
    Are you intuiting that there is nothing morally wrong with flying
    through the heavens? What chapter and verse do you have to argue
    against the advice we glean from the tower of babel story?
    
    >those who take the Bible as the inspired Word of God are in no doubt
    >about what is meant where 1 Timothy 2:12 says that it is
    >inappropriate for a woman to have  teaching authority over men..
    
    It sounds like most of the people in here struggle with the meaning of
    1 Timothy 2:12.
    
    Explain to me what it means that "women have no teaching authority over
    men."
    
                                         Patricia
    
    
                                        

 re .121 Glen



 Sorry Glen, I'm not going to continue in the maze.  I made a point about
 how God has set forth expectations for us.  I understand that you don't see
 the point.  I'll leave it at that.
 



 Jim

    I jumped into this fray in 828.18 praising God that we do have a self
    reforming church.
    
    I will jumped out now.
    
    I will pray for all God's churches and the women and men that make the
    churces.  I will pray that God's will be done on earth.
    
    I pray for the churches on the forefront of these issues.
    
    Mary Jo,  I hope that you have talked directly with your assistant
    pastor.  As many of your friends in here have suggested, honest, open,
    direct conversation is the best approach.  Good luck.
    
    By for now.  I hope you all enjoy the rest of December without my
    bringing up any more controversial topics
    
    God Speed ye all!

	Jim, there is no maze, really. We both agree that He is perfect. We
both agree that any message He gives us is perfect. We both agree that humans
are flawed. There really isn't much of a difference here. 

I'm not sure if Patricia will have time to catch up here again or not in
the readable future, but I'll address a few points in .127 anyway... 

The fact that all New Covenant believers (men and women) are priests following
1 Peter 2:9 does not affect Old Testament believers.  The priesthood was
offered to Israel as a nation (Exodus 19:6), but in the incident of the golden
calf this was rejected.  The tribe of Levi exhibitted faithfulness by aligning
themselves under God, even against their fellow-Israelites, and this brought
them the blessing of the priesthood. However this was strictly defined order,
in which only the males served.  ie hardly Miriam.  The example of her leading
in the dance may well be a ministry she excelled in as a divine gift and
appointment, but dancing was no part of the priestly duties.  The provision of
music was, but not explicitly dancing.  So Exodus 15:20 doesn't come into it.
I'm not even going to expand on the statement that it was 'all the women' who
followed her... ;-). 

The Levitical priesthood is a fascinating example of an apparent curse being
turned into a blessing.  Jacob's dying prophecy to Levi was that following the
brutal incidents of Genesis 34, Levi would be scattered throughout Israel,
rather than have their own territory like every other tribe except Simeon (who
shared in the massacre) - Genesis 49:5-7.  Levi was indeed scattered through
Israel - serving all Israel as their priests, honoured under God. 

�    If we establish that Jesus is not calling people to priesthood in the
�    sense of the Levitical priesthood, then why are you arguing with me.

I trust that we are 'discussing' rather than arguing! - resolving where we
stand on our different views of these issues, where establishing areas of
agreement has significance, as well as establishing areas where we hold
different views. 

� I was making the point that blood sacrifices are no longer made and
� therefore any prohibition based on not allowing women to participate in
� blood sacrifices is outdated. 
Ah!! I wondered why the Levitical priesthood came into it at all, really.  
I thought it was connected with Miriam's perceived position somehow.

Re Babel:

� My, My,  You mean you don't read the story literally.  How do you
� choose which stories to read literally and which to read symbolically?

I see the boot as rather being on the other leg.  If some arbitrary incidents
are not to be taken literally, how is it decided what incidents *are* literal,
and who has authority to make such a decision?  Certainly if you are taking the
Tower of Babel as non-literal, it seems tenuous to derive any sort of solid
conclusion from it; even more so to extrapolate a decision on the morality of
flying!!! 

�> There certainly are areas where we have to apply the Word where no 
�>explicit command has been given, but general lifestyles and roles are not 
�>included here.

�    You make quite a few of your own interpretations to get to that
�    conclusion.

Agreed, but at the level we are concerned with, the majority of people who 
respect the Bible as God's inerrant Word would concur.

Again - if you want to discuss the morality of flight, and/or the Tower of
Babel, you're welcome to start a topic for it.  In fact, maybe I'll start one
myself... ;-) 

� It sounds like most of the people in here struggle with the meaning of
� 1 Timothy 2:12.

Again, there are general principles which those who accept the Bible as God's
inerrant Word would [probably!] agree with.  That is the only level of
understanding I am referring to. 
    
� Explain to me what it means that "women have no teaching authority over
� men."

The woman's role should not be determinative in publicly leading in
doctrinal issues, with men of an equivalent social context. 

Obviously there is a wide latitude of how this may be applied, but I 
believe that contains the principle.  

What the Bible doesn't give us is the reason for the directive.  We can
conjecture, and there are various clues and lines of deduction in this area. 
These may or may not be profitable.  However, what has to be _un_profitable is
to throw out God's command on the basis that we do not understand the reasons
behind it.  That is where arrogance has become rebellion. 

For those who think that God has given us cuturally dated instructions, I
find a greater God than that in the Bible.  When He gave the Bible, it was 
with each of us - today - in mind.  At the earliest writing He knew the 
hearts of those who would be living in the end times.

If you feel you are too sophisticated to take straightforward obedience, you
need to understand the Word before you can presume to judge it; you need to
understand it thoroughly enough to realise the horror of trying to improve on
God's perfection. 

I hope this is a useful clarification.  And more or less keeps within the
line-limit guidelines!

							Andrew

      Just a small point to give Patricia *some* latitude (but not much!).
    
      Consider the commandment that begins, "Thou shalt not covet thy
      neighbor's wife."
    
      Why is it worded that way instead of giving equal credence to 
      "Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's husband'?
    
    							Tony

    .132
    
    It is man's natural behavior to become lustful quickly through the eye
    gate.  Where as a woman is created to become lustful through touch.  
    
    Men are attracted to "beauty", while most women are attracted to
    "character".
    
    

<---pretty sexist attitude, wouldn't you say? true, but sexists. :-)

Nice to get the affirmation that the man/woman difference is more than the
purely external and superficial thing it is sometimes claimed to be - 
thanks Nancy!

The beauty of a woman is a significant reason for not putting her in a
pulpit before men, or giving her a role which involves putting men in a
situation which would naturally pull natural [design] human personal
attraction into play, as an inapropriate and dangerous response.  Dangerous
both at the moral level and at the spiritual level, because to put an
object of significant human attraction in front of someone in a worship
situation is inviting conflict with the Holy Spirit residing within.
cf 1 Corinthians 10:22. 


								Andrew

� <---pretty sexist attitude, wouldn't you say? true, but sexists. :-)

Exactly Glen, in that 'sexist' implies that there *is* a difference between
the sexes - which many of us with suspicious minds have long suspected.  Me
included, I must confess.  So there are two ways of being sexist.  The
usual use of the word means an unfair discrimination against one sex.  And
it is usually applied to extremes as though no reasonable difference in
treatment were relevant, 

The other meaning of sexist, which is unusual, but I think it's what you
meant, because you say it's true, is tailoring behaviour and treatment to
be particularly appropriate to the sex concerned.  The negative
connotations of 'sexist' make any positive use of the word suspect, if it
is valid at all, though... 


							Andrew

Let's try some different ways of interpreting this "obvious" commandment.

According to the letter of the law:

 1) Since the command is to not covet your neighbor's wife, the command
    obviously was given to a man; therefore, men must have authority.

 2) Since the command does not say not to covet your neighbor's husband, the
    command obviously was not given to a woman; therefore, women are not
    subject to the law.

 3) We must take the verse in context, i.e., you are not to covet your
    neighbor's house, your neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his
    maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass (what's this dirty word doing in
    the Bible? since ass appears, the Bible must not be holy), nor any thing
    that belongs to your neighbor.  Since the verse talks about his property,
    your neighbor obviously is a man; therefore, the command concerns men.
    Moreover, only men can own property--men can serve other men, women must
    serve men, and men must not serve women.  Women are no more than the
    property of men.

 4) Since the command does not say that women cannot have manservants, then
    women can have authority over men.

 5) Actually the command does not begin with not coveting your neighbor's
    wife, rather with not coveting your neighbor's house; therefore, a man's
    house is more important than his wife.

 6) Since the command was given to not covet things belonging to another, then
    owning property must be okay, else the command would have been to not own
    anything.  Moreover, if that is true, then men need not own or share
    property equally.  Any problem is with those who don't have, not with those
    who have.

 7) Et cetera.

According to the spirit of the law:

 8) The attitude/action of coveting is the force of the command, not the
    object or the neighbor; therefore, the command is addressed to the
    hearer/reader, male or female.  Neither men nor women are to covet that
    which belongs to another.

We might consider comparing the command with other scripture to ferret out what
the law really means.  According to Matthew 5:17-48, Jesus' interest and the
command's intent are the same:  In breaking the law, a man's attitude is
revealed.  Moreover, a man need not be seen as breaking the law in order for
God to see sin.

Okay, Tony, what's your point? :-)

/Wayne

      Hi Wayne,
    
        My point is that it is also sin for a woman to covet her
        neighbor's husband.  
    
        The Bible, I believe, is meant to accomadate that transgression
        as well all the while the intonation of the command is patriarchal.
    
        That is, all the while the commandment refers to one coveting
        his neighbor's wife, I believe it embraces also the command for
        one coveting her neighbor's husband and thus I recognize that
        it used the masculine, i.e. has that 'male' bent.
    
        Thats all I meant.
    
        I'm just being honest!
    
    							Tony

    RE: .138
    
    And I hope you saw that I favoured the 8th interpretation (over others)
    as consistent with the spirit of the Law according to Jesus' revelation.
    
    I intended the smilely face after asking what your point was to convey
    that I thought I knew your point.
    
    My point in presenting the other interpretation was to show how
    Scripture could be used to reach dubious conclusions.  I do not think
    male leadership in ordered authority under God is dubiously derived.
    
    Some obviously disagree, particularly if the Bible does not stand as
    the touchstone for Truth.
    
    /Wayne

      Gee Wayne, you'd think we were reading the same Book or
      sumtin!

    Gee, you guys must have the Holy Spirit in you.  I've been told humans 
    can't do this stuff.

| <<< Note 828.141 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Gee, you guys must have the Holy Spirit in you.  I've been told humans
| can't do this stuff.

	By who, Mike?

 C'mon, Glen..do you have to challenge *everything*?  Can't you just let
 something ride?  Did you miss the smiley face?


 sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh.

Who said?

	"Christ could interpret His Word 100% correctly EVERY SINGLE TIME.
	Humans can not."

	"People can interpret things to mean anything.  I think we all
	know that. :-)"

	"God's standard.  But it doesn't mean that WE as humans will get
	the correct interpretation of the perfect standard."

	"But as long as we're still flesh, I don't think <the believer
	who yields their will to God and His Word will have 100% correct
	interpretations via the Holy Spirit> is possible 100% of the time."

	"We both agree that humans are flawed."

Jesus said:

	"If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father,
	and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with
	you forever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot
	receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye
	know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will
	not leave you orphans: I will come unto you. Yet a little while,
	and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye
	shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father,
	and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and
	keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall
	be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest
	myself to him...If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my
	Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode
	with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word
	which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. These
	things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the
	Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my
	name, He shall teach you ALL THINGS, and bring ALL THINGS to your
	remembrance, WHATSOEVER I HAVE SAID UNTO YOU." (Jn 14:16-26, KJV)

	"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
	Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father,
	HE SHALL TESTIFY OF ME." (Jn 15:26, KJV)

| <<< Note 828.143 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend, will you be ready?" >>>


| C'mon, Glen..do you have to challenge *everything*?  Can't you just let
| something ride?  Did you miss the smiley face?

	Sorry if you feel I can't ask questions. You see, jim, believe it or
not, questions can give you answers..... shudder....

| <<< Note 828.144 by ROCK::PARKER >>>

| Who said?



	And did you notice something? The 100% of the time? When Mike said what
he did, it seemed like it was an absolute. That was why I asked him who said
it. Cuz if he said me, I would have pulled up the same things you did. I don't
say humans never can. I DO say humans can't 100% of the time. 



Glen

    RE: .144
    
    And what exactly do you think Jesus said?
    
    /Wayne

>	Sorry if you feel I can't ask questions.

If Jim thought for a nanosecond that was really what you were doing - just
asking an honest question - then I'm sure he would not have responded as he
did.

See note 713.148.

Or perhaps 713.85.  Or most of the replies to note 713, actually.  Or
152.107, written two and a half years ago.  Or any of hundreds of other notes.

Paul

    Glen,
    
    Your questions often times are to ask for clarification where its not
    needed.  I agree 100% with Jim on his statement to you.
    
    You can scream silencing if you like, but its simply not true.  I find
    that for me your question are merely pitter patter of no substance
    other than to try and point fingers at someone because you think
    they're pointing fingers.  Its circular hypocrisy.
    
    Thanks for understanding,
    Nancy

| <<< Note 828.148 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>

| >	Sorry if you feel I can't ask questions.

| If Jim thought for a nanosecond that was really what you were doing - just
| asking an honest question - then I'm sure he would not have responded as he
| did.
| See note 713.148.

	I think you should take a look at 828.146. You might see why I WAS
asking. But I forgot. This is the Christian notesfiles. You make statements
first about others, and if the person the statements were made against wants to
deal with it, they can try and set the record straight. At some point in time,
well, once in a while, the person who made the statement actually sees that
they should have asked, not stated the person's intention. But of course then
the next note the same thing happens.....



Glen

| <<< Note 828.149 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| Your questions often times are to ask for clarification where its not
| needed.  I agree 100% with Jim on his statement to you.

	Nancy, I'd rather not assume. That's done way too much in here, when a
simple question for clarification can be asked. Or would it be ok for me to
jump all over you anytime I take something you said the wrong way? Sorry, I'd
rather know that I had it right before I go to the next step, if there is one
to go to. 

| You can scream silencing if you like, but its simply not true. I find that for
| me your question are merely pitter patter of no substance other than to try 
| and point fingers at someone because you think they're pointing fingers.  

	That's typical of you though. Why bother knowing what another means
when you can just tell them. Sorry, *I* will not work that way. If *I* have a
question, expect it to be asked. 

| Its circular hypocrisy.

	This is a lie. Please do not lie about me.

| Thanks for understanding,

	I don't think I do.



Glen

 Glen, the point which I am now sorry I brought up, was that Mike
 was making a bit of humor (perhaps you didn't see the smiley) which I
 understood, and I'm sure most readers understood.  The humor being that
 2 human beings with some doctrinal differences were able to set those aside
 and show their appreciation for each other (which I'm sure you'll agree
 doesn't always happen between humans).


 My point, which I'll confess arose from my anger at seeing you try to pick
 apart Mike's humorous interjection, was why is it you must pick apart much
 of that which is posted by people with whom you obviously don't share
 the same viewpoint?



 Jim

 

    
    I have always encouraged my sons to ask a lot of questions.  At about
    age 4, my oldest son Matthew began to ask questions just for the sake of 
    asking questions, even about things which were obviously and within his 
    level of understanding.  I began to figure out he liked hearing himself 
    talk.
    
    It was annoying after a while... my patience wore thin... and quickly I
    began to ask him what he thought the answer was to his question before
    I'd answer [of course on things I knew were obvious].  Soon he quit
    asking obvious questions, unless he was just wanting to be obnoxious.
    
    Thanks for understanding,
    Nancy
    

>	I think you should take a look at 828.146. You might see why I WAS
>asking. But I forgot. This is the Christian notesfiles. You make statements
>first about others, and if the person the statements were made against wants to
>deal with it, they can try and set the record straight. At some point in time,
>well, once in a while, the person who made the statement actually sees that
>they should have asked, not stated the person's intention. But of course then
>the next note the same thing happens.....

    You mean like the remarks you made about Joe in CP and the 'Box?
    
    glad to help,
    Mike

>	Nancy, I'd rather not assume. That's done way too much in here, when a

>	This is a lie. Please do not lie about me.

>	I don't think I do.

    Obviously Glen, you do the same thing that you accuse others of and
    claim innocence of it at the same time.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 828.153 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend, will you be ready?" >>>


| Glen, the point which I am now sorry I brought up, was that Mike was making a 
| bit of humor (perhaps you didn't see the smiley) 

	I saw the smiley, and understood what he was doing.

| My point, which I'll confess arose from my anger at seeing you try to pick
| apart Mike's humorous interjection, was why is it you must pick apart much
| of that which is posted by people with whom you obviously don't share
| the same viewpoint?

	Jim, I had a question, so I asked. Big deal. Look back a couple of
weeks ago and I was asking Nancy for some clarification. After I got it, I said
thanks. Nothing more. All I wanted was clarification. Once I have that, I would
know my next step. In Nancy's case, I said thanks. If you want to read more
into it, then so be it. 


Glen

| <<< Note 828.154 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| I have always encouraged my sons to ask a lot of questions.  At about age 4,
| my oldest son Matthew began to ask questions just for the sake of asking 
| questions, 

	Just for clarification, I don't ask questions for the sake of asking
questions. Not 100% sure if the above was being applied to be or not though.

| even about things which were obviously and within his level of understanding. 

	His level of understanding which you thought? Or his own real one? (I
do realize both could be the same) Try to understand. I REFUSE to make
assumptions about what others say. IF I have a question, *I* will ask it. Not
to hear myself talk, but to UNDERSTAND what the other is saying. For a group of
people who are often called to the carpet for getting other's views wrong, you
would think that asking would be included.


Glen

| <<< Note 828.155 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>


| You mean like the remarks you made about Joe in CP and the 'Box?

	Which ones?

| <<< Note 828.156 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>


| Obviously Glen, you do the same thing that you accuse others of and
| claim innocence of it at the same time.

	Sorry, Mike. When someone makes a false claim about me, they are lying.
Plain and simple.


Glen

 Mr. Heiser, perhaps you could answer the question posed by Mr. Silva in
 .142?  He understood the humor, apparantly, but perhaps you could share
 who (if there is a specific who) told you that humans can't do that which
 you attributed them.



 JIm

    Re: Note 828.154 by JULIET::MORALES_NA
    
�    At about
�    age 4, my oldest son Matthew began to ask questions just for the sake of 
�    asking questions, even about things which were obviously and within his 
�    level of understanding.  I began to figure out he liked hearing himself 
�    talk.
    
�    It was annoying after a while... my patience wore thin... and quickly I
�    began to ask him what he thought the answer was to his question before
�    I'd answer [of course on things I knew were obvious].
    
    You have more patience than I do. When I know people are asking
    questions because they like to hear themselves talk (or because they're
    trying to manipulate me) I usually just ignore them.
    
    	BD�

    .163
    
    :-) [grins]

    Jim, I'd rather not answer it.  If none of us have figured it out by
    now we never will.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 828.165 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Jim, I'd rather not answer it.  If none of us have figured it out by
| now we never will.

	Quite the answer ya got there, Mike. :-)