Gender and Discipleship
A Commentary on the Sabbath School Lesson for January 26-February 1, 2008
Christ, Mary, and Martha (Jan Vermeer, ca. 1660)
The original disciples were male—mostly young, mostly without strong family responsibilities. Imagine how women in this culture of highly restricted gender roles would have been viewed had they tried to become members of this group of twelve. Christ’s ministry would have stirred even more suspicion and anger than it already did. Women in Christ’s time were relegated to a peripheral role in discipleship, and since that time, with relatively few exceptions, women have remained on the periphery. Those who have made it to the inside role of discipleship have needed an unusual sense of calling and tremendous perseverance.
Mary the mother of Jesus was his first disciple, within the confines of her domestic role. Before she could even know her son, know what his ministry would be, know what she would suffer because of him, she accepted that his birth would have special meaning. We have only to read Ovid’s well-loved collection of Greek and Roman myths, The Metamorphoses, to understand that stories of virgin births in that era were already a stock part of culture. Many a girl who found herself pregnant before she had a right to be explained to stunned friends and family that a god had flitted out of heaven, surprised her while she was alone, and impregnated her with a god’s seed. How hard it must have been for Mary to be one of “those girls.” Yet, she chose to believe; Joseph chose to believe with her, and together they raised the child who would come to define for all time the meaning of discipleship.
Other women in Christ’s time also had to be disciples in the only way that women relegated to the side lines could, but to the extent they were allowed, they were faithful disciples. Mary and Martha lived under their brother’s protection, kept house, and did the entertaining. Christ and his male disciples came to rely on their hospitality. There they found a refuge from the crowds, home-cooked food, clean linens, and in Mary, Christ found an eager listener and a true believer in his ability to do the impossible. This same Mary also committed a socially outrageous act—one that had the potential of causing great embarrassment to a young male teacher and preacher. When one of his “real disciples” scolded her for pouring perfume on his feet and wiping them with her hair, Christ welcomed her attentions and blessed her for understanding that discipleship does not necessarily follow socially accepted norms (John 11 and 12).
By the beginning of the Christian era, well-known voices from St. Paul to Augustine were weighing in on women’s roles in Christian life, and these voices did little to make female disciples welcome in the mainstream of Christian culture. To his credit, Paul declares in his letter to the Galatians that in Christ there is perfect equality: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (3:28). He contradicts his assertions of equality when it comes to other descriptions of a woman’s place, and he doesn’t hesitate to remind women of their tie to Eve’s sin in order to keep them in their place:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be kept safe through childbirth, if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
(1 Tim. 2: 11–15)
Here a woman’s discipleship is confined to faithful silence, and always she must be reminded that she carries Eve’s sin so that she may never be a leader, may never voice her faith.
Given Paul’s take on Eve’s sin, it is no wonder that Augustine (354–430 A.D.), the most prolific and outspoken of church fathers, takes such a dim view of women’s place in Christianity. Arguing from the Garden of Eden story, Augustine also asserts that God ordains women to be subservient to men. Even in their state of bliss, Adam and Eve, were, according to Augustine, meant to live in perfect harmony, with Eve being obedient to Adam. Once sin entered through Eve, she became known as his temptress, and thus all women inhe"it the role of temptress to men and carriers of sin.1 The temptress must be watched over, held in check, kept from inflicting harm. How then is she to be a disciple? For centuries, the Christian church argued over the state of her soul, if, indeed, she could be said to have one. Women who wanted to serve Christ had to do so in the most unobtrusive and subservient manner possible.
To what extent do these early Christian views of women affect us as Christians today, especially as Seventh-day Adventist Christians? With the exception of a brief period during the formative years of the church when men and women both served in leadership roles, Adventist women have played secondary roles in the church. Until a quarter of a century ago, women could teach children’s Sabbath Schools. They could not be elders. They could be Bible workers, not ministers or evangelists. Even today, when it is common, at least in many large American Seventh-day Adventist churches to find women as elders and pastors, the church refuses to bring them into full discipleship through allowing ordination at the same level male pastors receive it: thus they are effectively barred from top leadership positions in church government.
Certainly we can argue that without access to these top leadership positions, women can be disciples of Christ—as indeed they can be. Anyone who serves Christ is his disciple, but we can only guess at the harm done to women and to the progress of the church when more than half its members cannot achieve the official insignia of discipleship at its highest level. We can point to any number of women pastors who are fully committed disciples of Christ and accomplishing great work for them. In my church at Pacific Union College, we have two women pastors who work equally with the male pastors, but until the church takes away that last hurdle these women, as with all other women pastors, must be extraordinarily confident of their calling and persevering in their discipleship.
Notes and References
1. Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent (New York: Random House, 1989), 113–14.
Marilyn Glaim chairs the English Department at Pacific Union College, in Angwin, California.
Comments
Did Matthew and Luke have an agenda for incorporating a virgin birth story to their Gospels because it was seen as a gift of the gods so common in the contemporary culture? Why did the first New Testament writers, Paul and Mark make no mention of such a miraculous conception? Did they feel it had no special significance, or weren’t they told about it?
The Epistle to Timothy is considered of doubtful authorship; one reason that it is quite contradictory to Paul’s inclusion of women in his ministry and his famous statement that there is no difference in male or female in Christ.
Long before Augustine, misogyny was almost a doctrine with the church. A religion which teaches men and women to regard their humanity as chronically flawed can alienate them from themselves. Nowhere is this alienation more evident than in the denigration of sexuality in general and women in particular. The letters of Jerome teem with loathing of the female which occasionally sounds deranged. Tertullian had castigated women as evil temptresses, an eternal danger to mankind:
“Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway; you are the unsealed of that forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law; you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You so carelessly destroyed man, God’s image,. On account of your desert, even the Son of God had to die.”
Augustine clearly puzzled that God should have made the female sex: after all, “if it was good company and conversation that Adam needed, it would have been much better arranged to have two men together as friends, not a man and a woman.”
A religion which looks askance upon half the human race and which regards every involuntary motion of mind, heart and body as a symptom of fatal concupiscence can only alienate men and women from their condition. Western Christianity never fully recovered from this neurotic misogyny, which can still be seen in the unbalanced reaction to the very notion of the ordination of women.
Karen Armstrong: “A History of God.” (New York, Random House, 1993), 124,125
Christ's closest followers included a number of women -- in fact, they paid the bills!
After Jesus was anointed by the woman at Simon's house, he "traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene)from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means" (Luke 8:1-3, NIV).
As Jesus died, "some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there" (Mark 15:40f, NIV).
"Even today, when it is common, at least in many large American Seventh-day Adventist churches to find women as elders and pastors, the church refuses to bring them into full discipleship through allowing ordination at the same level male pastors receive it: thus they are effectively barred from top leadership positions in church government."
Sounds pretty sour. What about the Black woman is a GC Vice President? Why do those from SDA Academia rarely, if ever, speak about the blessings and opportunities of being a wife and mother?
To this onlooker it appears opportunism and a grab for power too often seem to characterize the views of apparent feminists.
Sounds as though maybe i Tim 2 has someting going for it!!
Thanks for making us all aware that grabbing for power and being opportunists is a uniquely female trait.
Thank God for the opportunity women have finally achieved in nearly every other field except the priesthood--which would certainly contaminate and prevent males for ever from desiring that position.
Elaine, who confidently identifies herself and does not hide behind anonymity
I seldom make any comments on Elaine's comments; they often seem to be, in my view, either tinged with anti-Adventism or totally anti-Adventist. And not infrequently seem to exude bitterness and sarcasm.
I neglected to mention who it was who came to Jesus asking for a favored spot for her boys -- a mother!
The basic question as to why more emphasis is not placed on being a faithful wife and caring mother has not been answered. Basic feminist dogma has undoubtedly resulted in more juvenile delinquents and broken homes than a feminist would even acknowledge.
The "broken homes" referred to is, in a large part, due to an absent father which leaves a single mother to adopt the entire parental role: a most difficult one if she also must be a full-time breadwinner.
Being a wife and mother is THE most important role. However, a mother's role is usually limited to one-third of mother's lifetime and to extend that role further makes her a "smotherer."
As for wifely role: that implies that being a wife is a full-time job for an incompetent and/or dependent husband: an unflattering position for most men. Any man who is incapable of taking care of himself and needs someone to devote full time to those duties, is a fool and has a fool for a wife.
When women wield power competitively it is given names like "Queen Bee Syndrome." When men do it, it is called capitalism. And I say that with only a little bit of bitterness and sourness but absolutely no sarcasm :)
There is another name for agressive and competitive women, it rhymes with "witch."
Did "meek and mild and submissive women" open the doors of great educational and corporate business institutions? Is there not a reverse of the Freudian "p-envy" that has become "w-envy" with the larger number of women receiving college educations today?
For the lovers of patriarchal institutions, ordination has become the last bastion of male prerogerative and privilege which is threatened and must be defended at all costs.
While Marilyn mentions the women on our pastoral staff, she neglects to mention that she is the head elder and board chair of the Pacific Union College Church. We're thrilled to have her as both our partner and lay supervisor. Competence is her credential, and we recognize it.
Regarding credentialing, Northern California Conference issues Ordained/Commissioned Minister credentials. The inside joke on our staff is that all six of us belong to "The OC." I think one of our male staff members retained his Ordination status from the old days. The rest of us have, as Wayne Judd called Commissioning, "Consonants." We do tease Norma Osborn from time to time that she received a Vowel at Sligo in '95.
Enough mirth. Thanks, gifted women...peers...for your leadership and willingness to serve God despite the recognition you deserve.
Your friend? Our friend? My friend? Their friend? His or Her Friend?.......Who's friend are you?
Perhaps a better question is who are you? Why hide?
Anyway it seems you are the one who mentioned feminism, perhaps you are the one who has an issue with it.
The text quoted (1 Tim. 2: 11–15); firstly Adam was formed before Eve. Well My mother was formed before me and many women besides, so what? Secondly, she was deceived. So was Adam???? Quite apart from the fact that the story is hardly literal, what logic is this? So if I sin first, I am a worse sinner than someone who sins second? Oh, and then it gets better; women of faith will be kept safe through child birth....you don't really believe that do you?
Why look to this primitive barbaric culture as your "gold standard", we should be much more progressive than this.
Cultures where women have more power have some of the best standards of living, education and health care in the world. Some of the greatest leaders throughout history have been women.
Fortunately it is only a matter of time before the Church conforms and evolves as society moves on, it is just a shame it is a century behind the rest of society.
If you apply logic and reason, you come to the conclusion that women are equal to men and any role should be judged in a meritocratic fashion.
Once you throw out reason and logic and subordinate your intellect to a set of rules created by a long gone, primitive people, you get dogma, and no argument can change that.
I am new to this website and have just read these posts as my introduction to it. Quite the controversial site you have here.
I have long struggled with the issue of what God thinks of women. (Isn't that what the question is that we truly care about inside?) I believe I inherited the inner struggle. My mother and my two sister have left the church and Christianity altogether because of the text you mention. It is a very serious issue. I dare say many other women have left God to find a different view because they feel God sees them as second class citizens. You can say that it isn't God that sees them that way, but sinful man, and I would agree with you, but when it comes right down to it I don't truly care what other humans think. (Though they may annoy me greatly). I care what God thinks. After all, if he thinks I am worthless; I am worthless. Right?
The conclusion I have come to/been lead to understand is this: All of us are worthless dirty rags as you know. The only thing that makes us worthy is Jesus' sacrafice for us. If I keep my eyes on Him, I will know my worth for He died for men AND women. He didn't save men first then women as an after thought. He wrapped it up together. We were all unworthy and now are under Christ.
Women have it harder than men, don't we? Maybe not. I know many good Christian women and some good Christian men. It is easier to be a Christian woman because women are taught Christian principles from the beginning; put other's needs ahead of your own, be a servant, be mild and meek (like Jesus). God didn't tell us to do anything that didn't describe Jesus' character. Perhaps we women were his favorites after all? He certainly made it so our pride couldn't get in the way if we wanted to follow Him! How could we be prideful when the whole world tells us how unworthy we are? We only have Christ, not the world. Men have to choose. We don't have a choice. The world doesn't accept us, but Heaven does! For all of the women pastors and elders; persecution makes a pure heart and ministry. Praise God!
Although I have frequently felt inclined to submit a comment I seldom have done so however the general tone of this article and the obvious agenda of the author and many commentators who read the article and responded to it and to others' comments is in itself a sad commentary. Sarcasm, innuendo and outright attacks seem to indicate a personal "chip on the shoulder" attitude. An attitude often found in racism, e.g. black versus white or men versus women or republicans versus democrats, etc.
Jesus never encouraged anyone's efforts to grasp for position or prestige or power. He did teach equality by example that challenged the culture of the times, e.g. the Samaritan woman at the well and the dialog between Jesus and Martha about Mary not helping with the preparation and serving chores for guests. Also, what about the time when Jesus said to the woman seeking healing for her daughter, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." (Matt 15:26-27 and Mark 7:3-5).
Pushing one's perceived rights and personal agenda was never Jesus method and it should not be our method either... whether male or female, black or white or brown, Jew or Gentile! Instead He taught humility and even observed and than commented with a parable in Luke 14 when he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: "When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, 'Give this man your seat.' Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, 'Friend, move up to a better place.' Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." Here I believe Jesus taught that it is better to be subservient than to push for one's right whether they really had the right or not to position or prestige or power or authority (see the story about the mother of Zebedees children with her sons seeking special positions and recognition, Matt 20:19-21).
God is able to create events and circumstances for one to fulfill their place in His work and our lobbying for some special position of honor aggressively does not seem to be the way Jesus taught. Personal prayer and seeking God's will with a willingness to follow where He leads is God's way and what I see that Jesus taught!
"So God created man (more fully mankind) in his own image.In the image of God he created him ,male and female he created them." Gen. 1:27
To me, this is what God thinks of and originally intended for men and women! Equal image bearers of his likeness. Relational bearers of his likeness. No idea of one up, one down. Whatever has undermined this has been a distortion of God's original intention and loving purpose. The Bible calls it sin.
Frank
David, good for you for venturing out of lurker mode.
I wanted to comment though that Martin Luther King Jr. would probably disagree with your commentary. I think that it is a fact of life that those who are in power are often blind to the fact that they are and are often blind to the ways they work to perpetuate their ownership of that power to the detriment of others. Efforts by others to even approach the table are seen as trying to hog the best spot. I think you are exactly right that Jesus calls us to a radical vision of behaving where we are all humble and serving others. So what do we do when there is a clear imbalance of power that creates injustice and the one in power is oblivious to the damage? MLK offers us a vision of what a Christian response could look like. One can be humble and strong against injustice at the same time. Perhaps that is where "personal prayer and seeking God's will with a willingness to follow where He leads" might end up.
I do think there is a difference between trying to approach the table and trying to hog the seat of honor (and it is going to be seen very differently depending on where you are sitting). Though knowing human nature, it is all too easy to not be satisfied no matter where we are. It really is a difficult process to navigate.
I think it is interesting this article and many of the post equate the value of a disciple by the “persons” public visibility, official church rank, and social position. If we can learn anything from this lesson, both as women and men, it is this: Jesus consistently elevated the simple acts, the small choices and the regular people. His ministry was based upon destroying the system of religion that limited access to him based on gender, race and social position. Just because the misguided and misdirected through the centuries have struggled to maintain the status quo, the exaltation of position and status, the importance of rank and official church recognition doesn’t mean the simple truth of Jesus doesn’t still apply. He implores us to seek to be servants, period, no matter our gender, race or status
Amen! Scott
"I think it is interesting this article and many of the post equate the value of a disciple by the “persons” public visibility."
Public visibility: What does it mean growing up female NEVER to see one of your gender preaching, even on the platform, or offering morning prayer in church? What does it mean to hear and recite the "Our Father" with no mention of a Mother?
We self-righteously hear proclaimed of the importance of a mother's work, and yet when it is time for worship, she becomes a cipher. It really doesn't matter what one says, it's how their actions do, or do not proceed from those words.
It is well-known that role models are of extreme importance in a growing child's mind. To see only one role expected of the young girl: wife or mother, and that she would not even be considered for studying certain professions (not too many years ago this was fact), severely limits her and her idea of her self and potential. (See the position of Saudi Arabian women for extreme examples.)
For me, it is a new insight that in the time of Christ, the "virgin birth" excuse was very common. Not as mysterious and mythical ponderings of meaning and power and salvation, but as everyday awareness that maybe everyone had heard of a girl who got "knocked up" but, unable to handle the social stigma and consequences, resorted to an attempt at innocent denial; God must have "done" it.
Thus, reading the story of Mary's virgin birth as literal, which I do, Glaim has given me a NEW level on which to appreciate Mary. For in this context, Mary really would have been just another stupid girl, who was utterly gullible and likely in huge denial. But she -- and it is ONLY she who could say for SURE the baby WAS in fact "virgin born" -- stands as even MORE admirable because HER faith was in the midst of constant assumptions of gullibility.
Now, all of us of faith, have certainly been accused, at one time or another, of simply giving in to a wish fulfilling gullibility when we claim that God is real, and that we "know" Him. In the context of accusations (smirking and sneering at that) OF such obvious gullibility, Faith is a little harder. Yet Mary retained her insistence ON her story. And now I see her faith as even MORE noble; for it really would have occurred in an environment of constant ridicule and contempt.
Not to be argumentative here, but I do not see that someone who holds that Christ was NOT virgin born has any access to this insight. Because for them, Mary really really was gullible; for her story simply was not true... poor girl.
Help me with this Elaine??
It was pointed out in SS Class this morning that Lucifer's key problem that culminated in sin and open rebellion was in not being satisfied with his assigned role and position. He lobbied the hosts of heaven and convinced many that God had limited them and their liberty to choose to aspire to a better form of government, higher position, etc. Hmmm, I can't help but wonder if some of the strident positions taken by some in the posts above are of a similar nature?
Jesus did not seek to overthrow oppressive Roman control of the Jewish people, nor did he seek to free the slave from his master both which from our vantage point of view would have been positive based on our core Christian values.
It is true that society in many areas has twisted the roles assigned by God to men and women into oppressive or repressive reality. And, while we are under God's directives to treat others as we would like to be treated (Micah 6:8
"He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.") He does not commission us to see womens' role as diminished just because they don't preach a sermon or sit on the platform or offer prayer, etc. This same principle is what caused black SDA workers to insist on having their own conferences so that they could be in charge of their own constituents, etc. A move that many believe should be reversed in favor of only one organization for ALL members in a given geographic region instead of the added cost of administration duplication.
It appears to me that some of the comments indicate a deep-seated animosity toward men and men as leaders in particular. Protecting status quo in any organization or group is quite natural but true Christian women or men will not rail against the other gender or race or whatever the defining differences demanding equal standing in all aspects of an organizations' structure.
The apostle Paul used a wonderful analogy when he referred to the body of Christ, the Church, as being made up of different parts, e.g. the hand would not want to be an eye nor would the ear desire to be the mouth or the nose to perform the function of the fingers. We should reverence the differences, uphold them and recognize their individual value in contributing to the whole as God's Witnesses and Ambassadors. Just as I would not want to see only one color, or shape of tree or flower in nature's garden I believe we should nurture one another's gifts no matter what they are in true Christian humility.
So I would implore those who want to change the status quo to do so first within their own lives, prayerfully seeking the Holy Spirit's confirmation and following His leading and not seeking one's own self-promotion agenda.
Women were much more involved in Jesus ministry than the church has recognized. See my friend Greg's texts listed above.
They even traveled with Jesus which raised the eyebrows of a few church officials I am sure. Mary at Christ's tomb is often called the disciple to the disciples because she was the first to take the news of the resurrection to them.
Some have reasoned that women's roles have been minimalized over the years as a result of the Bible blending all the Mary's except the mother of Jesus into one person. We are not sure that Mary the sister of Martha, Mary Magdalene, or the woman caught in adultery are the same person. Christians over the years have tended to blend them into one person. Some have postulated that this was an designed effort to reduce the influence of women in Christianity.
It was the attitude that seeking equality was defying God that convinced me the Adventist church was not a safe place for my children. One of the tools of the abuser is to shift his wrongdoing onto his victim - "You made me angry, so I hit you." "God made me a male, so I control you." I stayed in the church because I found other believers who choose to worship an all-loving God, not a misogynistic god. If the church is concerned about growing, it will someday have to address the concerns of feminists who are also parents - of boys and girls.
Lani:
It is all too true that some of those who have been "planted" in the SDA church are simply unable to bloom there.
May I bless you -- and hope many others join me in this -- in hoping that you and your family DO find your proper place to bloom? a real place in which to experience the extravagant Love of the Father??
It's taken me a long, long time, to understand that for some, Adventism can be a savage and inhospitable place. Including some family of my very own.
David, do you believe that we would be better off if people like MLK and Ghandi had simply accepted their lot and not cried out for justice?
You quoted Micah: "And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." I think it is possible to humbly but firmly point out the need to act justly.
David,
I must agree with Carol. You say, "Jesus did not seek to overthrow oppressive overthrow of the Roman control of the Jewish people nor did he seek to free the slave from his master both from which our point of view would have been positive based on our core Christian values."
Are you implying that the core values that prompts people to address injustices like these are negative because Jesus himself did not address them in these ways in first century Palestine? Does this mean that people like William Wilberforce and 19th c. American abolitionists were wrong in seeking to use their influence and their means to dismantle slavery? (Joseph Bates, a seminal figure in Adventism, was one of these people) Does this mean that Nelson Mandela was wrong when he stood against apartheid? Does that mean that Dietrich Bonhoffer was wrong when he supported the plot to kill Hitler?
Many of these people undertook these courses of action as they moved according to their consciences, and in light of their biblical understanding that injustice must be opposed, and the oppressed must be championed in the Spirit of Christ. This is a far cry from rebelling against one's "assigned role or position." Indeed, many of the opponents of American slavery drew inspiration from the Exodus story as the biblical legitimacy for their cause. God is the God who stands with the oppressed. And Christ himself, according to Paul, is the "rock that went with them" across the desert.
Furthermore, the values that speak for equality of all people, and against hierarchal subjugation, whether based on race, social status, gender, etc., goes back to the pre-fall creational order:
"So God created man/mankind in his own image. In the image of God he created him, male and female he created them." Gen. 1:27
Male and female were created by God as co-image bearers, co-regents, and co-equals in every way. Aside from calling her a helpmate to Adam, the Bible is silent about what specific differentiations of role or responcibility might have exsisted between them at this point. It is not until after the fall that God says to the woman:
"He (your husband) shall rule over you..." Gen. 3:16
God is not pronouncing his intended design, he is now pronouncing the consequence of sin. And, it is this kind of hierarchal subjugation and its many subtle gradations, whether based on gender, ethnicity, etc., that continue to plague us to this day. And it is this that we,as Christians, must oppose and redress whether it is found in society or in the church.
I agree that this type of action must be done without railing or bomb throwing. It must be done with a spirit of seeking positive change. But, above all, it must be done.
If our organization is limiting women who are gifted by God, who sense a call from God, and who are members of his body, because of their gender, then that is an injustice being done to them, and to the whole body itself. We are all being deprived of the fruit of their potential ministry.
To say that women can function in pastoral roles but not be ordained as such is also an injustice and even hypocritical. To shift the blame on to women for speaking out against this by implying that it is rebellious, or power grabbing, or unspiritual, is like shifting the blame from the perpetrator to the victim.
What about men who speak out on this issue? Is it ok for us just because we are not the ones who are being directly impacted; because we are merely observers of this percieved inequality?
To try to limit ecclesiastical roles for women by using what the Bible says about this subject in the context of ancient Israelite and Middle-Eastern patriarchal culture, is to ignore the context in which these statements are made. It also ignores God's original creational design of equality, and to me, does violence to the deeper message of the biblical text, that God is sovereign in his giftings and callings. Roles and functions within the body should be determined on this basis alone, not on race, class or gender.
Frank
"Protecting status quo in any organization or group is quite natural but true Christian women or men will not rail against the other gender or race or whatever the defining differences demanding equal standing in all aspects of an organizations' structure."
How true. It seems that quite likely the writers by the comments seems to indicate that there is not participation by a diversity of views. Don't liberals always emphasize on diversity? Where is it?
Your (anonymous) Friend,
Do you realize how old that point is? Perhaps you might see the difference between working to diversify workplaces and schools when folks are shut out because of ignorance vs. making sure that overt racists have the opportunity to use slurs. Diversity doesn't mean not having standards.
You're welcome to make your friendly points on this site, but railing against liberals because they are not diverse enough to embrace your idea seems kind of whinny.
It's a argument from resentment, stemming from a false-minority status: that of opinion, not identity. I can introduce you to plenty of people on the streets of Berkeley with opinions that I'm not going to pay any attention to. There is a difference -- I hope you see -- between religious, gender, ethnic identity vs. a mental construction typed out.
Some people prefer lots of ideas; some folks prefer ideas supported by evidence, and filled with compassion. I'm not saying where you fit, but it seems to me that the best thing to do is not complain that no one is listening, but rather to make strong, factual cases and critiques so that people will.
Unless, of course, you're calling for comment affirmative action.
Frank,
Thank you for the perspective you shared. With some I must agree with others I must disagree. However, one point that I believe we too often overlook is our own motivation in regard to our personal agendas. This is the reason I pointed to the original problem of sin that God had to deal with in Heaven with Lucifer. I believe that God also gave the prescription for men and women in dealing with the sin problem after our parents had sinned and separated themselves from Him. This remedy will be needed as long as there is sin.
Yes, Jesus did treat all equally but He also had strong words of condemnation against those who held an exclusive right to leadership by virtue of office view and actions, etc.
Carol mentioned MLK and Ghandi for their roles in bringing society's attention to specific injustices. I have heard that Ghandi said he would become a Christian if he could find one that practiced what he preached. Shame on us for not being able to give him a contemporary example. As to MLK, it is his tragic assassination that has obliterated his personal life of philandering which was certainly not lived according to Christian principles. However, I would uphold Mother Teresa as an excellent example of Christian caring and action as guided by the Holy Spirit in her role and work. To my knowledge she made no effort to try to fill the role of priest or other church hierarchy. She was content to fill the role assigned her vigorously for her entire life. Oh that more of us could have this said about our lives!
In general I agree with your last sentence but must point out that God's remedy for family and church unity will not be changed until sin is removed and this will only happen after we are saved and taken from this world which has so maligned God's character. We will than each stand before God with the merits of Jesus covering our deficiencies as well as actions, whether right or wrong. Thank God for our Savior, Jesus Christ!
". As to MLK, it is his tragic assassination that has obliterated his personal life of philandering which was certainly not lived according to Christian principles."
And Abraham, David, and all the other Hebrew heroes were paragons of virtue? Come on, where have you ever found a human who is devoid of "sin" in his personal life? Reread Hebrews 11 and report how virtuous the icons were.
Seldom does one's personal life live up to his high principles in other areas. For this you would villify him? Mother Teresa, we now know, was plagued with the darkest guilt for nearly her entire life. Are you suggesting that as the ideal for women: celibacy, poverty and ?
To say that there will be no changes between men and women until sin is removed it to admit of an impossibility to attempt to alleviate such problems (although it is done every day--the introduction of anesthesia for women in childbirth was fought on the biblical grounds of man's attempts to eliminate the curse of pain) until we reach the Pearly Gates. With such empty promises, it's like throwing a bone to a dog--be content now, it's all going to be made right in heaven. Promises, promises. How can we be sure that heaven is truly where we wish to go if the same humans will inhabit it---with instant change of heart?
David articulates the view that possibly frustrates me the most of all. He says:
"In general I agree with your last sentence but must point out that God's remedy for family and church unity will not be changed until sin is removed and this will only happen after we are saved and taken from this world which has so maligned God's character."
This has been the cop-out cry for centuries--the world won't be perfect until Jesus returns, so let's just be happy as is and await our reward in heaven. I understand the longing for a perfect world without sorrow or tears. I understand the desire to stand before God. But it's a paltry excuse to use that longing as a way out of working for justice in the here and now. Jesus talks much about God's kingdom being within us and among us.
Paul thought that he would still be alive when Jesus returned and that time was short on earth--that's why he urged slaves to just wait and be content with their lot, even though before God there is no difference between slave and free, male or female. (This is the same course the anonymous "Your Friend" and Frank are arguing here for women.) We now know that Paul was mistaken about the soon return, and Christians (generally) eventually realized that slavery was morally wrong and must be stopped.
It saddens me when Christians use the excuse of waiting until God's kingdom as a reason for inaction and being content with an unjust status quo.
Daneen,
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I'm not arguing that women should just stay the course in light of Jesus' soon return. I believe that the injustice should be redressed in the here and now, not just the sweet by and by...
Frank
Well now: I’m seeing a perplexing dynamic emerge here. Wondering how I might resolve it…
It seems clear enough I think that before the fall, God’s original intent was equality for men and women. That what we observe after the fall, with regards to women being relegated to some kind of subservient and “lower” status, is a result of sin and is a departure from God’s ideal. Further, many of us insist (including me) that it is quite possible to build a case -- from scripture -- that as Christians, redeemed and “in Christ,” this new identity is to be lived and acted upon in the here and now.
And yet when I argued the very same thing in the homosexual debate thread, that gay sex is a departure from God’s originally ordained order, that as Christians, we are called to emulate as much as possible that ideal to which we were created and NOT simply embrace the default post-fall ethos, many of your same voices protested loudly. This seems very inconsistent to me. If God calls us back to emulate His pre-fall created order as best we can, and this prompts us to abandon seeing women as “less equal,” why does this ethic not also apply to gay sex (as opposed to the gay orientation) which, many, if not most of you have agreed IS a departure from God’s created order!
What’s going on here??
Bob, let me see if I can clarify and support my position, as I suspect I'm at least one of the targets of your comment!
First, it would seem there's at least grounds for hope that some men could eventually be educated to overcome their patriarchal and condescending attitudes towards women - would you agree? So we can at least hope for some progress toward the Edenic ideal.
However, although there's still argument otherwise, I think most people are ready to agree that it's at least highly unlikely that homosexuals are able to change their sexual orientation. So it seems to me there's not a straight-across comparison here. (although with your skills in logic, you'll probably refute me - smile)
So let's get down to brass tacks. The big question is, how shall homosexuals then live? There are usually two answers from Christians who cannot accept the goodness of a homosexual relationship: celibacy or heterosexual marriage.
I'm going to be so bold as to suggest that most of us on this forum would reject the idea of heterosexual marriage, and I'll concentrate on the answer of celibacy. Do you honestly believe that God expects as much as 10% of the world's population to live in denial of the God-given gift of sexuality? (I know that some will dispute that figure; however, it has been verified as an average in a GC Family Life survey taken around the world outside of NAD).
Haven't we, as Adventists, always considered the celibate Catholic priesthood to be an unnatural way of life? We have seen considerable evidence that, even in a supportive religious community and with a "vocation" or "calling," neither heterosexual nor homosexual priests have uniformly been able to sustain celibacy.
Ideally, marriage (or committed relationships) are NOT just for the purpose of having sex legally. I believe that marriage also helps us better understand the relationship of the Trinity and of God's love for us. And it is a school in which the sharp corners of our natural human selfishness can be smoothed away as we learn to put another's good above our own. Isn't this something that gays and lesbians also need?
As I hope I have shown in the Bible studies on my website, the few biblical references to same-sex behavior are made in the context of a particular kind of same-sex behavior and should not be used to condemn ALL same-sex behavior, such as in the context of loving, monogamous, committed relationships.
Just another note on how many homosexuals there really are. I used to say that there are no more today than there used to be - they are just more out in the open. However, the more I have studied about this, the more I am beginning to realize that very likely there are more homosexuals today. It is largely accepted today that fluctuations in the fetal hormonal wash are responsible for most babies born homosexual. And with the number of hormone-mimicking chemicals our bodies are awash with (see the latest Newsweek about the chemicals found in the fetal cord blood of newborns), it is very likely that some of these pre-natal hormone fluctuations are caused by pollution.
Bob, what is going on is the assumption, even presumption that anyone has the ability to discern exactly what is God's original design. What and how does one imagine exactly how humans were intended to live originally? The Hebrew scripture is extremely sparse in giving anything other than the much later writers' limited account of how THEY perceived things should be. How could they imagine anything other than the way in which they currently had adopted? Considering the patriarchal system that was the only way the sexes could, or even should live together, what else could be expected?
However, to formulate a design and suggest that it was deliberately created by God from what man deduced several thousand years later (if one accepts the earth's age at no more than 6,000 years), it is most unrealistic to surmise that the system was of God's explicit wishes.
Would you be willing to give your reasons for why the very limited record in the first three chapters of Genesis outlines the system in which humans should live until the New Earth is restored? And why is it superior to what an alternate interpretation might render? Do you, or anyone here, accept and believe that the Bible is the last and final authority on the ideal system which should guide and rule the sexes today?
Frank, my sincere apologies for misreading you. I'm afraid I'd heard that argument before and must have read your comments too quickly. Thanks for clarifying.
Bob, I appreciate your urge to resolve things, but I actually don't see a dispute here at all. I'm not sure I can discern God's original plan, and I don't know that we have to "go back" to anything (Genesis leaves us with more complications that just homosexuality...such as, who did Cain and Abel marry?). The Bible gives us principles for moving forward, a trajectory of values. There are many issues that the Bible doesn't address (and the whole "pre-Fall" utopian ideal can't really take into account) such as biomedical ethics in the age of stem cells and cloning or even abortion). The question is really, how do we apply God's example of love when we tackle these issues.
In many ways your redirect on this question actually isn't a comparison of apples to apples. I don't hear anyone saying that women are born inferior to men (well, in a few, isolated corners...), but most do now recognize that sexual orientation is something we are born with. Both women and homosexuals often are cast as Other, something to fear, and traditional power structures, especially religious institutions, often have to be shaken up from both the inside and out to embrace those that it fears.
Even the 12 argued about who was the greatest even among them: fishermen, tax collector, cheat, --Today most they could expect would be a term as deacon.
So what does gender have to do with being a "follower/learner of Jesus Christ?
Over 90% of the teachers K-12 are women. So why not Apostles?
It not the Commission to go and teach?
Paul wrote letters to specific churches about unique situations. One cannot generalize them all anymore than one can take the Testimonies and cut and paste a "To Do" book, like so many "compilations" are.
Women have, are, and will continue to be followers of Jesus Christ to the same extent and to the same end as men. The issue is not discipleship--but leadership. For some unknown reason women have been excluded or at least seriously limited in leadership within the church. Women are not inferior in devotion, intellect, logic, speach, emphathy, decision-making to men. Let each man/woman prove themselves in the trenches. Then gender blind choose the most capable for each leadership position in the Church. Imagine a woman as President of a Medical Complex the size of LLU. Certainly, a woman could pastor a church the size of the Augusta Seventh-day Adventist Church. They say, a woman pastor would drive members away.
Maybe so--but if so, one can be sure they weren't Christians in the first place. Tom
Daneen someone was making the argument you were responding to - it was just David and not Frank. You responded to David but Frank misunderstood and thought you were responding to him. Just to clarify :) BTW, Frank I thought your post was dead on. Let all the people say, "Amen."
And Bob, I'm sitting your question out because I'm one of those who doesn't believe there was a literal state of perfection and one original couple. Thus I really wouldn't use the story for arguing gender equality or homosexual rights.
A couple of things to strike me though. First given the extremely patriarchal society, the fact that there even is some gender equality suggested in the story is amazing. The writers didn't have to point out that females were also created in God's image but they did. And they didn't have to suggest that dominion was a result of the fall, meaning it wasn't there before, but they did. Given the rest of the early OT's take on women, that is really astounding. Divinely inspired I believe.
Finally I would point out that Genesis is a story about how humans got here and why the world suffers. If you are telling a narrative about how humans began and you are starting with a single couple, wouldn't they really have to be heterosexual? I mean it would be tough on the story if you had two women instead and you were explaining the fruitful and multiplying part. Heterosexuality is vital to the plot of the story and personally I wouldn't take it as more than that. In this case I think we'd be talking past each other Bob, because we put a very different emphasis on the importance of the story.
Thanks, Beth, for underscoring the narrative form of Gen 1. It's a story of origins and the plot is just as you described it. I agree.
To Daneen, who wrote: "I don't hear anyone saying that women are born inferior to men (well, in a few, isolated corners...), but most do now recognize that sexual orientation is something we are born with."
In my "isolated corner" of the world, that was once a US-colony, we've already had two women heads of state in one country, including the current commander-in-chief. Before me, during my time up till now, women have always sat and taught in the same classrooms together with men. Briefly, I don't know of any vocation, or position of leadership in all branches of government and non-government agencies, that have not been open to women in my country except the Catholic priesthood. Needless to say, nuns are CEOs of church-run institutions they have established on their own. I went to school with female classmates in theology and together we all went out and became sole pastors in districts alongside each other. There's one difference, however: the hand of ordination has never been laid on them as Adventist pastors. How sad! May it be that it's actually the white male Adventist leadership in North America who are preventing the women pastors in my part of the world from the receiving the recognition they deserve?
Lastly, about sexual orientation. I suggest we reframe that in terms of sexualities. Again, in my part of the world, there has been a general acknowledgement, and acceptance, of the variety of sexual expressions and legitimate kinds of partnership in a surrogate family.
Thank you Joselito for the interesting insight that it is white male leadership in North American that is holding up women's ordination. We here in the USA have been told that it is the rest of the world that is not ready. The issue of ordination of women will never be resolved until we as a church deal with the topic of inspiration and Biblical authority. Until then we will have to muddle along.
As has been mentioned, Genesis is not history nor science. It is a story that tells us about God and how he interacts with his creation. While the initial account does involve a heterosexual couple, early on God makes an important observation about humankind in general. He did not say, it is not good for males be alone or for females be alone, but that it is not good that human beings be alone. Humans need companionship.
Even those who hold to verbal inspiration must acknowledge this.
Why only speak of women when you speak of gender and discipleship? Most Christians have no idea how hard it is for gay Christian males to relate to their saviour who is always depicted as half naked on that cross. I don't mean to sound disrespectful. I mention it because I have been inconvenienced by Christ's gender all my adult life. How blessed it would be to relate to a female saviour, devoid of the familiar and forbidden male form.
Well Elaine and Daneen and Carrol and Beth…
I hope you can appreciate how potentially bewildering for me all your answers are. It seems none of you is at a loss imagining some future utopian vision; what new life with God might be like; what life on earth could be like if we all decided to live the golden rule; how society might order itself to be kinder and gentler; the vast potential possible when many many hearts and minds are transformed into souls who see and live and choose the reign of God.
So the bewilderment is born when you all grow abruptly mute at the idea of imagining what God’s original created order might be when it comes to gay sex. As if we have zero access into conceptualizing what God’s original intent really was when He created our species. So to me, it seems just a wee bit disingenuous for you to suddenly become mute. I mean if one honestly believes that God invented sex to be enjoyed with whomever you feel attracted to, why not just say that?? But no; a retreat into an inability to imagine God’s created order.
That one so willingly excludes him(her)self from legitimately imagining the intent of God when He created us just because scripture is almost entirely post fall, makes me wonder how they have the nerve to have such vivid imaginings of what God’s FUTURE intent for us might be since we are still in the post fall, pre glorification state. Of course I can only imagine the full splendor of what might have been had sin never happened. But just because there are aspects of reality which I cannot explain prefall (eg early on it does seem like brother would have to marry sisters) need not mean it not a useful tool to inspire imagination does it??
But of course this brings up another aspect; the real consequences of having “creation” happen via eons of teeny tiny incremental change based on accumulated good/helpful random mutations. There really is no place for a “fall” in that worldview, no real way that creation via the “red-in-tooth-and-claw” model can been seen as “good,” so nothing from which to “fall.” I hope you see the problem for me. If this is true, it seems the logical explanation is that certain men simply have not evolved enough to realize that women are equals. Lets wait another few eons and maybe men and bigots (what we who see gay sex as not of God’s created order are called in some circles) and so on will have had the time to evolve some more…
So a thread that speaks to gender and discipleship, moves to homosexuality, now leaks over into the creation/evolution issue… Interesting...
And really, I not trying to argue so much as to jump inside your worldviews and see how it might work out... So far, I'm not able to make it work...
And by the way, nice to see my friend Donna H has figured out how to post her thoughts here. I've been begging her to join us. Welcome Donna (I just appointed myself a one person welcoming committee for you!)
Wait a minute, Bob! I wasn't one of those who posited that Genesis 1 is not literal (although I have a lot of unanswered questions on that subject). But my post was made with the presupposition that homosexuality is the result of the Fall. I differentiated male subjugation of women, which here in America at least, appears to be amenable to education, from sexual orientation, which this side of heaven does not appear to be changeable.
I am a bit confused about why we are held captive to the "worldwide church" on the issue of ordination of women. The church brought other unpopular ideas to much of the world when missionaries started converting and baptizing in places outside western cultures. Some are diametrically opposed to local customs and historical social norms. Why is it now that the world church can't bring this unpopular idea to the world. Because it might cause dis-harmony? If it is the right thing to do, if it is consistant with the church's values, then it should lead from the top down and convince those who are opposed.
Unless, the problem is not really those "backward*" people scattered about the world but actually the leadership itself.
mmmmm, makes you think, doesn't it?
* the term backward here is not consistant with my understanding of people in the developing world, but what I consider the attitude of the church's rhetoric on this issue.
Joselito--I meant "isolated corners" in a philosophical/theological sense and not geographically--what is isolated or central depends on where one is sitting, anyway. But thanks for pointing out that we North Americans like to think ourselves leaders but are often rather uninformed about how behind we might be. For example, many countries have had female presidents already, but we're only just on the cusp of that possibility here.
Bob--I often sense that you are trying to "wrap up" a conversation and make sense of it. Possibly that would be easier without names, as I know in the past you've often conflated my remarks with others as well (I don't always mind since usually they've managed to articulate nuances I hadn't even approached yet!). The nuances are complex and complicated, especially when talking about an origin narrative recorded for one purpose and so often used for others. Just because I find the nuances of this narrative complicated though does not mean that I don't take scripture seriously.
Bob, to correct any misperceptions, I do not:
believe in a literal reading of the Creation story in Genesis, nor most of the Torah. To read it literally is to pervert the intent of the writers, IMO, as that was not their purpose at all, nor were any of the writers present at this momentous occasion. Their imagination of how it occurred is similar to ours: woven out of whole cloth.
Neither do I believe in a literal heaven as depicted in the New Testament. One is hard-pressed to gain any specific information from the Hebrew Scriptures as before the Babylonian Exile, there was not such a belief among them.
Both the Creation and Heaven are fantastic (as in fantasy) descriptions, depending on the individual and his desire and longing. It seems to be a universal longing to both look back on a "Golden, Edenic Age" as well as looking forward to streets of gold and everylasting life with all worries, troubles and heartaches gone.
There is much to recommend that idea that death gave birth to religion as an explanation and attempt to understand what happens and where does the person go. Nearly all religions have a definite doctrine about death not being permanent.
I'm not sure that Heaven would be such a blissfull place at all; with nothing to strive for, and nothing to improve or overcome, where everyone will be of one accord. I like Mark Twain's observation: "I'll choose heaven for the climate, but hell for good conversation."
Elaine,
So Jesus' literal view of heaven and of Eden and Mosaic authorship, etc. is simply fantasy also? Sometimes I read these types of musings and start to feel that what he said applies here:
"You know neither the scriptures nor the power of God."
I do not mean this as an insult. It just seems that this is written from a skeptical rather than believing point of view.
Frank
Frank, there are believers and skeptics and we all approach Scripture with previous biases; or we develop those biases through our study and investigation as we lose the unquestioning attitude of a child.
There are those who believe that all that is written about heaven and Eden is the literal, absolute truth. No matter that no humans who were at either place wrote about either. If Moses did write the Torah (an impossibility--to write about one's death), his only information had been orally told and retold for more than two millennia, and its validity cannot be demonstrated. Ditto for heaven. No specific descriptions other than "streets of gold and gates of pearl and walls of precious stones" are surely not taken literally, I hope.
Do you refuse the many uses of metaphor and hyperbole and believe, because of internal verification, that the Bible is inspired (Bible writers said it was inspired, ergo, it is).
Believers come in all catgegories: those who believe 100% literally everything that is written; others differentiate between theological writings; wisdom and prophetic writings and there are other genres represented in the Bible. It is not one book, but an anthology with many writers, and the writers often had contradictory views, making internal consistency virtually impossible.
Of interest is that it is Christians who wish to claim the Bible as literally true in historic detail, while the Hebrew scholars and Rabbis never did so, preferring to read for the great themes and promises to them.
Elaine
At least the Christ event is a historical fact. Of course the four Gospel Writers wrote for a specific audience and at different times. Even Paul wrote in context of the situation in each of his city churches.
I am comfortable to wait and see. If I fall asleep and never wake--I really needed the rest. But I would rather fall asleep believing the Gospel Story than to fall asleep full of
doubts and fears.
I don't know how to die. I can only practice living--To do justly, to love mercy, and to walk teachable with my Lord.
If the Lord asks, I would like a room with a view next to Betty's. Tom
Bob, you seem to be saying that because one rejects the Genesis narrative as lieteral, then one cannot envision God's intent for his creation. If so, then that seems to be a pretty big leap. My imagination hasn't failed me and I am not mute on what I think God wants for our lives. I do have a problem using the Edenic model and so I am mute on that particular model. If we didn't get here like that then how is the story helpful in letting me understand what God's intentions were? God didn't create us like that IMO. That doesn't mean that there is no other source of information for what God wants from his creation.
I don't see how sex and reproduction play any role in a perfect kingdom. Reproduction is needed because of death. Jesus also suggests that heaven will not have marriage (much to the dismay of teenagers everywhere). Marriage involves exclusive bonds based, in part, on sexual love and since we won't be reproducing, we will be freer to love everyone. I see a perfect kingdom as asexual. We have sex because we die (which almost makes up for it). So do you see why I also find trying to understand sexuality in the Eden story a lost cause? Not only do I not think there was a "pre-fall" state, if there was, it wouldn't have sexuality gay or straight or other.
I don't want to belabor the point but when you take the Genesis narrative literally, you really do have a different perspective. I've always been the first to say that accepting the evidence of evolution complicates things. But that doesn't make it impossible, or even difficult to imagine what God wants for the human race. And of course, saying the Genesis narrative isn't literal is not the same thing as accepting evolution. Evolution must stand on its own evidence, not as a default position for rejecting young earth, 7 day creation.
And just a little clarification regarding evolution. I think you were being a little tongue in cheek about men "evolving" into more gender equal views but it reflects a common misunderstanding so I'll answer it seriously. Evolution, as a scientific theory, does not imply a growth towards something better or even more complex. That reflects a more common usage of the term but biological evolutionists do not use it like that. Kind of like the term theory is used in one way in the common everyday language and something much more rigorous in scientific language.
Isn't it Cliff Goldstein's position that unless one believes in the Genesis story as told in the first chapter of the Bible, that individual has no reason to be an Adventist (or even maybe a Christian?).
Thankfully, the church and its leaders have not yet started winnowing out its members by such a test (they would have far fewer now if they did).
Tom, at our age we are closer to death. But it holds no fear over me, nor am I worried or concerned one whit about the future. If this life is all there is, it will have been well worth it all. However, for those so much less fortunate, there is a huge appeal to a "land beyond the river" and all the abundance that has been portrayed. A much better life in the future holds so much more for those who have realized little of it here. Could that be one of the reasons that third world converts are burgeoning while first world countries (especially western Europe) are declining in church membership and/or attendance?
Elaine,
One goes to church to be feed. Today it is either straw or stubble or straw and stubble after it has passed through a horse.
To kill the taste, the music is loud, with a hellish beat and a gyrational performer.
What ever happened to a quiet conversation in a happpy frame of mind?
Tom
Ah, Tom, we're giving away our age!
I certainly must agree with you on the music. The louder equals "better" it seems. Often the drums outweigh any melody (in case there is one).
To offset the music, the young people who perform are at least involved with the church program; and fotunately, we have a pastor who nearly always gives us something we can all take home, and not some tirade against "sin" and its horrible consequences.
The SS class I attend is nearly always very lively and provocative with many and varied viewpoints; something that cannot be said from the many previous years of the quarterly lessons.
However, like you, I could not honestly be an official member of the SDA church as long as it stands for so many doctrines which I do not support.
OK OK
It seems I have failed in talking to all four of you (Elaine and Daneen and Carrol and Beth) as if you all spoke with one voice. And in the process managed to irritate you all. I can certainly see each one of you has your own unique nuance to the topic. Will try to do better next time. Nothing dismissive intended. But I did hope that to the extent what I was saying applied to your nuance, you might see what I meant… Will be more specific next time.
Carroll:
Yes, of course your stance accepts more of a traditional view of Genesis and the fall. However, since I have said over and over (back over the months) that I am not talking about orientation itself, but change over the expression of ones sexual impulses, yet you continue to argue against something I have not asserted, I just skip over answering that yet again. For me, perhaps your position is most troubling. For you seem to be saying sure; god never intended gay sex, but since it’s here, and since it seems to “work” lets just live and let live and go along with it. Just make sure there’s plenty of love and it’s all OK…
Can’t go there as I’ve said before. Which does not mean at all to demean love. If one sees something as God’s intent, and decides it’s OK not to try to return to that intent, one can only wonder what other evidences of the fall are also not meant to be wrestled with and simply given in to...
Daneen:
Not really trying to “wrap up” the conversation; rather, continue it. It all conversations were wrapped up, what would we then talk about! You also in the previous post spoke of my urge to resolve things. That’s kind of amazing isn’t it? My urge is to understand you and others point of view so that if and when I agree or, if I reject your idea, I know what it is I am agreeing with or rejecting. Besides; I love the tension between questions and varied answers. How would you describe the tension that produces growth? Aren’t the ones who see everything clearly the very ones who never change their minds about anything and stay stuck where they were years ago??
But Daneen; you too seem unwilling to come right out and admit that God probably didn’t intend for men to be having sex with each other. Why? Just because there’s no mention of stem cells or cloning in Genesis?
Further, it strikes me as curious that you are bothered to have your opinions conflated with those of others, yet when talking to me above you said
“Both women and homosexuals often are cast as Other, something to fear, and traditional power structures, especially religious institutions, often have to be shaken up from both the inside and out to embrace those that it fears.”
So, maybe we all tend to do this to each other a bit huh?
Will try to do better in the future OK?
Elaine:
Seems I’m forever doomed to knowing exactly what our common ground actually is. To this day I can’t even say for sure where “God” fits in your worldview. So I’d guess that my paradigm of a “created order” makes less sense to you than probably just about anyone on this site. Yours is a paradigm that is interesting to “bounce” my own thoughts off of, but in the end, they mostly don’t “stick”. Which is neither right/wrong, just interesting.
I would like to ask you if you are able to say with confidence that, whatever paradigm ends up being “correct,” there is no way God cares about gay sex?
And, does the notion of a “fall” have any place in your thinking?
Even though I find it hard to get “inside” your worldview Elaine, it does seem that you have no explanation for this mystery called “life” -- but should. Simply, and you don’t have to explain how, God. Then it might follow that being “with” this God -- mystical and mysterious as He is -- IS life. (Maybe you really do believe something like this??)
And Beth:
You bring up a lot of interesting points and questions…
See general comments as follows…
General thoughts:
to be applied to your individual paradigms as appropriate (is that an OK way not to place you in the “wrong group”??)
I find it both interesting, and revealing, that when I talk about God’s created order you all just assume I must be some sort of literalist who has an “Edenic model.” Which need not be the case at all. It does make me wonder just how much you are hiding in the vagueness of a non-literal reading of Genesis though. Or to ask it more directly, what is it you DO take from Genesis that might apply to this conversation?
For this conversation I think it’s possible to read Genesis as telling several important things about reality that actually don’t need literal interpretations to arrive at. First, that we are created by God; that somehow we didn’t just happen but that we have a cause. This of course forms the foundational basis for our worth; we all have the same origins so are in important ways “equal” before God, and this also forms the basis on which to form a respect for the dignity OF that other -- who was also created. (But you surely realize that many who espouse evolution can’t accept even this.) And it surprises me no end the number of Christians who say they accept evolution, and accept that God is the creator, but then do not allow themselves the right to ask simply, HOW?
So the second thing that’s important about Genesis for me involves the “how.” And by this I don’t necessarily mean 7 literal days by voice command. Elaine certainly is very well read on just how many versions of creation stories the ancients had. But of all those stories, the Genesis story stands out for one huge reason. Creation in Genesis has us birthed in and of non-violence. In stark contrast all the other creation stories of the day which had humans emerging from the violent interactions of the gods. The stories are fantastic and full of sex and orgies and chaos and deception and all manner of dismembered and exploding bodies and on and on. And all steeped in violence. Power structures, hierarchies, and violence.
The Hebrew story then (it seems to me) would quickly be seen as very different. Here, humans emerged from a peaceful and orderly process directed by One single God. Ordered, peaceful, and non-violent. Thus we were not created by or for violence. All was to continue in order and peace and mutual support. So the Genesis story “works” well at this level (it seems to me) and doesn’t really need a real Adam and Eve to make it “Edenic.”
But something went wrong; this original state of cooperation and mutual respect ended. And the result was a plunge into violence, chaos, and disorder. Power and domination became supreme. And force was used to keep order. And all this is called, in the Christian story, the “fall” I’m not sure if many non-literal readers of Genesis speak well at all to this very real dynamic. It’s just not talked about much -- though certainly has a long long history in Christian thought. And if one has no place for a “fall” he likewise needs no state from which to fall. Current liberal non-literal explanations of these traditional Christian realities (start from God, all was originally “good”, humans have “fallen” from this state and will eventually return -- ie redemption/salvation) seem incredibly weak to me in covering these things. But I’m sure you all will enlighten me on them!!
So back to my original points, a return to created order is not only accessible to our minds, but is desirable. The point of Romans 1 (as I read it) is that there are symptoms which reflect our fallen state; and one symptom listed is gay sex. The list is of course not exhaustive; for another symptom would be treating women as of inferior status.
(Sorry if I let what seemed like a curious point grow so…)
Debating four women... Has marriage taught you nothing Bob!
:~)
Bob, shall I go first?
You said: "But something went wrong; this original state of cooperation and mutual respect ended. And the result was a plunge into violence, chaos, and disorder."
The phrase "Fall of Man" is not to be found in the Genesis story, nor is there any mention of sinless existence in Eden, nor is the serpent identified in the story as the devil (he is just a talking snake). All these familiar elements are actually the creation of ancient interpreters and became a profound lesson about human sinfulness and the reason for our death. Rather, the story of Adam and Eve appears to be a kind of speculative reconstruction, trying to consider how certain basic changes might have come about--specifically, how humans came to be farmers, learned the secret of childbirth and make clothes for themselves.
The idea of the Fall is not really there in the biblical text itself, only as the text was interpreted in ancient times. It was Paul who interpreted these early stories in a wholly novel way. Adam now prefigured Christ, but where Adam brought sin into the world, Jesus had put humanity into a correct relationship with God. This was a radically new concept; something that had never been a part of the Hebrew understanding. IOW, the Christian writers REINTERPRETED the Hebrew Scriptures to their own use and the entire Israelite history had been redefined. Now, the Torah, temple and entire Jewish religion pointed to a future reality. It was Paul, and the author of Hebrews who showed future generations how to "interpret" the Hebrew Bible and make it their own.
It was Augustine who developed the doctrine of original sin, transmitted to Adam's descendants through the sexual act. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE THIRD CHAPTER OF GENESIS IN UNIQUE TO WESTERN CHRISTIANITY; NEITHER THE JEWS NOR THE GREEK ORTHODOX, who, incidentally did not experience the fall of Rome as did Augustine, adopted the doctrine that Adam's sin had sentenced the human race to eternal damnation.
Because Eden plays such an important part in one's idea of "how things were intended to be originally," shouldn't we question how it all came to be? Nearly all cultures have evolved a myth of a "golden age" at the dawn of time when men and women lived in close intimacy with the gods and there was no sickness, death, and discord. Much of the perennial religious quest has been an attempt to recover this lost wholeness and integration. Sometimes, called to
"return to the womb."
To assume that Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden was because they sought immortality is ignore the real quest: they aspired to divine wisdom. God had put the desire for knowledge in their hearts, and yet in searching for it, God's disfavor was the result. Since humans were programmed to be like God, why is it not surprising that they were open to the serpent's suggestion to gain knowledge? In seeking wisdom, they became conscious of their capacity for good as well as for evil. Because these human capacities were God-given, the so-called "fall" may have been inevitable. Men and women want to live creatively, intensively, and successfully in the world. They long to fulfill the potential of their nature; but in order to live a blessed and effective life, human beings need wisdom and insight. And, in order to accomplish their life's purpose, men and women must be like their God. They are compelled to seek out and find the wisdom that will make them strong, happy, and effective.
However, in the Jewish tradition it has laid no particular blame for either Adam or Eve for the4 human plight. It has been Christians who have made so much of a "fall" with the subsequent rescue made available in the "new Adam."
I take the whole of Genesis literally and I invite everyone else to do the same.
Whether we agree or disagree with it, we take any text "literally" when we read it as its author(s) intended. This is how I think we ought to read Genesis.
I don't think the author(s) of Genesis thought of themselves as writing a modern or postmodern textbook on cosmology. As Bob says, they were providing positve alterntives to the other etiological sagas of their time and place.
When Adam says of Eve, "This, now, is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh," the text is not giving us a contemporary scientific summary of female human anatomy and physiology.
It it is telling us that in the life of the people of Israel men and women were to be viewed as IDENTICAL IN BEING and EQUAL IN VALUE. Sadly, this never took place.
Let's read Genesis more literally, not less!
Thank you!
Dave
David
We should also remind ourselves that Christ's references to the Old Testment were not so much to valid the literalcy of the Old Testment as to give His hearer a context in which to understand Him. Tom
Ah, but Pat:
These particular four women are my friends...
I place myself in the position to learn something from them.
In that context, very different...
don't you think??
:-)
Ah, but Bob:
It is difficult enough with one woman who is your friend...with four it is impossible to even know who you are!
:~)
Elaine:
It’s really hard for me to talk to you about scripture and such when you explicitly reject very common typical readings/understandings shared by almost all Christians.
In short, I simply have NO place to put what you have just said...
For you it seems EVERY story is a myth;
EVERY word of scripture or idea of the early “fathers” is a “reinterpretation”;
Nothing is to be trusted;
ALL is to be interpreted through the lens of “death fear”:
No evidence of transcendence is valid….
But I STILL have little to NO clue what it is you seem to think you are bringing to the table!!!
How is it that one can build an entire theology around dismissing current theology! At SOME point Elaine, don’t you finally have to offer something of your OWN?? Will you forever be satisfied to be seen only in terms of what you DON’T believe??
Elaine: I got bundles of questions of my own…
Are you at ANY point disposed to at least attempting some answers??? Even if they may be “wrong”???
Will you, CAN you now, give ME something on which to build what it is you believe YOU have???
Pat, could you explain what you mean by this comment?
It is difficult enough with one woman who is your friend...with four it is impossible to even know who you are!
Alex,
You haven't been married have you!! Women are obviously superior at creating confusion...how do you explain and counter a feeling?!
:~)
Bob, my comments ARE my personal opions, currently, and always subject to newer information. Isn't that the way it should be? When we begin our education and are willing to learn, shouldn't we be open to the introduction of new ideas? And when they make more sense that what we have previously been taught, it seems most obvious that only then can learning take place.
To say that I reject very common typical readings/understandings shared by almost all Christians is absolutely true. It is of no matter to me what others believe if I cannot accept them. What else do we have to form our opinions? For many years, I wondered about much of the Bible, but with all the "busyness" of family life, work, and studies, it was only with the additional time offered by retirement that I began pursuing, seriously, the study of history, religion, and similar subjects.
The more I read and studied what biblical and historical scholars had written, I could no longer ignore the evidence that I confronted. To wit: The Bible is a compilation of many writers (most anonymous, as well as the dates) and they were limited, just as we are, by their perspectives. One thing that always impressed me was that we tend to judge and evaluate the Bible the same way we approach the study of more contemporary history today. Every scholar freely accepts that the ancient writers (Bible and others of the same period) were not writing for accurate history but to give reasons for their origin and place in the world at that time.
We cannot even begin to imagine their world unless we study other writings and the respective cultures that lived then. They believed in unseen forces that caused events and gods and godesses that were powerful in controlling human lives. Even reading the Hebrew Bible, it is very evident that throughout most of their existence they worshiped other gods, and that was clearly recognized in the first of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt have no OTHER gods before me." They were never totally monotheistic until after the Babylonian Exile, which they attributed to their laxity in obeying the law. In addition, there are several writers reporting on the same event, and they are very contradictory. Which one is to be believed? Or, neither?
Yes, there is little to show that many of the stories are NOT myths. Often these stories came from other cultures: Sargon was saved in a red basket on the river, predating Moses; There is absolutely no historical evidence, in spite of Egyptologists' years of study, that there was ever plagues as reported in Egypt; that an order was given to kill all the first born (duplicated by the Gospel writers to correlate Moses with Jesus); that there was EVER 600,000 plus Israelites that lived in the Sinai desert for 40 years and left absolutely no evidence, and the impossibility of a population equivalent to a large city to survive in that area. There are many, many more that are myths. Myth, meaning a "traditional story originating in a preliterate society, dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serve as primordial types in a primitive view of the world."
As to traditional Christian theology, it is a confusing mix of beliefs that have evolved since the first century, based on tradition as much or more than Scripture. Religion is based on man's needs and desires; God never left us with a religion--it is manmade.
What should bother others, it seems, is the ease and acceptance of stories written thousands of years ago, and if any of them were reported as happening somewhere else in our world, would be roundly rejected as impossible. Must we abandon our reason when picking up the Bible and leave all our reasoning behind? Sorry, I cannot do that.
Questions: If you picked up your newspaper, or heard on TV that a man had miraculously been swallowed by a large fish, but survived for three days and was thrown up on shore, alive, and with no physical problems would you believe it? If you heard a report of a donkey giving a blessing, would you believe it simply because it was reported? If you heard that a fiery chariot had swooped down and picked up a man and carried him up in the sky, never to be seen again, would you believe it? Why, or why not?
Pat, even if you add a smiley face at the end, your comment still denotes an off-handish, patriarchal dismissal of women as those "feeling" types who just confuse men. I suppose that dovetails quite nicely with the theme of this thread and explains heaps about how institutional sexism is alive and well.
Bob, thanks for the follow-up. It's not that I'm "unwilling to come right out and admit that God probably didn’t intend for men to be having sex with each other." Rather, it just seems that if our only basis for denying two committed people a loving relationship is what we have in Genesis, then we're stretching a story beyond its intended purpose.
Thanks for that reminder Dave!
I'm sorry Pat, the logic escapes me. I just showed it some some friends and they burst out laughing.
First, the assumption that marriage is operative is whatever weird point you're making about women.
Second, I have never seen this sort of bizarre repetition of habits. You argue strongly for calling homosexuals sinners, you deny global warming, you now apparently have trouble reasoning with your wife? What? With all the evidence you give like Car and Driver magazine or the Oregon petition, you are superior at creating confusion and typing via feelings. :~)
Get a life Alex...and a little humor!
Regards
PS. You forgot to add not accepting religious inclusivity to my list in your file box.
I don't think anyone in this conversation doubts that men and women in our community of faith should be treated equally and the sooner the better.
Unfortunately, I think we made two related mistakes from which it is now very difficult to extricate ourselves.
One of these was to make it a requirement that the entire denomination around the world move forward together on the ordination issue. In my view, this was neither necessary nor wise.
As I've said before on this blog, I think the General Conference should have mandated the Union conferences to handle this matter in their regions in harmony with established policy, whilst keeping in mind both the goal of equal treatment and the local realities.
One objection to this that I often hear is that in our denomination ordination is effective around the world and not merely in one region. True, but regions have much discretion in how they relate to ordained ministers.
For example, even though I am ordained I am never asked to speak in some parts of the world (for reasons I think we all understand and accept)! So, even if they were ordained, not every region would have to invite women to preach, etc.
Another objection I often hear is that the issue is so important that we cannot let different regions do what they must. But I see this as a case where the perfect has driven out the good. Must we all wait until we can ordain women in Saudi Arabia?
In my view the other related mistake was to take this issue to the General Conference session in Utrecht where it predictably led to unfortunate outcomes.
More than any other single thing, it is my belief that the action at Utrecht disinfranchised many educated SDAs all around the world who have given up on our church and silently slipped away.
They simply could not stomach belonging to a community of faith that OFFICIALLY discriminates against more the 50% of its members.
Thankfully, not every one by any means has given up. But those of us who are still here need to close ranks and prayerfully consider what next to do.
We had better pray for a whole lot of stamina too. We are in for a very long struggle, one that easily could have been prevented.
Thank you!
Dave
Dave
Ordination is a priviledge and a high honor that signals a life and a preparation for high service to the Church and its members, which include: weddings, baptizing, and other ordinances etc. I don't believe the pulpit is reserved for the ordained exclusively.
The limitation to men goes back to the Hebrew Priesthood in which males only out of the Tribe of Levi were eligible.
When Christ cried "It is finished" so was the priesthood.
We now have the priesthood of all believers. That certainly includes women. What higher ministerial service can be rendered than for a mother to guide her young into the arms of Jesus. That beats Amazing Facts anyday.
Our 54 year old son sent me this e-mail yesterday: "I had a nice talk with Mom today. She sounded better!!!! (She has been struggling with post-operative complications of gall bladder surgery).
She is such a wonderful gift to us all."
(She taught three children how to have a "nice" talk with the Lord, also." A task few men have accomplished.
The church cries culture! culture! culture! We see ego! ego! ego!
I get a big kick out of the garb some churchs hang on their ministers and watch them strut like peacocks. Tom
Tom
Very good points, all of them. Thank you!
I regret that your wife is strugggling against post operative complications. I don't like the way that sounds.
She and you and all of yours (that includes us!) are in our thoughts and prayers.
You are a valued member of the AF/Spectrum community and we feel some of what touches you.
I have just received and started to read "The Analogy of Love" by Gary Chartier, a lawyer and theologian who teaches at La Sierra.
It is an overwhelmingly impressive book in Christian theology that is effectively written for people of all denominations.
Gary's discussion of intecessory prayer is especially good.
I'm with you on the clerical garb. I'm stuck somewhere between aloha shirts, on the one hand, and full vestments, on the other. We have both extremes in the pulpit today!
Happy Sabbath, Tom! One can belong to more than one community of faith at a time. Also, without regard to denominational affiliation, everyone can benefit from the day "that was made for humanity." Enjoy!
Oh, yes, I almost forgot! Which do you think hurt Adventism more: Glacier View or Utrecht? I vote for Utrecht.
Thanks!
Dave
Tom
This isn't Sabbath. It's Thursday, I think. Sorry!
Dave
It is interesting to see how most if not all who have contributed to this discussion have ignored the situation of Lucifer in a previous post.
"It was pointed out in SS Class this morning that Lucifer's key problem that culminated in sin and open rebellion was in not being satisfied with his assigned role and position. He lobbied the hosts of heaven and convinced many that God had limited them and their liberty to choose to aspire to a better form of government, higher position, etc. Hmmm, I can't help but wonder if some of the strident positions taken by some in the posts above are of a similar nature?"
Many replies provided much for thoughtful contemplation. But apparently no one sees any correlation between Lucifer's actions and those of the human race who are lobbying for their own agenda of seeking a higher position or equality in whatever area the individual desires whether that is church office, committed homosexual relationships, etc.
This does not imply that we are not to attempt in Christian love to right wrongs and correct injustices. Remember Micah 6:8 where we are told "to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God."
What is our assigned role? And, if one aspires to a role that is not culturally or scripturally mandated or accepted does it mean that we have the same problem Lucifer had in desiring to be like the "most high" and to "sit" in another place other than his assigned duty position?
My understanding is that male/female differences will not be an issue in heaven. But there will be unique differences, e.g. the 144,000 who will be able to sing a special song, or those with more "stars" in their crowns than others. If we are not in the 144,000 group or if we have fewer stars in our crowns will we lobby to redress the supposed injustice?
I can't help but recall the Apostle Paul's statement that says, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1 Corinthians 13:12 This observation I believe is food for all of to remember when in the midst of a conversation such as is being conducted in this thread.
Daneen,
Have you never read, "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus"?
I realize this is a serious topic but can we not sometimes take ourselves a bit to seriously?
Actually, I feel some women would make much better pastors than some males we have. They certainly can relate to some from "Venus" better.
I mentioned once before that the "Neanderthal" Reformed Baptist Roger Nicole (one of founders of ETS) and a former professor of mine has always supported women ordination subject to their belief in the inerrancy of scripture and accepting the creation order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nicole
My wife and I have a joyful relationship where we accept our maleness and femaleness for symbiosis.
Regards