MY Call? Shouldn't it be GOD'S Call?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> n Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:13:02 -0500 tlwitness@juno.com (Jerry Welch)
> writes:
> >Actually, that would be a "Pastor's WIFE'S heart", since we know
> >(don't we?) that women cannot be called to Pastor.
> >
> >
>
> >And even THAT is Biblical as long as you are teaching the women and he
> >the men.
>
> Bro Brian wrote:
> Hmm Brother Jerry are you so polarized on this subject, that you cannot
> simply accept a woman teaching another at all? What about a mother
> teaching a son? Is that not meant to be either? You extreme view seems to
> say so. I dare say this is near the end of discussion if you are gonna
> slam every woman here. Remember we are a large group and have different
> views.
>
Bro. Brian,

  One of the problems in having an intelligent conversation about a
subject as controversial as this is the fact that people get exhausted
with critics attempting to dilute a subject, or draw attention away from
the main points of a post by opening up "rabbit trails" among other
things.  What do I mean by that?

  There is no reason to believe that Bro. Jerry, or anyone, has
suggested that a woman can't teach her own son.  Do you really need
someone to explain to you why that 1) is an assertion not heretofore
suggested, and 2) how that doesn't make sense to suggest it is a logical
outcome of his argument?  However, after the question is posed, the
problem then becomes two-fold (and I'll use bro. Jerry's letter to
simplify the explanation).

  The first is that the ridiculousness of the question above smears the
serious argument that brother Jerry is trying to make.  The second is
that he then has to make an effort to show why the above question
doesn't make sense (and BTW, not OFFEND any sensitive brethren in the
process) lest he, by not answering it, leaves it as an open end.  This
process wears out the reader (not to mention the typist) who has to read
through reams and reams of tedious quoted text followed by tedious
explanations.  It all just sounds like a stalling tactic to me.  Why
can't well researched objections come up instead of questions aimed at
this level?  I honestly believe the answer to that question is that the
pro-women preacher side is so bereft of scriptural backing for their
experiment in egalitarianism, that ad hominem attacks, straw man
arguments, and rabbit trails are substituted for rational, scripturally
based dialogue.  Rational discussion exposes the mirage for what it is.

  As for bro. Jerry's slamming, I would say this:  these women, and
their supporters are making the assertion that they've discovered some
"will of God" in their lives which contradicts the traditional reading
of the word AS interpreted by a direct exegesis of the text.  This view
is held by more than just misogynists in pants, but by Godly women, too,
who haven't a clue as to where these ladies are coming from.  To not
expect anyone to subject views like that to a rigorous scrubbing with
the word is unconscionable and unbiblical.  Were the Bereans fools for
checking the brethren's words, including the "great Paul" nee Saul of
Tarsus?  Of course not, they were commended for it, regardless of the
stature of Paul, or worldly rationale others may have had for either
rejecting or accepting Paul's doctrine on its face.  Couple this with
the fact that the emotional arguments are being met with sound
scriptural arguments, I'm not surprised that bro. Jerry's letter clang
like andirons in the empty chimneys of their words.

  If these sisters were insulted by anyone's questioning of "their
call", they'd better hang on to their gunny sacks 'cause pastoring and
preaching gets a whole lot stickier than some boy in the e-mail school
yard doing some name calling.

Bro Steven