Holdeman Transitions ?

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23827
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Josh »

Sudsy wrote:Good. Sunday night sounds like a good time for a visit. Awhile ago I visited a small, very faith sharing (avoided the word 'evangelical' :) ) Baptist group on a Wednesday night and met the pastor. This group still does a week of summer faith sharing, soul winning, tent meetings. I plan on attending one of these this summer to see just how they preach the Gospel.
Whilst I agree with neither their theology nor the 20th-century style revivalist methods, I often find the spiritual life amongst people like that more than makes up for the things I disagree with. This is, incidentally, why I choose to hang around some of the Pentecostal and Apostolic Pentecostal people I do - they have a passion to be loving towards the lost and to share and preach the Scriptures. That's enough to make me able to tolerate our lack of shared understanding on things like nonresistance, their One True Church doctrines, and their strong belief in tongues and baptismal regeneration.
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Sudsy »

Judas Maccabeus wrote: I am actually not making a slippery slope argument here, I am actually making an observation from history that has repeated time and time again. Look at United Church of Christ, PCUSA, United Methodist, American Baptist and even MCUSA. Same historical progression in each and every case. Same result. If the same pattern repeats itself, and likely it will, you are about 10 years from women preachers (My former denomination, the C&MA has already done that, slipped it in through the back door, they call them "Consecrated Women" one is on the district executive committee, in effect a bishop) and 20 or so from ordaining homosexuals.

If you look long and hard enough, you will always find a group that agrees with whatever unscriptural notion you come up with. Does this make it right in God's sight to follow such, because it has become "disputable." If that is your hermeneutical practice, you are in for trouble.

J.M.
Still sounds pretty 'slippery slope to me but I get what your concern is. Yes, history does reflect that there are those who move away from a more traditional understanding of scripture interpretation and can get carried away with 'new insights' that are very suspect to being more enlightenment. Especially, when they appear to favour a more relaxed belief than in the past.

In our MB church the stand on women in leadership and who they can teach has recently been changed and allowed. In my opinion, which obviously is not your understanding of women's role, I think it a good thing to free up women in ministry as to me, it is quite obvious that God has gifted and is working through women in our culture in a dynamic way. I grew up in a church with a lady pastor and her teachings helped my parents live a godly life. I think we also need to look at our doctrinal stands in light of how God is working today through both men and women as perhaps we just might have it wrong to think what Paul said to them in that culture is for all time. The Holy Spirit is certainly not restricted by our understandings of the application timing of certain scriptures.

I think areas like what Greg Boyd takes a look at in his 'twisted scripture' series is worth considering. Views like hell not being never ending punishing and the possibility that to some degree the future is open. I don't see all of these challenges to traditional beliefs to be a slippery slope but they could be if the motivation is wrong.

Thanks for the Dean Taylor reference on defending the helpless without the use of force. FWIW I do not think Christians need to be involved with any vocation that involves killing someone else. One of the reasons I am not a 'God & country' type of believer and favour Anabaptism's application.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23827
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Josh »

I am fully in favour of women teaching, preaching, prophesying, being messengers, and sharing the good news.

I do think, however, that the Bible lays out requirements for an elder and a deacon on purpose. And it's also clear Paul does not allow a woman to exercise authority over a man, including in teaching.
0 x
KingdomBuilder
Posts: 1482
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:00 pm
Affiliation: church of Christ

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by KingdomBuilder »

Judas Maccabeus wrote:As a leader in my former (Non mennonite evangelical church) I heard all sorts of clearly sinful things (according to the plain reading of scripture) justified by "god is leading me this way, and I have peace about it."

The "peace", in retrospect, may be the fact that the individual is actually unsaved and the Holy Spirit is not at work convicting of sin.

So be careful if you have "peace" about clearly unscriptural practices. It may be more than just interpretation.
Spot on. I've heard this all my life. Personal "peace" or "conviction" (or lack thereof) usually take the precedent. It's sickening and absurd how far people will go.
0 x
Ponder anew what the Almighty can do
RZehr
Posts: 7029
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by RZehr »

Sudsy wrote: In our MB church the stand on women in leadership and who they can teach has recently been changed and allowed. In my opinion, which obviously is not your understanding of women's role, I think it a good thing to free up women in ministry as to me, it is quite obvious that God has gifted and is working through women in our culture in a dynamic way.
I think this is false equivalence. It is a bit tiresome/frustrating to me when ordaining women is presented as simply "freeing up women to minister" as if without ordaining them, they cannot serve people or have a place. Our women are free to minister to people. We don't ordain them to a position of authority over men.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23827
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Josh »

RZehr wrote:
Sudsy wrote: In our MB church the stand on women in leadership and who they can teach has recently been changed and allowed. In my opinion, which obviously is not your understanding of women's role, I think it a good thing to free up women in ministry as to me, it is quite obvious that God has gifted and is working through women in our culture in a dynamic way.
I think this is false equivalence. It is a bit tiresome/frustrating to me when ordaining women is presented as simply "freeing up women to minister" as if without ordaining them, they cannot serve people or have a place. Our women are free to minister to people. We don't ordain them to a position of authority over men.
Right - and in reality, a minister's wife or a deacon's wife actually does have a certain position of authority (over women). Likewise, women who are schoolteachers have a certain position of authority over schoolchildren. And mothers in the home have authority over their own children.
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Sudsy »

Josh wrote:I am fully in favour of women teaching, preaching, prophesying, being messengers, and sharing the good news.

I do think, however, that the Bible lays out requirements for an elder and a deacon on purpose. And it's also clear Paul does not allow a woman to exercise authority over a man, including in teaching.
And here is a view that considers that what Paul said about women was about women in that day being uneducated and could be mislead by false teachers. In other words Paul was addressing specific circumstances in Ephesus, because in other Scriptures, Paul actually recognizes several women who were teaching and evangelizing alongside him (Romans 16:1-3; Philippians 4:2-3). And at that time in history in that culture women in Ephesus were uneducated and secluded. Paul was warning that they could be misled by the false teachers trying to lure new Christians away from the church that Paul wanted to establish. Those circumstances don't necessarily exist today, because many women, when trained, have gifts that can bring blessing to both men and women.

Foot washing is another area for debate as the circumstances and habits in that day were much different than they are today in our setting.

And I think these are more of the arguments used by the Anabaptists who do not follow what other Anabaptists do in these areas.

Whoops, got to go. Be back later on this.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23827
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Josh »

And with that mindset, Paul's admonitions against homosexuality were just for specific churches and specific to their time.

See where this leads?
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Sudsy »

Josh wrote:And with that mindset, Paul's admonitions against homosexuality were just for specific churches and specific to their time.

See where this leads?
Well, one could also say that when Jesus said to leave family and houses and land and sell all and give the proceeds to the poor that He was not just speaking to that immediate audience at that place and time but to all of us ? See where this leads to not consider if the immediate audience is or is not who the command is for ?

Does Jesus want us washing each other's feet every time we entered into another's house as was the custom of that day but is not a needful custom today ? I do think we need to look at customs of the day in our current day Christian practise.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 3881
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

Sudsy wrote:
Josh wrote:I am fully in favour of women teaching, preaching, prophesying, being messengers, and sharing the good news.

I do think, however, that the Bible lays out requirements for an elder and a deacon on purpose. And it's also clear Paul does not allow a woman to exercise authority over a man, including in teaching.
And here is a view that considers that what Paul said about women was about women in that day being uneducated and could be mislead by false teachers. In other words Paul was addressing specific circumstances in Ephesus
Wow. You are here trying to explain away the scripture, rather than trying to be led by it's meaning. You do realize that is EXACTLY the same technique that the pro LGBT groups use to explain away Romans 1? If you take this approach, you can make the scriptures mean anything you like.

I am actually saving some of this stuff, in the unlikely chance I ever teach Hermeneutics again, I will be using this stuff as examples of what not to do. This is actually priceless. We call this "saying without citing" in other words, you do not have a shread of evidence, Biblical or otherwise to prove this true, yet you use this as if it is just as valid as taking the plain meaning of the passage. This ends up with doctrine built on conjecture rather then truth. Are you sure you want to go down this path?

J.M.
0 x
:hug:
Post Reply