Transition to a more *liberal* church??

When it just doesn't fit anywhere else.
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Post by Valerie »

Sudsy, and everyone, please forgive me for apparently 'preaching'- as far as sharing what I learn (not my own revelations & interpretations) I didn't consider it taking on a pastoral, authoratative role when entering these discussions. I will be careful not to do so then in the future, I apologize-

Sudsy you caused me to look up Augustine since you mentioned him- the Church (Orthodox) did not consider him infallible-
You mention Pastor Begg, and we really appreciate him, he is humble enough to not claim infallibility either- he normally makes it clear what he 'thinks' passages mean and why- there are times where we have learned different than what he shares- we over look that as we don't see it as being heresy-(although the Orthodox may claim things like what they feel he misunderstands, 'small' heresies- (like being against infant baptism like he is, even though he grew up in a tradition of faith (Presbyterian I believe) that do baptize infants/children & converts to Christianity)-

So Augustine was 'called out' in some of his theology that wouldn't have been the normal understandings, yet he was respected and I thought this was interesting about him- most of the early Church writers I've read are way before him-

https://en.orthodoxwiki.org/Augustine_of_Hippo

Even (from the above article) in his last years- this:

Writings
At the end of his life (426-428?) Augustine revisited his previous works in chronological order and suggested what he would have said differently in a work titled the Retractations, which gives us a remarkable picture of the development of a writer and his final thoughts.


Anyways- I appreciate the high regard you hold for what women of faith have to offer- even if we disagree what 'roles' they hold, I know the early church certainly had & made place for prophetesses- and other gifts women had to offer, even if they were not 'authoratative' roles over the men.
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Post by Sudsy »

Valerie wrote: Anyways- I appreciate the high regard you hold for what women of faith have to offer- even if we disagree what 'roles' they hold, I know the early church certainly had & made place for prophetesses- and other gifts women had to offer, even if they were not 'authoratative' roles over the men.
I guess I don't understand yet what an 'authoratative' role over a man is. I don't accept what any preacher says as the 'truth that I better believe' or I am in rebellion or something. I think what is considered the 'final authority' or 'this is our fundamental beliefs' is laid out in our statement of faith. Every preacher is not to stray from this when they preach from our pulpit. However, as our teaching pastor does, he gives various interpretations and the reason why we, in this church, believe a certain way. I don't ever recall our lady pastor saying that what she states is outside the Pentecostal belief and we better follow her teachings both men and women.

Perhaps you could explain what you think taking an 'authoritative role' means ?
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Post by lesterb »

Sudsy wrote:
lesterb wrote:One way to help sort out questions like this is to take the Bible at face value instead of always trying to make it fit my ideas.
For instance, what is an example of not taking the Bible at 'face value' ? Is this the same as taking things literally ?
For instance,

[bible]1Tim 2,12[/bible]

doesn't seem to mean anything to you, as long as the woman disobeying the command is godly and makes lots of converts. So you are results oriented, not Bible oriented. :-|
0 x
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Post by lesterb »

RZehr wrote:
Sudsy wrote:
lesterb wrote:One way to help sort out questions like this is to take the Bible at face value instead of always trying to make it fit my ideas.
For instance, what is an example of not taking the Bible at 'face value' ? Is this the same as taking things literally ?
Taking the Bible at face value and taking it literally is not the same thing.

I believe that to take it at face value is to do ones best to gain a full understanding of the passage in context and not twist it support my life style of choice. And generally take the simple, least complicated interpretation as correct, perhaps a bit like Occam's razor. I'd call this a "simple" interpretation of the scriptures.

To take the Bible literally, then you pluck out your eye if it offends you, and you believe that there is a woman in heaven that is wearing the sun.

I think this distinction of literal understanding vs. simple understanding has been lost on many of us conservative people, and it may be that some of us think that being conservative is being literal. Which has caused us to get off track with end times prophesies and the Israel-Palestine conflict etc. After all, if we are the conservatives and there are evangelicals that take all of Revelations literally, then we certainly can't be less "literal"=(conservative) than those guys!
I didn't see it before I posted my last post. This is good RZ.
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Post by Sudsy »

lesterb wrote:
Sudsy wrote:
lesterb wrote:One way to help sort out questions like this is to take the Bible at face value instead of always trying to make it fit my ideas.
For instance, what is an example of not taking the Bible at 'face value' ? Is this the same as taking things literally ?
For instance,

[bible]1Tim 2,12[/bible]

doesn't seem to mean anything to you, as long as the woman disobeying the command is godly and makes lots of converts. So you are results oriented, not Bible oriented. :-|
No, it does mean something to me. This is not interpreting scriptures to fit our comforts as some suggest it is. That is an easy way to ignore a challenge to traditional thought. I could suggest that some men feel threatened by women today having more of the same roles. But lets get beyond those surface judgments. Rather, it is more to look at other scriptures that say women should not be silent in the church but should enter into worship, prophesy and other gifts not specified as given to men only. It is very Bible oriented. Is Paul contradicting himself with women's involvement ? No, I think we would agree not. What is Paul saying here and is it a statement for all churches for all time or is there a reason outside of what scripture tells us that may shed light on what Paul is saying.

So, we look into why women at that time could give opinions outside of the supernatural gift of prophesy and possibly lead others astray. They were unqualified to teach in that era. Just as Eve was not educated by Adam sufficiently, she was easily deceived and Paul didn't want that lack of training to lead them astray. He said they should focus on learning from their husbands at home. Women are not second class citizens in God's Kingdom as there is no gender in Christ. The Assemblies of God and various others have not bridled women in this way as today a woman has just as much opportunity to learn as a man. Yes, the fruit of this has often provided results of Kingdom growth. Bible oriented and results oriented. No contradiction in what Paul is instructing them to do at that time.

A few Christian women who used their gifts in ministry - http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/christia ... -them.html
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Post by Josh »

I'm a little puzzled how you can say women are now qualified to teach but they weren't in the past.

Today, we have women preachers teaching that homosexuality and trans sexuality needed to be respected / promoted in a typical denomination that also allows women preachers. I'd say this is not a very good case for how women are "more qualified" today.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Post by Josh »

And the thinking of Paul's instructions being irrelevant today eventually leads to saying the same about the Sermon on the Mount. Eventually, we are "wiser in our eyes" than all of scripture.

I would dare say we are no wise when we have people teaching that men evolved from monkeys or an amoeba, that man can decide he is a woman, that sometimes God wants us to kill millions of people in the name of "peace", and that all religions are ok - Jesus isn't the only way, just a nice belief system some people have. I would argue that path leads straight to hell, and not just in the life to come, but it leads straight to hell on earth.
0 x
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Post by ken_sylvania »

Sudsy wrote:So, we look into why women at that time could give opinions outside of the supernatural gift of prophesy and possibly lead others astray. They were unqualified to teach in that era. Just as Eve was not educated by Adam sufficiently, she was easily deceived and Paul didn't want that lack of training to lead them astray.
Sudsy, based on your statement above I guess you wouldn't allow Peter or John to preach in your church, would you? According to Acts 4:13 they were unlearned and ignorant.
Where do you get the idea that Adam didn't educate Eve well enough? Deception doesn't necessarily always result from a lack of education. In fact, many of the highest educated people in this world are fools in God's sight.

We can learn from 1 Corinthians 14:34 that the instruction against women preachers was not simply a time-specific instruction to the "stupid" women of a single culture and time. Paul writes here that rather than speaking in church, they are to be under obedience as commanded by the law.
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Post by Sudsy »

ken_sylvania wrote:
Sudsy wrote:So, we look into why women at that time could give opinions outside of the supernatural gift of prophesy and possibly lead others astray. They were unqualified to teach in that era. Just as Eve was not educated by Adam sufficiently, she was easily deceived and Paul didn't want that lack of training to lead them astray.
Sudsy, based on your statement above I guess you wouldn't allow Peter or John to preach in your church, would you? According to Acts 4:13 they were unlearned and ignorant.

Wrong, I would love to have them preach in my church as I believe they would preach what we need to hear in our setting that would best further the Kingdom of God just as they did back then.

Where do you get the idea that Adam didn't educate Eve well enough? Deception doesn't necessarily always result from a lack of education. In fact, many of the highest educated people in this world are fools in God's sight.

N.T. Wright. When I say education I'm referring to being educated in the scriptures which both men and women have access to in our bible schools.

We can learn from 1 Corinthians 14:34 that the instruction against women preachers was not simply a time-specific instruction to the "stupid" women of a single culture and time. Paul writes here that rather than speaking in church, they are to be under obedience as commanded by the law.

Reading further in this text this silence is about them not interrupting the meeting with asking their husbands questions. if silence is to mean no utterances by women then women should not pray out loud, sing or testify. But Paul goes on to say -

1 Corinthians 11:4-5 - "Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved."

How could a woman prophesy and yet keep silent ? So, imo, the application for women to keep silent had to do with their interrupting the meeting and instead Paul says to learn from their husbands at home.

0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Sudsy
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Transition to a more *liberal* church??

Post by Sudsy »

Josh wrote:I'm a little puzzled how you can say women are now qualified to teach but they weren't in the past.

Today, we have women preachers teaching that homosexuality and trans sexuality needed to be respected / promoted in a typical denomination that also allows women preachers. I'd say this is not a very good case for how women are "more qualified" today.
My guess is that you will find far more men preachers 'teaching that homosexuality and trans sexuality needed to be respected / promoted'. I don't see where this has anything to do with which gender is preaching this sort of thing.

Regarding the 'slippery slope' argument when challenging traditional interpretations of scripture, I agree that there are some looking for a more carnal type of Christian practise. However, there are others looking at what some of these interpretations of scripture have produced and are looking into the possibility that some of these views have been wrong for many years. Even in the early church fathers period the understandings of what scripture meant on various texts differed. For instance, the church father Origen taught that the Holy Spirit was a created being, that Satan and the demons will all eventually be saved. And what about the early teachings on baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation and infant baptism. Since Anabaptists and others have strayed from these beliefs were they on a 'slippery slope' into worldliness ?

By the way, I am challenging some traditional interpretations for various reasons. One being to see what kind of thought has gone into what one has chosen to believe and also to hopefully trigger more biblical conversation which most often comes only through a challenge of traditional thought. I appreciate those willing to join in and don't mind their opposing views. Opposing views on Christian belief and practise have been around since the earliest of the NC period and they are not about to go away. Within this we still have a core understanding of what Paul called the Gospel that saves us. Any church departing from those beliefs I would not fellowship in.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Post Reply