You posted, correctly, that:
"All I can see is that our church worldwide is a mess...everyone wants to change it to "keep up with the times" etc."
However, the "times" in which we live is characterized by sex, violence, apostasy and moving away from God. Why would any real Christian want to "keep up with the times?"
And the last three pages remind me why I don't read the threads on WOPE...it seems to descend into name calling and argueing. I have to agree with Alli that the foundations of our church seem to be shaking and we need to strengthen them and each other.
It begins by truly "going back to Eden" and respecting each person as a God does--in all areas. it ends with letting go of the "we're 'right'" and "you need to repent" the new one thrown at me--or better yet "women need to wash men's feet--LOL) and getting one's own life in order.
Going back to Eden is a good idea, but before Eve met Satan at the tree, not after. If we fail to learn from that monster mistake, what hope is there for anyone to learn from anything?
"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."--Ephesians 5:23, 24.
Husband does NOT = Man:
MAN= MALE AND FEMALE
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. --Genesis 1:26, 27.
Getting Back to Eden...
Not every female marries or will have a husband. That is how we know. =)
That is about the weakest excuse I have read.
You said it.. :0)
LOLOL! That is a non-biblical answer!
First of all, it just isn’t so that women are called to submit while men are not. In Scripture, every creature is called to submit, often in different ways and at different times. Children are to submit to their parents, although this is certainly a different sort of submission than that envisioned for marriage. Church members are to submit to faithful pastors (Heb. 13:17). All of us are to submit to the governing authorities (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). Of course, we are all to submit, as creatures, to our God (Jas. 4:7).
And, yes, wives are called to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; 1 Pet. 3:1-6). But that’s just the point. In the Bible, it is not that women, generally, are to submit to men, generally. Instead, “wives” are to submit “to your own husbands” (1 Pet. 3:1).
Too often in our culture, women and girls are pressured to submit to men, as a category. This is the reason so many women, even feminist women, are consumed with what men, in general, think of them. This is the reason a woman’s value in our society, too often, is defined in terms of sexual attractiveness and availability. Is it any wonder that so many of our girls and women are destroyed by a predatory patriarchy that demeans the dignity and glory of what it means to be a woman?
Submitting to men in general renders it impossible to submit to one’s “own husband.” Submission to one’s husband means faithfulness to him, and to him alone, which means saying “no” to other suitors.
Please stop the lying Alexander...There were no personal attacks in the statement "LOLOL! That's a non-biblical answer!". This is simply a distraction on your part--and it is not working. I know that there are those who are on a mission to "remove" people from AO who do not share their positions....It's not happening here. Thanks!
BTW....you should have read the rest of the post (where you omitted what else was written) which included scripture.
May I suggest that we not skirt around a very important point that Sarah has raised?
What does "submission" mean in terms of the Gospel where "God is love"? Should not submission also be performed in love? Should not submission be received in love?
Sarah has alluded to a major problem that has escalated dramatically in modern society.
God's plan for us was that we should marry and have children. Each family unit containing father, mother and children. The roles, put simply, were: the father became the prime provider thereby freeing up the woman to give birth to children and grow them. The woman, from before their birth, nurtures and grows the children - the most important role that there can be in society. If the father was a good enough provider the mother could devote more time to the physical, mental and most importantly, spiritual growth.
Those are fairly equal roles, if anything I would suggest that the mother had the more important role as she influences the next generation at a very early age perhaps more than the father.
For some reason fathers/men got it into their head that as they were the providers and that they were therefore superior. Another extremely short-sighted move was to deny women education. How mothers were supposed to pass on wisdom and knowledge if denied the tools necessary didn't seem to occur.
With the advent of mass-media this subtle shift of power became embodied in accepted "types": the dumb blonde; the dizzy housewife; the girl that needed rescuing by the hero. I will only mention in passing the growing demon of sexual appetite which spawned the sex trade and a porn industry that is at the forefront of modern technology.
As women awoke from a partially self-induced haze they turned to a feminist movement that did not ask for equality but rather demanded it. This was a 'political' fight. I remember, when I was in my teens, seeing a book with a picture of breasts on the cover which, if I am honest, I think I then stole. It was called The Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer. It had just been published and went on to become one of the text books of the feminist movement. I thought it was a very enlightening book. Other books came out, some were revisionary books explaining that in prehistory it was women who were the main hunter-gatherers and organised the hunt. During that time and up to now the issue of "rights", whether women's, human, gay, disabled... all you have to do is cry a "right" and all arguments against are voided.
All part of satan's attack on the family unit. The new morals and values were not Christian morals and values. The organised church was seen as one of the prime demons to be fought against. So whilst the whole of society is minutely examined under the microscopes of the various "rights" the foundation is not the Gospel of self-less love but rather gospel of self-love, self-interest.
When the same microscopes are brought to bear on our church do we have to exercise some caution?
Whilst one may agree with equal pay as per the Merikay Silver case that is addressing the outward structure of the church. As soon as one uses those microscopes on doctrines and beliefs then we must be very careful that we are not reaching out to steady the ark.
If it can be established that this is a completely non-theological argument and merely one of employment then I deeply suspect that the success of that argument will destroy the reason for the argument in the first place.
I believe that this is a very serious theological issue that disturbs the pattern that God has presented to us and that certain essential questions should be clearly answered for those who have concerns:
What is the problem that we are solving by making this change?
Is this the best, Christian, way to solve the problem?
Is there any significance to the fact that from Eden, through the Old Testament, the Sanctuary service, the New Testament church, the early Christian churches right up to our current church Jehovah, Christ and the Holy Spirit have been represented consistently as male and by a male priesthood?
Do we have a Biblical mandate for the change being proposed?
"Of course, we are all to submit, as creatures, to our God (Jas. 4:7)."
Then why do you refuse to submit to God's clear command that any candidate for ordination is to be a male? See 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
Do not preach to others about submission when you have been so determined to not submit.