# Singing at my old church...female pastor



## blhowes (Jun 9, 2004)

I'm trying to decide how to respond to a request that I got today from my two sisters. I was wondering if anybody had any advice.

All of my family, except for one of my sisters, still attends the Methodist church that I grew up in. Unless its changed from when I was growing up, its a very ecumenical, liberal church, that now has a lady &quot;pastor&quot;. 

My other sister, last I heard, was an agnostic and hasn't been to church for years. Since the choir is off for the summer, the rest of the family asked my sister to sing with the family in a quartet at one of the services. I got two emails this morning from my sisters asking if I'd like to come down and join them to make it a quintet.

As much as I love my family and as much as I'd like to sing with them, the thought of going to that church is very disturbing. I can't imagine sitting through a sermon preached by a lady &quot;pastor&quot;. I can't imagine exposing my family to that.

1. Would you accept the invitation?
2. If not, how would you gracefully bow out without causing too much discord? Should that even be a concern?
3. Is it wrong to expose my children to this church? 
4. Would attending the church convey the idea of acceptance?
5. If we attended, how would I explain that to my children?

Also, I'd imagine that their church has taught them why they think its ok to have a female pastor. Does anybody know what biblical justification the female pastor might use to justify the position she's usurped? How would she get around the biblical qualifications for being a pastor - would they consider them to be cultural?

Thanks for any feedback you can give.
Bob

[Edited on 6-9-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## dkicklig (Jun 9, 2004)

Just some thoughts:

I would go ahead and sing with the family, I think that is the overriding factor.

If you don't want your wife &amp; kids to hear a sermon from a female preacher; either have them attend you're regular church that morning and video the performance, or leave after singing and explain your reasoning the family.

Make it clear that you are not condoning the activities of the church but want to sing with the family.

Try and pick a great reformed/calvinistic song...that'll stick it to 'em 

just my :wr50:


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 9, 2004)

Tough one!

But honestly, I have never been one to shy away from contraversy! I would either go and sing leaving as soon as the singing was over (I doubt I would even do that) or just explain to my family why I could not attend in any way a CHurch that ignores the word of God in the name of convience.


----------



## Christopher (Jun 9, 2004)

Don't do it brother.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jun 9, 2004)

I would not lend any support to a church that had a woman preaching. What a lack of discernment!


----------



## dkicklig (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:b3e6c89328][i:b3e6c89328]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:b3e6c89328]
I would not lend any support to a church that had a woman preaching. What a lack of discernment! [/quote:b3e6c89328]

Since when does singing a song with your family in a church for a worship service equal a lack of discernment? I've performed in over 200 different churches across the US, and never once was it considered a sign of support for a particular church. In fact at one Methodist church it was the first time the Gospel message had been proclaimed there in over 5 years. I'm not representing a church when I sing in worship, I am representing Christ. It's an opportunity to lead believer's in worship, not an act of treason against the truth.

Which one of us would turn down an opportunity to engage those that have rejected the truth?


----------



## foundthelight (Jun 9, 2004)

Did Jesus minister to the righteous or the unrighteous? 

If we, as Reformed Christians, only minister to those we agree with are we carrying out the Great Commission? Or, are we truly the &quot;Frozen Chosen&quot;?

Please, view this as an opportunity to spread the Gospel through song. Someone will probably come up to you and ask about your church. You can then gently tell of the Reformed Faith and what it means to be a bible believing Christian. 

The Holy Spirit will guide you.

May God Bless You.


----------



## JohnV (Jun 9, 2004)

Bob:

I used to easily think that it would be wrong to join in on that kind of service, because it would be a tacit recognition that that is worship. I used to think that the open rebellion to the Word, by for example ordaining a woman to preach the Word, was anti-worship. 

But in my present circumstances I see that I was not much further ahead in joining what looked outwardly to be an orthodox church. They are just as much in rebellion, it seems to me. Right now I am of the opinion that there is no other kind of organized church than those who practice some kind of perversion. But that is just the state of mind I am in, and not an accurate assessment of the actual state of affairs, I'm sure. 

If I were you I would consider a few important details. First, I probably would have to miss a worship service to do it. That is not Biblically right. Second, though I may have a talent, that does not mean that I have an ordination. Third, I must consider who called me to this. And lastly, I would consider whether I was endorsing their misunderstandings by worshipping with them (implied unity), or they were endearing my spiritual service to them (hoped for unity). For the most part I would agree with Christopher: don't do it.
:wr50:


----------



## 9:9 (Jun 9, 2004)

Well, I'm a rabble-rouser so not only would I not go, but I would refute their justification for doing so.

I would invite them to sing at my Church.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:0f48ebb4a6][i:0f48ebb4a6]Originally posted by dkicklig[/i:0f48ebb4a6]
[quote:0f48ebb4a6][i:0f48ebb4a6]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:0f48ebb4a6]
I would not lend any support to a church that had a woman preaching. What a lack of discernment! [/quote:0f48ebb4a6]

Since when does singing a song with your family in a church for a worship service equal a lack of discernment?[/quote:0f48ebb4a6]

[b:0f48ebb4a6]The lack of discernment comment was in regards to the practice of Women preaching. You misinterpreted me.[/b:0f48ebb4a6]

I don't like &quot;performance&quot; in Christian formal worship anyway. Would you sing a solo at a catholic &quot;worship service&quot;. At a JW's service? I wouldn't go and I wouldn't advise anyone else to go lend support to that church that allows women to preach. Where do we draw the line, they are clearly in sin. I wouldn't want to even appear to think its ok. What if they had a gay pastor?! Where do we draw the line. Wouldn't singing in a &quot;worship service&quot; at such a church be a visible sign of approval of that given churches error?

[Edited on 6-9-2004 by Ianterrell]


----------



## SmokingFlax (Jun 9, 2004)

Don't do it man! I know I wouldn't.

The objections about not taking the opportunity to share the gospel ring hollow to me. No offense but it seems to me that the gospel was intended to be pronounced by preachers (rather than singers and entertainers, etc.). Also, my experience with the typical liberal &quot;Christian&quot; is that they full well KNOW the Biblical standard of order, morals, etc. but they WILLFULLY reject the old paths that they might embrace their own corrupt religiosity. 

My skeptical nature tells me that after you've finished singing the tolerationists will all pat themselves on the back to reward themselves for how &quot;loving&quot; they are by including such a&quot;narrow minded&quot; dinosaur into their circle. I'd be willing to bet that they're probably harbouring just as much of an intention of &quot;converting&quot; you to their permissive, Rodney King (&quot;can't we all just get along&quot, religious humanism as you are towards the Biblical standard. If they didn't believe that they held the truth then...what's the whole point of their observance?

:wr50:


----------



## blhowes (Jun 9, 2004)

Thank-you for all your responses. 

After considering the council given, praying, and talking it over with my wife, I've decided not to sing with them at their church. Now I just have to figure out how to tell them in a tactful way. 

I was wondering if anybody knew how the Methodist church justifies ordaining women pastors? I'd like to be prepared to discuss it if the opportunity should arise. 

I've heard some people say that, since the men aren't coming forward to take the leadership positions, women have come forward to fill the void. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that, if men aren't being called to the leadership positions, it'd be better to close down the church rather than have a woman fill the pulpit. Is that too extreme?

Other than that, how else do you think a pastorette would get around the clear teachings in Titus and Timothy? Do they think its just a cultural mandate just for the apostolic times? If I was to talk with their minister and read those passages to her, what do you think her response would be to justify her position?

Bob


----------



## JohnV (Jun 9, 2004)

If I may offer a tongue-in-cheek answer: a lady I once talked to, who claimed to be a Christian every bit as much as I thought I was, according to her own words, could sit htere and justify her faith while callind the Apostle Paul a woman-hater. So I asked her why she relied on the witness of, and cited, a woman-hater as her spiritual guide. She was, after all, a New Testament Christian. I also asked her if she claimed greater authority than Paul. I put it this way to her: &quot;Do you feel yourself more spiritually gifted as a spokesman to all God's people for all time than the Apostle Paul?&quot;

Some people can justify just about anything from the Bible, even if the Bible is explicitly against it. It's just not possible to be Biblically guided to do something the Bible forbids.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:bf40ab9554]
my experience with the typical liberal &quot;Christian&quot; is that they full well KNOW the Biblical standard of order, morals, etc. but they WILLFULLY reject the old paths that they might embrace their own corrupt religiosity. 
[/quote:bf40ab9554]

:thumbup:


[quote:bf40ab9554]
It's just not possible to be Biblically guided to do something the Bible forbids.
[/quote:bf40ab9554]

:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 9, 2004)

bob,
Just tell them you hurt your back...........


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 9, 2004)

woman who needs em

jk

blade


----------



## blhowes (Jun 9, 2004)

to what Adam said about John's response.

[b:19befc599c]Scott wrote:[/b:19befc599c]
Just tell them you hurt your back...........

 Good idea! Like my mom always tells me, &quot;Milk it for all its worth!&quot;

They're planning on singing sometime in August. I'll bet I can milk this one at least until September.

Bob


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 9, 2004)

Just be honest with them in a loving way.

blade


----------



## blhowes (Jun 9, 2004)

Blade,
Thanks for the good advice.
Bob


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 9, 2004)




----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 9, 2004)

Bob, I think a lot of women get around things like that by believing that it was cultural, as you said. I once sat through a Sunday School class in a fundamentalist church in which the whole lesson was constructed around explaining away all the passages that had to do with women in the church as cultural issues. The teachers would never outright undermine the authority of the Apostle Paul like the woman JohnV talked to (and I am thankful for that); but I think we do undermine any part of Scripture whose instruction/use we relegate to a past culture.

Another thing they might say without being blatantly anti-scriptural is that Paul was dealing with a hugely out of hand situation-- according to some these women were just losing it and screaming in the church. This again, from fundamentalists, who don't even believe in women pastors. So basically Paul is overreacting, though of course (and thankfully) they would not say that.

Another argument I've heard is that if women are leading a service under the authority of men, then they are okay: they are not &quot;usurping&quot; authority. I heard this from someone whose position I sympathised with a lot more: a missionary who had no other help but his wife, and when he was sick... what was to be done? 

I don't want to be contentious, and I know a lot of people will disagree: but I think that a lot of us contribute to this kind of situation by an ambiguous position on the passages about women keeping silence in the church-- all of the above arguments are from fundamentalists, and two are from reformed fundamentalists.

Your decision reminded me of how Christ says that whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. We aren't very much called on to demonstrate that in any drastic way, but I think you are proving your supreme love for Christ and His honor. I'll pray for you!


----------



## blhowes (Jun 25, 2004)

I just wanted to ask for prayer. I had responded to my sister's request in a line or two saying that I didn't want to sing at her church, but I would love to get together and sing as a family around my sister's piano sometime, as they do from time to time. I hadn't heard back from her, so I assumed that it was all behind me.

This morning I got an email from her about something else and she added a &quot;PS&quot; at the end asking why I didn't want to sing at her church - &quot;Was it because of the travel involved, fear of singing in front of crowds, or for religious reasons?&quot;

Please pray that I can find the right words to express my thoughts to explain why I don't want to attend her church. I'm going to try and follow Blade's advice about just being honest in a loving way. It may cause division (then so be it), but I'd really like my words to not only express my position, but to be done in such a way that she would be challenged to re-evalutate what she's been taught by her church. 

I'm tempted to just respond by telling her briefly my position, and then asking her to show me from the Bible why she thinks her minister is biblically qualified to pastor a church. That might be more productive than just giving her the verses in Titus, Timothy, etc., and having her respond with, what I expect would be, a cultural interpretation of those verses.

Usually I try and respond quickly to emails, but I'm going to hold off a little and spend some time praying about it. 

If you could, I'd appreciate your prayers.

Thanks,
Bob


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 25, 2004)

Bob, I'll pray for you today. I really hate sticky family things, but you're in a good position: &quot;They that honor me, I will honor.&quot;


----------



## blhowes (Jun 25, 2004)

Heidi,
Thank-you for your prayers. I appreciate it. Thanks for sharing the verse as well. Its encouraging. 

Has anybody ever looked at the Methodist official documents to find out what their requirements are to become a Pastor? I've been searching around and haven't been able to find where they actually spell out what the requirements are. It'd be nice to be able to find the whole thing in pdf format so I can just search for what I need.

Bob


----------



## py3ak (Jun 25, 2004)

Bob, try these links:

http://www.gbhem.org/ResourceLibrary/stepord.pdf

http://www.gbhem.org/ResourceLibrary/localpastor.pdf

Praying for you.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jun 25, 2004)

Bob,
A couple of things about your situation:

One is, you may be putting too much stock in your sister's willingness to rebutt you. You may find after gently explaining your reasonings to her, that she may be fully ok with your position, and perhaps she has never thought too much about it and this may be her first occassion to. I'd just give a nice strong positive case for the Biblical position and re-evaluate after she's had time to digest it and respond to it.


Number two, IF she ends up having a &quot;big problem&quot; with it as you may be anticipating, and &quot;explains away&quot; every text you offer her, then you may put the ball back in her court by asking, &quot;Ok, sister, I understand you feel these are all &quot;cultural&quot; issues. Let me ask you then: IF the Bible was to prohibit a female as pastor, what would the Bible have to say to you to make that clear? What language would you be looking for IF the Bible was to say that?&quot;

After she responds, you will probably find that you can offer a verse that pretty much fits her criteria. Then its just a matter of her being honest with herself.


My :wr50:

For what it's worth:
(This is the same technique to use with the JW's on John 1:1. There is NO way to render the verse in Greek that they won't have a problem with, so it pretty much shows why they can't find their &quot;explicit&quot; proof text that they're requiring.)


----------



## blhowes (Jun 25, 2004)

Ruben,
Thanks for your prayers and for the links. 

Here's an interesting quote:
[quote:26013ffde5]
Ordained ministers are called by God to a lifetime of servant leadership in specialized ministries among the people of God. Ordained ministers are called to interpret to the Church the needs, concerns, and hopes of the world, and the promise of God for creation.
[/quote:26013ffde5]

Interesting,
Bob


----------



## blhowes (Jun 25, 2004)

[b:24ee89e653]Christopher wrote:[/b:24ee89e653]
One is, you may be putting too much stock in your sister's willingness to rebutt you. You may find after gently explaining your reasonings to her, that she may be fully ok with your position, and perhaps she has never thought too much about it and this may be her first occassion to. I'd just give a nice strong positive case for the Biblical position and re-evaluate after she's had time to digest it and respond to it. 

Thanks for the advice. I don't know how she'll respond, and her response may very well depend on how I respond to her. That's why I want to prayerfully consider how to word my response. 

[b:24ee89e653]Christopher wrote:[/b:24ee89e653]
Number two, IF she ends up having a &quot;big problem&quot; with it as you may be anticipating, and &quot;explains away&quot; every text you offer her, then you may put the ball back in her court by asking, &quot;Ok, sister, I understand you feel these are all &quot;cultural&quot; issues. Let me ask you then: IF the Bible was to prohibit a female as pastor, what would the Bible have to say to you to make that clear? What language would you be looking for IF the Bible was to say that?&quot; ... After she responds, you will probably find that you can offer a verse that pretty much fits her criteria. Then its just a matter of her being honest with herself. 

Sounds like a good way to approach the situation. Thanks.

Bob


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 25, 2004)

Bob, I feel your pain. I have issues like these with my family too. Sometimes they work out, most of the time we end up &quot;agreeing to disagree.&quot; Just be gentle. I'm not so sure I would even address the woman pastor issue first. I would go for the primary concern if they are liberal, that is the authority of Scripture. It seems all their problems stem from that issue. After you meekly address that point then breifly go into the other issues like the pastor or the place of music in a worship service. 

I say this because, not knowing how liberal that church is, you may find that your family agrees with your position on the authority of Scripture but applies it inconsistently. If that ends up being the case, then you have much stronger grounds to stand on and dialog regarding the other issues because you can always point them to the Scriptures. I'm trying to build on what I have in common in my family differences and try to build from there. It at least helps in trying to show them where you are coming from and gives them food for thought. 

Just two more cents. I hope all goes well.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 26, 2004)

[b:0a07a96284]Patrick wrote:[/b:0a07a96284]
Just be gentle.

Good advice. Its funny. I've never had such a difficult time before responding to an email. I want to be gentle, but I don't want to beat around the bush. I want to be direct in my answer, but not appear like I'm attacking her. 

[b:0a07a96284]Patrick wrote:[/b:0a07a96284]
I'm not so sure I would even address the woman pastor issue first. I would go for the primary concern if they are liberal, that is the authority of Scripture. It seems all their problems stem from that issue.

Its been 30 years since I've attended a service there, so I don't know much about how liberal it is or isn't. I want to make sure that the objections I raise can't be answered by &quot;You haven't been here for 30 years - its not like that anymore&quot;. 

The only thing I have to go on is the fruit that I see - a woman pastor. I think that will have to play into my first response, though I'll try not to put too much emphasis on it - that's really just the tip of the iceburg. The real problem is the reason why a woman was allowed to become a pastor in the first place.

I read through the Methodist documents that Ruben linked me to. I'm really interested in finding out what their requirements are to become a minister. So far, it seems like anybody who's been a member of the Methodist church and serving for 2 years can begin the process towards ordination. I haven't seen any place yet where they address the scriptural requirements.

[b:0a07a96284]Patrick wrote:[/b:0a07a96284]
I say this because, not knowing how liberal that church is, you may find that your family agrees with your position on the authority of Scripture but applies it inconsistently. If that ends up being the case, then you have much stronger grounds to stand on and dialog regarding the other issues because you can always point them to the Scriptures.

Good thinking. If there's going to be division between us, I'd rather have it be on a core issue, rather than a peripheral issue (though important) of their having a woman pastor. And, if the authority of the scriptures can be common ground, so much the better.

[b:0a07a96284]Patrick wrote:[/b:0a07a96284]
Just two more cents. I hope all goes well.

Thanks.

Bob


----------



## blhowes (Jun 26, 2004)

Why can't I just leave well enough alone and just respond to the email? No, instead I have to try and figure out their pastoral requirements and how they can justify having a woman pastor. I'm saddened by what I'm learning about the Methodist church and I'm angered (don't know at who) at what they're teaching my family.

Could somebody please tell me that the following doesn't reflect what they believe?? I'm hoping I'm wrong.

BTW, in the quote below, when it says:
&quot;6. We may need to correct the theological views of the Evangelists at some points &quot;

When they talk about Evangelists, they must be talking about somebody else than the writers of the New Testament. Who do you think they're referring to?

Bob

[quote:d0beb00479]
Resolutions of the 1993 Derby Conference
Ten years on from an emotional and deeply felt debate on sexuality around the Connexion and with the issue of 'gay' bishops in the news headlines, it is worth restating our Methodist position.

The 6 resolutions agreed were
1. The Conference, affirming the joy of human sexuality as God's gift and the place of every human being within the grace of God, recognises the responsibility that flows from this for us all. It therefore welcomes the serious, prayerful and sometimes costly consideration given to this issue by the Methodist Church. 
2. All practices of sexuality which are promiscuous, exploitative or demeaning in any way are unacceptable forms of behaviour and contradict God's purpose for us all.
3. A person shall not be debarred from the Church on the grounds of sexual orientation in itself.
4. The conference reaffirms the traditional teaching of the Church on human sexuality: namely chastity for all outside marriage and fidelity within it. The conference directs that this affirmation is made clear to all candidates for ministry, office and membership and having established this affirms that the existing procedures of our Church are adequate to deal with all such cases. 
5. The Conference resolves that its decisions in this debate shall not be used to form the basis of a disciplinary charge against any person in relation to conduct alleged to have taken place before such decisions were made. 
6. Conference recognises, affirms and celebrates the participation and ministry of lesbians and gay men in the Church. Conference calls on the Methodist people to begin a pilgrimage of faith to combat repression and discrimination, to work for justice and human rights and to give dignity and worth to people whatever their sexuality.

A related issue causing much debate relates to the authority of the Bible. The report 'A Lamp to my feet and a Light to my Path' for Conference in 1998 recognises that the existence of differing approaches to Scripture often causes disagreements about fundamental issues, but says hopefully, could our diversity be seen as a strength not a weakness? Its ends by saying 'Do we understand how sincere Christians can hold opinions radically different to our own and are we prepared to acknowledge that they may have glimpsed some aspect of divine truth which we have failed to comprehend?

Clive Marsh is now Convenor of our Faith and Order Committee. In a recent Recorder series he made the following points:- (briefly here)
1. There are many ways of reading the Bible
2. There is no single image of Jesus resulting from our reading of the Gospels
3. The Gospels are quite materialist texts at times
4. The Gospels may be better understood as stories rather than history
5. Non-Christian readers may sometimes stand a better chance of
'getting the point' of Gospel stories than Christian readers
6. We may need to correct the theological views of the Evangelists at some points
7. Not all of the Bible may be worth reading
8. Historical-critical study of the Bible has not yet had as much of an impact on contemporary Christian faith as would be useful
9. More playfulness in our reading of the Bible would be welcome
10 The Bible has a hard job today to prove itself as a collection of texts worth reading
11. Who we read the Bible with may be as important as 'what the Bible says'
from Methodist Recorder, August 7th 2003

Our President, Rev. Dr. Neil Richardson, wrote an article called
'Recovering the Bible' in the Recorder, Nov. 27th. He urged us not to
defend the indefensible, a God who ordered plagues and massacres, or has a bias to the male. Instead 'let the Bible become a means of grace, truth and power and 'relevance' will take care of itself ... It's the record of revelation, the story of God and man intersecting in Jesus Christ. ..
Look at the really big picture: the purpose of creation, the future of the world and who has the last word Allow the central images such as 'Jesus at the right hand of God' to shape your imagination.' [/quote:d0beb00479]


----------



## blhowes (Jun 26, 2004)

[b:4d4387fd3e]Josh wrote:[/b:4d4387fd3e]
:no:

A picture is worth a thousand words. You hit the nail on the head. Though, the way I feel now, I might add  and maybe even :flaming:.

Say what we will about John Wesley's theology, from what I've read and heard, he was well respected for his holiness and I get the impression that he held the scriptures in high regard. What a difference in what we see today! 

What a contrast between the stuff I quoted in the previous post and this (by John Wesley)
[quote:4d4387fd3e]
2Ti 3:16 - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,.... That is, all holy Scripture; for of that only the apostle is speaking; and he means the whole of it; not only the books of the Old Testament, but of the New, the greatest part of which was now written; for this second epistle to Timothy is by some thought to be the last of Paul's epistles; and this also will hold good of what was to be written; for all is inspired by God, or breathed by him: the Scriptures are the breath of God, the word of God and not men; they are &quot;written by the Spirit&quot;, as the Syriac version renders it; or &quot;by the Spirit of God&quot;, as the Ethiopic version. The Scriptures are here commended, from the divine authority of them;...[/quote:4d4387fd3e]

Bob


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 26, 2004)

Wow. Those are such sad statements about Scripture. They don't even have the merit of any rigor of conviction or intellectual honesty. Why should anyone listen to these people at all?

(I don't mean that about John Wesley: I admire John Wesley a great deal too, Bob: in spite of his arminianism, he was such an incredible Christian.)

[Edited on 6-26-2004 by a mere housewife]


----------



## blhowes (Jun 26, 2004)

[b:e30ead9e91]Heidi wrote:[/b:e30ead9e91]
Wow. Those are such sad statements about Scripture. They don't even have the merit of any rigor of conviction or intellectual honesty. Why should anyone listen to these people at all?

Not to sound judgmental, but these verses come to mind:

2Ti 4:3,4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

As I had mentioned, it would be troubling to attend a service that had a woman minister. What would be even more troubling would be to be in the company of so many people who have no problem with it, and other things. The church has grown considerably (numerically) since I was a kid and they had to enlarge the building and go to two services. I can't see myself &quot;worshipping&quot; with so many people who think its just fine to have a woman minister and who appear to have such a low regard for the scriptures.

Bob


----------



## Craig (Jun 26, 2004)

Bob-

The United Methodist denom is apostate...they've been &quot;leaders&quot; in regard to liberalism.

If you haven't emailed your sister back yet, I'd recommend just saying you could not sing up there in good conscience because of the Scriptures. If your sis is United Methodist, she knows her denom doesn't regard the Bible with any authority, so asking her to prove their position on women ministers from scripture is irrelevant. As Blade said, give your position in love, but don't look for a battle. Of course, if she starts asking for specifics say you submit to the authority of scripture and quote passages from the bible that contradict the ways of the United Methodists. 

In my experience the clarity of Scripture is the best defense with someone in a liberal denom.

Hope that helps somewhat


----------



## py3ak (Jun 26, 2004)

[quote:d898b56d8d]
1. There are many ways of reading the Bible 
[/quote:d898b56d8d]
No doubt that's true. You can read it systematically or sporadically; you can read it quickly or slowly. But what shouldn't be an option is reading it unbelievingly and irrationally.
[quote:d898b56d8d]
2. There is no single image of Jesus resulting from our reading of the Gospels
[/quote:d898b56d8d]
This means that the psychology of our Lord is too much for them to grasp. 
[quote:d898b56d8d] 
3. The Gospels are quite materialist texts at times
[/quote:d898b56d8d]
Perhaps I am not bright, but I admit that I don't have any idea what they are talking about
[quote:d898b56d8d]
4. The Gospels may be better understood as stories rather than history
[/quote:d898b56d8d]
In other words, let us view it as metaphysical fiction rather than the record of facts.
[quote:d898b56d8d] 
5. Non-Christian readers may sometimes stand a better chance of 'getting the point' of Gospel stories than Christian readers
[/quote:d898b56d8d]
Of course they can. The natural man receives the things of the Spirit of God with more wisdom and discernment than the children of God because they are foolishness to him so he doesn't take them seriously or believe them.
[quote:d898b56d8d] 
6. We may need to correct the theological views of the Evangelists at some points
[/quote:d898b56d8d]
In context, I am forced to think that they don't mean the early Methodist evangelists, like Francis Asbury, but Mark, Luke, Matthew and John. And doesn't it stand to reason that we have to correct their views? For crying out loud, they saw Christ with their eyes, they were witnesses of His resurrection, their world was destroyed when He was crucified and regenerated into fullness of life when He arose. We couldn't expect them to be 'playful' or even relaxed about it.
[quote:d898b56d8d] 
7. Not all of the Bible may be worth reading
[/quote:d898b56d8d]
No we have to pick and choose the parts that we can best twist into promoting our &quot;strong delusion that&quot; we &quot;should believe a lie&quot;
[quote:d898b56d8d] 
8. Historical-critical study of the Bible has not yet had as much of an impact on contemporary Christian faith as would be useful
[/quote:d898b56d8d]
No, of course it hasn't. It hasn't yet been demonstrated how everything the people held up in the Bible as models for faith did was motivated by sex, prejudice, hatred, racism, bigotry and sexism. We haven't succeeded in demonstrating that Moses thought adultery was good, that Paul was anti-semitic, and that Judas Iscariot was a selfless man of courage and integrity who sold his Lord for 30 pieces of silver in order to stop Him from spreading damaging teaching about the undying worm and the unquenchable fire.
[quote:d898b56d8d] 
9. More playfulness in our reading of the Bible would be welcome
[/quote:d898b56d8d]
Giggling and silliness as a hermeneutical tool. &quot;Joke to show thyself approved unto God, a comedian that needeth not to be ashamed, drawing clever puns from the word of frivolity&quot;
[quote:d898b56d8d] 
10 The Bible has a hard job today to prove itself as a collection of texts worth reading
[/quote:d898b56d8d]
Yes, the Bible has long struggled with low self-esteem and can't seem to bring people to pay attention to it. And consider the literature that has been put out to rival it! 
[quote:d898b56d8d] 
11. Who we read the Bible with may be as important as 'what the Bible says'
[/quote:d898b56d8d]
The whole purpose of revelation was so that we could spend cozy evenings by the fire helping the ungodly and loving those who hate the Lord by perverting the pure word of the living God into the destructive lies that will end our society and bring us to Hell.

There is no faith, there is no truth, there is no reason, there is no love in these words. There is honesty, when they say that we have to reinterpret the Evangelists. That is an admission that the Evangelists do not agree with them. There is also honesty in the admission that they find the Bible boring, and not worth their time.

Psalm 119:70 &quot;...But I have rejoiced in thy law&quot;

And a nearby verse gives you all the reason you need not to go sing with them, Bob. Psalm 119:63 &quot;I am a companion of all those that fear thee, and keep thy commandments.&quot; These people do neither, thus you will not be their companion. Psalm 1 &quot;Blessed is the man that walketh not in the way of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, [b:d898b56d8d] nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful[/b:d898b56d8d], but his [b:d898b56d8d]delight[/b:d898b56d8d] is in the law of the Lord....&quot;


----------



## blhowes (Jun 26, 2004)

I just wanted to thank those who responded for your advice and your prayers. I appreciate it.

Well, I finally sent the email off. I hope its received in the spirit it was sent. The Lord's will be done.

Ruben,
Nice critique. I was really hoping, though, that somebody would be able to tell me the Methodist church didn't hold such a low view of the scriptures. Oh well.

Bob


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 26, 2004)

Ruben, 
Awesome critique:thumbup:


----------



## py3ak (Jun 26, 2004)

Bob,

It is sad that they have gone so far downhill. Fortunately, not everyone who is in a given church even knows what the church is about. I trust that your testimony will be used by God as a blessing to your entire family.

Finn,

Glad you enjoyed it.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 27, 2004)

Thanks again for your prayers and advice. All went well. My sister responded today by saying &quot;We'll just have to agree to disagree&quot; (sound familiar, Patrick?)


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 28, 2004)

Bob, I'm really glad that God answered prayer about your email, and that you were able to write inoffensively and still clearly set forth a very different position from Scripture than what your sister believes. And you never know (in spite of her agreeing to disagree) how what you've said will affect her in the future. We'll keep praying to that end.


----------



## a (Jun 28, 2004)

[quote:0f04a6e502][i:0f04a6e502]Originally posted by py3ak[/i:0f04a6e502]
Bob,

It is sad that they have gone so far downhill. Fortunately, not everyone who is in a given church even knows what the church is about. I trust that your testimony will be used by God as a blessing to your entire family.

Finn,

Glad you enjoyed it. [/quote:0f04a6e502]



Ruben,
What you say is kind of a double-edged sword. To one extent, it is good that some people don't hear the falsehoods that the &quot;higher-ups&quot; in their church profess... but on the other hand, the church today is largely clueless and ignorant - including me!

i've found that even the most simple doctrines are not clearly taught in an educational fashion at many churches. but instead, personal convictions are taught as if they were &quot;biblical&quot; truths; and people claim these as their beliefs, but never even venture to find them in scriptures...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 28, 2004)

[quote:537982529d][i:537982529d]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:537982529d]
Thanks again for your prayers and advice. All went well. My sister responded today by saying &quot;We'll just have to agree to disagree&quot; (sound familiar, Patrick?) [/quote:537982529d]
Well, it's more pleasant than hostility. You've planted a seed of the Word. I hope and pray the Lord will cause it to grow.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 28, 2004)

[b:f28264863c]Heidi wrote:[/b:f28264863c]
I'm really glad that God answered prayer about your email, and that you were able to write inoffensively and still clearly set forth a very different position from Scripture than what your sister believes.

The way it turned out, I ended up just stating my position as briefly as I could, without getting into the scriptural details. I had hoped that would come later. In essence I told her that I couldn't attend her church because I didn't believe it was scriptural for a woman to be a pastor and that I couldn't minister in a church whose authority structure I didn't believed was ordained by God. I told her that I wasn't speaking badly of her minister, who I'm sure is very capable, smart, etc. but I just believe that her minister aspired to a position that God hadn't ordained.

My sister surprised me when she didn't &quot;engage in battle&quot;. I had planned to compare her church's present view of the scriptures with Wesley's view of scripture in our second exchange, as a way to begin talking about the authority of the scriptures. With that ground work, I then planned to focus on what the scriptures taught. 

It could still get interesting, Lord willing. I guess the rest of the family was expecting/hoping I'd join in, so I'm not sure how they will respond when they hear why I can't join. My parents already know, since my mom has invited me on a few occasions to attend her &quot;summer church&quot; up here in Massachusetts, which also has a woman minister, and each time I told her why I couldn't attend. She was of course disappointed, but she seemed to accept it ok.

I'm wondering how my second sister will react. Last time I spoke with her, she considered herself an agnostic and her husband is catholic (nominally). Maybe they might enquire further.

Anyway, thank-you for your prayers. I was able to state my case and hopefully someone in my family will engage me in further dialog about it in the future. 

Bob

PS. Just before I was ready to submit this post, I got an alert that I had received an email. My second sister wants to know why I won't be singing with them.

I'm really excited in anticipation of what God can do. The whole family knows that I'm &quot;religious&quot; and I shared my testimony with the whole family a year or two after I got saved, but I haven't brought it up since. I'm siked! I'm praying, as James 1 talks about, that I will have wisdom to know what to say (and what not to say) in our correspondences.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 28, 2004)

[quote:6fc8f419ee]
Ruben, 
What you say is kind of a double-edged sword. To one extent, it is good that some people don't hear the falsehoods that the &quot;higher-ups&quot; in their church profess... but on the other hand, the church today is largely clueless and ignorant - including me! 

i've found that even the most simple doctrines are not clearly taught in an educational fashion at many churches. but instead, personal convictions are taught as if they were &quot;biblical&quot; truths; and people claim these as their beliefs, but never even venture to find them in scriptures... [/quote:6fc8f419ee]

Ace,

Ignorance of the church's teachings is only a relative blessing, and even that only in certain situations. It's a relative blessing when the church's teachings are apostate. I'ts better for someone, for instance, who is in the Catholic church but agrees with the Reformers, than someone who wholeheartedly embraces Romanism. The best thing, of course, is to know good teaching and be in a church that teaches it.


----------



## a (Jun 28, 2004)

[quote:52bf364eb3][i:52bf364eb3]Originally posted by py3ak[/i:52bf364eb3]
[quote:52bf364eb3]
Ruben, 
What you say is kind of a double-edged sword. To one extent, it is good that some people don't hear the falsehoods that the &quot;higher-ups&quot; in their church profess... but on the other hand, the church today is largely clueless and ignorant - including me! 

i've found that even the most simple doctrines are not clearly taught in an educational fashion at many churches. but instead, personal convictions are taught as if they were &quot;biblical&quot; truths; and people claim these as their beliefs, but never even venture to find them in scriptures... [/quote:52bf364eb3]

Ace,

Ignorance of the church's teachings is only a relative blessing, and even that only in certain situations. It's a relative blessing when the church's teachings are apostate. I'ts better for someone, for instance, who is in the Catholic church but agrees with the Reformers, than someone who wholeheartedly embraces Romanism. The best thing, of course, is to know good teaching and be in a church that teaches it. [/quote:52bf364eb3]


indeed.


----------

