 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 The Camel's Nose is Under the Tent |
Da Sheik |
Perhaps you're familiar with this idiom. For reasons unknown to me, the COG has failed to uphold biblical roles for the ordination of pastors. Passages that are clear and objective indicate that only males should serve as elders in the local church. The COG has chosen to ignore this completely and attempt to make it a cultural issue rather than a Creation issue. We have debated this ad nauseum here, so I don't wish to rehash again.
The arguments that the LGBTQ+ community make regarding the acceptance of their lifestyle are the same ones often cited to support the ordination of women. I'm not talking about the man-made title of "Bishop". I'm talking about the biblical role of an overseer as defined in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. We have allowed women to serve as pastors, so it's only logical that one would allow them to serve and have the same privileges afforded to any other rank of pastoral ministry. The camel's nose is already under the tent! We will have to face this issue time and time again, until we finally end up with women "bishops" (again, this is an argument of semantics).
The same is true with the affirmation of the LGBTQ+ agenda. No amount of concession will be satisfactory. There needs to be a strong and swift denunciation of any acceptance of this militant group. No one wants to hear this, but we had better pay attention. The same mainline denominations that have ordained female clergy are now the same ones ordaining gay ministers and officiating same-sex "marriages". The camel's nose is already under the tent! He won't be content until he has kicked us out of the tent altogether. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1860
1/8/24 4:20 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Cojak |
From where I sit you use some persuade arguments. True, the toe is in the door as well as the camel's nose......
I do tend to agree that if a female is allowed a pastorate, and I have known two very good ones, then Overseer ship should be allowed.
WE have gone too far to back up now... At times I am glad it won't be long and I will take that final journey, according to years. 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24277
1/8/24 8:05 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
FLRon |
I have no doubt, given the speed at which so much of society has been forced to capitulate to the demands of the alphabet community, that ALL churches and denominations will be forced to bow at the feet of the gay and lesbian communities in order to keep their tax exempt status.
It would not surprise me in the least to see these demands become a hotly debated issue in this fall’s presidential election, wrapped neatly under the guise of ensuring only “qualified” groups can retain or in the case of new requests, obtain tax exempt status.
_________________
“Hell will be filled with people that didn’t cuss, didn’t drink, and may even have been baptized. Why? Because none of those things makes someone a Christian.”
Voddie Baucham |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 771
1/9/24 4:11 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: The Camel's Nose is Under the Tent |
UncleJD |
| Da Sheik wrote: | Perhaps you're familiar with this idiom. For reasons unknown to me, the COG has failed to uphold biblical roles for the ordination of pastors. Passages that are clear and objective indicate that only males should serve as elders in the local church. The COG has chosen to ignore this completely and attempt to make it a cultural issue rather than a Creation issue. We have debated this ad nauseum here, so I don't wish to rehash again.
The arguments that the LGBTQ+ community make regarding the acceptance of their lifestyle are the same ones often cited to support the ordination of women. I'm not talking about the man-made title of "Bishop". I'm talking about the biblical role of an overseer as defined in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. We have allowed women to serve as pastors, so it's only logical that one would allow them to serve and have the same privileges afforded to any other rank of pastoral ministry. The camel's nose is already under the tent! We will have to face this issue time and time again, until we finally end up with women "bishops" (again, this is an argument of semantics).
The same is true with the affirmation of the LGBTQ+ agenda. No amount of concession will be satisfactory. There needs to be a strong and swift denunciation of any acceptance of this militant group. No one wants to hear this, but we had better pay attention. The same mainline denominations that have ordained female clergy are now the same ones ordaining gay ministers and officiating same-sex "marriages". The camel's nose is already under the tent! He won't be content until he has kicked us out of the tent altogether. |
Brotha please.  That is ridiculous. I fail to see how settled and biblically sound teaching on the sin of sodomy is on the same plane as debatable and largely Roman Catholic based teaching regarding women in ministry? Equating the two is ridiculous and non-sequitur. Especially in a denomination that pretty much owes a great part of its existence to women preachers and evangelists in its early days. Is there room for discussion regarding women's roles? Sure! But if you start the conversation that its in the same realm as sodomy and those that love it? get real |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3139
1/9/24 3:47 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| The issue is not women in the pastorate... |
Aaron Scott |
The issue is the belief that our church will be more "acceptable" to the world, inviting more to join with us, if we are open to women in the highest levels of leadership.
THAT is the real issue: The desire to accommodate the world's views and values.
We did this many years ago in the relaxation of certain dress requirements, etc. I think there was indeed some relaxation warranted. But as best I can tell, we did it for only one of two reasons:
1) Leaders and pastors' wives pushed for change, exerting influence through their husbands; and/or
2) The thinking that such a relaxation would cause people to be more attracted to what we offered. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
1/10/24 9:31 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: The issue is not women in the pastorate... |
UncleJD |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | The issue is the belief that our church will be more "acceptable" to the world, inviting more to join with us, if we are open to women in the highest levels of leadership.
THAT is the real issue: The desire to accommodate the world's views and values.
We did this many years ago in the relaxation of certain dress requirements, etc. I think there was indeed some relaxation warranted. But as best I can tell, we did it for only one of two reasons:
1) Leaders and pastors' wives pushed for change, exerting influence through their husbands; and/or
2) The thinking that such a relaxation would cause people to be more attracted to what we offered. |
All of this is worthy of debate, but just don't present it as being the same as excusing or condoning sodomy. That's the equivalent of Godwin's law where people throw out "Nazi" to try to win an argument. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3139
1/10/24 2:47 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Da Sheik |
My post was not about moral equivalence regarding sodomy and ordination of women. The commonality is that both groups blatantly ignore God's commands regarding gender roles. A woman cannot possibly meet the requirements of I Timothy 3 or Titus 1. This doesn't mean she isn't gifted, valuable, or anointed. The plain, literal meaning of the text doesn't allow for a bishop to be the wife of one husband, ruling her own household well. She may rule her household...but she has no biblical right to do so.
A man can't get pregnant, regardless of how he "identifies". It doesn't mean the man is inferior. God didn't intend for men to have babies. According to scripture, He doesn't intend for women to oversee the church. Perhaps you could point me to one example where Jesus appointed a female to apostleship or where Paul ordained a woman pastor. You can't find any examples because this would have been absurd to the apostles in the first century. Women weren't even able to testify in court in those days. So many in our movement give no thought to the Sitz im Leben of biblical times. We are victims of feminism and lack of male leadership.
You may find it unreasonable to even mention the Alphabet group in the same discussion as the ordination of women. Again, I'm not saying there is moral equivalence here. I'm saying that heresy begets heresy. God means what He says and says what He means. We have no right to disregard His clear commands about the biblical requirements of an overseer. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1860
1/10/24 5:20 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| Da Sheik wrote: | My post was not about moral equivalence regarding sodomy and ordination of women. The commonality is that both groups blatantly ignore God's commands regarding gender roles. A woman cannot possibly meet the requirements of I Timothy 3 or Titus 1. This doesn't mean she isn't gifted, valuable, or anointed. The plain, literal meaning of the text doesn't allow for a bishop to be the wife of one husband, ruling her own household well. She may rule her household...but she has no biblical right to do so.
A man can't get pregnant, regardless of how he "identifies". It doesn't mean the man is inferior. God didn't intend for men to have babies. According to scripture, He doesn't intend for women to oversee the church. Perhaps you could point me to one example where Jesus appointed a female to apostleship or where Paul ordained a woman pastor. You can't find any examples because this would have been absurd to the apostles in the first century. Women weren't even able to testify in court in those days. So many in our movement give no thought to the Sitz im Leben of biblical times. We are victims of feminism and lack of male leadership.
You may find it unreasonable to even mention the Alphabet group in the same discussion as the ordination of women. Again, I'm not saying there is moral equivalence here. I'm saying that heresy begets heresy. God means what He says and says what He means. We have no right to disregard His clear commands about the biblical requirements of an overseer. |
One of the arguments that egalitarians on this issue make is that Paul says that Andronichus and Junia were of note among the apostles, and Junia is a feminine name, though later Latin translations tried to masculinize it.
Of course, some of them ignore the ambiguity there. One does not have to be an apostle to be of note among the apostles. |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
1/19/24 11:48 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Sometimes the slope is slippery.
But I suspect other factors contribute toward the general moral laxity when it comes to the LGBT issue. The sort of underlying tendency not to be seen as discriminatory bigots that motivates _some_ of those who want women to be local church pastors, at least since the 1960's, may underlie promoting the LGBT issue. I don't know that the motivation or mindset was the same in 1920.
I think absorbing the lax attitude toward sexual morality contributes to it as well. Theoretically, I think COG pastors and members would be opposed to fornication, adultery, and the use of porn. But the sense of revulsion towards such things may have decreased after watching TV shows with these things in them, absorbing general attitudes of the world, and some people partaking. How many church people were virgins at marriage? When I was a sixteen to buy porn, I'd have to talk to someone at a convenience story and have them get it and bring it to me... I suppose. I didn't buy a magazine like that, but I think they had those rules at convenience stores. Nowadays, six year olds can type a few words and easily see dirty pictures or movies with violence in them.
And then there are lax attitudes towards divorce and remarriage. Someone divorces with no Biblical grounds at all, and do church people say anything to him if he wants to remarry? Or the couple divorces and each waits the other one out to start dating. Oh he dated, that's adultery, I'll remarry. Then he says to himself I'm not sleeping with my girlfriend. She remarried. That's adultery and I'm free. Or they might take the verse about the unbeliever departing and say 'The way he treated me he must have an unbeliever' and he says, 'The way she left me, she must be an unbeliever' and 'he departed from me a long time ago in his heart.' If you ask them about it, they may say, "The Lord released me." Who in the church urges divorced couples in the church to reconcile?
Society pushes for lower standards. If the church drops its standards, society goes lower. |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
1/19/24 11:58 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Link - Perhaps its more than sexual orientation ... |
Mat |
Link,
Perhaps its more than sexual orientation in regards to the concerns about Lee U and the Travis Johnson investigation. Your observation that in general among Christians there is "softening" to sexual sins and lifestyles due to cultural influences as compared to the 1920s is correct, but there is more to this situation.
Some would say the greater threat is introduction of religious pluralism when it comes to the tenets of the Holiness Pentecostal Movement, which has been the foundation of the Church of God Movement and Lee U. Pluralism counts as co-equal those who would hold to the Holiness Pentecostal ethos with those of the Reformed or Catholic or Orthodox (or any other) expression of Christianity. This would result in Lee U. not truly being a "Church of God institution" but rather just another "woke" university with a Christian moniker.
The "nose of the camel" may be the Episcopal Church's welcoming, blessing, sharing communion and ordaining sexual lifestyles which are not Biblical, but it is the "load" the camel brings with it that is of concern (the preverbal stew which broke the camel's back).
We often talk about how Harvard started as a seminary, yet today Harvard is anti-Christian, woke and social justice driven, to the point even the chaplain of Harvard claims to be an atheist. Is Lee wanting to be more like Harvard or more like its beginnings, Bible Training School?
By the way, COG folks were very proud of their former Lee president who was a Harvard grad. Is there a cause and effect here.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1981
1/20/24 7:47 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Link - Perhaps its more than sexual orientation ... |
Link |
| Mat wrote: | Link,
Some would say the greater threat is introduction of religious pluralism when it comes to the tenets of the Holiness Pentecostal Movement, which has been the foundation of the Church of God Movement and Lee U. Pluralism counts as co-equal those who would hold to the Holiness Pentecostal ethos with those of the Reformed or Catholic or Orthodox (or any other) expression of Christianity. This would result in Lee U. not truly being a "Church of God institution" but rather just another "woke" university with a Christian moniker.
|
Reformed can be really conservative. There are liberals in the UPC and some of the European Reformed denominations, but a lot of those who emphasized how Reformed their theology is tend to be conservative about issues of sexual morality. Roman Catholics can be conservative about this issue, and also do not ordain women. I think the Eastern Orthodox tend to be conservative about this issue. Russia is probably a little soft on the gay issue, but more conservative than the west.
There are liberal Roman Catholics, too, but the groups you mentioned aren't all so-called 'woke'. |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
1/21/24 11:52 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
