McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamation

[Esaias]

GD, can you identify where the apostles or Christ taught "you are to obey what God commands only if it is relevant to your culture"? I mean, this teaching of yours, that you are presenting here, is it taught in the Bible?

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

As a husband to a wife I feel that my wife is my responsibility to lead not dominate. If we seek God's direction about who we become one with and fulfill are God given role then we will never have a problem with power struggles in the home. The man is the leader, period. We have a responsibility as husbands to be good leaders, though. Man follows Christ and the wife follows husband, essentially the wife follows Christ if she follows a godly husband.

All is conditional. Wives should not have to follow ungodliness, nor men.

In saying that, how would you feel if your wife felt that she was called to preach or pastor. Is it possible for a women to hold a place such at that in the church and still be in proper submission to her husband?

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

As a husband to a wife I feel that my wife is my responsibility to lead not dominate. If we seek God's direction about who we become one with and fulfill are God given role then we will never have a problem with power struggles in the home. The man is the leader, period. We have a responsibility as husbands to be good leaders, though. Man follows Christ and the wife follows husband, essentially the wife follows Christ if she follows a godly husband.

All is conditional. Wives should not have to follow ungodliness, nor men.

In saying that, how would you feel if your wife felt that she was called to preach or pastor. Is it possible for a women to hold a place such at that in the church and still be in proper submission to her husband?

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

In saying that, how would you feel if your wife felt that she was called to preach or pastor. Is it possible for a women to hold a place such at that in the church and still be in proper submission to her husband?

Preaching would not bother me, so long as it is not a pulpit ministry. We should all spread the gospel. My wife and I are in agreement that ladies focus should be more toward the female and men toward men. I don't say too much to ladies (especially married ladies) in our church pastorally, but if I see a problem I would call the husband and the wife to speak about the issue (or have my wife to talk with the lady). As you have already said the husband is the spiritual leader of the home. I don't bypass the order of the family.

Ladies can be used in the five fold ministries without it being a positional pulpit type ministry. The occupations of the different ministries are for all, but the positions of deacons and bishops are appointed to be men. I would worry about the heart of the woman who is desiring authority over men. Working for the Lord is good, but seeking a position that is unbiblical and that could bring confusion to the body is getting the cart before the horse.

In a nutshell women will have a hard time pastoring men, because I believe it is in our wiring. God made men to be the leader of the home from creation.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I'm sorry GD, I didn't mention anything concerning epistles, I believe you and I are discussing the prohibitions listed in Acts 15:20? Can you explain how these items ( those listed in Acts 15:20 ) were just some sort of cultural abstinence?

The first thing one must ask is what was the discussion or debate about in Acts 15.
Act 15:1 And certain men came down from Judaea and taught the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.
What was Peters response?
Act 15:7 And when there had been much questioning, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Brethren, ye know that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, who knoweth the heart, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us;
Act 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.
Note two things Peter said, “God gave the Gentiles the Holy Ghost the same as he did them. And two that God cleansed their hearts by faith”. The second point should address the point that their sins were remitted by faith.
Going to the debate brought on by the Jewish faction in the church. Peter begins with these words.
Act 15:10 Now therefore why make ye trial of God, that ye should put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
What was those things that were a yoke that neither their fathers not they could bear? Was it the 10 commandments or all the rest of the laws found in the books of the law? Exodus-Deuteronomy.
Here is where the rubber meets the road, where man has ascribed to God things that were cultural and not God’s laws. God’s laws were handed down on two tablets of stone, everything else must be based off God’s Ten Commandments, If they add to or take away from God’s law it is not the commandment of God.
Jesus himself said, Mat 22:37 And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the great and first commandment.
Mat 22:39 And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets.
If the teachings do not come back to the law of God written on the tablets of stone, they are not the law of God, but a teaching of man for that particular period of time. The early church was dealing with the same issues Christ dealt with towards the religious sect of this day. What was that issue? “Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me”. How does that translate to our day? You search the scriptures for every perceived commandment of God, thinking that in doing so you will obtain eternal live, but in doing so you miss the whole mark. What then is the significance of Acts 15:20 and 29? Yes Isaias there are four points not three my bad sorry. Yes these points have significant meaning to that time more so than our day, and they are based on those things that would separate the Gentile Christians from society in that day and time. And yet we can still apply them to our day in principle. And that is where I am coming from. The principle of not making things an idol to ourselves. Something we miss more so when we try to literally read this as a commandment. We should abstain from immoral sexual sins. And drinking of blood, and things strangled goes back to the primary teaching of God concerning life is in the blood. All these things were things common to society in that day and time, outside of Jewish life.
The bottom line is that we want to read into scripture things as a direct commandment of God, that is based on our own perception. Because of this we read into scripture things that are not there. We have discussed these issues back and forth on this forum for years, and gotten nowhere. But Paul puts things in perspective in Romans 14 if one takes the time to study that chapter out.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Preaching would not bother me, so long as it is not a pulpit ministry. We should all spread the gospel. My wife and I are in agreement that ladies focus should be more toward the female and men toward men. I don't say too much to ladies (especially married ladies) in our church pastorally, but if I see a problem I would call the husband and the wife to speak about the issue (or have my wife to talk with the lady). As you have already said the husband is the spiritual leader of the home. I don't bypass the order of the family.

Ladies can be used in the five fold ministries without it being a positional pulpit type ministry. The occupations of the different ministries are for all, but the positions of deacons and bishops are appointed to be men. I would worry about the heart of the woman who is desiring authority over men. Working for the Lord is good, but seeking a position that is unbiblical and that could bring confusion to the body is getting the cart before the horse.

In a nutshell women will have a hard time pastoring men, because I believe it is in our wiring. God made men to be the leader of the home from creation.

The only thing I have to say about this is, where do we get the idea of a pulpit ministry from scripture? I guess that is more a question than a statement. Which leads to my next question, where do we scripturaly get the authoritative position we give to the term pastors, other than derived from our definition of the word pastor in Ephesians 4. A shepherd shepherds by leading and caring not by any authority.
While you say seeking a position that is unbiblical, I say the position itself is unbiblical.
Much more could be said on the subject but let me leave with this. We have more confusion in the body because of the authoritative position we have claimed, because instead of working as servants of Christ submitted to one another, Eph. 5:21. We have set ourselves up as God's mouth piece giving our own definition to our individual groups as we perceive things and we cannot even agree among ourselves from one group to another. How can anyone say that is of God?

[Sean]

Jesus told Peter to feed His(Jesus') sheep, not "shepherd" His sheep....

John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

[Sean]

I think the role of an elder should be considered PATERNAL, not as an "under-shepherd"...

1 Tim 5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

1 Peter 5
5 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;


Parents are "overseers" not "shepherds"

[Sean]

"Under-shepherd's" can many times "replace" the voice of our Good Shepherd.....

John 10 King James Version (KJV)

10 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers......


We are trained to go to "undershepherds" to get a word from God when times get tough....Is that really necessary for the Spirit filled saint?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

The bottom line is that we want to read into scripture things as a direct commandment of God, that is based on our own perception. Because of this we read into scripture things that are not there. We have discussed these issues back and forth on this forum for years, and gotten nowhere. But Paul puts things in perspective in Romans 14 if one takes the time to study that chapter out.

Brother, the apostle isn't going outside of the commandments which were already prescribed by the law, but dealing with the Gentile religious system.

First the apostolic meeting deals with circumcision, this is their main focus of the meeting. Because the religious Judeans felt that these new Gentile converts needed to become physical Israelis, due to only proselytes being able to take part in religious ceremonies of Judea. Yet, the portion of Israelism which needed Gentiles to convert through circumcision was no longer needed due to the system getting ready to become null and void. Yet, what was still mandatory was that the Gentiles give up their religious practices. Fornication πορνεία in Acts 15:20 is temple prostitution, strangled animals, were ritually killed, blood was taken also during rituals, (especially in the Mithra cult) all forms of idolatry was forbidden and to be renounced.

But why did the apostles command the new Gentile converts to abstain from these things? Because they were expected to leave their religious practices behind, and not incorporate them into their newly adopted religion. 2nd Corinthians 6:14 -17 the Apostle repeats what was laid down in Acts 15:20, and handed over to the first Christian congregation of Antioch. 1 Corinthians 10:18-19 the Apostle Paul brings up the prohibition of Acts 15:20 again, but this time he speaks of Levites eating what was sacrificed to God, but goes on to explain that what Gentiles sacrifice to in their religious practices are demons. Yet, he goes on to explain that idols are nothing, the food offered to the idols are just BBQ, yet, the spiritual implication of the ritual is in opposition to God. Hence the reason why the Gentiles were to to abstain from their old religious practices. If this was merely just some cultural situation then obviously the apostles would be of been the ones adding. The religious Judeans had book, chapter, and verse for circumcising Exodus 12:48-49.