Women in Ministry

[KagomeShuko]

I already know that the LCMS, WELS, ELS, and some others here on CF will disagree with this post. My purpose in posting this is to show that it is not just one or two verses the ELCA uses in support of women in ministry. In fact, it's bothering me that I only see one verse constantly quoted and then the fact that Deborah was a judge and nothing else. This will at least give a few REAL reasons.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

All Small Study

In Support of Women in Ministry and the Ordination of Women




[First, a bit of background. I am a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), firstly, because it best fits my beliefs. The ELCA uses the Historical-Critical Method (HCM) of interpreting the Bible. This allows me to agree with such things as there being “contradictions” in the Bible and yet saying that they're not really contradictions, but that things in the Bible were written to certain audiences and that the Bible was written in a time when people were highly prejudiced against women being leaders, even when there happened to be some great women leaders.]




*All emphases added are my own*




The mistake most people make is that those in support of women in ministry base this off of only one verse in the Bible: Galatians 3:28. This is not true.




A three-fold prejudice had kept women from being ordained in churches. First, women were considered inferior by nature and by law. This was Greek philosophy adopted by Christians. 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 shows this prejudice.




Second, women were considered ritually unclean because of their menstrual cycles. However, any discharge at any time made males ritually unclean and this was ignored.




Third, women were held responsible and in a constant state of punishment for the first sin. This prejudice is even found in the Bible. 1 Timothy 2:13-14 says, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”




While woman was deceived, so was man. Genesis 3:6 says, “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.” Woman was not alone with the serpent. Man was with woman when she ate the “forbidden fruit.” Man did nothing to stop woman from eating, nor did he refuse to eat. When the man answers God in Genesis 3:12, he blames the woman, but also admits that he ate the fruit.




According to 1 Timothy 2:15, woman is not saved solely by Grace through faith, but by childbearing. This is certainly not the message of the Gospel. It would also open the questions to things such as “What about women who decide they don't want to have children?” and “What about women who can't have children?”




While it is true that God made woman from man, He did not make women lower than men. Many try to use 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 to argue against this point because it says, “For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.”




Yet, an often ignored passage is just a few verses down in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12. It says, “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God.” The most important part of this passage is that all things come through God.




Even in Genesis, it is stated that woman is the image of God and not the image of man. Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created humankind in His image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them; male and female He created them.” Then Genesis 5:1-2 states, “This is the list of the descendants of Adam. When God created humankind, He made them in the likeness of God. Male and female He created them, and He blessed them and named them 'Humankind' when they were created.” It does not matter if a person prefers a translation of the Bible that says “man” or “Adam” rather than “humankind” because the passages still say that God made males and females in His image.




Even in the Old Testament it says that God will pour out His spirit on women. Joel 2:28-29 states, “Then afterward I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female slaves, in those days, I will pour out my spirit.”




This is repeated in the New Testament in Acts 2:18, “Even upon slaves, both men and women, in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.”




If God did not want women to spread the Gospel, He would not have had women be the ones to let the discipled know that Jesus had risen.




In all four Gospels, women are the people who first spread the news of Jesus' resurrection. This can be found in the following passages: Matthew 28:8-10; Mark 16:7; Luke 24:8; and John 20:17-18. No matter exactly who was told to tell the disciples the good news, they were always women.




Hebrews 7:16 says, “one who has become a priest not through a legal requirement concerning physical decent, but through the power of an indestructible life.” Even with this, we must remember that Christ was and is not a priest according to the line of Aaron, but a priest according to the line of Melchizadek. We know very little about the lineage and the rules of the lineage of Melchizadek.




So, while the support of women in ministry goes beyond the single verse of Galatians 3:28, the verse is still very important when it comes to supporting this view.

“There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[JMRE5150]

While you'll meet much opposition (as usual) on this, I got one thing to say...


YOU GO GIRL!

SNAP!

[HunterJon]

Here is another interesting article that talks about the role of women in the early church, I had to read this for a New Testament class I took a couple of semesters ago. I think it is a good piece of sholarly work that I know I found quite informative.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/roles.html

[RedneckAnglican]

While you'll meet much opposition (as usual) on this, I got one thing to say...


YOU GO GIRL!

SNAP!




totally ditto...dude...

[SemStudent08]

:clap: :amen: :clap:


Get ready for arguments, but I for one am behind you! Some of the BEST preachers I have heard have been women, and I simply cannot deny that God is speaking through them. To do so would seem to me to restrict what God can or cannot do, and I find it difficult at best to place any restrictions on God, especially with my limited understanding of God.

[GlowingFirefly]

Go get'em Bridget!!! :clap:

You will get comments from the opposing side, but I am with you all the way. I've known and met some really good Pastors that are women in the Lutheran church.

So I've got your back Bridget. :)

[Lutherrunner]

I completely support women in any endeavor in life.......

[Music4Hym777]

I'm glad there is sooo much support! I am heading off to seminary in about 3 years! I'm really excited!

[Jim47]

All Small Study

In Support of Women in Ministry and the Ordination of Women


Third, women were held responsible and in a constant state of punishment for the first sin. [QUOTE]This prejudice is even found in the Bible. 1 Timothy 2:13-14 says, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”



I don't care to argue/debate Women in the Ministry, although I don't agree with it, but in the above verse when you say the Bible is prejudiced, I think that is stepping over the line and saying "you" find fault with God. Not a good position to be in.



According to 1 Timothy 2:15, woman is not saved solely by Grace through faith, but by childbearing. This is certainly not the message of the Gospel. It would also open the questions to things such as “What about women who decide they don't want to have children?” and “What about women who can't have children?”



I brought this verse up in our Bible class a few weeks back because I had always had questions about it. My Pastor explained to me, the "child bearing part" is not restricted to just child bearing, but simply means that when a woman does the things that Her Lord calls her do, serving in various ways according to God's design, that they (women) shall be saved.


I will say your post was very well written and I admire your spunk. I have pondered over this teaching myself for over a year now, and have concluded that there is just too much scripture that states women should not be in the Ministry.

This of couse does not mean that they can't serve their Lord or their church, but just not in a position of the Ministry.

I think we trod on dangerous ground when we try to apply human logic to God's Word and teachings.

Didn't St Paul recieve his Apostolic Ministry directly from Jesus?

Why should we doubt what Paul wrote just because we sinners don't agree with it. We then place ourselves in the same place that the Children of Isreal did. They doubted God's Word and power too.

Are there are other scriptures that you doubt?

Who do suppose causes those doubts?

I in NO way believe that women are inferior to men, if that is what your church teaches then its wrong. I am a WELS Lutheran and "My church" teaches there is no differance between men and women in righteousness. We have been given different roles in life and we have been given different gifts to help complete those roles, and I am not talking about just the obvious physical differances.

With that Bridget, I again say I admire your spunk, but I am sorry I don't agree with the ELCA on that or any of the other differances.

We fall onto dangerous ground when we questions God's Word or attempt to put man's or Women's logic to justify what we agree with and what we don't. :wave:

[revjpw]

We have been around and around on this subject and the fact remains that Scripture is very clear that God does not call women into the Office of the Public Ministry. The context of Galatians 3 is in no way talking about equality for the sake of ministry, it is referring solely to salvation. The message there is that one's salvation is not dependent upon one's race ot gender or station in life. It most certainly does not support women in the ministry. There are still roles and duties that are specific to both men and women. Men are given the duties to be the husband, the father, the caregiver, the provider, and the teacher of the household. It is no different with the household of God. Those duties are given to men and Scripture clearly defines this.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

1 Timothy 3:2-5 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)

1 Timothy 3:11 Likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.

This distinction here that is made by mentioning "wives" in 1 Timothy 3 makes it very clear that the office duties that Paul is detailing are for men only.

Also, your mentioning of the state of creation is not a valid argument either. After the Fall, the roles of men and women are clearly different.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you."

This does not speak about "ruling" as a servant/master relationship, but rather of distinctive roles. The woman is not to desire the role of her husband, but is to desire her husband to do his God-given duty. If a woman desires that role that has been given to the husband, then she is steppintg outside the Word of God and His order of things. This is the very definition if sin. This is what the serpent pursuaded them to do, to step outside of God's order.

Women who pursue to enter the ministry are stepping outside of God's order and are guilty of sinning.

[RedneckAnglican]

and so it begins...this is why I love you folks...

[purpleunicorn_Andi]

What gets me is that the scriptures that are always quoted against women in ministry...are LETTERS... to specific people/churches about specific situations. what about the gospels that were not included in the Bible? the Lost Gospels...

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." (gospel of Thomas)

then there is the Gospel of Mary....

yes I know these aren't recognized gospels...at least not by most churches...but who is to say whether or not they have truth in them. Do you know for a fact that they aren't true Gospels? I am tired of people using LETTERS to "prove" that women shouldn't be in ministry.
I echo the You go Girl!!!!!!!!!!!

[purpleunicorn_Andi]

oh yeah and another thing....The bible is the inspired WORD of God... written by man... translated by countless numbers, countless numbers of times. have you read and understand the original texts? I haven't....I'm not saying that there are mistakes, but in all those trasnslations sometimes the same passage can be read completely different.... just something to think about.... God still inspires us in the translated WORD, but what would we see if we could understand the orgiinal texts?

[Rechtgläubig]

oh yeah and another thing....The bible is the inspired WORD of God... written by man... translated by countless numbers, countless numbers of times. have you read and understand the original texts? I haven't....I'm not saying that there are mistakes, but in all those trasnslations sometimes the same passage can be read completely different.... just something to think about.... God still inspires us in the translated WORD, but what would we see if we could understand the orgiinal texts?

Yeah too bad we can't unlock the hidden mysteries of the original text...

Exegesis anyone?
http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Scripture/gen-chr.htm


Hebrew font: http://www.wls.wels.net/Publications/Theologia/Fonts/sptiberi.ttf
Greek font: http://www.wls.wels.net/Publications/Theologia/Fonts/spionic_.ttf

[Jim47]

What gets me is that the scriptures that are always quoted against women in ministry...are LETTERS... to specific people/churches about specific situations. what about the gospels that were not included in the Bible? the Lost Gospels...

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." (gospel of Thomas)

then there is the Gospel of Mary....

yes I know these aren't recognized gospels...at least not by most churches...but who is to say whether or not they have truth in them. Do you know for a fact that they aren't true Gospels? I am tired of people using LETTERS to "prove" that women shouldn't be in ministry.
I echo the You go Girl!!!!!!!!!!!


That would be why they are not part of The Bible which is God's Word. So why consider them?

[Rechtgläubig]

I am tired of people using LETTERS to "prove" that women shouldn't be in ministry.
I echo the You go Girl!!!!!!!!!!!

:sigh:

[ChiRho]

What gets me is that the scriptures that are always quoted against women in ministry...are LETTERS... to specific people/churches about specific situations. what about the gospels that were not included in the Bible? the Lost Gospels...

Well, are they mere letters, or are they the inspired Word of God? You cant have it both ways. Either you appeal to them and what is contained, or you dismiss them and disbelieve what they say. There is no other alternative.

To say that they were written to specific people in a specific time only, puts everyone today outside of Christ's salvation. Unless of course you are an original member of the church of Ephesus (or Rome, Thessolonica, etc) and are experiencing the joint aches of someone nearly two-thousand years old.

It is no secret that the "gospels" you refer too are false, agnostic writings that seek to lie and distort Christianity. From your very next quote, it proves my point:

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." (gospel of Thomas)

Christ will make the woman, male? Yeah, I always thought transvestites would make great pastors!

then there is the Gospel of Mary....

Gospels of Philip and Mary


Q. Can I get information on why the Gospels of Philip and Mary are excluded from the Bible? I was unaware of them until today and am now curious.

A. If you are interested in pursuing the history of the development of the biblical canon, I would suggest a work such as the following: F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988). Bruce in some detail speaks of the criteria that led to the inclusion of books in the Bible, and to the exclusion of others. Central was the criterion of orthodoxy--that is, the book had to authenticate itself as containing the apostolic faith, or as Bruce puts it, "the faith set forth in the undoubted apostolic writings and maintained in the churches which had been founded by the apostles" (260). The canonical history is especially instructive for how the church defended itself against ancient heretical groups and movements such as the gnostics (whose numerous writings floated around in early centuries). The Gospel of Philip is an heretical, gnostic treatise preserved among the papyri found at Nag Hammadi in 1945-46. It dates, so the experts say, from the 2nd or 3rd century. Likewise, the Gospel of Mary is an apocryphal Gnostic Gospel describing a vision in which the progress of the Gnostic through seven planetary spheres is explained. Many biblical or theological dictionaries have articles on these writings.

The above is from the LCMS site. I also suggest that you read F.F. Bruce.

yes I know these aren't recognized gospels...at least not by most churches...but who is to say whether or not they have truth in them.


Christ.

Do you know for a fact that they aren't true Gospels?

Yes. They are nasty heretical frauds.

I am tired of people using LETTERS to "prove" that women shouldn't be in ministry.

With the curtain pulled back...the great OZ is revealed! You assume that women should, therefore you use anything to try and prove your point. Even to the extent of appealing to confusion as proof.


I echo the You go Girl!!!!!!!!!!!

Careful where you encourage people to go.

"Woe to those who run where I have not sent them." (Jeremiah 23:21-24)

oh yeah and another thing....The bible is the inspired WORD of God... written by man... translated by countless numbers, countless numbers of times. have you read and understand the original texts? I haven't....I'm not saying that there are mistakes, but in all those trasnslations sometimes the same passage can be read completely different.... just something to think about.... God still inspires us in the translated WORD, but what would we see if we could understand the orgiinal texts?

Again, from one hand you offer, with the other you snatch it away just as quickly. Is the Bible the inspired word of God that we may trust, or is it a book that has been mistranslated so many times that we can no longer identify truth from error? You may have it one way or another; not both.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Rechtgläubig]

Are you sane?
I thought it was a joke the first time I read it, but I don't think it is, ChiRho...

:(

[JMRE5150]

I thought it was a joke the first time I read it, but I don't think it is, ChiRho...

:(

Wow...so did I. And I'm FOR women as Pastors.

There is a big difference in believing that scripture can be culturally relative and denouncing them as less than the gospels.

Let's let the poster clarify this some more.

Maybe we misunderstand the poster...or maybe it was a joke. Let's hope for either of these options. eek. :scratch:

Lets get this straight. The ELCA believes certain scripture spoke to specific crowds depending on their specific situations, problems and needs. We do NOT believe they are less than any other scripture. To suggest such a thing is to suggest that some word of God is false or wrong, or not the word of God at all.

[ByzantineDixie]

You guys surely are not giving me much of an opportunity to stay in exile with posts like this OP. Again, Bridget and others, what I will say may sound harsh but I am not being harsh at Bridget or Puppy or Music or andi or any person specifically. My anger has a more global aspect to it and includes all of the churches who have failed to remain faithful to the scriptures, our confessions and 2000 years of church Tradition.



Just a few posts ago a number of you proudly stated your reasonings for being confessional Lutherans. I am not going to waste words. If you support women in the ministry then you are NOT a confessional Lutheran. I would argue than by default someone who supports women in the ministry is not Lutheran at all but belongs to some sect which has stolen the name. Go to Webber’s Theology site (http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.html)and read Luther on women. It is clear what he had in mind.



Here are just a few of the points to consider from the orthodox, confessional position:



1) Scriptures are clear—a woman has many roles and much responsibility but is not to be a pastor. Here is a great exegesis that actually helped convince me (http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/w/WLS1Tim/WLS1Tim.htm)—it also addresses the “childbearing” verse nicely as well. (Even though it is WELS! ;) ) The only way one can get Scripture to say women should be in the Office of the Holy Ministry is by the application of the Historical Critical method of interpretation which distorts the clear meaning of Scripture.

2) That women are not to be pastors does not mean women have a lesser role to play. It is not a demeaning position to be in. Men have roles. Women have roles. Both are God-given. Both are equally good roles. If God gave us roles to play and if we don’t want the roles we have been given…what does that say about our trust in God?

3) I honestly don’t understand how anyone can ignore 2000 years of practice in the church catholic. This doesn’t even compute for me. Why would God give “special” insight to the children of the 21st Century? The answer is He wouldn’t. He doesn’t change. We do. And apparently not always for the better and not always opting to remain faithful to Him or His bride, the church.



Back to exile again until the next Lutheran error forces my hand at this keyboard. Of course, it is discussions just such as these that have me where I am in the first place. In the meantime, if someone finds the real Lutheran church…please PM me.



Rose

[JMRE5150]

I would argue than by default someone who supports women in the ministry is not Lutheran at all but belongs to some sect which has stolen the name.

Ok, then I guess I won't post in this forum anymore, since I don't belong. I also guess I'll ask the Patience Team to take me off of modding this forum. :(

*wave* :wave:

Robb

[SPALATIN]

You guys surely are not giving me much of an opportunity to stay in exile with posts like this OP. Again, Bridget and others, what I will say may sound harsh but I am not being harsh at Bridget or Puppy or Music or andi or any person specifically. My anger has a more global aspect to it and includes all of the churches who have failed to remain faithful to the scriptures, our confessions and 2000 years of church Tradition.



Just a few posts ago a number of you proudly stated your reasonings for being confessional Lutherans. I am not going to waste words. If you support women in the ministry then you are NOT a confessional Lutheran. I would argue than by default someone who supports women in the ministry is not Lutheran at all but belongs to some sect which has stolen the name. Go to Webber’s Theology site (http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.html)and read Luther on women. It is clear what he had in mind.



Here are just a few of the points to consider from the orthodox, confessional position:



1)Scriptures are clear—a woman has many roles and much responsibility but is not to be a pastor. Here is a great exegesis that actually helped convince me (http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/w/WLS1Tim/WLS1Tim.htm)—it also addresses the “childbearing” verse nicely as well. (Even though it is WELS! ;) ) The only way one can get Scripture to say women should be in the Office of the Holy Ministry is by the application of the Historical Critical method of interpretation which distorts the clear meaning of Scripture.

2)That women are not to be pastors does not mean women have a lesser role to play. It is not a demeaning position to be in. Men have roles. Women have roles. Both are God-given. Both are equally good roles. If God gave us roles to play and if we don’t want the roles we have been given…what does that say about our trust in God?

3)I honestly don’t understand how anyone can ignore 2000 years of practice in the church catholic. This doesn’t even compute for me. Why would God give “special” insight to the children of the 21st Century? The answer is He wouldn’t. He doesn’t change. We do. And apparently not always for the better and not always opting to remain faithful to Him or His bride, the church.



Back to exile again until the next Lutheran error forces my hand at this keyboard. Of course, it is discussions just such as these that have me where I am in the first place. In the meantime, if someone finds the real Lutheran church…please PM me.



Rose

Well Said Rose!

[SPALATIN]

What gets me is that the scriptures that are always quoted against women in ministry...are LETTERS... to specific people/churches about specific situations. what about the gospels that were not included in the Bible? the Lost Gospels...

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." (gospel of Thomas)

then there is the Gospel of Mary....

yes I know these aren't recognized gospels...at least not by most churches...but who is to say whether or not they have truth in them. Do you know for a fact that they aren't true Gospels? I am tired of people using LETTERS to "prove" that women shouldn't be in ministry.
I echo the You go Girl!!!!!!!!!!!

What you are speaking of is Gnosticism. This stuff does not follow in line with what was scriptural which is why it was never canonized.

[ChiRho]

Ok, then I guess I won't post in this forum anymore, since I don't belong. I also guess I'll ask the Patience Team to take me off of modding this forum. :(

*wave* :wave:

Robb


JM,

It would be better to state your case, then appeal to pity. As much as we like you, tears will not cause us to waver from what Scripture and the Confessions clearly lay down. By the way, DanHead, despite being ELCA, is as Lutheran as they get...so no callin' unfair bias on this one.

Pax

[Rechtgläubig]

You guys surely are not giving me much of an opportunity to stay in exile with posts like this OP. ....Back to exile again until the next Lutheran error forces my hand at this keyboard. Of course, it is discussions just such as these that have me where I am in the first place. In the meantime, if someone finds the real Lutheran church…please PM me.

Rose

:idea: :wave: :kiss: See you soon Rosie!


"Hmmm, Lutheran contemporary worship..." :D

[Flipper]

What do you mean by "ministry."

Women in pastorial roles?

Women in teaching roles?

Women just ministering to others?

All of the above?

I thought the Bible says that we are all Ministers. If we are on the greeting committee, greeting people coming into church, I thought that was a little ministry in itself - women can't do that?

[SPALATIN]

I already know that the LCMS, WELS, ELS, and some others here on CF will disagree with this post. My purpose in posting this is to show that it is not just one or two verses the ELCA uses in support of women in ministry. In fact, it's bothering me that I only see one verse constantly quoted and then the fact that Deborah was a judge and nothing else. This will at least give a few REAL reasons.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

All Small Study

In Support of Women in Ministry and the Ordination of Women




[First, a bit of background. I am a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), firstly, because it best fits my beliefs. The ELCA uses the Historical-Critical Method (HCM) of interpreting the Bible. This allows me to agree with such things as there being “contradictions” in the Bible and yet saying that they're not really contradictions, but that things in the Bible were written to certain audiences and that the Bible was written in a time when people were highly prejudiced against women being leaders, even when there happened to be some great women leaders.]




*All emphases added are my own*




The mistake most people make is that those in support of women in ministry base this off of only one verse in the Bible: Galatians 3:28. This is not true.




A three-fold prejudice had kept women from being ordained in churches. First, women were considered inferior by nature and by law. This was Greek philosophy adopted by Christians. 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 shows this prejudice.




Second, women were considered ritually unclean because of their menstrual cycles. However, any discharge at any time made males ritually unclean and this was ignored.




Third, women were held responsible and in a constant state of punishment for the first sin. This prejudice is even found in the Bible. 1 Timothy 2:13-14 says, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”




While woman was deceived, so was man. Genesis 3:6 says, “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.” Woman was not alone with the serpent. Man was with woman when she ate the “forbidden fruit.” Man did nothing to stop woman from eating, nor did he refuse to eat. When the man answers God in Genesis 3:12, he blames the woman, but also admits that he ate the fruit.




According to 1 Timothy 2:15, woman is not saved solely by Grace through faith, but by childbearing. This is certainly not the message of the Gospel. It would also open the questions to things such as “What about women who decide they don't want to have children?” and “What about women who can't have children?”




While it is true that God made woman from man, He did not make women lower than men. Many try to use 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 to argue against this point because it says, “For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.”




Yet, an often ignored passage is just a few verses down in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12. It says, “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God.” The most important part of this passage is that all things come through God.




Even in Genesis, it is stated that woman is the image of God and not the image of man. Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created humankind in His image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them; male and female He created them.” Then Genesis 5:1-2 states, “This is the list of the descendants of Adam. When God created humankind, He made them in the likeness of God. Male and female He created them, and He blessed them and named them 'Humankind' when they were created.” It does not matter if a person prefers a translation of the Bible that says “man” or “Adam” rather than “humankind” because the passages still say that God made males and females in His image.




Even in the Old Testament it says that God will pour out His spirit on women. Joel 2:28-29 states, “Then afterward I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female slaves, in those days, I will pour out my spirit.”




This is repeated in the New Testament in Acts 2:18, “Even upon slaves, both men and women, in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.”




If God did not want women to spread the Gospel, He would not have had women be the ones to let the discipled know that Jesus had risen.




In all four Gospels, women are the people who first spread the news of Jesus' resurrection. This can be found in the following passages: Matthew 28:8-10; Mark 16:7; Luke 24:8; and John 20:17-18. No matter exactly who was told to tell the disciples the good news, they were always women.




Hebrews 7:16 says, “one who has become a priest not through a legal requirement concerning physical decent, but through the power of an indestructible life.” Even with this, we must remember that Christ was and is not a priest according to the line of Aaron, but a priest according to the line of Melchizadek. We know very little about the lineage and the rules of the lineage of Melchizadek.




So, while the support of women in ministry goes beyond the single verse of Galatians 3:28, the verse is still very important when it comes to supporting this view.

“There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Stein Auf!
Bridget

Sorry Bridget I don't buy it and neither will any other CONFESSIONAL Lutheran. The HCM you speak about is what separates us. I will never hold that method as being legitimate in interpreting scripture. Scripture interprets scripture. HCM is just a man-made way to justify his own sin.

I will not comment further on this post because if I do I will say things that aren't nice and will lead to sin.

[Music4Hym777]

Okay, I need to interject and ask, why do you believe this canon? This is ONE kings list of what should be canonized in his Christmas letter over 200 years after the last work was written! The early church had many many different canon's. This one stuck, but could it be that (oh gosh I cant remember his name) could have been slightly wrong?

Even Luther thought that Revelation was "sub-Christian"

[JMRE5150]

JM,

It would be better to state your case, then appeal to pity. As much as we like you, tears will not cause us to waver from what Scripture and the Confessions clearly lay down. By the way, DanHead, despite being ELCA, is as Lutheran as they get...so no callin' unfair bias on this one.

Pax

There simply is no "pity" needed. I simply am tired of the back and forth between our sects.

Why state our case over and over and over again? You will not convert us, and we don't believe we can convert you.

Time and time again the ELCA members of this forum show others respect, but I will stick my neck out here and say that we dont believe we always get it back.

I personally will always remain ELCA for my lifetime, they are my beliefs, whether anyone views them as wrong or right. Why continue to post here just to time and time again be told I am not a Lutheran, or shouldn't be called one?

Its a pointless waste of my time to constantly engage in "we are right...no! we are right" dialogue.

I personally believe that Lutherans should have subgroups split in the forums, but, since these are Erwins forums, and he chooses to have us all under one banner ...I respect his decisions, and its best for me to simply place my energy elsewhere on the site.

I come here to fellowship...not banter back and forth about differences.

I have asked for removal as mod from this forum, as I can no longer moderate without showing bias. I think we would all agree that this would be best for all involved. Noone wants a mod who shows favoritism, and I'm not willing to go against my promise to Erwin as a member of his staff, so I have asked to be removed before such a time comes as I may "step over the line".

Take care all of you, and maybe I'll stick my head in from time to time to say hello. You'll surely see me around the other forums doing my job, fellowshipping, and hanging out!

God's grace to all of you,
JMRE5150

[purpleunicorn_Andi]

That would be why they are not part of The Bible which is God's Word. So why consider them?

But who desided not to put them in the Bible...MEN

[purpleunicorn_Andi]

Wow...so did I. And I'm FOR women as Pastors.

There is a big difference in believing that scripture can be culturally relative and denouncing them as less than the gospels.

Let's let the poster clarify this some more.

Maybe we misunderstand the poster...or maybe it was a joke. Let's hope for either of these options. eek. :scratch:

Lets get this straight. The ELCA believes certain scripture spoke to specific crowds depending on their specific situations, problems and needs. We do NOT believe they are less than any other scripture. To suggest such a thing is to suggest that some word of God is false or wrong, or not the word of God at all.

I am not suggesting that the WORD of God is false.... What I am saying is I have heard passages read from two different translations and they were the exact opisite in meaning

[KagomeShuko]

Why state our case over and over and over again? You will not convert us, and we don't believe we can convert you.

Time and time again the ELCA members of this forum show others respect, but I will stick my neck out here and say that we dont believe we always get it back




Yes, why state it over and over? I posted this b/c I had promised this study to a few friends, especially one of my Catholic friends who supports the ordination of women (yes, they exist) and I was tired of seeing only one or two reasons being constantly debated.

I have to say that I sort of agree with the respect thing here. Some of you are great at showing resepct to others beliefs. However, it gets really close at times. . and I can truthfully say that there are some things that I often find offensive that some of you say about the ELCA.

I still love all of you, of course!

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[SPALATIN]

There simply is no "pity" needed. I simply am tired of the back and forth between our sects.

Why state our case over and over and over again? You will not convert us, and we don't believe we can convert you.

Time and time again the ELCA members of this forum show others respect, but I will stick my neck out here and say that we dont believe we always get it back.

I personally will always remain ELCA for my lifetime, they are my beliefs, whether anyone views them as wrong or right. Why continue to post here just to time and time again be told I am not a Lutheran, or shouldn't be called one?

Its a pointless waste of my time to constantly engage in "we are right...no! we are right" dialogue.

I personally believe that Lutherans should have subgroups split in the forums, but, since these are Erwins forums, and he chooses to have us all under one banner ...I respect his decisions, and its best for me to simply place my energy elsewhere on the site.

I come here to fellowship...not banter back and forth about differences.

I have asked for removal as mod from this forum, as I can no longer moderate without showing bias. I think we would all agree that this would be best for all involved. Noone wants a mod who shows favoritism, and I'm not willing to go against my promise to Erwin as a member of his staff, so I have asked to be removed before such a time comes as I may "step over the line".

Take care all of you, and maybe I'll stick my head in from time to time to say hello. You'll surely see me around the other forums doing my job, fellowshipping, and hanging out!

God's grace to all of you,
JMRE5150

Go in Peace Robb.

[Flipper]

The Bible is pretty clear that men are the spiritual head of the household, and the church. Pastoral roles should be taken by men (sorry Kimmy).

However, I don't see anything in scripture that convinces me that women can't teach, or take up other ministry positions. In every instance where something that could be interpreted that way shows up, it could also be interpreted as a cultural bias of the time.

I do believe that there are women who are sufficiently gifted and have a legitimate calling - I would hardly believe that they are being deceived by the Devil or that it's something evil. What can they do?

Someone was saying earlier that DCEs lack enough education to teach. I don't know. They have at least FOUR more years of biblical education on the collegiate level than most of us. Pastor can't do it all himself - especially in a larger congregation.

[revjpw]

Frankly, I find this whole argument absolutely amazing. The only way that the proponents of women's ordination can justify their argument is to tear down the Word of God. They have to discredit the Bible in some way shape or form in order to have a leg to stand on.

They have to employ Historical Criticism which discounts the validity of God's word for all time, which basically calls Jesus a liar when He states in the Gospel's "Heaven and earth will pass away but my Word will never pass away."

They have to discredit the Epistles as though they are not even the inspired Word of God, but merely someone's personal take on things. There is a reason why these particular "letters" are in the Canon. They are the Word of God.

They have to discredit St. Paul as the author of the Epistles. "He was a woman hater or a homosexual" or any number of other simply ridiculous assumptionms about the one whom Christ Himself chose as His instrument to the Gentiles. Apparently Jesus lied about that, too. They seem to forget, however, that there is only One Author of the Scriptures, that being God Himself.

They have to call into question the innerrancy and inspiration of God's Word, as though God couldn't get it right Himself. We have original language manuscripts that are centuries old and guess what.. they all say the exact same thing in these passages.

They have to bring extra-Biblical and heretical writings and ideas into the mix in order to confuse. Confessional Lutheranism clearly holds, teaches, and confesses (and always has) that everything that we need to know regarding our life and our salvation by Grace through Faith on account of Christ is contained in the 66 canonical books of Scripture.

[Zoomer]

I stand that woman should not be Pastors. Woman are not inferior to men or less intelligent. I believe we are equal but not within the confines of church and family. I just believe that God design certain roles within the church and within our families specifically for men and woman. When these roles are crossed it leads to bickering and weakening of Christianity. A signature that I saw in the Woman's Forum sums up my thoughts..."I'd rather be Biblically correct than politically correct."

[revjpw]

I'd rather be Biblically correct than politically correct."

:clap: :thumbsup: :amen:

[SPALATIN]

This issue will continue to split us. I agree with Zoomer. Better to be Biblically Correct than Politically correct.

[purpleunicorn_Andi]

one question what is the difference between minister and prophet?


8Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. 9He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied. Acts 21:8-9

[Qoheleth]

I would argue than by default someone who supports women in the ministry is not Lutheran at all but belongs to some sect which has stolen the name.

BINGO


Q

[Zoomer]

I'd rather be Biblically correct than politically correct.

I can't take credit for the quote. It's from a member named Murron, who has a great article in her CF journal about woman as Pastors.

[SPALATIN]

I can't take credit for the quote. It's from a member named Murron, who has a great article in her CF journal about this very topic.

We weren't necessarily saying that you should get credit for the quote but that you used it here.

[BigNorsk]

I think people have made it pretty clear how they stand on women as pastors or teaching men.

The question I have for people who would not have women teach is whether you would have women sing in church, especially as a solo?

If you do let them sing, but don't let them teach, how do you deal with this:
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

(Colossians 3:16 kjv)

Marv

[Flipper]

Can someone answer my earlier question please.

Are we talking about pastors only, or in any ministry.

What do you consider ministry?

Also, what roles in the church do you see as appropriate for women?

[Music4Hym777]

Can someone answer my earlier question please.

Are we talking about pastors only, or in any ministry.

What do you consider ministry?

Also, what roles in the church do you see as appropriate for women?

1.We are talking about Pastors only.

2.Ministry is pretty much anything, even serving in the nursery or greeting people at the door is a ministry.

3.I dont think I could answer that with out my head getting bitten off

[SPALATIN]

I think people have made it pretty clear how they stand on women as pastors or teaching men.

The question I have for people who would not have women teach is whether you would have women sing in church, especially as a solo?

If you do let them sing, but don't let them teach, how do you deal with this:
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

(Colossians 3:16 kjv)

Marv


I know that many of the churches in the LCMS say that women are allowed to teach or lead a Bible Study of other women or Children, but not of men. Other churches don't hold very strictly to it though.

I don't understand where the singing of a solo by a woman is a problem if they aren't allowed to teach. What does singing have to do with teaching? I see the verse you are quoting but it seems to me that it is encouraging the word of God to dwell in one another through the word either spoken or sung.

[RedneckAnglican]

I know that many of the churches in the LCMS say that women are allowed to teach or lead a Bible Study of other women or Children, but not of men. Other churches don't hold very strictly to it though.

I don't understand where the singing of a solo by a woman is a problem if they aren't allowed to teach. What does singing have to do with teaching? I see the verse you are quoting but it seems to me that it is encouraging the word of God to dwell in one another through the word either spoken or sung.

hymns in your Church aren't used to teach?...They don't go with the lessons of the day to reinforce the message?...

[RedneckAnglican]

i don't want to make things any more tense than they already are...but this arguement gets us no where...ELCA thinks women can be ministers and have thier Bible verses to back that up...LCMS, WELS, and others have thier verses to back up the fact that they think that women shouldn't be ministers...I personally think (that's right think...this is my opinion...and my opinion and a dollar will buy you a Coke)...That we should do more cleaning in our OWN houses rather than to sit here and make the others perfect...I sit here and read this stuff...and some of it is ugly...and realize that I love you people...If I didn't I wouldn't get so upset by all of this...I have learned more from getting upset by Rev, Scotty, and Zoomer than I did in 8 YEARS of sunday school in the Episcopal Church...why am I say all of this?...heck if I know...just wanted to rant a little bit...

[Flipper]

?

[SemStudent08]

Here is my OPINION. Please don't tell me how wrong I am or anything like that, if you disagree with me, thats fine, but I must warn you that if you tell me I am Un-Lutheran I will not respond to you at all, that would make the debate pointless and hurtful.

The problem I have with the "roles" argument is that I cannot understand ministry/preaching as a simple role. It is a calling, a vocation, and a spiritual gift. As I said before, to say that the Holy Spirit cannot work in women the gifts of minsitry/preaching seems to limit the power of God. And once again, I find it very difficult to do this. God is powerful beyond my knowing and I simply cannot say that God cannot work the gift/calling/vocation of ministry/preaching in ANYONE. It is simply beyond my ability to know. Looking at the Gospels, God the Son routinely works in unexpected ways and in unexpected people. Which leper came back? The samaritan. Who anointed Christ for burial? Mary Magdaline (sp?). Who was Christ's example concerning stewardship? The widow who gave three pennies. When no one else got it, who realized wo christ was? The Roman Centurion. Time and again th Gospel is furthered and proclaimed by people who we think have no business doing it. So once again, how can i limit God to only working the gifts of ministry/preaching based upon something as trivial as gender? I simply can't.

But, I rather imagine that I in no way, have convinced anyone to change their minds. So, peace be with you all and I certainly hope we can maintain a respectful tone towards one another and keep any and all debate healthy and constructive. God loves us all, we can agree with that at the very least, so lets try to love one another too. :)

[Lutherrunner]

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-left.gif Quote: http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right.gif
http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gif



I would argue than by default someone who supports women in the ministry is not Lutheran at all but belongs to some sect which has stolen the name.
http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-left.gif
http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif There are some incredibly bitter, vindictive folks in here who just can't wait for an opportunity to spew their venom and judgement......y'all are as bad as the fundies.......we're supposed to come here for fellowship, yet this forum gets me more upset than the baptists, nondemoms and fundamentals all together.....I have no interest in coming back here unless we have a seperate ELCA forum.....

[revjpw]

The problem I have with the "roles" argument is that I cannot understand ministry/preaching as a simple role. It is a calling, a vocation, and a spiritual gift. As I said before, to say that the Holy Spirit cannot work in women the gifts of minsitry/preaching seems to limit the power of God.

God's power cannot be limited, you are correct. But He Himself chooses who He will and will not work through. His own Word tells us very clearly who He chooses to give the duties of the Pastoral Office that He Himself created to serve His Church.

God has made His choice. For us to second guess it, ignore it, or blatantly go against it is utterly sinful. Who are we to say that God's own Word is incorrect?

[revjpw]

I would argue than by default someone who supports women in the ministry is not Lutheran at all but belongs to some sect which has stolen the name.
There are some incredibly bitter, vindictive folks in here who just can't wait for an opportunity to spew their venom and judgement......y'all are as bad as the fundies.......we're supposed to come here for fellowship, yet this forum gets me more upset than the baptists, nondemoms and fundamentals all together.....I have no interest in coming back here unless we have a seperate ELCA forum.....

I am shocked that the mods have left that post on here! :eek: If it had been posted by me, they would have yanked it off and given me 30 lashes with a wet noodle!!!:P

[Jim47]

[QUOTE But who desided not to put them in the Bible...MEN[/QUOTE]


Scripture is God's Word, not mans word. Man by nature sees God as his enemy, it is only by The Holy Spirit that we can come to God or believe in Him, "or "Believe His Word"

2Pe 1:12 So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have.

2Pe 1:13 I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body,

2Pe 1:14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.

2Pe 1:15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.

2Pe 1:16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

2Pe 1:17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

2Pe 1:18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

2Pe 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

2Pe 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.

2Pe 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.


2Pe 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.


I do not understand why anyone would expect someone to take their opnions of what scripture to accept over The Word of God, for in fact that is what all of you who do not agree with scripture are asking us to do.

Acts 4:19 But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. 20 For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard."


I think it would be good for everyone to put aside personal feelings and seek out what is God's Will. Tossing stones on either side will accomplish nothing. It is our job to restore those who misunderstand in a Godly and loving manner. If we let sinful pride enter in, how does that serve God or Christ Jesus who suffered and died for us all.

Perhaps you should all reconsider whether your histotical critiacal method of analyizing scripture is really good. Are you serving what is God's Will for your faith, or are you refusing to believe what the scriptures say simply because God's Word has set direction for our lives that we don't always readily accept? Isn't it better to submit to God and His Holy Will and grow in faith and in understanding?

Jas 5:19 My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, 20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.


I have had to bow before God and submit to His Will many times in my life. As Paul said,
Heb 12:7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? 8 If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! 10 Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. 11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

Heb 12:12 Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees. 13 "Make level paths for your feet," so that the lame may not be disabled, but rather healed.

[RedneckAnglican]

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-left.gif Quote: http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right.gif
http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gif



I would argue than by default someone who supports women in the ministry is not Lutheran at all but belongs to some sect which has stolen the name.
http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-left.gif
http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif There are some incredibly bitter, vindictive folks in here who just can't wait for an opportunity to spew their venom and judgement......y'all are as bad as the fundies.......we're supposed to come here for fellowship, yet this forum gets me more upset than the baptists, nondemoms and fundamentals all together.....I have no interest in coming back here unless we have a seperate ELCA forum.....

I don't think a seperate ELCA forum would do us any good...we just need to learn to play nice...it's a good thing that this isn't one of my classrooms...I'd have put people from both sides in detention...(I say this trying to lighten the mood...sometime my sense of humor is a little wierd)...did I mention I was one of the people going to detention?...as I stated before...I've learned a great deal about Lutheranism from these people that I'm not suppost to agree with...a seperate forum would let me do that...as much...

[KagomeShuko]

There is a big difference in believing that scripture can be culturally relative and denouncing them as less than the gospels.


Lets get this straight. The ELCA believes certain scripture spoke to specific crowds depending on their specific situations, problems and needs. We do NOT believe they are less than any other scripture. To suggest such a thing is to suggest that some word of God is false or wrong, or not the word of God at all.

The ELCA does not say that the Bible/Gospels are not scripture. I hold the Bible as the most important book there is. However, as JRME says, we do address that certain letters were written to certain groups during certain time periods. Many times, this is even found in the preface of the letters - "to the church at. . ." (thus, some "prejudices" were kept at times, because, if that was how that church would've run best, that's exactly what was needed!)

Scripture is not less than scripture at all!

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[GlowingFirefly]

MOD HAT ON

Alright time to calm down everyone. Frankly I don't know about the rest of you but I am getting so incredibly sick and tired of the ELCA bashing.

I am not pointing a finger at any of you, but apparently I am not the only one who feels that some of the critizism of the ELCA that has been posted has been taken as offensive and rude. This needs to stop and it needs to stop NOW.

Me? Yes I am ELCA. Do I agree with every single bit of the ELCA doctrine? Of course not. As a matter of fact, my own Pastor once told me that he does not agree with some of the ELCA teachings.

I am not singling anyone out, and I may be a bit bias because I am ELCA, but that is not the point. Although I have been seeing messages from offended members that are NOT of the ELCA.

My point being, this needs to stop. It doesn't matter whether we are ELCA, WELS or what have you. The only thing that matters is that we all believe in the same thing: Jesus died on the cross for US and rose again and will come again someday. And I don't know about the rest of you but I don't think that needs to be debated between Lutheran brothers and sisters.

One thing to keep in mind folks, just because one believes in something different than another, it does NOT make the person wrong for believing it. If an ELCA member believes women can be Pastors then that belief should be respected. People do not have to agree with that belief, but it should still be respected by others.

In concusion I am closing this thread for now to give you all some time to cool off. This thread will be re-opened after a staff review.

One thing to keep in mind, just think about the things I have said okay folks? Like I said, I am not pointing a finger at anyone. A little argument sometimes can be a good thing. As a member once told me "it keeps us on our toes." But this argument has gone a bit too far, and some of you need to cool down.

Therefore this thread is closed for now and will be re-opened later on.

PuppyforChrist
CF Administrator

MOD HAT OFF