Scott Morris article on sermon about women

Not the first article that he's written that I've had to wonder about. Many times I wonder if he is not a Christian and is writing the articles to try to make Christians look ignorant and backwards. I question his motives. His articles are typical of what one can expect from the Times Daily.

He did not specify what denomination of church service he was attending. That would have been good info to include.

I would have never been part of a church like that to begin with.

And his analogy was warped, but he is a liberal.

quote:

but nowhere in the bible is the oppression or abuse of women suggested, promoted or condoned.

Then you have not read your bible.

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12).

God, through the apostle Paul, restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors, which definitely includes preaching to, teaching, and having spiritual authority over men.

There are literally hundreds of other references. Few issues have been as divisive within the church as the question regarding the leadership roles of women.

Few issues withing the church have been as divisive as the questions leadership roles of women. That is precisely because the bible has so many conflicting views on the subject that a preacher could say one thing or the opposite and still be biblically correct.

quote:

Many times I wonder if he is not a Christian and is writing the articles to try to make Christians look ignorant and backwards. I question his motives.

You mean just like Mr. Morris questions the Fundies' motives? Sounds like some severe Fundy male insecurity to me.

Most evangelical Christians don't really need any help to make themselves look ignorant and backwards. They do that pretty darn good on their own.

I've read the blurbs in the Courier Journal by local Fundy preachers Frank Jamerson and Grant Caldwell. They also define women's roles as subservient to males in every aspect. Where do they get off doing this?

I think Mr. Morris was right on the money.

I'd just once like to see these Fundamentalist simpletons try that crap with women ANYWHERE else. They'd promptly get their 'nads handed to them before their women left them high and dry.

Any woman who actually puts up with that kind of treatment is just as ignorant and backwards.

quote:

Any woman who actually puts up with that kind of treatment is just as ignorant and backwards.

Now now. I know many of these subservient women. They sincerely and with all their heart believe they are doing the Lord's work by participating in a church that holds them under the thumb of oppression. These would generally be Baptist women. They aren't ignorant or backwards, just unenlightened on this particular subject. Most that I know embrace their subservience feeling that it brings them closer to God.

It's their faith and their choice.

We Episcopals don't do that crap and if we tried our women would indeed hand us our 'nads. Now, I must mosey along and do laundry and clean the commodes. Have a manly day.

Don't forget to sort the whites and clean UNDER the rim. I have an oil change to do, Tata!

Sofa, that was written to a group of people and a culture that no longer exists. There could be a myriad of reasons for his rules, one of which could be that women were uneducated.

Thankfully, the Bible has much more to say about women. I imagine it would have been rather difficult for Deborah to serve as Israel's Judge and as Prophetess were she to follow Paul's rules of conduct for women at the church in Ephesus.

quote:

Originally posted by Sofa King:
Few issues withing (sic) the church have been as divisive as the questions leadership roles of women. That is precisely because the bible has so many conflicting views on the subject that a preacher could say one thing or the opposite and still be biblically correct.

So, Sofa,

Are you suggesting that we have a book burning -- and burn all Bibles?

And, how about the God who authored the Bible -- should we burn Him, too, because He authored such a conflicting book?

Yes, the Bible does teach that women are not to be in spiritual authority over men; for God established, in Genesis, man as the spiritual head of the family. This is not saying that He made man to be superior to woman; only that, just as the local church needs a spiritual leader, the family also needs a spiritual leader. And, God has designated that to be man since He created man first, and then woman from the man to be his equal partner in life.

What the apostle Paul was teaching is that women should, instead of calling out to their husbands in the worship service, wait until they are alone with their husbands to ask him questions about spiritual matters. Remember, in the Old Testament worship of Judaism, in the temple men and women sat apart. And, women would, at times, call out to their husbands on the other side of the room to ask questions about their Scripture. I would imagine that this custom may have carried over to the new Christian fellowships since we are talking about days, weeks, months, years -- not centuries.

So, no Paul was not saying that women were inferior -- only that the decorum of the fellowship and worship service should be maintained so that all could grow spiritually under the teachings of the apostles and disciples.

Now, regarding that specific preacher. If he truly preached what Scott Morris says he preached (and like Shoals, I have also wondered about Scott Morris' church leanings from previous columns) -- I would say that pastor should have his panty hose tarred and feathered and then have him be sentenced to clean the toilets for every woman in town. That is, if he preached that kind of sermon. And, the jury is still out on Scott Morris' tape recorder.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

We might avoid the "The Bible says women are cattle" comments by talking about what the Bible has to say regarding limitations placed on men.

In Ephesians 5, men are told to love their wives sacrificially, the standard being as Christ loved the Church. That's rather humbling in itself since Christ humbled himself in ways I cannot imagine enduring, eventually dying a cruel death for us. It's easy to respect a man who loves like that.

He is also told to love her as he loves himself. Unless there is a heap of self-loathing involved, that is another tall order.

Right before those verses, it says for all of us to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. In short, there is plenty of submission going around.

Those verses also describe marriage as "two will become one flesh". To me that's more than or deeper than equality...also really cool.

That's only what's contained in one group of scripture. There is SO much more. God did not give men the easy path and women the hard path. That's just not true.

well, here's one more issue i have with that book.

the bible does indeed say that women should be subservient to their husbands.

i don't remember the chapter and verse, but there is a bit some place about how a woman should look upon her husband as tho he were the christ of her family, liek the whole world should look upon Jesus as THE christ.
(paraphrasing radically. i don't remember the words, just the basic sentiment of the verse)

which is total bull.
i wanted a partner. i wanted someone who has the spine to tell me to get bent when i needed to hear it. i needed a wife who was strong enough to deal with my... abundance of personality.

i wanted an equal, a partner - not a puppy.

in the CoC women are only allowed to 'lead' a study group that is filled with other women. if there is one man present, a woman my not stand at the podium. the CoC has a childrens program called Lads to Leaders and leaderettes.
they teach children at a very very young age tha twomen aren't meant to be Leaders. they even go so far as to make up a words so that the little girls will understand they can't be leaders. my wifes mother told us she wanted to get our kids ( 1 boy 1 girl) into that program.
my wife made it clear that under no circumstances did she want that, so i took the 'bad guy' role and told her mother it was never going to happen.
i did that so her mom would be upset with me, not her.

the upside of that is that it appeared that i, the husband, was asserting his role as master of the house, and as such it was uncontestable.
it's nice when i get to use their rules against them.

my wife was raised CoC, where they DO teach that the woman's needs and wants and wishes are always overruled by the man's.
when i found her she had very little self esteem, a very low sense of self worth. she identified her worth by the people around her. she was 17 when i first met her, and while she was always smiling and cheerful, there was always an empty sadness in her eyes.

but i also saw a spark in her eyes that was desperate to break free from the 2nd class person role she'd been brought up as. it took a few years, but now she's the hell in high heels sassy classy and strong willed woman she always wanted to be but was never allowed to.
no more emptyness, no more sadness.
God, i love that woman

the idea that i should be keeping her under my heel, that she should wait on me hand and foot and be a servent makes me sick.
only a pathetic loser of a man would need his wife to subserviant to him. only a sad pitiful excuse for a Man would think it's right to be his wifes lord and master.
and it also probably has soemthing to do with extreme anatomical shortcomings on his part.

Only a man would ever come up with this idea - more proof that the bible wasn't written by god.

he loves us and wants us to be happy, right?
how can our women be happy if they are our property, and have no authority at all?

(my apologies if this rambled - just had a root canal, and am on lorcet. i tend to get chatty when taking narcotics.)

thenagel, it seems that your beef is with the CoC or at least the CoC churches where you've been a member, not with God or with God's Word.

The CoC is not God. They are not God's Word. They are not the final authority on interpretation of God's Word.

JMHO

Hi Joy,

You tell us, "We might avoid the "The Bible says women are cattle" comments by talking about what the Bible has to say regarding limitations placed on men."

I would not call them limitations. Instead, I would say that, for men to be truly worthy of their women -- God has raised the bar for men, telling them, "This is what I expect of you for the blessing I have given you when I gave you a mate."

And that bar is Jesus Christ and His church. Love your wife as Christ loves His bride. That is a very high bar -- and one that all men should be striving to reach every day.

Nothing, other than Jesus Christ, God, should come before our spouses, our children, and all our family.

Just my thoughts.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Uh, thenagel, that sounded harsh...please know I didn't mean it that way!

That's a great attitude, Bill...I agree.

quote:

Originally posted by _Joy_:
We might avoid the "The Bible says women are cattle" comments by talking about what the Bible has to say regarding limitations placed on men.

In Ephesians 5, men are told to love their wives sacrificially, the standard being as Christ loved the Church. That's rather humbling in itself since Christ humbled himself in ways I cannot imagine enduring, eventually dying a cruel death for us. It's easy to respect a man who loves like that.

He is also told to love her as he loves himself. Unless there is a heap of self-loathing involved, that is another tall order.

Right before those verses, it says for all of us to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. In short, there is plenty of submission going around.

Those verses also describe marriage as "two will become one flesh". To me that's more than or deeper than equality...also really cool.

That's only what's contained in one group of scripture. There is SO much more. God did not give men the easy path and women the hard path. That's just not true.

Uh...excuse me here for a minute. Are you the same 'Joy' that once posted that they believed homosexual marriage was OK?

quote:

Originally posted by _Joy_:
Uh, thenagel, that sounded harsh...please know I didn't mean it that way!

Nah.. i'd say it was fairly accurate...but i didn't take offence

i do have a problem with the CoC.. and likely always will has as long as they teach little girls that they'll never be as important as little boys.

i know they aren't the final authority on anything. but they are the ones i've had the most contact and experiance with, so they are the only ones i can speak of with any real knowledge.

that's why it seems like i keep harping on them - i don't know anything beyond the surface about most of the rest of them.

i know a little bit about the catholic church, and an even litter bit about the 7th day adventists. i've never even known a presbyterian personally i don't think. (met, yes, but meeting someone isn't the same as knowing them)

So yeah.. i do tend to use them as the 'worst case' examples a lot.

quote:

Originally posted by WH:
Uh...excuse me here for a minute. Are you the same 'Joy' that once posted that they believed homosexual marriage was OK?

I don't remember such a conversation. Care to share whatever you dug up?

NP, thenagel...I attend a SBC, but don't think(?) I agree fully with any denomination. I seem to disagree with all of them on some point or other.

quote:

Originally posted by _Joy_:

quote:

Originally posted by WH:
Uh...excuse me here for a minute. Are you the same 'Joy' that once posted that they believed homosexual marriage was OK?

I don't remember such a conversation. Care to share whatever you dug up?

No, I'm just going from memory. There was a poster going by something similar to your Id that was in support of homosexuality. Just wondering if it was you.

Why do you mention "dug up"? Is that something you do? People most often speak of that which they themselves do, accusations often tell more about the accuser than the accused.

She was making a joke or did you miss the grin?
Joy would not even think of 'digging' up stuff. That's not her style.

It is apparently yours.

Sorry, I really don't remember such a conversation. There was a forum member with the screen name 'JOY' & 4 consecutive numbers after her name on here at one time (like JOY3456 or something like that), but that doesn't sound like her. I don't know.

I just figured you were being snarky after our difference of opinion elsewhere. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. (((hug))) Stop gagging. No, seriously, sorry if I offended you. It's just in my nature to pick at the those a bit on the ornery side...the little sister in me.

quote:

Originally posted by _Joy_:
Sorry, I really don't remember such a conversation. There was a forum member with the screen name 'JOY' & 4 consecutive numbers after her name on here at one time (like JOY3456 or something like that), but that doesn't sound like her. I don't know.

I just figured you were being snarky after our difference of opinion elsewhere. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. (((hug))) Stop gagging. No, seriously, sorry if I offended you. It's just in my nature to pick at the those a bit on the ornery side...the little sister in me.

No it was just Joy...may have had a tittle in front and back, can't really remember. I just know s/he posted on the religion forum regularly. I guess if you are a Christian believer you are against homosexuality then.

It is funny that you think you hurt my feelings...copied my reply to lawguy did you?

I have met much worse than you...all false people betray their facade eventually...some quicker than others.

I believe that God's Word is alive and penetrates to my inmost being to change me and grow me. I believe it is true. That applies to any subject covered in the Bible, including homosexuality. I follow what it says because of that belief. Those that do not believe as I do may or may not make the same choices that I do. I am not responsible for their choices, just my own. You?

quote:

Originally posted by _Joy_:
I believe that God's Word is alive and penetrates to my inmost being to change me and grow me. I believe it is true. That applies to any subject covered in the Bible, including homosexuality. I follow what it says because of that belief. Those that do not believe as I do may or may not make the same choices that I do. I am not responsible for their choices, just my own. You?

Ah...I was right.

quote:

Originally posted by bob wilson:
I find it disturbing that Scott Morris would suggest that Christianity, especially here in Alabama is in any way like the unspeakable practices of the Taliban in Kandahar. "spraying acid on schoolgirls for trying to obtain an education? . . beheading women for uncovering their faces. . beating a wife for working without her husband’s permission?" I didn't hear the sermon he heard and maybe it didn't accurately convey the message of scripture, but nowhere in the bible is the oppression or abuse of women suggested, promoted or condoned.

Bob, welcome to the forum.

I re-read Mr. Morris' article. I can't find a fault in it.

Whose property are you? You're welcome to say God, if you'd like. I'm no one's property. I am my own person. I grant similar sovereignty to other people who will accept it.

Whose property is your wife? Yours? Is that the deal you struck with her when you married her? Or is she God's property?

Or, perhaps, is she not engaged in the institution of slavery, and no one's property? How about you?

As you're now aware, the Bible is not particularly, shall we say, "liberal" about the status of women.

How many clergymen (intended) in America are men? 99.something?

Reckon how come that's the case? How many Gospels were written by women? How many disciples were female?

I'm a poor feminist. I'm a man, and I have to stretch to defend women beyond equal wages, rights, and the right to control their own bodies. It's just not my cross to bear, so to speak.

I find myself in a religio/philosophical minority, same as liberal women, and I find some common cause with them. We individuals are entitled to our own minds and our own bodies.

The women of that church with the stained glass windows are not.

I have little sympathy for them. They get dressed every Sunday morning and go there willingly.

They should suffer. They should, and must, accept second class citizenship. Go with the concept that you are not the equal of men in God's eyes. God as envisioned by the men who run your church. Good luck.

Oh Mr. Morris had it exactly correct. You realize that the God of Christianity is the God of Abraham, right?

The orthodox Jews pray "thank god I'm not a female or goyem". I hardly need remind you what the Muslims think of women. They, and you, all worship the god of Abraham. Nowhere does that god grant Christian women any dispensation of the desert values except when Christian women have asserted themselves at some cost.

Scott Morris laid off. He went lightly, and he's likely a Christian. After all, he was in church.

Your outrage is proportional to your religious poisoning. Read something. Almost anything. Except the Bible for once.

quote:

Originally posted by WH:
I guess if you are a Christian believer you are against homosexuality then.

quote:

Originally posted by WH:

quote:

Originally posted by _Joy_:
I believe that God's Word is alive and penetrates to my inmost being to change me and grow me. I believe it is true. That applies to any subject covered in the Bible, including homosexuality. I follow what it says because of that belief. Those that do not believe as I do may or may not make the same choices that I do. I am not responsible for their choices, just my own. You?

Ah...I was right.

That "You?" means "your turn"...as in you address the same 'Christian believer = against homosexuality' statement you gave me.

Of course, mentioning God in your tag-line doesn't make you a Christian anymore than does attaching an outline of a fish to the bumper of your car. So, I guess the first question is...is Jesus the Christ Lord and Savior of your life?

If the answer is yes, you could then address the statement you gave me...unless you are skeered.

quote:

Sofa, that was written to a group of people and a culture that no longer exists. There could be a myriad of reasons for his rules, one of which could be that women were uneducated.

Oh, I 1000% agree, Joy! I was only quoting that because it does seem to be the most often used passage supporting the subservient role of the woman and agree that it has been misused. As I stated, there are other passages (And Debora's role, of course) that contradict it.

Out of curiosity, would your church allow you to be a preacher?

quote:

Originally posted by _Joy_:
thenagel, it seems that your beef is with the CoC or at least the CoC churches where you've been a member, not with God or with God's Word.

The CoC is not God. They are not God's Word. They are not the final authority on interpretation of God's Word.

JMHO

Not just your HO but mine as well. But keep in mind that the CoC most certainly IS biblically based and they are practicing their faith and believe it to be 100% biblically accurate - just as the local lunitic BG insists.

I grew up CoC and Angel's observations are spot on. That's why I'm Episcopal now and pretty much have disdain for just about all other fundamentalist churches such as the CoC.

The bible isn't inerrant. It's polluted with the desires of Man. Spiritual discernment is necessary to remove the chaff from the gold.

I read the article, I think Scott Morris' point has been missed.

I grew up in a church that taught similar things. Women are to be subservient to men and men are dominant over women. Usually, the verses from 1 Peter and Ephesians are used as proof of this.

As Joy already pointed out, those same preachers very conveniently skip over the parts that address how husbands are supposed to treat their wives.

Ephesians says that men are to love their wives the way that Christ loves the church. If you use the definition of love given in 1 Corinthians, then it's pretty clear what the Bible says about the role of husbands. We're to be patient, kind, and not envious. We're not to boast, be proud (ego), or be rude, self seeking, easily angered, and we're not to hold grudges. We're to always trust, always protect, always hope and always persevere.

A lot of preachers use a few verses out of context to justify treating women like second class citizens or worse. It's no different than the Taliban using their religion to abuse and murder women in Islamic countries. That's the comparison Morris was making.

Christianity does not justify abuse or mistreatment of women, you should be suspect of any preacher who teaches otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by Sofa King:
Oh, I 1000% agree, Joy! I was only quoting that because it does seem to be the most often used passage supporting the subservient role of the woman and agree that it has been misused. As I stated, there are other passages (And Debora's role, of course) that contradict it.

Out of curiosity, would your church allow you to be a preacher?

No, but then I have no desire to preach either...lol. First, I would need to feel a compulsion by the Holy Spirit to even consider that. I would pray and study scripture. It would have to be clearly God ordained in my heart and through scripture, not some person's opinion of what I should do or should not do.

I will say that one of the signs of the end times is that your men and WOMEN will prophesy.

I go to church where I do because the people there have been so good to us. I do agree with 'most' of what is actually written down as SB doctrine, which I found through research does not always agree with what some SB members claim is SB doctrine.

It's more those that add to the Bible as well as SB doctrine or who exhibit attitudes and beliefs not based on Biblical teaching with whom I disagree. Whenever people feel a need to add to what's already laid out in the Bible as if God needs their help (ha!), I want no part of that.