Are these guidelines from the Statement of Purpose incompatible?

[Gregorikos]

And a PERFECT example is what Aussie Pete posted last night in the Plurality of Elders in the Egalitarian Community thread. He made SEVERAL statements that I would think shouldn't be allowed in this forum. (Post #3)

I personally think that Joyce Meyer epitomises a woman in ministry. She raised children, submits to her husband, teaches mostly women and has no role in church government.

The Bible is clear that hierarchy is essential to God. Lord Jesus submitted to His parents. He submitted to God completely, even when every fibre of His being (as a man) revolted at the thought. (He didn't say it explicitly but he was referring to the necessity of a woman being under male authority.)

There is no mention of female elders. Qualifications refer to men, not women. That is not to say that women cannot minister.......Government should be by elders, teaching is the responsibility of elders

Are these against the guidelines above? I don't know. But I bristle.

 

[Gregorikos]

Interesting. I thought that the middle part was specifically addressing the issue of ordination, essentially carving it out as an area that could be (respectfully) discussed. Which would keep discussion on other areas off limits in effect.

You make a good point, it does sit squarely in that section. I guess this exchange clears it up for me. But I'm not so sure about others.

 

[bekkilyn]

I've always been confused by this.

View attachment 309198

It isn't so much the underlined parts, but the part in the middle that throws it all up in the air for me. There have been times that people have posted here with what I feel is clearly an anti-egalitarian position, and my first reaction is, "That's against the rules!" But then I read this and think that maybe it's not. I would have thought that the rules here would prevent people from making anti-Egalitarian statements the same as the rules in the Catholic forum prevent people from making anti-Catholic statements. But apparently not.

I'd been kind of treating it as similar to how it works in the Catholic forum. People who aren't Catholic can post in the forum, but can't post anti-Catholic views or argue/debate with the Catholics in the forum. I'm feeling a bit disturbed that it might actually be different here because how could it be a safe space for Egalitarians if people can just come in and say they are "exploring" views that differ from Egalitarian views?

 

[topher694]

I'd been kind of treating it as similar to how it works in the Catholic forum. People who aren't Catholic can post in the forum, but can't post anti-Catholic views or argue/debate with the Catholics in the forum. I'm feeling a bit disturbed that it might actually be different here because how could it be a safe space for Egalitarians if people can just come in and say they are "exploring" views that differ from Egalitarian views?

Perhaps it is better to look at how the SOP works in practice rather than theory. I don't know what the answer to that is other than what I've learn from this thread, but it appears to me that in practice, thus far, the SOP has accomplished what you (and I) hoped it would. Perhaps someone like @Paidiske can comment further on that?

 

[WolfGate]

Perhaps it is better to look at how the SOP works in practice rather than theory. I don't know what the answer to that is other than what I've learn from this thread, but it appears to me that in practice, thus far, the SOP has accomplished what you (and I) hoped it would. Perhaps someone like @Paidiske can comment further on that?

That relates directly to the genesis of my OP. I've had the opportunity to serve in roles, both secularly and within the church, where we took a look at bylaws and policies and how well they reflected who we were and how we expected to operate. Took a "say what you do and do what you say" approach. If we found something inconsistent, we discussed and made a decision to either update the document, or to make a concerted effort to change our behavior to comply with what was written. Was quite beneficial, I thought, when issues came up later that the policy needed to cover as expectations were clear. I guess that has stuck with me to this day.

 

[topher694]

That relates directly to the genesis of my OP. I've had the opportunity to serve in roles, both secularly and within the church, where we took a look at bylaws and policies and how well they reflected who we were and how we expected to operate. Took a "say what you do and do what you say" approach. If we found something inconsistent, we discussed and made a decision to either update the document, or to make a concerted effort to change our behavior to comply with what was written. Was quite beneficial, I thought, when issues came up later that the policy needed to cover as expectations were clear. I guess that has stuck with me to this day.

We do the very same thing at my church

 

[Paidiske]

Perhaps it is better to look at how the SOP works in practice rather than theory. I don't know what the answer to that is other than what I've learn from this thread, but it appears to me that in practice, thus far, the SOP has accomplished what you (and I) hoped it would. Perhaps someone like @Paidiske can comment further on that?

I think it has worked well on one side, in that it's set some parameters and, with mod support, people who post outside that tend to get pulled up pretty promptly.

On the other side, how well it's enabled people from denominations who don't ordain women to feel they belong here too, I can't comment so much. We have some regular posters from such denominations, but I don't know whether they feel free to participate as they wish; we'd have to ask for wider input on that.

 

[All4Christ]

I think it has worked well on one side, in that it's set some parameters and, with mod support, people who post outside that tend to get pulled up pretty promptly.

On the other side, how well it's enabled people from denominations who don't ordain women to feel they belong here too, I can't comment so much. We have some regular posters from such denominations, but I don't know whether they feel free to participate as they wish; we'd have to ask for wider input on that.

I think that there certainly are ways we can participate and do participate with the way the SOP is set up.

The biggest benefit of the wording is that we can share in our common beliefs that fall in this category. The mutual submission thread is a good example. We can post here and know it won’t be tolerated for people to say that women can’t be in ministry. The type of ministry may vary among us, but we can affirm that God calls both men and women to serve. Many related topics that we share beliefs on have distractions, criticism and even attacks in other forums, to varying degrees. We can explore within these topics (and others covered in this forum) in a safe space, as @bekkilyn said.

In a sense, I consider it to be loosely similar to the Traditional Theology forum (when the SOP is followed), in that it is topical, no arguing against certain beliefs, while allowing for discussion respectfully, etc.

That said, I am careful on certain subjects, as it is very easy for things to get out of hand - perhaps not with me saying something out of turn, but opening the discussion up for people who will not follow the SOP or even worse, causing unintentional hurt to fellow posters in a safe place.

I am very glad that this forum was created - and I am thankful to be able to participate in it.