Walt said:
rsc2a said:
Walt said:
rsc2a said:
Got it. You are adding qualifications over and above those the Bible requires and, in doing so, preventing them from actively serving as they may be gifted. And you do treat women who wear pants differently...after all, you don't let them serve publicly. Ditto that for men...after all, it's not a Biblical requirement...it's a proclivity for an idealized 1950s version of Americana. John the Baptist wouldn't be qualified to serve at your church.
I read something somewhere about people who load others down with burdens that Jesus doesn't lay on them...
I don't think it is fair -- the church that Tom Brennan pastors DOES believe this to be a Biblical standard. You may question his interpretation of the Scriptures, but there is NO evidence that this is made up.
And the SDAs believe their views on the Sabbath are a Biblical standard. I'd say in this case they have a lot more evidence on their side than any "pants on wimmin" folks.
True... I would say of SDAs that they are mis-interpreting the Scriptures, and you are welcome to say that about Tom Brennan, but it isn't far to say that he is purposely requiring things that are not in the Bible when he is attempting to maintain a Biblical standard that he believes in. I think he has every right to do so. After all, there are plenty of churches that don't have that standard. While I don't agree with the SDAs, I think that they have every right to believe and practice what they believe.
Easy enough...you have no problem with someone adding requirements over and above what Jesus requires before allowing people to serve the body as they are gifted by the Spirit. You have no problem with John the Baptist not being allowed to teach because of some anachronistic understanding of "the world". You have no problem with adding burdens onto people that Jesus never intended them to bear. And you have no problem with measuring one's holiness by whether or not they are wearing jeans. (Because, deny all you want, by restricting service opportunities because of this performance measure, it is assigning a holiness value to pants.)
And it's plenty fair to say that he's requiring things that are not in the Bible since the things he is requiring is to be found no where at all in Scripture. He'd have more support for forbidding women from serving who wear jewelry, name brands, short hair, and up-dos. But I somehow doubt that these things make the list pastor requires.
Of course the language being used exhibits another HUGE problem...why is it all based on HIS opinion? Is he now the Pope? Does the fellowship not have a say in the matter? (And I mean far, far more than a "we agree" that is based on nothing more than an echoing of pastor.)