A New Path
by Cindy Tutsch
By Cindy Tutsch, February 10, 2014
“I will lead blind Israel down a new path, guiding them along an unfamiliar way. I will make the darkness bright before them and smooth out the road ahead of them.” (Isaiah 42:16, NLT)
The Seventh-day Adventist church is not the first to debate important issues that impact the global church. Many Protestant churches have studied the issue of women’s ordination in recent years, and many which have brought the issue to a vote have split. I don’t think Adventists need to follow that divisive path. Consider the situation in the early church as described in Acts 15. The “General Conference” of Jerusalem was convened over the issue of whether circumcision should be required for the newly converted Greeks. Many had earlier opposed even their inclusion in ministry (sound familiar?!). Ultimately, after hearing the testimonies of the fruits of the Greek’s ministry (Antioch Christians had “gone ahead” and permitted the Greeks to teach and preach) and after extensive deliberation, the Jerusalem Council was ready for a vote.
We can only imagine the heated dialogue. Should the Greeks be required to be circumcised? Circumcision had been central to Jewish identify for thousands of years. In fact, some doubtless argued that circumcision was an ongoing sign of God’s covenant to be kept for all generations. Some could not conceive of this drastic change of policy and tradition. In the end, it was decided that each area could decide what best promoted the mission for their field. Greeks could be circumcised, or not, as the local circumstances dictated.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could follow the lead of the Jerusalem Council, and allow Divisions to ordain women where it would promote the mission of the church, and where such ordination would not be helpful for the church’s mission, they would not be “required” to ordain women? Acts 15 gives the example of unity in diversity. Splitting the church is not necessary, and is, in fact, tragic.
The Seventh-day Adventist church has been raised up for a specific mission—the propagation of the 3 Angels’ Messages of Revelation 14. God has trusted this Adventist movement to help the world understand that the Law of God is and always will be a revelation of His character of love. This does not make us holier or better or more loved by God than are others! But it does leave us with a specific mission. To me, the important thing in all of this is to allow the Holy Spirit to anoint whom He will for the task He has chosen and to get “all hands on deck” to proclaim the gospel to all the world.
There are parts of the world where there would be less prejudice against this wonderful message if we were not so protective of the old order of things and allowed women who are called to pastoral ministry to receive the same special blessing that men who are called to ministry receive. Young adults are especially sensitive to this inequity. Let us not be stumbling blocks to others in our desperate effort to maintain the “status quo.”
Many Seventh-day Adventists who with all their being love Jesus and the 3 Angels’ Messages believe “To ordain or to not ordain women is an opinion, an interpretation. Theologically conservative Adventist scholars on both sides of the issue find biblical support for their views. It is not an integral doctrine, like the Sabbath, the immortality of the soul, creation, or the sanctuary. It is not part of our fundamental beliefs. There is room for persons who believe in WO, and there is room for those who do not believe in it. Both are good Adventists.
Like the teaching on the human nature of Christ, this issue is not a matter of core doctrine. The Holy Spirit has not yet brought consensus about it, even as we have not found consensus on the nature of Christ. We have said there is room in our church for both views. We should similarly see this issue of ordination not as a point worthy of church division, but a matter of personal opinion. The church should not legislate universally on this.”
If it is true that the issue of women’s ordination is not worthy of splitting the church, and I believe it is true, then the heart of Jesus must have broken at this hallway Q & A at the TOSC: “Rigid all-or-none legislation on this topic would split the church. Do you think it is worth that price?” A: “Yes, it is part of the shaking. God will have a pure church.”
To me, this view does not portray the attitude of our Jesus—redemptive, unifying, Shepherd of all His people. Could it be that God has a third way, a new path? Not a “yes” for women’s ordination to be mandated in all places, not a “no” to women’s ordination in ANY place, but rather, how would the work of God be best promoted?
Many of those who oppose WO fear that were women ordained, this would be the proverbial slippery slope to reinterpreting the Adventist teachings on homosexuality, creation, or even, as I have heard said, the Sabbath! That apprehension seems grounded, however, on fear mongering and not on logic or reason. We have a doctrine—part of the 28, in fact!—on sexuality, creation, and the Sabbath. We do not have a doctrine of ordination. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is far more danger of a “slippery slope” to reinterpretation of Adventist doctrine from those who promote male headship on the basis of the eternal submission of Christ to the Father than there is from the ordination of women! The eternal submission of Jesus denies the full godhead of Jesus. It would make Adventists polytheists and change our whole concept of the atonement from Adventist economical trinitarianism to a Catholic ontological Trinity.
How would the variance practice of WO be “a new path”? Well, what if the Seventh-day Adventist church became among the first Protestant denominations to vote on this issue and not split? What if we could say together, “There’s something more important to us than splitting over women’s ordination, and that is to allow the Spirit to choose the gifts through which the messages of the three angels will be proclaimed?” What if we could be the church who brings full justice to those who have been wronged, the church that does not stop until truth and righteousness prevail throughout the earth, even in distant lands beyond the sea? (See Isaiah 42:1-4.)
What if we ordained women, and in ten years we were not ordaining homosexuals? What if we ordained women, and in ten years we were proclaiming literal Creation more unitedly? What if we ordained women, and the whole earth were lighted with the glory of God in the Loud Cry? Or better yet, What if we ordained women, and God smiled, and said, “At last! My people, no longer blinded by tradition, understand my principles and have finally broken down the last walls of partition. They have pressed together, restored the relational state of Eden, and now they are ready to come home.”
What if we, together, found that “new path”?
Cindy,
Welcome back! I've been missing your tender and thoughtful approach to topics.
It is my perception that being theologically correct is a far greater priority in the church than knowing God and ministering His love in a dying world.
'Many of those who oppose WO fear that were women ordained, this would be the proverbial slippery slope to reinterpreting the Adventist teachings on homosexuality, creation, or even, as I have heard said, the Sabbath! That apprehension seems grounded, however, on fear mongering and not on logic or reason.'
Very much agree. In fact, it is highly unethical for people to make such arguments. Exodus 23:3 states:
'and do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit.'
In other words, a matter has to be considered on its own merits. You can't bring in external and irrelevant factors. So, if in a lawsuit a rich man is clearly in the right, you should rule in his favour, and not award in favour of the poor man just because you feel sympathy for him. Similarly, the issue of WO has to be determined on its own merits – not by some nefarious reference to how it might impact other issues down the track.
'Like the teaching on the human nature of Christ, this issue is not a matter of core doctrine.'
Totally agree. Your point here very much fits into Glen's article on the 3 columns. It also somewhat relates to William's comment above.
Glen makes the point in his article, and I agree, that most of our most venomist disputes are really about 'non-essential' issues. They are important, sure, but they are not 'salvation' issues. If we could have a little perspective in these debates, in realise what is a 'salvation' issue (column 1), what is a 'doctrine' issue (column 2), and what is a 'tradition' issue (column 3), we'd all be better off.
The thing about Acts 15 is it wasn't exactly just about whether Gentiles should or should not be circumcised. Because in the very next chapter in Acts 16, we see Paul circumcised Timothy. Rather, the question was whether Gentiles had to be circumcised. It is quite a different issue.
The major issue is that the Judaizers were saying Gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved. The Apostles rejected this, rightly concluding that circumcission was not a salvation issue. Instead, the Council only imposed on Gentiles what they considered were essential, which were the four commands cross-referencing the Noachide-Ger laws of the Torah, pointing to monotheism.
So the major issue here is not whether WO should be allowed or not. I think the Church has a preliminary and more fundamental question to ask. Rather, we need to ask whether WO is an 'essential' or 'salvation' issue or not.
Even if both 'sides' don't agree on WO, surely both sides can agree that the issue of WO is not an 'essential' 'salvation' issue. If we can all agree on that, then as you rightly say, we might be able to dramatically reduce the chances of schism over the issue.
Timothy's mother was a Jewess. In the Jewish tradition of Paul's time your Jewish heritage was passed through the matrilineal (the mothers). One must understand this when reading Paul's comment to Timothy about the faith passed to him through his mother and his grandmother. So for Timothy to NOT be circumcised was to reject his Jewish heritage. Although not a stumbling-block to Gentiles, it would be a stumbling-block to Jews in his ministry. This is why Paul advised Timothy to be circumcised.
The wisdom of Paul in dealing with Timothy should be instructive for how we deal with ordination today. Where ordaining women would be a stumbling-block to ministry we should not ordain women. Where NOT ordaining women is a stumbling-block to ministry we should ordain women.
Thank you, William, for your welcome and for your comments in support, Steve.
Here is an evaluation of the arguments used by those against WO. This paper was presented at the TOSC. The opposing evaluation paper can be found at adventistarchives.org
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adventistarchives.org%2Fevaluation-of-the-arguments-used-by-those-opposing-the-ordination-of-women-to-the-ministry.pdf&h=1AQFsmXKTAQG1AqbctcBaTotUM94gigqDkLcw5tldk6ubeQ&s=1
Cindy, I just wanted to go on record as saying this is an excellent blog you have written on the subject of WO, and one of the best I have seen. It expresses logic, tolerance, understanding, and caring. Thank you.
Thank you, Ella. I appreciate your affirmation.
I am fully in agreement with you that this is one of the best I have seen. I just barely met Cindy Tutsch when she visited Iceland about 8 years ago, and I was greatly impressed then with your devotion and suppport of the Spirit of Prophecy. May God grant us many more remale pastors of this caliber.
Thank you, Dr. Johann, for these kind words. Kind words are "kinda" hard to come by in this strife, and I welcome them!
So, if those opposed are willing to split the church to maintain a "pure" church—does that mean that the issue really boils down to Last Generation Theology stemming from the QOD clash?
At some point we must evaluate any threat of splitting the church. How serious is the threat? Or, is it someone raising the spectre to disuade others from pursuing change that they oppose?
I once saw the suffering of a man who decided to be circumcised so I sympathize with the desire of the Gentiles to avoid such a requirement! Through my life I've seen several issues develop and disappear where the voices on one side claimed loudly that the proposed change would split the church. A few small splinter groups have left the church. Theologians complained of a purge following the debate triggered by the teachings of Desmond Ford. Still, the church has continued without the predictions of a major split being fulfilled. I do not dismiss the possibility, but because of my experience I am skeptical whenever someone claims one issue or another will cause the church to split.
I think the irony of the Desmond Ford issue is that it wasn't his theology that split the church (because there are plenty who continue to believe his views and remain faithful SDAs) but rather it was the official hierarchy's attempts to stamp out the heresy that caused a massive split, especially in Australia. Thus, true irony is that the action of the Church in attempting to prevent a split in itself is what caused the split!
So again, the Apostles in Acts 15 were not debating whether circumcission was good or bad. Rather, they were only debating whether it was an 'essential' issue. Their conclusion was that it wasn't a 'salvation' issue, so the Church can continue united through diversity, with some being circumcised and some not circumcised. Even Paul, who so strongly advocated that circumcision not be mandated, still had Timothy circumcised!
Returning to the issue of WO. I would really, really, really wish the SDA Church would realise that it is possible to oppose WO or support WO, but be united in realising WO is not a 'salvation' issue. As such, we can disagree with each other and different groups of people in different places of the world can adopt different attitudes to this issue, whilst we as a world Church remain united. Otherwise, I really fear the attempt to impose uniformity is likely to backfire, and in itself will cause the split in the same way it did with Ford.
William,
In my direct circle of SDA friends (a very large circle as a 4th generation SDA and a PK and now PF 8-), the "Desmond Ford issue" did indeed split the church. A lot of people openly left (or in some cases were forced out). A lot of those who stayed still believe that Ford was at least as "right" as his detractors. A lot of those who stayed no longer trust the hierarchy because of their (mis?)handling of Ford, and have diverted their charitable giving to non-church channels.
In many parts of the USA (I cannot personally speak to Australia or the Deep South) the church of my generation has never recovered from the damage. And the attitude of suspicion for church authority those who stayed passed to their children has left a swath of destruction in the next generation as well.
I know many SDAs who distrust Ted Wilson for no better reason than his father's handling of Desmond Ford, Merikay (McLeod) Silver, etc. In this regard it was very unfortunate that Ted mentioned his father in a constituency meeting that was called to vote on WO. To some in the audience and in the wider circles of Adventism this (rightly or wrongly) confirmed their worst fears that Ted feels some kind of mandate to complete his father's mission. For many, the spectres of Dr Ford (pro-Hiram Edson) and Ms Silver (pro-male prerogatives) loom large in their perception of Ted Wilson's words and actions.
DISCLAIMER – This comment is NOT intended to be a theological defense of either Ford or his detractors. Rather it is an historical commentary.
DISCLAIMER – This comment is NOT intended to be a personal attack on the Wilson family. Rather it is a commentary on how they are perceived (fairly or unfairly) in some places.
William, I don't know either if the church would actually split over this. You might be right about it being unlikely. But I am concerned that some would actually imagine that splitting is the best way forward, as opposed to variance, when we have the model of flexibility in Acts 15.
Steve, I feel uncomfortable comparing differences of interpretation on Scripture passages that impact WO with different interpretations of Daniel and Revelation that impact the pre-Advent judgment. Again, we HAVE a doctrine of the sanctuary. We do not have a doctrine of ordination.
Maybe a better example might be female elders? Some unions around the world don't have any. Some have many. That variance has not "split the church."
I'm sorry that the link I posted above did not show as a hyperlink. This is the name of the paper: "Evaluation of the Arguments Used by those Opposing the Ordination of Women to the Ministry" by Angel Rodriguez. It can be found at Adventist Archives, along with some of the other papers presented at the Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC).
Cindy
I also hope the church never splits by actually not voting for women's ordination! Frivolity aside, You feel that Ordaining women is the Spirit's calling while I feel it would be grieving the Holy Spirit. how do we reconcile that? You feel Ordaining women to leadership is much needed biblical change whilst I believe it is infusing western cultural norms and practices into the church Constaintine style so how do we resolve that?
While I agree that each issue should be evaluated on its owm merits, Don't you think it would be a little naive to completely didmiss the partisanship that has happened in the church. Here is a fun fact, all those who support Theistic evolution support WO, all those who support Homosexuality also sopport WO, all those who do not believe in anything adventist (ERV) also support WO. You called it fear mongering but if we look at the precedence of other churches all those who have supported WO, have gone down that slippery road. I appreciate that you gave us assurance that it would not be so but Frankly Speking you are not God neither can you know the ramifications of WO. All we have is history and so far, many be they that find the slippery road!
So the final question is that you believe God is leading us to WO and I believe He is leading us away, how do we reconcile. Can we walk together except we be agreed? Also seeing that we are a world church and not a congregational one?
By the way the Resolution of the Jerusalem Council was universal for the entire church and not congregational as you purport. Thats my two cents.
Tapiwa and all. I think we all need to step back a little and clarify the question "what is this ordination we are all divided about?" Here is South Africa as I have been engaging with many who are opposed to WO, I have realised that many have a misinformed understanding of what ordination is in the SDA church. It is simply the church's acknowledgement that we have seen evidence that this person has a calling from God, to pastoral ministry for example. The church (human beings) never call people to ministry. It is God who does. We have of course seen people who went into ministry and later discovered that maybe they were not called. Then there are those who are called to it and we can see it. If, therefore, it is God who calls people to ministry, how can we human beings claim that we "KNOW" that God can't call women to pastoral ministry? If the Spirit blows wherever He wills, why do we think we can dictate to Him how to do it? That for me has been the crux of the matter. Which leads me to my suspicion about the reasons. The reasons could be found in our pre-conceived ideas which make is believe that we can know how God works. Pastors (and Elders) are church leaders and have "authority" (we will need to define what – authority in the church is). My observation from this part of the world (Africa) is that because women are rarely in leadership or positions of authority in society in general, and if they are, they often struggle with getting the "respect" due to them as leaders…..we therefore transfer that mindset into the church. By the way, this is a general trend world-wide. We however ignore the fact that all through Scripture, God has always called women to some leadership positions in the nation and church. The New Testament church had women in ministry. For a church which has been so influenced by the ministry of a woman (Ellen White), I sometimes find the sentiments expressed around this matter quite strange.
As already been mentioned, WO is not a doctrinal issue in the SDA Church. Funny enough, it is the Catholic Church which has the issue of ordination as a sacrament and as pillar of their faith (hence only male priests). If we don't elevate it to a doctrinal issue, it can easily be resolved. Areas which want to ordain women can go ahead and those not ready will just not do it. We do that with female elders already. The SDA Church allows for female (ordained) elders in areas that are willing to and the church is not split. In my district we have 4 SDA Churches under 1 pastor. 1 of these churches has female elders and the other 3 are "opposed" to having female elders. We all live together in the district under 1 pastor and we don't have to see each others as opponents.
The objection that Adventists whose theology you object to also support the ordination of women is not a refutation of women's ordination. These same liberal Adventists no doubt also believe in the deity of Christ and the value of eating breakfast, but you would not reject those ideas because they embrace them.
Each idea still has to be evaluated on its own merits (or lack thereof). To do less is intellectually irresponsible, and using the slippery slope arguement is, in point of fact, an appeal to others' fears. One need not use the word "mongering" to acknowledge that.
Tapiwa,
To understand how the same Spirit could lead different people to do different things regarding relgious practices, see my comments above regarding Timothy.
The Spirit is not about reforming every cultural practice at once. The Spirit is about advancing the Kingdom of God on earth. Some but not all cultural practices need to change to advance the Kingdom. Even where cultural practices (all over the world) may not be in harmony with the Kingdom it is the Spirit that must lead regarding whether and when and how best to correct which practices. That is why polygamy and slavery and misogyny are tolerated (but regulated) in the OT and still slavery in the NT.
Cindy
Have you really taken time to think through the ramifications of what allowing some divisions to ordain would do? For starters it would send a mixed signal to the world that as a church we have different interpretations. A house divided amongst itself shall not stand. Many bretheren think that since I am a young black man from Africa, I am automatically masogynistic, backward, illiterate etc. and so it will foster elitism and pride in Conferences that ordain women.
Another issue is that Conferences that ordain will accuse those that do not of intolerence especially when theyrefuse to allow women pastors to operate in their areas. Can you give me your word that this will not happen? ON this same point can you also promise me that ordained women pastors will confine themselves to areas that allow Ordination. There are many more complexities that will arise from a support for ordination. If you really love the Church, you would wait unit the whole world church is ready for such a move because anything in the interim will inevitably cause a split and you will be answerable to God.
Tapiwa,
Different conferences must already discriminate on the basis of culture when hiring and transferring pastors. It is not wise to assign a pastor who speaks no Spanish to a Hispanic district, nor one who speaks only French to pastor in our congregation (or many other examples that could be cited). Not all churches would be well-served by a woman pastor, but some might be better served by a woman than a man (you may find this hard to believe but I have seen examples where it was true).
No conference leadership worth their calling would blindly assign pastors to districts with no consideration for the needs of the congregations and the suitability of the pastor. Yes I know this sometimes happens but it is a sad blunder and deleterious to the work of God. If your local conference operates this way then you and your fellow members need to apply corrective action at the next constituency meeting.
Tapiwa, I would like to respond briefly to seven points arising from your comments.
First, you wrote that you hope that the church will not split; and then you said “frivolity aside”. This makes me wonder what you think about splitting the church over this issue. Some of your comments led me to wonder if you feel that his will inevitably lead to a split. But I am not sure about what you mean to say on this issue of a split. For now I will assume that you do not want us to split.
Second, when you talk of the danger of cultural influences you specify the Western culture. Do you feel this specific culture is more dangerous than some others? Do you view it as legitimate to allow other cultural norms to shape our reading of the Bible? Or would you agree with me that we should not let any cultural norm contradict the principles presented in the Bible?
Third, I am happy to see that you believe that the issues of ordination, homosexuality, and theistic evolution are separate matters; and that each one needs to be evaluated separately. But then you seem to say that all we have is history when it comes to linking these issues on a slippery slope. It would seem to me that those who keep linking these separate issues together that are themselves on the slippery slope.
Mhana
Let me correct some misconceptions that you might have about my post.
Firstly If you read carefully you will find that I said that the church should not split by voting against ordination! that was the full statement. For the record I am against splitting of the church in any form.
The reason why I think the western culture is particularly dangerous is that its adherents feel that they can impose their non biblical cultural norm on the church. I come from a place where there is polygamy but you will not find a single adventist here who supports polygamy as compatible with christianity. (By the way POlygamy has a stronger theological support than WO even if I am against both)
Thirdly while I appreciate that each issue needs to be evaluated individually it would extremely naive not to take cognisence of the partisanship of issues. You cannot know whether WO will not lead to Acceptance of homosexual practice you are not God! The only thing we have precedence of churches that went down the same road.Does not Solomon say nothing new under the sun that which has happened will happen again.
Fifth, you seem to have understood Cindy to be promoting a congregational interpretation of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). I did not get that impression from her comments. But I will let her speak for herself on that if she so desires. For me, the Jerusalem council is a good (non-congregational) model for how we should handle this matter of women in ministry.
Sixth, as you pointed out concerning the Jerusalem Council, a universal decision was made NOT to require or prohibit circumcision among the gentile Christians. If the Lord leads us in this direction, we can now make a similar universal decision in our church NOT to require or prohibit the ordination of female pastors.
Seventh, as you ask Cindy if she has taken time to think, so I ask you. Have you taken the time to think through what a wonderful message we would send to the world if we stayed together in unity over matters that were not fundamental doctrines among us? People would say, those SDAs love each other even when they disagree with each other. They did not lose their love and split up as others have done.
You seem to forget that Cindy is proposing a congregational or is it divisional resolution wtih regards to WO and used the Jerusalem council as precedence. To which I responded and said that the Jerusalem council came up with a universal resolution not a congregational one.
ON your seventh point, Do you think that maybe God and Lucifer should not have split? The problem that I sometimes have with Liberals and supporters of WO (not the same thing as there are those who may espouse our core beliefs but support WO) is that they think they may be more loving than God and Succeed where he presumably failed and I think that is dangerous. There is no precedence I can think of that God told his people to emulateother cultures and religions and yet you want us to emulate other churches and the world when Jesus told us to be not of this world.
I do not want the church to split but can two walk together except they be agreed? a house divided amongst itslef will not stand. I believe Proponents Of WO are going to fuel a split thats why I think we should vote down WO its just not worth it.
"Liberals and supporters of WO"?
I am certainly not as liberal as many who comment on this web site. My liberal friends think I am conservative and my conservative friends think I am liberal so I am probably in the middle of the road (the ditch on one side being as deep as the ditch on the other 8-).
I do support allowing various parts of the world field to decide for themselves whom to ordain under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I do not think that I am more "more loving than God" – there is no eternal hope for me unless God is far more loving than I! Likewise for my church unless God is far more loving that we!
Nor do I believe that I can "Succeed where he presumably failed" – my destiny is entirely dependent on God succeeding where I have failed! Likewise for my church unless God succeeds where we have failed!
A church that takes the name Seventh-day Adventist and proclaims that God called creation to its final judgment and the end of the age over a century ago, must admit to less than stellar "success" or we would no longer be here. In this regard we must acknowledge that "success" for God means the end of our own church along with every other earthly enterprise at the next Advent, just like the Jewish religious enterprises became irrelevant with the previous Advent. We must decrease that He may increase.
We must be open to whatever channels the Spirit chooses to use to achieve the Divine purpose, regardless of whether or how it might threaten our own institutions and endeavors and desires.
mhanna,
I seem to have missed your fourth point?
Hi Tapiwa, It's been a couple of years since you and I dialogued on this site! Welcome to the discussion!
When you say, "Can we walk together except we be agreed?" do I understand you correctly to be in support of the person in the hall at the TOSC who said, essentially, "Bring it on! If this brings a fracture in the church, so be it! There will be shaking, and God will have a pure church?" In other words, if this does come to a vote at the GC, you would be in support of members leaving the church over this issue?
Could you do something for me, Tapiwa? If you put "Adventist Archives" into your search engine, on the home page right upper corner you will find a box that says "Jan 2014 TOSC papers now available." Click there, then scroll down to research papers. There are two there that deal with the very objections you bring to the table. Would you read them? One is "Evaluation of the Arguments Used by Those Opposing the Ordination of Women to the Ministry," by Angel Rodriguez. Of course, you personally will want to read the research papers that support your position. But I challenge you to at least read Angel Rodriguez' critique of the arguments used by those who are against WO. I have heard and read the papers that support your position. Would you be willing to read at least one paper on the other side? If you were only going to read one paper, I recommend Angel Rodriguez' paper.
Secondly, Barry D. Oliver in his paper on the same site, titled "Moving Forward in Unity" answers some of the practical and logistical questions that you pose. This paper is also important for those who have difficulty imagining how allowing each division to decide what best serves its territority would look.
Blessings, Tapiwa!
Hi Cindy
Thank you for directing me to the adventist archives website, it was exciting. I read the presentation by Angel Manuel Rodriguez and I was impressed but not convinced I felt in some instances he did not put a fair analysis on some points but a good attempt from him! I read the article on headship and submission by J Peters and I think that was a master piece I think any objective person would see the validity of a God ordained hiearchy. I must say that i was however dissappoited by the article by Barry D OLiver on "Moving forward in unity" I think it lacked substance and did not even begin to address the practical and logistical isssues I raised. Maybe you could try to answer my questions as I see that most Proponents of WO have not really thought this through.
The fragmentation of Christianity is one of the strongest arguments, I suspect, against it
being anything really special–or at least, that as a religion, the fragmentation into many
sects (often over rather trivial issues by comparison with its overall mission) is not
consistent with the message attributed to its central character, Jesus.
But fragmentation is a really common activity, regardless of the kind of social group
humans form. Some stay. Some go. This human tendency is consistent with rapid
evolutionary adaptation and change, and spreading of population fragments into
new niches. Is it too much to expect churches and religious groups to be lovingly
cohesive? Maybe.
I'm not sure I understand your comment here, Joe. On the one hand, you observe, correctly I think, that fragmentation is commonly inherent in every living organism and social structure. On the other hand, you suggest that the fragmentary nature and history of Christianity is not consistent with the central message attributed to Jesus. No, it is not too much to look for loving cohesiveness within churches and religious groups. But the fact that there are lovingly cohesive churches (plural) and religious groups (plural) presupposes a kind of punctuated equilibrium doesn't it? They got that way through fragmentation, and what they are today should not tell you what they will be 50 years from now.
I happen to believe that fragmentation – the practical result of conflicts and divisions that, over time, challenge the cherished values and beliefs of a group – is God's way of keeping us humble. Jesus said, "Unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground, it is just a grain of wheat. But if it falls to the ground and dies, then it brings forth much fruit." The problem with institutions, like the SDA Church, is that, by their very nature, they can't die to self. The institution, its officers, and its Board have a legal and fiduciary duty to survive and thrive above all else.
I think that a "lovingly cohesive" group, like a family, allows itself to fragment in order to both remain cohesive and allow its members to individuate and form new cohesive units if they no longer subscribe to the values and practices that preserve the group's sense of cohesiveness. If my adult daughter, still living at home, wants to have sleepovers in her bedroom with her boyfriend, we don't stop loving her as a member of the family. But we're going to ask her to move out if she is not willing to conform with our family values. What's wrong with that?
Mind you, I wholeheartedly agree with Cindy's conclusions, though I am not prepared to put all of the F.B.s in a lock box. Once we get over the idea that the General Conference of SDAs (which exists as a strong corporate entity only by virtue of the power and authority of the State) is the Remnant referred to in Revelation, then we won't be so obssessed with institutional unity. We can begin to see the Adventist Church more as a federation of faith communities that share core values and commitments. We can then allow the spreading of faith community fragments into new niches where they may die, but may also produce much fruit.
I believe the solution lies in a deeper faith in God's power and guidance. In Old Testament times, women had much fewer rights and almost no legal standing. They could not vote, own property, or work outside the home. And yet, when Deborah came along, she was universally accepted as both prophetess (that in itself was rare) and Judge. Why? Was it because the Israelites had previously voted on a measure allowing women judges? Was it because their culture was dangerously liberal and feministic? Or was it because God's calling of Deborah was so clear and obvious that no one could dispute it? In a culture that was much more restrictive than we are regarding the proper role of women, Deborah was clearly an exception, not the rule, in a long line of male Judges. And yet she was accepted because none could doubt the power of God leading her into that position. (It is also worth noting that following the appointment of Deborah as Judge, the Jewish religion did not descend into a moral abyss of homosexuality and creation-deniers, nor were they torn apart by schism.)
Many of us who support Women's Ordination do so because we can see the same power resting on individual women in our church today that was so obviously resting on Deborah. We have seen ample evidence of God's call in their lives: not only the gifts of pastoring, teaching, leadership and administration, but the desire to use those gifts in service to the church and the need for them in this final hour of earth's history.
What is more, we have seen these same women led by God to pastor churches in which there was resistence to female leaderhip, only to have the opposition reverse their opinions based on God's overwhelming evidence in favor of that particular woman's ministry.
What we need, in my opinion, is not a new understanding of ordination, but a new understanding of God's role. God chooses the human He desires. God calls them to a particular position of service. God gives them the gifts that they need in order to minister effectively. We, as a church, do nothing but RECOGNIZE what God has done and agree with it. That is our only job.
Perhaps instead of endless committees debating the validity of women's ordination, we ought to study more how to recognize those who are truly called and those who are not: male or female. Has it occured to those who oppose women's ordination that if women in leadership positions truly do grieve the Holy Spirit, then He won't call any? Proponents and opponents of women's ordination can agree on this issue, so long as we keep in our sights our faith in God's leadership! As long as we are doing OUR job of letting God call whomever He chooses and simply learning to recognize God's call, we will not displease Him. As we learn to perfect the art of listening to God and recognizing His call, might a few bad apples slip through — women whom God did not truly call and who shouldn't be placed into the positions they desire? Certainly, but we have experienced that with men already, haven't we?
We must do our job of recognizing God's call better and leave to God the job of choosing whom He desires: man, woman, child, or even stone.
Did Matthew (tax collector employed by Rome) and Simon (Zealot violently opposed to Roman occupation) have differences of opinion as they lived and worked and slept side by side for the 3 years of Jesus' ministry? Of course they did! And yet the band of disciples did not break apart over this or any other issue that divided them, for one reason: no matter what their differences, they had something MUCH GREATER in common — Jesus. And so do we.
If those who claim to be God's chosen people cannot agree to give fair and due consideration
and treatment to people regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, and even sexual orientation,
just how true can that claim be? Who are the ones who are falling away from the message
attributed to Jesus? Personally, it seems to me that Jacki's points are well taken and worthy
of serious consideration by those who disagree with her conclusions.
What is all this splitting about? For one thing, it is about intolerance and intolerance of tolerance.
The view from outside (where I am) is of traditionalists who place their traditions above the
most central messages of Christianity–while inviting those who disagree with them to leave.
As already been mentioned, WO is not a doctrinal issue in the SDA Church. Funny enough, it is the Catholic Church which has the issue of ordination as a sacrament and as pillar of their faith (hence only male priests). If we don't elevate it to a doctrinal issue, it can easily be resolved. Areas which want to ordain women can go ahead and those not ready will just not do it. We do that with female elders already. The SDA Church allows for female (ordained) elders in areas that are willing to and the church is not split. In my district we have 4 SDA Churches under 1 pastor. 1 of these churches has female elders and the other 3 are "opposed" to having female elders. We all live together in the district under 1 pastor and we don't have to see each others as opponents.
Alvin
I appreciate your comments but I will have to respectfully disagree. Firstly the Spirit never calls anyone contrary to the testimony of Scripture if there is such a spirit we can be rest assured it is not from God. Another thing that I think people fail to understand is that the prophetic gift and the pastoral gift are differrent and should not be conflated. Your observation that in Africa (some parts just to be clear) Women do not hold leadership position in general but at the same time many proponents come from western feminised societies and want to infuse such ideologies into the church. Do you think that it is a coincidence in many of these countries that have so called equality have many more broken homes, higher divorce rates and skewed legislation with regards to Gender?
From the beginning of time there have always been individuals who have craved position God did not ordain. We have Lucifer, Korah, Dathan and Abiram, Eve, Uzzah and many more. Nothing good can come out from allowing ordination of Women and I believe this sincerly and I believe it will be a sad day for the church if we decide to follow the world and not God.
"the Spirit never calls anyone contrary to the testimony of Scripture"
I completely agree. However the Spirit does at times call us contrary to our own personal or collective interpretation of scripture. When this happened to Peter he was caled to account by the other apostles. That meeting ended in rejoicing that God had (contrary to their prior interpretation) extended to Gospel to (uncircumcised) Gentiles! However the dissension over how to interpret the scriptures continued, even after the Jerusalem Council. According to EGW (whom Tapiwa might still read) the prejudice of the Jewish leaders of the Christian church in Jerusalem, and their resentment of the way Paul ministered to the Gentiles, directly pressured Paul into the actions (purification and fulfillment of a vow at the Temple to prove his "loyalty") that led to his arrest, confinement and deportation.
It is not the call of the Spirit that leads to dissension and division – it is how we respond when the Spirit calls us outside our personal comfort zone that leads to dissension and division. Under the guidance of the Spirit Peter baptised an uncircumcised Gentile and Philip batised a castrated Eunuch. Both of these were expressly excluded from fellowship in the Law of Moses. The church burst out of the bonds of Judaism. (So concludes the 70th Week of Daniel 9.)
It took almost two more millennia for the church to burst out of the bonds of slavery. We have not yet burst out of the bonds of racism and sexism and clericalism but these bonds may be stretching to the bursting point.
Praise God! Jesus came to burst every bond of sin. His church will yet prevail! (So conclude the longer time prophecies of Daniel.)
For those who are interested in apocalyptic prophecy – and especially for those among said group who might wonder how Daniel and Revelation relate to this topic – read this comment. (The rest of you will probably be better served elsewhere 8-).
The evolution of the Courtyard (the makon of Daniel 8:11) is rather enlightening. In the wilderness Tabernacle there was a single couryard. I Solomon's Temple there were two courtyards – an inner courtyard for the Priests and an outer courtyard for the People. Zerubbabel's Temple divided the outer courtyard into one for the Men and another for the Women. Herod's Temple went further by adding a courtyard for the Gentiles. In each of these temples the various courtyards were separated by walls.
The Gospels show how Jesus in His ministry broke through each of these walls symbolically by reaching out to Gentiles (and Lepers who were also unclean) and to Women, and to the common People. At His death the Veil within the sanctuary was torn in two. Jesus broke down every barrier in the temple of His day. He removed every wall of separation. And in the process He gained the undying enmity of the guardians of these various walls.
The mediaeval church re-built the walls of separation. Revelation 12.:1-2 is very instructive in this regard. In a direct allusion to Ezekiel's Rosh Hashana (Seventh Trumpet) vision, John is first told to measure the Altar and the Worshippers (the tamid of Daniel 8:11). Then he is told that he cannot measure the courtyard (makon) because it has been occupied by alien forces. The obvious inference is that the measuring cannot begin until the aliens (false worshippers) have been expelled – setting the stage for the sequel of Revelation 12.
After the aliens are expelled, the courtyard must be restored before judgment (measuring) can conclude. In Zerubbabel's Temple, the Jewish Remnant first restored the Altar, then the Courtyard, then the Sanctuary. The Christian Remnant responding to the call of the Seventh Trumpet spent about a generation recovering the Books of the Law, then another century (!) restoring the Altar. Hopefully the restoration of the courtyard (sans barriers) goes faster. Then we might gain an unimpeded view into the Sanctuary.
Well, this is a really basic problem. It is a problem I struggled with mightily while I was an
adventist Christian. Who is to know when s/he is being led by The Holy Spirit? The knowledge
is really quite personal and private. I do not understand how anyone can ever be absolutely
certain of whose "truth" is based upon the leading of THE Holy Spirit. The fall back position
is to claim that one can discern which message is Holy Spirit led, only by resorting to scripture.
But then, the claim is made that scripture can only be accurately understood by opening to
guidance by the Holy Spirit. This is clearly circular reasoning. One is dependent on whatever
his/her impression is of being led by the Holy Spirit. This just opens everyone up to
manipulation by charlatains. Manipulative charismatic people just deceive themselves and
others, and the deception goes on and on. World without end…. The authority is unverifiable.
I think there is some truth in what you are saying, Joe. I am sure there are many out there who believe God has called them who are deceived. They may be deceived because of arrogance, manipulation, love of power, to name a few self-centered motives. It would seem best if there was no such thing as ordination of men or women and ministry be an equalizer. It was, like Sunday worship, put forth by a heirarchy of male priests. It's unfortunate that our church can't give up this badge of pride and settle for laying on of hands for all its workers. But since it chooses to go the way of the world, there is little that can be done but to at least equalize its ministers. So-called "headship" is an excuse for manipulation and even abuse. Our Godhead is equal.
Tapiwa, it still seems that you feel that if the church ordains female pastors then we should expect the church to split. Am I misunderstanding you? Also, I understand you to be saying that no culture should be the norm that replaces the Bible as norm. So we are agreed on that point. In addition, you are right that we are not God and cannot predict the future impact of ordaining women. Personally, I think the impact will be more advantageous than the impact of prohibiting female ordination.
I also agree with you that no congregational solution is proposed in Acts 15. The Jerusalem council did make a universal decision NOT to require or prohibit circumcision. Similarly, the General Conference can make a universal decision NOT to require or to prohibit the ordination of female pastors.
I support such a decision since the Bible does NOT require or prohibit the ordination of female pastors.
Ordination is the act by which the church recognizes God’s call of a person. If God calls women to pastoral ministry we should ordain women to pastoral ministry. To deny ordination of women is to deny that God has called women. So the issue is not whether or not to ordain women. The issue is whether or not we believe that God is calling women to pastoral ministry.
That is true Joe, that it would be presumptious to assume that to call women to ministry is contrary to the Spirit of God. Tapiwa, isn't that the reason we've been studying this matter for over 120 years as a church, because we don't have agreement on what the Spirit of God wants.? If it was as clear as you say it, we wouldn't be having the study. One other thing….isn't is possible that there are things which have no effect on salvation where we can have different opinions within the same church. I don't think everything about church administration is so important that we should have the same opinion. For example there are discussions about how many Cnferences we should have in a certain Union. Some want 4 others 3. I know that might sound a trivial example, but I see WO as having no doctrinal effect and therefore if one Division ordains women and another one doesn't, it should not lead to any tensions within the world church.
What, among other things, Cindy seems not to recognize, is that the Jerusalem Council did not permit each region of the Christian body at that time to determine whether or not circumcision would still be a binding requirement for the church. The decision was universal. And while the analogy between circumcision and women's ordination breaks down early on, as male headship is traceable to the original creation while circumcision is not, the example of the Jerusalem Council makes no sense to cite if one believes each world Division should develop its own ordination policy—and by implication, its own Biblical hermeneutics.
The hermeneutical divide so evident now in the present controversy goes far deeper than the issue of ordination. That is the reason the issue is so polarizing. Jan Barna's paper at the Adventist Society of Religious Studies meeting in Baltimore last fall (Nov. 21, 2013), openly described—from the perspective of one who in fact favors women's ordination—that those supporting female eligibility for headship roles in the church believe the Bible contains "contamination" and "human baggage" ("Ordination of Women and the Two Ways to Unity: Ecclesiastical and Biblical," p. 4).
The NAD ordination report made a similar statement, declaring that when men and women read the text of Scripture, "meaning thus emerges as an outcome of interplay between text and reader, both of which are culturally and historically conditioned" (NAD report, p. 28).
No evidence is more decisive than these two statements to demonstrate that the current campaign for women's ordination has effectively embraced major features of the higher-critical approach to Scripture. In contrast to the above statements, the apostle Paul declares: "When ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God" (I Thess. 2:13). Ellen White agrees:
"In God's word only do we behold the power that laid the foundations of the earth, and that stretched out the heavens. Here only do we find an authentic account of the origin of nations. Here only si given a history of our race unsullied by human pride or prejudice" (MYP 263).
In the contrast between the above inspired statements and the formerly stated hermeneutical premises underlying support for women's ordination, we see the basis of the present divide in the church, and why it is utterly irreconcilable. This is effectively what defines the fissure between liberal and conservative theology in the Seventh-day Adventist Church today. It is what, in so many denominational controversies, constrains one camp to take inspired counsel the way it reads, and what constrains opponents to view that counsel as a mixture of local culture and individual interpretive bias.
This is not, in other words, a debate between perspectives which view the inspired documents in the same way. And it is inconceivable that the world church could permit the peaceful co-existence of these two contrasting hermeneutics within its global body. This would set the precedent for any number of varying doctrinal conclusions and formulations region by region, irretrievably sundering the unity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
What you describe, Kevin, is a situation in which an organization has been excessively specific in its policies and practices. Positions and perspectives that can only be highly personal have been forced into general acceptance through claims and pretense of leading from the Holy Spirit. Such leading is not verifiable, except, perhaps, individually through personal experience. When someone (man or woman) claims to have been called into service, other individuals can act as if that is true and accept the leadership to the extent they can, or not. Asking anyone to endorse that someone has really been called by the Holy Spirit is too much to ask.
So, it is my impression that one can be a Christian (maybe the best kind of Christian) without membership in any formal church, SDA or otherwise. Perhaps "irretrievably sundering" would be the best outcome if it led to abandonment of extreme specificity of practices based on pretense of spiritual leadership.
• ELLEN G. WHITE – ON THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL PRINCIPLE. It is the *principle* that Cindy Tutsch is taking from the Jerusalem Council that we need to consider more carefully. Please notice what EGW says (my emphasis):
“After the decision of the council at Jerusalem concerning this question [about requiring Gentiles to be circumcised in order to become Christians], many were STILL OF THIS OPINION, but did NOT PUSH THEIR OPPOSITION ANY FURTHER. The council had, on that occasion, decided that the converts from the Jewish church MIGHT observe the ordinances of the Mosaic Law IF THEY CHOSE, while those ordinances SHOULD NOT BE MADE OBLIGATORY upon converts from the Gentiles.” –Sketches from the Life of Paul (121,4).
So, as ‘people of The Book’ we need to be willing to adopt the Holy Spirit-inspired arrangement recorded in Acts 15, which is – to allow Christ-centered, mission-focused organizational structures within our global church family, “If they chose,” to ordain women to the gospel ministry, while such ordinations of women “should not be made obligatory” upon those not desiring such. And once this decision has been made, even though many may be “still of this opinion” against women’s ordination, one would hope and trust that, as in the matter of circumcision, they will “not push their opposition any further.”
Ultimately Cindy’s basic conclusions, about the PRINCIPLES of operation for the Jerusalem Council are accurate and fully appropriate for the matter of women’s ordination
That's where we differ, Joe. You seem to have a very individualistic view of truth and how God acts in the world. That view I find to be profoundly at odds with both Scripture and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. Experience can never be our guide in determining whether in fact the Holy Spirit, or the opposing spirit, is speaking to us. That's where Eve went wrong. She ate the forbidden fruit against God's direct command, and because she didn't die immediately, she was sure her experience contradicted God's statement that death would result from such action.
Experience-driven theology has become one of the great curses of contemporary Adventism. Much of our theological conversation in recent years has been driven by this mindset, particularly with regard to the salvation/perfection controversy. But experience cannot be allowed to gainsay the written counsel of God. That is essentially the reason why the ordination debate is so pivotal for global Adventism just now.
Kevin and Joe, you both seem to think that since we have different views on this it may be good for us to split the church. I respect your views. But I also respectfully disagree. I would love to see us handle this without a split.
Martin, I don't want to see a split either. But the fact is, we have one already. Two very different approaches to the inspired writings are contending for the soul of Adventism. And the divine query of Amos 3:3 is still in the Bible: "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"
Kevin, I am glad that you and I agree that we dont want to see a split. So lets agree to support a universal decision by the General Conference NOT to require or to prohibit the ordination of female pastors.
Martin, there is no way a decision for or against women's ordination can be avoided as matters now stand. If the course you propose were followd, the present status quo—with particular Unions defying existing church policy—would go uncorrected, and other territories would likely follow with similar rebellious actions. Effectively, such an action as you envision would by default be a decision in favor of women's ordination, or at least the regionalized approval of such.
Which means, at the bottom line, that no middle ground is possible in this dispute. The only thing that can happen now is for the church to decide either favorably or unfavorably on this issue, said action to be binding throughout the world field.
The fact that neither of us desires a split goes without saying. We are both pastors with a heart for the Lord's flock. But just as I didn't wish to see a former head deacon in one of my churches removed from membership on account of his adulterous behavior, but was constrained to recommend such action due to his intransigence, so I will reluctantly support a global decision which will likely—and regrettably—cause alienation on the part of certain ones, as I believe such a decision is essential for maintaining supreme inspired authority in all matters of faith and practice.
We cannot make ecclesiastical decisions with a view to pleasing as many and offending as few as possible. Rather, we must render such decisions pursuant to an agenda of strict faithfulness to the written counsel of God.
I have to point out once again that there is, in fact NO POLICY in the Adventist church Working Policy that forbids the ordination of a woman. GC working policy cites no gender requirement for ordination. Even ANN has mistakenly stated that the church has a policy against it, but this is not so.
Because there is no policy against the ordination of women, the votes taken by certain unions were not defiance of church policy, and were actually not needed in order to ordain women in their territory. No policy change was made in these unions because no contradicting policy exists.
For 30 years and more, every study process taken by the church on this issue has come back with the same answer–there is no biblical reason to refuse ordination to a woman, but there may be cultural reasons not to. It is because of the desire not to offend that women have not been ordained by and large thus far.
Well, Kevin, the result of the council action was precisely that circumcisioin was left to the local practice. Not required does not mean not allowed.
This statement is confirmed and demonstrated when one of the leading advocates for freedom from required circumcision at the council insisted on circumcising his new missionary partner immediately following the meeting and not very many day's journey from Jerusalem.
Cindy's correctness is not dependent on her explanation, nor is your incorrectness disguisable by your efforts to explain. And the likelihood of my failure to be able to explain to your satisfaction does not prevent my attempting an explanation, which cannot possibly be a surprise to you, Kevin. 🙂
The Jerusalem council record is the confirmation that for Christians going forward, all arguments from scripture, which the converts from 'the sect of the Pharisees' argued with dramatic impact–the Jerusalem council being called by reason of their profound performance, would be subject to measuring the Holy Spirit's impact on people rather than people's impact on one another based on scriptural rationale.
It is valuable to keep in mind, Kevin, that uncircumcised Greeks were already being integrated into the communities of believers across the Empire. They had not sought permission to join without circumcision. Rather, they had for the most part been welcomed on the basis of the Holy Spirit's work in their lives, as Acts 15 notes.
It is also valuable to keep in mind that Acts 15 is the sole scriptural testimony as to the role of central church leadership. There is no other mention of such a gathering. So this is it. Indeed, we may well come to the conclusion that the sole Divine purpose of including this record in Acts 15 is to demonstrate how the Holy Spirit brings unity in diversity, and by this demonstration sets the standard for future decisioin making by this example of leaders deferring to the locally unifying work of the Holy Spirit rather than seeking the counsel of those determined to compel universal decisions based on 'dividing the world of God.'
And historically Seventh-day Adventist founders deferred to the Holy Spirit over 'dividing the word of God' precisely because their skill in this dividing work had so recently been so irrefutably demonstrated to have come up so profoundly short in the face of the Holy Spirit being so undeniably present. It may seem that I digress, and perhaps I do … or not.
Excellent comment, Bill! I was about to question what hermeneutic had led Kevin to conclude that the consensus of the Jerusalem counsel was deemed binding on all Christian faith communities to which they ministered. But you have framed the issue much better than I could have.
Kevin, how is your reading into scripture a meaning that is neither express nor implied any different from liberal theologians reading meanings into scripture that cannot be definitely derived from the text itself?
Bill, again I must differ with you. No surprise, I am sure.
No one at the Jerusalem Council was proposing that Jews stop practicing circumcision. It was only a question of whether circumcision would be required. But no segment of the Christian body was permitted to require anyone to practice circumcision. The decision, as I said before, was one of universal policy. If we were to allow each world Division in contemporary Adventism to either allow or disallow women's ordination as they see fit, it would be comparable to the early church allowing each territory within its field to either require or not require Gentiles to be circumcised.
At the bottom line, circumcision was part of the ceremonial law which met its fulfillment at the cross. The Adventist distinction between the moral and ceremonial laws is a settled feature of our classic theology. Why anyone is questioning this essential premise of our faith is more than a little hard to understand/ To compare circumcision with male headship, which had its origina at creation (I Tim. 2:12-13), is to create an analogy that doesn't exist.
The Holy Spirit's moving never discards or transcends the written Word. If we permit such a notion to take root among us, what defense might we offer agianst a future urge that we adopt Sunday-keeping, despite the lack of Biblical support? Or that we embrace homosexual practice, as some even now wish us to do? I am reminded of the Pentecostal lady who was studying with an Adventist evangelist years ago, who was convinced on the basis of Scripture that the seventh day was in fact the Sabbath. But she wouldn't make a commitment just yet. She told the evangelist, "I have to ask the Holy Spirit if I should keep the Sabbath." (As if the Spirit hadn't already told her through the Word!) So one night she knelt and asked the Holy Spirit if she should keep the Sabbath. She opened her eyes, and on the wall was etched in letters of fire, SUNDAY.
Somehow I don't think that was the same hand that wrote on Belshazzar's palace!
This is not a path we can safely travel. And I am confident, by the grace of God, that the world church will never permit it.
Bill, again I must differ with you. No surprise, I am sure.
No one at the Jerusalem Council was proposing that Jews stop practicing circumcision. It was only a question of whether circumcision would be required. But no segment of the Christian body was permitted to require anyone to practice circumcision. The decision, as I said before, was one of universal policy. If we were to allow each world Division in contemporary Adventism to either allow or disallow women's ordination as they see fit, it would be comparable to the early church allowing each territory within its field to either require or not require Gentiles to be circumcised.
At the bottom line, circumcision was part of the ceremonial law which met its fulfillment at the cross. The Adventist distinction between the moral and ceremonial laws is a settled feature of our classic theology. Why anyone is questioning this essential premise of our faith is more than a little hard to understand/ To compare circumcision with male headship, which had its origina at creation (I Tim. 2:12-13), is to create an analogy that doesn't exist.
The Holy Spirit's moving never discards or transcends the written Word. If we permit such a notion to take root among us, what defense might we offer agianst a future urge that we adopt Sunday-keeping, despite the lack of Biblical support? Or that we embrace homosexual practice, as some even now wish us to do? I am reminded of the Pentecostal lady who was studying with an Adventist evangelist years ago, who was convinced on the basis of Scripture that the seventh day was in fact the Sabbath. But she wouldn't make a commitment just yet. She told the evangelist, "I have to ask the Holy Spirit if I should keep the Sabbath." (As if the Spirit hadn't already told her through the Word!) So one night she knelt and asked the Holy Spirit if she should keep the Sabbath. She opened her eyes, and on the wall was etched in letters of fire, SUNDAY.
Somehow I don't think that was the same hand that wrote on Belshazzar's palace!
This is not a path we can safely travel. And I am confident, by the grace of God, that the world church will never permit it.
I am not for splitting the church, but in my opinion, the church should not put itself in such a position at all by overspecifying doctrines and policies. Surely this has nothing whatsoever to do with the message of Jesus who taught love and peace and harmony.
I seriously doubt that anyone can descern when the Holy Spirit is instructing them or anyone else, because I don't think most people (or maybe anyone) knows what or who the Holy Spirit is. I'm afraid most who claim to be led by the Spirit or have the ability to see when someone else is being so led are either deluded or misrepresenting their ability.
How nice it is to see some who profess a simple and uncomplicated faith that does not claim to know the utterly unknowable. It is not a faith I share, but it is a faith I can respect. Endless and fruitless debate over earthly policies and practices? Well, not so much. I do not think any sect or earthly organization has a corner on Christianity, nor should it.
Joe,
As I mentioned before, it's not always possible to know the motives of others or even our own, because of that bent to self-centeredness. But I think it is possible to tell by the fruits of the Spirit as they are listed in Gal. 5:22. The fruits of evil are also listed in Gal. 5. That should give us a pretty good idea of whether someone is living in the Spirit or not. It's also something that needs to be prayed for every day for life is a struggle against self and immediate pleasure, and we don't always win the struggle. I have found that prayer communication is the key.
Having said that, I know there are persons who suffer mental illnesses who will find that difficult, but God works with humans where they are
Joe, listening to what you say, I'm not sure how—or perhaps if—you are able to measure right and wrong in your approach to ultimate reality. Certainly you seem notably unfamiliar with the Jesus of Scripture, who declared, "Narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" (Matt. 7:14), who declared that obedience to His Father's commandments was the condition of salvation (Matt. 7:21; 19:16-17; 25:31-46; Luke 10:25-28), and who made such statements as the following:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matt. 10:34-35).
It seems that like so many others, you have crafted your own postmodern, "inclusive" Jesus, quite at odds with the Christ of the Bible. And your amorphous view of the Holy Spirit seems equally foreign to the New Testament, which speaks of the Holy Spirit as the One "whom God hath given to them that obey Him" (Acts 5:32).
One thing is clear: your understanding of Christianity cannot peacefully co-exist with the absolutes of Scripture. And the reason we presently have conflict in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is because these two perspectives have no hope of living together in harmony.
Kevin,
You seem caught up in circumcision, while I am maintaining that Acts 15 is about how church leaders made a distinction between the Holy Spirit and 'the Law of Moses' on behalf of the world church.
You declare "The Holy Spirit's moving never discards or transcends the written Word." Do you doubt that the converts from 'the sect of the Pharisees' had claimed they were standing firmly on the solid rock of not just scripture, but the very Law of Moses while demanding the church fully support universal compliance with circumcision as a right of passage into the new Christian communities?
The church leaders in Acts 15 chose to acknowledge that the Holy Spirit had, indeed, trumped 'the Law of Moses,' and they were close enough to the Holy Spirit to embrace the change in the face of 'much disputing' by converts 'from the sect of the Pharisees.'
And, yet as you point out, they did not ban circumcision. They just banned the requirement for circumcision.
As John writes … In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things wer emade by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
For John, the Word written of here is Jesus, not scripture.
Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to perpetuate his work of shining light into dark places. For Jesus, scripture was undeniably not sufficient.
Acts 15 is testimony to the leaders of the early church acting in harmony with the Word, rather than regressing to the 'Law of Moses.' Yes, I chose the word regressing with intent, intent I believe being grounded in Jesus' promise of the Holy Spirit.
I realize that this line of thinking will not likely alter your belief … at least for now. The good news is that Acts 15 seems to suggest that converts from 'the sect of the Pharisees' came to join in with the decision and the church prospered.
Reading all the comments above, if we simply changed the reference to WO with circumcission, we'd have a pretty close repeat of Acts 15. All those who seem to argue that adopting WO would cause a split, or would be a denigration of scripture, or of what it means to be a true Adventist, seem pretty close to the Judaizers of Acts 15.
Why, if the early NT Church could accept unity through diversity on the issue of Jewish rites and practices, can we Adventists not do so today on WO? The fact is we do accept unity through diversity on a range of issues, from clothes, to music, to food, to how we keep the Sabbath.
It seems an interesting quirk of history that the destruction of the Jewish-Christian 'faction' of the early NT Church precipitated the rise of the Papacy within the Gentile-Pauline 'faction' that remained. It would seem to me an important lesson there to be gained from history.
Steve
Not sure I agree with your analogy. Anyway Have you considered the practical and logistical ramifications of such a decision. Would women pastors only confine themselves to areas where Ordination was permissible? What if there were conferences or unions that wished to prohibit ordination in a division that allowed it how would it work? What if there was a local church that lets say in NAD that did not want a women pastor what would take precedence? Voting for WO would create far more problems than solutions.
Logistical problems? Permission problems? More problems less solutions?
Christ came to bring the sword. And Cindy is far too lenient on this legalistic and naturally hypocritical authority that denies Christ died for all and died so that all can proclaim His message. I don't think Christ was worried about logistics, permission, or church politics by those unscrupulous agents of power, machoism, and greed embedded in the hierarchy.
Disciples were called man and woman, not give into needs of marriage or property or ownership, and whatever house would receive them- then their spirit rested upon the house.
Disciples just like Mary Madgalene or Peter were both unworthy and still their master served them far more than they served Him. Likewise do disciples both men and women follow that mold.
Matt 10:6-13
AND if we don't receive disciples of Christ regardless of gender, tribe, blood, physical appearance, class status, intelligence- if we reject them on the basis of a Law that kills all of us, if we reject them "it will have been more bearable in Sodom and Gomorrah than for us"
As has been noted already in this conversation, the analogy between circumcision and women's ordination breaks down very quickly when the two issues are compared. Again it must be noted that the distinction between the moral and ceremonial laws is a settled component of Adventist theology. It is a fundamental reason as to why we consider the seventh-day Sabbath binding and the other Old Testament holy days to be obsolete. And the principal reason for this is that the Sabbath, like male headship (I Tim. 2:12-13), started at creation (Gen. 2:2-3; Ex. 20:11). Circumcision, like the rest of the ceremonial law, started after the entrance of sin. Its replacement in the New Testament by the ordinance of baptism was therefore in full harmony with this settled Biblical principle.
If, as some are alleging here, Jesus trumps the Bible in matters of spiritual conflict, that would come as quite a surprise to Jesus Himself, who in His conflict with Satan relied on Holy Scripture as His means of defeating the adversary (Matt. 4:4-10). The attempt by some to elevate the Christian's relationship with God over the written Word, whether through the moving of the Spirit or otherwise, makes no sense in the light of Jesus' experience in the wilderness. Jesus had a closer relationship with His Father than any of us, and the Holy Spirit's descent on Him had been obvious and visible to all (Matt. 3:16-17). Yet when faced with direct attack from the enemy, He relied on the written Word as His ultimate weapon. We must do the same.
The idea that because we presently approach in different ways such issues as music, food, clothing, and Sabbath observance, that we should embrace similar diversity with regard to ordination, is to start with a most dangerous premise. Diversity in these areas is not a reality to accommodate, bur rather, a problem to correct through revival and reformation. This can only happen through a wholesale return to the written counsel of God as our supreme authority. The decline of inspired standards in the church in recent decades, in the above areas and many others, has impoverished and crippled the church in its integrity and outreach. Such pluralism deserves curtailment and reversal, not celebration or emulation.
In all these areas, including ordination, revival and reformation must mean a full and unambiguous return to inspired counsel as our transcendent and countercultural guide.
The analogy is not between ordination and circumcision, Sabbath, music, food, or clothing. The analogy is between the type of decision made at the Jerusalem council and the type of decision being proposed for our General Conference session.
The Jerusalem Council did make a universal decision NOT to require or prohibit circumcision. Similarly, the General Conference can make a universal decision NOT to require or to prohibit the ordination of female pastors.
This option is supported by the fact that the inspired word does NOT require or prohibit the ordination of female pastors. If the Jerusalem Council could make such a decision on a matter that was required in the Old Testament, surely we could make such a decision on a matter that has not been required or prohibited in the Bible.
Here again we differ, Martin. Let me repeat that to neither prohibit nor require women's ordination would mean the covert acceptance of two irreconcilable hermeneutics in the church, which would set a precedent for even more egregious departures from inspired counsel and the ultimate dismemberment of denominational unity.
Whether or not there is a specific prohibition or requirement regarding women's ordination is not the point. It is the principle of creation headship (I Tim. 2:12-14) which must be upheld. This principle is affirmed not only in Adam's primacy in Genesis 2, so far as instructions regarding the Garden and the animals and his naming of Eve are concerned (verses 15-17,19-20,22-23), but also by the fact that Adam and Eve did not become naked till Adam sinned (Gen. 3:7). And when the two of them hide in the bushes, it is to Adam that the Lord calls (verse 9), not Eve.
This evidence for creation headship is reaffirmed in the New Testament, where the one person through whom sin and death entered the world is identified as Adam (Rom. 5:12-19; I Cor. 15:22), even though Eve was the first to transgress.
It is like the issue of physical health and its relation to spirituality. The Bible says nothing for or against smoking cigarettes or the recreational use of drugs. (Let's bear in mind that while cigarettes didn't exist in Bible times, the recreational use of such drugs as mariguana and opium did in fact exist in the ancient world.) But while the Bible may say nothing about these specific practices, it does teach that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost (I Cor. 6:19-20). So when the church prohibits the use of these substances on pain of church discipline, it is not enforcing a man-made rule, as some have at times alleged. Rather, it is upholding a Biblical principle.
The same is true with male headship and the proposed ordination of women.
"mhanna" [wish I knew your actual name–even just a first name] your explanation seems clear, even though it will be rejected immediately by some. Kevin, for example, seems to regard all scripture as "unambiguous." His is a brittle perspective, it seems to me, one that seems to claim that there is only one way (his and God's) of understanding scripture. And lest any of us should think of Jesus as "the Prince of Peace," Kevin reminds us that Jesus did not come to bring peace, but to set people against one another.
The trouble with trying to rely on scripture or the writings of Ellen White or the writings of anyone else, is that no one, inspired or not, can speak or write unambiguously–in part, because some aspects of ambiguity dwell in the listener or reader. Communication is not very simple. Miscommunication is common, even among people who speak the same language, come from the same time and culture, and know each other well. Attempting to understand something within the "spirit" or intent or context in it was written can be of some help. But ultimately, it seems that toleration of some level of ambiguity is essential, unless one wishes to retreat into some private world in which one's own perceptions and opinions are thought to be the unambiguous instructions of God.
I come here partly because I was raised as an adventist and consider those root experiences to be part of who I am. Even so, I have some difficulty understanding how those who remained affiliated were able to do so, and how others found it necessary to either change or leave. So I continue to seek understanding and to learn from the people who comment here.
Sometimes I think there are only two kinds of people: those who think there are only two kinds of people and those who don't.
There are, it seems to me, more than two kinds of people here, not just the right and the wrong, the holy and the unholy, the saints and the sinners, and not even the brittle and the flexible. There are shades of gray along every dimension, a kind of "n dimensional hyperspace." I confess to finding it interesting, at least some of the time.
Kevin, if we applied your statement to the decision of the Jerusalem Council the result would be as follows. "To neither prohibit nor require [circumcision] would mean the covert acceptance of two irreconcilable hermeneutics in the church, which would set a precedent for even more egregious departures from inspired counsel and the ultimate dismemberment of denominational unity." Clearly the delegates to the Jerusalem Council did not view the matter in this way. I hope the delegates to our General Conference will not view it this way either. It would be nice of we would follow the presedent of Acts 15.
Respectfully, Martin Hanna.
Martin, we simply disagree on this comparison. Circumcision was and is a part of the now-obsolete ceremonial law. Male headship, by contrast, began at creation, before sin entered the world.
Kevin,
According to EGW whom I understand you to hold in high regard, male headship began with the Fall, not the Creation. Having been raised as a 4th generation SDA under a strong notion of male headship as part of the "order of creation", I was very surprised and even stunned to read, as a young man, what she herself wrote on this suject. She clearly states that one of the consequences of the Fall was that Eve, who had been created as Adam's equal, was placed under subjection to Adam. "Thy desire shall be for thy husband and he shall rule over thee".
Go back and read her comments in this regard very carefully.
I wonder if Elder Paulson would do us the favor of providing readers with his score on the "Attitudes Toward EGW" posting? That would allow us to better understand his other views. By the way, with one relatively minor exception, Cindy's suggestions here are very helpful and merit serious consideration and I hope become part of the solution to a sticky theo-political issue insider our Church.
Thank you, Erv, for that support of my suggestions. I would have thought there would be at least two exceptions that you would have discovered, from your frame of reference! But no matter, it seems we both can imagine the church going forward without a split, were the motion flexible enough to allow for variance based on the needs of the regional church. And perhaps, our worldviews being as different as they are, you and I are a microcosm of the unity in diversity that our church could find over WO in 2015.
Interesting point, Mhanna!
Kevin, I very much appreciate your contribution to these threads. I find myself agreeing with many of the principles you stand for, but differing with you in your application of those principles, and the dogmatic either/or conclusions you draw from them. Your suggestion to Joe yesterday, that postmodern subjectivism accounts for the present conflicts within the SDA Church, strikes me as inaccurate and wildly overstated. Yet I wholeheartedly agree with your apprehension about the insidious and corrosive threat that feelings, needs, and wants-based theology poses for the church. Therefore, while I am in favor of WO, I see the egalitarian, gender-rights justifications used by many Adventists to advance the cause as unnecessary, unbiblical, and dangerously seductive. By using what I see as specious reasoning and Biblical sophistry to oppose WO, I think SDA fundamentalists unintentionally give credence to the postmodern hermeneutic which SDA liberals promiscuously superimpose on Scripture.
Surely you do not want to put "orthodox" Christian Adventists like J. David Newman, who persuasively argues from Scripture that the very notion of an ordained, M.Div. weaponized clerical class is not Biblically well-grounded, in the same boat with post-Christian "SDAs" like Joe, Elaine and Erv! Yet that is what you do when you stick extremist labels on those who dissent from your orthodoxy. The issue is not whether we have conflict, or what parlous possibilities lie at the bottom of innumerable intellectual slippery slopes on which all arguments can be placed.
Rather, I submit that the issue is whether we view and experience scripture as the inspired Word of a crucified, resurrected, living God. Doing so will not obviate conflict. But it will, in very significant ways, create a gravitational field within which creative, constructive conflict can take place. The church has always been plagued and blessed by conflicts which often have the unforseeable potential to either destroy or grow faith. Using higher criticism as a scapegoat for theological positions that you find odious is like using science as a scapegoat for smog.
Kevin, I have written nothing here on whether or not circumcision is obsolete or on whether or not there is male headship. I have simply pointed out the facts about the Jerusalem Council (as others here have also done).
The Jerusalem Council did make a universal decision NOT to require or prohibit circumcision. Similarly, the General Conference can make a universal decision NOT to require or to prohibit the ordination of female pastors.
Now we can have a fruitful discussion about whether or not the General Conference SHOULD make such a decision (I think we should). But all of us should at least be able to agree that the Jerusalem Council DID make such a decision; and that the General Conference CAN make a similar decision if the Spirit leads them to do so.
Martin.
Nathan, the difference between the two types of arguments you describe is the difference between popular evangelical theology (e.g. Newman) and liberal theology (e.g. Joe, Erv, Elaine). I reject both approaches as erroneous, as both fail to consider the Biblical consensus with regard to any number of issues.
Martin, I just can't see any justifiable comparison between the continued but individual practice of circumcision by certain Christians after the Jerusalem Council, and the very public issue of allowing different standards for pastoral ordination (and hence different approaches to the Bible) by varying regions within the world church. Under no circumstances can such a course be followed by the worldwide Adventist body. For a variety of reasons, it would be a disaster for the church.
Fair enough, Kevin. But the fact that you reject both approaches doesn't justify a suggestion that the latter approach is the primary explanation for conflict within the church. "Biblical consensus" is a pretty vague, overly broad term. To assert as fact that both approaches fail to consider the Biblical consensus with regard to any number of issues comes across as arrogantly dismissive. What if you prefaced that statement with "It seems to me that…"?
"Consensus" is, and always has been – especially in the Bible – an important, but fairly unreliable indicator of God's truth. Like the consensus boxes cherished among scientists, Biblical consensus usually breaks when held too tightly, stuffed too full, and used to control people.
The Jerusalem Council did not only rule regarding circumcision, but also keeping the ceremonial laws of Moses in general. Making vows at the Temple, ritual purification, observance of the Mosaic liturgical calendar, all became optional for Christians. Circumcision was not the only issue and the others were certainly public. And in cities where the baths were public (though segregated by gender) circumcision was rather public, as it was in my Academy dorm and one of my SDA college dorms 8-).
I may not have been clear enough in my allusion to communal showers in some men's dorms on SDA campuses.
Excellent points Nathan. The legalistic reading of the Bible is as dangerous as the libertarian reading of the Bible. Both have missed the literal and spiritual message of God’s word.
Kevin, a Bible based hermeneutic makes it quite evident that the Bible does not require or prohibit the ordination of female pastors. So it would be a disaster if we made a fundamental doctrine out of this issue.
We already practice the ordination of female elders and the commissioning of female pastors. Therefore, removing the unbiblical distinction between commissioning and ordaining is not a very big step at all. But is would be one more step in the direction the church has been moving all along.
A bigger step (in the opposite direction) would be to reverse the practice of ordaining female elders and commissioning female pastors. In my opinion this step would be a disaster.
Paul writes concerning elder men (1 Tim 5:1) and elder women (5:2): “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine; for . . . the laborer is worthy of his [or her] wages” (5:17-20).
Ellen White comments on this text when she writes: “make no mistake in neglecting to correct the error of giving ministers less than they should receive. . . . The tithe should go to those who labor in word and doctrine, be they men or women.” (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases, 1:263).
In another context, she writes: Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322: "It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God."
We currently leave each Division to decide if they allow female elders to be ordained and serve in their territory. Elders are also ordained for the world church, not just for their local church. That means, if I (am an ordained local elder) relocate from my current division to another division and my new local church nominates me to serve as an elder, I DONOT need to be ordained again. That means, if an ordained female elder moves to a division or church which is not in favour of female elders, she simply would not serve as an elder. This has not split the church in any way. We just manage the situation as it arises. The threat of splitting the church is, in my opinion, used by some to indeed create fear. If we were to allow each Division to decide on WO any female pastors ordained in that division will know that they would not be able to serve in divisions which do not ordain female pastors. At least they would not be able to serve in roles that require ordination. I think the Adventist church is able to handle these variations. We have been studying this matter in the church for over 100 years and each study (officially convened by the church) has concluded that we have no biblical basis to either ordain or not to ordain. I am therefore surprised that those opposed to WO want to give the impression that the church theological position is that WO is not biblical. The reason we don't ordain women is because we are worried that those opposed to it might be uncomfortable with it,whether they have a biblical basis for it or not, does not matter.
Alvin,
The hierarchy of ordinations to which you refer is nowhere found in the Bible. We are following RC practice in this regard. We regard ordination of pastors as being like priests, and that of local elders as being like accolytes. What I do not find in the Bible is any notion of plenary ordination. Even the OT priests were consecrated to serve in their own place. The notion of plenary ordination arises after NT times.
Martin
Do you believe that there is a priciple of male headship in the bible if not why not?
Do you believe that everything Paul said on male headship was culturally motivated? if so what culture was influencing him?
What criteria do you use to separate cultural and and universal issues that Paul wrote?
Is it not interesting that the world and other churches have already obliterated male headship first before us, when has Babylon ever set the pace for God’s people?
is there a precedence of God telling his people to emulate tenets of the cultures and religions around them? Because clearly this is what WO would be I.e. emulating culture and other churches
may you please answer the logistical amd practical questions that I posed below as there are crucial the the New path Cindy is proposing
Would you be willing to give up the whole idea of ordination all together? It would seem best if there was no such thing as ordination of men or women and ministry be an equalizer. It was, like Sunday worship, put forth by a heirarchy of male priests. It's unfortunate that our church can't give up this badge of pride and settle for laying on of hands for all its workers. But since it chooses to go the way of the world, there is little that can be done. So-called "headship" has been, too often, an excuse for manipulation, power, and even abuse. Our Godhead is equal.
Tapiwa,
All of your comments about male headship would apply equally well to slavery.
Be very careful how you consider these things.
Martin
Do you believe that there is a priciple of male headship in the bible if not why not?
Do you believe that everything Paul said on male headship was culturally motivated? if so what culture was influencing him?
What criteria do you use to separate cultural and and universal issues that Paul wrote?
Is it not interesting that the world and other churches have already obliterated male headship first before us, when has Babylon ever set the pace for God’s people?
is there a precedence of God telling his people to emulate tenets of the cultures and religions around them? Because clearly this is what WO would be I.e. emulating culture and other churches
may you please answer the logistical amd practical questions that I posed below as there are crucial the the New path Cindy is proposing
As far as I can tell, neither Cindy nor I have raised the issues of headship or the influence of culture on biblical interpretation. For myself, and I assume for Cindy, the doctrines of the church are to be based on a plain thus says the Lord interpreted according to all the Bible has to say on the subject in question. The subject in question here is whether we shall ordain the female pastors whom we now commission. I am not sure why some whant to change the subject to headship or the influence of culture. My study of Scripture suggests that there is no plain thus says the Lord that requires or prohibits the ordiniation of female pastors. So I cannot support any doctrine that requires or prohibits the ordination of female pastors. I respect the views of those who disagree with me. It is even possible that you are correct and I am wrong. But I can only share what I see in the inspired word.
On the subject of headship, the following Elen White quotes may be helpful.
ST, January 27, 1890 (PaMin 101): “Let it be seen that Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church.”
The Great Controversy, p. 51: "God has never given a hint in His word that He has appointed any man to be the head of the church."
We all agree, Martin, that Christ is the ultimate spiritual head of the church. This doesn't mean, however, that the church is to be without "elders that rule well" (I Tim. 5:17)—all of whom, according to the apostle Paul, are to be men (I Tim. 2:12-13).
From the patriarchs, tribal progenitors, and priests of the Old Testament to the apostles of the New, the earthly leaders of the faith community have been men. No woman ever offered a sacrifice in the Old Testament, nor did women lead in any administrative function in the New Testament.
Nor are we in disagreement that both men and women are to serve in pastoral roles (6T 322). There are indeed pastoral responsibilities where women are called to serve the church. But headship roles, according to the Bible, are reserved for men, on the basis of the created order (I Tim. 2:12-13). These would include the role of local elder as well as senior pastor in any congregation. The role of Conference president as well.
I am not opposed to the setting aside of women for Biblically defined roles within the body of Christ. This is not the same as ordination to roles interchangeable with those of men. That course is forbidden by the inspired consensus.
Isn't that married men with obedient children still in the Church? When you purge the SDA Church of all the male pastors who don't live up to this standard (given most pastors have children who have left the Church), then you have authority to talk about women.
No Gentile or eunach ever made a sacrifice in the temple either. Christians don't follow the Levitical priesthood, so the analogy is flawed.
Kevin,
The "inspied consensus" regarding NOT ordaining women as bishops arose after Apostolic times.
I very much appreciate the comments of Elder Paulson. Without the expression of his views on this and a number of other topics, I would have never thought that anyone would be so up front about their opposition to WO based on an interpreation of "inspired consensus." I wonder if he would go the next step and declare openly that his interpreation of "inspired consensus" is the only true interpreation and any other interpretation means that any individual holding another view such as that expressed in this blog are totally deluded and must be inspired by Satan. That seems to me to the be only conclusion to which one can come if one follows Elder Paulson's reasoning.
Tapiwa-
You certainly make some relevant points. Submitting to the feminist agenda that has overtaken the beloved SDA church is very sad. Next will it be the gay agenda?
Note how the NAD has come up with a new hermeneutic.
http://ordinationtruth.com/2014/01/17/new-nad-wo-hermeneutic-pt-1/
I wonder how many are aware of this and have given it serious thought.
The interesting thing is that the inspired consensus allows that women may be female elders. Paul writes concerning elder men (1 Tim 5:1) and elder women (5:2): “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine; for . . . the laborer is worthy of his [or her] wages” (5:17-20). Ellen White comments on this text when she writes: “make no mistake in neglecting to correct the error of giving ministers less than they should receive. . . . The tithe should go to those who labor in word and doctrine, be they men or women.” (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases, 1:263).
Martin Hanna's point here is essential and must not be overlooked. Paul is writing about elders –bishops–in 1 Tim 5:1-2. He described them as those "who labor in word and doctrine." In commenting on this verse, Ellen White uses Paul's language, "those who labor in in word and doctrine," to declare that tithe should pay those [elders] who labor in word and doctrine, regardless if they are men or women.
Most persons who oppose the ordination of women are highly supportive of Ellen White and even consider her authoritative. Thus, it seems to me that such individuals would be denying the inspiration or authority of Ellen White were they to ignore her injunction to use the tithe to pay those who labor in word and doctrine, a direct reference to elders/bishops/ovesee-ers.
Cindy, good article. But it's far too lenient on the authorative and hypocritical cabal that is usurping Christ's role in proclaiming grace, the Holy Spirit, and the Message to all people.
Christianity is precisely the "new path" and it's death will be as a result of "traditionalism" and reverting back to the Judaic law that was meant to condemn us instead of save. Factions in Christianity have been fixed on the power to declare one saved or worthy and another damned and unworthy.
The slippery slope is the very essence of the Sadducean and Phareseic objection to a Messiah that is not here to defeat the Romans but, to have a New Israel that invites them by the Holy Spirit and His sacrifice. It's a slippery slope to know that a blood descendant of Abraham prophecy dies like a lamb so that everyone can be spiritual descendants rather than ruled by a true descendant of Abraham. It's absurd and profoundly "slippery" that God's love is mercy, forgiveness, and spiritual and instead based on blood debt, law, and death of the unrighteous. It's slippery b/c now is there any impediment or any evil or any fall or any trivial and physical gender that God cannot wipe away and redeem equally under His divine protection (ordination). He can certainly do that, as opposed to the countless Judaic Laws that were punishable by death and inevitable sin is repaid w/ death. Yet, people of a chosen tribe can accept vengeful death b/c it's our nature to die as long as we are anointed "remnant" "chosen" "select" "the elect". Some people in this polemical climate will gladly choose death over freely given life and dignity for everyone- as long they get a righteous designation while "others" do not for whatever reason.
The "new path" is " slippery" and whatever is "this life" is supposed to end. This is a 2,000 year new path that brings humankind to its final climatic end- that is good thing b/c it's a godly thing and not meant for us to designate or prescribe or predict- it's godly.
And finally Christ died so that all may know Him, not Sadducees and Pharisees leading the charge but God became personal and human through Christ. There is no male buffer in Christianity, just as there is no Jewish male buffer that stops daughters of Christ from freely serving in the highest capacity humanely possible b/c God can do that. Christ warns and warns of those that come between Him and His children. Those that say a woman is unworthy, those that tried to stone women or those that condemn unclean or menstruating women from Temple and society or freely put away wives or tried to bar women from the Last Supper.
So anytime there is an us vs. all the rest of us- Christ is for everyone. Anytime there is exclusivists male hierarchy vs an inclusive order- Christ is for inclusion. Anytime it's exclusive sinners who sin privately vs inclusive sinners who sin openly- Christ is for the inclusive sinner. Church is for sinners. And unless being a woman is a sin or curse, which Orthodox Jewish and Islamic men openly praise God for not being born "wo-man"- then women are ordained as freely as men are to be saved and preach the message.
See Cindy, this is the heart of Christianity "a new path that uplifts all humanity and happily slips into an inclusive and forgiving refuge for the meek beings inhabiting an vengeful and bloody earth"
And as the world once saw the revolutionary message of Christ as challenging perverse and degrading practices of traditional culture- today Christianity is considered the enforcer of ways and means to shame and degrade people rather than forgive and serve. Now Christianity has become a source of dehumanization rather than a voice for humanity. Women are not just birthing vessels or empty receptacles to be judged as useful and be mastered like inhuman tools by men. They are no longer even women in the eyes of Christ, but they are His children and no division can seperate them.
This inspired consensus supports the current General Conference policy on ordination of women as local elders that is stated in the 2009 Seventh-day Adventist Minister’s Handbook, p. 94. “By action of the Annual Council of 1975, reaffirmed at the 1984 Annual Council, both men and women are eligible to serve as elders and receive ordination to this position of service in the church.”
As someone here said: " The problem with institutions, like the SDA Church, is that, by their very nature, they can't die to self. The institution, its officers, and its Board have a legal and fiduciary duty to [have the institution] survive and thrive above all else."
I can't help feeling that our weakness (Laodciean condition) is our pride [being the remnant] and touting truth like it belonged to us, when it is the Truth (Christ) that saves us. Is this church worship what God wants from us?
It would seem best if there was no such thing as ordination of men or women and ministry be an equalizer. It was, like Sunday worship, put forth by a heirarchy of male priests. It's unfortunate that our church can't give up this badge of pride and settle for laying on of hands for all its workers. But since it chooses to go the way of the world, there is little that can be done but to at least equalize its ministers. So-called "headship" is an excuse for manipulation and even abuse. Our Godhead is equal.
Since my name has come up let me make this observation. The church has officially voted that women can be ordained elders. It has voted that women can serve as pastors with no restriction of being an associate or senior pastor. It is now simply asking whether it is moral to keep a woman from having the same recognition as the man when she is doing the same job as a man? One of those who has written extensively on headship theology in a personal communication said we need to reverse our decisions on women elders and women pastors. Given where we are right now we either need to drastically reverse course or solve the immoral situation of discrimination between men and women doing the same work.
Reversing course, that is, no longer allowing female pastors and elders, is exactly the agenda of most of the persons I have dialogued with at TOSC who are opposed to ordination without regard to gender.
Obviously the vote to allow female elders and pastors was enacted under pressure and now the same tactic is being used to force ordination.
To some degree one must agree with Newman that it is unfair to allow persons to do the same work without similar recognition. However, never should females been voted in as elders and pastors.
It is *not* a moral issue that women should be ordained. It does not even come near to being a moral issue. It's primarily a cultural issue and the feminists agenda has made serious inroads on the vitality of the SDA church.
No one has a convincing or satisfactory explanation as to why Christ did not choose diciplettes or the Bible shows no priestess as part of the accepted priethood.
Maranatha
Seeker,
I find myself in agreement with almost everything you have written in this particular comment. The question arises from what you have NOT written. If ordination of women is not a moral issue, then why must the church worldwide insist on one particular set of rules regarding this question? Are you claiming that while the ordination of women is NOT a moral question, that reserving ordination exclusively for men IS a moral question? Or it is merely a tradition that must be upheld and respected?
If we vote to ordain female pastors, the vote itself will be the pressure that makes it happen. I hope each person who votes on this matter in a committee or at the General Conference session is able to vote their conscience without being pressured otherwise.
I am happy to see the consensus developing that our current position is inconsistent. Either we move forward in the direction we have been going and remove the unbiblical distinction between comissioning and ordaining; Or we go backward and discontinue allowing for female elders and pastors.
Hopefully we will go forward. The Spirit of God does call women to be pastors of the flock of God (Testimonies, 6:322). What hinders us from ordaining what God has ordained?
It needs to be clarified that the General Conference in session has never debated nor adjudicated the question of whether women can serve as local elders. This was decided at an Annual Council back in 1975, as I recall. It has never been voted at a GC session, which is the church's highest governing body.
The fact that inconsistencies have developed in the apportionment of ministerial tasks to men and to women is no excuse for a return to the days of the judges, when "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25). It is a chronic trait of theological liberals, I have noticed, to cite hypocrisies and inconsistencies as justification for allowing doctrinal and moral anarchy in the church. It is a most foolish argument. Neither two nor a multitude of wrongs make a right. We need to return our practices to a strict adherence to the written counsel of God. That is the goal of revival and reformation, and it is foremost on the agenda of our current General Conference leadership.
The fact that eunuchs and Gentiles couldn't offer sacrifices makes no difference. Male headship is universal throughout Scripture, before and after the fall, in both Testaments. Not only were the patriarchs and priests of the Old Testament exclusively male, so were the twelve apostles of the New Testament. This order is based on the original creation, and is affirmed throughout the Bible narrative.
Yes, the Godhead is equal, but they have different roles. The Father sends the Son into the world for our salvation (John 3:16); the Son does not send the Father. When James and John asked for seats at the Lord's left and right hand, Jesus declared that was not His to give, only for His Father (Matt. 20:23). And the apostle Paul is clear that the Son will be subject to the Father throughout eternity (I Cor. 15:28). The Godhead are all equal in eternal pre-existence, power, and wisdom. But they nevertheless have different roles.
So do men and women, in God's original design. There is no value difference between a father and a mother in the home. Both are of equal value. But their roles are neither identical nor interchangeable. (When did you last see a man get pregnant?) The church is an extension of the family, and male servant-leadership is to be the norm there as in the family unit (Eph. 5:22-25; I Tim. 2:12-13).
It is wrong to address this issue as one of "discrimination," as though we were addressing an issue of civil or social equality. This is a classic example of permitting culture to drive theology. This cannot be. We are not dealing here with equality of opportunity in a secular society. I have probably voted for more women candidates for political office than a whole lot of Adventists I know who favor women's ordination! We are speaking here of spiritual headship only. And that role, in God's Word, is reserved for men, in both the home and the church.
Kevin, there are several aspects to your piece above I disagree with sadly.
If the Church is the extension of the home, then the Church is to recognise and affirm distinction of class (as in slavery), race (as in Gentiles) and gender (as in females). Funny thing is, that seems to be contrary to the very spirit of the Christian Church, which is the New Temple in Christ's body, probably best explained by Paul in Gal 3:28.
Paul might agree that slaves obey their masters in the home, but in the Church, where the Old Kingdom of this world ends and the New Kingdom of the next life begins, there is raddical equality. I struggle to see how the different is with issues of race or gender, the other key social distinctions of the time addressed by Paul in Gal 3:28.
Moreover, on what basis then could Ellen White have taught and exercised authority in the Church over men? And Deborah and other women in the most ancient of times? What of Lydia, the wealthy business woman?
The notion of male headship is a result of sin – it was never part of God's original plan. That is made explicitly clear in Gen 3:16:
'…yet your desire shall be for your husband,'
In Christ, under the New Kingdom paradigm, we are to go beyond the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees, and to live according to how it was 'in the beginning'.
The problem with your citing of 1 Tim 2:12-13 is that Paul preached to local audience for local situations. Compare him to say Peter, James and John who gave catholic (lit universal) epistles. As such, Paul's words could be twisted, as you seem to be doing just now, which is exactly what Peter acknowledges in 2 Pet 3:15,16.
Moreover, re your use of 1 Tim 2:12-13, the question is why does Paul use an indicative form rather than making it a command by using an imperative? Does the use of the present tense mean Paul was intending only a temporary prohibition?
Paul is perhaps simply being practical, as he was say about making Timothy become circumcised, even though Paul personally didn't think it necessary (see Acts 16). It would have been counterproductive to allow women to teach and proclaim the apostolic witness to Christ, given women teachers had no status in Greek and Jewish society.
If Paul was introducing a general principle forbidding women teaching, as stated above, that would mean Ellen White had no such authority – she taught men virtually every day – and many at a time. It would also make Paul a liar and a hypocrite, because you have examples such as Priscilla and Junia.
It is also important that we consider what type of 'authority' Paul was talking about. The word authenteo in Greek and this is the only place it is found in the NT. Paul might be meaning some form of official judicial authority, as was also reflected in Roman law re Paterfamilias, where male heads of households could literally kill their own wives, children and slaves with impunity. Paul might be addressing a situation where woman have taken official administrative control of the Church.
We see the distinction between formal administrative leadership and spiritual leadership in the life of Ellen White. She was never a Conference President (her husband James was though), even though she clearly had immense spiritual authority. And Ellen White earned a salary from the tithe for her efforts!
In any event, if we want to get technical, I believe the word 'woman' in 1 Tim 2:12-13 can also mean 'wife' and the word 'man' can mean 'husband.' So these verses say nothing about unmarried women.
I am all for admitting, as a point of consensus, that women perhaps cannot exercise roles of administrative leadership authority as 'elders' of the Church. However, there clearly is no basis to prevent women being afforded authority as 'apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers' as these are all actually spirit-appointed. The rite of laying on of hands is merely the Church's affirmation of God's choice.
Again, we see this distinction in the life of Ellen White. She was never an 'elder' in administrative leadership but she was clearly an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher.
This is also how the Chineese SDA Churches run. They have women spiritual leaders (i.e. pastors) but usually have an 'uncle' role, who is an older man who guides in the administration of the Church.
What you are declaring here about the Godhead, Kevin, is not orthodox Adventist teaching! (A good resource is Norman Gulley's Systematic Theology, Volume II). As a church, we have defined our understanding of the Trinity almost exclusively as economic Trinity, since any speculation on the inner nature of God beyond what Scripture tells us is what got the early church in trouble!
The crucial distinction is that in ontological trinitarianism (a more Catholic understanding of the Trinity), there is always an eternal subordination of the Son to the Father.
In contrast, the economic trinitarianism, as Adventists see it, understands the submission of the Son to the Father as part of His role as the New Adam, not in the inner nature of the Godhead.
On pages 10-14 of his important paper,"Evaluation of the Arguments Used by those Opposing the Ordination of Women to The Ministry," (found at Adventist Archives) Angel Rodriguez finds the eternal submission of Jesus to God, which is a linchpin in the argumentation for many of you who oppose ordination without regard to gender, to be a serious deviation from Adventist theology and doctrine.
Here are some of the summary implications from the "eternal submission" theory that Dr. Rodriguez identifies (I am just writing some key elements-I encourage anyone reading this to read these comments in their full context in Dr. Rodriguez' paper.)
1. It redefines the biblical doctrine of God. If one of the three members of the Godhead has been the eternal leader of the other two, even at a functional level, we have introduced a fissure within the unity of the Godhead that brings us too close to polytheism.
2. The idea of an eternal headship within the Godhead would require a redefinition of the doctrine of the atonement. The eternal headship of the Father could imply that the sacrifice of the Son was the result of an order given by the Father to Him to save us; the assignment of a function. This would destroy the biblical doctrine of the atonement and would damage in a radical way the biblical understanding of the nature of divine love.
3. The most serious problem with eternal headship of the Father is the absence of biblical support. There is nothing in the context of 1 Corinthians 11:3 about the eternal headship of the Father.
Your concern, Kevin, seems to be about introducing a "new" hermeneutic for biblical interpretation. One of my concerns is that in your haste to defend male headship in the church, you have paid too high a price–the price of maligning the full deity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Precisely, in the Old Testament they had male elders and 12 disciples happened to be men. But as were Mary and Martha equally female. And as Christ was born from a virgin Jewish woman's womb and only a divinely appointed heir of Jewish man but, not of his human seed.
However, there is your fatal flaw- all of the authors of the Bible's books, all of the male elders and female matriarchs that carried out the Will of The Lord, proclaimed the message, and protected the seed, bloodline and inheritance- were fundamentally Jewish raised in every custom and rite until the Temple's End. And yes, Mary Magdalene, that old prostitute herself, will be seated amongst the highest heavenly places and was blessedly privileged to the final moments of Christ's human life. And it was not William Miller, John Calvin, Wycliffe or Ted Wilson, she will above even those titans of semi-righteous men. Yes, a woman will have personally served and have been ordained share the gospel by Christ himself but is unworthy to serve the Message to Christ's followers and non-Jewish men.
Matt 26:13
Jewish men especially legalistic Sadduccees could certainly tolerate a Jewish woman, even a prostitute, in the holiest of holies than a Gentile body unknown to Jewish rites and not born of a Jewish womb.
For us to revert back Jewish sexism is both absurdly comical and an affront to the grace Christ bestowed to all Gentile to spiritually enter into His union. We should not dare to entertain blood, gender, tribal discrimination lest we are devoured by the same polemical dragons that blinded Sadducees to the true Messianic message from a peasant rabbi.
THE GC ANNUAL COUNCIL IS ALSO THE HIGHEST ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY, UNDER GOD, AMONG SDAS
Yet my friend Kevin, you state this is not true, when you write [my emphasis throughout]: “It needs to be clarified that the General Conference in session has never debated nor adjudicated the question of whether women can serve as local elders. This was decided at an Annual Council back in 1975, as I recall. It has never been voted at a GC session, which is the church's highest governing body.”
Sorry, but your claim is just inaccurate (and some would also view it as being in rebellion or “defying” against the General Conference, just as you have accused others). Moreover, it is out of sync with what the General Conference In Session has voted. Yet the GC is the very entity which you authoritatively and oft wield, when it comes to other issues. Please read this from the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 18th ed., rev. 2010, p. 31 (which was also recently posted in the Adventist Review – see the link at the bottom). A “plain reading” of this reveals the truth:
“In the Church today the General Conference Session, and the General Conference Executive Committee between Sessions [i.e. Annual Council/Fall Council/Spring Council], is the highest ecclesiastical authority in the administration of the Church. The General Conference Executive Committee is authorized by its Constitution to create subordinate organizations with authority to carry out their roles. Therefore all subordinate organizations and institutions throughout the Church will recognize the General Conference Session, and the General Conference Executive Committee between Sessions, as the highest ecclesiastical authority, under God, among Seventh-day Adventists. 1
http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?id=5601&action=print
So, just because the approval of ordaining women elders at the local level was voted at the 1975 Annual Council, it does not mean the vote was invalid. Clearly, as evidenced above, a vote at an Annual Council is equivalent to a vote by the General Conference in Session. Thus, “By action of the Annual Council of 1975, reaffirmed at the 1984 Annual Council, both men and women are eligible to serve as elders and receive ordination to this position of service in the church.” (From the 2009 Seventh-day Adventist Minister’s Handbook, p. 94).
You also wrote: “The fact that INCONSISTENCIES have developed in the apportionment of ministerial tasks to men and to women is no excuse for a return to the days of the judges, when ‘every man did that which was right in his own eyes’ (Judges 21:25). It is a chronic TRAIT OF THEOLOGICAL LIBERALS, I have noticed, to cite hypocrisies and inconsistencies as justification for allowing doctrinal and moral anarchy in the church.”
So, when you interestingly call the GC-in-session votes, with which you disagree, “inconsistencies” – even many of your supporters wonder how you reconcile all this. It certainly seems you are being inconsistent on several levels.
It seems someone often has to go and check out your so-called facts. So, while I am often glad for some mental exercise, please don’t make me exercise unnecessarily o;
The one big problem with yuor including slavery and social class with gender is that the former two elements are products of the age of sin. Gender, by contrast, is a product of creation. Galatians 3:28 is about salvation opportunity, not eligibility for headship. Paul is clear about the headship issue in I Tim. 2:12-13.
That still doesn't invalidate my other arguments, which you have not addressed. In any event, gender is a product of creation but gender-inequality, which I think may be Paul's object in Gal 3:28, is clearly a result of sin. Your insistence of this notion of 'headship' is a result of the curse of sin as Gen 3:16 clearly suggests.
As to the creation of gender in pre-sin Eden, I understand it is possibly more detailed that you suggest. For example, the word 'Adam' doesn't mean male – it means humankind – of both genders. God makes this clear in Gen 1:26,27, that 'Adam' was made both male and female.
The being classified as 'Eve' that Paul talks about didn't really exist, in one sense of the word, until after the Fall, when Adam named her. Before the Fall she was simply the 'woman'. Adam clearly did exist first; because the co-equal being called 'woman' (who Paul does not mention) became the downtrodden individual called 'Eve' (who Paul does mention) after the Fall.
In the Bible (and in most cultures), to name something is to own it. That is why mankind is prohibited to misuse God's name per the 3rd commandment, why Nebuchadnezzar renamed Daniel and his friends, why God didn't give Adam a personal name (to emphasise Adam's freedom). The act of Adam naming 'Eve' was a consequence of sin – a peversion of the original equality intended by God.
No doubt you'll say I am reading too much into the nature of gender relations before and after the Fall. But it is you who are hanging your whole argument on a single proof text of 1 Tim 2:12-13, that possibly had a very specific-geographical meaning, which grammatically is unusual and was probably not intended to be applied universally, and which would simply have made Paul a hypocrite if he really was advocating your view.
Kevin. You are right that women elders were never voted in a G C Session. However women pastors were voted at the 1990 GC Sessio. In Indianapolis. And since the church has voted for them it has now become a discrimination issue based on gender since both female and male are doing the same work. And if it is discrimination based on gender then it is a moral issue. The 2015 GC Session needs to make one of two decisions. 1. Reverse the 1990 decision and forbid women pastors or allow women to be ordained within those areas ready for it just as the Annual Council did for women elders.
J. David Newman, it is not really accurate to agree that “women elders were never voted in a General Conference Session” – because a vote at an Annual Council (1975) is equivalent to a vote by the General Conference in Session, contrary to what Kevin P continues to claim here and on other blogs. Please read the paragraph below (the link is included to the recent Adventist Review article by the current GC leadership which assigned the task to the TOSC):
“In the Church today the General Conference Session, and the General Conference Executive Committee between Sessions [i.e. Annual Council/Fall Council/Spring Council], is the highest ecclesiastical authority in the administration of the Church. The General Conference Executive Committee is authorized by its Constitution to create subordinate organizations with authority to carry out their roles. Therefore all subordinate organizations and institutions throughout the Church will recognize the General Conference Session, and the General Conference Executive Committee between Sessions, as the highest ecclesiastical authority, under God, among Seventh-day Adventists. 1
http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?id=5601&action=print
Stephen, if the name "Adam" is generic, why does Genesis speak of how "Adam and his wife" hid themselves in the trees of the Garden (Gen. 3:8), and then tell us that when God called for them, He called for Adam (verse 9)? This is clear evidence of the headship principle, as is the fact that Adam and Eve lose the covering of light and become naked till Adam sinned (verse 7).
The best evidence for creation headship, of course, is the New Testament declaration that through one man, Adam, sin and death entered the world (Rom. 5:12-19; I Cor. 15:22). There is nothing generic about Paul's statement, as he is quite aware of Eve's separate existence and involvement in the introduction of sin (I Tim. 2:12-14). And the fact that he says it was through "one man" (anthropos, which means person) that sin entered the world, it is clear God held Adam responsible for the sin problem as, he was the original head of the human family.
Kevin,
The confusion here is between Adam's role as Representative of the human family vs his role as Ruler of the human family. In the NT Adam's role as Representative of the human family is linked with Christ's role as Representative of the heavenly "family" (ie the trinity). If you extend these "headship" texts from Representative to Ruler then there are very interesting consequences on both the human side and also the divine side. Did Adam compel Eve to sin? Or was her sin a consequence of her rebellion against the authority of Adam rather than the authority of God? The clear implication of Genesis 3 is that one consequence of Eve renouncing the authority of God she would have to submit to the authority of her husband a very poor trade indeed! There is no Biblical evidence that Eve was under the authority of Adam before she rejected the authority of God.
Contrast the woman's involuntary submission to the authority of her husband with Christ's voluntary submission (in His earthly life) to the authority of the Father. In both cases a former equal submits to the authority of another. Sin compels involuntary submission to human authority. Grace acknowledges voluntary submission to divine authority. The product of grace then becomes voluntary submission to human authority – both in the home and in the church. We (men and women) are to submit (voluntarily) to one another in love. True love causes voluntary submission in order to please our "lover", whereas sin causes involuntary submission to a more powerful "authority".
We would be better served in this whole debate about roles within the church to develop a doctrine of loving submission to Christ and to one another, rather than a doctrine of authority to compel obedience from those under our "headship". The Church Manual statements about ordination and authority go hand-in-hand. This need for and obsession with authority arise solely from our refusal to submit to Christ and to one another in love.
Kevin,
What if Adam had been the first to sin and persuaded Eve? Would that have made woman the head?
Maybe the issue comes down to "what is our picture of God?" Did He set up a pattern where women would be more likely to be owned and abused (or did men decide she was a scapegoat)? Did God cause the Jews to suffer because of their rejection of Him? Or was this distorted theology and a wrong concept of God that caused the Roman church and other demonic influences to try to wipe them out?
How does the adversary use this story? Does he use it to destroy God's perfect love in the minds of humans? Does he take the Bible and separate it from God's love to prove God is a tyrant? I joined a church that didn't claim biblical inerrancy; it was based on principle–the whole biblical picture. Has this changed when it does not suit an agenda?
Ella said: what is Adam had been the first to sin and persuaded Eve? Would that have made the woman the head?
Who did God call out to when he cam searching for them in the Garden. Why did He call out for Adam?
With the Roman church placing Mary as Co-Redemptress this is far from trying to wipe them out….
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. After sin Adam was called out; wouldn't Eve have been called out if Adam had been the first to sin? While Eve seemed to have been persuaded by a stranger (she trusted more than God), it was Adam who ate by choice. At least tradition and EGW seem to say that.
I was referring to the Jews when I said that the Romans and other demonic forces tried to wipe them out.
Eve at by choice also
We can't play with hypotheticals when it comes to God's Word. Adam was called out because he was the head, and was thus responsible. That's why the New Testament declares that it was through one man—Adam—that sin and death entered the world (Rom. 5:12-19; I Cor. 15:22). Though Eve was the first to transgress, the headship principle means Adam was the one held responsible by God.
The dilemma which faces us as Seventh-day Adventists just now is simple: Will we go with contemporary egalitarian culture, or will we take our stand with God's Word and its divinely-established distribution of gender roles?
Yes I agree kevin that the headship principle was in effect before they sinned and that is why God called out Adam. We as fathers have a divinely-established role to our families and I believe God still holds us responsible to lead in love.
Organized headship may have been erected from the beginning of Adam's creation. That is naturally suggested b/c woman came from out of man and were intended to be a complimentary companion. But, God placing physical limitations upon women to be physically unequal to male counterparts was a profound effect of sin. That wasn't idyllically intended. And it was original man's transfixed infatuation w/ woman that led men to reject God. While women were tempted by the vanity of power. Ultimately, God can clearly how obsessively fixed men were upon women and it is apart of both gender's carnal nature of how a virile man approaches a responsive woman.
Praise God, for men's sake, that there is physical advantage over women otherwise our unhealthy leering gazes might never be conquered by the soothing and relatively submissive female touch. Men certainly need that advantage over such addictive companion we turned from God just like David and Solomon and Samson all did and continued throughout the ages.
And women's pleasing appearances pushed them from God and yet their foundational role in procreation w/ both painful birthing and ecstatic life is what makes us equally tied to each other.
Men are helplessly driven to be w/ women by obsessive tendencies and trials of solitude (before Eve) and women are made to feel helpless w/o men by natural limitations and trials of pregnancy (after Eden).
Men were lonely before Eve and women were targeted after Eden.
Love is not led in the righteous Judaic sense, but love is fallen in the realization of absolute unrighteousness. Love is shared and love is forgiveness and not based on patriarchal family.
Funny, b/c Timothy is a popular interpretation for misogyny in leadership when leadership is no longer an issue but serving the Message. We are not the of patriachs or leading a new faith of Judeo-Christianity but, exclusive Christian service of an inclusive Message.
And Paul reminds us in Corinth of this changing tide after the death of Christ through marriage and procreation as no longer ideal but, a legal way to relieve carnal sensations which we aren't spiritually mature to quench.
If we want to remain spiritually immature to resort to tribal ways and physical differences than go ahead by all human and inevitably failing means but, don't suggest we are needed to serve as Paul did in mending Judeo-Christian practices and then justify such legalistic righteousness to judge and master. Paul served through spirituality, and exemplified its redemption from Saul, so that even lowly women could be spiritual servants to God and not blood-based, physical tribal leaders.
….But God placing physical limitations upon women to be physically unequal to male counterparts was a profound effect of sin? Were not these "limitations" Gods design for a help mate? Was Genesis 2:24 written after sin? I think not Lynn. Love was based on family it was Gods design…..
Is it limatations to men that they can not carry or nurse a child?
Women stopped being this help mate when we, Men, chose to worship women before God. And women themselves wanted to go from created like man to be like God. And men and women are not helpers but, complete the body of Christ together.
Before the blood of menstruating woman, the birthing canal of the pregnant woman, the assumed position of the sexualized woman, the lowly stare of the subservient woman and the breast of nursing woman- was that there was. It was bloody, tribal, defined by sex, and by Mosaic Law. And before, man was the circumcised heir of Issac, Jacob and Judah.
Now Christ is the blood and circumcised, we are united SPIRITUALLY. The blood is dead, the bleeding woman is healed and no longer a mere woman. The law is meant to kill us. The circumcised man is now circumcised by heart through grace of God.
Both men and women no longer have unclean bleeding. Both men and women are circumcised in their hearts- THIS IS SPIRIT WON BY CHRIST. The body is dead, gender is dead, and the Law is still alive but meant to kill.
The Spirit lives, and the Spirit is our only salvation.
This whole side-discussion arises from confusion over whether "headship" refers to Representative vs Ruler. If Adam was Ruler over Eve before she sinned, was he responsible for her sin because:
Neither conclusion is supported from Genesis 3.
God called-out to Adam as the Representative of the human family, not as its Ruler.
If you believe as I do that Yahweh and Christ are one and the same, then this only makes sense if Yahweh/Christ is the divine Representative to humans.
"Your concern, Kevin, seems to be about introducing a "new" hermeneutic for biblical interpretation. One of my concerns is that in your haste to defend male headship in the church, you have paid too high a price–the price of maligning the full deity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
That, Cindy, is a totally unsupported accusation and I'm surprised you even took to that road. From my observations and study I would say that Kevin Paulson's analysis of Biblical doctrine on this subject is a very accurate and supportable position. The new herameneutic that apparently no one wishes to tackle insofar as I have read is the one invented by NAD.
I have no doubt that an objective viewer would easily conclude from all the evidence that the supporters of WO are under pressure from the feminist movement which has taken up this issue as part of the agenda and all too often even uses its terminology in attempting to prove a point.
Certainly there is not a shred of Biblical evidence nor anything at all from EGW which in any way supports WO.
Maranatha
Really? A “new” and “invented” hermeneutic by the NAD?
TruthSeeker writes: “… From my observations and study I would say that Kxxxx Pxxxxxx’x analysis of Biblical doctrine on this subject is a very accurate and supportable position. The new herameneutic [sic] that apparently no one wishes to tackle insofar as I have read is the one invented by NAD.”
There are many of us (GC biblical centrist conservative scholars included) who are also seeking truth but have come to a different conclusion than Kxxxx Pxxxxxx, et al. There is evidently some misinformation being spread far and wide by some; and it is disconcerting because it is beginning to seem that, in a desperate attempt to discredit, some are creating straw men to knock down – by alleging that the NAD TOSC Report has embraced major features of the higher-critical approach to Scripture; and by claiming that the NADs TOSC Report’s methodologies [plural] of biblical interpretation are totally contrary to the General Conference’s officially-voted “Methods of Bible Study” document; and by claiming that there are huge discrepancies in the NAD TOSC Report with regards to “cultural” influence.
If you go to the Rio Document [link just below], you can see that a plain reading reveals that the NADs method/s of hermeneutics [plural] are basically consistent with the Rio Document’s stated points. I have quoted a few below. Here is the link to the Rio Document:
http://www.adventist.org/information/official-statements/documents/article/go/0/methods-of-bible-study/
And here are a few reasons why…
1. The GC officially-voted 1986 “Methods of Bible Study” (aka Rio Document) specifically allows for more than one method of biblical interpretation or hermeneutic, as clearly outlined.
A. QUOTE: “Adventists are committed to the acceptance of biblical truth and are willing to follow it, using ALL METHODS [plural] of interpretation consistent with what Scripture says of itself.”[Rio Document, 1. Preamble]
B. QUOTE: “A committed Christian will use only those METHODS [plural] that are able to do full justice to the dual, inseparable nature of Scripture, enhance his ability to understand and apply its message, and strengthen faith.” [Rio Document, Conclusion]
C. QUOTE: “Seventh-day Adventists recognize and appreciate the contributions of those biblical scholars throughout history who have developed useful and reliable METHODS [plural] of Bible study consistent with the claims and teachings of Scripture. [Rio Document, Preamble]
2. The Rio Document also encourages us to explore the historical and cultural factors in order to help us understand the meaning of the Scriptures.
A. QUOTE: “In connection with the study of the biblical text, explore the HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL factors. Archeology, anthropology, and history may contribute to understanding the meaning of the text.” [Rio Document, 4.k. Link below]
B. QUOTE: “The Scriptures were written for the practical purpose of revealing the will of God to the human family. However, in order not to misconstrue certain kinds of statements, it is important to recognize that they were addressed to peoples of Eastern cultures and expressed in their thought patterns.” Thus, a “background KNOWLEDGE of Near Eastern CULTURE IS INDISPENSABLE FOR UNDERSTANDING such expressions [for example: God “hardened” Pharoah’s heart]. … “The Scriptures record that God accepted persons whose experiences and statements were not in harmony with the spiritual PRINCIPLES of the Bible as a whole.” [Rio Document, 4.p]
3. The NAD has informed us that they are using more than one methodology – which is fully consistent with the Rio Document’s stated points. Yet, many in the opposition camp continue to wrongly claim that the NAD has given up THE METHOD – as though there is only one valid method of biblical interpretation.
4. The PBHC (Principle-Based Historical Cultural method), about which some are bemoaning, can be seen to be validated in the Rio Document, which specifically allows for more than one method of biblical interpretation or hermeneutic, as clearly outlined; and also includes historical and cultural factors. Here is the link to the NAD Study Committee Report [link]:
http://static.squarespace.com/static/50d0ebebe4b0ceb6af5fdd33/t/5282a08be4b0b6e93a788acc/1384292491583/nad-ordination-2013.pdf
So, it becomes clear that the NADs TOSC Report methodologies [plural] are basically consistent with the various [plural] officially–voted Methods [plural] of Bible Study Committee. Thus, it is evident that the NAD has not used a “new” or “invented” hermeneutic in their NAD TOSC Report. And, perhaps the hermeneutic matter was not really “tackled” because the majority of biblical scholars, and others who have studied more deeply into the matter, do not view this approach as something hermeneutically “new” or “invented” or “historically” or “culturally” out of line with the official “Methods of Bible Study” document.
Again, admittedly there are evidently some pro-ordination scholars who may lean to the ‘far left’ and may use methods that are outside of the Rio Document; however, there are many ‘conservative’ recognized biblical scholars within Adventism who are appropriately employing the Rio Document (such as BRI scholars and others) who have come to the conclusion that the Bible does not forbid the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.
Note: I would recommend reading this insightful TOSC paper by Dr. Angel Rodriguez (GC/BRI) who has done a masterful job of appropriately addressing some of the major issues which continue to surface. Here is the link:
http://www.adventistarchives.org/evaluation-of-the-arguments-used-by-those-opposing-the-ordination-of-women-to-the-ministry.pd
Cindy, good article. But it's far too lenient on the authorative and hypocritical cabal that is usurping Christ's role in proclaiming grace, the Holy Spirit, and the Message to all people.
Christianity is precisely the "new path" and it's death will be as a result of "traditionalism" and reverting back to the Judaic law that was meant to condemn us instead of save. Factions in Christianity have been fixed on the power to declare one saved or worthy and another damned and unworthy.
The slippery slope is the very essence of the Sadducean and Phareseic objection to a Messiah that is not here to defeat the Romans but, to have a New Israel that invites them by the Holy Spirit and His sacrifice. It's a slippery slope to know that a blood descendant of Abraham prophecy dies like a lamb so that everyone can be spiritual descendants rather than ruled by a true descendant of Abraham. It's absurd and profoundly "slippery" that God's love is mercy, forgiveness, and spiritual and instead based on blood debt, law, and death of the unrighteous. It's slippery b/c now is there any impediment or any evil or any fall or any trivial and physical gender that God cannot wipe away and redeem equally under His divine protection (ordination). He can certainly do that, as opposed to the countless Judaic Laws that were punishable by death and inevitable sin is repaid w/ death. Yet, people of a chosen tribe can accept vengeful death b/c it's our nature to die as long as we are anointed "remnant" "chosen" "select" "the elect". Some people in this polemical climate will gladly choose death over freely given life and dignity for everyone- as long they get a righteous designation while "others" do not for whatever reason.
The "new path" is " slippery" and whatever is "this life" is supposed to end. This is a 2,000 year new path that brings humankind to its final climatic end- that is good thing b/c it's a godly thing and not meant for us to designate or prescribe or predict- it's godly.
And finally Christ died so that all may know Him, not Sadducees and Pharisees leading the charge but God became personal and human through Christ. There is no male buffer in Christianity, just as there is no Jewish male buffer that stops daughters of Christ from freely serving in the highest capacity humanely possible b/c God can do that. Christ warns and warns of those that come between Him and His children. Those that say a woman is unworthy, those that tried to stone women or those that condemn unclean or menstruating women from Temple and society or freely put away wives or tried to bar women from the Last Supper.
So anytime there is an us vs. all the rest of us- Christ is for everyone. Anytime there is exclusivists male hierarchy vs an inclusive order- Christ is for inclusion. Anytime it's exclusive sinners who sin privately vs inclusive sinners who sin openly- Christ is for the inclusive sinner. Church is for sinners. And unless being a woman is a sin or curse, which Orthodox Jewish and Islamic men openly praise God for not being born "wo-man"- then women are ordained as freely as men are to be saved and preach the message.
See Cindy, this is the heart of Christianity "a new path that uplifts all humanity and happily slips into an inclusive and forgiving refuge for the meek beings inhabiting an vengeful and bloody earth"
And as the world once saw the revolutionary message of Christ as challenging perverse and degrading practices of traditional culture- today Christianity is considered the enforcer of ways and means to shame and degrade people rather than forgive and serve. Now Christianity has become a source of dehumanization rather than a voice for humanity. Women are not just birthing vessels or empty receptacles to be judged as useful and be mastered like inhuman tools by men. They are no longer even women in the eyes of Christ, but they are His children and no division can seperate them.
"Kevin,
What if Adam had been the first to sin and persuaded Eve? Would that have made woman the head?"
I agree that such hypotheticals have no place in a serious discussion of WO. I don't see Kevin Paulson introducing hypotheticals to his credit.
Maranatha
Kevin: 'Stephen, if the name "Adam" is generic, why does Genesis speak of how "Adam and his wife" hid themselves in the trees of the Garden (Gen. 3:8), and then tell us that when God called for them, He called for Adam (verse 9)?'
Kevin, I believe 'man' can be both a generic reference to all humans of both genders and a reference to just the male gender. I believe the Bible supports that view in Gen 1. English has the same idea, with many laws talking about crimes committed by 'man' or 'men', which is intended to mean both male and female. However, in fairness to you, that could suggest a type of 'headship' itself. But questions remain.
Kevin: 'The best evidence for creation headship, of course, is the New Testament declaration that through one man, Adam, sin and death entered the world (Rom. 5:12-19; I Cor. 15:22).'
Possibly true. Of course that suggests God held Adam ultimately responsible for the Fall and not the woman. However, it is broader than a male-gender divide. It really is possible a teaching about collective cuplability and responsibility. According to ancient levant notions of headships, it wasn't just about males – it was about male patriachs having headship over entire households. Thus, a male patriach also had headship over his children and his slaves, and all lived and died with him.
Interesting, the NT talks about whole households being saved and baptised. Taking that idea to its natural consequence, one leads to Roman Catholicism. It sees salvation as a communal issue, not an individual matter. It also sees this as the rationale for baptising babies, given the NT texts literally talk about the baptism of the entire household.
The problem of course is these ideas of headship again only come to fruition as the result of sin. It was again only at sin that woman was cursed to become submissive to her husband. It was only at sin that the woman became Eve. It was a result of sin that God blamed the man as ultimately responsible.
The Kingdom represents a raddical departure of that headship model. The only head of the Church now is Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ, all such earthly barriers are done away with, as first-fruits of the new Kingdom. And in the New Kingdom, we are all, both male and female, to be priests and kings – women included. In the resurrection, we are to lose sexual characeristics, to become like the angels, who seem to lack gender (or seem to lack the female gender).
So linked to that, if you are going to say pastors must be men based on 'headship' then you have to go the full way. Being a man isn't the only criteria. Rather, Paul says a man has to be a good head of his household, with obedient God-fearing children. In 1 Tim 3:4 it clearly says of elders:
'He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way'
So headship is more than just being a male – it means leading a household. How many current SDA male pastors satisfy this requirement? Not many I suspect. If the SDA Church refused WO on the basis of headship, then it must expell all the men who fail this test of household headship!
I note that Elder Paulsen has so far declined to respond to David Newman's question. So he can't miss it–here it is again:
"Kevin. You are right that women elders were never voted in a G C Session. However women pastors were voted at the 1990 GC Sessio. In Indianapolis. And since the church has voted for them it has now become a discrimination issue based on gender since both female and male are doing the same work. And if it is discrimination based on gender then it is a moral issue. The 2015 GC Session needs to make one of two decisions. 1. Reverse the 1990 decision and forbid women pastors or 2. allow women to be ordained within those areas ready for it just as the Annual Council did for women elders."
Some of us are waiting for Elder Paulsen's to answer this interesting question from Dr. Newman. I hope we don't have to wait too long.
Ervin I have a question for you, Why is it that the wording for womens ordination always include the phrase "without regard to gender" instead of simply using the phrase male and female? Would this not be a disrimination issue for gay lesbian bisexual and transgendered who also want to be included in the ordination process down the road as other churches have already done? Why do they insist leaving this Trojan horse ready in the stable????
I guess the only way I can answer Mr/Mrs/Ms "All4Him" is to ask him/her if he/she has stopped beating his/her horse?
Ervin I have a question for you, Why is it that the wording for womens ordination always include the phrase "without regard to gender" instead of simply using the phrase male and female? Would this not be a disrimination issue for gay lesbian bisexual and transgendered who also want to be included in the ordination process down the road as other churches have already done? Why do they insist leaving this Trojan horse ready in the stable????
Maybe it should. My understanding is that a man with a homsexual orientation but who lives a celibate lifestyle, or lives a hetrosexual lifestyle, is permitted to be engaged in ordained ministry. I am led to understand of the one professors in our tertiary institutions has recently come out and admitted he is openly gay (in the sense admit he has a homosexual orientation).
As for transgender, one might ask whether you conservatives would be willing for a person who had XXY genes or was born with both sexual organs to become an ordained minister? And would it matter to you if the hermaphradite had chosen to keep the female organs and remove the male organs, or keep the male organs and keep the female ones, or kept both?
Orientation is not a 'sin' if that is what you are implying. Are you suggesting if a woman acts like a man you are ok with her engaging in ordained ministry?
Was Ellen White acting like a man when she taught men, clearly contrary to Kevin's literalist reading of 1 Tim 2:12-14? And why did we allow her to get paid in full time ministry for the pleasure of bossing men around?
So we are to ignore the instruction of 1 Timothy 3:2 and 1 Timothy 3:12??? And may I suggest that you dig a little deeper in your study of Ellen White and her own writings on this subject 🙂
Did Ellen White ignore this instruction? Was she not a woman who taught men and had authority over men? Was Ellen White the husband of one wife?
And none of you conservative seem keen to read the rest of the text. You are all happy to quote 1 Tim 3:2 but not two verses later, in 1 Tim 3:4.
How did celibate Paul and young Timothy fulfill these requirements? How many of our current SDA Pastors fulfill these requirements?
The only possible explanations are:
1. Paul does not expect these criteria to be taken so literally.
2. Paul and the NT writers saw a difference between spiritual leaders (apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and pastors) and appointed leaders (deacons, elders and bishops).
I think you will find history suggests point (2) is correct. The RC Church destroyed the spiritual leadership model in around 365 CE, with the supression of the Montanist Revival. The bishops (appointed leaders) condemned the last 3 apostles/prophets (1 man and 2 women), and in the process claimed the titles of 'apostles' (a spiritual leadership title) for themselves. And so the Papacy was born!
I am happy to compromise with conservatives to say only men can be appointed leaders (elders and bishops). However, women certainly can be spiritual leaders, as these are appointed by God and not men (apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and pastors). History and the NT show only the appointed leaders needed to be ordained.
This is how it worked with Ellen White's own ministry. She was clearly a spiritual leader who taught men. There were also other paid women preachers in the SDA Church in her day. They just were not in administrative appointed leadership, as Conference Presidents.
You see this distinction in the SDA Chinese Churches today. They have women pastors. However, they usually have older male 'uncles' who act as appointed administrative leaders.
My key point being:
It is crucial we distinguish different models of leadership – spiritual leadership (postles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and pastors) from appointed administrative leadership (deacons, elders and bishops). The irony that the SDA Church currently ordains women elders but not women pastors is actually all backwards!
No Ellen did not ignore the instruction neither was she in the role of a pastor. Again please take time to read about who she says should stand behind the sacred desk in 5T 598 or who should study for the ministry in 5T 60!
With regard to the masculine word elders, it is sometimes used generically to include women. For example, “the elders [who] obtained a good testimony” (Heb 11:2) include Sarah (11:11), Rahab (11:31), and other women (11:35).
Also, Paul explicitly refers to male and female elders. 1 Tim 5:1-2–"Do not rebuke a male elder, but exhort him as a father . . . [and] female elders as mothers." Tit 2:1-3–"1 But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: 2 that the male elders be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the elder women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things."
With regard to qualifications, the basic qualification is blamelessness, and blamelessness in marriage is only one way to demonstrate blamelessness. A blameless elder man (if married) is to be "husband of one wife" (Tit 1:5-6) and a blameless elder woman (if married) is to be "wife of one husband" (1 Tim 5:7, 9). Similarly a blameless bishop (if a married man) is to be husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:2).
Therefore, being husband of one wife was only one of the ways a bishop could be blameless. Unmarried bishops could also be blameless like the unmarried Christ who is the “the Shepherd [Pastor] and Bishop [Overseer] of your souls” (1 Pet 2:25). The qualification of an elder/bishop/pastor is blamelessness. This blamelessness could be demonstrated in various ways. Blamelessness in marriage and parenting were only two of many ways to be blameless (see 1 Tim 3; 5; Tit 1).
In chapter 5 of his letter, Paul's discussion of elders begins with instructions on the rebuking of male and female elders (1 Tim 5:1-2) and ends with instructions on the rebuking of elders in general (5:19-20). Between these instructions on the rebuking of unqualified elders, Paul teaches about the financial honor due to qualified elder-widows (5:3-16) and other elders (5:17-18).
As such, the principle of financial honor applies to male and female elders. Paul writes: “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine; for . . . the laborer is worthy of his [or her] wages” (5:17-20; cf. Gal 6:6).
Ellen White comments on this text when she writes: “make no mistake in neglecting to correct the error of giving ministers less than they should receive. . . . The tithe should go to those who labor in word and doctrine, be they men or women.” (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases, 1:263).
Mhana
With due respect I think When you read the bible you need to take into account context and usage of particular words. In the bible what does the world "Elder" mean? There are many instances where it means who is older, It is used comparatively to highlight the difference from younger people. The other definition is of a Bishop. You do injustice to the bible when you interpret the world elder in the bible in the way we understand it now. You seem to allude that whenever we see the word elder it means a church elder when in some instances it clearly means a person who is relatively older.
I wished to have analysed all you proof texts one by one but Unfortunately I have time constraints. If you read 1 Tim 5:2 closely the context will immediately show that ''Elder" is used comparatively as it also compares it to younger women, it is not talking of a church elder as we understand it today. You make this Mistake ( I hope it is a genuine mistake) in many other verses that you mentioned. I know you Support WO but please do not employ eisegesis in your verses but let the bible speak to you.
Whatever position you take on headship is biblically unrelated to the issue of female pastors since the pastor is not the head/husband of the church (Eph 1:22; 5:23; Col 1:18). Note also the following statements by Ellen White. ST, January 27, 1890 (PaMin 101): “Let it be seen that Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church.” The Great Controversy, p. 51: "God has never given a hint in His word that He has appointed any man to be the head of the church."
Excellent analysis.
Bravo…. yes ties right in with 1 Corithians 11:3
1 Corinthians 11:3
All4Him: ‘Again please take time to read about who she says should stand behind the sacred desk in 5T 598 or who should study for the ministry in 5T 60’
All4Him the Sister White quotes you wanted quoted are as follows:
‘Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be men of blameless reputation; their lives should be spotless, above everything that savors of impurity.’ (5T 598)
‘The primary object of our college was to afford young men an opportunity to study for the ministry and to prepare young persons of both sexes to become workers in the various branches of the cause.’ (5T 60)
Whether Ellen White is suggesting only men can be ministers is something of dispute. The whole rest of the passage is about male ministers avoiding sexual liaisons with women – something most women ministers would have no issue with.
In any event, she makes it clear that women can be missionaries and other roles in the cause. A missionary is literally an apostle – the modern English word missionary comes from the Latin missio, which is a translation of the Greek apostolos. All these words mean ‘to send’ or ‘one who is sent away.’
By contrast, a minister is literally from the Latin ‘servant’, which comes from the Greek diakonos, or deacon. If you are trying to say only a man can become a deacon, that is somewhat disputed. But happy to give you the benefit of the doubt.
All4Him, you seemed to miss my primary point.
My point is women under the NT model can clearly exercise spiritual leadership according to the 5 spiritually-gifted roles outlined in Eph 4:11-12: ‘So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up’.
For example, both scripture and SOP indicate women can hold the spiritual leadership role of missionaries (literally apostoloi or missioi).
Obviously you didn’t read my compromise solution did you? I made it very clear that the NT possibly suggests only men can be in appointed administrative-leadership roles of deacon, elder and overseer. However, both the Bible and SOP suggest women can be in paid spiritual-leadership roles, including as apostles!
This is how Ellen White structured her own ministry, as she was the spiritual-leader par excellence but never took formal administrative leadership. This is also how the SDA Church works in China, with female spiritual leaders but assisted by older male ‘uncles’ in appointed-administrative leadership.
Why would this not be a satisfactory compromise for both sides?
Steve I have never said that the SOP or Bible does not allow women's ministry… various branch of the cause and missionary field is not the spiritual leader of the home or church by Gods design. A Godly mother raised me and four other siblings basically alone, yes with Gods power she made it work, though it was not God's design for a family.
Beware that compromise also creeps very easily……
Good then we can agree. I am not disagreeing with you in fears about overreach, if the suggestion is women becoming conference presidents or seeking other forms of administrative leadership.
The problem is we already have it backwards! President Wilson is happy working with women GC-VCs (arguably not supportable in scripture) but will not support the ordination of women clergy (clearly supported in both scripture and the SOP).
Women can lead the church in the sense of spiritual leadership through apostolic ministry. Apostles found and create new churches and appoint elders. Both the NT and SOP seem to allow for that. If a women missionary goes into a new undiscovered country, founds an entire new church, she of course should have the authority in apostolic ministry to appoint elders for the running of that church. Ellen White showed this in her own apostolic missionary – otherwise what was she doing going to Australia and Switzerland?
The only possible (and I say possible) scriptural prohibition against women is as administrative leaders of the Church, as elder-bishops, in the model of the Seven chosen according to Acts 6. There is no basis whatsoever in scripture or SOP to prevent women becoming 'clergy' in apostolic ministry according to the model found in Acts 1 and Gal 1.
We even see this distinction in the OT. There were women prophets leading the people spiritually but the priesthood was also male. The problem with modern Christianity, influenced by Catholicism, is we equate priesthood with our clergy; whereas, it would be more accurate to equate priesthood with our elders. The priests simply keep the rituals running. The OT prophets are more akin to the Christian apostles, as the list of spiritual gifts in Eph describes, or Paul desciptions of Timothy's role as apostle similarly explains.
And dispute with that model is simply to adopt the traditions of Papal Rome. I'd personally rather follow the Bible myself.
All4Him: ‘No Ellen did not ignore the instruction neither was she in the role of a pastor.’
Sorry All4Him you are quite wrong. However, in fairness to you, it possibly depends All4Him what you mean by the term ‘pastor’.
I think you are meaning it in the narrow sense of the term of appointed-administrative male leaders – i.e. of modern male elders. If you careful need my statements above, I have made it clear I am happy to compromise, in saying there is not unequivocal support women in roles of appointed-administrative leadership.
Rather, I am meaning the term ‘pastor’ in terms of the spiritual-leadership role of pastoring within missionary work, as made clear in Eph 4:11. Ellen White sometimes talked of ‘pastoral labor’ in this sense. As I made clear in my comments above, missionary work is literally biblical apostolic ministry, and both the NT and SOP clearly support women in paid apostolic ministry.
As Ellen White makes clear in several passages:
‘Missionary work—introducing our publications into families, conversing, and praying with and for them—is a good work and one which will educate men and women to do pastoral labor.’ (Testimonies, 4:390.)
‘It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.’ (Testimonies, 6:322, 321-322)
But in any event, SOP suggests women can be managers of the Church:
‘It is not always men who are best adapted to the successful management of a church. If faithful women have more deep piety and true devotion than men, they could indeed by their prayers and their labors do more than men who are unconsecrated in heart and life’ (Ellen G. White to Brother Johnson, Letter 33, 1879, Manuscript Releases, 19:55-56.)
These women, engaged in apostolic ministry are to be ordained through the laying on of hands, as SOP counsels:
‘Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands.’ (Review and Herald, 9 July 1895)
No sorry Steve, please show me a list of baptisms/marraiges preformed by Ellen White and please look at the context of your quotes that you pull up as evidence. These are not based on shepherding a church. May I sugest you read your statements in context…your quote from Testimonies 6:322 taken from the aspect of "The Canvasser a gospel worker". Read on to 6:323 it expains it well. And your quote from T4:390 Reread the paragragh before your quote and you will see how it fits in! She is quite clear! Blessings….. I have to hit the road for awhile
The history of the work of Ellen White in Europe it that of a most powerful and efficient pastoral work performed where sorely needed. Even Paul did not baptize all of his converts.
She was a prophet of God, Amen and a powerful gospel worker for Him… yes! But what specific congregation did she shepherd there? Where was the church located and the membership?
Ellen traveled widely during her stay in Europe where she left a tremedous pastoral impact in churches where she stayed and with individuals she worked with and helped them as their pastor. J. G. Matteson our pioneer in Northern Europe is one case of several. Ellen visited the church he had established in Christiania on her first visit to Scandinavia and found it all spllit into pieces. She did the pastoral work needed while she was there. On her second visit to Scandinavia people had changed and the stagnated work went forward. Some years ago I visited and took pictures for a book of the house where Ellen stayed in Copenhagen while preaching and aiding with the pastoral work in that city.
In my youth I learned to adore the writings of Ellen White, and this has continued, also through my schooling where we used writings of Ellen White as our textbooks. Our teachers also showed us the texts used by the enemies of truth that were used against the work of Ellen G White to "prove" that she was a false prophet. They taught us the hermeneutics used by our pioneers to support the Spirit of Prophecy. Just on this forum several writers have twisted and turned the hermeneutics of our pioneers completely around, just to save their bias against the work of females in the church. Against the work that Ellen White pointed out so clearly where women could do a better work than males, and that they should be ordained to do this work in the homes.
She clearly was a true prophet of the Lord and did a mighty work for the Him. Over and over she emphasized the great work that could be done by women doing work in the homes yes…. but not the shepherds or elders of the congregation.
What is the difference? Have you read all of the books by Ellen White where she defines the work of the pastors, evangelists, and the ministers in our church? These were our basic text books in school.
Yes, Clearly she is true prophet of the Lord….And "all those books" contain the blueprints of the Godly roles for Men and Women when taken in context.
The history of the work of Ellen White in Europe it that of a most powerful and efficient pastoral work performed where sorely needed. Even Paul did not baptize all of his converts.
Anything is "possible"; so we could say that it is "possible" that the Bible suggests that appointed administrative roles are only for men. Nevertheless, a careful study of the Bible shows that this is not the case with the biblical teaching about pastors. The church should appoint and ordain pastors in harmony with God's giving of the spiritual gift of pastor. No woman should be ordained as pastor if God has not given her the gift of pastor. And where it is agreed that God has given the gift of pastor to a woman, no one should refuse appointment as pastor simply because she is a woman.
Agreed.
My personal view is that the Bible and SOP suggest women can be in all roles – both spiritual leadership and appointed-administrative leadership. However, I am willing to compromise that we continue to restrict women from appointed-administrative leadership roles PROVIDED IF we recognise women can be engaged in ordained spiritual-leadership roles.
I agree that it is no human's business to prevent women being in paid apostolic (literally missionary) leadership. SOP makes it clear women can be engaged in paid ministry of this kind, and be paid and ordained (through laying of hands) for this type of work. Moreover, Paul makes clear these roles are gifted by the Holy Spirit.
Paul, in defence of his apostolic authority, says that no one appointed him but God Himself! Similarly, the very origin of the word ‘clergy’ comes from the Greek ‘to be chosen by lots’, which is no doubt a reference to the appointment of Matthais as the replacement 12th Apostle – again emphasizing that God alone chooses apostles.
My strong view is the commonly-cited proof texts about husbands of one wife (which following your excellent analysis may actually refer to women as well but even assuming not) is only talking about appointed-spiritual leadership. My own careful study of history suggests the spiritual-leadership role of apostles and the appointed-administrative role of elders-bishops were originally often separate, and did not finally fuse until the rise of the Papacy with the supression of the Montanist Revival in the 4th Century. There is an excellent thesis on the distinction between appointed-administrative elders and spiritual apostles by an emertus Andrews Prophecy.
We currently have it all backwards in my view. Again and I have said this several times, the SDA Chinese model seems to embrace this compromise, with ordained women spiritual-leaders but guided by male 'uncles' in appointed-administrative leadership.
I am ernestly suggesting we all reach a compromise, and that seems the best one most in accordance with the Bible and SOP.
Sorry a few typos there.
Mhana
With due respect I think When you read the bible you need to take into account context and usage of particular words. In the bible what does the world "Elder" mean? There are many instances where it means who is older, It is used comparatively to highlight the difference from younger people. The other definition is of a Bishop. You do injustice to the bible when you interpret the world elder in the bible in the way we understand it now. You seem to allude that whenever we see the word elder it means a church elder when in some instances it clearly means a person who is relatively older.
I wished to have analysed all you proof texts one by one but Unfortunately I have time constraints. If you read 1 Tim 5:2 closely the context will immediately show that ''Elder" is used comparatively as it also compares it to younger women, it is not talking of a church elder as we understand it today. You make this Mistake ( I hope it is a genuine mistake) in many other verses that you mentioned. I know you Support WO but please do not employ eisegesis in your verses but let the bible speak to you.
Tapiwa, I have to say I find with just a little touch of irony that you claim Mhana is looking at passages supposedly out of context. One might well say the exact same thing to the conservative utilisation of passages such as 1 Tim 5:2.
But none of you conservatives opposing WO seem game to answer my three primary points:
1. Elders with obedient children: If we are to take male headship as a serious and literal qualification for ministry, applying 1 Tim 3:2, what then of the headship requirement of running a sucessful household with obedient children in 1 Tim 3:4?
2. Women missionaries (lit. apostles) but not women elders: Even if we assume women cannot be ordained elders, can they nevertheless be paid and ordained missionaries (literally apostles in biblical Greek)? Does not the Bible suggest they can per Eph 4:11-12? Does not the SOP suggest they can in Testimonies, 4:390, 6:322, 321-322; Ellen G. White to Brother Johnson, Letter 33, 1879, Manuscript Releases, 19:55-56; and Review and Herald, 9 July 1895)? Is there any evidence that Paul and Timothy were elders (according to Paul's strict criteria) and not just apostles?
3. The SDA Chinese model: Why can't we adopt the SDA Chinese model as a suitable compromise for all involved? In China, I believe women are in spiritual leadership but they are assisted by an older male 'uncle' figure who helps with the administration of the Church.
Steve
Allow me to try to answer your questions
Thankyou Tapiwa for the continued dialogue – I really appreciate it. Just further to the three points:
1. The issue is relevant because the current studies at the GC and at Division level are not WO studies they are ordination studies – generic. WO is just one component. Thus, the issue of current male ministry is relevant. The fact is I suspect less than half of current SDA ordained ministers could fulfill this requirement. Two wrongs don't make a right but not being a hypocrite in judging others is essential the Christianity.
2. I think you still misunderstand me a little. My point is that missionaries = apostles. I am glad you agree that women can be in paid apostolic ministries.
I do not think apostles = elders. I believe elders are different from apostles.
Elders are appointed administrative leaders appointed pursuant to Paul's criteria; apostles are appointed by God (best represented by Paul's defence of his apostolic ministry from God himself, or Matthais being chosen by lots, which is the origin of the word 'clergy').
I agree there is no precedent for women bishops. I am not asking for women bishops – I am asking for women apostles! In the early SDA Pioneer period, like the NT period, it was professional apostles-missionaries travelled ministering to a number of Churches, and it was lay elders who usually stayed put in just one location. It is only apostle-missionaries who the NT categorically affirm are entitled to tithe. Ellen White was the apostle-missionary par excellence, but both the NT and early SDA Pioneer period showed women in those apostolic roles.
My point is we have it all backwards. We should prohibit women from appointed administrative roles as elders-bishops. However, both the Bible and SOP supports women in paid, professional apostolic-missionary ministry.
The prophetic role is not unique per se. It is not even first in the list of spiritual-leadership roles, but actually comes second in the list in Eph 4:11-12. The hallmark of God's remnant Church is both men and women in these spiritual-leadership roles, as prophesied in Joel and affirmed in Acts.
3. Compromise is not a dirty word. We find it in Acts 15. We see it in Paul's counsel to not eat meat offered to idols if it offends someone else, but to eat it otherwise privately.
Compromise it not just fine but desired as the supreme Christian virtue, provided it doesn't compromise 'essential' truths. Acts 15 was not actually about circumcission vs uncircumcission per se but about whether circumcission was an 'essential' issue. Paul, who argued it wasn't essential nevertheless still had Timothy circumcissed in Acts 16 – again as a form of compromise.
The major point I get from Cindy's article is that WO is not an 'essential' 'salvation' issue. As such we should seek a compromise of unity in diversity as the Apostles and Elders came to in Acts 15.
Steve
I enjoy dialoguing with you even though we sometimes disagree but at least I know you are adventist and that we hold the same core doctrines. I however Have to respectifully disagree with you on this one as I believe WO will bring more problems than it solves.
1. I agree that people should not be hypocritical concerning elders. I know many elders who have problem children, some are not even adventist etc.but the truth is as humanity we grade wrong doings and award them different magnitudes for the wrongness. I will concede that many feel that having a disobedient family is less wrong than having a woman elder. I personally feel that they are equally wrong but whilst there are hypocritical Positions out there, we should judge each issue on its own merits.
2. I do not have an issue with paid women Missionary workers the issue is when you want to use it as a smokescreen to have women pastors and elders. The real issue is the WO proponents are vying for administrative spiritual leadership roles the ones that have no precedence in the bible. Another point where I disagree with you is you constant conflation of prophetic roles with leadership roles. Joel affirms women in prophetic roles not leaderhip ones. You seem to think that Prophetic gifts naturally assume leadership gifts as well and this is where we differ. While it is true that some Prophets assumed leadership roles (Moses) the prophetic gift is more of a guidance role than a leaderhip role. Prophets simply communicate God's message and usually give guidance to the actual leaders. In some instances, Some have more than one spiritual gift like Moses, Elijah etc but the prophetic gift in its simplest form is more of a guidance role than a leadership one. And you cannot use Joel to Support WO as women are not wanting the prophetic roles, which Joel clearly speaks about but WO are clearly wanting the offices of bishop and pastor.
3. I agree that there are instances where compromise is needed but should God and Lucifer have reached a compromise? The biggest worry I have is when people think that they may disobey God in issues they may feel are not an essential salvation issue. Was Lot Choosing to pitch his tents towards Sodom a salvation issue? Wilful disobedience even in the small things that we feel are not essential to salvation is a very dangerous place to be in.
Thank you Tapiwa for the continued dialogue. I feel we are really discussing the issue, which unlike many of the debates on this site, we are not simply shouting past each other. Just further to your points above:
1. I agree each matter should be judged on its merits. The issue of gender and obedient children are interlinked but possibly separate criteria issues. However, the same could be said of those who conflate the issue of WO with LGBT issues, and again, each issue should be kept separately. The big difference here is that the GC is technically looking at ordination generally, so it is within its remit to look at the obedient children issue within the framework of ordination more generally.
2. I am not suggesting a smokescreen – I am simply trying to get the SDA Church to consider adopting the biblical NT model of leadership, which also seems to reflect the model of our Early Pioneers. In the same way as people say men and women are equal but different, so the NT model of leadership shows spiritual leadership (apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers and pastors) and appointed leadership (deacons, elders and bishops-overseers) as equal or separate models of leadership.
I know some liberal Adventists are trying to put women in administrative leadership, like as Conference Presidents. I agree with you that women possibly shouldn't be in those roles, for the sake of unity.
However, conservatives must equally admit that women can be in full time, paid and ordained apostolic (missionary) ministry. Both the Bible and SOP clearly affirm women in these roles.
My fundamental, fundamental point, which everyone seems to be missing, is that the role of 'pastor' (perhaps we should instead use the title 'apostle') is different from the role of 'elder'. I am saying conservatives should allow women can be the former if liberals agree on gender restrictions for the latter.
Currently we do the reverse, with women Vice Presidents at the GC whilst denying women the right to be in paid, ordained apostolic ministry. I am trying to get us to turn our thinking 180 degrees.
All our discussions about 'husbands of one wife' are pointless because those texts apply to 'elder' roles, not to 'apostle' roles. The error is in both 'sides' of the debate, in wrongly confusing elders with apostles.
Again, the very best examples of the NT model is in our pioneers, especially Ellen White. She was clearly an apostle but she was never an elder. Her husband James, as President of the GC and other appointed roles, was clearly an elder, but never an apostle. We see this biblical model working best in China right now with the women pastors and older male uncles.
3. Tapiwa, fighting over non-essential things as just as dangerous. Jesus slamed the Pharisees for doing just that. For example, Jesus treatise in Mark 5 about eating with unwashed hands was about the Pharisees imposing Temple rituals of the priests on ordinary Jews on account of tradition.
Take Solomon's son Rehoboam. He lost half the kingdom because he refused to compromise.
Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers. Peace can only be achieved by compromise or through the total destruction of our enemies, and given Jesus' attitude towards our enemies, our doubt He was advocating the latter.
Acts 15 is the biblical model of dispute resolution. It involves working out what is 'essential' and what is not 'essential'. Even ultra-conservative James, who upheld the Jewish rites and traditions, was able to acknowledge that circumcission was not a 'salvation' issue.
If we cannot distinguish between 'salvation' issues and management issues, then our Church is in big trouble and destined for doom. It simply won't adapt, will end up in naval gazing, and go the way of all the other groups in Jesus' day that no longer exist.
If you want a Church who doesn't distinguish essential from non-essential issues, then check out the SDA Reform Church. Greg's article right now is very much on point here.
Thank you very much, Cindy, for your excellent article calling the church to a 'New Path'. For those who have an understanding of the times, like the sons of Issacher, they will clearly see that this is the path that dedicated Christians should follow.
Instead of forcing everyone into one mould, allow each Division or Union to prayerfully select their ministers male or female and set them apart by prayer. By forcing the entire church to take a backward step and defrock their female elders and their commissioned women pastors we will hurt and injure hundreds and thousands of those women. Also for many men and women this has become a moral issue and to deny members the freedom to exercise their morality is a denial of the Christian faith.
In a similar vein, if the church forced every church and Union to elect female elders and to appoint women pastors we would also be removing moral freedom from many.
Cindy, your suggestion is the wise one and will do far less damage than a unilateral decision either way. Moving forward and allowing the Holy Spirit to call whom He will and for members to have the opportunity to choose their officers and ministers is the right way.
Your way would be the Christian way; the backward step would be the unChristlike way as it will hurt and injure. Your way is the way of religious liberty; the backward way is against religious liberty and almost smacks of the mark of the beast – forced ways of worship, rather than worship accoring to the dictates of conscience.
For those who might be concerned about the importance of sticking to what they might consider to be scriptural truth even if it hurts hundres or thousandes, I remind you of the statement by Ellen White –
"Men may profess faith in the truth; but if it does not make them sincere, kind, patient, forbearing, heavenly minded, it is a curse to its possessors, and through their influence it is a curse to the world" (The Desire of Ages, page 310)
Thank you very much, Cindy, for your excellent article calling the church to a 'New Path'. For those who have an understanding of the times, like the sons of Issacher, they will clearly see that this is the path that dedicated Christians should follow.
Instead of forcing everyone into one mould, allow each Division or Union to prayerfully select their ministers male or female and set them apart by prayer. By forcing the entire church to take a backward step and defrock their female elders and their commissioned women pastors we will hurt and injure hundreds and thousands of those women. Also for many men and women this has become a moral issue and to deny members the freedom to exercise their morality is a denial of the Christian faith.
In a similar vein, if the church forced every church and Union to elect female elders and to appoint women pastors we would also be removing moral freedom from many.
Cindy, your suggestion is the wise one and will do far less damage than a unilateral decision either way. Moving forward and allowing the Holy Spirit to call whom He will and for members to have the opportunity to choose their officers and ministers is the right way.
Your way would be the Christian way; the backward step would be the unChristlike way as it will hurt and injure. Your way is the way of religious liberty; the backward way is against religious liberty and almost smacks of the mark of the beast – forced ways of worship, rather than worship accoring to the dictates of conscience.
For those who might be concerned about the importance of sticking to what they might consider to be scriptural truth even if it hurts hundres or thousandes, I remind you of the statement by Ellen White –
"Men may profess faith in the truth; but if it does not make them sincere, kind, patient, forbearing, heavenly minded, it is a curse to its possessors, and through their influence it is a curse to the world" (The Desire of Ages, page 310)
Eric, thank you for your wise counsel. I am convinced that moving forward with ordination of women pastors involves no contradiction of God’s word.
Tapiwa, I did not suggest that the word elder always indicates an official office. My point is that the masculine term elder is sometimes used to include women. I also have to disagree with your distinction between prophetic guidance and leadership. Prophets are indeed leaders appointed by God and tested, evaluated, and received as leaders by the church. Further, God used prophets to appoint kings (1 Kings 1:34; 14:2; 19:16).
Steve, I respect your proposal of a possible compromise. My focus is not on the policy compromise but on the biblical teaching that needs to be clarified before such a compromise is decided. I find your biblical distinction between apostles and elders to be helpful; as well as your recognition that women can be apostles.
This means that women can be ordained and appointed to be administrative leaders. It is important to note that the apostles were ordained by their home church for their missionary work; and that this ordination gave them authority over the churches they founded during their mission (Acts 13:1-3). For example, they were actively involved in the setting up of the elders over those churches (Tit 1:5).
Martin Hanna.
Martin, Thank you for your kind comment. I would also like to thank you for your valued conributions on the topic. You write carefully and in the spirit of Christ. We pray that our church leadership will be guided by the Holy Spirit to suggest solutions that will unite the church in its diversity.
I have a question: If in fact gender equality in the sacrament of ordination is a moral mandate, why should any Division, Union, or Conference be permitted to deny that sacrament to women? Shouldn't the consensus of liberal Adventists be the position of the Church? The moral terms in which SDA liberals frame the issue would suggest that if they were in power, they would force their views of gender equality on the entire church. No? I agree with Cindy's position. But I think we need to be very careful of the arguments we endorse to advance the cause.
We should not have a theology of ordination or rigid gender stereotypes that impede the full realization of God's Spirit calling women to church leadership at any level through the community of faith. But, let me also offer a word of caution. God doesn't work by quotas. I get tired of hearing that we need to have more women on this committee or that committee. When was the last time you heard someone say, "We need more women in our fantasy football league."? Or that we need more women in occupations where there are relatively high risks of injury or death – occcupations which overwhelmingly attract males.
In general, women and men have different interests, gifts, and temperaments – which is not a good reason to rigidly confine their roles within generally valid stereotypes. In my opinion, relatively few women have the aptitude to happily be good trial lawyers, which is not to deny that there are many oustanding female trial lawyers, or that females should have equal opportunity to access trial work. What it means is that you can't just look at numbers and draw moral conclusions from those numbers. Where in the New Testament do you see anyone saying that more uncircumcised gentiles were needed in church leadership? That's the kind of thinking you get into when you argue that justice requires equality in outcomes, or that inequality in results is evidence of injustice.
Nathan, I am glad that you agree with Cindy's position. I think it is the way to preserve unity. I do not think that we should force gender equality on the whole church when it comes to WO – allow the Holy Spirit to gradually lead men and women in this regard. However, I do know of quite a group within the church who do want to force the whole church to ignore God's call to women in pastoral ministry.
My position is that we need to allow for diversity on this matter rather than requiring or prohibiting the ordination of women. With regard to liberals and conservtives, I do not self-identify with either label. At the same time, I have been called a liberal by self-identified conservatives; and I have been called a conservative by self-identified liberals. We seem to be divided about the meaning of these labels just as much as we are divided about whether to ordain female pastors.
‘I find your biblical distinction between apostles and elders to be helpful; as well as your recognition that women can be apostles.’
Thank you. The distinction between spiritual leaders (especially apostle-missionaries) and appointed leaders (especially elders) is key in my mind to this whole discussion. The difference between the two types of ministry is actually quite apparent from the NT and also reflected in our own SDA Pioneers. My apologies for the length, but the following is a summary of my own study on the difference between the two models of NT leadership.
'Leadership in the Early Church During the First Hundred Years', by Emeritus Professor Robert M. Johnston
I have been most influenced on this use by the thesis 'Leadership in the Early Church During the First Hundred Years', by Emeritus Professor Robert M. Johnston of Andrews University. He observes that the Early Church of the New Testament distinguished “charismatic leadership” (i.e. those chosen by the Holy Spirit, such as apostles and prophets) from “appointed leadership” (i.e. those appointed against visible selection criteria as elders and deacons).
Montanus Revival
In fact, it was only after the failed prophetic revival of Montanus in 165 AD (involving 1 man and 2 women claiming the status of apostles and prophets), that the office of bishop and apostle were gradually fused, where the appointed hierarchy comprising the bishops of the proto-Catholic Church effectively did away with charismatic leadership.
The Catholic notion of ‘apostolic succession’ actually derives from the bishop-elders of the major urban churches of the time, who after supressing the Montanus Revival stole the spiritual titles of ‘apostles’ and ‘prophets’ for themselves, and then awarded the remaining spiritual titles of ‘evangelists, teachers and pastors’ to parish priests (i.e. lit elders) and deacons respectively. The Montanus Revival is quite famous because the Church Father Tertullian supported the Montanus apostles-prophets, and was condemned a heretic by the bishops for his efforts.
Apostles
Again, it is interesting to stress that the word ‘apostle’ comes from the Greek word apostolos, and literally means ‘to send forth’. In Latin, it is translated as missio, from where we obtain the English word ‘missionary’.
It is also interesting that apostles, together with prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, are not necessarily positions of status but more appropriately listed as spiritual gifts bestowed directly by the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:11-12). For example, when Matthias was appointed as a replacement for Judas, the fact that he was chosen by lots emphasised that it was God, not human beings, who made the selection (Acts 1:21-26). The word ‘clergy’ itself is Greek for ‘allotment’ or ‘chosen by lots’, and is probably a reference to this supernatural job interview.
In the cases of Paul and Barnabas, whilst they were ordained through the laying of human hands, this only occurred after the Holy Spirit had called them (Acts 13:1-3). In his defence of his apostolic ministry, Paul likewise makes it clear that the validity of his ministry is not dependent upon the commissioning of any human authority (Gal 1:1). Thus, all ordination does is provide human recognition to a choice already made by God – ordination does not make an apostle.
Professor Johnson emphasises this point:
“a person was called to it directly by Christ or his Spirit. It was not an office to which one was elected or humanly appointed. It was a function to which one was divinely called. The church could extend its recognition of that calling, but its reception did not depend upon such recognition and normally preceded it.”
Both the Old and New Testaments mention women selected by God to charismatic leadership. For apostles, there was Junia (a woman’s name); for prophets, we have Anna, Elizabeth, Mary and the four daughters of Phillip; and for evangelists, pastors and teachers, there was Phoebe, Priscilla, Euodia and Syntyche.
Interestingly, in Acts 18:26 and Rom 16:3 it has Priscilla involved in teaching men – contrary to the often-cited proof text in 1 Tim 2:12!
So what the SDA GC votes on the issue is neither here nor there ultimately. God chooses who he chooses, regardless of what President Wilson, the GC or any other person thinks. Paul would still have been the apostle to the Gentiles even if the other apostles didn’t recognise him – and it seems not all did!
Elders
By contrast to spiritual leadership, the Bible also speaks of temporal administrative leadership. The New Testament has several passages that mention the title presbyteros, literally meaning ‘elder’, which is used interchangeably with the word episkopos, literally meaning ‘overseer’. Whereas apostles are called by God according to hidden criteria (think how unsuitable Saul-Paul seemed), elders and deacons are appointed by human beings according very visible standards of public reputation and family circumstance.
Professor Johnson argues that the Seven mentioned in Acts were actually the first elders (not first deacons per Catholic tradition). He notes how they were selected compared with say the appointed of Matthais or Paul as apostles:
“They brought the Seven before the apostles, and having prayed they laid their hands upon them. This was the beginning of the appointive ministry, leaders selected by the people and given authority by the laying on of hands… First it should be noted that the laying on of hands did not bestow a spiritual gift… Second, they were chosen by their peers, apparently elected in some fashion. Third, their office was created for pragmatic reasons, to fill a need.”
Unlike apostles, Paul implies elders must reach a certain level of age and maturity, being the husband of one wife, self-controlled, upright, holy, disciplined and with obedient children. However, it is crucial to understand that not every apostle needed to be an elder or every elder an apostle. For example, in 1 Tim 4, Paul calls the young apostle Timothy a ‘minister’ and actively encourages him to command, to teach, to preach, to prophesy but also not to ‘let anyone look down on you because you are young’. Timothy’s ordination incidentally seems to be mentioned in vs 14. Nonetheless, as a young man, he would not have satisfied Paul’s requirements for eldership.
Paul himself seems to have been a new convert, persecutor of the faith, a single, celibate and childless man. He similarly would have failed the prerequisites for eldership.
So most of the discussions about the well-worn proof texts are irrelevant, because even adopting the conservative viewpoint, they only apply to elders – not to apostle-missionaries!
Ellen White
Finally, we need go no further than the bastion of conservative counsel itself – SOP. Ellen White made it very clear that women could be engaged in missionary (literally apostolic) ministry:
Ellen White made it very clear that women could be engaged in missionary (literally apostolic) ministry:
Missionary work—introducing our publications into families, conversing, and praying with and for them—is a good work and one which will educate men and women to do pastoral labor.’ (Testimonies, 4:390.)
Mrs White also made it clear that this missionary-apostolic ministry included pastoral work:
‘It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.’ (Testimonies, 6:322, 321-322)
Mrs White also makes clear that women engaged in such ministry are entitled to be paid from the tithe, just as any male minister:
‘…the tithe should go to those who labor in word and doctrine, be they men or women.’ (Manuscript Releases, 1:263.)
Finally, and very relevant to the issue of female ordination, Sister White also made it clear that these women in missionary-apostolic ministry could be effectively ordained through the biblical rite of laying on of hands:
‘Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands.’ (Review and Herald, 9 July 1895)
Conclusion
So in conclusion, I find much of the current discussion on both ‘sides’ of this debate pointless and irrelevant. I say that because in most case both ‘sides’ fail to distinguish elders from apostles.
I do finish by observing that in 1833, Lutheran Pastor Theodor Fliedner of Kaiserswerth, Germany, revived the deaconess movement – forgotten for over a thousand years. Despite deaconess being a biblical office, the Council of Orange in 441 revoked female ordination. To put this in perspective, the Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church only reinstituted the female deaconate in 2004. If something as biblical as the office of deaconess could be forgotten for sixteen hundred years, how many other ancient truths are yet to be rediscovered – or do we still unwittingly follow Rome?
Do Adventists no longer stand for present truth and progressive revelation? Perhaps we have ossified under the weight of Catholic tradition, putting culture before the Bible?
"For those who have an understanding of the times, like the sons of Issacher, they will clearly see that this is the path that dedicated Christians should follow." Webster
This is the key to the debate: We must follow what the world is doing under the influence of the feminist agenda — ordain women!
WO is totally unrelated to any Scriptural injunction no matter how broadly interpreted. It is a concoction of the time in which we live and nothing more.
Again, WO of what exactly? I agree there is a lack of clear authority for the ordination of women elders. However, there IS clear authority, both in the Bible, in SOP and in the example of the Early Church and SDA Pioneers, for ordaining women apostles (lit. missionaries). Do you dispute this?
There no clear athority in the Bible or SOP for ordaining women as ministers…. "Those who stand in the sacred desk should be MEN of blamless reputation. 5T page 598, The PRIMARY object of our college was to afford young MEN an opportunity to study for the ministry and to prepare young persons of both sexes to become workers in the various branches of the cause. 5T 60
1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12.
What do we mean by ministers? Do we meant elders-bishops or clergy-apostles?
Truth Seeker, when I mentioned "understanding the times" I was not referring to "what the world is doing under the influence of the feminist agenda" but to what the Holy Spirit is doing in many Seventh-day Adventist churches around the world in fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32
Since circumcision was brought up in the blog and in a number of comments that followed, one has to take note of the fact that some consider this as being similar to the W/O issue. However, W/O, just like bizarre horrific female circumcision, is not taught in the bible. Only males were circumcised. The circumcision of males was abrogated at the cross when the New Covenant was ushered in by Christ. This was an integral part of the ceremonial law and has very little, if not, nothing at all to do with W/O. The fact remains that Jesus purposefully chose twelve men. This act of his is very significant, in that, it is one that keeps in full harmony with scripture. Secondly, in so doing, he established continuity, in which he emphasized the distinct roles of both men and women, as individuals, in the family unit and in the Christian church.
'The fact remains that Jesus purposefully chose twelve men.'
Trevor, if you're going to make this analogy, then make the full comparison please. Jesus purposefully chose 12 Jewish men. If you, in order to avoid being a hypocrite, suggest the SDA Church only ordain men of Jewish heritage, then I may just support you. Otherwise, this comparison is indeed on shaky grounds.
'…in so doing, he established continuity…'
What you have just described is the Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession. It is the fundamental basis upon which the RCs say they are the true and original church, because their bishops go back in continual succession in established continuity all the way back to Peter.
If one were to accept your argument of established continuity, that would simply make the SDA Church a false religion. The point is apostolic ministry was not always formed on the basis of established continuity.
Paul for one claimed no human authority for his ministry (Gal 1:1-2). Paul was not personally appointed an apostle by Jesus personally on earth, so he doesn't seem to fit the criteria of the 12 in established continuity you so strongly advocate. To accept your criteria, which is really a Papal argument, would also be to deny the authority of Paul as an apostle.
Yes and twelve foundations are named by God for the 12 Apostles Christ purposefully chose and the 12 gate are named after the tribes of Isreal this continuity has nothing to do with Roman Catholic doctrine.
Putting Mary as co-redemptress is not at all biblical just as the push for WO. By the way Steve how many of the EGW quotes when read in context deal with colporter (LE) work of women:)
Sorry I struggle to understand your reasoning here – could you possibly elaborate?
Are you suggesting Paul was not an apostle because he was not one of the 12 apostles founded by Jesus personally in 'established continuity'?
Bringing in RC doctrine about Mary has nothing to do with this topic. That is just a distraction. Not even the RCs claim Mary was an apostle.
No the RCs place her at even a higher level than an apostle to co-redemptress on the level as Christ.
Are there 13 gates?
So you're saying Paul wasn't an apostle then? Because unless one is a descendant from one of the original 12 in 'established continuity' one cannot be a 'true' Apostle? That is RC theology!
Trevor,
You are spot on in declaring that ordaining women to ministry as pastors in the Seventh-day Adventist church is unrelated to circumcision.
The issue of course is whether the decision making process by the church may or may not allow for the Holy Spirit in real time to trump historically-settled and scripturally-supported behavioral as well as organizational approaches, whether gender based or not. As it turns out, Acts 15 is the only scriptural record of such a corporate decision, and as such the method is perhaps more important than the topic under consideration.
And it has proven to be. Without Acts 15, Seventh-day Adventists would have been far less likely to have escaped having to scriptually perpetuate the established continuity of polygamy, slavery, stoning, genocide, concubinism, sacrificing of animals, a ministery that is defined by heredity, designation of leaders by prophets, and so on.
As for Jesus himself setting the future standard, let it be noted that he was circumcised and that meant nothing, and rightly so, to the church when it recognized that the Holy Spirit was ignoring scriptural demands day after day as gentiles joined Christian communities across the empire.
All4Him: 'Yes and twelve foundations are named by God for the 12 Apostles Christ purposefully chose and the 12 gate are named after the tribes of Isreal this continuity has nothing to do with Roman Catholic doctrine.'
Like Trevor you are conflating an important issue. Apostles literally = missionaries.
It is interesting to stress that the word ‘apostle’ comes from the Greek word apostolos, and literally means ‘to send forth’. In Latin, it is translated as missio, from where we obtain the English word ‘missionary’.
Jesus literally appointed 12 principal missionaries. Contrary to RC theology, the Bible and history shows these missionaries were different from elders. The Seven were probably the firts elders, and were appointed for administrative leadership of the Church because 'waiting on tables' was interferring with the core role of the missionary-apostle – spreading the Gospel.
We need to agree on what we are talking about here. Are we talking about WO of women missionaries or WO of women elders? They are not at all the same thing!
EGW does talk about the need for more medical missionaries more literature evangelist and many other positions for both men and women but not as shepherds of the flock (pastors) or elders. If Ellen White is read in context her writings do not contradict the Word of God on this issue!
Exactly they don't. As I have said for about the millionth time, there is no biblical basis to stop women being ordained as apsotles. Apostles are the spiritual leaders of the Church. Apostles do not usually sit in just one Church but travel around, ministering to a number of Churches as Paul did.
That is the NT model. That was also the model of the SDA Pioneers. Our paid professional 'clergy' were missionaries who travelled around in apostolic ministry. Both the NT and SDA Pioneer period included women in this work. Prinscilla and Junia come to mind for the NT period, and Ellen White herself for the SDA Pioneer period.
The idea of 'pastors' ministering just to one Church is not really the biblical model, nor is it the model of the SDA Pioneer. It is the RC model! The NT and SDA Pioneer models have local churches headed by elders.
This whole debate about WO is riddiculous unless we can graps that Elders do not = Apostles.
Both the NT and SOP confirms women can be in full time, professional, paid, ordained ministry as apostles-ministers. Women ministers can and should be commissioned through the laying of hands to give spiritual guidance to a number of Churches, and establishing new Churches. That is what the spiritual gift of apostleship is all about.
If one wants to say the particular elders leading a particular church have to be men only, then I am willing to support you. That seems to be the best way forward. It is also the way that best conforms with scripture and SOP.
Anything else is simply following culture and Rome! I am not ashamed of the Gospel, and will not be an unwilling servant of the Bishop of Rome. Will you?
Act 6 is NOT the RC model !
Act 6 is the model for selecting administrative leaders of the Church.
Act 6 is not the model for selecting apostles.
Simply compare how Matthais was selected as the new apostle in Acts 1:25,26 with the appointed of the 7 elders-deacons in Acts 6:3. The first, by lots; the second, by election.
You are CONFUSING Acts 1:25,26 re apostles with Acts 6:3 re elders-deacons!
To say apostles are appointed by the method in Acts 6:3 is indeed RC theology!
And may I add even conference presidents…. "Make careful Selection of Men— The Men who act as presidents of State conferences should be carefully selected…" Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers 322
Great Care in Choosing Men— Great care should be exercied in choosing men to occupy positions of responsibility as guardians of the churches — RH November 14 1907
Choose WIse Men— For years the Lord has been instructing us to choose wise men..…This is in accordance with the BIBLE PLAN AS OUTLINED INTHE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ACTS. We need to study this plan; FOR IT IS APPROVED OF GOD, LET US FOLLOW THE WORD! RH Oct. 5, 1905
Great Care in Selecting Leaders–…. Labor of or Ministers, epecially those who have been appointed as presidents of conferences. Great care should be excercised in the selection of men for these positions of trust…… Gospel Workers 413
Gods Word is quite clear in the six chapter of Acts… Acts 6:3, Acts 6:5, Acts 6:6, Acts 6:8
You are still quite wrong All4Him – sorry.
The appointment of the 7 in Acts 6 is the selection of the first elders – the first appointed leaders. They were appointed precisely to take on the administrative leadership of the Church, because that work was interferring with the missionary work of the Apostles.
Compare the selection of the 7 in Acts 6 with that of Matthais who was chosen by lots to replace Judas as the new apostle. All the texts about the husband of one wife only apply to elders and deacons, who like the 7 are engaged in administrative leadership. Those proof texts do not apply to apostles, because apostles are chosen by God alone as the example of Matthais or Paul's own declaration in Gal 1:1 explains.
Those Ellen White quotes are again all about men in administrative leadership – like the 7. I am not advocating women in those roles. I am agreeing that the Church should possibly not have women conference presidents.
I am saying women should be entitled to what the NT and SOP demands. That is full recognition, including through ordination, of their ministry as apostles. Again, an apostle is literally a missionary – that is the very and literal meaning of the term.
How many did EGW baptize?
Where does the Bible say only ordained elders can baptise?
Even the RC Church believes any lay person can baptise another person. It is only by tradition or practical purposes (to ensure someone has had adequate training) that we have our clergy do the baptisms.
Technically the same goes for marriages. The need for a priest to offiate for weddings was not introduce I believe until somethhing like the 12th Century. The Bible certainly doesn't require a priest.
To use the example of Isaac and Rebecca, the negotiations don't even involve the lucky couple but rather their families. The first time the couple meet, they simply go and consumate the marriage – end of story. No formal wedding ceremony with a priest.
Not for example Acts 6:6:
'And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them.'
These seven men, appointed to administrative leadership of the Church, are clearly a different class of person in a different role from that of the apostles.
Then why is the push for ordination of woman pastors? Are they not leadership/shepherds of the flock? When EGW talks about men who have been shepherds of a family at home making good shepherds of the church there is a correlation don't you think? Are you talking about literature evangelist medical missionaries that are ordained? because this is not the case when it comes to pastors/elders who are leading the flocks.
There is meant to be a worldwide study of ordination – not WO – ordination more generally. Some Divisional study committee have quite rightly examined beyond the issue of WO.
I am trying to advocate the 'sensible average Adventist approach', which is to ask the most fundamental question of all – what roles are we exactly talking about here? The SDA Church used to in the days of its Pioneers have a very biblical model of leadership, which as primarily an evangelistic and outward looking movement considered its professional clergy missionaries. There are a whole host of difference missionaries – from the 'standandard' visit another country variety, to medical missionaries, to cole porters etc.
It was only in more recent years that we slowly adopted the RC model of leadership, which fused local elders with that of aposltes-missionaries. This was a mistake of the Early Church (after the bishops of the major cities destroyed the last apostles and stole their titles around 165 AD) and it was a mistake of the SDA Church to slowly become more and more like the Catholic Church.
Don't be fooled by the term 'pastor'. We adopted that term because as Protestants we didn't like terms used by RCs, even if they come from the Bible. Instead we should probably talk about 'clergy', which is again a reference to Matthais the replacement apostle who was chosen by lots – 'clergy' literally is Greek for 'chosen by lots'.
With great irony, the SDA Church in China (who is outside GC control) seems to be the one with the most biblical model. It has women clergy in spiritual leadership but older male 'uncles' in adminstrative leadership.
I am advocating a 'third way' in this debate, neither liberal nor conservative, that looks something like the SDA Chinese model.
Another way of saying this is:
Clergy (lit. Greek chosen by lots) does NOT = Bishops (lit. Greek of shephers, oversees and elders)
It was the RCs that fused the two roles of clergy and bishops together at the supression of the Montanus Revival in 165 AD.
Thank you, Steve, for your patient and incisive skewering of the Biblcal anti-WO arguments. Your comments are long, but very worthwhile and important reading.
Sorry I tend to be verbose. I type quickly and to quote Voltaire, 'Sorry for the length of the letter, but I didn't have time to write you a shorter one.'
As one who tends to be extremely loquacious, I know the feeling. Your verbosity is filled with substance. Less would be parsimonious. Love the Voltaire quote!
I would like to add another interesting dimension to the discussion of fully recognizing women pastors. Just for a moment let us lay aside the Biblical arguments for and against ordaining women. I would like to ask the simple question as to whether we are Christian or not in our handling of women who complete a Theology course.
For as long as I can remember women were allowed to take the normal 4-year Theology course offered in our Colleges and Universities around the world. When I was lecturing at Helderberg College, South Africa in the 1970s there were women who took the course and graduated.
Likewise for many years women have also been allowed to take the Theology courses at the Adventist Seminary along with the men.
Some of these women are convicted by the Holy Spirit during their studies that they should go into fulltime gospel ministry. Is it Christian for us to allow them to take these courses and then at the end of the road to say to them, "I am afraid you will not be able to go all the way in the ministry. Because you are a woman you will not be fully recognized. The church will not pray for you and set you aside to fulltime evangelism or fulltime pastoral ministry. You will not receive a ministerial credential."
What would we think of a medical school which allowed women to complete the medical course along with the men and then at the end of the road say to these women: "You have finished the course, but unfortunately we cannot give you a full medical certificate. You cannot practise as a full-fledged doctor. You will receive a diploma and we invite you to give health lectures and guidance to families in churches and communities."
Or what about women who take the same legal course as men but when they come to the end they are told: "You cannot be a fullfledged lawyer; you cannot practise in a court – but you are welcome to give talks to families in churches and communities regarding legal guidance."
My question is simply this: "Forget the Bible arguments pro and con for the moment and ask yourself, "Is it Christian to open the door for these women and after spending thousands of dollars, years of training, and days of responding to the call of God, then to tell them that the door is closed to fulltime evangelism or pastoral ministry. Unlike the men, you will not receive ministerial credentials."
I personally feel that we have not been Christian in our handling of this issue. Perhaps often we have done this unintentionally and God judges us by the light we have. But it might be the time now when God says to many of us, "The times of your ignorance I will overlook but now God commands men and women everywhere to repent."
Either we continue to encourage women to take the Theology course with men if they are so called and once they have fully qualified they be given the same opportunities as the men to advance as far as any man can. Of course the same criteria will be used along the way to determine the suitability of each intern to receive full credentials or not.
If we choose not to take this course it would be best to close all doors for women to take the normal Theology course at any College, University or Andrews Seminary. We might have to encourage an Adventist Taliban movement.
Eric Webster
'What would we think of a medical school which allowed women to complete the medical course along with the men and then at the end of the road say to these women: "You have finished the course, but unfortunately we cannot give you a full medical certificate. You cannot practise as a full-fledged doctor. You will receive a diploma and we invite you to give health lectures and guidance to families in churches and communities."'
Eric very good point. However, I think that rationale applies even wider still.
I know that many of our colleges and universities are happy to take in students to study theology, but when the course is over only have spots for a few of them. I know of some pretty bad corhorts in Australia here recently, where only something like 10-20% of students were picked up by the Church.
To me that situation just stinks and is highly unethical on the part of the Church. I don't buy arguments that 'the academic institution is different from the conferences who make the decision to employ'. If that is the case I suggest the senior level leaders of our Church pull their fingers out and work more closely together.
I have two friends who completed theology in the last few years and had to go through this. One of the fellow's wives was exceptionally angry about it all. Another of my friends was a female graduate, who after spending 100K on a theological education, was confronted with the question – what was it all for?
In other organisations, like most military colleges of the world (where I am more familiar with), they too have a 'funnel system' where most people drop out along the way. However, everyone who finishes the course gets a guaranteed job – and there is the same tension between the military colleges and the regiments who employ the new young officers. That is because the ethos of the military is that it isn't just a job – it's a vocation.
How the SDA Church treats its theology graduates just stinks. It could learn something from the military here. Sorry, whilst this situation has never happened to me or anything, I have seen a few young people recently go through all this heartache because of the Church's failures borne out either from its lack of ethics, or its sheer incompetence!
The Church effectively says today, "You say you have a calling from the Holy Spirit, and we were happy to pretend you had one whilst we were taking your money for 4 or 5 years, but at the end of the day, it's just a job, and you don't have one – good luck with your life with a college degree that is of little in the outside world."
Steve, thanks for pointing out the same problem often facing male theology graduates who complete the course. I suppose it is difficult to always find a place for every graduate. What also complicates the issue is that it is often hard to tell at the commencement of the course as to who will eventually do well or not in the ministry. The challenge might just be a little more difficult for women graduates for a variety of reasons.
Dear Mr Ferguson
The continuity I mentioned in my post above was specifically related to the distinct roles of 'men and women' and not as you have read it in terms of 'apostolic succession.' This has nothing to do with RC beliefs. 'Sides, I didn't even mention apostles. I was merely looking at it in terms of the twelve diciples whom Jesus chose when he decided to choose them. All I am saying is that Jesus could have easily chosen at least a few women in order to set a precedent. We all know that there is no sufficient biblical grounds supporting W/O and that this is largely a cultural/political secular trend being forced upon the church. The sentiments and intentions of women rights activists is respected and acknowledged and does have an important place in protecting women’s rights, suffrage, etc, however, that should remain in the public domain of secular society. The church should not bow down to the whims and dictates of secular society whenever there is a hoo-hah. The norms of a secular society is to a large extent one which stands diametrically opposed to Christian belief. The separation of church and state should remain intact and serve to maintain the status quo. Finding biblical reasons for W/O makes it a doctrinal issue which only the GC has authority to decide on this matter. The position of the world church as represented by the GC has to be respected and accepted as authoritative. The fact that Union Conferences have hastily acted based on a technicality serving as a loophole only proves that their case is very weak indeed.
"in so doing, he established continuity, in which he emphasized the distinct roles of both men and women,"
'All I am saying is that Jesus could have easily chosen at least a few women in order to set a precedent.'
One could just as easily say Jesus could have easily chosen at least a few non-Jews in order to set a precedent, or some slaves. And yet he didn't – He chose Jewish, free men.
You are using silence as an argument, which is dangerous. That is just like those who say the Sabbath was done away with in the NT because it is not explicitly re-affirmed. The same could be said of the 2nd commandment, as the NT is silent in prohibiting the making of graven images.
'We all know that there is no sufficient biblical grounds supporting W/O…'
Again, for the 1.1 millionth time, it depends on WO of what exactly?
Clergy (lit. Greek chosen by lots, or apostles, lit. missionaries) does NOT = Bishops (lit. Greek of shephers, oversees and elders)
There is ample evidence, in both the Bible and SOP that there are no barriers at all as to the ministry of clergy. The only barriers are for the ministry of bishops.
'…and that this is largely a cultural/political secular trend being forced upon the church.'
I agree cultural/political secular forces are probably influencing this debate. But that is not proof either here nor there. What matters is the Bible.
It was cultural/political secular forces that also influenced the abolition movement. And yet Christians took those cultural/political secular forces and used them for further reformation action towards the spirit of the Gospel, even though both the OT and NT technically allow slavery.
Our SDA Pioneers were proud parts of that abolitionist movement. The same can also be said of the Prohibition Movement in the US, which was again largely influenced by cultural/political secular forces.
But as to culture, this whole debate is indeed cultural/political. The word 'ordination' itself is not found in the Bible, but is a secular term from the Roman Empire to describe ascending one of the three orders – commoner; equestrian; and senator. This secular term was co-opted by the RC and we are heirs of Rome in using that term.
The melding of the offices of apostles with bishops after the supression of the Montanist Revival is also an example of Papal influence. Without you realising it or not, you are an unwilling following of Rome! Your denial is no different from those Protestant Churches who claim Sunday keeping is not bound up in Roman Catholic tradition, when of course it is.
'The church should not bow down to the whims and dictates of secular society whenever there is a hoo-hah.'
Yes and no. It is embarassing when secular society is uplifting the principles of the Gospel better than we are. One could talk about secular persons who were abolitionists of the slave trade, when Christians instead fought to preserve the enslavement of their fellow man citing the principle of Ham's curse.
But again, it is you and those who oppose the ordination of women clergy (note I did not say I support the ordination of women elders) who are followers of Rome. You are still trapped in the system of the Papacy and the Reformation by God's remnant people needs to continue.
'The separation of church and state should remain intact and serve to maintain the status quo. '
The Reformation did not end in Ellen White's day! You are instead seeking to rely on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, where the bishops in 165 destroyed the last apostles (1 man and 2 women) and subsumed their titles in the supression of the Montanus Revival.
'Finding biblical reasons for W/O makes it a doctrinal issue which only the GC has authority to decide on this matter.'
What do you mean by 'authority'. I thought SDAs had no authority other than Jesus Christ, and no creed other than the Bible? Maybe you are confusing us with the Holy See and the Bishop of Rome?
'The position of the world church as represented by the GC has to be respected and accepted as authoritative.'
What will you do if the GC allows certain divisions to ordain women clergy, as they should? Will you accept that decision as authoritative?
'The fact that Union Conferences have hastily acted based on a technicality serving as a loophole only proves that their case is very weak indeed.'
That's an issue of Church Governance, which I don't really care to comment about. My focus is on whether the ordination of women clergy-apostles-missionaries is supported by the Bible and SOP. It clearly is – end of story. The prohibitions on gender only at best apply to bishop-elders.
Steve said…. My focus is on whether the ordination of women clergy-apostles-missnaries is supported by the bible and SOP???
It clearly IS NOT if you read the Bible and the SOP in context rather then twisting out what you call evidence. Take a visit to a couple of sites and you will see that many women and well as men disagree with your conclusions. re: over 8500 women and men who have signed the Christ or Culture petition?
Another website was started long before this one was to have over 10,000 signatures, even had over 1000 the first month…yet the One in Christ website after many months just now made it over 2000?
You need employment for the many theology graduates? How about literture evangelism? We as a church need to support that field much more then we do. Pay them well. And it goes right along with the EGW quotes you made (which were taken out of the chapters on canvassing work!) Let the shaking and sifting begin.
Is God influenced by voting? Is God convinced of your website petition? Is that the basis for the SDA Church to determine future theological issues?
There are over a billion Roman Catholics and only 22 million Seventh-day Adventists, so do greater numbers make the RCs right and we Adventists wrong? Hardly, I follow the Bible. You instead rather keep drumming up Papal arguments based on Roman Catholic tradition.
You keep bringup up these RC-like arguments based on tradition because you can't debate the issue from the Bible, as a Protestant truly committed to ongoing Reformation should. I'm not affraid of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The irony of those who signed the petition against WO on the Christ or Culture website is that they don't know what they are opposing. Are they against the ordination of women clergy-apostle-missionaries or against the ordination of women elders-bishops? I suspect that they are as confused as you.
The other irony of the website title 'Chirst or Culture' is that they are indeed following culture and not Christ – the culture found in Pagan Rome and Papal Rome. Even the term 'ordination' derives from Pagan Rome, from the 'ordios' of the equestrian and senatorial orders.
As for employing theology graduates, I don't personally need anything. As for literature evangelists, I am not sure and hopefully you are right. All types of 'missionary' (i.e. lit. apostles or clergy) ministry deserve our support, and both men and women in apostolic ministry deserve our moral, financial and spiritual support.
Perhaps our paid 'pastors' in our local churches should get out of the local church pew and into the field. Again, that is what an apostle is as contemplated by being a member of the clergy – a missionary. For too long our paid full-time ministers have been paid for doing the worked of elder-bishops.
Perhaps if our 'pastors' understood they were actually apostle-missionaries and not elder-bishops they would better get out, fulfill their mandates, and bring Christ's return sooner! Instead, we have these riddiculous debates about who gets to be the greatest in the Kingdom whilst the work remains undone.
You bring up the Pagans who in Christ time had women in religous leadership it's ironic how you keep saying we are following culture LOL. You seem to have a problem with "ordination" well call it what you what but it's MEN who's Godly role since creation is to Shepherd their family's and be the Spiritual leaders. The minute you can give birth Stephen and suckle a child I will agree that the roles have been changed.
The values that Mothers give there well raised children is priceless.
I do totally agree that we ought to support our literature evangelist should be better compensated for the work they do. If only pastors would look at there position as a calling not a career.
Steve, I agree with you fully that getting up mass petitions is not the way the Holy Spirit works. It is the way of the world. These issues are decided calmly and in a spirit of prayer. "Come, let us reason together, says the Lord."
Thanks yes indeed. The true irony of this supposed petition on 'Christ or Culture' is the petition itself is the height of worldy culture.
Isaiah 5:20
Was it Mr/Mrs/Ms AllFourHim who asked how many people EGW baptised? What an interesting question! Does anyone know whether that was ever brought up before? Did anyone ever ask her to do it? When? and under what conditions? It is clear that EGW had SDA ministerial credentials. The photographs of them were pubished in a recent issue of Adventist Today. I hope that even Mr/Mrs/Ms AllFourHim would agree that she did.
Dear Dr Taylor
Are you referring to speculation that Mrs Ellen White was ordained? If she was, then perhaps you can enlighten us on 1] who ordained her and 2] when she was ordained. Perhaps you may have a picture or two of such an important event as her ordination. I'm sure the Review and Herald at least would have published a cover page article on such an event as this, if indeed it did occur.
1. First, who says she needed to be 'ordained'. The word 'ordain', as discussed previously, is actually a word derived from Pagan Rome, which the Roman Catholic Church co-opted.
2. Second, who says a spiritual leader, of an apostle-missionary-clergy, has to be ordained? They are chosen by God directly according to spiritual gifts. That is the meaning behind the word 'clergy' which lit means in Greek 'chosen by lots', alluding to Mathais' selection. Paul makes a similar point about his apostolic ministry in Gal 1:1, that it needed no human recognition. It is rather only appointed leader, of a deacon-elder-bishop that has to be 'ordained'. Simply compare the selection processes of Matthais in Acts 1 with the appointment of the Seven deacon-elders in Acts 6.
3. An apostle-missionary-clergy can be recognised by the Church. Paul and Barnabas were in the Spirit, and attained spiritual gifts. Their local church then commissioned them through the rite of laying on of hands – what today we call 'ordain'. However, it is important to stress ordination happened after the selection by God. Even if the Church does not recognise the apostle's credentials, that does not invalidate their role, as Paul himself makes clear in Gal 1:1.
4. SOP makes clear that women can undergo the 'ordination' rite of laying on of hands if they are about to undertake a spiritual leadership role as a missionary (again remembering a missionary is literally an apostle or clergy). Sister White says:
Ellen White made it very clear that women could be engaged in missionary (literally apostolic) ministry:
Missionary work—introducing our publications into families, conversing, and praying with and for them—is a good work and one which will educate men and women to do pastoral labor.’ (Testimonies, 4:390.)
‘It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.’ (Testimonies, 6:322, 321-322)
‘…the tithe should go to those who labor in word and doctrine, be they men or women.’ (Manuscript Releases, 1:263.)
Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands.’ (Review and Herald, 9 July 1895)
Steve if you read SOP in context Like you should the Bible in context you would have less pretext!
How do you say I am not reading the Bible in context? I think I am. Rather, I believe there is much current confusion on both 'sides' of this debate, in failing to distinquish apostles-missionaries-clergy from elders-bishops seems to cause of much of the underlying problem here.
Again, I am willing to uphold restrictions on women in certain roles. However, it is precisely because I do read the Bible in context, that I appreciate those gender restrictions only apply to elders-bishops and not apostles-missionaries-clergy.
Dear Mr Ferguson
You say:"It is embarassing when secular society is uplifting the principles of the Gospel better than we are."
——-
I don't see the principles of the gospel being uplifted in a secular society that thrives on economic opression and slavery. In fact Jesus asked the rich young ruler to sell all he had and give to the poor. That gospel, I’m afraid, isn’t quite a popular one especially in a capitalist society where selfishness and greed is the order of the day. If you mean the practice and promotion of humanist ideals or of humanism in terms of moral relativism within the context of a permissive culture then that too, by default, will give the gospel of Jesus Christ the boot. That’s in fact why Jesus died: he died to save man from his own worst enemy – man himself. Anything, even those things done with good intentions and warm fuzzy feelings, yet intentionally leave out Christ, simply isn’t the gospel. These may seem to be very noble ideals at times but they do not uplift the principles of the gospel of Christ. The gospel of Jesus Christ primarily saves. The name Jesus means Saviour as we all know.
A permissive culture will always openly disrespect God and his law. When they legalise pornography, dagga, sexual immorality in all its forms, and let evolution lies be taught in schools as being the truth about our origins, when they accept homosexual marriage as a norm, abortion as the cherry on the top of women's rights, and the tolerance of prostitution, with women belittled by promoting them as mere sex objects, when capitalist greed and economic slavery and whimsical wars all around the planet become everyday occurrences – then that I would say can hardly be called the gospel.
Spying on government world leaders, the orchestrated crashing of the world's economy and the secular indoctrination of society right from childhood through the institutions and systems run by permissive secularist powers isn't the gospel either sir.
The gospel on the other hand does not break down the family unit and does not condone the marriage of homosexuals. Nor does it break the ties that complement the male female bond of marriage and the oneness it symbolizes and embodies without in any way seeking to erode distinct roles of both men and women in marriage, the Christian home and in the Christian Church.
Yes, I would accede to a GC decision on this matter, even if I disagree with it, however, it would be rather unusual for them to grant W/O to Union Conferences on a ‘do as you please basis.’ That would be irresponsible for the world church body to support something not proven to be conclusively in harmony with scripture and one based solely on cultural moods. That would give way for every other ism (besides Adventism) to find its way into the church.
By the way, my dog in this fight is focused mainly on who and how this has played out. Driven by a special interest group agenda and heavily swayed by socio-political trends, the undeniable open disregard, coerciveness and disrespect by proponents of W/O towards 1] the world church body, 2] the leadership of the GC and 3] President Ted Wilson speaks for itself thereby revealing the true nature of this sort of social activism. And (to me) that ain’t good news sir… that ain’t the gospel.
My fight in this is to follow the Bible. Pitty you can't debate the issue from it but instead always have to keep falling back to arguments from politics, culture and tradition.
I wonder if Mr. Hammond would enlighten the rest of us as to where and how the Gospel (the "good news") "does not condone the marriage of homosexuals." I guess I must have a different New Testament. Perhaps Mr. Hammond has a special edition of it. I can't find any text about the marriage of homosexuals in my New Testament.
Dear Dr Taylor
That's because homosexual behaviour in the context of marriage is a perversion and falls under the confines of sexual immorality in terms of it being directly related to fornication. You don't find texts about homosexual marriage sir because homosexual behaviour doesn't fall into the normal context of marriage which only occurs between a man and women. Anything outside of this is fornication.
The NT doesn't mention paedophiles either, but the moral principles revealed in scripture implicitly calls for us to distance ourselves from all forms of sexually immoral behaviour, including that of homosexual and paedophile behaviour. Would you support the right of paedophiles who claim they are born this way to marry children? I think the NT is clear on sexual immorality in all its forms and that would include the marriage of homosexuals, even if practiced legally in a civil relationship. It remains a perversion. In fact the bible calls this practice an abomination.
When the rebel Union Conferences decided to disregard the GC and have their own way then I'm afraid the die has been cast. They jumped the gun and in so doing set a precedent for unruly special interest groups to railroad their cultural whims and fancies on the church. This sort of rabble rousing which accuses the church of 'gender discrimination' is irresponsible and reeks of insubordination and even apostasy to a certain extent. It comes as no surprise that this issue came to the forefront just at the onset of the worldwide city evangelism program which started in New York City, thereby revealing the destructive mindset that drives such activism even at the risk of marring our work as a church. Women in Adventism and Christianity as a whole aren't oppressed in any form of slavery or treated badly in any way – and that is a fact. Making claims of gender discrimination is tantamount to accusing Jesus of doing the same when he chose twelve men.
'When the rebel Union Conferences decided to disregard the GC and have their own way then I'm afraid the die has been cast. They jumped the gun and in so doing set a precedent for unruly special interest groups to railroad their cultural whims and fancies on the church.'
I love all this talk of 'rebel' and 'special interest' groups.
Isn't it the ultra-conservatives of Adventism who principally have all the 'rebel' and 'special interest groups' of all the various independent ministries? There is: The Standish Brothers and Hartland College, Walter Veith, Samuel Pippin, 3ABN, Generation of Youth for Christ etc etc.
'Women in Adventism and Christianity as a whole aren't oppressed in any form of slavery or treated badly in any way – and that is a fact.'
"We do not show the Negro how to overcome segregation, but we teach him how to accept it as final and just." – Carter G. Woodson
"Segregation was wrong when it was forced by white people, and I believe it is still wrong when it is requested by black people." – Coretta Scott King
May I suggest that we should thank Trevor Hammond [22oct1844] being so forthright in his presentation of the views of the ultra-conservative right wing of Adventism. I have found so many of these individuals will not express clearly their true opinions because they realize that when they do so, the precise nature of their positions will be better understood by more moderate individuals in the church and there will be a more accurate realization of the true nature of the Adventist ultra-conservative mind set.
Trevor Hammond or All4Him,
May I kindly ask one of you to help me clarify an issue. Am I correct that you believe that only men should be elected to the office of elder in the local church? You are clear that Paul upholds this as a
fixed standard for all time? What about the question of deaconesses? Doesn't Paul only speak of male elders and male deacons? He says elders should be "the husband of one wife" (1 Tim. 3:2) and likewise he says of deacons, "Let deacons be the husbands of one wife" (1 Tim. 3:12). Do you believe we are right in appointing lady deacons?
Eric Webster
Dr. Eric Webster have you heard the term/definition of elderesses? Try wordnik… Yes I believe Titus 1:5 and Titus 1:6 are still in effect as well as Titus 2:3 and Titus 2:4. As far as deaconesses sandwiched between 1 Timothy 3:10 and 1 Timothy 3:11 is the test 1 Timothy 3:10…. There were women deaconesses in Ellen Whites ministry. Again the postition that women are desiring is being overseerers/shepherds a God given role/responsibility to men to love and protect families and churches.
I ment between 1 Timothy 3:10 and 1 Timothy 3:12
Perhaps I need to repeat Mhanna's very good reasoning:
With regard to the masculine word elders, it is sometimes used generically to include women. For example, “the elders [who] obtained a good testimony” (Heb 11:2) include Sarah (11:11), Rahab (11:31), and other women (11:35).
Also, Paul explicitly refers to male and female elders. 1 Tim 5:1-2–"Do not rebuke a male elder, but exhort him as a father . . . [and] female elders as mothers." Tit 2:1-3–"1 But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: 2 that the male elders be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the elder women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things."
But in any event, even if elders-bishops are all men – what about apostles-missionaries-clergy? You still have no Thus Saith the Lord prohibiting them from being women – despite this long discussion.
Mother? Boy that is sounding a little RC now Stephen…. And do we still have any Thus Saith the Lord exhorting them to be women-despite this long discussion yet have many examples of Males
All4Him, thank you for your response regarding deaconesses. I have read Titus 2:1-5 and as far as I can see the passage is not speaking about official church 'elders' or 'deaconesses'. The passage is giving counsel on the behaviour of all the older men in the church and also the older women and the young women. It is not talking about church officers as such but about all the members. If you see these older women as 'deaconesses', I could see them equally as 'elderesses'. If on the basis of these texts the church has decided to appoint lady deacons to serve the interests of the women, these texts could just as easily support the appointment of women elders (afterall they are spoken of as older women which would fit the concept of elders) to serve the growing intersts of women in the church.
Likewise 1 Tim. 3:10-12 also has nothing to say about 'deaconesses'. The passage is talking about the qualifications of deacons and verse 11 simply describes the qualities of the wives of these married deacons. There is no official scriptural recognition of these wives as deacons or as some new office of deaconess. Paul is clear that for both deacons and elders they should be 'the husbands of one wife". Paul gives no clear santion for either women deacons or women elders; he only knows of male elders and male deacons.
It would seem to me that women deacons have grown after the time of the New Testament and in the later history of the church as needs were seen. In a similar way the church can decide to appoint women elders as the need arises. Both the appointment of women deacons and women elders can arise as the church is led that way by the Holy Spirit despite no scriptural mandate for either; but neither being out of harmony with the spirit of the New Testament. In a similar way many church officers have been added to the church down through the years of which there is no example in scripture.
Dr. Webster
Titus 2:2 and Titus 2:3 is tied together and He uses the word "reverent in their behavior" and does command them to teach thier children and the younger women. It says nothing about shepherding thier husbands or other men.
Deaconess serve in different capacity and for the most part are not up on the roof replacing shingles likewise I have seen very few men folding the cloth at communion services.
Women stopped being this help mate when we, Men, chose to worship women before God. And women themselves wanted to go from created like man to be like God. And men and women are not helpers but, complete the body of Christ together.
Before the blood of menstruating woman, the birthing canal of the pregnant woman, the assumed position of the sexualized woman, the lowly stare of the subservient woman and the breast of nursing woman- was that there was. It was bloody, tribal, defined by sex, and by Mosaic Law. And before, man was the circumcised heir of Issac, Jacob and Judah.
Now Christ is the blood and circumcised, we are united SPIRITUALLY. The blood is dead, the bleeding woman is healed and no longer a mere woman. The law is meant to kill us. The circumcised man is now circumcised by heart through grace of God.
Both men and women no longer have unclean bleeding. Both men and women are circumcised in their hearts- THIS IS SPIRIT WON BY CHRIST. The body is dead, gender is dead, and the Law is still alive but meant to kill.
The Spirit lives, and the Spirit is our only salvation.
RE: "Isn't it the ultra-conservatives of Adventism who principally have all the 'rebel' and 'special interest groups' of all the various independent ministries?"
————–
No. That is not the case. It is those who compromise our beliefs and church standards that will most likely display renegade rebellious behaviour as opposed to those who come into line with our Fundamental Beliefs.
Would you say that Jesus was ultra-conservative when he chose twelve men? Jewish men at that – as you are keen to stress – but men nonetheless.
Like I've said before and I'll say it again for the umpteenth time, the only reason why there is what you call 'ultra-conservative' is because the religious left has moved so far to the extreme left that anything to the right, (which hasn't moved at all), is deemed conservative in one way or another including those considered ultra-conservative. It is the ultra-liberals that are stretching the divide to the left in order to accomodate their cultural, social and political special interests as per their regular dose of secular indoctrination and manipulation.
Much of what conservative Adventism believes is embodied in our well articulated 28 Fundamental Beliefs which are biblically sound and provide a comphrehensive statement of our faith and beliefs which in turn define our doctrinal positions rather clearly. These bible based beliefs are not extremist in any way and this is where I stand. And if that is what is considered 'ultra-whatever' then so be it.
Let's take Dr Walter Veith (for example) whom you mention in your list of ultra-conservatives: Please show how he in your opinion would be considered an ultra-conservative. What extremist beliefs does he hold that isn't found within the parameters of our 28 Fundamental Beliefs or perhaps that which is not in line with the Great Controversy narrative?
Where does it mention prohibiting WO in our 28 FBs? Doesn't in fact FB #14 support WO?
See one of my own blogs which has an article on Walter Veith:
http://sevytalibancults.blogspot.com.au/
Is being a 'professional antisemite' (according to the Anti-Defamation League) consistent with the SDA FBs? Or perhaps his bizarre teachings about 9/11, Freemasons and the moon landing?
Perhaps you're reading a different form of the 28 FBs than me? One is also reminded of Sister White’s warning about such fanaticism:
Dear Mr Ferguson
The ostensible claims made against Walter Veith which falsely accuse him of making anti-semetic remarks came from his antagonists within the Adventist church in Germany who wrested what he said out of context. These types of articles are mere slanderous cheap gossip without any real substance. It is liberal extremists who make false accusations at Dr Veith and who also falsely accuse the church of gender discrimination like they're currently doing with WO. Calling him a 'professional antisemite' is clearly an indication of desperation used in order to discredit him and such ad hominem tactics only expose the malicious ulterior motives of his detractors.
9/11 was a bizarre event indeed to many of us. There are so many unanswered questions. A lot did happen during this time and many have said much about this horrid event but why should he be singled out for having his take on it. The fact that Freemasonary does exist as a secret society and there is no doubt that it has great influence over economics, politics and society as a whole does make for good discussion especially concerning end-time events. The moon landing you mention in all probability was also wrested out of context yet again. You yourself have made some suggestions regarding your new doctrine about having different perceived creation times and some time warp stuff which you say may have been possible. A literal seven day creation week with a time warp of millions of god-time years – or something to that effect. So why shouldn't Dr Veith not also speak his mind? Liberals go around saying that there was death before sin in keeping with their evolutionist beliefs and thereby place their faith in such bizarre theories and concepts. Why should those who hold conservative traditional positions not be heard? I won't be surprised if these same Conferences in Germany who ratted on Dr Veith and falsely accused him of anti-semetism are the same Conferences who have openly disrespected the GC and voted in favour of WO.
Your EGW quote is a good example sir of how to wrest something out of context in order to discredit someone like Dr Veith. This quote if I can recall correctly concerns one of the unfortunate consequences of the Reformation when those claiming support of the reformation found an excuse to attack those opposing them. To accuse Dr Walter Veith of doing the same is totally off the mark and a gross exaggeration to say the least.
The idea, concept or act of being ordained comes from Christ himself. In Mark 3:14 Jesus himself ordained the Twelve: "And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,"
So this act of ordaining is 1] practiced by Christ himself, 2] one which involved men only for whatever reason and 3] that they were ordained and set apart for a specific purpose. 4] Christ also gave these ordained disciples the name of apostles in Luke 6:13. An important point to note is that this word ordain is actually found in the Bible, in the NT, and comes with the blessings of Christ himself and not from Catholicism as some may suggest. Jer 1:5 shows how the term ordain was also used in the OT.
EGW says of this incident: It was at the ordination of the Twelve that the first step was taken in the organization of the church that after Christ’s departure was to carry on His work on the earth. Of this ordination the record says, “He goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto Him whom He would: and they came unto Him. And He ordained twelve, that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach.” Mark 3:13, 14 [AA 18.1].
Please note that the King James version uses the term "ordained" where more recent and versions that are considered by Bible scholars as technically superior use "appointed" or similar. I draw this distinction because it illustrates the difference between the historic Roman Catholic tradition of ordination that is widely practiced in christianity and the Biblical concept of appointment by the Holy Spirit to specific service. Jesus did not appoint the twelve to preach in church each Sabbath or rule over churches. He told them to proclaim the Kingdom of God had come, heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons and raise the dead. Can you show me an ordained minister who is doing any of those things? They are so few and far between that any defense of ordination is a preservation of farce.
Those who are still living in the 19th century, consider the following:
The SDA church is not the Remnant church of God, they may be a part of the Remnant, but the Remnant are all Christians of all churches of belief in Christ Jesus. Man lays on the hands symbolic of ordination, but it is the HOLY SPIRIT that chooses the candidates, and actually ordains those called forth who by faith have prepared for this Godly duty. Man, wo-man, child. There is no male/female roles in heaven, and other than propagation none would be required here.
Shepards of the flock? The male has never in history been the shepard of the flock, other than providing shelter, bringing home the meat, and physical protection, not because he was superior in intelligence, while the wo-man has birthed the child, nurthured, taught it it's values,& prepared it for life in its formative years; of course the macho male always stands up for the credit. The man has always lorded it over the woman, only because of his physical strength, it has always been woman who kept the home fires burning, while man was away, carousing, and fighting and killing. Jesus chose the man apostles, because it was a male dominated society, and wo-man had no value other than sex and slavery, and would have been raped and torn apart in the wild and deadly society of His day, should she venture outside the tribe.
In the 20th century woman's intelligence finally broke the bonds of slavery, and subservience to physical superior male, how, by her equal intelligence given at creation, a clone to the male (allegory?). The SDA church is fast becoming a female dominated church, because of the vanishing male members, should the woman not be given her Holy Spirit calling, to the recognized and accepted "shepard of the flock", which she has been all along, the church will eventually be as small corporately as many other sects, that carved out a unique shorttime prominence.
i submit there will be fireworks aplenty at the next GC sessions, with the typical
committees stacked to the traditional fundamental themes of the current GC, as they seek to gain control of the Unions they consider rebellious to what they consider as their RIGHT of ultimate authority. Following after the sessions there may well be voting by some Unions to withdraw from the Corporate SDA hegemony.
Mr. Calahan's statement that "The SDA church (I assume that this means the "institutional" SDA Church) is not the Remnant church of God. [T]hey may be a part of the Remnant, but the Remnant are all Christians in all churches of belief in Christ Jesus." Exactly! If this understanding was more widely cited and became completely normative within the Adventist Christian tradition, so much misunderstanding could be avoided. If we can combine that with a normative understanding that tithe to be Tithe can be donated to the local church and does not have to be sent up the organizational ladder to the institutional church to be considered Tithe, this would go a long way in providing the foundation on which to transform the Adventist Church into a Servant Church with the greatest strength being at the local church level. As Mr. Calahan suggests, by these relatively simple changes, the "Corporate SDA Hegomony" would be broken and forward movement would be the result.
Ervin now gives me pause to reevaluate a previous position that I held. Like Earl, I too had long ago concluded that the remnant are, or will be, those would be followers of Christ “…which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Revelation 12:17
This “remnant of her seed” would be those who will be willing to obey God and have the spirit of prophecy, and need not necessarily be Seventh-day Adventists; but that SDAs will probably be disproportionately numbered among them, which is a good—and that in any case “the remnant of her seed” is not an organization/corporation.
Now that Ervin agrees with this proposition, I am thinking that perhaps the real value of the “institutional” Seventh-day Adventist Church is that it helps to prevent “misunderstanding.” Ervin and people who are historical Adventists do not share the same fundamental beliefs and, without institutionalism, much “misunderstanding” would occur.
I had also previously agreed with Ervin that the tithe/money flow should be reconsidered. Now I see that the value of it is that it helps maintain what I call the 'McDonald’s Benefit,' in that most Adventism is in some semblance of uniformity all over the globe (I think). The fries taste the same all over. Without this we might lose our/any/all identity.
Why would we presume that the 'testimony of Jesus/Spirit of Prophecy' would be specific and limited to the Seventh-day Adventist Church when Revelation 19:10 is written in the present tense (current reality), Ellen White died a century ago and the gift of prophecy is active in numerous other Christian churches? Those factors make your claim seem like scripture is being stretched pretty far.
Institutionalism is a primary reason why misunderstandings exist. Embracing the "institutional view" causes us to not seek the presence of the Holy Spirit, who is our guide into all truth, and to easily adopt error. Without that intimate and present guide we quickly lose our path.
Personally, I do not presume that the “testimony of Jesus/spirit of prophecy” is limited to our church or limited to EGW. That’s why I said that “the remnant of her seed” need not necessarily be only Adventists (although it may/should be disproportionately comprised of members of the Adventist church).
Personally, I equate the testimony of Jesus/spirit of prophecy with the Holy Spirit; and I sincerely believe that regarding things of a prophetic nature, EGW had ‘It’; and I certainly do not believe that the Holy Spirit has ever contradicted itself, nor would ever be in conflict with itself.
Are you seeing something suggesting that the Holy Spirit would be in conflict with Himself?
No, I’m saying that the Holy Spirit would not be in conflict with Himself. The variations of beliefs within Christendom, and within the Adventist church, suggests that the Holy Spirit is not being universally received; although few would dare admit (to themselves, much less anyone else) that their views are not derived from the Spirit’s guidance.
In other words, there have been and will be no shortage of false prophets.
Stephen,
It sounds like your fear of false prophets is leading you to reject the possibility of true prophets. The role of a prophet is to draw the attention of people to God and the teachings in scripture so that people can be brought into a closer relationship with Him. So, if people are seeking after him and needing to know Him better, would it not be logical for God prophets to them? Are we not jumping to false conclusions if we reflexively imply or claim that the messenger sent to them is a false prophet without first testing them as scripture tells us to do?
Yes, precisely, I am very wary of any ‘prophet;’ because anyone who claims to be a prophet is likely not to be one. Jesus in fact advises us (Matthew 7:15-20) to be wary (“beware of” them). It's not a matter of fear; it’s a matter of heeding His/scriptural advice—and that does include testing where/when appropriate. But it is not at all necessary to test someone/anyone who is very clearly (by their obvious ‘fruits’) not a prophet. (See Galatians 5:22, 23 regarding some/such fruit.)
Obviously you’re not claiming to be a prophet or anything of the sort; but if you had been, this might have been an ideal example of that to which I referred in terms of contradictions. No true prophet would ever contradict Jesus; nor provide us with contradictory (conflicting) counsel.
The same principle applies to the admonitions given to our church from Ellen White. If someone purported to provide new ‘Testimonies’ which were directly contradictory, we’d disregard them; and/or point out where/how they’re in error. (At least that’s what we should do.)
Stephen,
What evidence do you have that the prophets in other churches are teaching contrary to scripture? Have you obeyed the instruction in scripture to test them and prove whether they are teaching truth? Why is your view of any prophet other than Ellen White automatic suspicion and your reflexive conclusion that they must be false?
Why do not allow for the possibility of God sending new prophets, or that those prophety may be sent to other churches? After all, the promises about prophets in the last days are plural and Revelation 19:10 is a present-tense statement of current reality when Ellen White has been dead for a century.
Since Jesus said “beware of false prophets,” let’s just say that self-proclaimed prophets simply don’t get the benefit of the doubt.
I am sure you are familiar with the old ‘proof’ text of Isaiah 8:20. Of course ‘prophets’ should be tested; but if their prophecies or pronouncements or admonitions or fruits do not line up with—or actually blatantly contradict—'other' scriptural truths, it is because they aren’t true prophets.
For all I know, prophets may well be sent to other faith communities; but because such prophets would also speak for God, they wouldn't contradict previously given light.
As for Ellen White being dead for a century; that is meaningless, isn’t it? If she was a prophet, that’s nothing. (Think how long had Isaiah been dead before Christ was born of a virgin.)
Stephen,
Let's clarify something you seem to have assumed. I'm NOT talking about any self-proclaimed prophets. I'm talking about people in growing churches who are recognized as prophets because of the messages they receive from God and the positive results that come from that giftedness.
The concept of "previously-given light" that you stated is a totally subjective and misleading test if you are comparing the amount of revelation given through them to what God gave through Ellen White. The ministry of Ellen White is filled with growth in understanding and she made a number of statements in her latter ministry that were quite different or even contradicted what she said in the early days. She even said God wanted to reveal more through her but did not because the church would not receive it. So, how is it fair or accurate to accuse a prophet in another church of being a false prophet if God is leading them in the same way?
While God can use any willing vessel, a prophet is not your 'average Joe.' The Biblical standards and proofs are indispensible. Personally I am, and will continue to be, wary of (false) ‘prophets’—especially nowadays. I will especially be wary of anyone who apparently suspects themselves of being one.
“Ye shall know them by their fruits.” The spiritual fruits identified in scripture actually are not a list of good works. In fact we are told that false prophets will do some apparently miraculous things. Those spiritual fruits that are identified in Galatians 5:22-23 are all related to character; which is often manifested by good deeds, but deeds aren’t tests/proof of a prophet. Remember what Jesus prophesied in Matthew 7:22-23.
The Holy Spirit doesn’t contradict itself and no prophet will contradict the Holy Spirit. (And I have no idea as to what you’re referring with regard to EGW. We’ll just wait for examples, I suppose.)
How will you know your suspicions are correct if you are unwilling to test them? Not testing them guarantees that you will neither know the truth of the matter or enjoy the blessings God has waiting for you.
You keep making references to some "self-proclaimed prophet." In 1 John 4:1 we are commanded to test the prophets, yet it appears you are unwilling to obey God's command and test whomever it is you have in mind. Why? Are you just determined to not believe God is willing or able to send more prophets as he has done consistently in the past? Or, is your concept of prophets so limited that it would be impossible for you to do anything but reject any prophet God sent?
Huh?
I have no problem with testing. The only reference I’ve made to the contrary has been that where there are no fruits of the spirit, there is no need to test a ‘prophet’ because “…by their fruits ye shall know them.”
Do you believe that God would anoint as a prophet (and that we should test) one who doesn’t bear the fruit of the spirit in their own lives?
Other than that I’d emphasize/reiterate Jesus’ warning to “beware of false prophets” and John’s admonition to “believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” 1 John 4:1
I’d commend you to 2 Thessalonians 2:3-15. If we don’t love the truth—the light we’ve been given—we’ll be sent a “strong delusion and believe the lie.” (We should also prayerfully consider Galatians 5:22-26.)
Stephen,
It appears you are so afraid of the false that you are not allowing for the possibility of God sending multiple prophets in the last days as He promised to do. Such fear of deception is one of Satan's most effective tool for preventing professed believers from actually doing any of the things God wants us to be doing. Being so fearful proves that a person has a form of godliness but none of the power of God. How I wish that you could meet the power of God and let Holy Spirit transform you into the spokesperson for truth that you imagine yourself to be!
“It appears you are so afraid of the false that you are not allowing for the possibility of God sending multiple prophets in the last days as He promised to do.”
Hey, it wasn’t my idea to advise us to “beware of false prophets.” Are you suggesting that we not “beware”?
At this point, I will simply copy and paste what I’ve previously said in this regard. This will demonstrate that you’ll believe what you wish; no matter what you’re told. (Tell me, do you think that you have a prophetic gifting?)
“Personally, I do not presume that the “testimony of Jesus/spirit of prophecy” is limited to our church or limited to EGW. That’s why I said that “the remnant of her seed” need not necessarily be only Adventists (although it may/should be disproportionately comprised of members of the Adventist church).”
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” 1 John 4:1
“…In other words, there have been and will be no shortage of false prophets.”
“I am sure you are familiar with the old ‘proof’ text of Isaiah 8:20. Of course ‘prophets’ should be tested; but if their prophecies or pronouncements or admonitions or fruits do not line up with—or actually blatantly contradict—'other' scriptural truths, it is because they aren’t true prophets.”
“For all I know, prophets may well be sent to other faith communities; but because such prophets would also speak for God, they wouldn't contradict previously given light.”
“I have no problem with testing. The only reference I’ve made to the contrary has been that where there are no fruits of the spirit, there is no need to test a ‘prophet’ because “…by their fruits ye shall know them.”
"Do you believe that God would anoint as a prophet (and that we should test) one who doesn’t bear the fruit of the spirit in their own lives?”
How is this “not allowing the possibility of God sending multiple prophets in the last days as He promised to do”?
Why do you assume that I imagine myself to be a “spokesman for truth”? I’m simply an older guy with opinions (who hopes and prays they represent truth).
But tell us, do you think that you have a prophetic gifting; or something similar? I think that you think you do; which is why you have a problem with my apparent dismissal of this notion. Please tell me I’m wrong; really, please.
Stephen,
One thing the Holy Spirit teaches you when you begin ministering in His power is how you are and are not gifted. Prophecy definitely is not one of my gifts. Working with God and learning from Him has given me ever-growing confidence in the unerring truthfulness of His guidance. I am continually amazed by His far greater power that He freely gives to all who are willing to believe His promises. That is why I speak with such confidence about God's power and the things I see Him doing through me and around me.
Yes, scripture warns us to be aware of deception. But God's admonitions about becoming lost in His great love and empowered by the Holy Spirit to do great works for Him far outnumber the warnings about Satan. The Bible is filled with stories of people like us who overcame in God's power. Their victory came not from sounding continual alarms, stirring-up endless speculation about evil and doubts about God's power as you do. Their victory came from tasting the power of God and celebrating His mighty works (Revelation 12:11).
Focusing our attention on Satan leads us to destruction because it causes us to doubt even God's simplest promises about victory over sin and empowerment to minister in His far superior power and immense love. That is where you are today. You do not know God's power in your life because your attention is focused on Satan. If you doubt what I am saying, as you often do, then read what Ellen White wrote on the topic.
Do you want to be spreading the hopelessness of sin, or the joy and light of salvation? Continual speculation and fascination with the works of Satan turns a person into one of his minions. But focusing on the victory God gives us allows us to become channels for His power to flow through and work the redemption of others.
I am aware of Satan's works because they contrast with the works of God. I do not fear Satan, nor am I fascinated by him, because I have tasted the vastly superior power of God. Yes, I see God working and I have the joy of being His servant in ministering His love to others. On Thursday of this week I saw God drive the demon of fear out of a woman and replace her tearful, wide-eyed terror with complete peace. On Friday in a lunchtime Bible study with a co-worker I saw God deliver the realization that Sunday worship is one of Satan's deceptions. You can begin having similar experiences if you'll just take your eyes of Satan and start focusing on Him. Ask God to take away the spirit of fear that fills your heart and replace it with the joy and confidence that comes from His greater power and love. Do that and you will be amazed by what happens.
Well, it’s certainly a relief to know that you don’t think you’re a prophet. An observation (for what little it’s worth): for someone supposedly not fascinated by Satan, you sure mention him an awful lot.
Like I said my man, you have a caricature of what you prefer to believe; and no one—certainly no human being—will shake you from your perceptions.
Tell you what; you continue to focus on whatever it is that you believe God has for you to do. Who am I to question anyone’s focus? I will continue, by God’s grace, to focus on that which I am noticing. Trust me, it matters not a whit that you are apparently displeased with it; because who are you to question anyone’s focus?
I happen to be fully convinced that we are finally living in the literal last days that have been Biblically prophesied; and that the Third Angel’s (warning) message is of relevance to us right now; and especially relevant on this site. For reasons best known to you, (me) talking about it reminds you of fear. It seems that you would also do well to not be so fascinated with me.
Earl wrote: "the male has never in history been shepherd of the flock…"
Ellen wrote: He who fails to be a faithful, dicerning shepherd in the home. will surely fail of being a faithful shepherd of the flock of God Manuscript Releases 6:49
Ellen wrote: "He needs to learn that God requires him to properly discipline the children given him before he can do his duty as shepherd of the flock of God." AH 353.2
Ellen wrote: About Peter…" He was not only to seek and save those without the fold, but was to be a shepherd of the sheep." AA515.2
There are over 370 references to the phrase in her writings. I guess the women out in the field heard the angels singing then according to Matthew Mark and Luke also?
Also Earl you wrote that the SDA church is fast becoming "a female dominated church" Well follow the money. How much is money is spent on womens ministry compared to mens each year? Maybe we ought to spend a little more time looking and Malachi 4:6 and start sharpening up some more iron Proverbs 27:17.
Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322.
"It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God."
mhanna make sure to read the context of the statement for it dosn't contradict the Bible or Testimonies Vol. 5 Pages 60, 598. The first line of that paragragh reads… All who desire an opportunity for true ministry, and sho will give themselves unreservedly to God, will find in the CANVASSING work opportunitiies speak upon many things pertaining to the future, imortal life. She is talking about Literture Evangelism not shepherding the flock.
Many churches build doctrines around a mis-quoted Bible text for the Sabbath, state of the dead, Trinity, and much more.
Apostolic ministry = missionary = clergy = spiritual leadership chosen by God like Matthais and Paul.
Local ministry = elders = bishops = appointed leadership chosen by human election like Stephen and the Seven.
Should the people we currently ordain as 'ministers' or 'pastors' be considered apostles-missionaries-clergy or be considered elders-bishops?
Who should be entitled to the tithe?
Who should be entitled to recognition by the rite of laying on of hands?
Which of these roles possibly has a gender element (assuming there is one for argument's sake) and which doesn't?
Stephen,
Ah, you stir the pot and add more spice!
The modern concept of clergy is far different from the Biblical model. Nowhere in scripture do we find a class of people who are elevated in authority above others, which is an essential feature of the traditional concept of clergy.
"Clergy" and "minister" are not the same thing. The first is a noun, the second a verb. Yet we use them as if they were synonyms.
Scripture mentions serving as a "pastor" but provides no job description. The primary difference between an elder or bishop and an apostle is the latter was "sent out" to raise-up new churches. By contrast it is logical to conclude that the others serve in a particular church. While there are qualifications listed, their job descriptions are not provided.
With such limited job descriptions, why do we spend so much time trying to define those positions. Would it not be more profitable just to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit and seeking to serve in whatever way God guides regardless of what name gets attached to the role?
Thank you William.
I agree if you look at the NT, they had a flexible notion of leadership. They were a movement – not an institution. The early SDA Church of the Pioneers was much the same.
I totally agree we should be leaving it to the Holy Spirit to choose. Unfortunately some of our brethren seem to adopt an institutional mindset, which has much more to do with Papal theology than the early NT Church or the Pioneer SDA Church.
In my view though, there is one primary benefit in distinguishing the spiritual models of leadership (apostles, pastors, teachers, evangelists etc) from the appointed leaders (deacons, elders, bishops). That benefit is in recognising that all the so-called 'proof texts' about being the husband of one wife, at most, only apply to appointed leaders. There isn't a single word in the NT about spiritual leadership being men.
Thus, recognising the difference between apostles and bishops is important in ensuring we understand the scope of this discussion. This discussion should not be about women apostles – yet it is. This discussion at most should be about women as elders – which it isn't, because we already have women elders in the SDA Church.
I would say one needs to take the "double edged sword" use it as discribed in Hebrews 4:12 and dissect your equal signs because the Word says all are choosen as missionaries but not all are choosen for clergy or spiritual leadership. I went on a mission trip and hands were laid upon me yet I was not placed on the level of clergy nor felt I was entitled to tithe.
Which of these roles possibly has a gender element (assuming there is one for argument sake)?
Possibly we need to closely study Gods Word and look at examples therein. Assuming that the SOP was also impressed by Father God follow the instructions that point to the greater light. Oh…. is that not what is to be going on with the study committee and voted in session rather then dicided by rebellious conferences?
'because the Word says all are choosen as missionaries'
Where does the Bible say that?
The word 'missionary' is from Latin 'missio' which is from the Greek 'apostolos' – literally apostle. We are all called to spread the Gospel but we are not all apostles. Are you seriously suggesting we are all apostles, clearly contrary to 1 Cor 12:29?
Again, only apostles are 'clergy', because clergy is Greek for 'chosen by lots'. That is a reference to Matthais' selection as the new 12th apostle in Acts 1.
Most of us are like the 70 Jesus sent out, who Jesus commanded in Luke 10:4 not to take a purse, or bag, or wear sandals, and just go to the next village. That is the role for most of us laity.
But there are specially appointed leaders, the like the 12 apostles, who Jesus sends forth – the literal meaning of 'apostle'. Jesus gives his apostles the opposite command in Luke 22:35, to take a purse, to take a bag, to take sandals, and even to take a sword!
It is only these apostles who are entitled to the tithe per 1 Cor 9:1,3.
So I ask again, who are our ordained SDA 'pastors'? Are they apostles or are they elders? If you can't answer this most fundamental question, then all the other points are pointless!
Yes All….Christians are to proclaim the name of Christ and if spreading the Gospel is not being a missionary what is???
Matthew 5:14-16, Mark 16:15, Joel 2:28, 1 Timothy 4:12, Isaiah 6:8, Romans 10:14, Romans 2:6-16
Acts 1:8, Psalms 96:3, Mark 16:15, 1 Peter 3:15, 1 Peter 4:10, 1 corninthians 11:1-2, Ephesians 5:1, Philippians 2:12-13, 1 Cornithians 3:16
Women stopped being this help mate when we, Men, chose to worship women before God. And women themselves wanted to go from created like man to be like God. And men and women are not helpers but, complete the body of Christ together.
Before the blood of menstruating woman, the birthing canal of the pregnant woman, the assumed position of the sexualized woman, the lowly stare of the subservient woman and the breast of nursing woman- was that there was. It was bloody, tribal, defined by sex, and by Mosaic Law. And before, man was the circumcised heir of Issac, Jacob and Judah.
Now Christ is the blood and circumcised, we are united SPIRITUALLY. The blood is dead, the bleeding woman is healed and no longer a mere woman. The law is meant to kill us. The circumcised man is now circumcised by heart through grace of God.
Both men and women no longer have unclean bleeding. Both men and women are circumcised in their hearts- THIS IS SPIRIT WON BY CHRIST. The body is dead, gender is dead, and the Law is still alive but meant to kill.
The Spirit lives, and the Spirit is our only salvation.
Pastors don't lead but serve. Nobody on the basis of blood, gender, tribe is prohibited from serving people and God IN EVERY POST AND POSITION in God's church.
If the Adventist Church belongs to "Ted Wilson and Friends" or belongs to men or belongs to the Millerite tribe or the sons of James White or the lost 13th tribe of Israel- then by all means exclude on basis of blood and gender.
But if the Church belongs to God, Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit then to demean these heavenly powers w/earthly conflict, blood, and gender is to gather up a great cup of wrath.
Even Moses would allow the Jewish peasant woman into Temple before a man w/ the blood of Gentile, Roman, or non-Jewish blood. So Mary Magdalene blood is more pure than Ted Wilson- and Christ died so Jewish women, Gentile men and women could all serve and NOT JUST Jewish men of Sadducees and Pharisees.
Its ludricous that there can be a female Rabbi in any single synagogue and not a pastor where GENDER DOESN'T matter in all churches-when Christ died to make blood and gender into SPIRITUALITY!
So 1 Timothy 2:15 should have been left in the OT?
"If she continues in faith and love and holiness w/ self-control"
Not to be CONTROLLED by men as before but, woman, herself, finds and exercises self-control, self-examination, self-judgment, not to be called "lesser" "uncapable" "unfit" "unworthy" or "barred from the Temple"
Bearing a child- is not about fertile woman but Christ that bore us, His children and if by His grace, we continue in faith, love, holiness- the delivery is completed.
You are mightily confused my brother. We are all called to spread and teach the Gospel, but we are not all apostles (the literal Greek meaning of the word missionary).
None of those texts you have provided suggest we are all apostles, just as we are not all teachers, prophets or evangelists. Paul makes this abundantly clear in 1 Cor 12:29.
Only apostles have the special right of apostles under 1 Cor 9:1,3.
So again, in your view, what is an apostle and what is an elder-bishop? Are they the same thing or different things – compare the selection of Matthais in Acts 1 with Stephen and the Seven in Acts 6.
Are our ordained SDA 'pastors' apostles or elder-bishops?
Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322.
"It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God."
I find it curious that the inspired word says women can be pastors [shepherds] of the flock; and yet some say she does not mean that women can be pastors [shepherds] of the flock.
"It is not always men who are best adapted to the successful management of a church. If faithful women have more deep piety and true devotion than men, they could indeed by their prayers and their labors do more than men who are unconsecrated in heart and life." Ellen G. White to Brother Johnson, Letter 33, 1879; Manuscript Releases, 19:55-56.
mhanna
I agree with you fully when you say that the inspired Word says that women can be pastors [shepherds] of the flock. How clear the Word is in Ephesians 4:11, 12 – "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." It is strange how some find it so hard to accept that pastors can be women, when they have no problem with women being prophets, evangelists and possibly teachers. But suddenly in the very same list women pastors are excluded. Even the apostle Paul wsould be confused with this reasoning if he was suddenly brought to life and worked amongst us.
I think Paul would have a lot to say to us on your points. Maybe also a caution about not sitting in the window as he talks late into the night.
Exactly, all of those things are spiritual gifts. That is the nature of spiritual leadership – it appointed by God alone. See how Matthais was selected by lots in Acts 1 – by lots. The word clergy comes from the Greek, 'Chosen by lots'.
People say prophecy is somehow an exception, that allows for women. But no NT or OT says that. In fact, Paul put prophecy second in the list behind apostleship. Spiritual leadership is available to all, including women. Ellen White proved it in our own Church, and the fact we are still arguing over this a century later is simply bizarre.
Note how NAD has attempted, in its misdirected efforts to promote WO, to reinvent hermeneutics.
http://ordinationtruth.com/2014/01/20/nads-pbhc-hermeneutic-a-closer-look/
Reinvent? It's a return to revolutionary Christianity that Christ brought forth. Before it was corrupted by misogynistic paganism or legalistic patriachal Judaism.
I find those sorts of arguments from our more conservative brothers simply hillarious, given they rely on Vatican theology and are unwilling followers of the Bishop of Rome. Their notions of 'ordination' as much come from the traditions of Pagan and Papal Rome rather than the Bible. Christ or culture indeed!
1saiah 5:20 / Acts 6:6 / 1 Timothy 5:17 / RH Oct 5, 1905…..
Isaiah 5:20
I don't get your points here All4Him. I'd appreciate if you spelt it out. And you keep avoiding my question, as to whether our ordained SDA 'pastors' are types of apostles or types of elder-bishops? Which is it? How about providing a straight answer?
All4Him: Yes All….Christians are to proclaim the name of Christ and if spreading the Gospel is not being a missionary what is???
So all are apostles then? What is an apostle?
One could equally say we are all to minister to the world the Gospel, but we are not all ordained ministers are we?
You and your conservative brothers still keep avoiding the primary point!
Are our ordained SDA 'pastors' types of apostles or types of elder-bishops? Which is it? How about providing a straight answer?
What the NAD ordination statement says about their hermeneutic is being misrepresented by some oponents of ordination of women. Here is what the NAD actually says. "We read together the 'Methods of Bible Study' document voted by the General Conference Annual Council in 1986 and, after some discussion, voted to utilize its presuppositions, principles, and methods of biblical hermeneutics." "This official document, voted by the General Conference. emphatically advises the interpretation of Scripture in its cultural and historical context." http://static.squarespace.com/static/50d0ebebe4b0ceb6af5fdd33/t/5279712ee4b0bc036c1cf653/1383690542265/nad-ordination-04-hermeneutics-ahn.pdf
So if some of those who oppose ordination of women do not like the official SDA method voted by the General Conference and by the NAD study committee, could it be that these opposers are the ones with an illegitimate method for Bible study?
RE:"The SDA church is not the Remnant church of God, they may be a part of the Remnant, but the Remnant are all Christians of all churches of belief in Christ Jesus." [Mr Calahan]
—–
It is rather interesting to note the antagonist position taken by many from within certain fringe pockets of Adventism who hold similar views to the statement above which 1] denies our prophetic existence as a church and 2] the reasonable understanding of the Adventist church being rightfully identified as the remnant church of Rev 12:17. Whilst I would readily respect the right for people to have their own opinions, such statements clearly expresses open unbelief in our core historical position as a church and our fundamental beliefs. Most who would hold to such a position in my opinion would most likely also show unbelief in our Doctrine of the Heavenly Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment – for starters.
It is against this background of unbelief in our core doctrines that the false accusations of ‘gender discrimination’ is also been hurtled at the church. (I suppose they would accuse Jesus of doing the same for choosing twelve men). But why make such a false accusation of ‘gender discrimination’ against the church, and secondly, why are they not taking their special interest agenda to the GC instead of using fringe liberal Adventist forums in order to bolster support?
Yes Trevor, you are correct. i am unable to support the view of the SDA church interpretation of when Christ entered the Most Holy Place, and of the Investigative Judgement delayed until 1844. Also i am not a YEC believer. i believe Earth's creation time frame was not predicated on 7 days of Solar Earth 24 hour days, but was an unknown time lapse period in God's eternal time frame. Also that the Earth is perhaps billions of years old. i believe Noah's flood was a regional episode, perhaps allegorical. The corporate SDA heirarchy is a top down organization, rarely any intelligence from below given any serious consideration or even studied, but they will keep it on file in the round filing cabinet. Just keep sending the money and we'll take care of all the details.Their business practices are abysmal, lack of adequate checks and balances. Every few years losing millions of dollars and attempting hiding the ineptness of top office associates, by usage of Tithe funds, squandering some of the moneys forwarded from Church, Conference, Union, to the GC treasury. Notable crime escapades thru planned robbing God's money and ignorance. Paying a stipend to the male employees that is inadequate so the wife must also work. Paying women less for equal work.Holding employees to the bidding of the officers through a fear of losing their jobs should they not give lip service to the "party line". Stacking every constitutuency meeting with sycophants so the results are assured, making a mockery of fairness. Transferring Conference officers to other Conferences leadership roles when they have been guilty of inadequate leadership and embarrassment, so they are able to repeat their inadequacies, "Brother, all we need is faith, the Lord will provide". An arrogance of some of the GC heirarchy in assuming they are always right and correct because they are members of the "old boys club", perhaps have a belief they have exclusive access to the Holy Spirit. i could give further data, but most thinking members have knowledge of the sins of commission and omission.
I'm sure that Mr. Hammond (Mr. Oct) would like us all to believe that it is just "certain fringe pockets of Adventism" who have long rejected the idea that the corporate Adventist Church is "the" Remnant Church identified in the Book of Revelation. That text has nothing to do with any modern organized Christian denomination. But I'm sure that Mr. Hammond can't accept the fact that there are large numbers of Adventist Christians who view the "Remnant church" motif from a Biblical perspective as not having any current corporate idenity other than simply "Christian." Mr. Hammond might wish to read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity to help him understand the truth about this.
The SDA church is a "remnant" institution among the other denominations because of the special message we are called to share. At the same time there is a "spiritual remnant" composed of true believers in Christ in all denominations. According to the SDA Fundamental Belief 12: "The universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ."
RE: "The SDA church is a "remnant" institution among the other denominations because of the special message we are called to share." [mhanna]
—–
Whilst this may be true to a certain extent and have its place, Rev 12:17 clearly qualifies and identifies the remnant church as 'those who keep the commandements of God and have the testimony of Jesus.'
Trevor,
As I follow what you are writing, let me rephrase your thoughts. I will use 'You' not in an accusatory sense, rather as a way of identifying your sense of what is.
You believe that Rev 12:17 is specifically describing an organization, rather than people in general. As such, you beleive Rev 12.17 describes a denomination within last day Christianity. And you believe that beginning in the middle of the century before last the denomination described in Rev 12:17 is uniquely the Seventh-day Adventist church. Now this is reading between the lines here, and it seems that you believe the Seventh-day Adventist church will be the last denominational oracle of God's revelation until Jesus returns.
Because this denomination is identified in Rev 12:17, you beleive its 28 listed beliefs enjoy confirmation equal to biblical revelation and that any who question any of these beliefs are outside the redeemed identified in Revelation. Finally, you believe that any member who considers a topic, such as the ordination of women to the ministry, before the General Conference has taken a position is on the face unloyal to the church and is therefore outside the redeemed as identified in Revelation.
I'd like to try to sommarize even more cogently: God chooses to speak to the world in the last days through a church, and because the Seventh-day Adventist church is the first church to meet the criteria of Rev 12:17, it is that church and thus its beliefs and practices are Divinely endorsed since it speaks for God, by God's prophetic choice as His final church in Earth's history, and whose membership that survives the structural vaporization of the denomination during the Time of Trouble will encompas the redeem who will welcome Jesus upon his return.
I realize attempts at being specific often result in error. Please make corrections as necessary.
It is especially useful to be clear about these items as they certainly bear on the relationship of Steventh-day Adventist members with the Seventh-day Adventist church and its divine role in each member's life.
Dear Mr (Dr?) Garber
Rev 12:17 describes a people (church – 'ekklesia') who are a remnant of the Christian Church and who keep the commandments of God and have the spirit of prophecy [Rev 19:10; Rev 22:9; Rev 14:12]. There is no church on earth today which we can truly say fulfills this prophetic calling except for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. These believers, having joined together through Christ in faith and belief and by his grace, have organised themselves as a body of believers (church) for the purpose of service in the form of a well structured worldwide institution, practicing good governance and heralding the gospel of Jesus Christ and his soon return which is embodied in the Three Angels Message of Rev 14:6-12. The Remnant Church does not in any way denote an aura of pious exclusivity but on the contrary it is a church that is fully inclusive for all believers who heed the last day message, including the call to keep the Sabbath and to come out of Babylon.
All4Him and Mr 22,
still awaiting an answer from you re whether our ordained SDA 'pastors' types of apostles or types of elder-bishops? Which is it?
For the umptenth time Steve our ordained pastors, who are to "shepherd" the flock of God, are to be MEN according to the Bible and SOP. Our small church shares a pastor and our Elders cover while he is gone so they basically do the work of the pastor. EGW uses Acts six to discribe the choice of spiritual leaders, what an example Stephen was as he preached the sermon recorded in Acts 7 after he was chosen to serve.
Steve other than John the Revelator what was the final outcome for the apostles? Is that really the example you should use to compare our "pastors/shepherds" to? Why?
Trevor,
Many thanks for your replay, and for confirming that you do see Revelation 12:17 describing a church, an ekklesia, as you use the Greek word. Indeed, your use of the world ekklesia got me wondering. So I checked. And ekklesia is, indeed, used in Revelation and used 19 times in the book. Save for Revelation 22:16, where the word is used in the plural as the writer is ending his book, where the word clearly is identifying the churches referenced in the beginning of the book, ekklesia is used only in the first three chapters of Revelation where it idetifies Christians in several cities of Asia Minor.
And that got me looking more closely at Revelation 12:17. This passage describes the continuation of the lineage of the Bridegroom of Jesus, the Woman of Revelation 12:17, I believe. These are people not even people of an ekkleasia but people originally identified (The Revelation of Jesus …) by Jesus and for whom He will return. These people are identified not by their relationsip to an ekkleasia, but by their rootedness in the precepts of God and the witness of Jesus, as the Greek words elsewhere translated as commandments of God and testimony of Jesus.
This is not in any way to minimize the value of church or ekklesia. Church is how people do what they cannot do alone. Whether it is missionary work, health work, educational work, it is all as your quote from Ellen White explains. The church is an agency, the representative of, not the original source of the salvation of humans. It is, indeed, organized for service and its mission is to carry the gospel to the world. It is the members of, but not the organization or structure or leadership of the church, that show forth His glory. It is the people who reflect His fulness and His sufficiency.
Ekklesia is a wonderful experience, an enabling experience. And in that sense I feel you and I are pretty much reading from the same page, enjoying the same ekklesia.
And it seems that we can likely agree that we are not identified by our ekklesia, but our ekklesia is identified by us.
And it seems that we both identify ourselves with the people described in Revelation 12:17 as keeping (Tereo — to attend to carefully ) the precepts of God and to have (echo — to hold fast ) to the testimony (Marturia — one who tesitifes before a judge) of Jesus who testified that if we have seen him we have seen the Father.
It is just that the passage does not reference a church, an ekklesia. The word is nowhere to be found in any of the passages you list from Revelation.
Now let's not discard the notion that Seventh-day Adventists can very well, indeed with rare exception are exactly the people described in Revelation 12:17. It is just the Seventh-day Adventist ekklesia is not identified in Revelation 12:17 because thes passage is not about ekklesia but about people.
Frankly, Trevor, I was surprised by this finding, as I had never checked the words before. And when you shared the word, ekklesia, I figured you were standing on pretty solid ground with regard to Revelation 12:17 being about a church. As you can see, I'm confessing my lack of substance as a student of Revelation.
And maybe it doesn't matter that ekklesia isn't anywhere to be found in the passages Seventh-day Adventists historically have used to affirm our church as God's chosen church to receive Jesus when He returns. I'm intersted in your further thoughts on this matter of ekklesia.
Bill
Dear Mr Garber
The verse is part of a prophecy which uses symbols. The first part of Rev 12:17 says that the 'dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed.'
The 'dragon' is satan and the woman is the 'church.' Hence the term 'Remnant Church.' Does that answer your query?
Trevor,
The interpretation of Gune as church instead of woman is the part that is unclear. Just how does that come to you, especially in light of Revelation 12.
The Gune in Revelation 12 certainly covers a great time span … this is the same Gune 'that brought forth the man child.' This the the same Gune that was given two wings of a great eagle and flew into the winderness where she is nurished for 'a time, and times, and half a time.' This is the same Gune that the earth ( Ge ) rescued from the dragon's flood of spittle by the opening its mouth and swallowing the dragon's flood. And finally, this is the same Gune that the dragon was wroth with and went to make war with her lienage who are keeping the precepts of God and embracing the the revelation of Jesus, His testimony … which Revelation declares itself to be.
The Gune it seems is the origin of humanity itself, the mother of us all, the Creator's feminity if you will. The Pagans of John's day, and those familiar with Paganism in John's day certainly understood Gune as something cosmic, every bit as cosmic as the dragon. It is this Gune that the dragon is determined to destroy. In this approach to reading Revenlation 12, Gune is whom the dragon has been attempting to destroy since he was cast out of heaven in the very beginning (verse 7). Gune is not some human entity, Gune is the progenitor of life itself. Neither a simple nor a sophisticated reading of Revelation 12 it seems can possible mistake Gune for a church, let along a denomination.
I don't mean to be harsh, Trevor. It is just that John writes about churches as much as he writes about Gune and he never conflates the two as far as I can tell. As I've noted before, this level of looking at Revelation is new to me and I admit that I dont' have the language skills to get any deeper. Perhaps Gune as church is a connection made in some other way. Let me know the alternatives as you see them.
Thanks again, Trevor.
Trevor and Bill,
This is an important conversation. Might the key be the term “the remnant of her seed”? Whatever the woman represents, “the remnant of her seed” represents those that remain of her offspring?
Couldn’t this represent people and/or the church? Couldn’t this represent whosoever will keep the commandments and have/receive the testimony of Jesus?
All4Him, You have written: "For the umpteenth time Steve our ordained pastors who are to 'shepherd' the flock of God, are to be MEN according to the Bible and SOP."
We respect you for your views but we ask you to also respect others who view things differently. Respect for others who have sincere scriptural beliefs is a mark of Christianity.
Some go to great lengths to maintain that only men should be local church elders or pastors. One prominent pastor who presented a paper at the TOSC in July 2013 (the papers are in the public domain) suggested that because Christ is a male, only males can be spiritual leaders in a church. I quote his exact words in this connection: "Jesus did not cease to be male upon His ascension to heaven (1 Tim. 2:5). If Jesus is still a male in the heavenly sanctuary, then why would His earthly spiritual leaders not be male as well?" I wonder what Jesus thinks of this as He looks down from heaven and views our frantic church gymnastics. Jesus the One who loves men and women equally and gave His all for each one. And for Jesus who chose a woman to give the first gospel message of His resurrection to men. And for the One who chose a Samaritan woman to be an evangelist and to bring the message of Christ to a whole village of men and women.
Some feel that only MEN should be local church eldrers. I have served in a church in Cape Town where for about the past 20 years two women have served as local elders. They have done as fine a job as any men elders. They are spiritual, dedicated, committed to Christ and the church, involved in the needs of the members whether it be physical or spiritual. They have been a great blessing to the church members and have the full confidence of the church. In that church the head elder rotates and each quarter an elder gets an opportunity to be the 1st elder. These two women often get the opportunity of being the head elder and of running the church for that period. The ceiling has not fallen in and God's blessing has been resting on this church.
It is interesting to me that the same pastor who wrote that only MEN can be spiritual leaders in a church, when faced with the priesthood of all believers in 1 Peter 2:9 makes an interesting observation. Let me quote the passage: "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." The writer says that all, both men and women, can proclaim (preach) the praises of Him who called you out of darkness. I take it that this proclamation could also take some form of preaching. Would it be in order for women to do this on the street corner, in a hall or even in a church? What if a woman did this very successfully even as well as a man (especially if she had spent 6 or 7 years giving herself to Biblical and theological studies)? If it became apparent that this woman was doing a fine job in proclamation and it became evident that she should do this on a permanent basis would the writer be willing, not to "ordain" her, but to take time in a special service to pray for her and place hands upon her and ask the Holy Spirit to continue to empower her. And if her proclamation proved to be blest would he give his blessing to her work and even support the concept of a regular remuneration for her?
Dr Eric Webster,
Isreal was choosen as a special Nation set apart by the Lord, yet "all" were all priest. It is not that the others were not capable of serving….it was the fact that God gave the role of priest for a specific reason. Watch the Gender Agenda part 1 on the site ordinationtruth.com.
Again I ask you and the other pro-WO seekers why the push to use the specific the wording "without regard to gender" when it will only serve as a Trojan horse for more diviation in the future.
Actually in ancient Israel on the first born was the priest. That is why they continued to practice the ransom ceremony over first borns on account of the Levites subsuming the priesthood.
In the NT, we are all priests – ALL – women, gentiles, slaves and eunuchs. Israel fulfilled its purpose in Christ and to adopt Levitical arguments is no better than the Catholics.
All4Him,
Yes, you are correct. In the Old Testament the whole of Israel was to act as a nation of priests. Then in addition they had a special class of priests from the tribe of Levi.
In the New Testament there has been a drastic change. The special Levitical priesthood has been abolished (Heb. 7:12) and replaced by Jesus Christ, the true and only High Priest (Heb. 7:24). In addition to Christ's special priesthood we have the priesthood of all believers according to 1 Peter 2:9. So now there are only two orders of priests – Jesus Christ and the whole body of true believers.
Good arguments and agree.
All4Him: 'For the umptenth time Steve our ordained pastors, who are to "shepherd" the flock of God, are to be MENaccording to the Bible and SOP.'
So which is it? I don't understand. Maybe I am a little dumb. Are you saying your pastors, who are 'shepherds', are apostles or elders or both? I can't decipher you mathematical code here!
It seems you are perhaps suggesting there is no difference between pastors and elder-bishops – is that right? Is that your argument? That doesn't make much sense to me.
Stephen was a leader, and he was spiritual, but his appoinment was clearly for a different purpose that the apostles. It was clearly different from the purpose of Matthais, who was chosen by lots – hence the Greek term 'clergy.'
Stephen and his friends were selected precisely to 'wait on tables' because that sort of administrative work was distracting the core work of the apostles, which was to spread the word. This is made clear in Acts 6:2,3,4,5,6.
You are getting confused because no one says a person engaged in the work of 'waiting on tables' as the NT describes it can't also be a witness and preacher for God. Of course they can – Stephen proved it. Of course are elders and deacons are spiritual. But they are not 'called' to Ministry in the same way as our clergy are – that is the point you seem to be missing. But the fact remains Stephen and his friends were appointed for a very different role than the 12 Apostles.
The NT is clear as fay on that in Acts 6:2-6:
2 And the twelve called together the whole community of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables.[a]3 Therefore, friends,[b] select from among yourselves seven men of good standing, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this task, 4 while we, for our part, will devote ourselves to prayer and to serving the word.” 5 What they said pleased the whole community, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, together with Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 They had these men stand before the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.
All4Him: 'Steve other than John the Revelator what was the final outcome for the apostles? Is that really the example you should use to compare our "pastors/shepherds" to? Why?'
Are you saying our Church has no apostles? Are you saying apart from the 12 apostles there was no more apostles after that? Is that you argument?
First of all, being an apostle (lit Greek for the Latin missio, which in English is missionary) is a spiritual gift, per Eph 4:11.
Second, the NT records a number of people called to apostolic ministry, including Paul, Barnabas, Matthais and Junia (a woman).
Finally, as to your question of the 'final outcome' of apostles, that is a very good question. History shows the last 'apostles' were supressed in the Montanus Revival of 165 AD (comprising 1 man and 2 women). The elders-bishops of the major urban proto-Catholic Church excommunicated these apostles, even though they had the support of Church Father Turtulian.
As a result, the bishops subsumed the title 'apostle' and gave it to themselves. The RC Church was born and the bishops, including the bishop of Rome, has falsely claimed the title 'apostle' ever since!
It is all in the history books – I suggest you look it up.
RE: Junia
Was Junia an apostle or was this person one among many who were 'noted' or well known to the apostles as suggested in Rom 16:7? In other words was Junia an apostle of note or one who was noted by the apostles?
That's a side issue Trevor. Let's assume for expediency that Junia was a man. My questions to both you and All4Him remain:
So again, I am not disputing the conservative position that women be restricted in the roles they are entlitled to. My primary point is that we have it backwards as to what roles women are allowed to be inolved in and not involved in. The NT at most restricts women from being administrative-elders – it does not restrict them from being apostles-missionaries-elders.
To Trevor and All4Him,
I would appreciate if you would read my statement above carefully and see if in fact you might agree with it? You will see I am agreeing with you about restricting women in some aspects of church ministry. I am wondering if something along these lines would be acceptable to more conservative Adventists like yourself?
Blessings
Stephen
Its been long but I see you have been busy, please allow me to respond.
There are several issues I have with your view points thus far.
Thank you Tapiwa for your considered approach, as always, I feel you have really tried to embrace the issues, which is half the battle in this place. Further to your comments:
1. Are all missionaries apostles? I could well ask if all Christians are 'ministers'? We are all ministers in a way of thinking, all responsible for spreading the Gospel and showing care to the needy, but there are those who are specially 'called' to ministry. My primary point is that those who are 'specially called' to be ministers, who we commonly call 'pastors', are primarily in the model of apostolic-leadership (which is spiritual leadership) and not elder-bishop-leadership (which is administrative leadership).
2. The WO proponents are not fighting for eldership – they already have that. They are fighting ordination of women 'clergy' (which again is a reference to apostolic ministry), and the primary problem in my view is that both 'sides' of the debate don't really know what they are fighting for!
3. So what's your point then. If the OT and NT emphasises a kingdom of priests, found in all believers, then why do those who oppose WO bring up the Levitical priesthood? Do you agree that is a false argument?
4. I agree, apostles can be different from pastors. The problem in the SDA Church, like many Protestant denominations, is that we give all our clergy the title 'pastor', which is not technically true. It is little different from Jews giving all their clergy the title 'rabbi', which means 'teacher', but not all clergy necessarily have the gift of preaching. We need to go back to the Bible and adopt for biblical models of naming – instead of relying on tradition.
5. I kind of agree and kind of don't. The SDA Church already allows women in administrative leadership – it already has women who are Vice Presidents of the GC! So contrary to what you say, administrative leadership shouldn't be the basis of our discourse. The SDA Church is not talking about whether to allow women to become elder-bishops-administrators, because it already allows women in those roles – ironic because it is only those roles that the NT has gender-restrictive texts. What the SDA Church is grappling with is to allow the ordination of women clergy, and our clergy are spiritual leadership who are different fundamentally from elder-bishop-administrators.
6. I partly agree about not emulating the ambient culture. But that is what the SDA Church is doing in refusing women clergy. The probihition on women clergy for ordination primarily comes from Pagan and Papal Roman precedence. Look at the history books – the Catholic bishops suppressed the last apostle-prophets (1 man and 2 women) in 165 AD. The Catholic Church took the name 'ordination' from the Pagan Roman concept of 'ordio'. The Catholic bishops subsumed the title of 'apostle' for themselves. The Catholic Church banned the office of deaconess at the Council of Trent! That is the ambient culture, and you are emulating it in your opposition to WO.
7. I am willing to agree WO for elders may be non-biblical; however, that is a non-issue because the SDA Church already allows ordination of women elders. Rather, the SDA Church is really debating women clergy (which we perhaps wrongly label 'pastors').
Tapiwa,
I must comment regarding two of your points:
"You incorrectly highlighted that the Levite priesthood was replaced with the priesthood of believers but that is wrong on two counts. Firstly Jesus Christ replaced the Levite priesthood as he is now our High Priest. Secondly priesthood of believers is an old testament notion which was reemphasized in the new testament."
Jesus is indeed our High Priest. If our Brother is the High Priest then we are also Priests. This is the teaching of both the OT and the NT. It was indeed God's purpose that all Israel would be Priests. But due to their rebellion, they refused to submit to the authority of God. So only a few became Priests. However it is still God's purpose that all of spiritual Israel will be Priests, and in the last days He will accomplish His purpose among His remnant. We are called to become what Israel failed to become. It is our rebellion that limits the Priesthood, not His divine purpose.
"There is no precedence in the bible where God told his people to emulate the ambient culture around them."
Ironically, the more we learn from archaeology, the more we see how God did indeed take things that were familiar in their culture and apply these things to His purposes. A carving in the wall of a temple built by Rameses II shows his field headquarters at Qadesh. The divisions of his army are camped around the sides of a central courtyard. Inside the curtains of this courtyard is a tent with two compartmens. In the outer compartment are nobles or priests bowing towards the inner. In the inner compartment is a raised platform. On this platform are two cherubim. Between the cherubim is engraved his name. Why did God command this very same arrangement for His own field headquarters while He "tabernacled" with his people "on the march" to the promised land? Because it was an arrangement familiar to them from Egyptian culture. They needed to understand that YAHWEH was their true king and not Moses, and that He had set-up His royal headquarters among them.
Many more things in the Levitical Code are drawn from the cultural context of the time. There were indeed things from their culture and those of the surrounding peoples that God expressly forbade. There were also things that God co-opted for His own purposes. God always speaks to us in the context of our culture. But he does not leave us where and as he finds us – He lifts us to a higher place. This is as true today as it was in OT and NT times. God does not call us to return to the past – He calls us to follow Him into the future.
All humankind who are called by the Holy Spirit to serve God's people will be heard regardless of gender, race, color,ethnicity, Catholic, Baptist, LDS, Penecostal, Buddist, no church affiliation, any and all called by God the Holy Spirit to serve as apostles, prophets, elders, deacons, teachers, clergy, table waiters. No One, is to be denied the role chosen, not by sinful man, but by God. Wo-man has been held in suspicion, and being of inferiority nature, by man, thru recorded history. When God created the couple in Eden, He said it was good, would you deny God's integrity? The person who displays the fruit of the Spirit of God will not be denied.
Earl
Your comment sounds nice, accomodating and ozzing with the spirit of tolerence. However they are not biblical. Prohibitions of women in Church leadership has been denied by God in the bible and I think it is a fearful position when we think we can be more righteous than he is. He setup the heiarchy and many are now self righteously trying to tear it down. From the very beginning, the issue has been of created beings trying to attain position God has not ordained (pun intended) from Lucifer, to Cain to Korah etc and I am sure they felt that they had genuine abilities but sadly it was not God's will
And so it was that my dear sister, small of stature, but bright and with exceptional leadership abilities, lived her life constructively. After retirement from her leadership role in a major research university, she became the minister of social justice for her local Catholic parish and was appointed to the bishop's council. She's the one who told me she was "catholic, not Catholic."
Many years before this, she went through the SDA theology curriculum, only to be told that she could not, as a woman, be ordained to serve. So, she went her own way, achieved what she did, and served as best she could.
All the while that she worked in her local parish and on the bishop's council, she vocally opposed the notion that the pope was infallible, that the priesthood should be limited to males or the celebate, and advocated for reproductive health and privancy, as well as fair treatment of everyone, regardless of gender, race, creed, or sexual orientation.
She was, and is, a radical firebrand. The SDA church really "dodged a bullet" back in 1957 when its representatives convinced her that there was no room for her to serve from within the church as she was inspired to do. She is now over 80 and is still devoted to advancing social justice–very much in the spirit of Christianity at its best.
Joe
I am touched by your story I truly am. However Spiritual positions are arrived at by the word of God and not vagaries of personal experience and not sentimental testimonies. The issue of spiriual leadership has never been an issue of ability but an issue of following God even when we sometimes do not understand.
Actually, Tapiwa, there are those who read Acts 15 as specifically, uniquely, and deliberately being about Spiritual positions being assessed exactly by the vagaries ( "an unexpected and inexplicable change in a situation or in someone's behavior" ) of personal experience of those constrained by the Holy Spirit. Acts 15 documents the Holy Spirit launching the NT church by asserting the right of the Holy Spirit to put an end to searching the Law and Moses for definitive guidance in Spiritual matters.
This is monumental.
It is by no means about distinguishing between little law and Big Law, between ceremony and substance, between optional and core in things Scriptural. It is about the Holy Spirit trumping Scripture in matters Spiritual, if Acts 15 is simply read as it reads.
Take note that those who spoke in Acts 15 quoted Scripture, and in the end the decision was concenses with regard to recognition of the undeniable evidence of the Holy Spirit spiritually endorsing the violation of explicit requirements of the Law and Moses.
I am especially encouraged by realizing that in Acts 15 the Holy Spirit did not pick sides in the issue at hand. Instead the sides picked the Holy Spirit over Scripture.
The rest of the NT records the work of the Holy Spirit. It is no small matter to note that there are no gifts of the Spirit recorded in the OT, though they are referenced multiple times in the NT. The letters in the NT are almost always about rationalizing the Gospel of Jesus and living subsequently in the context of the Holy Spirit in one's life.
This does not mean the NT dismisses scripture as no longer applicable.
Indeed, 'all scripture' is considered 'profitable' (2 Tim 3:16) in the same way that exercise is profitable (1 Tim 4:8). However, as Acts 15 suggests, independent of the observation of the Holy Spirit in the lives of people, scripture is, by inference, an inadequate method of understanding God's will, which is, by inference, why Jesus sent that the Holy Spirit.
This is not comfortable for those of us who prefer to lay down a key text on which to hang our belief, by which we beat back the uncertainties that haunt us.
We are all comforted by key texts.
Including me … especially noting the writer of Timothy clarifying that the use of scripture yields the benefits of an exercise, rather than a discovery. This feels very much in keeping with engagement by the Holy Spirit.
Time means something.
The Holy Spirit is how Scripture ceases bein lost in time.
No wonder Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit.
There is no future in the past.
Timelessness begins in the moment, in that twinkling of an eye, when mortality puts on immortality.
Eternity may not be about endless time, but about timelessness.
Eternity may be about a present that has no past or future.
So perhaps the Holy Spirit is Jesus' gift to let us taste such a reality in its anticipation.
Thanks Trevor for setting me off on taking a deeper look at Scripture. The exercise surely feels profitable. I hope I've returned the favor. You deserve more than mere thanks.
And my fairly obvious point is that my sister was probably closer to doing the right thing than those who reflexively drove her away for not fitting their brittle vision (which I seriously doubt was based on anything constructive). There is continuing confusion over who is being "led by the Holy Spirit" and who is not, and how we can tell the difference. One of my issues is that I'm afraid that we cannot rely on anyone's claim of special authority based on spiritual leading. It is so often entirely self serving. There are hopelessly muddled conflicts of interest–with heavy doses of inflexibility.
After all the wonderful discussion we have enjoyed here we still have to come back to the place were we started. The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) decided not to require or prohibit the circumcision of Christians. Similarly, the General Conference of SDAs may very well decide not to require or prohibit the ordination of female pastors. This seems to be a good way to go since the Bible does not require or prohibit the ordination of female pastors.
Totally agree. The Jerusalem Council showed that compromise is not a dirty word!
It also showed that on 'non-essential' issues, the Church should be able to promote unity through diversity.
Those who oppose women being pastors or elders often use Paul's remarks in 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 to support their concepts. Here Paul says that he does not permit a woman to have authority over a man. If we take no account of time and circumstances we must take the entire passage and apply it fully today. Let me quote the passage: "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence."
Paul knew nothing about Sabbath School and the divine service. The home gatherings of the time were similar to our Sabbath School. Let us apply this to our time. No woman should speak in the Sabbah School gathering. She is to learn in silence and to be silent. If she has any questions she is to ask these of her husband at home. Furthermore, no woman is to teach the Word in a Sabbath School class if any man is present. If we want to oppose women preachers preaching, let us be fully consistent and go all the way.
Joe Erwin I agree with you that God looks at things differently from what man does. If only our church had handled your sister like our church did in the days when Ellen White was alive, and there were so many women working in ministerial endeavours who were issued with ministerial licences. I believe today that God calls both men and women to be church pastors. Ephesians 4:11 "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers." And all these gifts are given by the Holy Spirit without distinction of gender. God calls women along with men today to be pastors and even though men may not ordain her, she can be ordained of God.
Mhanna I also agree with you that the way of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) is the way the General Conference may well go, that is to decide not to require or prohibit the ordination of female pastors. It would be the way of Christian wisdom, grace and statemanship. It could also contribute to the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32.
EX.15:20, And Miriam the prophetess, the SISTER of Aaron
JUDGES 4:4,And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth
Luke 2:36-37, And there was one Anna, a prophretess, the daughter of Phanuel, and served God with fastings and prayers night and day.
Acts 21: 8-9, Phillip the evangelist-had four daughters,virgins, which did prophesy
Ellen G White, a prophetess (assumed by millions) spoke thousands of times to the flock not only in church, personal communications, letters, books, in churches, and General meetings, was definitely a prophetess, teacher, pastor, a multi talentused by God. Considering her life's body of work, who can deny she served all these roles as a chosen vessel of Almighty God, ordained by the Holy Spirit.
A prophet/prophetess chosen of the Holy Spirit
On the matter of Ellen White's authority in the church, I once attended a very conservative Sabbath school class as a visitor, and during the lesson discussion, I used Scripture to underscore a point on the topic of the day.
A dear sister, whom I later learned was the wife of the teacher of that class, spoke up immediately after my remark and said, "And where in the Spirit of Prophecy can we find support for what you just said?" I responded, "Well, this theme is woven throughout the writings of Ellen White, and I would hope most of us are acquainted with her writings enough to know that. The Desire of Ages, for example, has several chapters related to this matter. Sorry, I didn't bring my copy; I guess I was misinformed when I was told this is a Bible study class." She replied, "In this class, we provide actual quotes and references from Sister White…."
Paradoxically, this same class group (I later learned, and had already surmised) is dead set against the ordination not only of women to the pastoral ministry, but of women to positions as elders in their congregation. How can it be that so much authority is given to the writings of a woman (Sister White) who lacked the physical attributes that presumably give the most worldly Christian males in a congregation automatic ascendency over the most devout woman? Why would God pour out his Spirit on a woman, knowing that in doing so He was Himself transgressing the main thrust of His own ideal plan of male dominion? I guess I'll have to gird my loins and don my suit of male (sic) and return to that class for the answer, much as I cringe at the thought of darkening its door.
Great point Earl. And in SDA tradition and practice, next to the Bible, the writings of Ellen White have more teaching authority than any other authority in the church.
It seems clear to me that in 1 Tim 2:11-12 Paul is correcting women who were "teaching so as to usurp authority over men." This correction of those women also applies in princlple to men who might also be "teaching so as to usurp authority." In the same chapter, when Paul calls for the men to pray this also applies in prnciple to the women (2:8). Similarly, when Paul calls the women to be modest this also applies in principle to the men (2:9-10). The creation order (2:13) reminds the women of the need to respect men. It does not prevent women (or men) from receiving the spiritual gift to be "teachers of good things" (Tit 2:3). The order of sin and deception (2:14) reminds women (and men) of the need to learn before they teach. The order of salvation through childbirth (2:15) reminds women (and men) of their unity in Christ.
Paul makes the same inclusive point in the other place where he explicitly discusses the creation-sin-salvation order of men and women. "Man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. . . . Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God" (1 Cor 11:8-12).
Mhanna
I disagree vehemently with your egalitarian revisionist interpretation of the above verses. I guess the point is we will probably never agree on this issue so what next. I do not believe in the pluralistic scenario that you propose so how do we move past this? Can 2 walk together except they be agreed?
Can someone explain why the opinions of Paul of Tarsus, an individual living roughly 2000 years ago in a totally different culture and social system, should be considered as authortative concerning what a small Protestant Christian faith community functioning in the 21st Century should do or not do with regard to whether women should be ordained? Please enlighten me.
Erv,
Paul wrote much of the New Testament and is considered to have been an apostle and a prophet by those who consider the Bible to be authoritative. In fact, our friend, Elaine (the great) Nelson considers Paul to have been the founder of the Christian religion; that’s all.
This gives some of us who also consider many arguments in favor of W.O. to be compelling (as I do) pause. Candidly, I am ambivalent on this topic.
i think Paul was so anti the feminine sex, that we can seriously discount this portion of his writing as being of inspiration. More and more, i am thinking the "thorn in his side" was that he was possibly a closeted celibate homosexual.
It is pretty sad when we have to concoct theories (placing Paul as anti/women homosexual) to explain away the word of God when it does not fit our perspective. Whats next? Jesus was homsexexual because he ran around with twelve men? I think God a good system from creation planned to allow it to last for 2000 yes thru 6000 years. After the first two thousand years this got so bad that God had to use a flood of water to clean up the problems. Then after the next 2000 years sent His own Son to do the job. Now after the next two thousand years it will be fire not water. Praise the Lord that He has planned for us to be with Him in heaven for the first 1000 year Sabbath to finish this week off!
I'm happy for "All4Him" that he/she has this all figured out–for him/her, with all of his/her questions answered–for him/her. For some of the rest of us, there are certain things which may not compute. It has always been–at least to me–a little strange that the first theologian of Chrisianity, Paul, never knew Jesus personally and had an out-of-body experience instead of a regular conversation with the individual that was supposed to be the central figure of his new religion. And why did Paul never explicitly explain what his "thorn in his side" was? Does anyone have any ideas about why that was?
Peter did have “a regular conversation with the individual that was supposed to be the central figure of his new religion.” I would think that Peter’s letters pose no such problem of being somewhat “strange;” but I have the feeling they might.
Doris Kearns Goodwin never met Lincoln or even FDR; yet that doesn’t seem “strange.” She seems to have a 'handle' on them, as have others who have written about those they’ve never actually met.
Since we’re speculating, perhaps Paul’s “thorn” wasn’t revealed so as to remain universally generic; so that anyone could forever relate to it—since it could have been practically anything.
Whether we take the traditional or the more contemporary view of Paul, is it not significant that he recognized 2000 years ago that the creation order was to be interpreted "in the Lord" (1 Cor 11:11). [On the one hand] "Man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. . . . Nevertheless, [on the other hand] neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God" (1 Cor 11:8-12).
At the very least, Paul needed a good editor to help him express his ideas more clearly. Take the quote from 1 Cor 11. What on earth is Paul talking about? No wonder theologicans argue about his theology 2000 years after he died.
True Erv. And even Paul's contemporaries had a hard time with some of what Paul wrote. I am reminded of the words of Peter: "Our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures" (2 Pet 3:15-16).
I see. It is only "untaught and unstable people" who twist Pauls writings "to their own destruction." Hmm. As you know, contemporary New Testament scholars are conflicted about who actually wrote the letters to which Peters's name has been attached. I'm informed that the language used in 1 Peter is a rather elegant form of Greek and scholars wonder where a Jewish fisherman learned to write such elegant Greek.
I think you would better consider whether Paul wrote the anti-femine tracts.
One need only read all the comments listed above that have been brought forth to place the writer Paul as anti-women to homosexual as they try to explain away the direct clear Word of the Lord which was written and still stands true after 2000 years… Twisting and squeezing they try to wring out a drops of made up ideas to calm the thirst for the straight truth. Attacks against the Word of God and its authors as well as shadowing clear light given by the Spirit of Prophecy….
Here is a quote from Early Writings page 96: "I was shown that the truth once published now, will stand, for it is the truth for the last days: It will live, and less need be said upon it in the future. Numberless words need not be put on paper to justify what speaks for itself and shines in its clearness. Truth is straight, plain, and clear, and stands out boldly in its own defense, but it is not so with error. It is so winding and twisting that it needs a multitude of words to explain it in its crooked form.
You can write till your keyboards are worn out but it does not change the clear plain truth of the Word.
All the questions about authorship do need to be addressed. And it is true that Paul is misunderstood by persons who are very learned and stable. Whatever our various positions may be on these matters, I do not see any basis in the Bible for excluding women from the reception of the spiritual gift of pastor. And, if I am correct that God does distribute this gift to women–then I think that the church should not pass a rule that prohibits the ordination of such women.
There is a great need for ministry of women, pastors/shepherds of the family and the church are a calling God has commanded that men fulfill. When the Bible or the SOP is read in context there is unity in such thought.
If there is a "unity" of thought in the "Bible and SOP" and if "All4Him"'s interpreation of the Bible and SOP in this case is correct, well this just provides us with another example where God can change his mind about these kinds of issues.
Until "the Roles are called up yonder" Ervin it's clear shepherds of the house 1 Timothy 3:5….and shepherds of the "household of God" 1 Peter 4:17, 1 Timothy 3:15 are MEN called to be servent/leaders. Ephesians 5:29, Malachi 3:6
Here we are grappling with different concepts of some titles of individuals called to God's service. Priest, prophet, missionary, pastor, elder, apostle, evangelist, teacher, table waiter, foot washer, sheep. i believe most of all respondents are here because of love for the Lord Jesus Christ. It is most interesting that our prime priority is Jesus, yet we see through a blurred glass as our knowledge is incomplete. Some are adamant that the Bible is without fallibility, and you can deposit it in heavens bank; some have vehemence (would believe they mean zeal rather than fury) in their views; yet others, that though inspiration is in the body of the Bible, we have in present forms, languages, interpretations, by many differentvoices, word of mouth, scribes, translators, all of whom are imperfect, and all are sinners: Yet, all, who by faith in God's grace, have accepted the Lord Jesus, their Creator and Redeemer. And of course their are detractors, non-believers, and atheists, of whom we love.
Personally i believe we have two "sure" powers that inform us, teach us, inspire us, and guide our moment by moment Earth life, the OT and NT of the Holy Bible, and God the Holy Spirit. Without God the Holy Spirit in my constant psyche, of whom Jesus promised, i would have been physically dead in my sins long ago.
Put on the whole armor of God. Utilitzation of very possible resource, i believe, isGod's desire, to present His perfect love, to His treasured Earthly Creation. Think about it, would it be wise to exclude approx 50% of the resources?? i think not. Many are called and few respond to God's invitation to participate in His grand enterprise. But some are talented to be used in perhaps one, and some are talented in several of the aforementioned "titles" of service. God will not put us in boxes, as robots, He will accept each and every talent marshalled in His calling, male or female. If you are male or female, compare your sinful self to the perfect love of Jesus Christ. Bring all the HARVEST into God's eternal treasury.
Amen!
"When a great and decisive work is to be done, God chooses men and women to do this work, and it will feel the loss if the talents of both are not combined." Ellen White, Letter 77, 1898; Evangelism, 469.
Martin.
I would also like to add a sincere Amen to Earl Calahan's thoughful and spiritual piece of writing. And mhanna, your quote from Ellen White adds a lovely and important confirmation. I wish you all God's blessing on the Sabbath.
Yes mhanna God chooses men and women to do this work, we have a dear lady in our church that works each week going to homes door to door spreading the gospel. It is thrilling to hear the stories how God has led. Yet this is not contrary to Gods commands that men be leader in the home and church….
Women as well as men can engage in the work of hiding the truth where it can work out and be made manifest. They can take their place in the work at this crisis, and the Lord will work through them. If they are imbued with a sense of their duty, and labor under the influence of the Spirit of God, they will have just the self-possession required for this time. The Saviour will reflect upon these self-sacrificing women the light of His countenance, and this will give them a power that will exceed that of men. They can do in families a work that men cannot do, a work that reaches the inner life. They can come close to the hearts of those whom men cannot reach. Their work is needed. Discreet and humble women can do a good work in explaining the truth to the people in their homes. The word of God thus explained will do its leavening work, and through its influence whole families will be converted. T9 pg 128
All4Him
Discreet and humble women can do a good work in explaining the truth to the people in their homes.
But please do not let any of these women do that same work in the church. That would be out of order. We must keep women in their place.
"we must keep women in their place" ??? To elevate them as Christ elevates the church…As servent/leaders we need to love, cherish and protect them as Christ loved, cherished and protected the church, taking all self away and be willing to die for them as Christ did for the church. What better postion would they want?
When all this is done by Christ for the church then do we as the church usurp the authority God has given Christ???
Whats up Doc? the Word does not say there is not a ministry for all but gives roles for husbands and wifes in the home and in the church. God designed roles to blend families together and strengthen one another thus making families strong. Something the devil is working very hard to destroy.
Take the oil and water for instance in your engine of your car… do they diffent roles? Are they equally inportant in the function of the engine? If either are removed doest he engine work very well? What happens when the head is damaged and they mix?
Before the blood of menstruating woman, the birthing canal of the pregnant woman, the assumed position of the sexualized woman, the lowly stare of the subservient woman and the breast of nursing woman- was that there was. It was bloody, tribal, defined by sex, and by Mosaic Law. And before, man was the circumcised heir of Issac, Jacob and Judah.
Now Christ is the blood and circumcised, we are united SPIRITUALLY. The blood is dead, the bleeding woman is healed and no longer a mere woman. The law is meant to kill us. The circumcised man is now circumcised by heart through grace of God.
Both men and women no longer have unclean bleeding. Both men and women are circumcised in their hearts- THIS IS SPIRIT WON BY CHRIST. The body is dead, gender is dead, and the Law is still alive but meant to kill.
The Spirit lives, and the Spirit is our only salvation.
You're familiar w/ Judaism, right? I sincerely ask this just as I sincerely ask that your mind be rooted in prayer and the Holy Spirit.
Hate to beat the same drum but, your logic is so exclusive, contradictory, and circular that I'm starting to believe its unintentional and not manipulative. You've unintentionally denied that Christ died for all people.
Ok, Judaism is religion of the flesh- understood?
In Judaism, we'd have to born from a Jewish womb (women were judged on fertility, submission to husband, and raising children to be TRIBAL MEMBERS)
In Judaism, we'd have to be circumcised by flesh
And in Judaism, we as men will be defenders and champions of the Law and Blood of Israel to vanquish all earthly foes until- Jews are called to lead the world into salvation under Jewish leadership (that is the 1st Messiah Jews await)
Unfortunately, your "testimony" is so misguided- you're proposing to take the benefits of Masculine Judaism w/o the Cost of Masculine Judaism. To be like King David or Samuel or Moses or even Isaiah- you'd have to pay the price they did to HAVE A MALE DOMINATED RELIGION. Jewish men WERE CIRCUMCISED in Holy Convenant, born of Jewish womb, w/ the blood of Abraham.
Now please, imagine how they felt to hear a peasant rabbi say all these ways are DEAD! And the Temple of Israelites w/ Blood of Abraham would be literally and figuratively destroyed!
To then CHERRY PICK and say God made a new Convenant w/ Gentiles and Jews but not between males and females is absurd. Sure Mary Magdalene is whore that slept w/ Jew and Gentile, broke every law- but she would be invited in the Holiest of Holies by Sadduccean Caiphas before any Gentile ever would.
And I'm not talking about Samaritans relative to Jews but, non-Jews that follow the true Jewish Messiah in Christ.
Don't say men are the sole leaders and claim Christ's salvation- and have the "right flesh" to lead and use texts that others "do not have the right flesh" and use texts "that say the family of flesh w/ husbands and sons and tribes and male elders of the tribe is what God used to replace Jews". THAT IS A VENOMOUS LIE!
Jews were not to be fallibly replaced by an infallible God for a Gentile tribe version of Jews. Marriage and blood family and husbands and kingdoms or authorities IS NOT THE WAY OF THE LORD. It's a NEW COVENANT, A SPIRITUAL CONVENANT.
THE WAY prepared by many, like John the Baptist- It's through the wilderness, it's the Spirit, it's the Water, it's the humble and stillness of truth that is carefully moved by the Holy Spirit.
Don't preach about Judaic Law as your weapon to resist evil and the "right flesh between your legs" promises more than another "type of flesh in between another pair of legs". And then claim Christ as your redeemer from the Law, redeemer of sins by the flesh, redeeming us to be in a spiritual Convenant after our male fathers failed us- take refuge by our Heavenly Father.
Finally, male fathers can only pass on the Law and Death to be the inheritance to their male circumcised and legally pure sons. Once again, for men to assume leadership they better do so by the perfect Law, Orthodox Jews to this today assume power and leadership over the Old Convenant w/ this "perfecting of Law" every single day of their joyless lives- they assume power like Sadducean priesthood but it's not by Christ. Once again, Christ did not die so men could ignore the Law while enjoying the benefits of male leadership- picky choosy lukewarm way… So once again, we inherit the Law and Death for earthly father.
But Life and the Holy Spirit come from "Abba" our Heavenly Father. Christ did not die so his earthly father Joseph could lead but died to tell his mother- THAT ALL BELIEVERS ARE ONE IN CHRIST. All believers become one, all become fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters- there is no physical barrier, there is no flesh, there nothing that the Spirit CANNOT SAVE from the Law. So by the Holy Spirit, women like Mary Madgalene can equally sit at the Last Supper b/c Christ died so she could equally be saved and serve just as men. And it was her by whom the Risen Christ revealed himself.
This really is the conclusion- by John the Baptist, we learn that Christ said we must become a new creation- neither male or female or given into earthly deeds like marriage and blood family of dead Jewish traditions and ancestors. That we must be born again by the Holy Spirit and Water. Born by the Water, and our gender is love- not made by flesh but simply one out of love. We cannot be saved if we are born out of woman w/ gender and flesh and blood and the Law, but we are saved by the Holy Spirit and BORN AGAIN by Water.
When we are born again, our mother, our father, our brothers, our sisters, and our flesh are SPIRITUAL and united by God.
Let the Spirit lead the church, lead women who are compelled to serve in whatever capacity, and don't presume to interfere especially w/ the nonsense of pagan or legalistic flesh- it is dead and the Spirit is alive w/ the Risen Christ. Men of Judah by which misogyny is based on, deny the Spirit indeed raised Christ from the dead. They deny and cling to their rotting Jewish mortal flesh. The Law or masculinity will not save- only the Spirit by which there is no gender! Praise be to God!
You're familiar w/ Judaism, right? I sincerely ask this just as I sincerely ask that your mind be rooted in prayer and the Holy Spirit.
Hate to beat the same drum but, your logic is so exclusive, contradictory, and circular that I'm starting to believe its unintentional and not manipulative. You've unintentionally denied that Christ died for all people.
Ok, Judaism is religion of the flesh- understood?
In Judaism, we'd have to born from a Jewish womb (women were judged on fertility, submission to husband, and raising children to be TRIBAL MEMBERS)
In Judaism, we'd have to be circumcised by flesh
And in Judaism, we as men will be defenders and champions of the Law and Blood of Israel to vanquish all earthly foes until- Jews are called to lead the world into salvation under Jewish leadership (that is the 1st Messiah Jews await)
Unfortunately, your "testimony" is so misguided- you're proposing to take the benefits of Masculine Judaism w/o the Cost of Masculine Judaism. To be like King David or Samuel or Moses or even Isaiah- you'd have to pay the price they did to HAVE A MALE DOMINATED RELIGION. Jewish men WERE CIRCUMCISED in Holy Convenant, born of Jewish womb, w/ the blood of Abraham.
Now please, imagine how they felt to hear a peasant rabbi say all these ways are DEAD! And the Temple of Israelites w/ Blood of Abraham would be literally and figuratively destroyed!
To then CHERRY PICK and say God made a new Convenant w/ Gentiles and Jews but not between males and females is absurd. Sure Mary Magdalene is whore that slept w/ Jew and Gentile, broke every law- but she would be invited in the Holiest of Holies by Sadduccean Caiphas before any Gentile ever would.
And I'm not talking about Samaritans relative to Jews but, non-Jews that follow the true Jewish Messiah in Christ.
Don't say men are the sole leaders and claim Christ's salvation- and have the "right flesh" to lead and use texts that others "do not have the right flesh" and use texts "that say the family of flesh w/ husbands and sons and tribes and male elders of the tribe is what God used to replace Jews". THAT IS A VENOMOUS LIE!
Jews were not to be fallibly replaced by an infallible God for a Gentile tribe version of Jews. Marriage and blood family and husbands and kingdoms or authorities IS NOT THE WAY OF THE LORD. It's a NEW COVENANT, A SPIRITUAL CONVENANT.
THE WAY prepared by many, like John the Baptist- It's through the wilderness, it's the Spirit, it's the Water, it's the humble and stillness of truth that is carefully moved by the Holy Spirit.
Don't preach about Judaic Law as your weapon to resist evil and the "right flesh between your legs" promises more than another "type of flesh in between another pair of legs". And then claim Christ as your redeemer from the Law, redeemer of sins by the flesh, redeeming us to be in a spiritual Convenant after our male fathers failed us- take refuge by our Heavenly Father.
Finally, male fathers can only pass on the Law and Death to be the inheritance to their male circumcised and legally pure sons. Once again, for men to assume leadership they better do so by the perfect Law, Orthodox Jews to this today assume power and leadership over the Old Convenant w/ this "perfecting of Law" every single day of their joyless lives- they assume power like Sadducean priesthood but it's not by Christ. Once again, Christ did not die so men could ignore the Law while enjoying the benefits of male leadership- picky choosy lukewarm way… So once again, we inherit the Law and Death for earthly father.
But Life and the Holy Spirit come from "Abba" our Heavenly Father. Christ did not die so his earthly father Joseph could lead but died to tell his mother- THAT ALL BELIEVERS ARE ONE IN CHRIST. All believers become one, all become fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters- there is no physical barrier, there is no flesh, there nothing that the Spirit CANNOT SAVE from the Law. So by the Holy Spirit, women like Mary Madgalene can equally sit at the Last Supper b/c Christ died so she could equally be saved and serve just as men. And it was her by whom the Risen Christ revealed himself.
This really is the conclusion- by John the Baptist, we learn that Christ said we must become a new creation- neither male or female or given into earthly deeds like marriage and blood family of dead Jewish traditions and ancestors. That we must be born again by the Holy Spirit and Water. Born by the Water, and our gender is love- not made by flesh but simply one out of love. We cannot be saved if we are born out of woman w/ gender and flesh and blood and the Law, but we are saved by the Holy Spirit and BORN AGAIN by Water.
When we are born again, our mother, our father, our brothers, our sisters, and our flesh are SPIRITUAL and united by God.
Let the Spirit lead the church, lead women who are compelled to serve in whatever capacity, and don't presume to interfere especially w/ the nonsense of pagan or legalistic flesh- it is dead and the Spirit is alive w/ the Risen Christ. Men of Judah by which misogyny is based on, deny the Spirit indeed raised Christ from the dead. They deny and cling to their rotting Jewish mortal flesh. The Law or masculinity will not save- only the Spirit by which there is no gender! Praise be to God!
Was it the pagan or legalistic flesh Lynn that God created a male first in the garden before sin? When before sin God created a helpmate for Adam. What are the true "benefits of male leadership" to be selfless and be willing to die to protect the females and children?
Whose females and children do they belong to?!!! It's the worst kind of pagan love or tribalistic Judaism to love what we claim as ours. It's the worst kind of discipleship to love and protect what is ours.
Protect God's children THAT HAVE NO GENDER OR TRIBE OR RELIGION but they are children and they belong to God.
Protect what belongs to God and OWN NOTHING. See! Own nothing earthly, own nothing carnal, own nothing tribal or by the flesh! OWN NOTHING and protect what is God's.
Die for what is God's. Give up everything, including your gender and life for others and God- that is true authentic agape love. You're manipulative lies are based on death and the payment of wages that is death.
Exactly!!!!!!!
All of legalistic Judaisms or paganism cause and are the result of sin. And sins of the Law and Flesh. Differences btw Adam n Eve led to sin, their need for things and differences to please the flesh led to sinful carnal nature. And the Law came later to further exacerbate the division of sin descended from Adam's rejection of God and Eve's vanity to assume role of God.
But in matters of spirituality- ALL PEOPLE ARE CALLED TO BE PERFECT AND SAVED EQUALLY AND TOGETHER IN ONENESS AND FULLNESS.
The old ways are for the dead and dying, Christ give us birth again- no blood, gender or tribe.
Don't use the old ways and Law but try to avoid consequences- it's pathetic and silly to reason w/ such double mindedness.
There is no truth in leadership based on the flesh!
This deceitful "Focus on the Family" propaganda is the type of misguided Judaic-based and fascist sectarian ideology of us vs. them. Don't pretend to be New Israel and act as if it is based in blood roots.
Only Spiritual Leadership has Heavenly Truths. The Ark of Covenant has long since died and has not been "replaced" but FULFILLED by the Risen Christ- and we are moved by the Holy Spirit!
NOT THE FLESH NOT THE FLESH, it is dead but the Spirit and Christ truly and lovingly live.
“Make no mistake in neglecting to correct the error of giving ministers less than they should receive. . . . The tithe should go to those who labor in word and doctrine, be they men or women.” (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases, 1:263).
"It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God." (Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322).
"It is not always men who are best adapted to the successful management of a church. If faithful women have more deep piety and true devotion than men, they could indeed by their prayers and their labors do more than men who are unconsecrated in heart and life." (Ellen G. White to Brother Johnson, Letter 33, 1879; Manuscript Releases, 19:55-56).
"When a great and decisive work is to be done, God chooses men and women to do this work, and it will feel the loss if the talents of both are not combined." (Letter 77, 1898; Evangelism, 469).
"There are women who should labor in the gospel ministry." (Pastoral Ministry, p. 76).
"Study the Scriptures for further light on this point. Women were among Christ’s devoted followers in the days of His ministry, and Paul makes mention of certain women who were helpers together with him in the gospel (see Philippians 4:2, 3)." (Letter 142, 1909, pp. 4-6. To A. G. Daniells, October 27, 1909. Manuscript Releases, 12:167).
you may take EGW writings out of context for it is clear she is speaking of litature evangelism work not a shepherd of the home or church… Paul does mention women who help him yet he is quite clear on the subject when he wrote to Timothy… 1 Timothy 2:9,10,11,12,13,14,15 1 Timothy 3:1,2,3,4,5,6,7
Lynn and Bill. Bless you both. Lynn, thank you for repeating your sermon twice. This was a blessed message that flowed through your finger tips, authored with the Holy Spirit's guidance to your fingertips. Hallejah, praise our Almighty God. AMEN.
All for HIM, what are you afraid will happen if women are treated fairly?
Joe you should start a petition to God to change the names of the foundations and gates of the New Jerusalam it really is not fair at all now is it?
Any new couples must sign documents to promise that each other will have the same amount of time at home and work while providing for there families. It's not fair for women to have a longer life span…. having them live longer in this sinful world just is not fair.
Your right Joe we need to treat women more fairly, Lets require them sign up for the draft after they turn 18 or they will be unable to obtain any federal grants for school. To make it fair put 50 percent of them on any front line combat positions. While we are at it….. make it even Steven by removing womens divisions in the Olympics.
All churches must have a least fifty percent ration of women to men in grounds maintence, roof or painting repairs to make them feel included.
Joe don't you feel that Father God knew what would be best for the structure of families and churches?
:)) Well, wo-men will probably take you up on your proposition, uhh, that is if you will share her duties only 25% of the time, including pregnancy, and the 9 months incubation requirement in your abdo-men.
Yes Earl I guess some would even want to spend tithe monies on research to make that happen if possible ….we would have to rename the mothers room though…..
mhanna- make sure you read all what EGW mentions on this subject in context:
The primary object of our college was to afford young men an opportunity to study for the ministry and to prepare young persons of both sexes to become workers in the various branches of the cause. 5T page 60.
Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be men of blameless reputation. 5T page 598
Of course God knows what is best for the church. "It is not always men who are best adapted to the successful management of a church. If faithful women have more deep piety and true devotion than men, they could indeed by their prayers and their labors do more than men who are unconsecrated in heart and life." (Ellen G. White to Brother Johnson, Letter 33, 1879; Manuscript Releases, 19:55-56).
Thank you, mhanna, for the valuable quotes that you provide from EGWhite. And you always write in such a kind, Christian spirit. Your comments are valued by all. You might wish to forward your quotes to the TOSC – perhaps they have them.
I was particularly interested in your one quote which I will repeat, "It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God" (6T, page 322).
The above seems clear to me but I was challenged by the reponse to the above from All4Him when he wrote: "you may take EGW writings out of context for it is clear she is speaking of literature evangelism work not a shepherd of the home or church." I have read the chapter (pages 321 to 325) a couple of times very carefully and I submit that All4Him is incorrect in his assessment. Let me show this.
The chapter is headed, "The Canvasser a Gospel Worker" but it needs to be read very carefully as there is a subtle interplay between the 'canvasser' and the 'gospel minister'. She even has three categories of work in the chapter, namely, "canvassing work", "medical missionary work" and "the ministry". And she encourages both medical missionaries and ministers to engage in the canvassing work. She says, "the canvassing work is to be a part both of the medical missionary work and of the ministry" (page 323). Despite this overlap of work the categories are distinct.
In this chapter she talks of the importance of both the canvasser and the gospel minister. While their work is both important their roles are distinct in the mind of EGW. Her opening sentence clearly dilineates the two categories: "The intelligent, God-fearing, truth-loving canvasser should be respected; for he occupies a postion equal to that of the gospel minister" (page321).
A careful reading of the chapter shows that Ellen White speaks of basically two groups. On the one side is the canvasser (page 321)/ colporter (page 323) and on the other side is the gospel minister (page 321), the preacher (page 323), the minister and theologian (page 324) and the pastor to the flock of God (page 322). Then she encourages our ministers to do canvassing work: "All our ministers should feel free to carry with them books to dispose of wherever they go" (page 321) and "Let none think that it belittles a minster of the gospel to engage in canvassing as a means of carrying truth to the people" (page 321). So while ministers are distinct from canvassers she is encouraging ministers to engage in canvassing work.
With a picture of this interplay between canvassing and the ministry let us look again carefully at the quote in mind. I will quote the two sentences in full: "The experience thus gained [through the canvassing work] will be of the greatest value to those who are fitting themselves for the ministry [gospel minister/preacher/theologian]. It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God" (page 322). Quite clearly in this context these pastors are not canvassers, they are gospel ministers. You don't engage in canvassing work in order to become canvassers. These two verses indicate quite clearly that canvassing is a wonderful way for both men and women to prepare for the ministry ["to become pastors to the flock of God"]. Kindly take time to read this whole chapter very carefully and prayerfully without prejudice. Both men and women can be prepared through the school of canvassing to become ministers/shepherds/pastors to the flock/church of God.
Thanks Erik. I completely agree with your analysis of the chapter where Elen White refers to "men and women" as "pastors to the flock of God" (testimonies, 6:322). Note also what she writes in True Education, p. 23. "In the divine plan of education as adapted to humanity’s condition after the Fall, Christ stands as the representative of the Father, the connecting link between God and the fallen race. He ORDAINED that men and women should be His representatives."
I am not really waiting with abated breath for a capitulation from All for Male, even though the
quotations from adventist authority seem entirely clear and compelling.
It seems to me that the result of due consideration, along with a goal of fair and equitable
treatment without regard for gender, aligns rather well with the Voice of Authority.
whoo Joe….you need to hold on to your reins (as well as take them back and lead your flock)….it all for Him (Christ) much more than a mere Male. Your clear and compelling authority seems to have a little smoke and mirrors…nice try but I'll stick with the Bible and SOP in context.
The liberal camp must be commended for being extremely super-fit in that only they can pull off such intricate contorted bible and spirit of prophecy gymnastics.
Take for instance the canvassing statements. It is clear that some are desperately seeking to make their case for ordination stick but are so desperate that they would conflate and wrest out of context what is being said in the following quote. The other places where these same words are found are listed below. Only in one of all of these places where these words are used (VSS 222.4 The Voice in Speech and Song)* we find that canvassing itself is not mentioned but again context speaks no grounds for ordination.
CM 33.1 (Colporteur Ministry)
DG 251.4 (Daughters of God)
GW 96.4 (Gospel Workers 1915)
MC 30.1 (Manual for Canvassers)
PaM 47.2 (Pastoral Ministry)
6T 322.1 (Testimonies for the Church Volume 6)
2TT 541.1 (Testimony Treasures Volume 2)
VSS 222.4 (The Voice in Speech and Song) *
AUCR July 1, 1902, par. 5 (Australasian Union Conference Record)
BEcho September 18, 1899, Art. B, par. 14 (The Bible Echo)
RH November 7, 1899, Art. B, par. 13 (The Review and Herald)
RH January 15, 1901, par. 5 (The Review and Herald)
Furthermore, Mrs Ellen White mentions men specifically for certain roles which is quite reasonably obvious as this quote from Gospel Workers, Page 124 and Testimonies Vol 6, Page 327 reveal.
Trevor, the issue of female ordination is not a liberal against conservative issue. If women are called by God to pastoral ministry–then they should be ordained to pastoral ministry. If women are not called to pastoral ministry–then they should not be ordained to pastoral ministry.
So the first question to be asked is whether women are called by God to pastoral ministry. Ellen White says yes. So now the next question arises. Shall we ordain these women for the work to which God has called them?
With regard to your quotations that refer to "men" you seem to overlook the well known practice of using masculine terms in a generic way to include women. This practice is common in the Bible and in the writinngs of Ellen White.
In the Bible: When Paul asks women to be modest, he does not imply that it is ok for men to be immodest (1 Tim 2:9-10).
In Ellen White: "The greatest want of the world is men [and women]" "who will not be bought or sold" (Education, 57).
mhanna makes an important point. The WO issue turns out not to be a liberal vs. conservative issue. Some of the most theologically conservative Adventists and many who accept EGW as an authority figure (such as the author of this blog) support women's ordination. The WO issue turns on cultural values and social customs which some raise to the level of religious or theological ones. The debate within Adventism over WO should merit at least a footnote in future Ph.D. dissertations and scholarly analysis of Late 20th and Early 21st Century American religious evolution of conservative religious bodies. As others have mentioned, that this debate should break out in a religious tradition that had a woman mystic/prophet as one of its founders is quite interesting. One would think that it would have been more likely that this kind of debate would have caused difficulties within, for example, the Mormon tradition who had a male prophet, where males have always dominated decision making and male "headship" arguments have much more cultural and social traction.
A few particulars regarding this issue:
1] There is no sound biblical evidence clearly instructing or even vaguely denoting that any women in both the old and new testament received ordination. That is a fact.
2] The accusation of ‘gender discrimination’ is not a valid one when based upon a biblical understanding of the distinct roles of men and women in ministry. In doing so, proponents of WO directly accuse God of doing the same. Those who accuse the church of undermining women and treating them badly are only seeking sympathy for their special interest group’s cause for which there is no biblical mandate nor any spirit of prophecy obligation for such a teaching. This remains purely an issue driven by the cultural perceptions and an undeniable part of the social-political domain.
3] The fact that Junia crops up in such discussions where this person is claimed to be an apostle is a fine example of them trying to make the picture fit the pieces of the puzzle. I'm glad Seventh-day Adventists don't use the term apostles for ordained pastors as some may accuse them of falsely claiming the title. The Twelve Apostles were commanded by Jesus to go and preach to the house of Israel as clearly shown in Matt 10:5, 6 when they were sent out. They were to avoid the areas of the Gentiles and Samaritans as per Jesus' instruction. This, to me, indicates that the apostles worked within a framework of designated service. They healed and performed miracles, and some of them wrote scripture. These were with Jesus from his baptism to ascension (except for Judas Iscariot of course) [Acts 1:21-22].
The Apostle Paul (like the twelve disciples ) was directly called by Jesus to witness to the Gentiles [1Cor 1:1; Acts 9:4-5, 17; Gal 2:8; 1Tim 2:7; 2Tim 1:11; Rom 1:1]. Paul also wrote scripture and performed miracles. Barnabas on the other hand, is not known for writing scripture and for performing miracles. He was called by the church and hands were laid on him to serve as an apostle alongside with Paul [Acts 14:14].
Jesus is also correctly entitled apostle as found in Heb 3:1. He was sent by the Father [John 5:23]. Then we also have Titus called a messenger ‘apostolos’ which indicates yet another type of apostle who was ‘sent.’
4] We should take note of the fact that: 1] no female headship is found in Genesis 1Cor 15:22, 2] no female headship in OT tribes of Israel, 3] no female priests in OT and NT, 4] no females were called to apostleship by Jesus, 5] no female delegates, apostles or elders at Acts 15 Council, 6] no females served as elders in the bible, 7] no female pastors in bible, 8] no female bishops in bible.
All these are insurmountable pieces of evidence pointing against what is being said by many regarding this issue. It is best that proponents of WO accept that it is purely a cultural issue and that they should rather stick to using the slavery / racial discrimination / gender equality arguments which to me is unwarranted but at least it will be a little more realistic and worth its salt.
5] The GC (as mentioned in earlier comments) did not take any action so far regarding WO in any form, except for an Annual Council approving women serving as Elders. This is the only anamoly in this regard which is reason for concern and further investigation – and for a GC in Session to make the ultimate decision. Some were not too pleased when I mentioned the adage that when you 'give someone an inch, they take a yard.' That is human nature I suppose…
If women in ministry want more money and if this is the only cause driving their concern and not just the receiving of titles, then I say give them the money to keep the peace. In cultural issues like these it is not uncommon for economics to play a part in stirring up special interest groups.
Do my eyes (both of them) deceive me? Did Mr. Hammond write that the SDA WO question is a "culture issue"? (He also suggests that might be an economic issue. That might be true for conference administrators who have to balance budgets, but it's not driving the issue theologically or from a church polity point of view). If we all now agree that it is a cultural issue, then the suggestion of a solution by Cindy provides an answer. Let each Division or Union decide based on what cultural values are paramount in each region by the majority of church members. Let's drop the "church unity" argument–that will only continue to create division and polarization.
Ervin we do not need to go the route of Congregationalist, we DO NOT need to drop the church unity argument for we are to be one in Christ not one in Culture.
RE: "The WO issue turns out not to be a liberal vs. conservative issue." [Dr Taylor]
RE: "As others have mentioned, that this debate should break out in a religious tradition that had a woman mystic/prophet as one of its founders is quite interesting." [Dr Taylor]
—–
To say that WO is not a liberal vs conservative issue is rather superficial I would say and comes as no surprise from one who remains on the extremes of the liberal side of the divide. Let the same people say that they don't support homosexual marriage and one will find Dr Taylor invoking the conservative pidgeon hole. When a culturally driven mandate is being railroaded on the church without conclusive evidence or direction from the bible, and when charges of 'gender discrimination' are hurtled at the church even when what is being practiced is in full harmony with scripture, and those who make such accusations and who seek to bypass and openly disrespect the GC and its leader Pastor Ted Wilson then it is a liberal vs conservative issue. There can be no doubt about that.
We all know that Mrs Ellen White was never ordained, even though some have been unscrupulous in trying to pass off that she was. Mrs White never organised churches, baptised or officiated in marriages. She never pastored a local church or was elected as a local church elder, let alone be ordained as one. Her work as she often humbly indicated was that of a 'messenger of the Lord.' Her writings are consistant in her support of the distinctive roles of men and women in the family, marriage, church and society. The ordination of women has no significant bearing in her writings because it is not in line with what the bible teaches and what God has designed for us. I am always intrigued by the way some women express their special interest in wanting to be or have whatever they perceive men having – even if it means changing roles. Whilst this may seem a trivial matter, it actually has already messed up much of First World society, as can be seen in the exponential breakdown of family life. The high divorce rate, single parenting, couples shacking up together and resultant decay of society (including largescale abortion) can be attributed to the worldviews held by such special interest groups. Those men supporting such actions will get what they want: a pat on the back from the ladies of course. By the way it should be well noted that most women I would say have not bought into such dodgy rash decision making which encourages rebellion against the church and the dissing of the GC, the world church and GC President. One positive aspect in all of this is that dodgy theologians in our church who have been wreaking havoc over the years in our colleges, seminaries and churches, teaching doctrines of men contrary to our biblically based fundamental beliefs will be exposed. Again, conservative vs liberal I would say.
Dear Dr Taylor
The problem arises when socio-political cultural practices and norms are at conflict with strong biblical evidence to the contrary – and when special interest groups start to contort scriptures and spirit of prophecy writings in order to justify their interests. Most societal changes and worldviews of late are driven by secular governments which are contrary to Christian beliefs and unfortunately many Christians have bought into this worldview and are now turning on the church in order to have their own way even trumping up the charge of 'gender discrimination.' They accuse God too in the process. In addition to this I only suggested that this special interest group are better off arguing from a cultural platform (not that I am in agreement with this nor does this make it right as it conflicts with scripture), as opposed to trying to use scripture gymnastics to justify it.
To suggest, as you have done, that the Union Conferences (or Divisions) decide for themselves on this matter poses a few problems, one being that there is no such thing as ordination of women taught in the bible. It's like there's no such thing as female circumcision (there shouldn't be) or male child bearing (there shouldn't be) nor women and men competing against each other at the Oympics (there shouldn't be).
Can women be ordained? Ellen White: “In the city of Portland the Lord ordained me as His messenger, and here my first labors were given to the cause of present truth.”—The Review and Herald, May 18, 1911. What God does in heaven should be reflected in what we do on earth (Mat 16:19; 18:18).
God does not seem to have a problem with ordaining women.
When she was asked if she was ever ordained on a questionaire she did not reply as a yes…..
Choose Wise Men—For years the Lord has been instructing us to choose wise men,-men who are devoted to God,—men who know what the principles of heaven are,-men who have learned what it means to walk with God,—and to place upon them the responsibility of looking after the business affairs connected with our work. This is in accordance with the Bible plan as outlined in the sixth chapter of Acts. We need to study this plan; for it is approved of God. Let us follow the Word.—The Review and Herald, October 5, 1905.
RH March 11, 1909, par. 12. "For consecrated men and women God has made full provision. Actual service will determine the character of the work of those ORDAINED OF GOD to bring salvation to human hearts and minds."
True Education, p. 23. "In the divine plan of education as adapted to humanity’s condition after the Fall, Christ stands as the representative of the Father, the connecting link between God and the fallen race. He ORDAINED that men and women should be His representatives."
Manuscript Releases, 6:226. "The Lord move upon the churches! May the voice from the living oracles of God, the startling movings of providence, speak in clear language to the church, “separate unto me Paul and Barnabas.” Holy and devout MEN are wanted now to cultivate their mental and physical powers and their piety to the uttermost, and to be ORDAINED to go forth as medical missionaries, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. Every effort should be made to send forth intelligent workers. The same grace that came from Jesus Christ to Paul and Apollos, that distinguished them for spiritual excellencies can be reproduced and brought into working order in many devoted missionaries."
Yes medical missionaries, teachers, litature evangelist covered by your quotes… BUT NOT ordained Women pastors/shepherds.
There is an urgent demand for laborers in the gospel field. Young men are needed for this work; God calls for them. Their education is of primary importance in our colleges, and in no case should it be ignored or regarded as a secondary matter. It is entirely wrong for teachers, by suggesting other occupations, to discourage young men who might be qualified to do acceptable work in the ministry. Those who present hindrances to prevent young men from fitting themselves for this work are counterworking the plans of God, and they will have to give an account of their course. There is among us more than an average of men of ability. If their capabilities were brought into use, we should have twenty ministers where we now have one.
Young men who design to enter the ministry should not spend a number of years solely in obtaining an education. Teachers should be able to comprehend the situation and to adapt their instruction to the wants of this class, and special advantages should be given them for a brief yet comprehensive study of the branches most needed to fit them for their work. But this plan has not been followed. Too little attention has been given to the education of young men for the ministry. We have not many years to work, and teachers should be imbued with the Spirit of God and work in harmony with His revealed will, instead of carrying out their own plans. We are losing much every year because we do not heed the counsel of the Lord on these points.
Testimony Treasures Volume 2, Page 416
Ellen White does not seem to have any problem with the concept of ordaining women. Was she a liberal? Let's face it–the issue is not whether or not women can be ordained. The issue is about whether or not God is calling women to be pastors. If God is not calling women to be pastors–then we should not ordain women to be pastors. At the same time, if God is calling women to be pastors . . . .
"One positive aspect in all of this is that dodgy theologians in our church who have been wreaking havoc over the years in our colleges, seminaries and churches, teaching doctrines of men contrary to our biblically based fundamental beliefs will be exposed." Tsk, tsk. "dodgy theologians"? Actually, if the "dodgy theologians," "wreaking havoc" and "teaching doctrines of men contrary to our biblically based fundamental beliefs" were removed from the quote, I would certainly agree with such a statement which would now be something like "One positive aspect in all of this is that forward looking theologians in our church who have been making such positive contributions to serious thought in our colleges, seminaries and churches, about mature doctrinal principles will be thanked by all church members of good will for their leadership." How's that?
Still dodgy
Those who have contributed to this conversation seem to be honest people who simply disagree. Most of the participants have not changed their opinions, nor do they seem likely to do so–or even capable of doing so. Being able to support what one believes by claiming special and personal inspiration or messages from the Holy Spirit butresses belief, even in the face of information claimed to be from an authoritative source identified as the Spirit of Prophecy.
The "dodgy" part, it seems to me is the part about being "Spirit led." It is probably not a surprise to anyone here that I am pretty skeptical of claims about being Spirit led. There is no means of verification one way or the other–and in this case, the test applied is essentially whether the impression one got from the Spirit agrees with what the other claims to have gotten from the Spirit. So, I'm guessing that someone is making an invalid claim about being led by the Holy Spirit. There just is no way of knowing for certain which one. Or is everyone here right?
In Spirit yes……keep reading……………..and inTruth. John 4:24
Joe, i recognize your lack of being led by the Holy Spirit. If you were seeking the Holy Spirit, He would find you very quickly. Those who have accepted Jesus Christ were promised that God the Comforter would be given. You know the gifts that were promised. When one has experienced the Spiritual power of God, i accepted Him and His whole armor. i recognize the gift is given as promised, expected. i prayed to be included in God's school of acceptance, by repentance, and the Holy Spirit came into my life, and is my constant companion. i "feel" His presence; i have not heard Him audibly, but His influence is powerful, in everything i think and do. There was not much of anything i denied myself of the world's cornucopia of pleasures in my earlier years, and often i recall those sordid deeds, and it is embarrassing, and distressing to me, and i immediately push the hot button, and the Holy Spirit grants me the peace of the Godhead, in that God knew of every one of those terrible transgressions, but God has forgiven those sinful happenings, and covered them with "His blood" ransom payment, and as humans we sadly remember them, although forgiven, but its amazing that God says He has removed them from His memory, and i believe He is able to do as Hetells us of His Powers. It appears that every facet of my life is filtered through the pipeline of the Holy Spirit, with instantaneous guidance for me. This writing now re: this blog, and every instance of my submissions here at Atoday, and in every encounter, in my daily life with others is flavored by God. When i write here, i never plan my input, but first talk with God, and sit down and the words come flowing out my finger tips. Occassionally, i attempt a little humour and or tounge in cheek frivolity, which i assume is "only my input". The Holy Spirit removes all fears, all doubts, allays anger, calms the waters in our enterprises, removes all phobia of dying, ability to meet and cope each day with joy and thanksgiving, whatever confronts us. He guides us, by love, in how we interact with all others. Upholds the diginity of every soul. In the 23rd psalm, my favorite, it says"HE RESTORES MY SOUL (MY SPIRIT). HE LEADETH ME IN THE PATHS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS (HIS). By my living moment by moment with God the Holy Spirit, He has never led me to believe He is other than the Comforter promised by Jesus Christ, and that HE, JESUS, and the ANCIENT OF DAYS (HOLY FATHER) ARE ONE. SING PRAISES TO OUR ONE GOD.
This discussion on the Spirit reminds me of what the Spirit says about male and female pastors. Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322. "It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God."
All4Him,
I remind you of your quote: "Yes, medical missionaries, teachers, literature evangelist covered by your quotes [presented by mhanna], BUT not ordained pastors/shepherds."
This arises from our discussion of the chapter in E G White, Testimonies vol 6, pages 3212-324. Here she mentions three categories of workers, canvassers, medical missionaries and ministers [she calls all three, gospel workers]. Ministers are encouraged to do canvassing work and some canvassers who do very well at the job and show ability and are called by the Holy Spirit are encouraged to become ministers.
It is in the light of this that we read her words: "It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God" (T6, 322). You believe that God does not call women to become pastors/shepherds; Ellen White believes He does.
I understand a "pastor to the flock of God" to be a pastor/shepherd. One who has the sheep at heart. One who guards them; who feeds them; who guides them; who instructs them; who admonishes them; who protects them. All the work of the true pastor's heart.
The world may say, "the door of the church is closed to a female pastor with a heart like that", but Ellen White says, "stand aside and let my servant in". And Jesus says, "Come men and women whom I call and be my pastors/shepherds. And here there is no place for men or women pastors to practise headship, you may try that at home, but not in my house for I said long ago, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you, but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him by your slave, just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many'" (Matt. 20:25-28)
No SOP does not call for Women to lead as pastors/shepherds…..yes doc you can twist EGW just like you can twist the Bible… READ IT IN CONTEXT AND IT WILL MIRROR what the Bible states period.
Ellen White does not prohibit women from being pastors; and the Bible does not prohibit women from being pastors; therefore, we should not prohibit women from being pastors.
Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322. "It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God."
Manuscript Releases, 12:167. "Study the Scriptures for further light on this point. Women were among Christ’s devoted followers in the days of His ministry, and Paul makes mention of certain women who were helpers together with him in the gospel (see Philippians 4:2, 3)."—Letter 142, 1909, pp. 4-6. (To A. G. Daniells, October 27, 1909).
mhanna, READ IN CONTEXT WHAT IS BEING SAID,
"All who desire an opportunity for TRUE MINISTRY and will give themselves unreservedly to God, will find in the CANVASING WORK opportunities to speak upon many things pertaining to the future, imortal life." (This is the first sentence in the paragragh your quote from T6 page 322 is taken from)
The very next paragraph starts out: There are some who are adapted to the work of the colporteur and who can accomplish MORE in this line of work then by PREACHING.
In 5T the book before this one EGW states that Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be MEN of blameless reputation. 5T 598. The primary object of our college is to afford young MEN the opportunity to study for the ministry and prepare young persons of BOTH SEXES to become workers in the various BRANCHES of the cause. 5T Page 60.
1 Timothy 2:9,10,11,12,13,14,15 1 Timothy 3:1,2,3,4,5,6,7
You had asked before what women should do if called by God to minister…. There is so much that can and should be done by ones that are called. But pastoralship of the home and church were roles given by God to men.
Go ahead and have the last words I am not going to argue any more for the Word of God and the light that points to It is crystal clear on this matter. God knows why, I am not going to second guess his reasoning. But I must warn you not to pick and choose what you want to hear but with confidence take God at His word and trust that He has a reason. Our Father knows best…. Blessing mhanna
I love the dueling EGW quotation game. It has much of the feel of Medieval Scholastic theology when there would be dueling with the opinions of the Church Fathers. It appears that we really have not missed the Middle Ages in certain parts of Adventism.
Agreed.
Turtullian is my favourite. And where is a good redactor when you need one?
The major 'problem' of Ellen White, is that she is the first prophet (according to the SDA view) to have come about after the printing press. So no opportunity for necessary redactions.
Assuming the SDA view of the prophetic gift, she wrote way too much, and as a result turned herself into the SDA Talmud, where the commentary outshines the original scripture. I often speculate if there is ever another future SDA prophet that is accepted by the SDA community, whether this person will have learnt Ellen White's lesson, and learn to keep his or her mouth shut unless there is absolutely something to communicate in very well-crafted, thoughut-out terms.
On a similar note, I've been having recent fun on an SDA-SDARM site on Facebook site called 'SDA & SDARM, Why the Separation'. It makes this place look inherently reasonable and people like Messers 22 and 1844 utterly liberal.
One Reformer told me quoting Ellen White was Sola Scriptura. I told him I'd only have a discussion if we only quoted scripture to each other – no SOP. Basically the discussion broke down because he found it impossible to do.
Blessings All4Him. God's reasonings are far above my ability to fathom. Your reasoning I think I can understand. But whether or not I understand God's reasonings or yours, I hold to the words He presents to us in our own English language.
Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322. "It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God."
"It is not always men who are best adapted to the successful management of a church." Ellen G. White to Brother Johnson, Letter 33, 1879; Manuscript Releases, 19:55-56.
I never argued that these statements require that we ordain women as pastors–though I think we should ordain women. My position is that the inspired word does not command or prohibit us to ordain women. My position is that if God does not gift women with the gift of pastoring–then they should not be ordained as pastors.
I only use the quotes (mentioned above) to say what the quotes actually say: no more and no less. I respect the opinions of those who have concluded that the quotes do not say what I thought they say. Please do not use my words as the standard for what the quotes say. Let the quotes (in their contexts) speak for themselves.
mhanna
Your statement above is very interesting: "It is not always men who are best adapted to the successful management of a church" (EGW). There is not much difference between the "management of a church" and the management of a group of churches (Conference). I take it that if Ellen White were alive today and understood how a Conference delegation was led by the Holy Spirit to choose a woman as their Conference President, as with the South Eastern California Conference, she would give her blessing.
I agree Eric. And I respect those who disagree with us. 🙂
Martin.
I believe this is the link you are referring to? It's an excellent piece by Dr Angel Rodriguez (BRI), which appropriately addresses the main w.o. issues:
http://www.adventistarchives.org/evaluation-of-the-arguments-used-by-those-opposing-the-ordination-of-women-to-the-ministry.pdf
•JERUSALEM COUNCIL MODEL – SUBMITTED BY MARK FINLEY. Kevin et al, please consider also some (below) of Elder Mark A. Finley’s presentation at TOSC titled, “Toward Unity in the Body of Christ.” [link here] http://www.adventistarchives.org/toward-unity-in-the-body-of-christ.pdf
Finley’s presentation – in which he too submits the Jerusalem Council as a biblical model for resolving challenging situations (such as we face) – surveys the book of Acts and briefly reviews how the New Testament Church dealt with issues that were somewhat difficult, issues that had the potential for disrupting the unity of the church, issues that at times were somewhat thorny. He shows how the New Testament believers worked through these issues together and what principles we can derive for the church today. Finley looks at three episodes in Acts and analyzes how the New Testament church dealt with potential conflict; and also looks at an incidence when church leadership did not get it right.
Finley says (my emphasis): “Both groups Jew and Gentile were asked of God to do something that required a change and would have made them feel somewhat uncomfortable. Both groups had to submit to the decisions of the Jerusalem Council which were not easily acceptable for them. Although Jew and Gentile would not have exactly the same practice and there was a recognition of and respect for differences, THIS DID NOT DISRUPT THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. They recognized that UNITY WAS NOT NECESSARILY UNIFORMITY IN PRACTICE. They were absolutely united on the fundamentals of faith. They were committed to the same Jesus, shared the same basic beliefs, proclaimed the same prophetic message and were passionate about the same mission. They were willing to accept the decision of the Jerusalem Council rather than follow their own individual opinions and fragment the New Testament church.”
And Finley continues (my emphasis): “This decision of the Jerusalem Council was clearly communicated to all believers. It was written out in a letter and sent with Paul and Barnabas along with other representative leaders to explain the decision to the Antioch church and other churches in the region. THE CHURCH DID NOT FRAGMENT because the Holy Spirit led believers to accept the decision of the Jerusalem Council and guided by the Holy Spirit THE CHURCH LEADERSHIP MADE A DECISION THAT WAS BOTH FAITHFUL TO SCRIPTURE AND FOSTERTED MISSION.”
Lynda,
Typically overlooked or at least under-estimated in that description is the role of the Holy Spirit. The lesson we should see in the story of the Jerusalem Council is not the decision of the Council, but that the decision was made by people who knew the intimate guidance of the Holy Spirit and were committed to doing only what He wanted. We can enjoy the same experience when we are committed to seeking and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is when we are not focused supremely on following the Holy Spirit that problems develop. Still, how often do you see the leaders in your church giving the Holy Spirit more than casual attention, if even that? That explains a lot about why so many congregations are stagnant or dying.
Yes, the role of the Holy Spirit should be a given.
Lynda,
Please let me gently note that the Holy Spirit is not a given in Acts 15, it is a first. If read in the the larger context of the New Testament, Acts 15, is the foundation on which the church was built. It was the endorsement of the builders to follow the Holy Spirit in real time in each communion when inculturating the Gospel across the Empire.
And I greatly appreciate your highlighting the distance Mark Finley brings his readers toward different practices for different cultures within the one Gospel of Jesus Christ. The closing sentence you quote from him is evidence of the chalenge for church leaders, of any age, including 2014. "They were willing to accept the decision of the Jerusalem Council rather than follow their own individual opinions and fragment the New Testament church."
The attendees and the scattered communions did accept the decision of the Jerusalem Council. However Jerusalem Council decison was that they were free to unify around the Holy Spirit's engagement communion by communion, rather than demanding that the church unify around scripture.
And the testimony of Acts 15 is that doing so did not fragment the New Testament church.
However it is well that we look at the outcome of the decision recorded in Acts 15. The outsome is that Paul, definately a proponent of the Holy Spirit's preeminence in the face of unambiguous Scriptural declarations to the contrary and packing a written copy of the Council's decision, heads off on a missionary journey. He shortly splits with long-time missionary partner Barnabas under the individual leading of the Holy Spirit, takes up with young Timothy, and promptly put the knife to him before leaving Timothy's home town together.
In this context, it is clear that accepting the decision of the Jerusalem Council did not result in constraining one's individual opinions, as Mark Finley's assessment suggests. Rather the Jerusalem Council's decision specifically stated that it would not require circumcision, and thus endorsed individual opinions regarding circumcision. And Paul followed his individual personal reasoning in this regard. Which ironically resulted in him circumcising Timothy.
Perhaps the take away from Acts 15 is that it is always unifying to follow the Holy Spirit's leading in community matters, while making community decisions through scriptural debate alone is the path to splitting the church.
Another way of seeing Acts 15 is that the Holy Spirit did not take sides, but the sides took the Holy Spirit.
YES, THE NAD TOSC REPORT IS USING VALID METHOD/S OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION…
But Kevin Paulson (and others) claims the NAD is not. However, A PLAIN READING of the SDA GC officially-voted Rio Document shows that the NADs method/s are consistent with the Rio Document’s stated points. I have provided just a few quotes below**…………
[Also go to the actual “Methods of Bible Study” document as officially-voted by the General Conference Autumn Council in 1986 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – and thus the document is often called the “Rio Document.” http://www.adventist.org/information/official-statements/documents/article/go/0/methods-of-bible-study/
Kevin claims here: “The NAD ordination report made a similar statement [to that of Jan Barna’s paper], declaring that when men and women read the text of Scripture, ‘meaning thus emerges as an outcome of interplay between text and reader, both of which are culturally and historically conditioned’ (NAD report, p. 28). No evidence is more decisive than these two statements to demonstrate that the current campaign for women's ordination has effectively embraced major features of the higher-critical approach to Scripture.”
What Kevin claims (along with another major opponent and author of an editorial/article which was recently posted on a certain Conference-run website) is an example of the anti-w.o. camp creating a straw man to tear down. It is unfortunate that they are making these unfounded and ungrounded inferences, by claiming that the NADs TOSC REPORT’s methodologies [plural] of biblical interpretation (or hermeneutics) are contrary to the General Conference’s officially-voted “Methods of Bible Study” document. This is not the case.
The NAD methodologies are basically consistent with the various officially-voted “Methods [plural] of Bible Study Committee.” So, while anyone can go to the above link for the Rio Document, for the sake of ease, here are just a few quotes directly from our officially-voted “Methods [plural] of Bible Study” document (Rio Document) to which the anti-w.o. camp keep referring (with my emphasis):
**………………………………
1. Preamble: “Seventh-day Adventists recognize and appreciate the contributions of those biblical scholars throughout history who have developed USEFUL and RELIABLE METHODS [plural] of Bible study consistent with the claims and teachings of Scripture.
“Adventists are committed to the acceptance of biblical truth and are willing to follow it, USING ALL METHODS OF INTERPRETATION CONSISTENT WITH WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS OF ITSELF.”
4.k.: “In connection with the study of the biblical text, explore the HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL FACTORS [plural]. Archeology, anthropology, and history may contribute to understanding the meaning of the text.”
4.p.: “”The Scriptures were written for the practical purpose of revealing the will of God to the human family. However, in order not to misconstrue certain kinds of statements, it is important to recognize that they were addressed to peoples of Eastern cultures and expressed in their thought patterns.” Thus, a “background knowledge of Near Eastern CULTURE IS INDISPENSABLE FOR UNDERSTANDING such expressions [for example: God “hardened” Pharoah’s heart]. … “The Scriptures record that GOD ACCEPTED PERSONS WHOSE EXPERIENCES AND STATEMENTS were not in harmony with the spiritual PRINCIPLES of the Bible as a whole.”
5. Conclusion: “A committed Christian will use only those METHODS [plural] that are able to do full justice to the dual, inseparable nature of Scripture, enhance his ability to understand and apply its message, and strengthen faith.”
………………………………
So, the NAD clearly informs us that they are using more than one methodology, which is consistent with the Rio Document’s stated points. Yet, many in the anti-wo. Camp continue to wrongly claim that the NAD has given up THE METHOD – as though there is only one valid method of biblical interpretation. So, in fact, the PBHC (Principle-Based Historical Cultural method), about which Kevin et al are complaining, can be seen to be validated in the Rio Document, which specifically allows for MORE THAN ONE METHOD of biblical interpretation or hermeneutic, as clearly outlined. And also includes Historial and Cultural factors. Here is the link to the NAD Study Committee Report [link]:
http://static.squarespace.com/static/50d0ebebe4b0ceb6af5fdd33/t/5282a08be4b0b6e93a788acc/1384292491583/nad-ordination-2013.pdf
Admittedly, there are evidently some pro-ordination scholars who may lean to the ‘far left’ and may use methods that are outside of the Rio Document; however, there are many ‘conservative’ recognized biblical scholars within Adventism who are appropriately employing the Rio Document (such as BRI scholars and others) who have come to the conclusion that the Bible does not forbid the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.
I really recommend taking the time to read the organized and informative TOSC paper by Dr. Angel Rodriguez (GC/BRI) which appropriately addresses some of the issues which continue to surface [link to paper]:
http://www.adventistarchives.org/evaluation-of-the-arguments-used-by-those-opposing-the-ordination-of-women-to-the-ministry.pdf
P.S. And here's the link to the Barna paper to which Kevin refers: http://www.sdaordinationbook.com/book/ASRS_Paper_files/Jan%20Barna%20ASRS%202013%20Paper.pdf
Lynda
Thank you for your careful, informative and helpful contribution to the discussion. I can sense the Spirit of the Lord guiding you.
Most, if not all, of the presenters at the TOSC who were opposed to the ordination of women for ministry used the eternal submission of Jesus to the Father as their template for the relationship of women to men in the church today. This concept, derived as it is from complementarian evangelicals and catholic theology of the eternal procession of the Son from the Father, is a serious deviation from Seventh-day Adventist theology and our understanding of the Trinity. Yet, those scholars who oppose WO hang tenaciously onto this pernicious redefinition of the biblical doctrine of God, for without it, it would be virtually impossible to defend male headship in the church today.
If we understand one of the members of the Godhead to be even functionally the leader from eternity,
we are close to modalism and/or polytheism. Angel Rodriguez puts it this way: "If one member of the Godhead has to tell the others what to do and when to do it, then, we have to conclude that the exercise of the divine attributes of the other two is being limited or that not all of them have the same divine attributes."
Rodriguez continues, "The idea of eternal headship within the Godhead would require a redefinition of the doctrine of the atonement. At the core of the atonement is the love of God manifested in self-sacrificing and disinterested divine salvific actions toward sinners. There was nothing that forced God to save us. The eternal headship of the Father could imply that the sacrifice of the Son was the result of an order given by the Father to Him to save us; the assignment of a function. This would destroy the biblical doctrine of the atonement and would damage in a radical way the biblical understnad of the nature of divine love." (hyper links do not work on this site, but this citation is from Angel Rodriguez' paper, "Evaluation of the Arguments Used by those Opposing the Ordination of Women to the Ministry," found at adventistarchives.org)
This reinterpretation of the character and nature of God seems far more problematic to me than ordaining women for the role to which the Spirit calls her. Please note that in the lists of the gifts of the Spirit found in Ephesians 4, I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12, we find not one hint of gender restriction.
Does the church usurp the athority of Christ? John 5:30, John 4:34, John 5:19, John 6:38, 1 Corinthians 11:3
Without getting into the headship argument let me just quote 1 Cor. 11:3 used above and make an observation. Here is the text: "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." Here is my observation:
The fact that God is the head of Christ does not forbid Christ from going forth as a minister (preacher, proclaimer) of the eternal gospel.
The fact that Christ is the head of man does not forbid man from going forth as a minister (preacher, proclaimer) of the eternal gospel.
The fact that man is the head of the woman does not forbid the woman from going forth as a minister (preacher, proclaimer) of the eternal gospel.
Christ, man and woman are all to preach, proclaim and live the eternal gospel.
Excerpts from 1 Cor 11:3-12. "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. Every man praying or prophesying . . . . Every woman who prays or prophesies . . . . For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. . . . NEVERTHELESS, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, IN THE LORD. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God."
John Brunt of the Azure Hills Seventh-day Adventist church addresses headship by referring to Mark 10. The sons of Zebedee have just solicited the position of sitting on either side of Jesus 'in thy glory.' Well, this did not go over well with the other 10, indeed they were 'much displeased with James and John.'
John, as in Brunt, observes that Jesus is facing a 'headship' aspiration by the Zebedee brothers, and the inevitable result of such visions, namely the disability of the community.
So Jesus called the 12 together and explained what there is no room for headship in the community of Christ.
42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Indeed, headship as it is attempting to be imposed in church order is heresy in light of Jesus explicit example here, according to Brunt.
Headship is, it seems, an urgent effort not to be wrong. Its argument is utterly independent of the Gospel of Jesus. It affords no room for measuring the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church. It is the same rationale used in the argument of the converts from the 'sect of the Pharasiees' in Acts 15.
In that recorded foundational pattern for all future church decisions, the path forward was by soliciting and measuring the evidence of the Holy Spirit at work in regard to the topic at hand.
It is most reassuring that in Acts 15 the church does not try to trap the Holy Spirit in theology, but steps beyond theology into the present and coalesces around the evidence of the Holy Spirit in the community. And the record is that even the converts from the sect of the pharasiees joined the coalition.
It appears that the liberty of Acts 15 to follow the Holy Spirit is arising within the Seventh-day Adventist church with regard to ministerial ordination not being limited by gender. It is important that a vote for liberty be interpreted as coalescing with the Holy Spirit rather than proof that the Holy Spirit has taken sides.
As Jesus said, "But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: and whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant to all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give is life a ransom for many."
Bill, this is not a issue of being top dog… it is a issue fulfilling the role of the servant/shepherd God has called MEN to be in the family and the church period. Please look at the other four quotes posted and you will see that Jesus and God are one yet Jesus states does the will of his Father. Look at Ephesians 5:24, 25, 26 …… do you see a connection? Again I ask does the Church usurp the authority of Christ in leadership?
Men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church.
Ellen White, GCB April 1, 1899, Art. B, par. 6. "Repeatedly companies had been presented to me, reaching forth their hands in supplication, and saying, “We are as sheep without a SHEPHERD; come and open to us the word of God.” . . . . We have a great work before us, and men and WOMEN must be prepared to communicate the knowledge they have of the infinite wisdom, love, and power of God."
What hinders a woman from being a servant/shepherd of the church? Do we not refer to Ellen White as "the servant of the Lord"?
Romans 16:1. "I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea."
Thanks, mhanna, that you have shown so clearly that Ellen White and Scripture supports the concept that a dedicated woman can be a servant/shepherd to the flock, despite those who have contrary views. I am sure that if EGW was alive today she would say, "Brethren and sisters, stop this bickering about women in the church and let the Holy Spirit do His work. Just look at what God is doing through His women servants/shepherds in China."
Eric the bickering for right may be flickering of light in this world that is being darken John 1:5. Many twist scripture to thier own destruction and say the Bible is clear on a subject yet fail to read it in correct context 2 Peter 3:16. Yes Ellen White was a servent of the Lord as we all are called but did not fuction as the shepherd lead out and baptized, married, or presented communion service for the flock.
In GCB April 14 1901 Par. 19 It states "Young men to enter the ministry…." The very next paragraph starts out "Young men AND women enter His service". YES there is a work for all but She NEVER contradict the Word of God on these points of Men being spirtual leaders of the home and church. Preach the Word, yes minister to to the world, we are all called to be missionaries but you can not change God roles that were given BEFORE sin. Dr. Eric when you can give birth to a child and nurse it we will know that these roles have changed.
In your post above you mention that "Men (are to be) spiritual leaders of the home and church". By this you are implying that women cannot be spiritual leaders of the home and the church. I would like to just share with you that my wife was just as much a spiritual leader in our home as I was. We have been married for 63 years but in those years when our three children were growing up my wife was a real spiritual leader to our children. For many years in pastoral work I would often be out visiting people in the evening and my wife faithfully conducted worship for our three children which had a great impact in their spiritual formation. They are all still strong in Christ and in the church. I suppose you will now be shifting your meaning of "spiritual leader".
Praise the Lord Eric for the wonderful help from your God fearing wife. I am sure you supported her in any way possible. I pray she can show other younger women how to be the same as her. Titus 2: 3, 4, 5
I and four siblings were raised by a God fearing mother alone until she got sick. Yes, she had a large load to carry and God gave her the strength and courage to do her best. She worked very hard to keep us in church school. Yet this was not the role she was designed for and it took a physical toll on her mind and body and she died at too young of an age.
Now with many lifesyles demanding a two income household many children end up in daycare/afterschool care and do not have the consistant/nurturing love from a Godly mother. The world says now that two men or two women do just as well "traditional" families and it make no difference. I firmly believe God knew what He was doing when He designed the family unit and it is why the devil is trying so hard to tear it apart.
I am puzzled why the issue of shifting male and female roles keeps coming up. I can't see how that is what we are discussing. I, for one, have never suggested that men should become women or that women should become men.
It is the very real differences between men and women that make them complementary to each other at home and in the church. Men and women need each other's help at home and in church.
Gen 2:18. "The Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.'" Ellen White: "When a great and decisive work is to be done, God chooses men and women to do this work, and it will feel the loss if the talents of both are not combined." Letter 77, 1898; Evangelism, 469.
Martin, I would like to write an article for this site but would like to run it by you first. i was just wondering how I could make contact with you. Let me give you my email address and if you drop me a line I will be able to respond to you. Thanks for all your contributions. Blessings, Eric.
email – ecwebb@telkomsa.net
In Acts 20:17 Paul calls together the elders (presbuteros) of the church whom he refers to as ‘brethren’ (adelphos) [Acts 20:32]. It is also worth noting that in Acts 20:28 Paul refers to these same men as ‘overseers’ (episkopis) of which the roles of these men are strongly suggested to be synonymous. Presbuteros itself is in a majority of instances (57 times) translated ‘elder’ and in other instances refers specifically to older man (10 times) and once to older woman as is found in 1Tim 5:1-2 when referring to these persons in the context of age rather than role. All these of course are within the direct context of the church (ekklesia) [Acts20:28]. Then there is ‘diakonos’ which is found 29 times in the NT and translated deacon (3 times), minister (7 times) and servant (19 times) – these may vary of course with different translations. Nowhere in these verses, when referring to church leadership in terms of elders, pastors and overseers, is it associated with women. Diakonos could be understood to refer to women as well as men. Whilst these roles may defer in authority, they apply differently to gender as well as the NT verses indicate. The leadership (episkopis/presbuteros) and service (diakonos) roles however are distinctively different although all involve service.
What special interest groups vie for today is a far cry from the NT model, and when vetted by this model the ‘gender bender’ roles advocated by WO proponents falls flat on its pretty face, with all the make-up doctrinal claims and all. By the way this same NT model was established by Christ Himself without prejudice against women and this same model has been the fundamental basis for our practice as a church today. Proponents of WO take issue with Christ whilst posing as NT vanguards.
Those who have suggested that women haven’t changed roles significantly can’t be serious. Abortion, day care and the pill came along as a springboard for women to migrate from a traditional family unit setup and step out into a rat race dog eat dog capitalist secular society. With more buying power and educational prowess this gave way to a breakdown in the family unit which has resulted in high divorce/remarriage/adultery rates than previously known. In fact, many women today want to behave like men, talk like men, act like men and even look like men. They see the trophies and spoils of men as their something they must strive for and gain in order to prove themselves worthy of being women by being driven by this unecessary obsession to measure up themselves with men. I recall seeing some news article reporting how a significant number of women divorced or left their husbands during the recent (current?) global recession because they were 'looking for greener pastures' in terms of seeking better financial security as the article noted thereby giving the popular 'for richer or for poorer' traditional marriage vow line the boot.
Physically men and women are different: we all know that. Some women are without doubt as strong as men, butch, rude, loud, not lady like and may even clobber a few men should the need arise. Scary.
The sporting arena is a good example of a separate gender agenda which empowers women rather than discriminating against them. There’s no gender discrimination outcry in sports because women gain more being women in this arena and benefit more this way. Feminists are rather calculated in seeking to get the best of both worlds when it suits them. However, when Mokgadi Caster Semenya won the 800 meter gold medal at the 2009 World Championships, there was an uproar by feminists that she was too masculine to compete against other women even though most female athletes look rather masculine too in my opinion.
Biologically also we are different: for example our reproductive organs and complementary hormonal systems dictate certain specific mandatory behaviours and ultimately roles that are designed for men and women respectively. Psychologically, emotionally, socially, etc, men and women are different. Secular society may have eroded these differences or found workarounds in some instances but the Bible model for the family unit and the church remains the same. God knows what’s best for both men and women. There’s no doubt about that. Men don’t go around crying gender discrimination when women go on a few months for maternity leave when they bear offspring. When men work and provide an income for the family they generally don’t make a big hoo-hah about how much of their money is spent on this or that like women who work outside the home do. For most men in general it is an accepted norm to provide and give all they earn towards the benefit of the family in one way or another without fuss or fanfare which is unlike what most women who earn income do. If I recall correctly equal work equal pay was also one of the grouses resulting in the gender discrimination charges especially since ordained male pastors apparently earn more.
I also have reason to believe that churches more susceptible to supporting WO are ones which are lacking strong spiritual leadership for whatever reason and where men have either taken the back seat (or door) or perhaps where male conscientiousness has been undermined by secular feminist ideals.
Trevor,
The richness of your selection of references is at once helpful and, to me, informative. What I see is that the role of women as leaders is never rationalized theologically in the scripture, so whatever comments referencing either men or women in various roles being referenced by those for or opposed to ordaining women, are all social (some might say, cultural) in nature.
Meanwhile in Acts 15, deep and even potentidally divisive theological debate is engaged, and the pattern for church decision making going forward is modeled in the inspired record. By what happened in this pivotal working session recorded in Acts 15, the writer implies:
And then records the inspired path that was followed:
In reporting their assessment, the record in their own words is: "It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to …"
Only by assessing the present work of the Holy Spirit is it possible to be of one accord. Theological clamoring without exception yields only division.
Is is instructive that the committee has set as it goal to be of one accord, though the method is less explicitly stated. Even so, the goal seems to be well within reach.
"Only by assessing the present work of the Holy Spirit is it possible to be of one accord, Theological clamoring without exception yields only to division…."
Working Holy Spirit must also be coupled with Truth. John 4:24
In John 8:32 Why is truth so important? Does the Bible contradict itself?
Oh be careful little feet where you trod…
This sounds like Tony Palmer said at the Kenneth Copeland conference that "all division is diabolical" as he along with the pope is attempting to unite the churches. For Hebrews 4:12 and John 16:13 are related.
Trevor: Answers to these questions may be identified by a study of Paul’s use of “representative statements” to refer to specific genders (masculine or feminine) while communicating principles of church order that apply to both genders. The concept of a representative statement may be illustrated by Paul’s use of masculine terms in a generic reference to men and women. For example, he writes: “Brethren [and sisters], I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers [and mothers] were under the cloud, all passed through the sea” (1 Cor 10:1). Here Paul follows an Old Testament precedent that is strikingly illustrated in the representative statement in Deuteronomy about “your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman” (Deu 15:12).
The same representative principle applies to the male and female elders in Ephesus (1 Tim 5:1-2). Paul hs all these elders in mind when he writes: “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine; for . . . the laborer is worthy of his [or her] wages” (5:17-20). Ellen White comments on this text when she writes: “make no mistake in neglecting to correct the error of giving ministers less than they should receive. . . . The tithe should go to those who labor in word and doctrine, be they men or women.” (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases, 1:263).
In connection with Trevor's remarks regarding church elders being confined to the male gender, I appreciate the concept of "representative statements" by mhanna. This is worthy of thought. I also appreciate the thoughts expressed by Bill Garber on the significance of Acts 15 in a shift in the thinking of the church. That shift in theology was very much the work of the Holy Spirit.
After all the Judaisers had every reason to be upset with Paul and others who minimized the requirement for circumcision. They felt he was teaching new theology. They firmly believed what God said in Genesis 17 regarding the everlasting covenant and the sign of that covenant being circumcision. And they would quote for instance Gen. 17:13, "He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." They said, "who gave Paul the authority to discard Scripture?". I believe that they had as much if not more reason to be concerned as those today who feel that the Holy Spirit is shifting their thinking on what they feel are eternal principles such as Paul's counsel to Timothy, "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence" (verses 11, 12). Adding to that his counsel to the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35, "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submisssive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own hubands at home, for it is shameful for women to speak in church." Are Paul's counsels any stronger than the Lord's in Genesis 17? After all it was the Lord speaking in Genesis 17 and it was Paul speaking in the texts quoted. Not to say that God could not have been speaking through Paul. Some might feel that it would be a blessing to follow Paul more carefully and fully resulting in a great silence falling on all our Sabbath Schools and churches across the world. All our church problems would cease. Only women cause conflict in Sabbath Schools; not men!
I believe that the shift today in appointing women as local church elders and as ministers is the work of the Holy Spirit and is as heartwrenching to some as was the shift in taking Gentiles into the church without circumcision. Now to let "the rubber hit the road" let me share my experience of working with 2 women church elders in a church in Cape Town. These 2 women have been duly elected and appointed and ordained church elders for some 20 years. I was associated with that church for something like 28 years in the capacity of Voice of Prophecy Director and then later as editor of the Signs of the Times. We have been away from that church now for about 7 years but thosed 2 women are still functioning as elders.
I believe I can safely say that those 2 ladies have been amongst the most efficient church elders I have ever been associated with in my 63 years of ministry experience. One is a married lady; the other is a widow. They are both Christ-centerd, dedicated Adventists, organized, efficient, strong spiritual leaders, very good in counselling and always ready to put their hands in their pockets to help those who are needy. That church would be a poorer church if these two women were asked to step down from office. At present there are 5 male elders and these 2 women elders. And interestingly enough the church is made up of over 80% of whom we call Coloureds and Blacks in South Africa. It is not a Western, white, liberal church. There are also many men and young men in this church. I am confident that if a referendum was held in that church regarding those 2 women elders that a 100% would give them their support. And incidently those 2 women are not loud, boisterous, pushy and bossy. They are true servants of the Master.
Amen to that, Eric. I don't think I have seen you since we both attended Emmanuel Missionary College back in 1953. It was a great atmosphere at that college. Our teachers taught us the good old SDA doctrines, also in their personal perspective. And we used Scripture and the writings of Ellen White. I recall some of the devoted Bible teachers identifyinhg the texts the enemies of Ellen White were using against her.
Now everything has changed. Now we have people in the church who are using the texts formerly used against Ellen White which they think fit so nicely against the use of women doing tasks which Ellen told us they were better at than men. They have mixed everything around and call this understanding of Scripture new hermeneutics.
Ellen White is being downgraded by those who claim to be the conservatives of today. Now she is nothing but a prophet and it was just a mistake the Brethren gave her the credentials she had. What we were taught about Ellen White seems worthless to those theologians who are attacking their Brethren for wanting to fulfill the writings of Ellen White about the servises of women as pastors.
What is happenng to the faith of the saints these days?
Thanks Johann for your kind comment on my posting. You mention that we were together at Emmanuel Missionary College in 1953. Actually, you are thinking of my brother, Don Webster, who was at EMC at that time. He had graduated from Helderberg College and then went over to complete a BA at EMC. He was also the editor of the School magazine. When he graduated he was called as assistant editor of the USA Signs and worked with Arthur Maxwell for two years. Then he took the medical course at Loma Linda and worked as a doctor for many years in California. I studied at Helderberg and completed the Theology course graduating in 1948. In 1957/58 I studied at Potomac University (the Seminary) in Washington DC and completed an MA. Blessings to you, Eric
So I got you brothers confused. Now I see that you are the one I studied with at Potomac University where I also got my MA in 1958. This was where we had some of the same teachers. Blessings to you, Johann
Seems like it was James White who stated that when Scripture refers to man or men it often means woman or women as well. It was just the common custom in those days to use the term "man" for mankind.
Today we think we have become so much smarter and achieved greater wisdom than our pioneers that we are bursting in our seams. We understand Scripture so much better than James White did. No wonder things go upside down in our understanding.
Trevor,
Your observation that "Working Holy Spirit must also be coupled with Truth." is a personal belief that I believe Acts 15 supports.
The need to test the work of the Holy Spirit against Scripture appears to yield two possible approaches when observing what appears to be the work of the Holy Spirit.
Now, you will quickly note that it is possible that there will be both Scriptural support and Scriptural rejection of what appears to be the work of the Holy Spirit.
This dual condiction existed in Acts 15.
The testimony of Acts 15 is that the observed work of the Holy Spirit is to be embraced if there can be a case made from Scripture that the Holy Spirit might be leading in this way.
The Testimony of Acts 15 is that it matters not that and even easier cases might be made against such observations. Surely the case for circumcision was Scripturally a 'closed case' if ever there were one.
Yet the liberating action of the Holy Spirit prevailed, and the decision was the result of them "being assembled with one accord."
It appears that this principle is what is arising from within the TOSC as it surely appears to be coming together within the testimony of Acts 15.
The times, the times. Some have accepted that nothing has changed since the 19thcentury. That God was put in a box, and has given no further light to His people since EGW died in 1915?? They believe that she, and Scripture, when speaking of MANkind, interpreted it as male, men. They ignore that mankind is 50% approx FEMALE. They refuse to advance into the 21st century and recognize that God the Holy Spirit is alive and well, and is speaking and influencing men and women (MANKIND) but knee jerking, instantly, cherry picking that data that proves that God is dead and has nothing new to say to mankind today.
Thank you very much, All4Him, for the kind remarks you made about my wife and the spiritual leadership she gave in our home. And I was also glad to hear of what your mother did to sacrifice to such an extent in order for you and your 4 siblings to attend the church school. We thank God for your godly mother. I think sometimes we should express appreciation for each other for often we also have a lot more in common than we think. And possibly that is so with you and me.
I thought of just asking you one or two questions to see if we could come closer to each other. These are not trick questions. They just come sincerely from my heart.
Here is question number 1:
If I told you that my granddaughter was a minister and that she had been invited to preach at your church one Sabbath morning would you attend the service?
Here is question number 2:
If after attending this one service you discovered that my granddaughter had actually been asked to take a Week of Prayer and was to preach every night for the week, and you enjoyed the first Sabbath service, would you attend the meetings for the week?
Thanks most kindly for your answers.
Eric, I will answer you question but first will let you know that I was a member of a church that had a women assistant pastor for a time and listened to her sermons. I heard her say from the pulpit one time "when I was ordained…oh no I mean commissioned". I was not overly impressed by her presentations and prayed about the situation. Due to budget cuts the church went from three pastors to two and her postion was lost. What drove me away from that church though was being on the nominating committee and being told we must elect a woman elder as a priority while passing over qualified men. We needed more diversity must elect a women elder becasue a former one resigned after leaving her husband.
To answer your first question we have retired pastors and Elders that do a fine job of preaching when are pastor is attending another church so chances are your granddaughter wouldn't have been invited to speak but if she did I would not stay away from the service. Week of prayer? I would be less likely to attend every night for the week.
I am sure you may have read the book Creeping Compromise by Joe Crews if not please do so(free online). Once you deviate from the Word of God where do you stop? I have a question for you Eric….
1. Please tell me why the push for the wording "to ordain without regard to gender" over a simple phrase "to ordain male and female"? Would not the wording open the door for the LGBTI? We have seen this happen repeatly in churches that first ordained women and now ordain LGBTI.
So far no proponents of WO have shown conclusively from the bible any scriptural mandate or doctrine favouring such a move. The current intentional ducking of the issue from a GC in Session begs for questioning the motives and basis for such action. There has been strong cultural reasoning and anecdotal 'evidence' favouring this unbiblical practice but no clear cut convincing biblical basis for WO as it stands. The only way to make it look biblical is to doctor texts and wrest a few Ellen White quotes out of context or openly misrepresent it altogether. That is why historically WO to pastoral ministry was not practiced by Adventists. The only way to get it through is to let it go under the radar but that would mean compromising our belief that Christ and not Culture is the basis of all biblical doctrine and belief. We can't have it both ways on all issues and this is one which involves biblical doctrinal positions shifting. If this is the case then the GC in Session will have to decide, and should be allowed to decide – and not compromised Union Conferences and culturally biased 'peoples' theologians.
More than 30 years ago I was convinced on the basis of reading my Bible that women should be ordained. I know that many more have come to the same conclusion based on reading their Bibles. I would invite you, Trevor, to read your Bible once more without a biased mind. Just like James White and other pioneers did more than a century ago. If they hadn't they would have rejected the Spirit of Prophecy knocking on the doors of the new prophetic movement.
Trevor,
If the Lord Jesus Christ were to tap you on the shoulder and tell you to ordain women would you listen, or would you turn away and insist that He was an imposter? If the still small voice of the Holy Spirit were to whisper that same thought in your ear would you shout Him down with Scripture and EGW?
Paul had to be thrown to the ground and struck blind before he was willing to listen to new truth. Until that point he was full of rage at the "deviant" believers who were corrupting Judaism as he knew and loved it. Now as then it is hard for those of us who think we have much understanding of God and Scripture to "kick against the goad" and the more determined we are to kick-back the more angry we become with those whose views we cannot accept.
I do not know you nor do you know me. I must say that we all need to be open to the possibility that we are mistaken in our understanding of Scripture. Sometimes we are wrong. Sometimes we can listen and learn from those with whom we differ. I personally have learnt many things in life from people who I did not disagree with and who in fact knew less than I about the matter under consideration.
Are you open to the possibility that you may be mistaken on this question? If not then you have moved beyond God. I myself must be open to the possibility that I am mistaken about everything that is important to me. If I cannot have any doubts then I cannot have any faith.
I would offer the same advice to those on either side of this issue who find even the slightest tinge of anger arising when asked to seriously consider the possibility that one with whom I differ might know or understand something that I am convinced I already know and understand fully. Else I am often found praying with my fellow Dutchmen "Lord help me to always be right because it is so hrrd to change my mind when I am wrong" 8-).
Above all else the one who aspires to teach must be willing to be taught, even by one's students. In college I learnt this lesson of grace and humility from a gentleman from South Africa for whom I worked. I resgistered for a class where he was the instructor. He came to me and said "You know more about this subject than I do. Would you be willing to teach this class and let me sit and learn?" With this request he taught me far more than I taught him in the class!
Jim…. if someone came to you and said he was Christ but spoke contrary to Scripture would YOU believe him?
God the Holy Spirit is my constant companion, is He yours? are you able to know it is God leading you? Have you refused to receive the promised Holy Spirit because of fear of all spirits. God, the Holy Spirit, never, never, misleadsHis children. You WILL know when you open your heart to receive the Holy Spirit. One can be so obsessed with scholarship in Holy Scripture, and SOP, with a rebuttal of same, and yet deny the Holy Spirit.
We do have Scripture to give us the answer. As matter stands right now our Brethren in North America, Western Europe, Australia and parts of Asia have made a thorough study of Scripture and the writings of Ellen White, and there a majority has come to the same coclusion on the basis of Divine cousel that women should be ordained for the ministry today.
The SDA Divisions who read their Bibles and are not certain, or rather against the ordination of women, are in countries where the Roman Catholic Church, Islam or pagan religions dominate. So twist it or turn it any way you want to, the hermeneutics that rule are directed by culture, modern culture.
Do we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit in this matter?
Excellent point, Johann – I think many times God expects us to work things out for ourselves, without relying on cleromancy, the Holy Spirit, or even fervent prayer, for answers. Whether we use reason, revelation, authority, or some combination thereof, to justify our moral preferences, we need to remember that most of our deepest moral differences are driven by cultural experiences and understandings rather than timeless, universal principles or truths clearly revealed in either sacred texts or reason.
This is why it is usually best to experimentally work out those differences at the local level in voluntary associations, rather than through grand national/worlwide coercive programs and policies. In that way, we can get a sort of test tube sense of the unforeseeable consequences of particular moral behaviors/ideologies before they have done too much damage or become a jackboot on the sensibilities of local mores, far removed from the panjandrums who enact and enforce the diktats.
I like that, Nathan. This seems to be what Cindy Tusch has presented to ushere in her master piece on being led by Scripture and the Holy Spirit on various local levels.
All Four Him,
Let me try to answer your very valid question. I suggest that we carefully consider the story of Cleopas and his wife (both of them called disciples) in Luke 24:13-35. They were convinced that they knew the scriptures. They were convinced that the kingdom of God was disintegrating around them because scripture was not being fulfilled according to their understanding. Someone began walking alongside them and gradually showed them that their problem was that their understanding of scripture was limitng their ability to accept what God was doing.
How did they recognize that it was Christ? Not because He agreed with them regarding scriptural interpretation. Once they recognized the Word Incarnate they were willing to hear His instruction regarding the Scriptures that testified of Him.
I do no see where in the Bible or EGW it says that we will reach a point where we no longer need to be instructed in our understanding of Scripture. Anyone who claims to have attained to that level of understanding is deluded. In our SS class this morning we studied several pasages where Paul describes things that remain mysteries to the prophets and the angels. In order for these mysteries to be revealed to us we need the enlightenment of the Word Incarnate through His Spirit. We need to be willing to put aside our own cheirshed opinions about the Bible in order to listen to the Spirit. That is the path forward.
A Very Great Teacher once said that it does no good to pour new wine into old wineskins. Anyone who cannot conceive that there could yet be some more new wine, might have become an old wineskin. God does not change, but His revelation to humans is progressive and does not become frozen at some point in time. New light does not contravene older light. If it contravenes our previous opinions we have to allow for the possibility that our previous opinions were not entirely enlightened.
Yes Jim we should carefully consider Scripture… where in Scripture does it say Cleopas was with "his wife" on the road to Emmaus?
Read through the Gospel of Luke and notice that no other Gospel writer has as many references to female disciples as Luke. Here the two were on their way back home in the late afternoon when Jesus joins them on the road. When they come to their home they invite Jesus to come in and have a meal with them.
In the accounts of Luke the female disciples prepared the food on their travels. Why not here at Emmaus? The account does not state that both of them were males. Two living together – would it not have been natural that they were husband and wife, and now the wife prepared the simple evening meal?
Where in Scripture does it state that they were not husband and wife?
When the next GC votes to allow each Division and/or Union to decide whether to ordain or not ordain women and the North American Divsion then votes to do so, I'm wondering if Mr/Mrs/Ms "Allfor Him" and Mr. Hammond will leave the Adventist Church to form their own "purified" Adventist denomination?
Trevor, you do not seem to be too comfortable with "anecdotal evidence" possibly with my presentation of 2 women local church elders who for the past 20 years have been such a blessing in the local church. Let me remind you that it was "anecdotal evidence" from Paul and Barnabas that played such an important part in shifting the scriptural thinking of the brethren at the Jerusalem Council. When Paul and Barnabas came to the Council "they reported all things that God had done with them" (Acts 15:4). It was "anecdotal evidence" that the Holy Spirit used to adjust their thinking with regard to Genesis 17.
Today, God is once again using "anecdotal evidence", such as these and other successful women church elders, women pastors in the field and the women pastors in China to speak to us, not with reference to Genesis 17 but to illuminate some of Paul's passages.
All4Him, thank you very much for your good answers to my questions to you. I appreciate this. I have learnt more about you and that is always good for us. I note that you have had the experience of having a woman pastor as an associate for some time. Sorry that budget restrictions have cut you down to two pastors now. You mention a lady elder who unfortunately had to step down because she left her husband. Of course that tragedy even happens at times with men elders. I think right now of one male elder who has had to step down because of the breakdown of his family.
You ask me the question as to whether it would be better to say, "to ordain male and female", rather than "to ordain without regard to gender". I think you have a point there and I would tend to agree. They probably mean the same but taking care of our language and its nuances would be wise. Blessings to you. Eric
When I entered the ministry in 1958 I discovered we at that time had a number of senior male members who in their young days had been in the ministry but had to leave. At that time several served as very active members, some as deacons or elders. Trying to learn from their mistakes I started investigating why they had failed in the ministry, and then also why some at the same time had made it and were still in the ministry.
I discovered that for the first 40 years of the 20th century there was an unwritten rule in our church that any young man entering the ministry had to deliver about 20 souls each year for baptism, or he had to give up any hope of being ordained.
Then I turned to examine how those who succeeded had done it. Most of them had done it with the aid of women who went into the homes where they won the souls for them. From some of the quotations you have presented here I am convinced that Ellen White said those soul winnning women should be ordained and be treated exacly the same way as the male ministers.
What is the use of having a prophet if you ignore the counsel given? Is that the reason the soul winning in the industrialized world has stagnated? Will those prosper who listen to and follow the Spirit of Prophecy?
So much of the women's ordination discussion has to do with "framing the issue," especially in the case of some who extrapolate from incidents in their own cultural experience abroad and declare that the situation is undoubtedly about the same everywhere. For example, the allegation has been made often that the whole matter in North America hinges on the promotion of women's rights by agnostic women's liberation advocates who are urging all women to seek more power, yet how interesting that these assertions are often made by individuals who live abroad and know comparatively little about the North American cultural interaction between men and women, and certainly have no experience interviewing agnostic women's liberation leaders or women who are called by God to serve full-time as ministers of the gospel. Those with least first-hand experience seem most inclined to instruct us, how strange.
Second, and conversely, though some of us have traveled widely abroad, we do not have the first-hand cultural understanding that Adventist leaders and teachers possess abroad, and we do well not to attempt to adopt a colonial propensity to tell them what they ought to do. We seem to have arrived, as a Church, to a point where we honor and respect the fact that a globalized Church must be a Church where on matters of non-essential practice, we should not be required to accept uniform dictation from central headquarters. As in China, often the best and even only way to progress is to adapt, not to the exclusion of principle, but in the implementation of the higher principle of spreading the gospel by any Spirit-led means possible. Probably one of the best pathways to unity in our global Church is by welcoming diversity as we promote the Kingdom of God to the uttermost parts of the world. We live in special times…..
I'd also say AMEN! to that Ed. Your other post here was also very interesting.
Edwin, Your comment above shows wisdom, Christian grace, sensitivity to different areas of the world and harmony with the Scriptural antecedent of Acts 15. I pray that our General Conference leadership will have grace and spiritual insight to recommend a similar course for the world church. To allow this procedure will lead to unity. To insist on only one way for the whole church, whether it be anti-WO or pro-WO will be a sure recipe for disastrous disunity.
Acts 15 crops up every now and then in this discussion. We know that the cross abolished the ceremonial law which included male circumcision. That was the main issue at the Council at Jerusalem. Whilst anecdotal evidence was presented to support the position taken, this was however in line and in harmony with sriptural evidence of the abrogation of the ceremonial law. To justify WO based on this is not enough. The issue at Jerusalem was not about gender. It was about the rite of circumcision which was a part of the ceremonial law and without doubt done away with at the cross. In Acts 15:6 the apostles and elders came together. Acts 15:7 strongly suggests that these were men who were gathered at the Jerusalem Council.
You make an interesting point, Trevor. You state that the cross abolished the ceremonial law which included male circumcision. We know that the Old Testament Temple priests were all circumcised. Now male circumsicion was abolished, so you could no longer have the male priests of the Old Testament. What then?
I still also find it very interesting that James White insisted that when the Bible used the term man, it could just as well mean woman. Do we have a better understanding of the Bible than James White did?
Acts 15 is not presented as an argument in favor of the ordination of women. It is presented as evidence that sometimes the Holy Spirit leads the church to accept diversity on matters that are not central to the Christian faith. They decided not to require or to prohibit the circumcision of Christians. The Holy Spirit may also be leading us as SDAs to decide that we will not require or prohibit the ordination of women.
We do not know that only men were involved in the Jerusalem Council. It seems to me, from my reading of the Bible, that there were male and female elders (1 Tim 5:1-2). At the same time, I respect the views of those who have concluded that all elders were men.
But even if there were only male elders in Jerusalem, would that mean that there should only be men at our next General Conference session? Following that logic it would seem that we should also have our session in Jerusalem since that is where they met in Acts 15.
Martin, once again I would like to express appreciation for your considered views. I also like the spirit in which they are given. For instance you say, "I respect the views of those who have concluded that all elders were men." I wish sometimes that I could see that same level of respect for the views of others from those in the camp of the anti-WO advocates.
In reading Trevor's remarks I sense that as an undertone a male dominated church is very appealing to him and others. I find this where he writes, "Acts 15:7 strongly suggests that these were men who were gathered at the Jerusalem Council." I think he would be happy to have only men at the next General Conference Session. It certainly makes sense with a literal reading of Scripture. After all they point out to us that the 12 patriarchs were men, Christ's 12 disciples were men, elders and deacons were to be married men. One of the strongest opponents of WO points out that Christ ascended to heaven in his humanity and so He is still a male. Therefore it would only be logical that His spiritual representatives on earth today would be males (this sounds like good Roman Catholic theology!). So it would make sense to have the spiritual leaders of the church gathered in General Conference today as males!
To further the line of this literalism it would only make sense to have all members of the church board as men. Women don't belong here for Paul wrote in 1 Tim. 2:12, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." The place of authority in a church is often the church board. That is where actions are considered and taken – it is the place of authority. Paul says a woman must not have "authority over a man". This naturally would exclude her from the church board.
And so the logical destination of the anti-WO folk is a male dominated church (especially for those in office). This would also include no woman teaching a Sabbath School class for this is all Paul knew about when he wrote to Timothy, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man" (1 Tim. 2:12). So the picture would be male ministers (preferably in black suits or white robes), male elders, male deacons, male church officers, male church boards, male General Conference sessions, and hopefully, beyond all this a blissful heaven where males and females live together in eternal happiness aand equality.
LET ME JUST ADD THAT WHAT I WROTE ABOVE, CERTAINLY DOES NOT REPRESENT WHAT I BELIEVE THE TOTAL MESSAGE OF SCRIPTURE TEACHES. WHEN MY WIFE READ MY REMARKS SHE SAID THEY MADE HER VERY SAD! PERHAPS EVEN JESUS WEEPS!!
Friends all,
One would be challenged to read 1 Tim 2:9-15 as a Seventh-day Adventist and accept Ellen White's ministry to the church as of God … IF … one beleives that Paul's actions are normative going forward. Now, 1 Tim 2:9-15 is clearly the writer's personal confession of how he prefers women to be dressed and how when he is in a position to do so he demands that women submit to men in terms of instruction. And he appeals to the creation record in scripture to justify his logic in this regard.
That he does not consider his own preferences and demands to be normative is obvioius by Paul's testimony and behavior elsewhere (1 Cor 9:22). The most prominant example is his circumcision of Timothy, while in his traveling satchel carrying the actual document signed by James that exempted all men joing the Christian communities from required circumcision. For Paul, behavior of all kinds was, whether dress, or speaking, or socializing, or circumcision itself, a matter for him of how it would advance or hinder the reception of the Gospel of Jesus wherever he was at the time (1 Cor 9:22).
It is also helpful to keep in mind also that among Seventh-day Adventists throughout the history of the denomination there have been devoted members who have embraced verbal inspiration of scripture and scriptural inerrancy, while other just as devoted members have felt far less confined by the words of scripture alone. And the church has prospered by almsot any measure.
Bill: You make an important point about the difference between what Paul wrote in 1 Tim 2 and what he wrote elsewhere. I think your reference to 1 Cor 9:22 is important. Paul makes the same point in 1 Cor 10:31-32, just before discussing the issue of headship in 1 Cor 11:3.
Then he writes: "Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God" (1 Cor 11:11-12). This complicates the question about what Paul's preference was.
Was it Paul's prefenence to have women literally silent while he grudgingly allowed them to speak when they clearly had the prophetic gift (1 Cor 11:5) like Ellen White?
Or was it Paul's preference to have women as equal fellow workers in the gospel (Phil 4:3) while he reluctantly commanded that they be silent in situations where their speach was unlearned and heretical as I think the case was in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:7; 4:7; 5:11-15; 6:20)?
mhanna,
In response to your question about Paul's preference or reluctance, it is just that, Paul's preference or reluctance. The question that emains is whether the personal preference of a NT writer is to be read as God's eternal preference?
As I noted, there are loyal Seventh-day Adventists who believe God to be communicating to us through that writer's actual words, rather than the writer's thoughts even when self-describing their preferences and reluctance as personal. And there are equally loyal Seventh-day Adventists who believe the personal preference and reluctance of a NT writer is to be considered as a record of what people were saying and doing at that time and as such, it is up to us to make of it what seems to match up with the observed work of the Holy Spirit today.
As G. C. President A. G. Daniels noted to the Bible Teachers in their 1919 conference, these two ways of using scripture will not be reconciled in the lives of those loyal Seventh-day Adventists holding to either position. This was his response in the face of requests by the Bible Teachers for the General Conference to engage in publishing studies and positions useful in somehow unifying these two positions with regard to inspiration for the church.
What seems to me the Bible Teachers were calling for was for the General Conference to support the position that inspiration should not be thought of as a respository of a great variety of key 'texts' to be selectively compliled for the purpose of attempting to force a point of view regading either belief or behavior.
For some time I supported the clamor for clarification. I now sense the wisdom of A. G. Daniels.
Not only is such clarification unnecessary, to head down that road is to short change the blessings of Jesus' promise to send His presence in the form of the Holy Spirit for real-time engagement, rather than leaving us to be mired in the mists of history. I would have upon first reading appreciated hearing that from A. G. Daniels himself in his own words. However, that probably would have been seen as argumentive rather than letting the Holy Spirit engage in personal ways person by person, which is how Jesus apparely purposed this enagement.
So here we are, the better for it all, and in no way limiting the power or the influence of the Holy Spirit in any way that compromises what can be and will be for any of us.
Bill and Martin, I have been interested in your comments concerning Paul as to whether all his comments are to be taken as enunciating eternal principles or whether at times he is reflecting on certain situations and giving the best counsel for that particular time. For example in 1 Cor. chapter 7 Paul appears to encourage celibacy because of the situation and even suggests that time is short and it would be best not to marry. Every now and then there are those who are ready to follow Paul's advice and encourage young people to remain single and not to have children. Many of us are thankful that our parents decided that that particular counsel could be time bound and went ahead in marriage and brought us into the world.
Also Paul's words regarding women have many nuances. As pointed out there are his comments of gratitude for fellow women workers in Phil 4:1-3 and for Phoebe a servant, deacon and minister of the church in Cenchrea (Romans 16:1). In 1 Corinthians there are some mixed messages for in chapter 11 he gives some counsel on how women should pray or prophesy (speak and proclaim) God's message in public but then again in chapter 14 under certain conditions he suggests that it is best for women to keep silent in public gatherings. Perhaps certain conditions in Ephesus at the time called forth the same counsel when he advised women to "learn in silence with all submission" (1 Tim. 2:11). There are very few in the ranks of the Anti-WO who are prepared today to follow Paul literally in this respect. They no doubt feel that time and circumstances have called for some accommodation in this regard.
It is interesting to note that in 1 Tim 2:11-15, Paul gives two main reasons why he believes that women are to be in subjection to men.
The first reason he finds in Genesis 2 before the fall. He writes, "For Adam was formed first, then Eve" (1 Timothy 2:13). This is clearly the language of Genesis 2 and is simply on the basis that Eve was created after Adam was formed. This sounds a rather strange argument for often the second motor car or computer or other object is often better than the first.
The second reason that Paul gives is the fact that Eve was the one who first fell into sin. "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression" (vcerse 14). This reason clearly reflects the situation in Genesis 3 after the fall of Eve and Adam.
I have noted out of interest that while Ellen White agrees with Paul on the second reason as given in Genesis 3, she differs with Paul on his interpretation of Genesis 2. In some respects Paul sees inequality in Genesis 2; Ellen White sees only equality. In describing this equality she writes, "Eve was created from a rib taken from the side of Adam, signifying that she was not to control him as the head, nor to be trampled under his feet as an inferior, but to stand by his side as an equal, to be loved and protected by him. A part of man, bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, she was his second self; showing the close union and the affectionate attachment that should exist in this relation" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p 46). She was to be his helper, which does not simply mean housekeeping. She would be his helper and companion physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. White knows nothing of woman's inferiority in either substance or function because she was formed after Adam.
White writes, "In the creation [Genesis 1 and 2], God had made her the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God – in harmony with his great law of love – they would ever have been in harmony with each other;…" (PP p. 58). When it comes to Genesis 3 and the fall she agrees with Paul on the submission of the wife to the husband. But it is interesting in this respect that as we come closer to the gospel ideal and back to the garden of Eden we don't only pattern our diet more and more after the pre-sin order, but also our marriages. My wife and I have now been married for almost 64 years and I must say that we really feel more comfortable now in the atmosphere of Genesis 2 than in Genesis 3. The Lord has moved us from rulership to partnership.
Back in 1963 we traveled by ocean liner from Hamburg, Germany, to Freetown, Sierra Leone where I was to serve as a secondary school Bible teacher and church pastor. It was my firste encounter with African culture where I met many devoted and loving church members. As I got better aquainted with these dear people I noticed that their Christianity was not only based on the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, but especially the more mature people had a religion that was also based on the European or American culture of former missionaries, and they expected also the younger members to follow the chulture they had learned from these missionaries. How is it possible to eliminate culture in our religion and understanding of the Bible?
You can't eliminate culture from faith because it is applied within the social structures and rules of a culture. The first challenge is for the teacher to be able to differentiate and separate the principles of the Kingdom of God from their own culture. The second challenge is for the teacher to allow the student the freedom to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit in deciding how to apply their growing faith to their own culture. Christianity is often very disruptive to native cultures and adding elements from the culture of the missionary can make that disruption much more severe.
How can the greatest of the saints among us differentiate and separate their understanding of Scripture – and inspiration – from their own bias or culture?
I think all Paul's comments (without exception) were expressed in ways that addressed specific situations. I also think that all Paul's comments communicate eternal principles that we should apply to our specific situations.
How shall we identify the eternal principles? Now that is a harder question. I think we can all help each other with doing so. I would appreciate hearing others in this forum share their insights on this.
For now I will simply reaffirm the point I have already implied. To find the eternal principles we must be looking for them in all of Scripture.
All Scripture is the eternal word of God. And all Scripture is communicated in the imperfect language of humanity. All Scripture is profitable for us no matter who it was originally addressed to.
With regard to Paul's use of the creation order and the fall order, I'll share my perspective–though I respect the views of others who might view the matter differently.
I think Paul was making an illustration rather than a causal argument. He was not saying that women sould not teach or usurp authority BECAUSE Adam was created first or BECAUSE Eve sinned first. Rather he was illustrating the eternal principle that teachers ought not to usurp authority (as Eve did) and they ought not to teach deceptions (as Eve did).
Martin
The Bible written by over forty authors who's lives span over 1,500 years….with all the mix of cultures, backgrounds, and classes,all the books they wrote still do not contradict each other. That should reafirm the fact that God's Word is divinely inspired.
What we think is important yet what the Word of God's Word says is His desire. 2 Timothy 3:16
When we judge God by our own human ideas we are foolish as the one shown in Psalms 50:21
1 Timothy 2:7. 1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:5, 1 Timothy 3:12, 1 Timothy 4:1, 1 Timothy 4:16, 1 Timothy 5:17, 2 Timothy 3:14, 2 Timothy 4:3, Titus 1:1, Titus 1:3, Titus 1:5, Titus 2:4, Titus 2:15, Acts 14:23.
No, they do not contradict each other. We find the contradictions through the Roman Catholic and other cultures people are influenced by, and Romanism is still strongly ingrained in our conservatively ingrained Adventism.
Yes….lets stay ingrained with Christ Word rather then crossgrained with worldy culture. What we think is trumped by what God says period. Isaiah 8:20
Choose Wise Men—For years the Lord has been instructing us to choose wise men,-men who are devoted to God,—men who know what the principles of heaven are,-men who have learned what it means to walk with God,—and to place upon them the responsibility of looking after the business affairs connected with our work. This is in accordance with the Bible plan as outlined in the sixth chapter of Acts. We need to study this plan; for it is approved of God. Let us follow the Word.—The Review and Herald, October 5, 1905.
"Those who have yielded step by step to worldly demands, and conformed to worldly customs, will then yield to the powers that be, rather than subject themselves to derision, insult, threatened imprisonment, and death" Prophets and kings P 188
All4Him: You seem to imply that, in RH, Oct 5, 1905, Ellen White teaches that only men are to be placed in charge of the affairs of the church (as was the case when the seven deacons were chosen). This seems to be a misunderstanding you your part of the fact that Ellen White often uses the term "men" in a generic way to include men and women. This was also the practice in Bible times when the term "men" is also often used in a generic sense. This is why the Bible can refer to male decons and female deaconesses; to elder men and to elder women; and to male prophets and female prophetesses.
Mahana: That was a elaborate sermon the deacon Steven gave in Act 7. The only reference to "elder women" in the bible is where it spoke of elder women teaching the younger women. Please show us a text that speaks of women elders and leading the Christian church…. I would be one of the greatest suporters of WO if it could be shown from Gods Word.
As far as Ellen White she is clear about who should stand behind the sacred desk. 5T 598
That young men should study for the ministry and then states that young persons of both sexes to become workers in the various branches of the cause 5T 598 please show where these quotes were NOT gender specific….
Ellen White does not teach that only men are to stand behind the sacred desk. She herself was called to stand behind the sacred desk.
mhanna: Her exact quote is: "Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as MINISTERS in the sacred desk should be men of blameless reputation…. Again where is this NOT gender specific? Again where is there a text in the Bible of a women priest/elder in leadership of the Christian church?
You keep using a quote in Vol 6 page 322 in chapter on literature envangelist… Where does that speak of being a minister of a congregation?
The point I made was that Ellen White did minister from the sacred desk. Where in the quotes you present do you see evidence that Ellen White was wrong to stand in the sacred desk and teach God's remnant church?
The quote you referenced says that "men" in the sacred desk should be of blameless reputation. This is indeed a generic use of "men" to include men and women in that Ellen White and other women also need to be blameless in order to stand in the sacred desk. Why would we have a higher standard for men in the desk than for women in the desk? Paul teaches that elder men should be blameless in 1 Tim 3; and he teaches that elder women should be blameless in 1 Tim 5. [It does not matter whether you think these elder are simply old people rather than church officers. The official position is not my point. My point is about the generic qualifications for men and women in God's church.] Why would we conclude that blamelessness is gender specific rather than gender neutral (that is generic)?
mhanna again she says both men and women the says MEN what part do you not understand? What was the name of Ellen's congregation of which she was a pastor?
Your quote from the R&H is talking about wives helping out their husbands of which Ellen talks about in many places. Again you must do a lot of scripture twisting to say that the Bible condones WO of ministers.
I did not realize that we were talking about ordination. I did not mention that word once in our recent discussion here. 🙂 I commented on the fact that you overlook the generic use of the masculine term "men." Ellen White, like the Bible writers, does use masculine terms in a generic way to include men and women. This is a fact. And Ellen White did minister from the sacred desk This is also a fact.
It is amazing how much Bible twisting is essential to claim that a person has to serve a particular church in order to serve as a pastor. Which local church was Paul serving? When I was ordained for the ministry I had already been serving a district of nine churches for the past three years. Ellen White was employed by the General Conference so she was serving the whole world, residing at various places in USA, Australia, and Europe. Hers was a universal ministry and as such she was ordained by God Himself, a reality she wrote about herself.
Paul was an Apostle….Ellen a Prophet. There are exapmles of women prophets in the Old Testament. But no examples of women priest/elder in the Christian churches.
There are twelve tribes in Israel that mirror the twelve Apostles choosen by Christ. The foundations and gates of Heaven will carry their names…
Revelation 21:12, Revelation 21:14
Amram and Jochebed had three chilren, Miriam, Aaron, and Moses. All three served as prophets, and even though Miriam was older, only two served as priest. What happend to Miriam when she tried to speak against Moses… Numbers 12:10. Anna was a prophet in the NT at the temple Luke 2:36-38 yet she was not involved in the priestly duty.
Who is a pastor? When I was ordained the main question of the Division president was if I had won any souls for Christ. If you read through all of the ewritings of Ellen White you also find that this is the main question, not if the pastor is serving a church, but if s/he is winning souls for Christ. How many souls did Ellen White win for Christ during her life time?
We do not have the Old Testament priesthood today because Jesus Christ is our High Priest. Our pastors/evangelists are to be soul winners.
"As I traveled through the South on my way to the conference, I saw city after city that was unworked. What is the matter? The ministers are hovering over churches which know the truth while thousands are perishing out of Christ.{Ev 381.2}
Everyone is to win people for Christ that is not the question! In leadership and organization God has called men to lead out in both the OT and NT. How many did EGW baptize? She brought them to the knowledge and truth other men officiated as ministers in such rites for they were ordained by the Church to do so…. Matthew 28:19
We seem to have changd the subject which, as I recall it, was as follows. Does Ellen White's reference to God's call of men to ministry involve a generic use of the term "men" to include women? Does she intend to exclude women when she refers to "men." I propose that, like the Bible writers, she often uses the term "men" in a generic way that includes women.
Yes…sometimes she does not use men in a generic way: when she specifically uses the term men AFTER using BOTH men and women in the prior sentence it is clear what she meant what she said? The same with Paul when he wrote husband of one wife when he speaks of an elder/pastor.
The other quote I mentioned where men were to study for the ministry and men and women for the "various branches" of the cause it is clear she also said what she meant (5T Page 60). This statement backs that up….
-In the various branches of the work of God's cause, there is a wide field in which our sisters may do good service for the Master. Many lines of missionary work are neglected. In the different churches, much work which is often left undone or done imperfectly, could be well accomplished by the help that our sisters, if properly instructed, can give. Through various lines of home missionary effort they can reach a class that is not reached by our ministers. Among the noble women who have had the moral courage to decide in favor of the truth for this time are many who have tact, perception, and good ability, and who may make successful workers. The labors of such Christian women are needed.– Review and Herald, Dec. 10, 1914.
OK, it seems to me that we are now making progress in our dialog. You do understand, as I do, that sometimes Ellen White does use the masculine term "men" in a generic way to include men and women. But in the quote you are discussing you argue that she is not using the generic masculine. I will not enter into a debate on individual qoutes here since it is not my position that each and every reference to "men" is generic. It seems to me that the fact that some times she uses generic language for pastors is evident in that she refers to women as "pastors to the flock of God" (Testimonies, 6:322).
mhanna read it in context….what is the chapter speaking on in Testimonies 6:322? Various branches of the work? Literature Evangelist? You have not shown me a text or quote where women are asked to be the spiritual servent/leaders of the home or church. You can't debate on these quotes I've mentioned for clearly they are about men in their God given role at leaders in ministry.
I know every time you see the word men you add WO so it becomes WOmen.
Yet EGW was specific in mentioning both men and women and then just men for that very reason…. Good Night
I have read the text in context. Where else would I have read it? 🙂 The text clearly demonstrates that Ellen White uses the term pastor to refer to women. No amount of contextual analysis can get around that fact. The qustion of whether she means official or unofficial pastors is not my point. My point smply is that the inspired word does refer to women as pastors. Unless we come to grips with that reality, we are not ready to discuss whether or not these women pastors are official or unoficial.
All4Him: It is interesting that right after I mentioned that I do not regard every reference to "men" as generic, you responded with "I know every time you [Martin] see the word men you add WO so it becomes WOmen." It will be very difficult for us to have meaningful dialog if you do not take seriously what I say about my own position.
Martin.