About the Ordination of Women to the Gospel Ministry

Comments: 60

1. 

   Courtenay

   08 August 2012 at 9:06 am

   Thank you Dr Webster for sharing your clearly reasoned and biblically motivated thoughts on why you believe that men and women should be treated equally in terms of ordination.
    
   As a fellow South African I would especially like to thank you for your courage in speaking out on this matter, I wish that more of our African brothers and sisters would follow your example.  I feel privileged and honoured to have witnessed your life of faith and dedication to God, and pray that he will continue to bless you as you and your wife witness for Him.
    
   Courtenay Harebottle
2. 

   All4Him

   08 August 2012 at 9:42 am

   Its not about what we feel its about plain teaching of the Word of God.  Sunday worship will "seem" like the logical and right things to do….isn't it what Christ wants that we all become one and worship Him on the same day?  The family and its roles are being attacked by the devil just like the Sabbath.

   "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

   Christorculture.com
   1. 

      Stephen Ferguson

      08 August 2012 at 10:28 am

      Agree.  But likewise there is a danger in following Papal Tradition thinking it is the Word of God when the Word of God says no such thing. 

      But we have been round in circles with these arguments before haven't we All4Him?

      Can I suggest what is going to happen in reality.  In the Western world, most of those who oppose WO, as they oppose the use of drums in Church, are older people.  In the next 10-30 years, those people are going to die – a sad reality of life. You already see the vast majority of people support WO, and with few exceptions those opposed simply won't be alive shortly.

      The only way I can see that this inevitable situation will not occur is one or more of the following occurs:

      • The democratic make up of Western SDA Churches change through the rapid loss of its 'Western' (i.e. usually white but not always) members, and rapid growth and influx immigration of 'non-Western' members.  For example, you see a large influx of South Pacific Polynesians into the SDA Church, who tend to more conservative.  They also begin to have a greater say, because some 25% or more of new Ministers are Polynesians, much more than their 10% or less total population (I don't have the exact figures).
      • The Developing World, through its effective control over the GC (e.g. appointment of Pres Wilson being a good example) tries to impose a conservative revival within the Western Church.  You see that with the GC's endorsement now of GYC, which used to kind of be on the fringe. 

      I think the first scenario is more likely than the second.  Despite protests from people such as Nathan to the contrary, part of me suspects the One Project is a de facto pro-liberal movement launched to try and counter the rising influence of the GYC movement. I hope that is not the case, but deep down I suspect that motive in the mix.

      However, I am still not sure if it will be enough for the conservative wing of the Church to turn the Western Church conservative again, and to overturn these Union moves to allow WO. I suspect it is probably forever too late. I am not making a moral judgment over what is right and proper, or what should happen, just speculating about what will happen given the Church's demographics.
      1. 

         William Noel

         08 August 2012 at 1:12 pm

         Stephen,

         Good points and observations.  However, my greater concern in this larger issue is whether or not we individually or collectively as a church will allow the Holy Spirit to work.  The Holy Spirit is the most frequently-referenced and active revelation of God in the Bible.  In Genesis we see the Holy Spirit at work in creation and the last mention of God in Revelation is about the Holy Spirit.  Everywhere in between the people who did great things for God had one thing in common: empowerment by the Holy Spirit.  Everything Jesus did was through the power of the Holy Spirit.  He taught his disciples to seek and use the empowerment of the Holy Spirit.  It was the Holy Spirit who energized and directed the early church.  It is wonderful seeing the One Project directing attention to Jesus.  But that is one step short of where God wants us to be.  I am seeing the Holy Spirit work in my ministry and the ministries of others.  It is where the Holy Spirit is embraced that the church becomes powerful and arguments are replaced by celebrations of God's power at work. 

         Will you seek the emowerment of the Holy Spirit so you can be transformed and energized to do God's work beyond anything you have ever imagined possible?  Will we as a church pursue the Holy Spirit as Jesus instructed?  That is our need.
   2. 

      Stephen Ferguson

      08 August 2012 at 10:32 am

      Sorry when I was talking about Polynesians, who tend to be more conservative, I was talking about the South Pacific Division, and the demographic make up of Australian and New Zealand SDA Unions.  I have also lived in the UK, and similarly the Afro-Carribeans, who also tend to be conservative, now increasingly dominate the SDA Church there, with the number of 'indigenous' (i.e. white) SDAs fast in decline. I have also spent a lot of time in France, and the SDA Church there is also in a similar situation, where the SDA Church is dominated by ethnically African people from the former French colonies of West Africa.

      Again, I am not saying any of this is either good or bad – just trying to discuss the reality on the ground.
      1. 

         Kevin Riley

         08 August 2012 at 1:50 pm

         When it comes to the ordination of women, Polynesians are not necessarily in the camp opposing women pastors, any more than opposing women elders.  Having worked with a couple of Polynesian women elders, I can only pray 'may their tribe increase' 🙂  In terms of the SPD, it also pays to remember that Melanesians make up over 50% of members, and they also are not united on this question.  There are women working as elders and pastors in Melanesia.  The assumption by some Australians and New Zealanders that the Islanders would oppose women as elders turned out not to be the case.  The fact that 'Pacific Islanders' are as homogeneous and united as 'westerners' may explain some of that.  I am not sure we can treat Polynesians as if they were united, either.  The younger generation – at least in NZ – was not necessarily any more conservative than other NZers. 

         It is likely that Polynesian and South American churches will follow the pattern of the Polish and other churches of former generations – after the first generation, they blend into the wider church.  The danger is that the loss of those past the first generation will lead to the church being dominated by first generation immigrants, who do tend to be more conservative – in the case of some African and Asian groups, sometimes even more conservative than our home-grown far right wing.
         1. 

            Stephen Ferguson

            09 August 2012 at 9:24 am

            Yes probably right.  So do you think there is a big difference between people in the Developing World, compared to people from the Developing World who emmigrate to the Western World, and then as you say after 1 or 2 generations they too are just as Western?  What do you think the chances of the GC hoping to make the Western Unions more conservative?
            1. 

               Kevin Riley

               09 August 2012 at 1:46 pm

               I have seen this issue argued for decades now.  I see a number of positions that have not varied much over time.

               1) One extreme is represented by a man who attended my church when I was in late primary/early high school – so the early 70s.  If a woman got up to speak in SS or church, he left the room.  He believed women could lead and teach women, but not men, or even boys beyond about 10yrs old.  Even below that, he believed women should only be teachers in children's SS if no men were available.  There are still people who take that view in virtually every part of the world.  They tend to have a high commitment to taking the Bible literally.  The culture encourages this conclusion, at least on this issue, in some places. 

               2) Others take what we could consider the 'traditional conservative' view, that women can lead and teach, as long as it is not in a position the church recognises by ordination as granting 'ruling authority' in the church.  So not pastor, elder or deacon – and therefore no preaching from the pulpit.  That is what the practice was in my church up until the 1980s.  If a woman did speak from the front, it was always from the floor in front of the pulpit, not behind it, to signal she did not speak with church authority.  When we occasionally had a visiting female speaker from the Conference office, she preached from the floor in front of the pulpit.  The first time one such woman stood behind the pulpit to preach led to quite a bit of discussion about the propriety of that.  There are many people all over the world who are still very comfortable with that position, and beleive it is both biblical and culturally appropriate.

               3) what we could call the 'comtemporary conservative' view, which is that women can do the work of pastor, elder or deacon, but can not be ordained to those positions, or they can be ordained as elder or deacon, but not pastor.  It depends on whether elder and deacon is seen as conferring authority or not.  I find this the least satisfactory position, and the least easy to defend biblically, even though it is approved by the GC, as is position 2)

               4) women can hold any office and be ordained to any office.  This is not exclusive to the western world, but I would guess probably about 90% of its supporters are found there or were educated there.

               I see more evidence of support for postion 1) among members in some developing areas than in the developed world.  Africa is a good example, although it is not uniform.  If we take a literal approach to Scripture, and privilege commands and teaching over narrative, then this position is easily defended.  It also has most of the last 2000 years of Christian history behind it.

               I don't see a lot of support for position 4) in developing countries.  Most members there would fall into position 1) or 2), with a small but growing number being willing to accept 3).  I suspect that when they move to western countries, their children tend to move more towards positions 2) and 3), while the adults are unlikely to move beyond position 2).  I know there is support for position 4) among some Polynesian groups in NZ and Australia, especially among the younger generation, but I don't know that even the pastors of their churches could give accurate numbers.  I know that some young Africans sometimes struggle with the way women in Australia speak up and will even contradict or disagree with men in public.  That varies somewhat depending on the culture of their home.  I suspect they will assimilate over time, but it may be 50-60 years before those communities hold the same values as the wider community.  In the long run I don't see western Unions becoming more conservative on this issue.  Not unless there is severe haemorrhaging of all but the most conservative young people from the churches.  That, plus continued migration from conservative areas could tip the scales. 

               If a vote came at Division level in the South Pacific, I would hesitate to predict how it would go.  So much would depend on the position the leaders took publicly (if any), and who spoke for and against.  I think the same applies at Union level for PNGUM and CPUM.  I would be surprised if it didn't pass in AUM and NZPUM.  The problem with SPD is just its sheer diversity.  After a year in PNG, I thought I understood it.  After 2 years, I suspected I knew nothing.  After 3 years, I knew that everything I said about a place may be 100% correct (at that time) and yet anything from 0% to 100% may apply to the next village.  In Polynesia it is more likely to be at the level of island group on most things, but there is still a lot of diversity even within small groups.  That is what makes the Pacific interesting.  The slogan "PNG – Land of the Unexpected" was not just a marketing slogan 🙂

               One question that has not been answered is how the vote would go if, rather than being a proposal to ordain women, the proposal was to restrict women from the role of pastor, or even elder and deacon.  There was passionate resistance to the move to ordain deaconesses at the last GC, and the vote to simply ordain deacons without regard to gender surprised and angered many delegates.  We assume we have settled the question of women doing the work of deacon, elder and pastor, and all we are arguing over is ordination, but I really think we may be wrong there.
            2. 

               -Shining

               10 August 2012 at 11:48 pm

               Thank you for this detailed analysis.  I feel like I have a better understanding of another part of the world.  When I was observing at GC in Atlanta 2010 (my first time there,  I noticed that there were very few  delegates at most of the business sessions.  I am guessing wildly that they attended when they thought something important was happening.  Many were in among the booth pavilian. I can only speculate where the rest were.  The thing is, who knows what the make-up will be at the time they are voting at any given point.  I am going to guess that why some delegates were angry is things were done when they weren't in attendance.  The first session I visited there were maybe 200 delegates seated at the time.   I haven't heard anyone anywhere talk about this when they discuss the importance of the GC in session. 
            3. 

               Kevin Riley

               11 August 2012 at 1:21 am

               For many delegates from the developing world, it is their first (and for some, only) chance to see how others live.  I don't blame them if sometimes they find that there are more interesting things to do than attend meetings on issues that may not really affect them.  For every exciting discussion of ordination there are a few on not-quite-so-exciting changes to policies, etc.  Perhaps there should be provision made for a few days of sight-seeing first.  Or, even more radical, perhaps holding the GC somewhere where most of our members won't be dazzled by the 'bright lights' of a life they will never live.  I am sure our leaders would survive a week or so of living in less than 5 star accommodation.
3. 

   Elaine Nelson

   09 August 2012 at 3:45 pm

   Why should what one or two unions choose, affect the entire world church?  This is both silly and ridiculous.  If the NAD decides the women should be ordained,
   why does Ted demand that all SDA churches everywhere abide by the same rules?  Since no one has given a biblical or theologically persuasive reason for views on WO, it should never be considered a decisive issue but only one of cultural acceptance.  Just as in some island countries it is considered "proper dress" for the preacher in the pulpit to wear a shirt not tucked in his pants–it would be a faux pas in many parts of the country; or that hats should or should not be worn by women.  Fighting 100 years over silliness!
4. 

   Jean Corbeau

   09 August 2012 at 4:02 pm

   I can picture a collegue of Korah, writing a column for the Exodus Press, which starts:  "I wish to submit reasons why I believe men and women should be treated equally when it comes to the question of ordination to the levitical priesthood. If at any time the system of ordination is changed to anything else I maintain that equality should still be maintained whatever the system is called. As ordination is the current practice in the Hebrew theocracy, I am arguing for that exact same privilege for women priests. . . . "

   I see many parallels
   1. 

      -Shining

      10 August 2012 at 11:55 pm

      I see parallels too.  Korah was insisting on holding on to the old way that God had usually used to determine spiritual leaders.  Mirium had a leading role in the organization, was considered a prophet.  And the mistakes God forgave her did not hold a candle to the ones God forgave her brother Aaron.
5. 

   Steve Blue

   09 August 2012 at 8:34 pm

   Dr. Webster's wise advise is directed correctly to the current leadership of the General Conference. It is the current leadership that have facilitated this so called crisis by choosing to make this a world-wide issue rather than one that can be applied Union by Union as many contend the current church structure allows.
   By disallowing North-America, and European Divisions to treat women pastors as equal to their male counterparts, they have forced the hands of those who see equality as a mater of conscience to act from their convictions.  Church policy can never trump conscience nor should one ever be asked to compromise  a moral conviction for the sake of following policies that are adaptable to time and place.
   It is unclear if Dr. Webster's call is for Unions to wait until 2015 to act.  Waiting could have been morally tolerated if the Divisions had been allowed to proceed with the now defunct e-60 policy proposed last year.  By disallowing North America to allow Women to serve in all positions of church leadership, the General Conference leaders have thrust this issue to the forefront, and should not be surprised that Unions are voting matters of conscience over matters of policy.
6. 

   Ella M

   11 August 2012 at 4:11 am

   Dr. Webster, Thank you for your spiritual, biblical, and reasonable approach to this subject. It's the best I have seen.
     The church organization's CEOs should be leading us according to the principles of Jesus and directing the world church gradually to equality in Jesus.  Because they have not done so, women continue to be abused and treated inhumanely in many parts of the world.  Just ask some of our missionaries who have witnessed this behavior.  Jesus set an example for the future when he spoke to the woman at the well and rescued  another woman from those who would stone her.  Women accompanied men and supported the Gospel in a time when women were not allowed to participate in their cultures. 
         Now our organization has the opportunity to take a stand for moral justice and equality before the world.  Yet there seems more concern to be in control than trusting God to lead the church into the future and prepare all people for His return.  We  decieve ourselves by using "unity" as a reason for not doing the right thing; that is not God's way.  It was used by the Roman church and by the Jews of Jesus' day who feared losing control of the people.  Remember it was our Savior who saw through their lack of love.  Now I don't think the men at the GC are bad people, and some in their hearts must question their decision; may they not be short-sighted.  I am praying for them. 
        I am also praying for some women who may want ordination for selfish reasons and personal power.  Everyone must examine their own motives in order for God to bless.  That is why it might have been better to do away with ordination all together that all could be humbled and become true servant leaders and part of the priesthead of all believers.  Now that would be a powerful message to the world and especially the secular world that so distrusts organized religion.  Right now our example is a poor one in those parts of the world where Christianity is dying out.
   1. 

      Elaine Nelson

      11 August 2012 at 4:51 am

      Would this not be entirely differen: 

      
      "some women who may want ordination for selfish reasons and personal power"

      by subsituting "men" for women?

      "some men who may want ordination for selfish reasons and personal power."

      It is both demeaning to women and assumes that only women who want ordination are seeking it for power and men have no selfish reasons for power.

      Surely, no one could really mean that.  Could it be that is the reason the G.C. hasn't ordained women–they are selfish and seek power unlike the very self-giving men who never seek power?

      Women may want power, but men are totally exempt for that desire?  This shows a very sexist statement to even hint that women might wish ordination for selfish reasons but that men are exempt from such feelings.

      Please, listen to someone saying that and re-read to see that it is very demeaning to women.
      1. 

         Ella M

         11 August 2012 at 7:19 pm

         Elaine,   this obviously goes both ways and has been practiced by men since the church began.  However, I didn't think it would be misunderstood since we were talking only about women here.  I hope no one else took it the way you did.
         1. 

            Elaine Nelson

            11 August 2012 at 7:48 pm

            Because it was an assumption.  Do you know any women seeking ordination for selfish reasons and power?  This is how rumors and false impressions begin.
            1. 

               Ella M

               11 August 2012 at 8:25 pm

                 Since women are just as subject to sin as men, I can say that there is no doubt some are going to feel this way.  Actually in such circumstances I might be tempted to feel that way after spending years, money, and experience to become a pastor and then being denied the term that denotes acceptance and recognition.  I have been in similar circumstances in a different field in church work. 
                 I don't appreciate the way you twisted by words.
7. 

   Bea

   11 August 2012 at 4:23 pm

   It amazes me that any woman is against WO – it's like women choosing to remain slaves – beyond my comprehension. To me it just proves how successfully indoctrinated we are as women in the church – and how indoctrinated men are as well.  We should not be stagnated on this issue that could have been passed over a hundred years ago.    At what point do we realize the insanity of it all and realize oil and water don't mix.  Maybe those beasts and dragons of Revelation are all of us debating and wringing our hands over WO – the straw that broke the camel's (SDA) back.

   On the other hand, look at all the beautiful paperweights  and ornaments that have been created from the ash blown off St. Helens May 18, 1980 – what an awesome, devastating sight.  Who knows what we will look like as we continue to take on this debate.
8. 

   God's Will Paramount

   11 August 2012 at 11:01 pm

   WO? What's the fuss, really. Let's talk about MO (Men's Ordination) for a minute, shall we. Where in the 66 books of the Bible do we see men being ordained as PASTORS? If anyone can give me that one text, just one, I will be eternally grateful to you. Thanks.

    
   1. 

      William Noel

      13 August 2012 at 4:54 pm

      Where in scripture do you see a job description for a pastor?  I can't find anything that compares to the modern concept, which more closely resembles the role of a priest in the Roman Catholic tradition than a priest in the ancient Jewish tabernacle/temple.
9. 

   All4Him

   11 August 2012 at 11:20 pm

   So Acts 6:6 is a fluke?
   1. 

      Elaine Nelson

      11 August 2012 at 11:45 pm

      They were prayed as they distributed bread.
      1. 

         All4Him

         11 August 2012 at 11:50 pm

         Read Acts 6:5 there is a list of men for service……
         1. 

            Kevin Riley

            12 August 2012 at 1:07 am

            Are you suggesting they were ordained as pastors?
10. 

    God's Will Paramount

    12 August 2012 at 8:07 am

    Which version are you reading from AllforHim. All Bible versions I know of, in any language, including the original, speak of men of good repute etc, who were appointed to serve tables because the Hellenists were complaining that their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. They chose seven and the apostles laid their hands on them as they prayed for them. The result was phenomenal. The word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith. Conclusions: 1. The passage you quoted has absolutely and clearly nothing to do with the ordaining of male pastors. 2. If you want your church to grow phenomenally, ordain men to serve tables, so widows will not get neglected, and have their need for bread met daily. Our problen with decades of "fight" in the church to the very top of GC leadership is that we try to defend two church traditions/policies (ordination of men and commissioning of women) as if they were the commands of God and we add insult to injury by wanting to stretch the traditions/policies further by pushing for WO. Let's heed the very serious and solemn warning by John the Apostle: " I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book (the Bible): if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book…" (Revelation 21:18).

     
    1. 

       William Noel

       13 August 2012 at 5:00 pm

       Let's refresh a point: the term "ordination" is a modern word that does not appear in scripture.  The original practice most often claimed as the basis for ordination is the laying on of hands.  Let's remember that those on whom hands were laid were already empowered by the Holy Spirit for service.  That is how the apostles recognized them as candidates for greater service.  The laying on of hands was an act of dedication by those in whom there was a greater outpouring of  Holy Spirit power to convey to the recipient a greater amount of the Holy Spirit than had been given to them before that time.  So the model we have from scripture is centered on an inseparable from ministries empowered and directed by the Holy Spirit.  We would do well to remember that today because there is ample record in scripture of that power being given to both men and women. 

       Unfortunately, I've long since lost count of the times I've seen a person ordained more on the basis of how they got along with conference leadership and their ability to "play by the rules" while never considering any empowerment by the Holy Spirit. 
11. 

    All4Him

    12 August 2012 at 10:42 am

    Was Steven stoned for serving tables?   Read Acts 6:7 ands Acts 6:8 again. 
    Look at Christ own example He chose 11 apostles that were men and one chose himself and when they replaced Judas a man was choosen. 

    Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2:7 (KJV) Whereunto I am ORDAINED a preacher and goes on into chapter three where he writes… 

    Gods Will Paramount:  Please explain what you think Gods Will is on the following EGW quotes……

    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

    These two quote are not flukes for they fit in with the rest of her writings…..

    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

    This is a true saying, if a MAN desire the office of a bishop HE disireh a good work.  A bishop then must be blameless HUSBAND of one wife….1 Timothy 3: 1,2
12. 

    Debbonnaire Kovacs

    13 August 2012 at 1:12 am

    Some years back, a couple who are close to me but whom I will not identify, to protect their privacy, belonged for a time to a group (not Adventist) who believed that the entire Bible was written only to men except where it specifically said women. So Proverbs 31 and a few other verses were the only parts that pertained to women, and the only major commandment God had given women was to obey their husbands as they would obey Christ. I wasn't in the group, but the couple showed me the syllabus they were studying.
    "What about the ten commandments?" I asked.
    They pointed out that in the 10th, it specifically says not to covet "thy neighbor's wife." Clearly it was speaking only to men. Everything in the Bible, in fact, where it said man, meant man only. "He who has clean hands and a pure heart" may stand before God. "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly," etc. (I should make it clear that my friends were not sure they believed all this; they were merely sharing what their study group was learning.)
    I read for myself the part of the syllabus that was disturbing them the most. It said that if a man told his wife to do something that she knew was a clear sin, and against the law of God, she could gently, submissively try to point it out to him, but if he held firm, she was to do as he asked, and God would hold her in the clear because she had obeyed his one command to her, to obey her husband, and would hold the husband guilty for the sin of both.
    "Let me understand this!" I gasped. "If my husband wants to bring another woman into my bed (I've known of men who did this) and I can't talk him out of it, I'm to submit to this??!!"
    The husband said, "All I can say is, it makes me want to be really careful to obey the will of God, if God is holding me responsible for both!"
    I felt that the group was saying a woman was not a free moral agent, almost that she did not even have a soul of her own. We dropped the discussion, and I am happy to say they didn't stay in the group for long.
    1. 

       Edwin A. Schwisow

       21 August 2012 at 2:50 am

       It is also interesting to note that in Genesis 2:15-18, God tells the man, Adam, not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but never tells the woman this information. Simple reason, she is not created at that point; she doesn't exist yet. Ditto for the names of the animals. Eve comes along after Adam has been thoroughly educated in the geography and taxonomy, husbandry and theology of the garden, and whatever Eve learns she learns from Adam (the foundation, I believe, of St. Paul telling the women of his day to learn to listen to their husbands, because look what happened to Eve when she didn't hearken to the voice of her husband in the matter of the tree?)

       The point can rightly be made that Eve sinned against her husband (questioned his understanding of what God had told him; thought she knew better than he about the tree, etc.), but Adam sinned directly against God. Within this context, St. Paul is by no means pointing out that femaleness is inherently naive, unreliable, and slow to comprehend. He is establishing that in the matter of Adam and Eve, Adam was created first and possessed a head start of knowledge that she needed to respect. In St. Paul's day, likewise, the apostle seemed to instruct the men first (perhaps they had more time to sit with him and be instructed outside the home), with the expectation that they would pass the information along to their families. Much of what is read today as an apparent subordination of women can be better explained, in context of Genesis 2, as Paul's admonishment of women to listen at home to the theological and practical instruction he wants them to learn from their husbands. It's good counsel even today, in context of many families especially in the Third World, where men are often far better educated than their wives.
13. 

    Elaine Nelson

    13 August 2012 at 2:16 am

    Sadly, this still represents many Christian groups that truly believe the man is solely responsible not only for his wife, but their children.  The extreme views
    are regularly seen in the media where men have beaten their wives and children for not obeying him. 

     

    Such stories only bring Christianity into disrepute.
14. 

    God's Will Paramount

    13 August 2012 at 2:12 pm

    All4Him, I read and re-read your response and you still insist on not answering my simple and straightforward question. Apparently while I am talking apples, you choose to speak of oranges. I guess that's where we call it a day and pray the Lord's blessings on each other, in love.
15. 

    All4Him

    13 August 2012 at 7:29 pm

    WO? What's the fuss, really. Let's talk about MO (Men's Ordination) for a minute, shall we. Where in the 66 books of the Bible do we see men being ordained as PASTORS? If anyone can give me that one text, just one, I will be eternally grateful to you. Thanks.

    Do you really think Steven was stoned for passing bread to widows?  Was the sermon of Acts 7:2-53 something he came up with on the way back from the bakery?  Why in Act 6:5 are there only a list of men?  Paul states in 1 Timothy 2:7 that he is "ordained a preacher"…  When the Bible speaks of Elders/overseers as stated in Acts 14:23.  As also they "laid hands" on Timothy as stated in 2 Timothy 1:6.

    I have not seen a answer to my simple question????
    (Gods Will Paramount:  Please explain what you think Gods Will is on the following EGW quotes……)

    Women will and have played an important role in the finishing of the work.  Instead of fighting for position and power they should press on in Godly service and submission. 

    Men and women are equal but have different roles given by creator God.  Oil and water is a good analogy.  A engine must have both to run, take either away and the engine will fail.  Yet if you find the water from the radiator and oil from the crankcase mixed together you more then likely have a blown head gasket and you engine will not last long….
16. 

    David Borton

    18 August 2012 at 8:59 pm

    All4Him wrote:  "Instead of fighting for position and power they should press on in Godly service and submission. "

    You make it sound as if women only seek ordination in order to gain position and power. Surely you don't believe that position! Even people who are opposed to women's ordination accept that women who serve already as pastors serve God honestly and genuinely according to God's calling.

    The only thing that ordination of women would do would be to acknowledge their ministry.
17. 

    Elaine Nelson

    18 August 2012 at 10:19 pm

    Truth Seeker:

    How would this sound in reverse:

    "Men only seek ordination in order to gain position and power." Men should press on in godly service and submission."

    In a car's engine:  which is subordinate:  oil or water?
    1. 

       Jean Corbeau

       18 August 2012 at 10:32 pm

       Very few men I know actively sought ordination.  They were called upon to fulfill that role.  In fact, most of the pastors I've known were called from other lines of work.  It was not their first choice.  I never wanted to be an elder.  They chose me and I initially resisted.  The few I've known who coveted the postion of elder were passed over, partly because of their attitude.  If one feels qualified to be an elder or a pastor, it is usually a sign that they have a misconception of what the office is all about, and they are not ready. 

       Not sure what your point is about the oil and water in a car's engine.  Both are essential to the operation of an engine.  If one is missing, the engine will not last long.
       1. 

          Kevin Riley

          19 August 2012 at 11:26 am

          My observation would be that men and women are about equally likely to seek ordination for right and wrong reasons.  They are also about equally likely to be excellent, good, or indifferent pastors in the long term.  At any time there will be pastors of both genders who should not have been employed (or continued to be employed) just as there will be people called by God to be pastors who are not because they are resisting the call.  Paul said that anyone who desired to be an elder desired a good thing, so there is a place for that.  It really does depend on why anyone desires such an office.

          In the context of this discussion, more important than why anyone wants to be a pastor is the necessity for those calling and employing pastors to be sure they are calling the ones God has called, and not those he has not, nor refusing to call any God has called.  Unfortunately, gender is not the only reason why some people get a call from God but not from the conference president.  We have come a long way in eliminating prejudice from our organisation, but we are not home yet.
    2. 

       All4Him

       19 August 2012 at 1:47 pm

       In a car's engine:  which is subordinate:  oil or water?

       Water is….  Oil was designed to rise above yet both are needed for the engine to run.
       1. 

          Tim

          20 August 2012 at 9:34 pm

          That's correct.  To explain your analogy to our less perceptive members, "oil" refers to men, and "water" refers to women.  The Lord created man superior to woman — we are "above" them, just as oil rises above water.  They are not the same, and no matter how hard women try, they are simply not designed to perform the functions that men do.  Just look at the abject disaster that was the women's rights movement in US history.

          Does the Adventist Church want to be the one who pours water into the oil reservoir of the Lord's Engine?

          I rest my case.

          Yours in the authoritarian literalist love of the Master Mechanic,

          Tim
18. 

    All4Him

    20 August 2012 at 11:09 pm

    Tim, you can rest your case but not your crankcase…. I dare you to take either out of the engine of your car tonight and call me tomorrow evening and let me know how your day went… They complement each other though they play different roles.  I guess your right a lot of people like to put down the design of the Master Mechanic. 
19. 

    All4Him

    20 August 2012 at 11:27 pm

    ….and no matter how hard men try, they are simply not designed to perform the functions that women do.  Just look at the abject disaster that was the man who tried out to be a Denver Broncos cheerleader…..

    We naturally (physically) raise above and are equal in the sight of God, yet we are given different roles by God. 
    1. 

       Kevin Riley

       20 August 2012 at 11:47 pm

       And when our pastors are cheer leaders, I may concede you are correct that gender matters in who we choose.  While they are spiritual leaders, and God gives the necessary gifts to both men and women – as he always has – then I see your argument as unpersuasive.
       1. 

          All4Him

          21 August 2012 at 1:22 am

          Right Kevin (as he always has – …)

          Its a God given creed to shepherd to lead

          Which of the 12 foundations will have a female name? (12 apostles)
          Which of the 12 gates will have female names? (12 tribes of Israel)
          Acts 6:5 speaks of 7 men being choosen and ordained

          He also gave the necessary gifts to Lucifer who decided he wanted more…..
          1. 

             Kevin Riley

             21 August 2012 at 1:36 am

             And no matter how many times we mention the women referred to by name and title in Paul's closing section in Romans or elsewhere in the Bible, or how many women were and are licensed by the SDA church as pastors, or how often the GC affirms ordination as appropriate for women who are elected deacons and elders, you will continue to insist that God has only ever called men.  You may continue to ask the same questions, but I am not prepared to continue to give the same answers and have you respond with the same questions as if I and others had given no answer.
          2. 

             Stephen Ferguson

             21 August 2012 at 2:00 am

             And All4Him, again continually – which were not Jews!  On what basis then should gender be a relevant consideration and not race!  Are you a racist?  If not, then why do you say race is not relevant but gender is not relevant?  
             1. 

                All4Him

                21 August 2012 at 2:21 am

                I am not a racist and neither is the God who spoke in Genesis 3:16

                "Eve had been perfectly happy by her husband’s side in her Eden home; but, like restless modern Eves, she was flattered with the hope of entering a higher sphere than that which God had assigned her. In attempting to rise above her original position, she fell far below it. A similar result will be reached by all who are unwilling to take up cheerfully their life duties in accordance with God’s plan." Patriarchs and Prophets 58,59
             2. 

                Tim

                21 August 2012 at 5:15 am

                In attempting to rise above her original position, she fell far below it. A similar result will be reached by all who are unwilling to take up cheerfully their life duties in accordance with God’s plan." Patriarchs and Prophets 58,59

                Amen, All4Him.  I'm finding myself agreeing with you more and more often lately.  The Spirit at work between us?  Hmmmmm!!

                Now I'm not racist (at all), but the quote above also demonstrates the error of the Civil Rights movement (not to mention women's rights, gay rights, et al).  The Lord establishes a hierarchical societal structure for a reason — some are higher than others, some are lesser, and some are free, and some are given in bondage.  Who are we to try to "reposition" ourselves in society, or worse, overturn tradition at all?  E.G. White wrote clearly and forcefully in this passage, her hand guided by the Holy Spirit.  People trying to "rise up" in the name of "equality" may sound pleasant, but it is a grave error and contrary to the Plan.

                Those calling for WO are as disobedient children breaking the 5th Commandment by dishonoring their Heavenly Father.
             3. 

                teresaq

                23 August 2012 at 3:35 am

                Amen, All4Him.  I'm finding myself agreeing with you more and more often lately.  The Spirit at work between us?  Hmmmmm!!

                Now I'm not racist (at all), but the quote above also demonstrates the error of the Civil Rights movement

                You all are bound and determined to make WO win, aren't you?  LOL  I could never have thought up such a perfect plan to make  WO suceed as all of you have. My standing ovation to you all!!
             4. 

                Stephen Ferguson

                21 August 2012 at 5:22 am

                But what ‘higher sphere’ was Eve seeking?  Obviously it was not equality with Adam, as she already had that – it was only sin that brought her submission to men.  Rather, Eve was seeking to be like God Himself!
                 
                Also from P&P page 58:
                 
                ‘Eve was told of the sorrow and pain that must henceforth be her portion. And the Lord said, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." In the creation God had made her the equal of Adam…but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter and made her life a burden.’
                 
                As to ancient and modern Eves rising above their stations, obviously:
                 
                1. Ellen White is talking about a domestic setting (as was Paul when he gave counsels re household codes).  She is obviously not talking about the Church, suggesting women cannot exercise spiritual leadership.  Otherwise, Ellen White herself would be the biggest hypocrite of all time! 
                 
                2. There are also plenty of other Ellen White quotes where she talks about where doing the Lord’s work is more important than domestic chores.  There are also plenty of quotes where she talks about women in ministry who deserve to be paid from the tithe – hardly the 1950s-style woman you might have in mind.
                 
                3. Christ’s own admonishment that Mary stay at His feet rather than help Martha in the kitchen illustrates what Jesus thought was more important.
                 
                4. No one is denying that women have a very important role, especially relating to children – but so do fathers.  Yes, women can and arguably do neglect their children when they put say career above their children – but can do men.  However, many women don’t do this – but so do good father.  Again, we are clearly talking about people’s domestic lives, not leadership in the Church.
                 
                In conclusion, I think we sometimes mix things up when we confuse the relations between men and women in their own households, compared with the relations between members in the Church.  Ellen White might have been submissive to James in their home (but the evidence shows they actually quarreled a lot because she was hardly submissive at all) but she was still the spiritual leader of the entire SDA Movement in the Church realm.
                 
                To keep using a female spiritual leader to say women can’t be spiritual leaders is just absurd. 
             5. 

                Stephen Ferguson

                21 August 2012 at 5:57 am

                And Eve clearly wasn't trying to go beyond any so-called traditional role as a homemaker and mother, as she hadn't had any children yet.  Nor was she negligent in failing to do Adam's washing or iron his shirts, as they didn't yet wear clothes.  Perhaps she wasn't being a good cook, but it appears they ate fruit and vegetables from the tree.  

                The point, is Eve was hardly the 1950s American housewife you might want to portray her as. She probably was more akin to a woman in a traditional hunter-gatherer society, which are 'equal but different'.  

                Traditional Australian Aboriginal men and women have defined gender roles, and special 'secret men's business' and 'secret women's business', but one is not necessarily superior to the other.  However, there are many Aboriginal women who are the matriarchs of their peoples.  

                Moreover, if Eve was gathering, what was Adam doing – he clearly wasn't hunting!  Gen 2 says his job was to care for the garden.  Again, I believe Australian Aboriginals do 'care for the garden' in varous ways, including deliberately starting bush fires.  

                Modern patriarchal structure is much more a feature of modern sendtry lifestyles following the introduction of agriculture and domestication of livestock.  It was hardly God's original ideal, and such a sinful model should hardly be upheld by Christians today.
             6. 

                All4Him

                22 August 2012 at 2:45 am

                ‘Eve was told of the sorrow and pain that must henceforth be her portion. And the Lord said, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." In the creation God had made her the equal of Adam…….(WHATS MISSING??)… NOW THEIR UNION ONLY BY THE SUBMISSION OF ONE OR THE OTHER…EVE HAD BEEN THE FIRST IN TRANSGRESSION, SHE HAD FALLEN INTO TEMPTATION BY SEPARATING FROM HER COMPANION, CONTRARY TO THE DIVINE DIRECTION.  IT WAS BY HER SOLICITATION THAT ADAM SINNED AND SHE WAS NOW PLACED UNDER THE SUBJECTION TO HER HUSBAND….
                but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter and made her life a burden.’

                Moreover, if Eve was gathering, what was Adam doing?….  It said said SHE seperated from her husband that was contrary to the divine direction of God.  Stephen if you read SOP in context and not leave things out the picture becomes much clearer as it mirrors Biblical teaching on this matter.
             7. 

                Elaine Nelson

                22 August 2012 at 3:01 am

                Unfortunately, all that was quoted was NOT from the Bible.  There is not one word in the Bible about Eve separating from Adam; they were exploring the new home, just as all humans normally do. God spoke ONLY to Adam warning him of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Eve had not even been created yet when God spoke this to Adam.

                How sad that Moses, if he truly wrote Genesis, did not have the insight that a writer could "fill out" thousands of years later.
             8. 

                All4Him

                22 August 2012 at 3:35 am

                Eve had not even been created yet when God spoke this to Adam….

                Yes Elaine God spoke to Adam, was he not the head of his household.  In Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and told them to be fruitful and multiply before sin.  Bible states Adam was in charge of naming the animals and even his wife.  After sin in Genesis 3:9 God calls Adam the one responsible for the household.  In Genesis 3:17 KJV the ground is cursed because Adam "hearkened unto the voice of his wife".

                "How sad that Moses, if he truly wrote Genesis, did not have the insight that a writer could "fill out" thousands of years later." 

                 2 Timothy 3:16
                 
    2. 

       Elaine Nelson

       21 August 2012 at 2:52 am

       When was a female pastor asked to be a cheerleader?

       Such an analogy is ludicrious.  Look at all the women who are, or have been leaders in Israel, India, Germany, and other nations, a well as U.S. cabinet officers.  Any governing instituion that does not equally represent women is suffereing the wonderful contributions that women offer.

       This was demonstrated yesterday in the eloquent presentations made by women pastors in LLUC.
       1. 

          Tim

          21 August 2012 at 4:49 am

          Look at all the women who are, or have been leaders in Israel, India, Germany, and other nations, a well as U.S. cabinet officers.  Any governing instituion that does not equally represent women is suffereing the wonderful contributions that women offer.

          Elaine, the problem is that just because there are a plethora of nations who allow women to be leaders doesn't mean that doing so is pleasing in the eyes of the Lord God.  Just look at how many nations condone homosexuality, or allow women to rule over their bodies and freely have abortions.  Are we to say these things are right according to the Word just because they're relatively common?  Of course not.

          Likewise, while the Bible emphasizes that it's a man's responsibility to love and care for his wife, it also lays out clear limits to a woman's place, both in their immediate families and in God's Family, the Church.  A woman is to remain silent and obey her husband, which is pleasing in the eyes of the Most High who made them.

          Kevin has come back at this by stating that the word used in reference to certain Biblical women — "diakonos" — implies spiritual leadership over others.  This is categorically incorrect, as even a cursory Google search will demonstrate.  Diakonos also means "one who serves," and was used historically in reference even to errand-runners.  It in no way, shape or form suggests that any women in the Bible served in positions of church leadership — they served, as all members of the Church serve Him.  The use of "diakonos" in reference to these women simply emphasizes that they were participating members in good standing within the church family.  Nothing more.

          You people (not you necessarily, Elaine, but everyone here) seems to want to have their cake and eat it, too.  Either you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, or you don't.  If you want to run around rationalizing everything — which is precisely what I get accused of doing when I suggest that homosexuality isn't a sin — then that's fine.  You can run around and make silly little statements like, "oh well gosh, oh boy oh heavens to betsy, doncha know, women have made so many contributions yanno, doncha think like they could be ordained and stuff, ohhhh heavens to betsy, I'm sure the Bible means to say this…"  That's fine.  Run around doing that until you pass out if you'd like.  But as it is written, "Heaven and Earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."  The Bible is very clear on this topic, and you all betray the Divine Plan set forth by our Heavenly Father in your rabid efforts to twist His Word just because doing so makes them a "better fit" in today's society.  You should be ashamed of yourselves.
          1. 

             Elaine Nelson

             21 August 2012 at 3:24 pm

             Tim,

             You're addressing an old gal who's been around too many blocks, blocks set up by men to prevent women from reaching their full potential. 

              

             When I was growing up there were only three vocations open to women:  nursing, teaching, secretarial.  I never saw female physician until I was grown.
             Role models were so few and far between we could not dream of anything above a low-paying job or finding a husband who could support us.

             There is nothing in the Bible that requires women to marry, bear children, or for men to assign her roles.  Proverbs extolls the business woman, as was Lydia.  Just as men, women have a variety of talents and they should not be limited.  Paul wrote "I am not giving permission for a woman to teach…."  This was his own conviction at the time, just as it was his personal statement that it was "better to be single than to burn."  When did you last hear a preacher commending against marriage and preferring singlenness?

             This was what Obama was saying yesterday:  men have no right to debate what women should choose to do with their own bodies.  This is the same audacity that the G.C. has enacted for many years:  An all-male conference on "what to do with women in the church and whether to ordain."  Where were the women for whom they were making decisions affecting their entire lives?  Is this the ideal:  women submit to men making all decisions and the meekly accept as if it were the Lord speaking?  Do men have sole preroagtive to speak for God?   To claim that the Bible limits women is to read it completely out of context.  When  you pull out your Bible as defending a position that is not there, you are bearing false witness.  Show me where the Bible says that women should NOT
             preach, teach, or excel in business.  God did not:  it was Paul, and many of the cultural things he wrote were based on a particular place and time.  Taking things out of context is another misuse of the Bible.

             
             Then you proceed to slide down that slippery slope and have hit bottom when you begin to suggest that "women want to have their cake and eat it too."  What part of the cake are  you allowing women to eat, if any?  Or should we merely bake the cake and hand it over to the fellows?

             And by the way, I have always protested that homosexuality is NOT a sin.  Please give me the courtesy I have given you by not judging women as disobedient to God by desiring the same equality that men have always had. 

             If men can be fathers and have a vocation, so can women.  What about those who never are mothers?  What about mothers' long life after children have grown and left home? 
          2. 

             Kevin Riley

             23 August 2012 at 5:08 am

             Tim

             Is it time for us to rejoice that you have rejoined the fold? 

             I will also take scholarly (and expensive – even at half price) Greek lexica that interpet words in context over Google searches any day.  I love Google, but he simply repeats everything ever said without evaluating it.  Just look up what he has to say about 'homosexuality' (actually, any topic under the sun) if you don't believe me.

             I just saw you used 'heavens to Betsy' – obviously you have not given up your wicked ways and gotten back on the straight and narrow way.

             When/if the SDA church gets around to seriously discussing homosexuality, I hope you're still around to contribute to the discussion here.  Enjoy your cake, whether you choose to eat it, decorate it, share it, or simply keep it for the memories.
20. 

    Stephen Ferguson

    21 August 2012 at 2:01 am

    Men can be the head – but women are the neck, which turns the head.  At least that is what my wife says.  
    1. 

       All4Him

       21 August 2012 at 2:22 am

       I heard of those beast with many heads but yea your right Stephen they always paint them with one neck…..

Comments are closed.