An Open Letter to Brother Wilson
by Jack Hoehn
MEDICAL GROUP
1111 South Second Avenue
Walla Walla, WA 99362
John B. Hoehn, M.D.
August 8, 2012
Ted Wilson
President
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904
Dear Brother Ted,
I don’t live in the Columbia Union, but as an informed church member1 in North America, I must share with you my objections to the tone and substance of the statement recently issued to that union reproduced on the Review website.2
I find the tone and assumptions of that document dangerous and discouraging for the following reasons:
b. Is this not exactly how the long prayed-for decision to ordain women as equal with men in the Columbia Union was made?
c. Would you ask us to believe that the Holy Spirit only worked to have us appoint you to your jobs, but not to also impel us to move forward with gender equality in Christ?
d. If James and the churches in Jerusalem were not yet ready to freely give the gospel to Gentiles, did not Paul and the church in Antioch first get moved by the Holy Spirit to “open up that door”4? Isn’t this the way God has always acted, moving where He is permitted to advance by the willingness of His people? He taught righteousness by faith first in Bohemia, before it was later accepted in Germany, and then Switzerland.
4.) The charge that obedience to the Holy Spirit’s promptings by the delegates of the Columbia Union is a “threat to church unity”, and that your officers will “determine how to respond” feels threatening itself. May I suggest that you administrators consider noting the action with approval or disapproval, but recognizing the right of the church in session in every country to follow the lead of the Holy Spirit on debatable matters of practice, not central to the faith.
I do not expect to change your mind by my letter, but I do thank you for noting it.
Lines drawn in sand shift and the winds of time will surely blow them quite away.
Galatians 3:286 however will never blow away.
Sincerely yours,
Jack Hoehn
CC:7
Dan Jackson, NAD Janet.Aldea@nad.adventist.org
D. Weigley, CU dweigley@columbiaunion.net
Ricardo Graham, PU rgraham@puconline.org
Max Torkelsen, NPU max.torkelsen@nw.npuc.org
Bob Folkenberg, UCC BobF@uccsda.org
1Lifelong member, entirely church school educated till graduate school, ordained church elder, four term foreign missionary, I have attended several GC sessions since 1954 in my childhood that I remember as being in the “Cow Palace” in San Francisco and hearing Elder Branson’s Parkinson’s tremor voice at his retirement sermon. I and my wife have been delegates to several General Conference sessions.
2 https://www.adventistreview.org/article/5593/archives/issue-2012-1521/21-cn-oneness-in-christ-news-story
3 Matthew 20: 25,26 “But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their ‘great men’ exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you…”
4Acts 14:27 “…they gathered the church together and reported all that God had done through them and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentile.”
5Acts 5:29. “We ought to obey God rather than men.”
6Galatians 3:28. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
7This is a public, not a private letter and may be freely shared.
Brother Hoeln
Maybe you get a kick out from being different or fit into the western rebelious teenager stereotype but the majority of adventists believe that this act is unbiblical and yet you want to project it onto all of us.
MOst of us believe that this is the entering wedge of a flood of apostacies soon to follow should this go unchallenged. I thank God we have a president that is not afraid to stand against western ideologies that want to reshape the mission of adventism. Your position on WO does not surprise me in the least as your views on creation are well known.
It also seems that apostate beliefs come in a package.You want your American/western culture to shape adventism which I believe is a form of elitism. It is interesting to note that while you want "equality" for women, you do not view other adventists as equals since you do not want this to go through a GC session. I believe Elder Ted is a true world president who will not just bend to the urgings and whims of our western brethren which are unbiblical
'…but the majority of adventists believe that this act is unbiblical and yet you want to project it onto all of us.'
Majority where? Maybe in Africa, maybe in the World SDA Church, but clearly not in America, where some 80% voted in favour of WO at the CUC session.
In Australia, even many people I might think of as 'conservative' are now in favour of WO. We have had women pastors in our local conference for at least over a decade, and now many of us know and love our female pastors, prejudices have certaintly changed.
If we were to take a poll of all adventists in the world I believe the majority are against the creeping in of feminised adventism. Stephen I concede that there is a lot of discrimination in thrild world countries etc however it does not mean that all those who anto WO are discriminatory. MOst people who are pro WO actually come from heavily feminised societies and want the church to follow suit. I am yet to see a really truly fair country in the issues of gender equality.
Let me give you an example. In western societies if a woman claps a man he deserves it. Women actually come out of divorces better off than men, western societies believe women are intrisically better parents than men. The boy child in Western cultures is conditioned to be more feminine and are conditioned through the media that boyish attributes are bad and they should take on feminine ones. Misandry is now an acceptable norm so do not feel like you have the right to preach to me about equality. look at the state of your families is that Gods plan? for the rest of the world? we should always look to the bible for our rule of life not cultural whims
How we jumble the issues.
Is there biblical precendent for men being the head of their households? Yes.
Are there western cultural influence that might encourage men and women toward the wrong roles in their homes? Probably.
Will some women seek roles in the church out of ambition rather than answering a call to service? Probably, just like many men do. If we truly understood the servant as leader model that Jesus provides we would make this the issue, not not WO. One wonders whether what the GC officers fear is really an erosion of their power and control more than the church unity.
Does any of this mean that women should not have equal opportunity to serve leadership roles in the church? Don't see why. Men and women should fulfill roles that God calls them to and God's people should hold them accountable to make sure the roles they fill benefit the Body of Christ. When those roles are full-time employment in the ministry they should be treated with equality.
Is it time for gender prejudiced cultures to be shown a righteous example? Yes.
Tapiwa,
What is your problem with union conferences in NAD ordaining women? If it doesn't affect your union or division, then nothing will change for you. You will not be forced to either ordain or accept women as pastors. Please tell us how this will change your church in any way. Otherwise, you are demanding that your will should be enacted throughout the world church. That is pure selfishness: "everyone should do as I wish."
What would have been your reaction had you been a Jew in the Jerusalem church when a potential schism was averted by the Holy Spirit's direction that the Jews were not to force their will on the Gentiles? Are you and Ted Wilson not trying to force your wills on the NAD? Does the Holy Spirit only speak to Ted? And he relays that to the world church?
Elaine
I am now accused of selfishness! Let me tell you exactly why I am against the CUC vote. Firstly it does affect me in that it sets a precedent for apostacy and rebellious behavior any union will think it can do anything it wants.
The second reason is that all proponents of WO believe that not to ordain women is subjegation, abuse, discrimination, abuse etc. This I believe puts them in a quandary. Firstly they are trying to assure the whole world that they will not force this on other adventists but on the other hand if this is discrimination (which is sinful) then WO should be implemented world wide and just not in the west. Should western women be allowed to enjoy their new found "independance" and "freedom from evil misogynistic adventist men like Ted Wilson" at the expense of the rest? There is a disconnect and hypocrisy I think. Elaine, you accuses me of selfishness but are you even adventist I think your position is one of selfishness because you have nothing to lose and don't even have a stake. I love this church and the people in it and I want us all to go to heaven, you included ( you might fall in the 4th angel ctegory).
I sincerly believe just like Constatine did, the CUC and others of like mind are opening a flood gate to apostacy
The GC has in the past allowed some local conferences to be segregated on the basis of race. My understanding is that there is still conferences segregated on the basis of race! Just because the rest of the world SDA church allows this to continue, clearly contrary to FB#14 in my book, does not set an adverse precedent that other conferences around the world should likewise start racial segregation.
Paul may have accepted the reality of 'slaves obey your masters', but he wasn't positively advocating slavery. I am not sure if you understand this important point?
North Americans, Europeans (and hopefully soon Australians) will eliminate discrimination based on gender. But we will continue to adopt Paul's own approach of recognising the social reality of the world around us.
If there is any apostacy, it is Ted Wilson's move to turn the GC Executive into the Papacy, and the office of GC President as Pope. This is perhaps the shaking, where the majority (i.e. conservatives) are not ready to continue the reformation process by accepting present truth. Instead the conservative majority stay trapped to their cultural prejudices of their cultures, rather than embrace the raddical egalitarian message of the Gospel in Gal 3:28.
Who knows, if conservatives have their way, maybe they will be pushing for polygamy, which I believe is common, even in the SDA Church, in many of the same places that are now opposing WO! Perhaps get your own house in order before lecturing the rest of the world.
How about being not of the world. you are clearly advocating a wordly position. Actually you were dishonest in the regard of polygamy I thought even though we disagreed that was beneath you. I have dealt with polygamy personally and In my country one of the few churches which is against the prevailing polygamist culture is the SDA. If we were like you, rebellious and all we would actually be for polygamy!!!! we are adventist and it surprises us the ease with which western adventists allow culture to dictate their belief system! Besides using strawmen is dishonesty now part of your arsenal?
LET ME STATE CATEGORICALLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT AS AFRICANS AT LEAST IN MY COUNTRY WE ARE AGAINST POLYGAMY!!!!
Many people actually make difficult decisions on this issue and then we see western adventists just doing as they please. Maybe you need to learn the concept of taking up your cross a concept I rarely hear on this forum and be Like Christ.
The reality Stephen is that there is no mandated segregation in North American conferences.
The conferences in North America merely reflect the demographic composition of the churches therein.
Granted, the historical establishment of “Regional” Conferences in North America is a direct result of the problematic racial history in America.
However there are predominantly black churches in largely white conferences and whites are welcomed to join predominantly black churches, and blacks are welcomed to join majority white churches.
Segregation connotes forced separation, but everything is voluntary in North American Division local conferences.
Would you argue that Black SDAs are welcome (as equals) in all churches? I know I wouldn't for Australia.
Ted is not pushing for a papacy. I am sure he has no plans to buy a robe and tiara any time soon. Nor does he see himself as infallible. I would also be surprised to find polygamy in most SDA churches. In Melanesia it is not unknown to have the wivces of polygamists in church – and holding offices – but the ban against polygamous men holding office has been fairly consistently enforced for about 100 years now. If it is not, I would expect it to be in the Muslim areas, not in the south and west of Africa where many of our members are. It is strange in a way that it has been accepted, as there is less biblical basis for banning polygamy than there is for women's ordination. Not saying it is wrong, just making an observation.
I don't believe the conservative resistance to WO is based solely, or even primarily, on culture, any more than those in favour of WO base their views on culture. It is, at heart, a difference in how we read the Bible. If we could focus on that rather than cultural attacks, we might find a solution quicker than if we don't. We have, on larger issues than this, agreed to 'live and let live'. It would be interesting to trace the history of why this issue is different. We seem at times to draw our lines in the sand in the oddest of places.
I would say, frankly, that black SDAs are considered equal in practically all North American SDA churches; but may be considered ‘more equal’ in some than in others. The more numerous that they become, the more equal they (we) seem to become.
As of now I am ambivalent on WO (as a position is perhaps “evolving”). I have not studied the issue at all and am open to either side.
Ellen White is accepted as a prophet or as having a God-given prophetic gift. It logically makes no sense that a woman can be a prophet but not an ordained elder in a local church.
Then again, who says anything that is inspired by God has to be logical? If the Pauline criteria are all we have to consider Biblically then there’s that. There may be more Biblical information/principle to be considered for all I know; and it “makes sense” that this is possible.
What I have an issue with is the notion that “It is, at heart, a difference in how we read the Bible,” which suggests that we can legitimately read it any way we choose to.
This would render the Bible absolutely useless.
Stephen,
Again and again you presume that there is one right way to read the Bible. While I agree that a person's interpretation can be distorted by ignorance, rebelliousness or indifference, I don't think it follows that we can presume that there is one right way to read the Bible. I think the beauty of the Bible is that it can speak to all eras because we can read it with the issues of our time in focus and the Holy Spirit can apply it as needed.
Even if the goal of sincere readers were to know the one right way to read (interpret) a passage then who would know or decide which reading (interpretation) was the one right one. If two apparently equally sincere readers take a different meaning from a passage who decides which one is right.
You are constantly trying to make the scriptures fit into the human experience in a way in which it cannot. Nor is it a way that is needed. In my experience the more rigid people are about the meaning of various passages, the more out of touch they tend to be with it's fundamental mission and purpose.
Rudy,
Just wonderin’, but is it possible for you to discuss what is said as opposed to who is saying it?
There is no denying that I believe that the entire Bible is to be understood one way and one way only. I will undoubtedly persist in that belief until and unless I am otherwise convinced.
I certainly do not purport to have the correct understanding of the entire Bible, but I believe that there is a correct understanding of what is written therein.
You disagree, which is your prerogative; but must you personalize your disagreement? Must you judge those of us who disagree with you as tending to be “more out of touch…with its fundamental mission and purpose” than perhaps you and/or others may be?
As I’ve noted previously, my disagreements with you seem to bother you a little more than I would think they should.
I should amend my statement regarding the Bible being understood in one way only. Certainly there are multiple truths to be learned from many single passages or narrative. My point is that they will not be in conflict with the meaning and purpose of other truths in the Bible.
I don’t understand everything nor can I explain everything, but there is a meaning to everything that is the/a correct one.
Typo: that should actually be “…narratives…” [plural]
Stpehen
This is perhaps a different issue to the one you address. The basic issue is whether we should take into account the context of the Bible or not. Many people – and I believe Richard Davidson would be a good example – would basically agree with you on the Bible having a 'right' meaning, but still argue strongly that we must take context into account. That is where the issue lies – can we take Paul's statements on church leadership out of the context in which he wrote and apply them literally to ours?
His statements on the qualifications for elders and deacons can seem out of sync with his statement in Gal 3:28, until you realise that his statements on leadership apply Gal 3:28 to the fullest possible extent in his culture. But can you take them and apply them 'literally' today. I would argue that you cannot, but you can see them as a step on the way to realising his ideal in Gal 3:28. In his culture, appointing anyone except the wealthy as deacons and elders would have been counter-productive. But wealthy non-Jews were now eligible (in fact, it would seem they were preferred). We can argue over whether women were or were not leaders, but it is obvious to anyone who read the NT and early church history that the leaders were not slaves or freedmen, or even common labourers. And before we point to the dsiciples, let's remember that they were not just fishermen, but fishermen whose relatives owned more than one boat and who could afford to go off following an itinerant preacher. Appointing a slave or working class person (not our working class, but one step away from starvation type working class) person would no more have worked in Paul's day than appointing a black American as elder would have worked in the Ante-bellum South. That in no way affected the ideal, just how close the church could come to it in practice.
In a nutshell, does the 'correct' meaning have to fit the historical and cultural context of the time it was written, or is the Bible, 'as is', without interpretation or application, applicable to today's situation. The traditional SDA answer has been 'no'. But the support fo rnot allowing women to work as elders or pastors is so much stronger if you say 'yes'.
We cannot apply everything recommended in the Bible as applicable to all circumstances and times. There are great principles that are eternal: Love one another; treat others as you wish to be treated; all are equal before God: Gentile and Jew; slave and free, male and female. These are universal principles.
Many other recommendations in the Bible apply at a specific time, for a particular situation, and to a specified group and should not universally applied.
Such recommendations as found in Leviticus applied only to the Israelites and no others; the uncleanness rules; the position of men and women; the instruction for women to be silent and not teach. All these were never intended as universal principles, but written for a specific time and place.
The Bible must always be read in context, and ignoring this important rule has led to such heated, but unnecessary discussions.
America and other western countries do not have a reputation of treating women harshly as part of their culture. However, the developing nations do–it is part of their heritage. Perhaps the missionaries who took the "truth" to these nations spent more time teaching Sabbathkeeping than how to treat others with equality and compassion. (I have known overseas American workers who have turned a blind eye to stealing, saying it is part of the culture.)
I do not know, but I do understand that equality is not a part of these nations and it is no wonder that women are demeaned and wives beaten. Until the love of Christ is seen in every member everywhere, we have no right to consider ourselves part of a remnant movement. I know this is not politically correct, and may not be allowed, but that is how I must respond to Tapiwa. You are a follower of tradition rather than equality and love for all human beings. I suspect the major reason you are against polygamy is because the western missionaries that taught you just would not go that far. Sexual sins seem to be the worst in the eyes of most churches.
Ella M
Actually you might be surprised that rape, gemder violence and crimes against children are higher in the states than in most African countries. South Africa which is following in the ways of the west has the highest crime rates in Africa. The same way there is a counterfeit day of Worship there is a counterfeit equality which I believe is the one you subscribe to. Even the elect are sucseptible to deception!
It depends how you define 'gender violence'. In PNG while I was there there was a government funded survey on violence by husbands against wives. One of the more surprising findings was that about 25% of women believed that the occasional beating made their husbands better husbands. That is of wives beating husbands. Many women (as well as men) saw it as a man's right to beat his wife, as long as it was 'reasonable' and not severe. Obviously the same often went for wives beating husbands. If you count only reported violence, I think you would have a misleading figure. Most violence in PNG of any kind goes unreported – unless it results in death. Not saying it is the same in Africa, just making the point that official reports tend to only give reported cases of violence, and the rate of reporting varies greatly even within countries.
I am puzzled, is a vote the criteria for wether or not something is right? If that is so, then the killing of Jesus was right because it was afterall supported by the majority of the Jews of that day.
In the grip of grace.
Steve Moran
"Majority where? Maybe in Africa, maybe in the World SDA Church, but clearly not in America, where some 80% voted in favour of WO at the CUC session."
Maybe we need to remind Brother Ferguson that the North American Division is only one small entity of the world wide church. That was very arrogant sounding on your part. This is why so many people in so many countries have a low view of Americans. But the NAD can't behave like a spoiled child and get away with it. Australia is even smaller. This is a word church. If feels different doesn't it, when you realize that you can't call the shots anymore.
Brother Corbeau, I was not arrogant – I was simply trying to define the scope of the conversation. If we are go to use 'majority of Adventists' as a basis for taking a position either for or against WO, then we need to be clear re whether we mean the majority of the world church or majority of the NAD.
One might suggest that it is more arrogant to suggest the GC should dictate to Unions and Local Conferences how to organise themselves re this issue.
Jean,
You write " But the NAD can't behave like a spoiled child and get away with it. Australia is even smaller. This is a word church. If feels different doesn't it, when you realize that you can't call the shots anymore."
The GC cannot stop this freight train and is powerless in this instance. The Unions support the GC not the other way around. This is a congregational movement where the rank and file stand up and say, NO!!! We will not support this discrimination against women and the arguments that the GC is presenting are vacuous.
There is something else I also forgot which was mentioned by Dr taylor on another post. He said that it is interesting that some theologians who are conservative are actually supportive of WO. This is actually true perhaps they fall in the "one thing thou lackest category" LOL. How ever it is important to note that to the best of my knowledge ALL theistic evolutionists support WO, ALL LGBT lobbyists support WO, ALL cofee drinking, pork eating, strip club worship styles advocates support WO. To me this is also an interesting phenomenon
It should have to be party politics in the Church. All those who are 'liberal' say on WO should or wouldn't necessarily support every other 'liberal' issue, whether it be homosexuality or evotuion.
I am intringued by what you mean by 'strip club worship style.' Is that perhaps anything like Jesus' fellowship with prostitutes and tax collectors?
Tapiwa, I've noticed the same thing (although I hadn't picked up on the pork-eating part, yet). And it is very enlightening.
Tapiwa's point is correct though insofar as many liberal do take a 'partisan political party' view on issues – but his own views seem to be 'partisan political party' on the conservative side. Like the US Congress, things seemed to have gotten even more partisan. Can I ask, where are the 'moderates' who smooth things over, and keep the whole together?
here are some links on the feminisation of western societies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwaBTgpHSWo
I do not agree with everything but they do have some interesting insights
Tapiwa, I thank you for making your bias clear. If you view the world through those "glasses" then I can understand why you are not willing to listen to the suggestions of a vegetarian, undivorced, life time monogamous, creationist, anti-godless-evolutionist, Seventh-day Adventist who supported his arguments only with Bible texts from Jesus and Paul.
Jack Hoen finds "the tone and assumptions of that document dangerous and discouraging." What about the tone of those who are defying the word church by voting to do something that was voted down twice at a GC session? It's a two way street, you know.
The tone and assumptions of the Columbia Union is clear in the wording of both what they voted and the speeches of those who voted for it. Look and listen to their Union President's statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Yrw62rUI0Y
These are not rebels, these are faithful pioneers. These are not oppressors, these are freedom fighters. They are not struggling to hold onto their own privileged positions, they are opening the door to full participation in ministry closed to half of their congregations due to discrimination. The Columbia Union and their chief servants are humble, reassuring, patient, and affirming of their support of their church in all nations, and make no attempt to dictate that other cultures and unions what they must do nor threats of undetermined consequences if they don't go along. They have not threatened to withhold their tithe, nor boycott church meetings with women subordinators, they have just said, Sorry brothers and sisters, but this is where the Holy Spirit is leading us, watch us and see if it works, then you follow the Spirit when you are able.
I'm sure there is a spirit leading this, but I'm not so sure it's the Holy Spirit.
And many WO proponents have threatened to withhold their tithe if they don't ge their way. They remind me of spoiled children.
What of all the conservative members who send their tithes to independent ministries? If the result of the GC study is that women can be ordained, or as the other studies have conclude, that the Bible does not forbid it, do you expect every conservative member will simply say 'the church has spoken' and happily accept the verdict? If your local church voted to have women as deacons, elders and pastors, would you give any consideration to moving to another church? How would that differ to what you condemn in others?
I have always been opposed to sending tithe to independent ministries. I believe it is a minority which does so.
"Happily" accept the verdict? No, but you won't find us out protesting or withholding our tithe. On the contrary, we would work to restore the Biblical model as soon as possible. But we already have a precedent for this–when the ordination of female elders was allowed. Many SDA churches still do not do this, for the same reason that they oppose WO. My local church has already voted in a couple of female elders. This was around 10 years ago + or – . I've always voted against it. But, it is what it is, and I work with them. I'm not running off to another church. I see parallels in the history of Judah and Israel. The faithful in Israel didn't try to remove the wicked king; they tried to help him see the error of his ways.
But in the end, it will be the shaking that will tend to set things right. The resistance to the straight testimony; the entry heresies into the church; and finally the onset of persecution–these will blow the chaff away and we will see who is left. Of course, if one does not believe the SOP, they may discount that scenario. But that's pretty hard to do when it's happening before our very eyes. And I believe it's going to get much worse–and this action on the part of some of the Union Conferences isn't helping matters any.
I have a feeling that you see the right of conservative SDAs to oppose what they believe is unbiblical in a different light to the righ tof non-conservative SDAs to oppose what they believe is unbiblical. If a union were to meet specifically to refuse to allow women elders, even though the GC has voted this and the GC working policy specifially protects it, would you say it was 'in rebellion' against the GC?
Agree. As I posted below, when I grew up in the SDA Church, with conservative parents who supported independent ministries, there was certainly a strong anti-GC feeling, as if the GC lacked Papal authority to tell members what to do where it was felt that contravened scripture. Now these same conservatives are calling for 'this rebellion to be crushed'.
Very bizarre turn of events.
Jean Corbeau is not sure that the spirit leading the Columbia Union is the Holy Spirit? The male church leadership in AD 27 were quite sure of the spirit leading Jesus, thay called it Belzebub.
I would like to clarify a common misconception. The World Church has NEVER voted WO down. They have voted to not let NAD and TED move forward with WO, Utrecht. In St Louis, it was also to not let unions or divisions move forward with WO — in that vote, for which I was present — many from South America said, they were told if they voted for the motion (which was worded as a double negative which is very difficult for non-English speakers to understand) they would lose their job. The vote was not by secret ballot. Several stated afterwards that they either refused to vote, were absent or didn't understand the motion. Some said they thought they were voting for WO. It was very very confusing. HOWEVER, in both cases, the world church did not vote against WO.
I appreciated what was said on another blog. There are two separate issues. Issue one is whether women can be pastors. Issue two is whether they can be ordained. The world church has voted at the 1990 GC that women can be pastors. Most of the texts and arguments advanced against ordination are actually dealing with the first issue. Since women are fulfilling the same roles in leadership in the church as men it seems only fair to me that they be recognized with the same credential. If the mistake was letting women be pastors then we need to correct that and have the 107 women pastors in the NAD and the women pastors in other divisions give up their positions. Is that what those who oppose ordination wnat?
Also the Council on Women that was voted by the GC Executive Committee and organized through BRI met at Camp Mohaven in 1973 and recommended that there was no theological reason against women being ordained as pastors. So the GC has voted women pastors. The GC through its own appointed committee sees no problem with ordination. And if the GC had adopted the same position as they did with women elders (letting divisions make their own decision) we would not be in the pickle we are in today. And biblically there is no difference between an elder and a pastor.
Their first mistake was in ordaining females as elders. That let the camel into the tent. If they had never taken that step, I doubt if we would be in this position today.
One thing we may never know is how the church would have fared had it not done so. I suspect it would be even smaller in many western areas. So many churches, large and small, have greatly benefitted from having women elders. Few that have tried it have then voted against it.
The first mistake was made centuries ago: allowing women to learn to read. From that, the world opened up to educated women and the world has never been the same.
Perhaps it is all Jesus' fault. After all, he allowed Mary to stay in the room at His feet, rather than join Martha in the kitchen. He even had the gruff to suggest that it was more important for Mary to be learning what He had to teach than to be doing the cooking!
I'm not sure if Jean Corbeau is a man or woman. Your comment makes me cringe. You are either being outrageous to make a point or if you are sincere – heaven help us all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You must be a male citizen of Saude Arabia – where the men there solved their female problem (of women attempting to be part of the 21st century) with building a city where only women are allowed to live. Seriously – this week's news. It helps us understand a little the dilemma Ted has of trying to pull 3rd world countries into the current century regarding WO. And since the majority of the SDA World Church is against WO, Ted probably thought he could hold civilization back yet again – from 131 years into infinity. When the CUC didn't, he properly shamed us all.
Jean is male; Jeanne would be female. Un peu de francais. Outrageous? Really. Funny, I personally know many women who believe just as I do. They don't feel oppressed or discriminated against. They are happy to fulfill their God-given roles. Their husbands are not dictatorial or chauvinistic. I just got an email from one of them, urging us to forward the open letter to the PUC by Christorculture. Just last week I talked to the wife of a doctor who helps him in his nationwide health ministry. She feels the same way. These ladies are not doormats. They have the same convictions that many of us do, that this in unbiblical, and even if it weren't unbiblical, the way it is being done, in a spirit of rebellion, is totally wrong. Doing the right thing in the wrong way isn't any better than doing the wrong thing.
If women are happy and don't feel oppressed or discriminated against, who is so adamantly opposed to women being ordained? Women? Or their husbands? As a male do you fear being dominated by a woman if she is ordained? Help us understand the antagonism. Is it fear or not attending a church pastored by a woman? Is there fear that where women are ordained that men will be displaced and unemployed? Will it change the relationship in the home between husband and wife?
If it is the feeling that it is being disobedient to Scripture, do you agree with every point of Adventism and this is the only one which you disagree? If a woman became pastor of the church you attend would you stop attending church of find another?
"I personally know many women who believe just as I do."
I hope you don't let them speak such views in the Church or as a means of trying to have authority over men – given you seem to take all the household codes in the NT quite literally.
Their first mistake was in ordaining females as elders. That let the camel into the tent. If they had never taken that step, I doubt if we would be in this position today.
I am very confused by this. Either the General Conference is authortative or it is not. You on one hand condemn what CUC did and what PUC may very well do because they are defying the GC and yet . . . the GC approved ordination of women elders and approved women pastors. So it seems as if your criteria is that the GC in session is God's word when you agree and not God's word when you don't agree. Can you clarify this?
In the grip of grace
Steve Moran
Jack Hoen – Thank you for your heroic bravery in sending your thoughtful, articulate letter in support of WO. Thank you for your direct approach to Ted Wilson, reminding the GC of their authority – or lack thereof. Who would have thought WO would take center stage this time around (after all we have been sitting on this keg for 131 years. That keg has just been opened and – whoa – the stench wreaks with vitriol. We are all expecting PUC will follow suit. Then what?
Saudi Arabia has found a way to deal with their women – they are either building a city or designating a city that will house all the women who desire to work outside their home. Oh the different ways we deal and solve our problems with women! It would be so much more simple if we knew our place and submitted to men of the third world countries.
Bea,
Or maybe submission to men in the second world:) although I agree with Elaine that this whole affair started with women learning to read…
Agreed Elaine and Kimberlee. I still can't believe the support women received with the open letter Dr. Hoen sent to Ted Wilson. It's amazing the scope of conversation WO has created. Congregationalism is being touted, another comment was "the problem began when the camel was allowed in the tent!!!!!!!
Can I say there has been an interesting change in tone by conservatives recently. Growing up in the SDA Church in say the last 2 decades, many conservative 'concerned brethren' have been very critical of the official leadership of the Church, including the GC. The Standish Brothers and their own independent conservative college facility Hartland Institute is probably the best example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartland_Institute
Another good example was GYC, which I note was often considered on the fringes of the official SDA Church.
My own parents were well into this, and we even dabbled with the SDA Reform Church for a while. I remember people would often suggest the GC is now apostate, and that we should only follow the Bible and SOP and not the evil men in the Holy See in Washington.
Since the recent election of Ted Wilson, there appears to be a change in the air. All of a sudden, anyone who now who challenges God's own vicar on earth, Ted Wilson and the GC, is suddenly like Korbah, whose rebellion should be crushed – and other such terminology.
What a turn of events and change of attitude!
Maybe instead of an Ahab we now have a Josiah!
Ah yes, good King Josiah. Who was smart enough to know that the male priests didn't have a clue, so when he wanted to know the Lord's will he went to a woman to find out the word from the Lord.
May good King Ted, be that wise. (Look it up Tapiwa! 2 Kings 22:10-20).
LOL
LAst time I checked she was not a priestess was she?
The last time you looked, were there priests functioning in the Christian era?
Tapiwa,
Please see my response to one of your comments above.
Tapiwa,
I know you will be offended, but it seems without facing the issue of culture, we are refusing to understand the real issues. I am sticking my neck out on this, since I believe it is the elephant in the living room and no one wants to address it. It is not politically correct. But it does not just address your culture but that many of the conservative missionaries who, though giving their lives to do what they believed, did not teach all of the commandments of God but may have emphasized only doctrine. Culture does need to be changed, it takes time and happens gradually. But for those who stand for what it is right it can move rapidly.
The western world perhaps has even greater problems in its secularism and materialism. Unfortunately the religion of gender submission is making it even harder to evangelize in western culture.
Ella M I believe you are correct. In the '70s I read a couple of SDA personal stories books, one by a missionary. He recorded that he did not feel he should interfere with the 'culture' of a husband who had become Adventist when it came to the mother-in-law beating his wife. I couldn't help thinking wasn't he interested in the conversion of the wife also. Needless to say because of those two books I never picked up anything SDA along those lines again.
Just recently I came across a 1910 RH missionary story with quite different thinking. http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19100616-V87-24__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=22
"Surely my husband is a different man since he became a Christian; be is so good to me." And then she told them of the many things he did for her that the ordinary Chinese husband would not think of doing for his wife. The change in her husband has made her anxious to learn the gospel, and now she is learning to read."
At some point the SDA church became interested in increasing our numbers at the expense of making Christians. Do we not have a historical example of that?
Ella M
Don't worry feel free to speak freely I will not be offended. Do you believe there is a counterfiet equality? In the countries where this so called equality is, there is more violence towards women. We are not perfect and there are misogynists from where I come from, the same way there are misandrits from where you come from. The Bible should be our only guide and not cultural whims. Can you be more loving than God. Constatine wanted to make Christianity more palatable to his culture the rest you know is history.
Tapiwa,
No, I don't believe in a "counterfiet equality" among God's people, for He has clearly said we are all one. The ten commandments do not say otherwise; and they were interpreted by Moses for their specific culture. God has waited all these years for His people to move forward and be examples to the world by reflecting His love for one another. Loving is very hard for the human heart to understand, and they find it easier to fit in with their surroundings than to stand up and practice it.
I am glad that you are on here so that we can see the challenges of culture. To me your stand seems too much like that of the slave owners in this country a hundred plus years ago who used the Bible to condone slavery. Even less than 30 years ago I heard some in this country say that we should "keep certian races in their place."
I can also understand that men and some women in your country may feel threatened by a change in male/female roles. It is new to them. And in some places in Africa tribal equalities sound impossible. The role of women in Islam has to have a significant influence. But let's not blame it on our religion. We were heartsick over what happened to church members in Rwanda, and the world was watching. Even in Germany in the war, we did not stand out against the demons that took over that country during those years. Please, do not let our Lord be denied by tradition.
Superb letter, Jack.
There are two issues here: women's ordination and the role of the church hierarchy.
Even if we leave the issue of women's ordination aside for a moment – assume it was related to some other issue instead – there is a very real issue of over-reach on the part of Ted Wilson. The notion of servant leadership that Jack Hoehn addresses in his letter is spot-on, and the exercise of power in Ted Wilson's letter/article is foreign to a scriptural notion of church order.
Tapiwa has hit bingo by using the terms 'feminisation' and 'misandrists'. He can safely be plunked in the 'mens rights' drawer and henceforth ignored. Bitter fear of female power is no basis for… anything healthy.
To an extent he is right about feminisation – at least from a traditional (ie mid C20th) POV. I don't believe he is right about misandry. The problem with 'feminisation' is that it requires a definition of 'feminine' (and 'masculine') and that has proven elusive on all but a local scale.
"Bitter fear of female power?" Wow, that's quite a stretch. It assumes that you know Tapiwa intimately. The only fear involved here is fear of departing from Biblical principles. But you can interpret it any way want, of course.
No presumption required, just reading his posts on this thread.
{shrug}
Wow fear of female power!! thats a new one. I thought I made it abundantly clear that my opposition to WO is biblical but alas misrepresentation abounds!
Tapiwa,
Is it not possible to recognize current circumstances? In many parts of the world, and probably where you live, women's ordination would be a possible deterrent to spreading the SDA message.
OTOH, in most of the western world, subordinating women and refusing to give them equality in both the church and the pulpit, will definetly be a deterrent where women are considered equal in all other areas except in SOME churches.
Do you not see that a solution that forces everyone to adopt the same practices, is inimical to growth? If women's ordination makes no changes in your area, why should it in any way affect the members there? Just as in the Jerusalem controversy, each group agreed that conversions would be aided by having different requirements.
This was the Bible plan. For those who continually quote the Bible as the guide, this is the guide for such disagreements. Anyone have a problem with the solution given by the Holy Spirit that fostered the growth of the church at the most critical time in the entire Christian history? Do you not see that the future of Christianity centered on the solution to that most critical problem? What if it had been a decision for the status quo of the Jews? You would not be a Christian today, nor would there be any Christians a Christianity would have died there that day.
If your objection is genuinely Biblically based and only that, Tapiwa, then you might want to ground your comments in Scripture.
And you will *definitely* want to eschew inflammatory terms like 'feminisation/feminised' and 'misandrists': which I know for sure aren't in the Bible.
If I have misdiagnosed your motivations, I apologise for that. I can only work with the symptoms presented…
"What I don’t understand, however, is why the 7 day week with its Sabbath, has to be an “exact duplicate” of the creation week? Why can’t I accept the Sabbath as a Memorial of creation, even if it is not a Clone of the creation week?….I am not asking you to accept that Creation took longer than 144 hours. I just want to know, if for argument’s sake, say each creation “day” took a month? or a year? or a thousand years? or a day in Heaven, not on earth? etc. etc. etc. How does that destroy the validity of the weekly Sabbath?…Is Sabbath less precious if creation is longer and more complex than I thought before?…Here in brief is what I have learned that lets me begin to synthesize the overwhelming evidence for an old earth and a long chronology of Creation with my Bible…." https://atoday.org/article/1204/blogs/hoehn-jack/sabbath-and-old-age?action=print
EG White:
“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” This reason appears beautiful and forcible when we understand the record of creation to mean literal days….But the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise. It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom." {Spiritual Gifts, Volume 3, Page 91}
Since there is no record of sabbath, or its being observed for the several millennia between the questionable date of 6,000, until Sinai, we cannot know anything of sabbath. The first mention of sabbath in association with creation is from the Decalogue, written long after it was reported to have been given to the Israelites
The Israelites were given a list of solemn festivals (Lev.23) of which sabbath was the first listed. But the computation for sabbath was calculated by the New Moon, which is nearly always connected with sabbaths (2 Kings 4:23, 2. Chr. 2:4, 2 Chr. 8:13, Is. 1:13. Ezek. 46:3, and the frequently quoted one in Is. 66:23. The latter refers to oberving BOTH in the New City. Will there be 7-day weeks in heaven where there is no "need of sun" as God is the light?
Kenneth, in 1864 I think I would have agreed with Sister Ellen's method of opposition to "infidel suppositions" and "infidel geology" and seeking to "account for God's created works upon natural principles", which today we call Naturalism or Darwinian Naturalism. In 2012 I am still opposed to the same. I am a creationist, not an infidel, not even a disguised infidel. But I am laying my soul's salvation on the supposition that if Jesus and the Holy Spirit through nature and new ways of understanding revelation reveal that their servant Ellen was right in spirit, but wrong in details, I may hold on to the spirit, the core message of her teaching, but may forgive and restate the details. Trying in 2012 to oppose infidel suppositions, and infidel geology using 1864 knowledge does not work. Making Ellen White an oracle for secret gnosis (how tall Adam was, that there is an open space in Orion as Joseph Bates taught about 1000 miles by 500 miles, through which Jesus and the Holy City would come, etc. etc.) is to trivialize her work and ministry. She presented truth in the currency of her day, in the science of her day, with the best facts she could discover in her day. As did Moses. As did Isaiah. As did Peter. As did Paul.
God is the Creator, and created in a way memorialized by the week and its Sabbath. Adventism must support this using 21st century facts, not 19th century mistakes. Otherwise our church has nothing to say to this world and "will be a river lost in the sands of prejudice very near to its source." (James Stalker, Life of Paul) . So what will it be, hold at cost of reason and common sense to the details Ellen used, or hold to the message and reapply the details of our present society?
All the worship commandments (i.e. 1st 4) are memorials of God – and a memorial is not quite the same as the real thing. An anniversary is not the same as a wedding day – but not to deny anniversaries are not extremeley important.
Commandment #2 is the easiest to show. It says we are to make no images of God. Yet in Gen 1 itself it says mankind is the image of God! Likewise, the human weekly seventh-day Sabbath following 6×24 hr human working days is a very important anniversary of the 'God-day' (i.e. Epoch) creative 'days' followed by the 'God-day' Sabbath – which has existed since the end of mankind's creation and still continues today.
As mankind is the image of God, the weekly creative work and seventh-day Sabbath is to God's creative work and rest.
And the six human commandments (i.e. last six) are about images of each other. When Jesus (or Moses in Leviticus) said we should love each other as ourselves, Adam and Eve understood this literally – because they originally were just 1 combined person! They were images of each other.
We continue to share that legacy. That is why in the Gen account God made just 'Adam', and from that one being two separate genders. That is why God didn't make two separate piles of clay.
Kenneth hit the nail on the head with his quote from Ellen White. What is made clear by the subsequent comments is that her counsels, when they conflict with current "scientific" understanding, are rejected.
I'll go with the prophet.
I'll go with the prophet's God, not the prophet. As near as I can remember the 144,000 follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth, not Ellen whithersoever she went? If Jesus led his Jewish disciples past Moses, can He not have permission to lead his Adventist disciples beyond Ellen? We begin at Moses, we begin at Ellen, we honor them, and accept their inspired insights, but truth is not containable in any prophetic message. It is introduced by the prophet, but it is not restricted by the prophet's understanding of the truth revealed.
It's plain that the original creation week was 7 literal days, and God's prophet agrees, calling it "infidel supposition" to reason that it required "seven vast, indefinite periods." Mr. Hoehn does not agree, but speculates that open-minded people will listen to the "logical" explanation. If we can't take what God says at face value on Creation, then what do we do with the virgin birth, resurrection, 2nd coming, Sanctuary in Heaven, the New Jerusalem?
Old Earth Creationist have no problem with accepting what God reveals through his prophets about God, in spite of their very human limitations of language, culture, and cosmology. Having an ancient history of creation says nothing about the virgin birth, the death and resurrection, nor the promised 2nd coming of Christ. They just refuse to accept as Divine the human chronologies of the same, such as that the age of the earth is 6,000 years, when it isn't.
So, Jack, you were there when the earth was created? Apparently you were, or you could not categorically state that the earth is not 6000 years old. But you weren't there and so you must take the word of man, either man inspired by the Holy Spirit (who was involved in creation) or grasping-in-the-dark scientists who have made it clear that they "cannot allow a divine foot in the door," when it comes to origins. It appears as if you've chosen to go with the blind infidels.
The emperor has no clothes.
What about the Christian scientists – or do you believe the Holy Spirit does not guide Christian scientists? Or historians and archaeologists? The 6000 years is generally recognised as 'the weakest link' in creationism, which is probably why an increasing number of creationists are rejecting it. It would be interesting to know how many SDA scientists, historians and archaeologists still support the idea of creation 6000 years ago. I suspect it is rather a small number. It is perhaps best we don't ask the same question regarding theologians.
The number of adherents to any particular belief is independent of and irrelevent to its validity.
“Having an ancient history of creation says nothing about the virgin birth, the death and resurrection, nor the promised 2nd coming of Christ. They just refuse to accept as Divine the human chronologies of the same, such as that the age of the earth is 6,000 years, when it isn't.”
No one can possibly know how long the earth has been in existence. The Bible, through inspiration, declares that the “…the earth was without form and void…” and provides no indication as to how long it had been in that state.
This has no bearing on the literal 6-day creation of what we now know as the world in which we live.
It makes absolutely no sense at all to believe in a virgin birth, resurrection of Jesus, or a promised second advent if you don’t believe the 6-day creation.
It perhaps can be argued that it makes no sense to believe any of it; but not that it reasonably makes any sense to believe some of it.
If I have to believe against the evidence left in nature, in careful science, and good reason, then not only might I believe in the wonderful believable Biblical teachings mentioned above, but I might also have to begin to believe in the immaculate conception of Mary, the impossible miracles attributed by the church to its saints, the doctrine of papal infalibility, that the sun goes around the earth instead of the earth going around the sun, and other irrational improbabilities. Unless you are able to understand that Bible truths are given in language that is subject to misinterpretation as we have about the length of the "6 great days" against all the evidence that it wasn't 24 hour days, then you become in danger not of faith, but what Sister White called "blind incredulity." It makes absolute sense to believe what nature and revelation reveal to be true about what each other's claims. It makes sense to be sensible. It makes much less sense to be dogmatic and say that the way we used to understand this, can never change even in the face of overwhelming evidence. The Bible must tell me what and why God did things. Science can tell me how he did it and perhaps when.
I’m sorry to be backtracking this far chronologically, but I just noticed this response.
To your way of thinking, Jack, how does believing the Bible translate to necessarily or theoretically believing what uninspired men have to say about something (or anything) else?
Science can tell us how things work but, with all respect, you are kidding yourself to believe that science can tell you how God spoke anything into existence.
You are also kidding yourself to believe that science can prove that He didn’t.
I wasn't aware that God wrote the Bible, or any part of it. If so, why did He not
give Adam and Eve the command to observe the sabbath, their first day of life?
Why is there not a single record of anyone observing the sabbath in all the intervening years between Creation and the flood?
Adventists make far too many assumptions based on what they want and hope the Bible records, but just as now I'm asking for texts substantiating these statements, can you find them? If not, how trustworthy is a false statement?
And Elaine, you fail to look at the Scriptures logically because you hope that we are wrong. An argument based on silence is proof of nothing. The Bible says nothing about not committing adultery between Creation and the Flood, either. It also says nothing about not stealing or lieing. You are really grasping at straws, Elaine.
Kenneth,
God did not write genesis. Those are not "Gods" words. They are a monotheistic recapitulation of the polytheistic Babylonian creation story known as the Enuma Elish. Theologians including those of the SDA stripe, have known this for some time. That said you are entiltled to your literalistic viewpoint. Some of us do not read the same story literally.
If what you say is true then Christianity is a farce, and this dialogue is a waste of time. In that case church is nothing more than a pious social club; an escape mechanism for those who cannot face the reality of their future destiny. But the burden of proof is upon you. Anyone can disparage the Scriptures, but you cannot prove your poing anymore than I can prove that God exists. But the evidence both for the existence of God and the veracity of Scripture is more than enough to convince all but the most confirmed skeptic. I'm really disappointed that the sponsors of this forum allow not only attacks against SDA doctrine, but also against the Scriptures. This professes to be an Adventist forum. Where are the defenders of the faith? It seems that the only attacks that are not allowed are those against Adventist Today.
It is somewhat foolish, IMO, to state that if the Bible is not what I believe it should be, then it is a fraud. If we beleive it is inspired, and we have experienced God acting through the Bible, then perhaps being willing to change our understanding of the Bible may be a wiser option.
Of course, if God was not in any way involved in the production of the Bible, then we may celebrate the insights that men have come to unaided, but we should perhaps discard the eschatology and prophecy and concentrate on the wisdom sections. Until I am convinced of that, I will stay with the whole Bible, even if I do read it differently to some others.
Jean,
Do you doubt that Doctorf is stating things the way he really believes them to be? If so, what are you afraid of? Is it your belief that good little SDAs should huddle together and only listen to confirmations of our own interpretations? What a pathetic notion of truth that implies. I presume you are convinced that Satan is trying introduce his evil through the ideas of Doctorf. Your constant arrogant and hostile attitude makes me think that Satan found a foothold long ago.
As a professed Christian can you not see that your attitude is doing much greater damage to the cause of God than any skeptic's dissent.
Oh, I have no doubt that he is stating things the way he believes them to be. I'm not afraid of anything. I'm just taking his beliefs to their logical conclusion. He has implied that the Bible is a collection of myths derived from other myths. Fine. Many people believe that. But this is supposed to be a Christian forum. Why is it that those who defend the veracity of Scripture are vilified, while those who attack it are accomodated and even praised? Defense of Scripture does damage to God's cause? Beam me up Scotty, I've entered the twilight zone.
I don't see that those who defend the scriptures are vilified. It is those who make themselves the final arbiter of the truth and precise meaning of the scriptures that are often disparaged. God's word was not given that I might use its words to disparage or judge the spiritual journey and convictions of another. IMO it was given to teach us about God so that we can be drawn into a loving and transforming rations hip with Him.
IMO this a highly variable journey for horribly flawed and limited creatures. When the scriptures are used to derive a sense of superiority and the right to judge others, it is abused. If you believe the scriptures are inspired by God then the best evidence will be that you come to share God's respect for each person's mind and journey. Puffed up Adventists Leave the impression that millions of Christians for the last two thousand years have been blundering fools in their search for truth. Such a arrogance is in becoming in those who profess to follow Christ and an affront to the work that Holy Spirit has performed since the day of Pentecost.
Typos, and auto corrects, sorry.
in becoming = unbecoming
One of my questions is, will the Columbia Union now have to form two conferences- One for those who agree with their decision and one for those who don't? I am just trying to process this. Someone asked how it would affect those outside of this union. I can see how it would affect order and organization when serious matters arise. I feel there should be some structure for the world wide church. This note isn't really for arguments sake, but mainly for myself as I try to make some sense of this for myself. I have wondered how some of the "women in waiting" feel about this. Mustn't some of them also have some questions and misgivings about this? Have they also thought about some of the problems ahead as they might move or desire to move from conference to conference. It would be helpful to hear some comments from some of our women and their thoughts on how it will affect the WHOLE church. Again, I am responding only because I am conflicted and not because I would desire to argue for either side. I just have questions.
Well, both men and women and the leadership in unions and the G.C. have had more than 30 years to "think about it." What could possibly have been overlooked during that time?
What potential problems do you foresee? They say, "worry about trouble before it's due is paying interest before you buy."
Brother Comstock, you're up against a brick wall of unbelief. I've tried your well-reasoned arguments before, and I've gotten nothing but ridicule. We're left with no recourse other than to pray for them.
"I believe Elder Ted is a true world president who will not just bend to the urgings and whims of our western brethren which are unbiblical."
Amen, Tapiwa. It is very clear that the impetus for move to ordain women has its roots in the feminist movement which has gained an unfortunate foothold in USA. Political correctness is too often a prevailing element in our society. Probably only heaven can cure it.
Although I know the conservative and liberal labels are often used, I would rather they were dispensed with because no shoe fits all. It's interesting because there were differing groups in Christ's day and I don't think He fit into any of them. Rather He showed us by example how to have a mission and fulfill it. He came to serve and to preach the "good news" of salvation. When I studied as thoroughly as possible this current issue a few years ago, I realized that if we would have gone with the lead that we were given with women ministering and as evangelists during Ellen White's lifetime without her showing opposition to it (and as far as I know, she was not in the feminist movement), we would have been in advance of the fall-out that has occured from the negative connotations of the feminist movement. Is it possible that the devil himself has attempted to sabotage the work and leading of God by using a "false front" to confuse the issue and lead us down a rabbit trail. Yes, there may be some women in minstry with wrong motives just as there may be some men with wrong motives, but each will be answerable and accountable to God in that regard and He can take care of that. But the calling and gifts from the Holy Spirit are not subject to the "movements of the world" or the "opinions &/or traditions" of others. This was something inspiring I read in my studies:
To those who questioned the legitimacy of a woman preaching to congregations, Ellen White cited her own experience.
“When in my youth God opened the Scriptures to my mind, giving me light upon the truths of his work, I went forth to proclaim to others the precious news of salvation. My brother wrote to me, and said, ‘I beg of you do not disgrace the family. I will do anything for you if you will not go out as a preacher.’ ‘Disgrace the family!’ I replied, ‘can it disgrace the family for me to preach Christ and him crucified! If you would give me all the gold your house could hold, I would not cease giving my testimony for God. I have respect unto the recompense of the reward. I will not keep silent, for when God imparts his light to me, he means that I shall diffuse it to others, according to my ability.’” (Signs of the Times 24 June 1889)
"They just refuse to accept as Divine the human chronologies of the same, such as that the age of the earth is 6,000 years, when it isn't."
With all due respect, Hoehn, you don't know the age of the earth. Until we reach the heavenly portals we will never know the exact age of the earth. However, Scripture is plain that the earth was created in six literal days. No one can disprove that although I recognize that belief in Creation is an act of faith.
Well, I can agree that no one knows the EXACT age of the earth–certainly not within 6000 years one way or another. But it certainly is VERY ABUNDANTLY clear (I mean it IS known) to be much older than 6000 or 60000 or 600000 or 6 million years old. Scripture may claim that the earth and the stars and sun and moon were created in six days, but "six literal days?" That is not so well established, nor is the definition of a day before there was a sun. It takes much faith, and surely thinking one understands all this so literally is more faith than is required.
How can such a righteous cause be so misguided in attitude toward basic fairness for all? The impression created here is that many SDAs are brittle, inflexible, and intolerant, and desperately clinging to ancient tradition rather than embracing progress. Even though there are also many here who welcome fairness and equitable treatment, the intolerant voices are so shrill and unwelcoming, I'm sure any nonmembers who look in on this discussion are utterly repelled.
Forgive this observation Joe, but it seems that your definition of “shrill” is one-sided.
Just because someone strongly disagrees with the evolution theory and/or with contemporary notions of women’s ordination doesn’t make their attitude intolerant; nor does is make their voice shrill.
You may strongly disagree with biblical creationism, but doesn’t make you intolerant or shrill.
Some Adventists still believe what Adventism/Christianity espouses. Other Adventists would like to change what Adventism/Christianity espouses, or desire that Adventists/Christians not espouse anything in reference to various topics.
The shrill and the intolerant are numbered in each of these groupings it seems.
Yes, I can only reflect upon the example of Paul. He seemed to have a huge fight with the 'Judaizers' who seemed to think that everyone needed to embrace the Judaism of the 12 Apostles, including circumcission. However, many took Paul's raddical egalitarianism to adopt proto-Gnostic views, including visiting prostitutes because we are all just covered by grace anyway!
I think there are strong parallels in the SDA Church itself today. At times, you can see the liberal proto-Gnostics pulling in one direction, and the conservative Judaizers pulling in the other direction. The question is whether there are going to be any Pauls in the SDA leadership who, like the first Paul, can prevent the Church from being pulled apart?
Just keep in mind that Paul was certainly prepared to take on the intolerance and shrillness of both liberal and conservative 'sides' in his own day. No one side has a monopoly on that.
I'd settle for a Peter who, despite his many mistakes, was willing to get up and say 'this is what God is doing, why are we arguing over it?'
Yes, reading inbetween the lines in Acts 15, Peter showed true leadership as the peacemaker.
I suspect that a good number of non-Christians and Christian non-Adventists visit this site and undoubtedly find the discussion of women's ordination somewhat ironic, in an organization that traces its very beginnings to the ministry of a female, Ellen G. White. But aside from that, what messages do they carry away about the Christian high regard and charity we hold toward one another, as we dialogue in various ways, in various frames of mind, on various topics? Some have commented that a relatively few tend to habituate our comment boxes, and we hear from time to time that those who have been tempted to join in the discussion, out of sensitivity decide they would rather not mix it up with such a brash crowd.
I was taught an important truth some time ago by an aged preacher. He told me, "Jesus talked about burdened people a lot; I have had to train myself to envision every person I meet as having burdens piled heavily on their shoulders, and it helps me remember not to let anything I do or say add to those burdens. Many people today are at the breaking point in their financial, physical, and spiritual life. Our culture does not say it's okay to let those burdens show openly, and it's seen as manly and Western to prod and bait even our friends, in a bonding kind of exchange that assures us we're tough and ready. Being tough is very "Adventist," but until I learned to see all human beings as burdened with worries, cares, concerns, and even depression, I was unable to reach them for Christ."
I realize that to emulate the tough-spokenness of today's partisan radio announcers (on both sides of the political divide) and tough love of some clerics and social commentators is very much in fashion. But I believe we might have 20 commenters today where we only have one, if we said the same things we do now in a gentler, more winsome way. I do not pretend to be any kind of paragon in that particular department. But I do try to press my points without tearing flesh or gouging eyeballs—regardless of how "right" I know I am! I'm preaching to myself, here, more so than anyone else.
Combined with Gal 3:28, you would think so. But if people will not accept that Biblical practice sometimes falls short of biblical ideals for various reasons, they will continue to insist that biblical ideals be interpreted by the practice.
Good point Kevin. I think that inwardly there are a lot of people who really don't want Biblical ideals. When we measure ourselves against Biblical practice it is easier to perceive that we are making steady progress. Measuring oneself against Biblical ideals can often leave us feeling more and more inadequate. This difference can be a powerful motive for choosing Biblical practice over ideals.
This is why an increasing number of people are seeing this as an issue over biblical interpretation more than anything else. And culture does have a significant impact on how we interpret the Bible. There is no way it could be otherwise.
Just a few minutes ago, PUC voted overwhelmingly to ordain women.
A great victory for the Spirit of God working for an outcome that confirms that justice and equity can win out against ignorance and tradition — even in the contemporary Adventist Church. Randy Roberts of the Loma Linda University Church should recieve the thanks of all those of good will.
What did he say?
I think that we are in trying times when the Bible is trampled upon so that people my enforce their own humanistic morality!!
And while people believe that they will never seriously consider the biblical arguments in favour of WO. Which makes it harder for both sides to take the other seriously. When we make biblical arguments and you respond with 'it's all a matter of culture', how can we believe you have heard/read a word we have said?
Tapiwa, you keep saying that we should only use the Bible as our guide and not just rely on culture. But that is exactly what those in favour of WO are saying as well! They are saying the stance against WO relies on patriarchal culture and Church tradition (going back to the Roman Catholic Church), contrary to the clear teachings of scriptures in Galatians and Joel about God's end-time Church.
No doubt Christians could and did say that the abolitionists trying to end slavery were only doing so because they had been influenced by 'liberal' culture; whereas, they could and did argue from biblical passages as the curse of Ham that some races were inferior and deserved to serve others. We shouldn't forget that Seventh-day Adventist pioneers were in the forefront of the abolition movement.
My point being – these sort of arguments about culture are quite useless, because both sides can and do make them.
I think Kevin or Stephen said elsewhere that there is a difference between searching out and understanding the Biblical ideals from the Biblical practices (that typically reflect the culture of the day). I think the culture discussions are inevitable and legitimate, but some people will always use whatever they find in the Bible to support their less than morally ideal positions.
Yes agreed. What I find ironic is that people against WO say this is only a reflection of majority liberal culture in the West, not scripture. But my point is that one could equally say those against WO take that position because it is a reflection of majority conservative in the Developing World, not scripture.
Tapiwa, I hope you will read my response to a note you sent previously. Unfortunately when we read these comments, if we don't respond immediately, they get lost and I don't have time to be on-line that much.
When I submitted this last blog it had a different title. The editors changed it to "An Open Letter to President Wilson" as more catchy? But my title was "Created Equal, Brother Wilson". Because my focus is on the Adventist doctrine of Creation, and women's equality under God is a Creationist doctrine. If we believe in special creation, we believe that men and women are equal, with perhaps a slight tip to women, since they were the last creature created, before God rested. Just as God made the monkeys before he made man, so he made man before he made woman. He was working up with His progressive creation, to His crowning work.
So what surprises me is that the same people who claim to be Creationists and are sure that the Bible teaches that the 6 creation days were "literal" or 24 hour days, are not as sure that women was created as the equal of man, or as the crowning work of creation? Literally. Biblically. And why are you not therefore be on the forefront of supporting equality in Christian Ministry of women with men? If you believe in Genesis 1 and 2 as acurate and historical accounts, they how can you not believe that women are equal to or slightly ahead of men in the scheme of God? How can you not understand that Eden Restored means equality restored?
If we as a church return to the weekly 7th day Sabbath, from Eden, and to the plant based diet, from Eden, and the perpetuity of marriage and shame-free sexuality, from Eden, how can we not work for the restoration of female equality, from Eden?
I think that is sort of my point. So six literal day Creation Brothers, how can you let the post Eden fallen world keep the Adventist church from getting as close to "back to Eden" as we can? Onward Christian Creationists–back to human equality.
You make an interesting and good point Jack about bringing man back to the pre-fall ideal, except that I personally would like to hear some corroborating inspired instruction.
We have inspired instruction from Paul but it may have been temporary cultural instruction.
To what extent does Paul’s instruction that “all scripture…is profitable for doctrine” apply?
The answer may be that this may not (in any way) be a doctrinal issue.
(You can see, I’m thinking out loud.)
Jack
Ontological equality does not mean duplication of responsibilities. Korah Dathan and Abiram wanted to be" equal" with Moses and Aaron and where did they end up. Lucifer in heaven appeared to be a champion of angels rights and what happened? Nothing new under the sun
And what does 'equal but different' mean exactly to you Tapiwa? It wasn't too long ago that your ancestors would have been treated 'equal but different', which is just code for racial discrimination and segregation.
How were Adam and Eve 'equal but different' in Pre-fall Eden, which Jesus teaches is meant to be our model for familial relationships? It wasn't to do with child rearing, as children did not yet exist. It wasn't that women were to do all the washing, sowing and ironing of clothes, as clothes didn't yet exist.
Are you saying that we are equal and identical? I would love to see you give birth! While you are at it you may as well breast feed. NOw that you mention it your comments have been uncharacteristically harsh hmmmm….. maybe its that time of the month!!! after all you believe in identical equality! Frivolity aside why then did God ask Adam first?
Your menstral-related attacks about my time of the month are a bit lame Tapiwa – troll! Of course I believe men and women are different – you see that in hunter-gatherer societies today, as I said. However, in small-scale pre-Neolithic societies, genders are different but more egalitarian. Women can exercise just as much leadership as men.
Women are no doubt different from men and it is their differences that can make them superior pastors than many men in many situations. In fact, these differences are a greater argument for having more women in spiritual leadership in our Church – not less.
On what basis do you say women cannot be leaders in our Church?
By the way, in many cultures around the world, many male initiation rituals stem from a type of menstral-envy. A common saying is 'men have ceremonies whilst women just have babies.'
That attitude seems to have pervaded much of the cultures of the world, including right up to today. One might argue the opposition to WO ultimately stems from men wanting to maintain their 'secret knowledge' and status as men because ultimately they don't have the same power over creative life as women do.
Thus, perhaps you should consider deep down why you really do fear equality with women so much? Is there any residual menstral-envy there at the back of your mind Tapiwa?
Stephen
LOL. What I fear is apostacy under some misguided egalitarian movement. Funny thing is that Jesus also had to counter this as well. The jews wanted freedom from oppression which in a sense was actually more genuine than this WO push but Jesus apparently did not faccilitate this!! surprise surprise!! Our mission is to ready ourselves and the world for the second coming of Christ! and we need to be careful not to get sidetracked by isssues such as these. I know what you are going to say about how "equality" helps the spreading of the gospel etc. but I am sure the Jews would have been more accepring of Christ had he taken care of their egalitarian issues with the Romans
I would say Paul was a better example. He had the proto-Gnostics on the one hand (i.e. our extreme liberals today) who adopted an 'anything goes' mentality, who believe they could visit prostitutes, and who acted as if they had 'superior knowledge'. On the other hand, there were the Judaizers who wanted to put unreasonable discriminatory barriers on Gentiles re circumcission (i.e. based on race they should become Jews), not realising the radical egalitarian message of the Gospel.
I agree we need to be careful to watch both extremes. You see today in Christians who are legalists on the one extreme, and others who think the Law has no application today at all.
I agree that the whole issue of WO in my view is a side issue. I believe this because it is not really a 'core' issue, except insofar as FB#14 upholds our view of equality in Christ. Seriously, do you really care if some American woman pastors a Church you are never going to visit or have anything to do with? How does this affect you in any way in your own country?
If the GC gave an assurance that no Union, Conference or even local Church had to have a woman pastor against their will – why isn't that good enough for you? If my Union, Conference or local Church wants a woman pastor to be recognised the same as her fellow colleagues, because we value her contribution and want to see it recognised, why take that away from us?
Firslty Christ is to be our example not Paul, not to say there are not many things we can emulate from him, they certainly are. You said, "If the GC gave an assurance that no Union, Conference or even local Church had to have a woman pastor against their will – why isn't that good enough for you?" Well firslty the whole opening a flood gate of apostacy thing, Secondly you and I know that that stutus quo will not remain like that for long. You already believe that those who disagree with you are misogynistic, backward, illiterate etc. I simply chose to ignore the condescending tone when people on this forum spaek to or about me. The third reason is that it will definately create schisms where maybe we will believe that the western brethren are world loving apostates who have no backbone and you will no doubt think that we are abusive, oppressive, discriminatory etc. The last reason is that I will be taking away nothing from you as all of you knew that you joining a non ordaining church.
I never said you or anyone else was illiterate.
I deal with your non-ordaining Church comment on the other article.
The fact that you think WO is 'apostacy' seems to indicate that you think it is a core, salvation issue – is that right? To me, we can disagree, but it isn't in my mind a core issue. It might be a hetrodox issue but not a heresy issue.
What other things do you consider core and apostacy if we don't agree with you? How about:
Status quo about what? Where do you think this will go if WO is allowed?
Firslty Christ is to be our example not Paul, not to say there are not many things we can emulate from him, they certainly are. You said, "If the GC gave an assurance that no Union, Conference or even local Church had to have a woman pastor against their will – why isn't that good enough for you?" Well firslty the whole opening a flood gate of apostacy thing, Secondly you and I know that that stutus quo will not remain like that for long. You already believe that those who disagree with you are misogynistic, backward, illiterate etc. I simply chose to ignore the condescending tone when people on this forum spaek to or about me. The third reason is that it will definately create schisms where maybe we will believe that the western brethren are world loving apostates who have no backbone and you will no doubt think that we are abusive, oppressive, discriminatory etc. The last reason is that I will be taking away nothing from you as all of you knew that you joining a non ordaining church.
I admit we are world loving, as is our Father in heaven, the multinourishing mother breasted El Shaddai, that's why we care about having a church that permits both of his created genders to serve as leaders when they are called by the Holy Spirit to serve. We have backbones because we do not fear being supportive for women, instead of rulers of women. We are reformers, not apostates. We are repenting of the long history of male abuse of women present in our own culture as well as yours. We don't want women to be the same as men, we want them to be freely and openly and fully recognized as different, unique, and fully capable of leadership not like men have been, but like men should have been, servent leaders. The flood gate of fareness, of freedom to serve unrestrained, of a conference to choose the best leader, not the best leader who isn't a woman, has been opened. And it is God's work not ours.
How much of this is so deep into all cultures that it is not recognized? Look at the Bible record of births: rarely were female births recorded, largely only male. Look at the deep regret in more than half the world when a baby girl is born; so much so that in Roman times, female infanticide was very common. Look at China where women are limited to only one child, unless it is female, then they are allowed one more in the hope it will be a boy. Same in India and many parts of Africa.
Already in China the demographers are very concerned that young males are out of proportion to females, which could have been predicted, as the ratio of males to females born was very artifically created by female infanticide or abortion. Now, females have begun to earn their own way and they are not choosing marriage as it means work plus all the housework as males don't do anything in that area–unlike in the U.S.
Has the addition of female physicians been contrary to the Bible position of being "over" men? Female professors teach men in Andrews Seminary–completely out of harmony with the same texts that are used against women's ordination. The inconsistency of G.C. position is such a glaring misapplication of the Bible that it becomes more absurd the more carefully it is scrutinized.
Men graduating from the seminary have, in the majority of cases, been able to do so because their wives were working to allow them to study; something that many would not have been able to accomplish without a busy working wife.
Elaine, if you believed that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit," and that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," you wouldn't have a problem with the fact that female births were rarely recorded. Take that matter up with God, and don't blame the "patriarchal culture" for it.
Jean,
I have no need to ask God. I only understand history and the fact that patriarchal culture that was the norm during Bible times. No blame needed: I just accept what is.
Jean, God moved the pen writers – He wasn't the pen. Even prophets are dramatically affected by their culture, and that affects the words they choose when composing scripture.
Why otherwise do you think we have 4 Gospels, all slightly different? Jesus is The Truth (capital T). He is so important that there are 4 different biographies from Him, from all angles and directions (like the 4 points of a compass). If God simply dictated the Bible word-for-word, there would only be need of 1 Gospel wouldn't there?
Jesus and His prophets worked in and with the cultures of their times. Paul said, 'slaves obey your masters,' because Paul lived in a Greco-Roman society where slavery was a given institution. But that didn't mean Paul liked slavery, or that he was advocating slavery. Paul's message of radical egalitarianism in Gal 3:28 showed what he thought of any discrimination – gender, race or status. I am sure Paul certainly didn't want his words to be misconstrued to justify the perpetuation of slavery!
Luckily in the history of the world there has been people like William Wilberforce and even our own Adventist pioneers. They were able to distinguish the letter of the law, dealing with specific socio-cultural reality, and the spirit of universal principles of justice, of the Christian ideal that doesn't yet exist on earth but as Christians we should strive for.
When Christian strive for gender equality they take up the mantle of William Wilberforce and those other great abolitionists of history.
Jack you mention Acts 5:29….It was not a man but God speaking in Genesis 3:16. So if this "sin" of submission and headship were erased at Calvery does this also erase the "sin" of homosexuality? There seems to still be pain in child birth.
If we are not going to follow "thus saith the Lord" we will open the door to many types of issues. The LGBT crowd will hope for your same words:
"…..we want them to be freely and openly and fully recognized as different, unique, and fully capable of leadership….."
If a pastor comes out of the closet after coming out of the seminary what is to stop him from continuing his called path? It will truly be discrimination if the use of "ordain without the regard to gender", is used and LGBT are denied a position because of their choices of gender.
How about the "sin" of Down Syndrome?
Jesus made clear in his statement on divorce that we are to try and live in accordance with His Perfect Will of pre-Fall Eden. However, the NT also recognises we live in a real world affected by sin.
The pre-Fall Eden ideal is total equality as noted in Gal 3:28 – regardless of gender, race or class. You see this in the communal society of the early Church in Acts 22:44-47.
However, the NT writers still recognises the socio-cultural reality of their times, which required living according to God's Permissive Will. Whilst Paul recognised in Christ there are or should be no differences, he still told slaves to obey their masters. But was he then advocating slavery – God forbid!
We recognise that the pre-Fall ideal is gender equality, as there should be equality regardless of race or class. This objective is made clear in FB#14 of our Church. However, in many parts of the world gender equality is an impossibility – we are recognise that. But, in parts of the world, such as the West, where we can live up to that Christian ideal of gender equality – we should do so.
It is no different from the fact that in many parts of the world, until quite recently such as Aparteid South Africa, racial equality even in the Church was an impossibility. As a World Church, we should recognise that reality. However, as a World Church, that should not be seen as an endorsement of inequality either. We should always encourage equality where we can.
That's how I see it at least.
All4Him
Genesis 3:16?
In Genesis 3 we first establish that the first man had no problem with taking directions from the first woman. So there was no preexisting idea in Adam’s head that he was created the boss and the woman was created as his inferior. Do you agree that men and women were designed to be equals before sin?
Then, because of their fall and choice to “know evil” as well as good, God educates them with prophecies of the results of that sad choice.
I don't think you or I should see Genesis 3 as a list of curses or commandments from Yahweh Elohim. The "curses" stated by God are the "curses" or results of sin, not God's will.
The bruising of Eve’s Seed on the heel was not God’s command or will, but the result of sin that would play out one day in Gethsemane.
The double multiplication of pain in pregnancy and childbirth is not God’s command to spank women, but an honest statement of the results of sin, in the diseases, deformities, and mutations that Satan was now permitted to introduce.
That the soil was cursed was not because God wanted to punish the dirt, but the result of the fall. Thorns and thistles were not God’s will, they were the result of Satanic mutation of branches and leaves. God wasn’t doing or wanting this to be done, he was prophesying the results of their choice to know evil.
The fact that even when women would desire to please their men, men would still try to rule over them (instead of beside them or with them) was not God’s command, but God’s prophecy of the result of sin. Women’s submission is the result of sin, the curse of sin, not the plan or will of God.
So today when Adventist hospitals and doctors reduce the pain of childbirth with epidurals they are not rebels against God’s will for women to suffer and suffer again. They are agents of God’s plan of redemption. They are showing the way back to Eden restored.
So when Adventist churches vote to stop the subordination of women to men, they are not rebels against God’s will for women to remain in subordination. They are agents of God’s plan of redemption. They are showing the way back to the New Jerusalem, where equality will be restored.
If you do get to new Jerusalem you might be dissapponted to find out that there is hiearchy and there are different roles! again I am challenging your false concept of equality, a counterfeit equality which is the one the devil wanted! You can believe what you want that is your prerogative but to advocate for anarchy is unbiblical and unChristlike. Can you answer this question, If your countries have made great strides in equlity, how come there is more divorce, broken homes, child abuse, domestic violence rapes etc? answer that please
We could ask the same questions of the church: if we are more right than any other, why does it so rarely translate into SDA members being better people than other Christians or the general population? We do not seem to be doing any better on any of the above issues.
You are deflecting the question. if you the western world is ahead of us in gender equality, then why is there is more divorce, broken homes, child abuse, domestic violence rapes etc? I am trying to define counterfeit equality
For lots of reasons – many of them economic and social that are not at all connected with gender per se. One reason is the cult of individualism which says that if a person is no longer meeting my needs, then I need someone who will. Another is the tendency to objectify humans and then treat them as commodities. It mostly comes back to the same old sins as always – pride, greed, selfishness. Without gender equality things would not be much different. In a sense equality has been achieved by devaluing everyone while over-valuing self. There is still a long-running debate in feminism between those who see equality as being achieved only be sameness and those who argue for equally vaued diversity. The West tends to value diversity highly in theory, but prefers diversity that conforms to a narrow range of expectations. Which is why all our teenagers are trying so desparately to be indivduals who are just like all their friends. Even eccentricity seems to wear a uniform these days.
Ever Bible text depends upon the reader: is this text describing conditions, or
prescribing what should be followed for all future generations?
So men (who were told they must toil to eat) should sit around and put their hand out for government programs for in heaven there will be no "sweat on the brow?" For this was the result of sin not the commandment of our Lord?
Jack please answer the question on homosexuality and how this may open the door for the LGBT….
I also believe the push for WO is closely linked to the LGBT agenda and I would also like jack to answer all4him
Homosexuality is not mentioned in Genesis 3. Nowhere is it linked to the direct result of sin in the garden. To equate the two, you would have to argue that accepting homosexuality is returning to the way things were in Eden. I haven't heard anyone argue that way yet.
Kevin Genesis 3 does have to do with gender roles which, if made of none effect, gives birth to ideas on unisex. These notions pervert gender lines and cause gender identity issues. Are you honesty saying that homosexuality is not the result of sin?
That old homophobic bogey man always comes out of the woodwork whenever
equality of the sexes is mentioned. As for "identity issues" and perverted gender,
I have yet to meet someone who does not know what gender he or she is, but maybe you move in different circles where people are confused about their gender.
What it has to do with homosexuality cannot be explained, but it is a gut fear that eventually, the church will have gays in the pulpit. (Well, we don't have too much happiness, so maybe a little gaiety would help.)
What it has to do with homosexuality cannot be explained…? Really Elaine Look at the examples of the first churches that ordained women and how they are now ordaining the LGBT.
What a choice of the kings english "regardless of gender"
It could it been easily written to say …for "men or women"?
Surely, because 3 unions out of the entire world church has decided that women should be equal in the ministry, there is the entire world remaining that show no interest in following these unions. As women's ordination has been "studied" for more than 40 years, it may well take at least 40 before the world church adopts women's ordination, if they do.
Accepting homosexuals in the pastorate will likely not be seen in either of our lifetimes, unless you are writing as a teenager.
Yes Elaine but why the wording…that was my question? Why leave the door open for such a creepy compromise that we have seen many other churches follow lately?
I agree. Regardless of whether you think it a good thing or a disgrace, the simple facts are that embracing of homosexual members, let alone homosexual clergy, is not something anyone is likely to see soon in the SDA Church.
I agree. What we mean is not 'without regard to gender' but 'for men or women'. It would be better to say what we mean "both men and women can be ordained as X" and then use language that does not refer to sex/gender. It would require changing no more than a dozen words in GC policy. Technically, 'gender' refers to masculinity/femininity – and could be saying men will be ordained regardless of whether they act masculine or feminine – when what we mean is 'sex' – whether someone is biologically male or female. For some reason we have a phobia about using 'sex' when what we mean is 'sex'.
The connection is that every person–regardless of ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation–should be respected as an individual, should be cherished for his or her strengths, and should not be subjects of prejudice or hatefulness. If you can't buy into this as a Christian, you are less Christian than the infidels who do.
Wow I sorry you feel like I less christian for believing in the Bible. I thought you guys were not into judging. Interesting! You have made a comment about my relationship with Christ! Read Roman 1 and give me your interpretation. You are a judgemental progressive that means you have nothing! you are mean and you don't like God's law!
Tapiwa,
There are several instances where Jesus warned that profession to know him does not trump the desire to truly live out His values. Jesus was clearly focused on how we relate to other people more than how we perform against some set of rules. When he summarized the law or extended the law it was always to address how we relate to others and himself.
Jesus told a parable of two sons. One promised to work in the vineyard, but did not. One said he would not, but he did. Some claim they honor and obey the law, but really do not. Others appear to disregard the law, but obey it in spirit. Which way do you think God prefers?
Rudy the second son WENT, not in Spirit but showed up … Loving the sinner does not include acceptance of their sin as normal behavior.
Jude 1:23
Spirit of the law vs. the letter of law. Everyone has behavior of some kind. There are those who behave because they are attempting to comply and in the end their compliance will be seen as a form of self serving behavior. There are those whose rebellious (sinful) tendencies are easily seen, but ultimately their heart yield to God's true purpose. See Matt. 25.
NOw that is faulty interpretation. Obey in spirit??!! The parable of the two son's actually disagrees with your assesment. Basically whatever your intentions are the bottom line is did you do what Christ tells you. Yours is like Saul what I like to call christianised disobedience. to oney is better than sacrifice! You are trying to give a christian reason for disobeying God's word, this is a classic Golden calf experience!
I am not trying to justify disobedience. I am describing exactly what Jesus taught in many different situations. Often those who pretend to be obedient by focusing on the law neglect the weightier matters. You see that in the parable of the Samaritan, in the response of the centurion, and in Jesus' interaction with Simon. The law demands we love God and other people. Some people order their lives to comply with the law, but don't love. Some love without a command to do it.
I have a feeling what you call love is nothing more than emotional sentimentalism. If we love God we will obey him. That is the way we relate to Christ, by obeying him
I have a feeling you are more interested in justifying your point of view than understanding what truly pleases God. At no time have I suggested that we should not obey God. We have a different idea of what is true obedience. God's covenant with Israel was based on obedience to the law. But, God's word makes it clear that this was the kindergarten version of obedience and it was easily distorted into something else. Consequently, those who were the greatest opponents of Jesus teaching were also the most maticulus law keepers.
"To obey is better than sacrifice." When this was said sacrificing was technically obeying. The point is that we can substitute keeping a rule for truly doing what God wants. Our motives and hearts need to be in tune with God's purposes to be truly obedienct. The law reveals God's purpose and will in only a crude fashion. Jesus made it plain over and over that it is what is in a man's heart not his outward behavior that counts.
We are all sinners and even those whose hearts are closest to what God wants will not always be obedient. But, real obedience is always based on what flows from the heart. It is possible to focus on making one's external behavior comply with rules or laws, but have a heart that is not surrendered to God's will.
"By this shall all men know you are my disciples, that you love one another as I have loved you."
Elaine, once again you have economically and accurately addressed the issue.
Rudy, while I mostly agree with you, in my opinion, good intentions are not sufficient. But, blind obediance without love and respect is not the level of maturity that is needed either. Love and respect (in the "heart" or "spirit") that is apparent in behavior, as Elaine cites above, is the criterion.
@ All4Him. Don't you know that the SDA church already has ordained many homosexuals as pastors? We have ordained rapist, we have ordained many, many active adulterers, and even ordained sexual abusers of children, to our shame.
But none of these, not one of these, was a woman!
It makes me very angry to see you scaring church members against allowing God to use women in His ministry, because of a fear of letting in sexual deviations! Sir, madam, you are perpetuating sexual misconduct by opposing the opening of pastoral ministry to many more women as ordained pastors.
How many less sad cases of sexual misconduct would we have in our church if there was a good supply of female pastors available in every conference for counseling troubled girls and women in their times of spiritual, marital, sexual, emotional stress.
Can't even you in your zeal to prove your ideas on ordination right, see that ordaining many more women as pastors would be a great aid in reducing sexual exploitation of our members, by pastors?
Please stop embarrasing yourself by this bogus argument that if we ordain more godly women called to ministry, this will lead to greater sexual immorality in the ministry, when exactly the opposite is true.
"How many less sad cases of sexual misconduct would we have in our church if there was a good supply of female pastors available in every conference for counseling troubled girls and women in their times of spiritual, marital, sexual, emotional stress."
Yes I agree Jack that the ministry of Titus 2:5 KJV has been totally neglected but show me where this needs to be done with ordained ministers of the Gospel? How many sermons have you heard on Titus 2:4 and Titus 2:5?
When it comes to ministry and membership, the church has a quality assurance problem. At the membership level, "Talking the talk" while "walking the walk" is not the problem. "Talking the talk" without "walking the walk" is a serious, persistent, and pervasive problem. The stakes are even higher in terms of QA of clergy. Being CAPABLE of "talking the talk" becomes an issue, and being able to lead and lead in positive directions without falling into practices that are unacceptable and destructive, is essntial. There is no reason to believe that women are any less capable than men of leading constructively–at least in societies that accept leadership by women. There are societies that are matriarchal and/or matrilineal, but in many male dominant societies, women have great influence–and the men of such societies are keenly aware of that. The official organized church really has an obligation to its membership to provide Quality Assurance by licensing only sane and decent people who will not abuse those with whose well-being they are entrusted.
Let me take the opportuntity Joe to say that I agree with you here completely, because I am sure in the future we will not agree on other matters. Quality Control is important in the ministry–people who are able to love others, be respectful even in stress, disregard human politics and trianglation and articulate the talk of truth as well as the walk of truth. These are important, while remembering that we are all human and in need of grace.
And, whether it is actually stated out loud, there is some need beyond just trusting when someone says they have been "called," or the Holy Spirit has impressed them to serve, or God has spoken to them. And so, it seems, that studying Hebrew and Greek, etc., is not merely equipping a minister with tools of the trade, or even a formal "rite of passage," but a QA device to at least weed out those who are incapable of paying attention long enough to get through rigorous training.
Darrel, I hope we will find many points of agreement, and I wish you well regardless of the extent to which we agree or disagree.
I agree with Tapiwa. I am American..still fairly young…and am appalled by mr Hohen. I agree. Most seventh day Adventists stand behind Ted Wilson…what I am saying…without reading or knowing elder Wilson's belief in this matter..it is how I believe..exactly the same in my heart. Mr Hohen s hatred and inappropriate attitude says enough. I wouldn't waste my time arguing a point with him…he is clearly not being led by the holy spirit. I never thought I would truly see these things happe in my lifetime. Our church has become full of apostasy…and those we should fear the most are in our own denomination…claiming the name seventh day Adventist..but as far from God and his will as east from west. Mr Hohen please do not speak for me! I am as American as they come…and I do not agree in any form with your attitude..or opinion. This whole issue has nothing to do with women's rights..or equality et et. I am a woman I should know! It has to do with pride…inability to be humble and open twhat at scripture as a whole says to us on this topic..and a desire to fit in with the surroundingtheological thought of the time…which would just as well admit gay ministers to the church. It is not an equal rights issues it is a spiritual..issue. It changes the nature of the image of God a how he created us as unique and special as men and women. It will definately negatively impact our church as a wholeAnd shame in CUC
Well said, Rebecca. Your comments are a breathe of fresh air here in the dismal swamp of AT..
If this is a dismal swamp here at AT, why would someone who feels that way continue to wade in such a "swamp"? No better place to make your comments?
You should be grateful you have been given the freedom to post your feelings; but if they were presented with reasoned persuasive arguments rather than ad hominem, they would receive more cogent responses and might be taken more seriously.
Shame on CUC…what a horrible example..and outright selfish decision. My father graduated from CUC…myself and all my siblings from southern…my father and brother Loma Linda. It is a sad day for our church..our conferences..our institutions as a whole. We have grown so big as a denomination we no longe r have the peculiar holy character that should separate us from the world. "as it was in the days of Noah. So shall it be before the comming of the Lord". It is truly amazing to me..the selfishness..and outright rebellion occurring in our church by young and especially it seems old alike…anit reminds me of the Pharisees in Christs times…bent on having there way…regardless of the conequences…as shallow and empty as white washed tombs. Being politically correct is not the same as being a follower of Christ or having the holy spirit dwelling within you..there are some who will never do what is right..and they are wolves in sheep clothing. I won't waste my time with them…i amappalled at the hypocrisy in the church..under the false name of doing right.
Sounds like you are full of opinion, but very little reasoning. That is exactly how apostacy finds it foothold, when feelings about things trump a reasoned study of the scripture and when human authorities are trusted out of a blind loyalty. You should make a very careful study of what characterized the spiritual experience of the Pharisees. They were the religious establishment and they opposed Jesus because of what they interpreted as His lowering of the standards. Satan does not tempt the ultra religious to abandon their standards, but to adopt standards of men and treat them as if they are God's. This way he can discourage those who are poor in Spirit and need to come to him for forgiveness and grace.
Saten does tempt he church to abandon Gods standards and to adopt the standards of men and to treat them like they are Gods…. This has been shown in many instances, the Sabbath, State of the Dead, Hell and so on. Read all scripture, don't base beliefs on a single text. Interesting how you turn your backs on direct quotes from a woman who said she was Gods messenger to hasten ordaination of which she herself did accept.
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
"…..which are great hindrances in the work of a minister who has otherwise educated talent. The student must be impressed that he has it in his power, by combining grace with effort, to make himself a man. The mental and physical capabilities with which God has adorned him may by cultivation and painstaking effort become a power to benefit his fellow men.—Manuscript 22, 1886.
Rudy
I feel that you should also guard against being like the gnostics who John spoke vehemently against. They wanted christianity to be relevant to their culture and impose their cultural understandings on christianity. Satan does not tempt the ultra worldy to be more holy but to "but to adopt standards of men and treat them as if they are God's"
Isaiah 28:9 and Isaiah 28:10 explain the importance of looking at the Bible as a whole not picking out a single text and building your doctrine on it……
Isaiah 8:20
Agree that "ALL" are tempted to adopt standards of men and treat them as if they are God's.
The problem come when we eliminate the Holy Spirit from the equation. The scriptures are not a catechism and those who treat it as such eliminate the Holy Spirit in the understanding of God's will.
There was once a time when slavery was justified as condoned by the scriptures. But, most will agree that is not true. The scripture reveals principles practiced in a specific time and place. Proper understanding of God's word derives those principles and applies to our specific time and place. We should always be committed to doing as close as possible in out time and place what a Holy God desires.
Jesus told his followers that their righteousness must exceed that of the religious leaders. He illustrated exactly what he meant by applying the principles of God's law far beyond what the leaders required (Matt. 5).
Regarding WO and gender roles, I believe a case can be made that God intended different roles for men and women. I also believe that our modern society that tries to make men and women's roles creates a lot of problems. But, that does not mean that men should dominate women the way they have for thousands of years. There no doubt are excesses and distortions that occur when women are no longer repressed. But, that does not change the principle that women's influence and role are needed in many aspects of life, including church leadership. Their unique gender based qualities should continue to be a factor in the service they perform.
Whether church leaders are men or women, they should realize they are called to serve and to point to God as the Lord of all in humility. Far to many men are attracted and seduced by the power of positions of authority. That is a error whether it is the motivation of men or women. It seems to me that restricting these positions to men only amplifies the sense of power and the temptation that goes with it.
God is a God of Holy Principles and He gave us laws, stories, history, parables, and admonitions to teach us the principles. If you love the scriptures it is important to realize that all of it is given to serve the purpose of revealing God's will, not just those portions that are command or easily translated into commands. In fact, as Jesus teaching suggests we are meant to learn to more than just observe the law we are to apply its principles.
Sorry to ask such a basic question at this point in the discussion, but are women elders currently allowed to baptize, lead the congregation in prayer, counsel members, lead the communion service? If they are doing everything a full pastor does, then why not ordain them? Is the objection to ordination a hold-over from Judaism and Catholicism where only men could be priests?
Women elders are ordained and can do anything a male elder can do. And that is with GC approval. Women who work as pastors have been given permission in most conferecens to do everything a male pastor can do, except organise churches. As that is usually the work of the conference president, not many men get to do that either. A commissioned pastor differs from an ordained pastor in two significant ways: they cannot organise churches and they cannot be conference president.
Elders cannot baptise or ordain anyone without permission from the conference president. This is rarely granted. All elders can lead the communion service. Anyone can counsel members and lead out in prayer.
I believe the ordination of women issue is partly a misunderstanding of our pastors being priests, but mostly it reflects different ways of interpreting and applying the Bible. That is something we have had in the church since the beginning, and is one reason we have had a lot of ongoing arguments. If you choose one way, then one answer becomes the only answer possible, but if you choose another, then other answers become possible.
On a slightly different tack though – can everyone baptise or is it just for an elite clergy? My reading of the Great Commission in Matt 28 suggests it is everyone. Moreover, I believe even the RC believes any Christian can baptise a Christian.
To illustrate the point, there was a few highly public cases some decades ago in Italy where RC nannies cared for Jewish children. Whilst the Jewish parents were away, some sort of crises happened and the nanny thought the babies life was in danger. Thinking the baby was destined for hell or limbo, the nanny quickly baptised the baby and called the ambulance. When the baby survived, the Italian authorities took the baby into State care, as they would not allow a now RC child be raised by Jews.
Furthermore, to take that other common occupation for clergy, I believe in RC theology that a priest is technically not needed to marry someone either. In Europe during the Middle Ages, marriage was enacted by the couple promising verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or other witnesses was not required. This promise was known as the "verbum". If made in the present tense ("I marry you", it was unquestionably binding; if made in the future tense ("I will marry you"), it would, by itself constitute a betrothal, but if the couple proceeded to have sexual relations, the union was a marriage.
So one does again wonder how much of our religious beliefs and practices are still following Papal Tradition – even if we don't know it?
Our decision to restrict certain activities to particular groups was a pragmatic decision – it was not primarily for theological reasons. Any activity that was seen as being done on behalf of the church was usually restricted to pastors and/or elders. I don't know that we have ever argued this as being anything more than church policy.
Ah but there you have it – an important point. Adherence to almight 'church policy' – not scripture. Where have I heard that before?
When scripture is silent – or virtually so – what would you suggest we rely on? I am sure you would not support chaos, so therefore there needs to be organistion. Most of the time church policy works well for everyone. I would rather we spent time making policy work better rather than fighting agasinst having policy. As long as we recognise it is simply a pragmatic decision to do X this way, why not continue to do so if it works, and change it if it doesn't?
Someone could use all those arguments to justify the 'policy' against WO, given arguably the Bible is just as silent on that issue.
Allowing non-Pastors to baptise wouldn't cause chaos, because in the SDA Church there is no distinction between Church membership and membership in the body of Christ (i.e. we reject so-called 'Christ-only baptism'). In order to receive baptism one needs to be voted into membership as a pre-condition. Again, one could argue passages such as Matt 28 affirm that the ability to perform baptisms shouldn't be limited to an elite clergy.
Re marriage, who says the Church needs to be involved at all? It is after all regulated by the State. I don't see why the Church needs a policy limiting who is allowed to perform a marriage ceremony. For example, in the Ba'hai faith and other groups that don't have a professional clergy, ordinary members are empowered to perform marriage ceremonies.
Again, I don't mind the Church have extra-biblical policies – as long as their extra-biblical status is acknowledged by all.
The SDA church recognizes baptism as entry into membership. This is unscriptural and baptism should symbolize becoming a member of Christ's family, not a particular denomination. Membership should come AFTER baptism. There have been people who were baptized and then surprised that it meant also becoming a member.
My granddaughter was baptised by the female youth pastor in North Carolina.
My understanding is that all "commissioned" pastors. may baptise and perform weddings. It may be that in some unions, they do not give female pastors these privileges. What does your union allow?
Correction: The baptism was in the Northern California conference.
Of course. Baptisms are always granted to "up" the numbers, but withhold the ordination for males. "Do the task, don't ask for more."
Does anyone estimate when the Southern Union will ordain females?
I see a few EGW quotes – apparently to some more authoritative than Scripture so here are several more…..
We see those who will select from the testimonies the strongest expressions and, without bringing in or making any account of the circumstances under which he cautions and warnings are given, make them of force in every case. Thus they produce unhealthy impressions upon the minds of the people. There are always those
who are ready to grasp anything of a character which they can use to rein up people to a close, severe test, and who will work elements of their own characters into the
reforms. This, at the very outset, raises the combativeness of the very ones they might help if they dealt carefully, bearing a healthful influence which would carry the people with them. They will go at the work, making a raid upon the people. Picking out some things in the testimonies they drive them upon every one, and disgust rather than win souls. They make divisions when they might and should make peace. {3SM 285.4}
Ellen White: “…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." — {4T 390.1} 1881 {RH, April 4, 1882 par. 7} .{GW92 342.1} 1892 {MC 42.2}1902 .
1892
Ellen White refers to men and women doing the work of apostleship. "None need think that the day for working as the apostles worked is past. Men and women can today work as Christ has given them example. To all will come opportunities to minister to sin-sick souls and to those in need of physical healing. Physical healing is a science of heavenly birth, bound up with the gospel commission." — Manuscript 16, 1904.
Paul: 1 Timothy 5:17 KJV “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who LABOR IN WORD AND DOCTRINE.
Ellen White: “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." (1MR 263).
“It is not always men who are best adapted to the successful management of a church.” (Pastoral Ministry, 36).
Paul: 1 Tim 5:1-2—-“Do not rebuke a male elder (presbutero), but exhort him as a father . . . [and] female elders (presbuteras) as mothers.” A similar text in included in Paul’s letter to Titus 2:1-3—-“1 But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: 2 that the male elders (presbutas), be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the female elders (presbutidas), likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things.”
Seventh-day Adventist Church's Position on Women Elders
The current General Conference policy on ordination of women as local church elders is stated in the 2009 Seventh-day Adventist Minister's Handbook, p. 94.
"Elders and deacons should be persons of experience, chosen wisely. 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."
" If there were twenty women where now there is one, who would make this holy mission their cherished work, we should see many more converted to the truth".–Review and Herald, Jan. 2, 1879.
".–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. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister, but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor. Not a hand should be bound, not a soul discouraged, not a voice should be hushed; let every individual labor, privately or publicly, to help forward this grand work. Place the burdens upon men and women of the church, that they may grow by reason of the exercise, and thus become effective agents in the hand of the Lord for the enlightenment of those who sit in darkness.–RH, July 9, 1895.
1976, October 28.
Biblical Research Institute director Gordon Hyde summarizes the theological work done by BRI on women since Camp Mohaven in Review and Herald. Asks, "If God has called a woman, and her ministry is fruitful, why should the church withhold its standard
act of recognition [ordination]?"
and you might want to look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScKb3teILmI&feature=youtu.be