Book Release: Questions and Answers About Women’s Ordination
by Cindy Tutsch, November 29, 2014: In the new book Questions and Answers About Women’s Ordination, the editors use Scripture and Ellen White writings to answer common questions about the theology of ordination and the history of women leaders in our church. Read our interview with Cindy Tutsch, Columbia Union consultant for the Columbia Union school of evangelism, one of the editors below. (Interview by V. Michelle Bernard)
Visitor Staff: When did the Seventh-day Adventist church start having women pastors? Is it a new practice?
Cindy Tutsch: Since the early years of our movement, women were involved in evangelism and many other facets of ministry—serving as conference secretaries, treasurers, departmental leaders and even in management of churches. During the lifetime of Ellen White, 31 women were licensed credentialed ministers, and served as church planters, evangelists, as well as in the type of work that we would call pastoring today.
Is it possible to still have unity in the church, even if different divisions decide differently on women’s ordination? How so?
Throughout Adventist history, we have often faced theological and ecclesiastical issues that have caused differences among us. Despite vigorous debate at times, we have remained united as one body under Christ pursuing our unique God-given mission.
Ellen White has counsel that could be instructive in answering this question: “We cannot then take a position that the unity of the church consists in viewing every text of Scripture in the very same light “Love, the Need of the Church,” Manuscript Releases, Vol. 11, p. 266).
She also wrote, “The connection of the branches with one another and with the Vine constitutes them a unity, but this does not mean uniformity in everything. Unity in diversity is a principle that pervades the whole creation” (Review and Herald, Nov. 9, 1897).
Fundamental Belief No. 14 on “Unity in the Body of Christ” states: “Distinctions of race, culture, learning, nationality and differences between high and low, rich and poor, male and female, must not be divisive among us. We are all equal in Christ, who by one Spirit has bonded us into one fellowship with Him and with one another. We are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation.”
On the basis of this fundamental belief, the General Conference has established policies regulating responsibilities within the church, including employment practices recognizing women in leadership roles (see GC Working Policy BA-60). These policies reflect our convictions on the doctrine of spiritual gifts: that the Holy Spirit calls both men and women to service and that all spiritual gifts are gender inclusive (1 Cor. 12:11; Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:17-21). The church has taken action to allow for the ordination of deaconesses and female elders and the commissioning of female pastors.
Although these church policies and practices are implemented differently throughout the world, the church has remained a unified, worldwide organization pressing together in mission and message. Thus, there is no historical indication that ordaining women in places where it would promote kingdom work and not ordaining them in other places would fracture the church.
What surprised you most when you were researching for this book?
I was especially surprised by two things:
- Ellen White affirms “unity in diversity” many times.
- Male headship theories did not exist in our church until they were imported in recent years from evangelical writers who opposed women’s ordination.
How does having women in pastoral and elder roles impact our churches?
Women, as men, are varied in the gifts and talents they bring to the pastoral role. Some are strong administrators, some are particularly gifted in preaching, others serve exceptionally as evangelists. Today, in a world of abuse, exploitation and abandonment, our churches benefit greatly from dedicated women in ministry who can nurture, counsel and comfort. An affirmation of God’s calling on women, as well as men, will strengthen and grow His church by using the talents of all.
The question that Annual Council recommends be taken to the 2015 GC Session is whether to allow divisions to decide whom to ordain in their territories. How would the answer to this question impact our church?
I believe a “yes” vote would best allow our church to remain united though we differ in our understanding of this topic. Those areas that choose to ordain women may be benefited by their ministry. Those who do not ordain will be glad that their convictions or culture has not been disregarded. The church as a prophetic movement can focus more on its mission to propagate the messages of the three angels and the righteousness of Christ.
I believe that a “no” vote would unnecessarily fracture our church. Many young people would be disillusioned by what they may see as a failure of the church to recognize God’s calling as more important than human prejudice or interpretation and would vote “with their feet.” Some entities would continue the practice of women’s ordination because of their constituents’ personal convictions that biblical principles of justice and equality trump human legislation. The debate and controversy would continue to distract and pull away from Jesus’ commission to spread the gospel, and we may “wander in the wilderness” many more years.
Why do you personally support women’s ordination?
I believe understanding the inclusive character of our God is part of “present truth” for this time of Earth’s history. From my study of the Bible and Ellen White’s writings, I have come to realize that it is essential to allow the Holy Spirit to anoint whom He will for the task to which He calls. How can puny humanity limit or prescribe who the God of the universe may call?
This interview was originally published in the online Columbia Union Visitor and has been reprinted with their permission. https://www.columbiaunionvisitor.com/questionsandanswers/
We must not be so rigid in our understanding (or misunderstanding) of God’s will that we hamper our mission to spread the news of Christ’s soon coming to rescue the saved. If the difference is merely salary, I say “equal pay for equal work” and equal recognition for the worker.
The issue is not salary. Commissioned women pastors receive the same pay as ordained men who have the same years of active ministry.
For further insights into what many of us see as the crucial issues, please visit https://www.facebook.com/questionsandanswersaboutwomensordination
It is my opinion that if we don’t address the root of the issue, then all of this debate means nothing. A women is either dependent on man, which would imply that out goes EG White, because she spoke in the presence of men, or we incorporate everyone in tje service of God. I know that women are paid less, because of being a women and married, while the men receive a higher wages, and benefits which he is entitled for being a church worker, as though women are not church workers.
“The issue is not salary.”
That’s right, Cindy. The issue is God’s authority. Does God have the right to determine levels of authority in the world, home and church? We may not like or agree with what God has ordained, and when and if we get to heaven we can tell Him how it ought to be if we are so inclined. None the less, the bible is clear on male headship and many women are more than happy to accept this arrangement God has ordained. Neither do we decide who is qualified by spiritual manifestations and/or other tests to determine the issue when the bible is clear concerning God’s will about the subject.
Neither did the bible writers write out their own opinion but “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” Objective declarations and moral mandates are not subject to human speculation and changes to suit the opinions of men (or women for that matter). We would do well and “Be still and know that I am God” instead of challenge His authority to determine levels of authority in society, the home and the church.
Brother Bill, It’s OK to study biblical principles and these should be used when we evaluate our policies. Here’s a portion of the North American Division Working Policy:
L 26 05 Requirements—An employee in pastoral position is
recognized as a commissioned minister when all the following
prerequisites have been satisfied:
1. Completion of the Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in
Bible or religion plus nine quarters in the Seventh-day Adventist
Theological Seminary, or two years of employment in ministerial
or pastoral work or a total of two years of seminary training and
employment in ministerial or pastoral work. Until this prerequisite
has been met, the person will receive a missionary license.
2. Recipient of a commissioned minister license.
3. Appointment by the conference to a ministerial or pastoral
responsibility.
4. Election as a church elder in the churches or named in the
companies to which he/she is assigned.
5. Ordained as local elder.
L 26 10 Authorized Ministerial Functions—1. A commissioned
minister is authorized by the conference to perform
substantially all the religious functions within the scope of the
tenets and practices of the Seventh-day Adventist Church for the
members in the church or churches to which the minister is assigned
and elected as a church elder. A commissioned minister
who serves as an institutional chaplain, and has been ordained as a
church elder, may also perform these functions for persons served
by the institution. The functions that are excluded are those listed
in the Church Manual as follows:
Organizing of a church
NAD Working Policy 2013-2014 The Ministry / L-11
Uniting churches
Ordaining local elders and deacons
2. A commissioned minister may perform wedding or baptismal
ceremonies outside of his/her pastoral district if authorized to
do so by the conference president. If the ceremony is to be
conducted in the territory of another conference, it will require the
approval of both conference presidents.
L 26 15 Annual Review—The leadership progress,
professional development and spiritual growth of a commissioned
minister will be reviewed annually by the conference.
L 26 20 Authorization Withdrawn—A commissioned minister’s
authorization to serve as a ministerial employee may be
withdrawn by the conference.
L 26 25 Commissioned Minister Credential—A licensed
commissioned minister is ordinarily granted a commissioned minister
credential after five years of denominational service.
All of these “qualification” defined by the church on any level is bogus if and when it is in opposition to the clear mandate of God’s word. Women are gender excluded by the authority of the word of God, and no church can mandate a position and its qualification contrary to the clear revelation. Every other argument and/or position is superficial and non-relevant.
Women are “excluded by the word of God”, Bill, only when someone adds to the word of God.
God gave no gender exclusions in mandating that His disciples, who were commissioned as missionaries, men and women, Matthew 28: 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo , I am with you alway *, even unto the end of the world.
Amen to Bill.
To Walter, your human made “policies” can not supersede the word of God. Your church protocols must submit to the word of God. The bible is very clear on this issue (1thim3 or titus1), a woman can not be a pastor of a church. To your knowledge pagan tradition allowed women as priests (Egyptians, moabites and so on), it was God who opposed these human traditions and told his people not to follow human traditions. So if you don’t agree with God, you better leave the church or wait when you find Him in paradise you can raise your concern.
We need to clean the church of heresy.
It also allowed male priests and it was a pagan religion. Therefore pagan religions had male priests.
Testing 1, 2, 3 … tsch tchsk
Male headship is taught in both the Old and New Testament. That’s just the way it is. It comes from God and by his authority. It is God who saw fit that this be so. It is not the doing of men. The abuse and discrimination of women in society and the workplace, including suffrage, is a separate issue. To depart from this theological basis in favour of secular cultural norms is an open attack on the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures (FB01). To deny that the push for WO is not feminist driven is rather naive to say the least. Two previous GC sessions turned this unbiblical position down. Now proponents are getting desperate and are forcing the issue. When secular cultural norms are presented as bona fide biblical truths, then, I would say, we have a fundamental problem. Unity in diversity: yes – but to spin diversity into doctrine or practice for the church, and give it a theological makeover, is unacceptable. Some cultures practice polygamy; and others homosexuality as a norm. Do we just unite when the certain particulars of diversity are at variance with the Bible? No, is what I say. Unity in diversity does not mean compromising or destroying our fundamental points of faith, doctrine, belief and practice, or by adopting the practices of a permissive secular and ungodly society. I see this issue as being similar to the feminist fight for abortion. An ungodly secular one with undeniable theological implications. I wonder if Dr Tutsch makes mention of the unruly conduct by certain Union Conferences in her mentioning unity in diversity in her book. One sided unity isn’t unity at all. The same for one sided diversity. That’s promoting and provoking division, which I think is what they want by the look of things. Earrings, make-up and jewellery (and abortion) isn’t enough: Female headship is next in the cultural shopping bag. The right to pursue these worldly things is theirs of course; but to impose these cultural norms on the church is not in the least bit what unity in diversity is about and is at variance with at least three doctrines: the Doctrine of the Church, The Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures and the Doctrine of Unity in the Body of Christ.
For the information of those who may not have yet read our book, Cindy and I support the biblical teaching that the husband is the head of the wife. What this means needs to be clarified since this teaching is grossly misunderstood by many Christians. But that is not the purpose of our book. We do not propose that women replace men as heads at home or at church. With regard to headship in the church we simply report the statements of the inspired word on that subject.
According to the Bible, Christ is the only head of the church. He is “head over all things to the church” (Eph 1:21). “Christ is head of the church” (5:23). “He is the head of the body, the church” (Col 1:18). All Christians are to “grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ” (Eph 4:15), who is head of “the whole body” in which “every part does its share” (4:16).
According to Ellen White, Christ is the only head of the church. “God has never given a hint in His word that He has appointed any man to be the head of the church” (Great Controversy, p 51). “Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church” (Signs of the Times, Jan. 27, 1890). “Christ is the only Head of the church” (Manuscript Releases, 21:274).
Those who minister in the church are not the head/husband of the church. The church has one husband who is Christ. As Paul expresses this point: “I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Cor 11:2).
Christ is also “head of the home”. But we do not think this negates the husband as being “head of the home”. Christ is the ultimate head of all things, including the angels. This does not negate the fact there are levels of authority in heaven that God had ordained for the purpose of order in heaven.
It was Lucifer who wanted to do away with levels of authority and claimed he was as qualifed as Christ to hold the office Christ held in heaven. Was Lucifer “head” of the angels? Of course he was. But he was subject to Christ and His authority. The phrase “head of” has several levels of application and the fact that Christ is “head of the church” does not negate levels of authority in the church. It is a false dilemma to claim that since Christ is head of the church, there are no levels of authority in the church that Christ has ordained for the purpose of order and administration.
Again, for the information of those who have not yet read our book, we do not propose that there are no levels of authority in the church. We only quote the inspired word that states that “Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church” (Signs of the Times, Jan. 27, 1890).
“We only quote the inspired word that states that “Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church” (Signs of the Times, Jan. 27, 1890).”
Nothing is written in a vaccuum. We have to consider the context of the EGW statement, just as we must consider the context of a bible writer. We agree that no pastor can usurp the authority of Christ as “head of the church” as a parallel to the Catholic church where the Pope does just that.
Many have used this statement both in the bible and EGW to claim there are no levels of authority in the church and they not only deny WO, but male ordination as well. Claiming the idea is Catholicism. But the bible is clear that there are levels of authority in the church, and some officies, are gender exclusive.
It is true Lucifer wanted to be equal to God, but God never stated in His word, nor implied, that it was a “level of authority” issue. That just makes God look like the control freak Satan claimed He was.
The issue is about whose character is most desirable to us. The character of Satan and his government is what the angels chose. The tree of knowledge of good and evil gave us the same choice. Whose government do you choose? One of equality and benevolence? (Jesus as God states: John 15:15
Henceforth I call you not servants; …but I have called you friends…) A government where Jesus as God invites us to a supper He will personally serve us at? Luke 12:37 …that Jesus shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.
Or Satan’s government which we see in the world with its “levels of authority”? Someone always in control and over someone else. Especially in dictator countries. The US was a grand experiment of a government of equals.
Jesus showed us what God thinks of “levels of authority” when He left His kingship over all to become an equal of His created. He showed us while walking this earth His disdain for “levels of authority” both in His life example, and when He emphasized: Luke 22:26 But ye shall not be so: (levels of authority) but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
John 13:4 (Jesus) riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. 5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded…. 15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as * I have done to you.
This example and words of Christ does away with all “levels of authority” leaving us all as equals.
“None the less, the bible is clear on male headship and many women are more than happy to accept this arrangement God has ordained.”
I surmise it is a small segment of the women in the SDA church who have bought into the secular agenda of *empowerment* of women who are agitating for WO. It is clear that Scripture never envisions women as spiritual leaders. I’m not saying there are no women who sincerely believe women should be ordained.
The impetus, I’m convinced, is the feminist agenda which has done so much damage to the home and society by convincing all too many women that they cannot be fulfilled unless they are ordained or in the special forces of the USA.
Maranatha
No here is a comment that does directly address an issues raised in our book. We do propose that, according to the inspired word, women can be spiritual leaders. We respectfully disagree with your proposal that women cannot be spiritual leaders.
(correction) Now here is a comment that does directly address an issue raised in our book. We do propose that, according to the inspired word, women can be spiritual leaders. We respectfully disagree with your proposal that women cannot be spiritual leaders.
Of course women can be spiritual leaders, but women cannot be church pastors. In other words, there are spiritual leadership positions that are accessible to women and others that are not.
Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322.
“It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.”
This Quote from Volume 6 page 322 is about Literature evangelist not pastors of the church so please don’t take her out of context.
EGW is clear on this point….
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
I just let Ellen White speak for herself. Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322. “It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.” You are the one who is in disagreement with what she says about female pastors to the flock of God. I don’t need to defend her on this point. As I said, she speaks for herself.
Do you study the Bible the same way? Shall we let Paul speak for himself? Or is a text taken out of context a pretext? You never addressed the two clear quotes which book match with the rest of her writings.
This chapter on “The Canvasser a Gospel Worker” that paragraph starts out with “All those who desire an opportunity for true ministry….will find in the canvassing work opportunities so yes let her speak for herself!
When things are taken out of context all sorts of theories on from the state of the dead, Hell fire, Sabbath, many other Truths are twisted from the original meanings.
There is no mention that pastors were to be male here. Nor do we have any examples of pastors in the New Testament, so what do you base your assumptions? What is done today?
Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he …gave gifts unto men….11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
If there are two groups that develop in the end, it will be interesting to see if both groups claim the name Seventh-day Adventist. We already know that EGW said, “two parties will be developed”. Even if it remains in the church, there will necessarily be some dividing identification for each party.
“Divisions will come in the church. Two parties will be developed.”
“But divisions will come in the church. Two parties will be developed. The wheat and tares grow up together for the harvest.” {2SM 113.3}
They must be recognizable to each other, or there would not be two parties.
” In this representation of the prophet, we see that Satan is at work not only with worldlings, who have not the fear and love of God before them, but also with those who profess faith in Christ. Here are plainly represented two distinct parties, formed from a company that was once united. The members of one of these parties are in resistance to the will of God. They have taken themselves from the side of the loyal and true, and are now resisting the warnings of the Spirit of God. To the obedient the Lord will be “for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” {RH, July 18, 1907 par. 7}
Are you suggesting that the two groups will be distinguished by their attitudes on female pastors?
The two groups will be distinguished by their attitude toward the bible. The ordination like many others issues in the church are falling on one side or the other.
I must differ.
According to Jesus Christ whom I regard as superior to Ellen, the two groups will be distinguished by their relationship to Jesus Himself.
Neither the Bible nor the Red Books are the ultimate embodiment of Truth. Jesus Christ is the ultimate embodiment of Truth. These others are merely witnesses with no intrinsic value apart from the value of their witness.
How does your attitude and mine, compare with Philippians 2:1-18?
Here Paul instructs ALL believers to have the same attitude as Christ, who being Equal with God, voluntarily (not under compulsion) submitted to the Father, and became a servant to humans. If ALL believers are to be like Jesus Christ, then does not this tell us that (assuming All includes both Men and Women) since men and women were created equal, women are to submit both to men (1) and to women (2) and men are to submit both to men (3) and to women (3).
I seems to me that proponents of Male Headship within the church are accepting only 3/4 of Paul’s teaching about voluntary submission within the church.
Jim, is there a possibility that Christ “The Word”from the beginning of creation had a plan for organization of families? Physical and spiritual pro-creation when he created the man first? Then gave him leadership responsibility to name the animals as well as the beautiful wife God gave him all this before sin entered the garden? Why did He call out to Adam in the Garden was he responsible for that first family? Are we to question Christ divine reasoning or to team together with His design to reach the world? Could this design be for the preservation and unity of of the Church and Family for all these generations?
John,
If being created first gave man authority over women, then snakes have authority over humans because they were created before humans. Sorry but your argument is hopelessly flawed.
Did that snake name Adam also…Jim?
I fail to understand what naming of animals has to do with headship in the home. According to Ellen White the reason for this episode was so that Adam would recognize his need for a mate. She says nothing about Adam being in any kind of authority over Eve until after the Fall.
Shepherds who fail at home will fail at church—He who is engaged in the work of the gospel ministry must be faithful in his family life. It is as essential that as a father he should improve the talents God has given him for the purpose of making the home a symbol of the heavenly family, as that in the work of the ministry, he should make use of his God-given powers to win souls for the church. As the priest in the home, and as the ambassador of Christ in the church, he should exemplify in his life the character of Christ. He must be faithful in watching for souls as one that must give an account. In his service church there must be seen no carelessness and inattentive work. God will not serve with the sins of men who have not a clear sense of the sacred responsibility involved in accepting a position as pastor of a church. He who fails to be a faithful, discerning shepherd in the home, will surely fail of being a faithful shepherd of the flock of God in the.—Manuscript Releases 6:49
You can continue firing volleys of Ellen quotes ad infinitum, of that we can be sure. I fail to understand what any of this Ellen quote has to do with naming of the animals? She does not mention either Adam or the animals in this quote.
What does any of this have to do with whether women can be ordained? Cannot women be faithful in the home? Cannot women herd sheep (literal or spiritual)? Was Ellen herself faithful in the home? Did or did she not model these virtues that she espoused?
How ironic that you as a man cite a woman as your spiritual authority for your claims that women cannot exercise spiritual authority over men 8-). At least my Calvinist relatives who opposed WO in their own faith, did not have to cite a spiritual mother in defense of their position.
“Did that snake name Adam also…Jim?”
No but the Snake did manage to trick Eve, and then Adam via Eve, to submit to its authority.
Now you and I may agree that it was really the Devil and not the Snake that tricked them and gained power over them. But either way, Devil or Snake, it was certainly created before humans.
Adam also managed to gain power over Eve, but not over the Snake or Devil. And this goes right to the heart of the matter under dispute. Power may or may not represent legitimately constituted authority. This is one of the important lessons from the Fall.
The Patriarchal System that arose from the Fall was all about power and revenge and honor killings and taking more for yourself (eg multiple wives) rather than accepting what God has given.
At the end of Chapter 2 you have mutual submission and harmony. At the end of Chapter 4 you have the Patriarchal System which is a devilish human caricature of what God intended for marriage.
“Why did He call out to Adam in the Garden was he responsible for that first family?”
This is in Genesis 3 after the Fall. A consequence of the Fall is that Adam gained authority over Eve.
Oh yes Jim it is providential that God chose a women to speak these words for if a man had he would certainly been labeled a misogamist.
So if the Patriarchal system is a “devilish human caricature” are you planning to petition in Heaven to have the foundations and gates of the New Jerusalem renamed?
The names of the Twelve Tribes on the foundations of Jerusalem mean the same things as the names of the Twelve Apostles on the gates. The Twelve Tribes in prophecy represent ALL the faithful from National Israel. The Twelve Apostles represent ALL the faithful from Spiritual Israel. The new Jerusalem will be the home for ALL of God’s people.
I fail to see that this has anything whatsoever to do with the Patriarchal System.
In four successive generations God overrode the birthrights of the Firstborn of the Patriarchs (Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Judah over Reuben and Ephraim over Manassah). Not to mention that later God chose Moses over Aaron, Eleazar over Nadab and Abihu, and Saul and then David and then Solomon over their older brothers. In almost every case someone in the family protested that God had made a mistake. That shows how highly God didn’t regard this venerable human institution that included buying and selling children and women and men as slaves and servants, taking multiple wives and concubines, and other practices that I do not think you would really want to defend.
Amen.
That was meant to be an Amen to Bill Sorenson.
Bill,
Can I safely conclude from your commentary, that you consider yourself to be Wheat and therefore those who differ with you must be Tares?
Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.
Those who differ with me may, or may not, be tares. But hopefully, everyone who is a Christian has the conviction that they hold a correct view of the bible. And a true believer is always willing to be instructed, at least this is the ideal.
Amen again, Bill.
Yes there will be two groups. Those who have the character of Christ as stated when God calls His people out of Babylon (Revelation 18, note they have wrong beliefs but the right spirit) and those who don’t (Revelation 3:20 Behold , I stand at the door, and knock : if any man hear my voice, and open the door, those who have the right beliefs but the wrong character). I am sure the text does not mean that there are none in Laodecia who are learning of Christ’s methods, tho it does look that way.
Those who execute “levels of authority” in the church of Christ do not have the humble spirit of God exemplified in Christ.
Well, it is pretty clear to me that we have amongst us the same as we had as I was growing up, which made it extremely difficult for me to see the difference between God and Satan, since…
God is made to look like the control freak Satan is. Anyone on the anti side understand the what the Great Controversy is between Christ and Satan?
And sooo much more importantly as our desire for a particular character determines where we will spend eternity. The character of Christ and the character of Satan. If they are the same death would be much more preferable. If they truly are different then heaven would be desirable.
But for those who need power, control and authority, that won’t be in heaven where everyone considers themselves less than their fellowman (and woman). Such a shame the whole point seems to be completely lost in egotism.
Good points.
…. binds you under the most sacred obligations to be very careful what kind of a spirit you entertain towards your brethren. They are acting a part in God’s cause as well as yourself. Will not God teach them and guide them as well as yourself? You are not even to allow yourself to think unkindly of them, much less to climb upon the judgment seat and censure and condemn your brethren, when you may be yourself, in many respects, more deserving of censure than they. Your work is bearing the inspection of God.—Letter 21, 1888, pp. 10, 11 .{ChL 30.3}
The entire debate regarding male Headship, seems to me to be conflating the New Testament teachings regarding Responsibility and Authority. just because I am Responsible for the guidance or actions of some person or group does not mean I have Authority over them.
For example in the Book of Acts the Deacons were Responsible for the care of the Hellenistic widows and orphans. Nowhere does it say the Deacons were given Authority over those same people.
Jesus Himself taught and modeled the principle of Servant Leadership. Although He embodied the Supreme Authority of Yahweh Incarnate, He voluntarily submitted to the Father and became a Servant to humans. In very few situations did He ever assert His Divine Authority.
If you equate Hierarchy of Responsibility with Hierarchy of Authority, you tread on very dangerous ground.
Where in the entire New Testament do we find a believer empowered to Compel Obedience from another person?
We do find in the New Testament the False Trinity exercising authority to Compel Obedience from both great and small.
Lucifer may well have been the Leader of the Angels, but nowhere are we told that he was empowered to Compel Obedience from them. Only over those who chose to join his rebellion, did he gain such power.
Those who espouse the doctrine of Male Headship as conveying any right or authority of men to Compel Obedience from women, are working for the Lord like the Devil.
Willing subjection is not compeled obedience. None the less, a person who willingly subjects themselves to some authority is still under the authority they willingly subject themselves to. Just so, a Christian willingly subjects themselves to Christ and His authority. And church members willingly subject themselves to properly ordained authority. You create a “false dilemma” by comparing Christian subjection to some forced subjection. Forced subjection is slavery. Paul considers himself a willing slave to Christ. This means, anytime you want, you can walk away. Just as a bride subjects herself to the authority of her husband. And both parties better know that she can make the subjection null and void by her own free will. A husband who thinks otherwise is a deluded head of the household.
Where in your Bible did you find the phrase “properly ordained authority”. I have read the Bible from cover to cover in several translations and I totally missed that proof text.
None of my baptismal vows mentioned submission to any specific human authority. So I guess I simply don’t understand when or how I “willingly subjected” myself to whatever human authority you found that was ordained of God in that proof text that I also missed.
If instead of my baptism you are thinking of my wedding, then according to our recorded vows neither my wife nor I vowed to submit to the authority of the other. I did promise by the Grace of God to seek to meet her needs as best I can ascertain them.
By your reckoning I can only conclude that I was never properly baptized nor properly married. For both of these lacks you can blame my late father who as an SDA minister performed both my baptism and my wedding without disabusing me of these particular delusions you mentioned.
“Where in your Bible did you find the phrase “properly ordained authority”. I have read the Bible from cover to cover in several translations and I totally missed that proof text.”
You may want to look again, Jim. Here is just 3 verses in Heb. 13 where Paul enjoins the members to do exactly what you seem not to comprehend.
Verses 7, 17 and 24 Paul uses this phrase concerning this authority, “….them that have rule over you…..” and he is speaking about spiritual matters.
If your wife does not accept you as head of your household, then that is between you and her. Headship denotes authority by simple definition. Adam was crowned king and it was not Adam and Eve who were crowned king. This world was not plunged into sin and corruption unless and until Adam sinned. Jesus is called “the second Adam.”
We all have a right to believe whatever we choose to believe. But just because we choose to believe something does not make it true. And that goes for all of us including me.
hēgéomai (“an official who leads”) carries important responsibility and hence “casts a heavy vote” (influence) – and hence deserve cooperation by those who are led (Heb 13:7; passive, “to esteem/reckon heavily” the person or influence who is leading).
peíthō (the root of 4102 /pístis, “faith”) – to persuade; (passive) be persuaded of what is trustworthy. The Lord persuades the yielded believer to be confident in His preferred-will (Gal 5:10; 2 Tim 1:12). 3982 (peíthō) involves “obedience, but it is properly the result of (God’s) persuasion”.
These are the Greek words translated “lead” and “obey” in the verses you cite. If you look at the Greek you will see that this is entirely consistent with Jesus’ teaching regarding Christian servant leadership.
I nowhere denied that the church has leaders, nor that leaders should be respected and followed. I totally agree that in a voluntary association leaders must lead by persuasion rather than by asserting prerogatives of Headship. This is different than the situation of parents with young children, where it is sometimes necessary for parents to enforce some decisions that the children simply do not understand.
I did not see anything in this chapter about either Male Headship or Ordained Authority. The concept of Ordained Authority comes from Roman civil governance, where the Ordained had responsibility to enforce the Roman Ordinances, and to compel obedience. This is the kind of leadership model that Jesus expressly prohibits in His church.
I guess none of the Bible translations I have found render Genesis 2:24 as “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and have authority over his wife.” The word “cleave” means to be joined together, as one, not to be threatened with a cleaver.
I do find in Genesis 3 that BECAUSE the woman heeded the serpent, her husband would rule over her. This does not sound like voluntary submission to me, more like part of the curse she incurred as a consequence of her sin.
I cannot find anywhere in Genesis 1 or 2 where the man has any sort of authority over the woman. This notion of Male Headship first appears in Genesis 3 AFTER the Fall. It is elaborated in Genesis 4 where Lamech asserts his “authority” to take multiple wives. Lamech “took to himself” two wives. This does not sound like voluntary submission to me. And he proceeded to threaten “his” Women not to cross him, reminding of what he did to a Man
who dared to cross him. And from these two chapters proceeds the patriarchal System, which God subsequently regulated but which He never ordained.
You might want to review what Ellen White says about the patriarchal System in Patriarchs and Prophets.
“This is different than the situation of parents with young children, where it is sometimes necessary for parents to enforce some decisions that the children simply do not understand.”
Jim, I think you play “word games” with the obvious meaning of the bible. All to avoid the obvious. And yes, sometimes the church may even disfellowship a member who doesn’t see the reason why nor agree with the church decision. So, even your “parent/child” illustration is a false dilemma all in an effort to deny male headship and authority ordained by God. You also state….
“The concept of Ordained Authority comes from Roman civil governance, where the Ordained had responsibility to enforce the Roman Ordinances, and to compel obedience. This is the kind of leadership model that Jesus expressly prohibits in His church.”
Just because Rome convolutes the concept does not negate the concept itself. Nor does the SDA church follow Rome’s lead in this matter. Again, you present a false dilemma and claim this is how the SDA church preceives authority and how it is applied. Male headship is God ordained from the beginning and re-stated after the fall so there would be no misunderstanding of the matter.
It is easier to accuse me of word games than to confront the substance of what I have written. You studiously avoid the latter in favor of the former. What you claim to be “obvious” in the bible might not appear to be so obvious upon closer examination.
You have totally ignored my previous comments regarding Male Headship being introduced AFTER the Fall, a view that “coincidentally” was espoused by Ellen White in patriarchs and Prophets. It was my own study of her comments on this topic in that book that helped to cement the issue in my own mind. She says that in order to preserve peace within the family, after Adam and Eve chose not be be in submission to God but rather sought to be in the dominant role, that Adam was placed in authority over Eve.
Elsewhere on the old Atoday web site I have offered several other OT examples of this same principle. When humans reject God’s authority, the consequence is that they are placed under more onerous human authority.
At some point we will have to decide whether the Church should operate according to a pre-Fall or post-Fall authority model. So far it seems you are advocating for a post-Fall model. Although I do not know you I would speculate that you also espouse a view of the nature of Christ that is consistent with your view of Male Headship in the church.
“Just because Rome convolutes the concept does not negate the concept itself.”
I agree with your argument. However, Jesus Christ explicitly negated this concept in His final instructions to His disciples before His death. He specifically told them NOT to follow the practices of the “rulers of this earth” at a time when these “rulers” were the very Romans who were promulgating Ordinatio.
It is BECAUSE Jesus negated this concept that I negate it. I claim that the teachings of Jesus take precedence over the civil practices of Rome, which later came into the Christian church, against the clear instructions of Jesus Christ, AFTER the apostolic era.
Well I think a separation must occur. Jesus is about to come and we cannot tolerate comedy in the church anymore. Those who think their views are superior to the bible must leave the churchto make their own nonsense.
So what shall happen when those who are convinced that they accurately understand the Bible, who encounter others equally convinced that they accurately understand the Bible?
Especially when one or more of these parties uses a pseudonym like “Bible Truth”? What if two parties each convinced they represent “Bible Truth” perceive Truth differently?
“What if two parties each convinced they represent “Bible Truth” perceive Truth differently”
Are Saturday and Sunday both the Lords Holy Sabbath?
I believe that Sabbath is the true Lord’s Day.
I do not believe that my many Godly relatives who worship on Sunday are destined for hell on that account. Nor for their belief that my late Adventist pastor father has already gone to his eternal reward, whereas I believe his body is decaying in the ground while his memory is safe and secure in the mind of God.
The blood of Jesus Christ saves us from all our sins, even those that we do not understand. That would include both breaking the Sabbath and also judging those who differ from us. Judge not that you be not judged.
Jim still you would agree that God had a plan from the beginning when He rested Himself and following His commands and teaching others to do the same is not judging. So let’s follow His direct Word. Is ordination really stopping Women from doing the work of the Lord that the clear Word of God states?
Ordination no more starts nor stops men from doing the work of the Lord, than it does women. Ordination is merely a human acknowledgement of gits that are conferred by the Spirit.
Where in your Bible did you find the word “ordination”? In the Adventist church Ordination is not a Doctrine, it is a Practice. If we strictly follow the clear word of the Bible we will not be making a Doctrine of the Practice of Ordination, which the church adopted from secular Roman practice after the time of the Apostles. The Doctrine of a Hierarchy of Orders comes from Catholicism, not from the Bible.
If women are not to be ordained, then why did Ellen herself carry the credentials of an Ordained Minister, signed by GC president George Butler? If she felt so strongly against WO then she should have burned them up or returned them to Elder Butler. I have seen a published photograph of these credentials which survived her own death. Was this photograph a forgery?
Let me be clear that I do not oppose the practice of ordination. I was present at the ordinations both of my father and of one of my sons as SDA clergy. I did not walk-out in protest. I myself have been ordained both as a Deacon and as an Elder, and I have laid my hands on others being ordained, both men and women. But this is a commandment of men. Jesus warns us against teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
“God had a plan from the beginning when He rested Himself and following His commands and teaching others to do the same is not judging”
I agree with this statement. Previously I have written how in Genesis 2 the Sabbath and Marriage are bound together. According to Ellen God intended for the marriage relationship to model on earth the intimate relationship among the Godhead. How can God be both Three and One? In the same manner than at Man and a Woman can be both Two and One.
The belief that in Genesis 2 there was a hierarchy of authority in the marriage relationship prior to the Fall, goes hand-in-hand with the belief that there was a hierarchy of authority in the Godhead prior to the Incarnation.
Paul clearly repudiates the latter belief in Philippians 2. Though most early Adventist held to this belief (and some still do), the church has officially repudiated it.
And Paul in the very same passage teaches that ALL believers (that would include male and female) are to have the attitude of voluntary submission that Christ took at the Incarnation. Among others things, my fellow Brothers, that means in the church we need to have an attitude of voluntary submission to our Sisters as unto the Lord. If you are unwilling to accept this then you are only wiling to practice 3/4 of Paul’s teaching in this passage.
There are indeed other places where Paul teaches that women are to be in submission to men, but that is not the same as saying men are to be in authority over women. Paul also teaches that slaves are to remain in submission to their masters as unto the Lord. These are specific applications of his general statements that in Christ there is no distinction, and that ALL believers are to be in submission to one another as unto the Lord. This is the very same principle that Jesus taught and practiced.
So what happened to human relationships after the fall?
Eve’s desire to be equal with God, and thereby superior to Adam (her erstwhile equal) resulted in broken fellowship with God, and involuntary submission to Adam. Her desire to better her condition actually resulted in a worse condition. The same thing happened to Adam. he wanted to assert his own prerogatives. If Eve was trying to become like God then so would he. No way would he let her get ahead of himself. Thus did the struggle for dominance between the genders commence.
At the Incarnation Jesus reversed this process. Being equal with God He emptied Himself. He voluntarily took a subordinate role, both to God and to humans. He was worthy of supreme worship, yet He became a servant and even submitted to death on a cross. He showed that true glory comes from submission, not from assertion of His prerogatives.
Some will argue that the current strife over WO arises from women (like Eve) trying to assert their prerogatives and there is some validity to this claim. But it arises at least as much from men (like Adam) trying to defend their prerogatives.
As Jesus showed us, the way to stop a struggle for dominance is to stop struggling. Women who want to stop the struggle can stop, and so can men. The reason for this strife is because neither side wants to submit to the other. And all of this over a human practice which is NOT a commandment of God. We are ever and always re-visiting Genesis 3, both the dominance struggles and the blame games.
How can we stop this? There are only two ways. We can stop the practice of ordination or we can stop the practice of discriminatory ordination. Either way will work. I do not think God really cares one way or the other. After all, ordination is only a commandment of men 8-).
I find it strange that the principle of texts and EGW statements are left out in favor of making a doctrine out of wording, thereby incurring an adding to the word of God that which is not there.
What is the principle (point, Spirit) of the paragraph posted? That God wants men instead of women? Or the duties of the minister? Let us remember the bible and the SoP both heeded this fact in its wording: Genesis 1:27
So God created man; male and female created he them. This is not to be disregarded.
It is a horrible evil to disregard the intent of a passage in order to make a doctrine out of wording.
Commandment of Men??? Here is said “as approved of God…Let us follow the Word” I dare say we need to study the plan in Acts 6. For Steven sure preached a mighty sermon in Acts 7 after hands were laid on him.
For years the Lord has been instructing us to choose wise men,-men who are devoted to God,—men who know what the principles of heaven are,-men who have learned what it means to walk with God,—and to place upon them the responsibility of looking after the business affairs connected with our work. This is in accordance with the Bible plan as outlined in the sixth chapter of Acts. We need to study this plan; for it is approved of God. Let us follow the Word.—The Review and Herald, October 5, 1905.
And Ellen preached many mighty sermons and wrote many mighty books without any men laying hands on her either.
It is the empowerment of the Holy Spirit rather than the laying-on of human hands, that equips God’s servants for ministry.
My bad. This was meant to go under these comments.
I find it strange that the principle of texts and EGW statements are left out in favor of making a doctrine out of wording, thereby incurring an adding to the word of God that which is not there.
What is the principle (point, Spirit) of the paragraph posted? That God wants men instead of women? Or the duties of the minister? Let us remember the bible and the SoP both heeded this fact in its wording: Genesis 1:27
So God created man; male and female created he them. This is not to be disregarded.
It is a horrible evil to disregard the intent of a passage in order to make a doctrine out of wording.
The bible is very clear on this issue. There is no controversy at all. You can check 1thim2,3 or even titus1. The man is the head of the woman both at home and in the church under Christ. According to the bible (check the verses mentioned above), the bishop of a church (we call it pastor) must be a man. It is clearly gender exclusive. Now holding a position contrary to the clear mandate of the bible is SIN.
Should the church lay aside the inspired word for the bible to your personal view? Paul said clearly that the authority of man over woman was established at creation. Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit, I don’t know about you.So yes I agree with Paul the authority of man over woman was establish at creation. Who are you to challenge Paul (an apostle of the Lord)??
In 1 Timothy 2 Paul says he does not allow a woman to exercise authority over a man.
This verse does NOT say that a man is to exercise authority over a woman, only that women have no legitimate claim to authority over men. You are assuming that one gender or the other must inevitably be in-charge. Whereas Paul repeatedly says that Christ is the head of the church.
Would you interpret 1 Timothy 2:15 as saying there is no hope of salvation for women who are childless?
Paul did not say she will be saved if she has a child the condition he gives is “IF THEY CONTINUE IN FAITH, LOVE AND HOLYNESS WITH SEL CONTROL”.
So child bearing has nothing to do with salvation, it is used just that specify the fact that he is addressing women who alone can bear children.
Also plse read 1thim3, the qualifications for a pastor are given plainly.
Also read well 1thim2:12. Now if a woman is achurch pastor don’t you think it is a clear violation of these verses?
If so then he is not addressing women who cannot or choose not to bear children? So a woman who chooses to remain celibate gets a pass?
She has the potential to bear a child but for some reasons she chooses not to have. There is absolutely no problem. When he says “in child bearing”, it means the woman can have a child but not necessary she must have a child to be saved. There is a difference. As I said before the condition is not the potential to bear a child but the faith, love, holyness and self control. So whether or not she decides to use her child bearing potential (“in child bearing”) is not an issue here.
The issue here is that a woman cannot be a church pastor.
So then why do you think Paul mentions child bearing here at all?
This ultimately boils down to whether Paul is giving Principles or a Prescription. If he is giving Principles then we need to apply them appropriately today.
If on the other hand Paul is giving a Prescription then we need to follow the entire Prescription, not just the parts we want. Men must marry and successfully raise children before they can become pastors. Women must cover their heads in church, be silent and only ask questions of their husbands at home. Absolutely women should never, ever attempt to instruct men, certainly never in public.
Oops! We just lost Ellen White.
These are the very same verses that my Calvinist relatives put forward to prove that Adventists are a cult. They were also put forward in the early days of our movement. James White and other leaders rebutted these arguments by saying these very instructions from Paul were Principles that need to be applied appropriately in a given context.
When a verse of the bible seems difficult for you to understand you can refer another bible text that clarifies this issue. Paul does not forbid women to speak publicly, because in 1corinthians11, he asks women to wear a scarf before preaching or prophesying. I think this is the reason we have this big problem today in the church (because we didn’t follow this order from the bible). If you did follow what he said, we wouldn’t have any problem about WO today. So yes I agree women can preach or speak in the church but before they should cover their heads. This is a symbol that reveals the authority of men over women. So yes we need to go back to the bible.
So whenever Ellen spoke without covering her head she was disobeying Paul?
And if Paul is so certain about this why does he not allow women to speak at all in public in one passage and allow them to speak in another provided that they cover their heads?
It seems to me that his instructions must be interpreted differently in different contexts.
E. G White was a great prophetess of God. But we can not stop at E. G White like the protestants are doing with Martin Luther. E. G. White got a lot of Truth but she didn’t get all the Truth. So we need to continue searching the bible for more truth. But the truth must come from the bible and only the bible. I consider Martin Luther as a great man of God but he didn’t observe sabath. So I cannot say because Martin did not observe sabath, me too I won’t. No No and No we follow the bible. E. G. White said she was a lesser light but the bible is the greater light. So we do what the bible says. Women should cover their heads before speaking in the church.
I am glad to see that you are consistent in your application of the writings of Paul.
I have one last thing to suggest to you. Go to the final chapter of I Timothy and tell all former slaves to return to their masters and submit to them.
And tell me that Ellen was mistaken when she wrote that “the law of our land requiring us to deliver a slave to his master, we are not to obey.”
Plse read Philemon. Paul ask the master to receive the slave as a brother not a slave anymore. You get it. We are also slave of Christ but Christ treat us like brothers. So if you can treat a slave like a brother then fine have one. But if you can’t treat a slave like your own brother then don’t have one.
In addition the speaking that women are forbidden is the authoritative teaching which is the work of the pastor or the elders. Since women can’t be pastors or elders, they must keep silent in terms of authoritative teaching.
If women need to preach or speak in church, they need to cover their heads first.
I have read Philemon many times. it is a letter addressed to a Christian master who owned a Christian slave.
Paul’s instructions to slaves in I Timothy are to ALL Christian slaves, not just to those with Christian masters.
So Paul instructs Philemon to receive Onesimus as a brother not just a slave. You agree with me that all true christians today are slaves of Christ yet Christ treats us as brothers. This is the main problem with carnal men when they have somebody under their control they oppress them instead of treating them as brothers. So if you can treat your slave as your own brother then have a slave, but if you can’t treat a slave as your own brother then don’t have one.
Women must cover their heads before speaking in church this will remind them that God has established men over women.
Plus Paul wrote under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so I trust his inspiration not yours.
Bill, if you are right then the Bible is wrong when it teaches that Christ is the only head of the church. He is “head over all things to the church” (Eph 1:21). “Christ is head of the church” (5:23). “He is the head of the body, the church” (Col 1:18). All Christians are to “grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ” (Eph 4:15), who is head of “the whole body” in which “every part does its share” (4:16). “I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Cor 11:2).
If you are right then Ellen White is wrong when she teaches that Christ is the only head of the church. “God has never given a hint in His word that He has appointed any man to be the head of the church” (Great Controversy, p 51). “Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church” (Signs of the Times, Jan. 27, 1890). “Christ is the only Head of the church” (Manuscript Releases, 21:274).
And Christ delegates authority to the church, and the church is instructed to do only that which is recorded in God’s word. Thus we can test the validity of any church “authority” by the bible. When the church follows God’s direction, it acts in behalf of Christ as His representative.
” The Authority of the Church
The world’s Redeemer has invested great power with His church. He states the rules to be applied in cases of trial with its members. After He has given explicit directions as to the course to be pursued, He says, “Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever (in church discipline) ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Thus even the heavenly authority ratifies the discipline of the church in regard to its members, when the Bible rule has been followed.” {MR311 7.4}
“When the bible rule has been followed” is the key to any church authority. And often the bible rule has not been followed in the SDA church on many occasions. But abuse of authority does not negate the rule. The abuse must be corrected and if not, we are not bound to any false claim of authority by the church.
Amen, Bill.
These are the “levels of authority” in heaven. How many more do you know?
Revelation 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And (the angel) said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren…
John 13:4 (Jesus) riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.
Luke 12:37 …. verily I say unto you, that (Jesus) shall gird himself , and make them to sit down to meat , and will come forth and serve them.
Here is a comment by EGW that is relevant to all the differences in the SDA church.
“The message will be carried not so much by argument as by the deep conviction of the Spirit of God. The arguments have been presented. The seed has been sown, and now it will spring up and bear fruit. The publications distributed by missionary workers have exerted their influence, yet many whose minds were impressed have been prevented from fully comprehending the truth or from yielding obedience. Now the rays of light penetrate everywhere, the truth is seen in its clearness. . . . A large number take their stand upon the Lord’s side.–The Great Controversy, p. 612. (1888) {CM 152.1}
She affirms “The arguments have been presented.” So she does not deny the need for a clear testimony concerning truth. But ongoing controversy may well negate the positive truth and constant “bickering” will not convince anyone who does not want to be convinced. Years ago I dialogued with a Sunday keeper for several months on different occasions. After some time had passed, I concluded that futher dialogue was not really beneficial either to them or myself. At some point, each of us must consider all the information we have and any challenge to it by way of personal study, prayer, and careful evaluation by way of scripture. Life experience is also helpful in determining truth and application. Some of us are convinced of male headship, and some are not. We can only wait and see how the issues play out in the church and then consider how we must respond and still remain faithful to scripture. And I think those who abandon the bible on some level, will eventually abandon the Sabbath as well. This will be the “final” test of loyalty to God and His word.
How to stop the bickering depends on what is at stake.
When Paul and Barnabas could not agree on whom to include in their ministry, they agreed to disagree. Paul took Silas and worked in one place in the manner he saw fit. Barnabas took John Mark and worked in another place in the manner he saw fit. Both were blessed in their ministries despite their differences.
From this we can see that there is more than one method for effective ministry. And we can see that there is more than one way to select and empower those who minister. When God chooses to work through broken people, God chooses to use different people in different ways, that it may be His glory and not ours. We are all broken. It is a miracle that God can do accomplish any good thing in or through us.
There are places where women can work effectively as gospel ministers and others where they cannot. There are also places where women can minister more effectively than men. There is no one-size-fits-all formula for whom to select or whom to ordain. Time and place and circumstance determine the proper application of Bible principles.
With regard to male headship in the church, that position is already taken by Christ.
The Bible teaches that Christ is the only head of the church. He is “head over all things to the church” (Eph 1:21). “Christ is head of the church” (5:23). “He is the head of the body, the church” (Col 1:18). All Christians are to “grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ” (Eph 4:15), who is head of “the whole body” in which “every part does its share” (4:16). “I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Cor 11:2).
Ellen White teaches that Christ is the only head of the church. “God has never given a hint in His word that He has appointed any man to be the head of the church” (Great Controversy, p 51). “Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church” (Signs of the Times, Jan. 27, 1890). “Christ is the only Head of the church” (Manuscript Releases, 21:274).
The struggle regarding whether to ordain women is not unique to Adventists. Other conservative Bible-based churches have now or in the recent past had the very same arguments and struggled with the appropriate answers.
A large number of my relatives adhere to the Calvinist tradition. Their church history over the last couple centuries has included multiple divisions over how to interpret the Bible as viewed through the writings of Jean Calvin. Although they do not claim that Calvin was a prophet, in practice they tend to regard him as a spiritual authority much as do Adventists with Ellen White.
Several months back I was talking with one of my uncles who is a Godly man and takes the Bible very literally. I asked him whether his denomination was ordaining elders. He said “We do now”. then he proceeded to tell me how despite many initial disagreements and misgivings , it was actually working surprisingly well. A few women of various ages were serving effectively as pastors, some with great distinction who had earned the respect even of the most entrenched skeptics.
Then I told him it was a major ongoing controversy in our church. He was surprised that in a church holding Ellen White to be a prophet, this would be any issue at all. To understand this remark, you must realize that many in his faith community (and elsewhere in Evangelical Christianity) have long argued that Adventists must be a cult because we accept the spiritual authority of a woman over ALL of our men, in direct violation of the instructions of Paul. This charge is not new – it was leveled against Adventists during the lifetime of Ellen and the other founders.
My uncle could not understand how we would willingly swallow the Big Pill and yet refuse to swallow the Little Pill. Nor can I.
Well, Jim, there is a vast difference between the ministry of a prophet and an ordained church official. God alone ordains a prophet and the church has no say so about the matter. Church officials are chozen by the church community and the church ordains the level of authority they hold according to their office. This distinction between a prophet and an ordained church position is easily discerned by a study of church history both old and new testament.
Then why did Elder Butler issue her the credentials of an Ordained Minister?
Could he not have printed other credentials for a prophet? Or simply not bothered to sign any credentials for her?
If the latter then why did she accept these credentials rather than destroying them or returning them?
I do not agree that the church has nothing to do or say about prophets. “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 Jn 4:1)
Further, the gift of pastor is listed along with the gift of prophecy among the gifts of the Spirit (Eph 4; 1 Cor 12; Rom 12). Both these gifts are given to men and women. Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322.
“It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.”
You are touching on a concept where most Adventists have a large spiritual disconnect. It is God who empowers anyone to minister in any way, period. Ordination by the church is a distraction taking our attention away from that direct empowerment by the Holy Spirit, which He gives so that people can serve in His church the way He wants.
I think your view is less than biblical but I know it is how some think about the situation.
It is not “ordination” that is the distraction. It is “gender discrimination in ordination” that is the distraction. Ellen White: “Women . . . . should be set apart . . . by prayer and laying on of hands.” (Review and Herald, July 9, 1895).
Again Martin read what she says in context. The July 9th Review and Herald has a sentence before and after the statement on ordination. “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 poor” (the set apart by prayer and laying on of hands…) “In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister.
I agree one hundred percent with this. We pray and lay hands on groups of missionaries leaving on trips. There is a women in our church that is a literature evangelist that daily is out in the community winning souls for the Lord.
Why do you assume that I did not read the context? And what is it about the context that indicates that ordination of women is a problem? What is it about the context that indicates that it is proper to discriminate against women with regard to ordination?
I reaffirm my statement that it is not “ordination” that is the distraction. It is “gender discrimination in ordination” that is the distraction.
Was is discrimination that Mariam was a prophet along with Moses and Arron but only Moses and Arron were allowed to be Priest in the roles God gave? If God’s intentions were for Men to be the spiritual leaders/protectors of the home and the Church is God discriminating because He gave these roles?
Then shouldn’t you also fighting to end gender discrimination that demands men and not women to sign up for selective service to be eligible for any federal aid for school?
Yes it was discrimination. They were operating in an almost entirely male-dominated society where women and children were basically property like animals. The Mosaic laws actually INCREASED the rights of women and children and slaves.
And wherever in the world such societies exist today, ordination of women to any church office is not a wise practice.
But that does not mean we are to make a heavenly virtue out of the vices of men.
Our theology must be modeled on the principles of heaven, even when our practices are adapted to the consequences of evil in this world.
Moses gave you these laws because of the hardness of your hearts. From the beginning it was not so.
I think once people stop confusing reality and what the working policy of the GC, and leave the USA, things take on a diiferent light. It is nice to quote from every source promoting thr pro and con, but let me say this, your context is based on the country you live in. In other countries women are paid differently, treated differently, punished differently, and addressed differently than there male church worker, example, a female doctor is addressed as sister, while a male account is addressed as account so and so. Just cross the border south of you, and listen how they speak. Also, male headship, has caused so much problems, women have been blamed for sin, as though Adam had no responsibility in the action, I thought he ate from the fruit, no gun to his head. Almost, abuse is on the increase, in church and home, women can’t teach, and EG White, is prohibited. So be careful in how the church moves in this matter because there will be a shaking, also consider the Chinese Adventist church is run by also all women, we must not look on tradition, because there a female rabbi’s. Christ was the master rabbi, not pastor, maybe I am wrong in that. Our church needs to teach the bible, in the proper context, and stop preaching.
John Allan, the case of Miriam is simply more evidence in favor of women in spiritual leadership to the people of God. Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 382. “Aaron and Miriam had occupied a position of high honor and leadership in Israel.”
Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322. “It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.”
God does not discriminate against the female gender when preparing pastors to the flock of God. Why would we want to defend such discrimination.
Martin Hanna Arron did not get leprosy. if Miriam is simply more evidence in favor of WO please explain her bout with leprosy? All three were from the tribe of Levi but only Moses and Arron were to be priest. Is that discrimination by God?
Today is Sunday and many treat it as the Sabbath day due to taking a text out of context.
For over a thousand years the believe that you “rested in peace” in the grave until Christ came was the belief. Then some took “today you shall be with me in paradise” out of context and beliefs of the majority change.
Let’s follow God’s Word and not question it for God Our Father knows best…
Nor did Ellen White get leprosy.
You are drawing upon very bad analogies to buttress your claims. By this line of reasoning Aaron also got-off lightly for his role in the worship of the Golden Calf. Why were others killed but not Aaron? Was it because the Levites, led by his own sons, did the killing?
Is it some kind of male prerogative to get a free pass for our own sins, while punishing those of “our” women? From this premise there has been too much looking-aside from abuse inflicted by men on women and children, in our homes and in our schools. Just one of the legacies from the Patriarchal System that was initiated by Lamech in Genesis 4. Eve was a gift to Adam from God. God first made Adam to recognize his need so he would appreciate that most precious gift.
On the other hand, Lamech TOOK FOR HIMSELF that which God had not given. The latter was the basis for he Patriarchal System and not the former. Both Abraham and Jacob followed this example set by Lamech. Isaac in this regard stands head and shoulders above his father and his sons, because he waited for God to provide (first a Sacrifice and then a Wife, and later a refuge from his enemies) rather than taking for himself. Unlike his father and his sons he is not recorded as taking concubines or multiple wives.
Male dominance was a consequence of the Fall, according to both Genesis 3 and Ellen herself. She did not deny the fact of male dominance, but she did NOT ever pin it on God as part of the Divine plan.
It is utterly abhorrent to find some kind of virtue from evil practices. To claim that which was initiated by Satan was ordained of God is to make God into a Devil and affirm the false claims of Satan.
I totally agree with Teresa that our views of the Character of God are a major undercurrent in this whole debate.
I would tend to agree that Miriam was punished with leprosy because like Eve she took for herself that which God did not intend for her. The consequence for both was they ended-up in a worse condition than before.
Later both Moses and Aaron took for themselves what God did not intend for them when they struck the rock a second time. Their punishment was being denied to set foot in Canaan.
So we can conclude that unlike humans, God does not look away when we try to take things not meant for us.
But I fail to see how this in any way discriminates against women being ordained. our ordination practices are commandments of men rather than of God.
For those who don’t believe that EGW believed in male headship they may want to consider her statement…..
“When Satan declared to Christ, The kingdom and glory of the world are delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will I give it, he stated what was true only in part, and he declared it to serve his own purpose of deception. Satan’s dominion was that wrested from Adam, but Adam was the vicegerent of the Creator. His was not an independent rule. The earth is God’s, and He has committed all things to His Son. Adam was to reign subject to Christ. When Adam betrayed his sovereignty into Satan’s hands, Christ still remained the rightful King. Thus the Lord had said to King Nebuchadnezzar, “The Most High ruleth in the
130
kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will.” Daniel 4:17. Satan can exercise his usurped authority only as God permits. {DA 129.4}”
And this same principle applies to the idea that Christ is head of the church. Just because Christ is head of the church does not negate the fact the He ordains male headship to rule and run the church under His authority.
No one is suggesting that Ellen white did not believe that Adam was head of the race. She surely believed that Adam was the head of the race. She also believes that Christ alone is the second Adam who heads the race and the church. There is not controversy about this.
What is clear is that Ellen White teaches that Christ is the only head of the church. “God has never given a hint in His word that He has appointed any man to be the head of the church” (Great Controversy, p 51). “Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church” (Signs of the Times, Jan. 27, 1890). “Christ is the only Head of the church” (Manuscript Releases, 21:274).
Ellen White’s view is in harmony with what the Bible teaches: Christ is the only head of the church. He is “head over all things to the church” (Eph 1:21). “Christ is head of the church” (5:23). “He is the head of the body, the church” (Col 1:18). All Christians are to “grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ” (Eph 4:15), who is head of “the whole body” in which “every part does its share” (4:16). “I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Cor 11:2).
“No one is suggesting that Ellen white did not believe that Adam was head of the race.”
But in fact, Martin, many are suggesting that Adam was not head of the race and that he and Eve ruled equally. And when EGW states that Christ is head of the church, she states this in opposition to the Catholic idea that any human head has the final authority. Human heads in the church are subject to Christ in spiritual matters, just as Adam was head of the human family in secular matters.
I think many people “do” theology by the “seat of their pants” and actually do little study or consideration of what all the bible says about any subject. EGW does not negate Paul, nor does Paul disagree with EGW. They are speaking from two different perspectives.
I do not deny that some persons propose that Adam was not head of the race because Adan and Eve ruled equally. What I deny is that Ellen White makes such a proposal. The Bible and Ellen White are in agreement that both Adam and Eve were given dominion over the creation. They were equal in all things. Their name was Adam (Gen 5:1-2). You are correct to point out that Paul and Ellen White are not fundamentally in disagreement though they have different perspectives. In fact, your last post indicates that you and I may also not be fundamentally in disagreement though we also may have different perspectives.
“many are suggesting that Adam was not head of the race and that he and Eve ruled equally.”
If your previous comment was directed at me, then you have not understood what I actually said. I did not claim that before the fall Adam and Eve RULED equally. I claimed that they SUBMITTED equally each to the desires of the other and to God. While they lived in perfect love they each desired the happiness of the other. They felt neither need nor desire to rule over each other until after the Fall. Likewise today, men and women who are fully submitted to the authority of Jesus Christ do not feel any need or desire to rule over others.
“I think many people “do” theology by the “seat of their pants” and actually do little study or consideration of what all the bible says about any subject. EGW does not negate Paul, nor does Paul disagree with EGW. They are speaking from two different perspectives.”
Of course, since you have done your own homework so carefully that you are certain that you are right, then those who differ have simply not done ours as thoroughly as you.
Repeatedly you have impugned the motives and integrity of those who differ, in order to dismiss our comments rather than actually addressing them in a substantive manner.
You would probably not believe that during my own worship time early Friday morning, I re-read the last portion of Ephesians and virtually all of I Timothy, deliberately prayerfully and carefully, in a very formal translation. I could share with you what I found and what I experienced, but since you have already dismissed anything further I might say, because of my evident careless and shoddy study, not to mention my duplicity and hypocrisy which you previously identified, I will spare my wrists and fingers from typing what I found.
I guess you can parse this a leaving Eve completely out of the picture if you wish. Do you really think that Ellen would claim that Satan only wrested control from Adam but not from Eve because Eve had no control?
I have repeatedly asked you and others to show me where in the Bible Adam is described as ruling over Eve before the fall. The Dominion over the rest of the earth that was given to “man” before the fall was not given to males only. Genesis says that God created “man” both male and female and God ordained for “them” to have dominion over other created things on earth. This passage in Genesis says nothing about Dominion over humans if you actually read it carefully, only over other created things on earth which are therein enumerated.
“I guess you can parse this a leaving Eve completely out of the picture if you wish. Do you really think that Ellen would claim that Satan only wrested control from Adam but not from Eve because Eve had no control?”
That’s right, Jim. Eve had no control over the whole human family like Adam did. It was not Eve’s sin that plunged the human family into sin and rebellion. Yes, she was instrumental in leading Adam into sin. But had Adam not sinned, God would have dealt with Eve seperately and Adam’s loyalty would have secured the human race in loyalty to God.
Christ is the second Adam, not the second Adam and Eve.
So if Adam had refused the fruit, there would have been no need for a Second Adam?
Would God have sent a Second Eve or simply written Eve off because after all she was only a woman and it was Adam’s preservation that really mattered?
Adam had no more control over the human family than did Eve, unless you believe that Adam could have a second wife whereas Eve could not have a second husband.
Under the Patriarchal System this would be true. I have repeatedly pointed-out (and you have ignored) that the Patriarchal System arises in Genesis 4 where Lamech TAKES multiple wives, and TAKES the life of a man who crosses him. Polygamy and honor killings and slavery (TAKING control over other humans) were never ordained by God.
I actually agree with this quote which may surprise you. I think this was written in the context of Genesis1 where you can read what man had dominion over. Notably lacking from the list are other humans in general, and women in particular,
Christ as head of the church is not analogous to male headship in the church.
This is equating human males as a male Christ. Jesus came as a male, according to the Bible, but that did not forever set a theological precedence for church positions which are determined by man, not God.
Ecclesiology is all man made with Paul establishing a brief system for the congregations at that time and in that culture.
See my comment above, Elaine, I think you are classic.
Eve certainly controlled the future race as she was the one who gave birth to the first child born on earth. Adam was unable to control the first command to “Be fruitful and multiply” without Eve contributing equally.
“Eve certainly controlled the future race as she was the one who gave birth to the first child born on earth. Adam was unable to control the first command to “Be fruitful and multiply” without Eve contributing equally.”
Well, Elaine, I would suspect that Eve contributed the “Lion’s share” when it came to the physical aspect of continuing the human race. But the issue of a spritual headship in relationship to sin was delegated to Adam. An interesting comment by EGW concerning Adam and Eve in the context of sin is this one.
” Adam understood that his companion had transgressed the command of God, disregarded the only prohibition laid upon them as a test of their fidelity and love. There was a terrible struggle in his mind. He mourned that he had permitted Eve to wander from his side. But now the deed was done; he must be separated from her whose society had been his joy. How could he have it thus? Adam had enjoyed the companionship of God and of holy angels. He had looked upon the glory of the Creator. He understood the high destiny opened to the human race should they remain faithful to God. Yet all these blessings were lost sight of in the fear of losing that one gift which in his eyes outvalued every other. Love, gratitude, loyalty to the Creator–all were overborne by love to Eve. She was a part of himself, and he could not endure the thought of separation. He did not realize that the same Infinite Power who had from the dust of the earth created him, a living, beautiful form, and had in love given him a companion, could supply her place.” PP 56
So, if Adam had not sinned, then what? According to EGW, God would have given Adam another companion. She often qualified and re-qualifed her comments as any person would do over a long period of time. Here are two examples, one about the forbidden fruit.
” It was when he was in conflict with man that Satan gained his first victory. Changing his appearance, assuming the disguise of a serpent, in the most subtle, artful-manner he assailed Eve, saying, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” The woman erred when she entered into controversy with the serpent. The Lord had not said, “Ye shall not touch it.” He had said, “Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” {ST, February 13, 1896 par. 5}
But before this qualifying statement about touching the forbidden fruit, she had said. ” Eve, unconsciously at first, separated from her husband in her employment. When she became aware of the fact she felt that there might be danger, but again she thought herself secure, even if she did not remain close by the side of her husband. She had wisdom and strength to know if evil came, and to meet it. This the angels had cautioned her not to do. Eve found herself gazing with mingled curiosity and admiration upon the fruit of the forbidden tree. She saw it was very lovely, and was reasoning with herself why God had so decidedly prohibited their eating or touching it. Now was Satan’s opportunity. He addressed her as though he was able to divine her thought: “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” Thus, with soft and pleasant words, and with musical voice, he addressed the
32
33
wondering Eve. She was startled to hear a serpent speak. He extolled her beauty and exceeding loveliness, which was not displeasing to Eve. But she was amazed, for she knew that to the serpent God had not given the power of speech. {SR 32.2}
In this second statement, she seems to agree that God commanded them not to “touch it” lest ye die. But we see on another occasion, EGW re-qualified the statement and affirms that God did not command them not to touch the fruit.
In another situation, she said that Moses sinned when he broke the ten commandments coming down from Sinai. But she qualifed this statement by saying Moses did not sin because he was jealous for God’s glory in another comment.
“When Moses came down from the mount with the two tables of stone and saw Israel worshiping the golden calf, his anger was greatly kindled, and he threw down the tables of stone and broke them. I saw that Moses did not sin in this. He was wroth for God, jealous for His glory. But when he yielded to the natural feelings of his heart and took to himself the honor which was due to God, he sinned, and for that sin God would not suffer him to enter the land of Canaan.
164
{EW 163.3}”
“Moses came from the mount with the precious record in his hands, a pledge of God to man on condition of obedience. Moses was the meekest man upon the earth, but when he viewed the apostasy of Israel he was angry and jealous for the glory of God. In his indignation he cast to the ground the precious pledge of God, which was more dear to him than life. He saw the law broken by the Hebrews, and in his zeal for God, to deface the idol that they were worshiping, he sacrificed the tables of stone. Aaron stood by, calmly, patiently bearing the severe censure of Moses. All this might have been prevented by a word from Aaron at the right time. True, noble decision for the right in the hour of Israel’s peril would have balanced their minds in the right direction. {3T 341.1}
Does God condemn Moses? No, no; the great goodness of God pardons the rashness and zeal of Moses,….”
Notice in this second statement, she said “God pardons the rashness…..Moses…”
If Moses had not sinned, there would have been no need for pardon. Did he sin or not? Yes, Moses sinned, but was pardoned. Her first statement needs qualification.
There are other such examples of qualification and re-qualification. No need to doubt her ministry because of these on going qualifications.
I fail to understand what your references to Mose have to do with the question. Of course every human has the right to change their mind, change how they explain something, further qualify previous explanations and answers to questions, etc. Moses and Ellen and many others have done so. Moses and Ellen made mistakes. Moses and Ellen sinned. We do not want our heroes and heroines to have flaws but alas, except for Jesus Christ they all do. As Ellen herself said, God and heaven alone are infallible. That would exclude both herself and Moses.
The problem you are dancing with is how could Ellen explain the same thing differently at different times and places, and still be speaking for God? Those of us who do not believe in verbal inspiration or prophetic inerrancy do not have this problem. Inspired thoughts can be inadequately or inaccurately expressed by human prophets? No big deal unless your beliefs hang upon their every utterance.
Regarding Eve straying from Adam and therefore placing herself in danger, I would agree that in challenging or dangerous situations two heads may be better than one. One may recognize potential problems the other does not. But does Ellen say this gift or ability to recognize danger is only given to men? Does she say that Adam could have strayed-off by himself without placing himself in danger? Not that I can find. She only says that Eve made this mistake and I concur.
Your take-away seems to be that Eve (being a woman) was spiritually dependent on Adam, whereas Adam (being a man) was not spiritually dependent on Eve. Can you show me where Ellen actually says that, as opposed to your own reading between the lines?
Personally, I place value on the Godly comments of my wife, though certainly we do not always agree. (And she does not cover her head when she expresses her opinions 8-). But most important of all I think is to understand that any spiritual and strength and security we have comes ONLY from God, not from our spouse, not from some other man or woman, not from any human spiritual authority figure. Ultimately this principle was violated both by Adam and by Eve.
The main point was this, Jim. She affirmed that God could have replaced Eve if Adam had not sinned, and would have given him a new partner.
“She was a part of himself, and he could not endure the thought of separation. He did not realize that the same Infinite Power who had from the dust of the earth created him, a living, beautiful form, and had in love given him a companion, could supply her place.” PP 56
Eve sinned, and could have been replaced. When Adam sinned, there was no “replacement” except Jesus Himself who made a provisional atonement for Adam and all his decendants.
This idea of course would destroy the idea that Adam and Eve ruled equally before sin entered.
You compare relative authority as a husband over his wife as being negated by the ultimate authority of Christ over the home and each individual. This again, is a false dilemma that compares apples and oranges. Husbands have no ultimate authority over their wives, children, or anyone else in final spiritual application. So a husband can not command his wife or children to sin. This does not negate the headship role of the man in the home. In spiritual and secular matters as long as he does not violate the law of God, or command others to do so.
It is amazing to me how long we debate a point that is not the point. 🙂 No one is suggesting that Christ is negating God’s ideal for husband wife relations. What we are saying is that the husband wife relation illustrates the unique relation between Christ and the church. The pastor is not the head or husband of the church. Christ is the only head and husband of the church.
The Bible teaches that Christ is the only head of the church. He is “head over all things to the church” (Eph 1:21). “Christ is head of the church” (5:23). “He is the head of the body, the church” (Col 1:18). All Christians are to “grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ” (Eph 4:15), who is head of “the whole body” in which “every part does its share” (4:16). “I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Cor 11:2).
Ellen White teaches that Christ is the only head of the church. “God has never given a hint in His word that He has appointed any man to be the head of the church” (Great Controversy, p 51). “Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church” (Signs of the Times, Jan. 27, 1890). “Christ is the only Head of the church” (Manuscript Releases, 21:274).
Now we can have a wonderful discussion about what headship means and about whether is existed before the fall of humanity into sin. But that discussion is not going to change the fact that Christ, not the pastor, is the head and husband of the church. Therefore, it is improper to use “the headship doctrine” to exclude women from pastoral ministry.
Martin said……”It is amazing to me how long we debate a point that is not the point.”
Well, we could debate the theology of Herb Douglass as they do over on the Spectrum forum. But Martin went on to say….”What we are saying is that the husband wife relation illustrates the unique relation between Christ and the church.” And it also relects the relationship of church members to church leaders, so, what your point again?
So you conclude that God could not have replaced Adam had Adam sinned and not Eve?
If God could take another rib from Adam to make another woman, could God not as readily take a rib from Even and make another man? Or would God have to discard both Adam and Eve and start-over from red clay?
I do not disagree with what Ellen wrote, but I do disagree with your inferences regarding what Ellen did NOT write.
Unless you claim that Eve was less valuable to God than was Adam, surely there would have been some provision for the salvation of Eve had Adam not sinned?
I prefer to take my beliefs from what the Bible says. God said to Eve that BECAUSE she took the fruit, her husband would rule over her. Nowhere before that statement made after the Fall, have you shown from the Bible that Adam was over Eve. The first statement about dominion gives THEM (man and woman) dominion over other kinds of creatures. It says nothing whatsoever about dominion over other humans.
Again let me ask a question that you have avoided. Are we called to restore in man (and presumably women) the image of the Creator, before or after the Fall? Are we called to model before others, relationships that existed before or after the Fall? These are essential questions that must be addressed as part of any Bible-based teaching on Christian relationships.
If following the pattern after sin is the ideal, how about all the “return” to the Edenic diet instead of after sin?
BEFORE sin, there was no God-given headship; those who contend on the headship theory are being defined by the inequality AFTER sin. Consistency?
I have no point Bill–except sharing the inspired word on the topic under discussion.
The Bible teaches that Christ is the only head of the church. He is “head over all things to the church” (Eph 1:21). “Christ is head of the church” (5:23). “He is the head of the body, the church” (Col 1:18). All Christians are to “grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ” (Eph 4:15), who is head of “the whole body” in which “every part does its share” (4:16). “I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Cor 11:2).
Ellen White teaches that Christ is the only head of the church. “God has never given a hint in His word that He has appointed any man to be the head of the church” (Great Controversy, p 51). “Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church” (Signs of the Times, Jan. 27, 1890). “Christ is the only Head of the church” (Manuscript Releases, 21:274).
Therefore, it is improper to use “the headship doctrine” to exclude women from pastoral ministry. This is the point.
And it is still a false dilemma, Martin. Jesus is the head shephard of the sheep, but their are under-shephards who are ordained to lead in church government. So to claim Jesus is head of the church to negate any delegated “heads” to minister in the church is not a valid conclusion.
But you still exclude the possibility of under-shepherdesses from your analogy?
Though in the Patriarchal System as in many agricultural societies even now, unmarried young women and men and even girls and boys, were and are given the menial task of herding and watering the domestic animals. Surely this practice was known to those who used the analogy for Jesus and other spiritual leaders?
So does this really mean that women are fit to herd animals but only men are fit to herd humans? Or are these Bible verses collective references to all shepherds regardless of gender? And why do you reach one conclusion vs the other?
Bill the false dilemma is not on my side of this discussion. I do not deny the validity of under-shepherds–male and/or female. I simply deny that they are The Head Shepherd. I deny that they are the head of the church. I deny this because the Bible denies it. I deny this because Ellen White denies it. I deny it because it has never been the teaching of the SDA church. I deny it because the recently published study of the SDA theological seminary denies it. Of course, I should not have to call upon all these under-shepherds to defend my position. The inspired word of the Head Shepherd Himself should have settled this matter long ago.
Well, Martin, we agree that Jesus is “king of kings” and “Lord or Lords”. But this is not the issue in modern Adventism. The issue is male headship in a subjected role to Christ. Or, no distinction in the headship role as gender inclusive. The best I can discern from your comments is this, “Since Jesus is head of the church, this ipso facto does away with gender roles in church leadership.” And again, I say this is a false dilemma as you draw a conclusion that is not supported by the facts. Jesus is head of the church. This does not prove there is no gender distinction in church government as “under-shepards” lead in administration and doctrine.
Paul declares male headship in various roles of authority. And women are gender excluded.
Actually, it is you Bill who are doing away with gender roles in church leadership. I am promoting roles for men and women in church leadership. You are excluding roles for women in church leadership. In contrast, Ellen White writes: “It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.” Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322.
More troubling, you are replacing the headship of Christ with the headship of other men. And you are complaining that I am presenting the exclusive headship of Christ. What you are missing in your complaints is that I am simply referring you to the inspired word of God that maintains the exclusive headship of Christ over his church.
The Bible teaches that Christ is the only head of the church. He is “head over all things to the church” (Eph 1:21). “Christ is head of the church” (5:23). “He is the head of the body, the church” (Col 1:18). All Christians are to “grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ” (Eph 4:15), who is head of “the whole body” in which “every part does its share” (4:16). “I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Cor 11:2).
Ellen White teaches that Christ is the only head of the church. “God has never given a hint in His word that He has appointed any man to be the head of the church” (Great Controversy, p 51). “Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church” (Signs of the Times, Jan. 27, 1890). “Christ is the only Head of the church” (Manuscript Releases, 21:274).
Martin, does context mean anything in your quote by Ellen White? You keep using a quote that is embedded in the work of a literature evangelist and you disregard clear statements she make on this issue…. do you desire a way around inspiration that is not misquoted as you implore Bill?
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
Or you may take the route of Mr. Taylor and Mr Spencer in saying its wrong to believe as Elder Wilson that the writings of EGW point back to the Bible. (As all true prophets do) For she is very clear on this matter. Can you imagine if a man had said this? He would be labeled a misogynist for sure….
I am glad that
“More troubling, you are replacing the headship of Christ with the headship of other men.”
I am still trying to follow your reasoning. So I’ll ask you this. Do you believe the man is head of the home? And as head of the home, is he still under the headship of Christ? If so, are there not levels of “headship” on various levels of law and government, both spiritual and secular?
Was not king David under the headship of Christ? But was not king David head of the civil government during his reign?
Is not Christ the ultimate “head” of the universe? But was not Lucifer “head” of the angels under Christ’s headship? So EGW said about this situation….
” The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father’s throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both. About the throne gathered the holy angels, a vast, unnumbered throng–“ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands” (Revelation 5:11.), the most exalted angels, as ministers and subjects, rejoicing in the light that fell upon them from the presence of the Deity. Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father’s will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God’s plan, but would exalt the Father’s glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love. {PP 36.2}
The angels joyfully acknowledged the supremacy of Christ, and prostrating themselves before Him, poured out their love and adoration. Lucifer bowed with them,…….”
Later she stated.
“There had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer’s envy and misrepresentation and his claims to equality with Christ had made necessary a statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from the beginning. Many of the angels were, however, blinded by Lucifer’s deceptions. {PP 38.1}
Christ being the final authority in all things, does not negate levels of authority in various governments of this earth, both civil and religious.
Bill the battle you are fighting is not with me. Scripture says that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church. Scriptures teaches that women are to have one husband. Scripture teaches that Christ is the only husband of the church. Ellen White agrees with these biblical teachings.These inspired insights are what you are fighting against. My reasoning is not your problem. Your problem is your own desire to reason your way around what the inspired word teaches.
OK, Martin. We have both had our say in the matter. But for me, your reasoning is a parallel to a Sunday keeper who quotes various scriptures to prove the 7th day Sabbath is not relevant to the Christian community. Like Romans 14:5. I personally don’t think you can read the whole bible and Paul’s specific comments about church authority based on male headship and conclude that WO is endorsed in either the old or new testament.
I never proposed that female ordination was or was not prescribed in the inspired word. I simply pointed out that the inspired word teaches that Christ (not the pastor) is the only head of the church. Therefore, the headship argument does not count against female ordination as pastors.
“Scripture say that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church”
Yes Martin…so does the church usurp the authority of Christ? No… Like manner is the women to usurp the authority of the men who are given the role to be spiritual leaders in the home and church??
He who is engaged in the work of the gospel ministry must be faithful in his family life. It is as essential that as a father he should improve the talents God has given him for the purpose of making the home a symbol of the heavenly family, as that in the work of the ministry he should make use of his God-given powers to win souls for the church. As the priest in the home, and as the ambassador of Christ in the church, he should exemplify in his life the character of Christ. He must be faithful in watching for souls as one that must give an account.
In His service there must be seen no carelessness and inattentive work. God will not serve with the sins of men who have not a clear sense of the sacred responsibility involved in accepting a position as pastor of a church. He who fails to be a faithful, discerning shepherd in the home will surely fail of being a faithful shepherd to the flock of God in the church.—Manuscript 42, 1903
“Bottom line in all of this. WO is just a symptom, not a root problem. The problem is much simpler and started back in Heaven with Lucifer toying with the idea of “what happens if I decide to do something OTHER than what the Creator says I should do?” The idea that our finite minds can somehow choose to go against the express will of Infinite Wisdom is at the heart of all of this, and the evangelical gospel delivers this destructive philosophy on a silver and very enticing platter for all to enjoy. We have, for so long sipped from the well of evangelical gospel that all other issues become tainted and we argue over points that will find no resolution without the well being first cleaned out.”
Amen.
How did James know Elijah prayed earnestly for the rain to stop? Ans: The Spirit revealed it to him.
How did Paul know that male headship was established by God at creation? Ans: The Spirit revealed it to him. Thus denying male headship is denying God Himself and only Satan and his many friends would want to do that.
The Bible does not teach “male headship.” Male children are not the head of their mothers. The Bible teaches that “the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church.” The Bible also teaches that Christ is the only head of the church–the pastor is not the head of the church. This clear teaching of the Bible is affirmed in the writings of Ellen White.
“Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church” (Signs of the Times, Jan. 27, 1890).
Martin, you are confused. If “Christ” isi the “head of the church” why does the church have “heads” at all levels? Why did Jesus choose ONLY MEN as leaders of his church? Why there is no serious, factual evidence that the first church had women as leaders? Why didn’t the Holy Spirit choose a woman to complete the number of the 12 apostles at the start of the church? There a lot of pious women in the church at that time. Why always men, men, men?
The “evidence” you people provide in support of “female headship” is unbiblical, illogical, and counterfeited. It is a political push. It does not come from a desire to serve God, but from some militant men and women who want to take over the church. It is the women’s desire for power. Eden deja vu.
I think the church need to follow the instructions of the bible and women must cover their heads before speaking in church. Thus they will remember God has established the authority of men over women from creation itself.
So much debate, and for what? The matter should be settled individually and in a simple way. I will not attend a church that has a “female pastor.” I will attend a church that has PASTOR. That is all. No need for a debate.
If you are convinced that there is no support in the Bible for “female headship,” that the Bible teaches MALE HEADSHIP at home and in the church, that women cannot have spiritual authority over men, that there is no support in the Bible for female leadership, DO NOT SUPPORT WOMEN AS PASTORS. Withdraw your membership from the churches that have “women pastors.” Attend the churches that abide by the biblical teaching and follow the New Testament practice of MALE HEADSHIP. Attend a church where a man is the PASTOR. Problem solved.
Welcome to the debate, Eduard. By the way, the Bible does not teach that male pastors are given headship of the church.
Martin, can you read?
Martin, so now you claim expertise in Biblical Interpretation? My, my, how soon we forget who we are and what we are! You are just an arrogant amateur who thinks that he has the right to tell others what the Bible TRULY SAYS, right? I have had people like you for breakfast (I don’t eat lunch)!
I do not support either Male Headship or Female Headship in the Christian Church. I support the headship of Jesus Christ. Christ is the head. All other Christians are members of the same body but this body has only One Head.
The Pastor is NOT the Head of the church. I well remember one pastor who in elders’ meetings was discussing whether the church should be headed by the Conference or the Pastor or the Elders or the Board. I answered that all of these were wrong, that we were all in submission to Jesus Christ.
Amen.
David was head of Israel but only under the true head Christ. As a matter of fact, Christ is head of everything both the home and the church and men are head under the Head Christ. That’s why a woman cannot be the head of the home. Can she?
So was David’s monarchy the prototype for governance or leadership in the home or in the church?
Wow! That is one huge conceptual leap!
Firstly, David was the civil but not the spiritual leader of Israel and Judah.
Secondly, David’s family life would hardly be an example I would hold-up for emulation.
A very strong case can be made from study of the Patriarchs and also of the Kings of Israel and Judah, that Male Headship failed miserably both in the home and in the civil government. This should be no surprise to a careful student of the Bible, because God in Genesis 3 said that Male Headship in the home was one of the consequences of Eve’s sin where she rejected God’s authority, and later in Deuteronomy that an oppressive Monarchy would be one of the consequences of the people rejecting God’s authority.
Was God right? The entire Old Testament shows how right were both of these predictions. Attributing to God the consequences of rebellion is working for the Lord like the Devil.
The foregoing does not deny that God appointed Adam and later others as the priests and leaders of their families and tribes, and anointed Saul and David and later others as Kings over Israel and Judah. But from the beginning this was not so.
I think you are confused. Where did you learn that male headship is the result of eve sin? Male headship existed from creation (1thim2:12). God repeated what was already there in genesis 3. It’s like somebody saying Cain did not know killing was wrong because it wasn’t mentioned explicitely that killing was bad. God told them His Law. There was no need to explicitely write it. Likewise maleheadship was there from the very beginning. Paul only reminds us of that in 1thim2:12.
I meant 1thim2:12,13.
The debate on whether male headship was from creation or from the fall is an interesting one. But however you answer that issue, the fact still remains that “It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.” Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322. Also, “God has never given a hint in His word that He has appointed any man to be the head of the church” (Great Controversy, p 51). “Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church” (Signs of the Times, Jan. 27, 1890). “Christ is the only Head of the church” (Manuscript Releases, 21:274).
I am also puzzled about your use of 1 Tim 2:12-13 since there is no mention of headship in that text.
Boycott women as pastors!
Did you know that the largest SDA church in the world is located in Vietnam near the border with China and that it was established by and continues to be pastored by a woman?
I’m glad to see that you understand the concept of giftedness in the Holy Spirit. That is where we find success in doing what God wants us to do for Him.
Eduard, does your church have women pastors? How can they be boycotted? Even so, what about the other churches that already have female pastors? Do you plan on NOT attending them? A rather useless response
There are no women “pastors” in this area. About 20 years ago the largest SDA church here split because a woman was elected as first elder.
If a woman comes to my church as a “pastor,” I will stop attending the church and supporting it financially. If more people do what I do the church will shut down for lack of funds.
The debate about this issue is over. Now we need to act. BOYCOTT FEMALE “PASTORS”!
Christ is the Head of the Universe that include Home and Church.
1Chr29:23, Salomon sat on the throne of the Lord. You see the real head of Israel was Christ and God was very happy with the kings when they understood He was the real Head and they were small heads.
Women pastors is sin, it doesn’t matter if the most popular church in the world has a woman as pastor. They may be popular with men not necessary withGod for they go right against his word. I hope these women cover their head at least before preaching. Hypocrite, God desires worship but not at any cost. He set the rules not twisted
Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322. “It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.”
men.
Obviously, you take her out of context. Anyway E. G. White considered herself as a lesser light and the bible as the greater light. So if her words ”seem” to contradict the bible, we always go for the bible. And according to the bible, women pastor is sin period.
I notice that you simply make this claim without providing any inspired reference.
What can you do when somebody purposefully refuses to acknowledge the truth based on twisted mindset. I guess just let him in his lie. Even Jesus could not convince the pharisees.
I rest my case.
Usually one presents some evidence before resting a case. 🙂
It seems that ever since God created this world. We humans have decided to do what Lucifer did in heaven. He, like us did not wish to be who God created him to be. He (Lucifer) wanted to be God; God created him to be an angel. In our “so-called” advanced culture, we have decided that (like Lucifer) our roles that God created for us at creation (as outlined in His Word) should be changed. What a pity.
Yes, what a pity that the equality of men and women intended by God has been rejected by some!
Testimonies, 3:484. “When God created Eve, He designed that she should possess neither inferiority nor superiority to the man, but that in all things she should be his equal.”
Selected Messages Book 1, p. 259. “The secret of unity is found in the equality of believers in Christ.”
Patriarchs and Prophets, 50. “While they remained true to God, Adam and his companion (Eve) were to bear rule over the earth.”
Testimonies for the Church, 1:710. “When God specially calls your wife to the work of teaching the truth, then should you lean to her counsel and advice, and confide in her instructions. God may give you both, as possessing an equal interest in and devotion to the work, equal qualifications to act a prominent part in the most solemn work of saving souls.”
Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322. “It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.”
Letter 77, 1898; Evangelism, 469. “When a great and decisive work is to be done, God chooses men and women to do this work, and it will feel the loss if the talents of both are not combined.”
Martin Hanna et al. I hope you truly believe that God exists and bible is His word and It is for all time and also you will have to answer one day for the heresies you are defending (i.e. woman can be church pastor which clearly contradict the bible).
It is indeed a sad time. “Oh that my head were waters and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people. Jeremiah 9:1.” May God have mercy on us all.
The “heresies” you complain and week about are not heresies. They are the testimony of Jesus. Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322. “It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.”
Correction: “complain and weep”
Obviously, you take her out of context. Anyway E. G. White considered herself as a lesser light and the bible as the greater light. So if her words ”seem” to contradict the bible, we always go for the bible. And according to the bible, women pastor is sin period.
After destroying marriage, you want to destroy the last remnant church. But guess what?? You will fail because God won’t allow it.
Again you present no evidence for your strange claim that according to the Bible a female pastor is a sin. The Bible teaches no such thing. And Ellen White writes that God’s spirit prepares female pastors to the flock of God (Testimonies, 6:322). Here again you provide no evidence for your claim that this statement is out of context and therefore does not mean what it obviously says. So, in spite of your claim, a female pastor is not a sin. In harmony with this fact, the SDA church already allows for female pastors. So it is you (not me) who is seeking to destroy the position of the church.
1Thim3 and titus 1 do not allow women to be pastors. They can assist a pastor, but woman can not be a sheperd of the flock of the Lord. woman pastor is pure evil and it can only originate from satan.
1Thim3 and titus 1 do not allow women to be pastors. They can assist a pastor, but woman can not be a sheperd of the flock of the Lord.
These texts do not mention pastors explicitly. They refer to elders and bishops. But elders and bishops do participate in pastoral work. And women can be elders and bishops as well as pastors. These texts simply present examples of what it means to be blameless–since that is the qualification of an elder or bishop–blamelessness. In 1 Tim 3:2, an example of blamelessness is mentioned in terms of being “husband of one wife.” In 1 Tim 5:7 and 9, the parallel example of blamelessness is given in terms of being “wife of one husband.” You don’t have to be a man to be blameless. Faithfulness to one’s spouse is an example of blamelessness whether you are a man or a woman.
The use of the term male headship is justified in the context of WO as it 1] denotes the specified functional role of men in Christian service, particularly in terms of the Church leadership roles of Elder/Bishop/Overseer, or Pastor as we call them, serving in this capacity, and 2] helps differentiate between the distinctive roles of men and women in Christian leadership as taught in the Bible. The Bible in both the Old and New Testament does not show even one instance where a woman served in this capacity as leader. It is clearly evident that God has designed it this way. I might as well point out that male leadership (headship) serving in this capacity or role is not a manmade teaching but one that is biblically sound and undoubtedly affirms the validity, authority and reliability of both the Holy Scriptures and its inspired writers. Can the Bible be trusted in matters of faith, doctrine and practice? Yes I would say. Why change what the Bible teaches just because of cultural norms that have amalgamated the roles of men and women?
Trevor,
When in both the OT and the NT God tells us that we are called to be a Holy Nation and a Royal Priesthood is God talking only to the men or does God include the women?
Same as when Jesus said “Ye are the salt of the earth.” Both men and women of his Church are included here from what I have gathered and believe.
The claim that there is not one example of female leadership in the Bible is so obviously incorrect that it almost needs no response. But just in case someone fell for it, here goes.
Micah: “I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (Mic 6:4).
Ellen White: “Aaron and Miriam had occupied a position of high honor and leadership in Israel.” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 382).
Dear Mr Hanna – Please read what I said sir. I did not say that “there is not one example of female leadership in the Bible” as you incorrectly lay claim.
This is what I said: “The Bible in both the Old and New Testament does not show even one instance where a woman served in this capacity as leader.” The “this capacity” referred specifically to leadership in terms of that of Elder/Bishop/Overseer or Pastor in this sense. It is in this sense also that the term male headship is used as a qualifier distinguishing who can be ordained to what.
Again, the Bible does not have one instance where a woman occupied a position similar to that of those serving as Elder/Bishop/Overseer, or pastor for that matter, in this sense of the word. (Please don’t use the pastoral work of canvassing which Ellen White wrote about in which women can get involved in, and conflate this type of pastoral work with that of Church leadership). In the Review and Herald, July 24, 1883, Ellen White wrote that “In some respects the pastor occupies a position similar to that of the foreman of a gang of laboring men or the captain of a ship’s crew.” This description of pastoral work shows that there is no conflict with using the term headship in relation to the work similar to that of a foreman serving Christ – and Christ being the sovereign head of the Church. This foreman type of headship mentioned here in relation to that of an Elder/Bishop/Overseer/ or Pastor in this sense of the word, was always – and only – occupied by men. Nowhere in the Bible have women being ordained to serve as leaders in this capacity. They can serve as leaders in other areas of course, as did Miriam – or Ellen White for that matter.
Miriam was without doubt involved in her role of leadership in Israel but not in the same role as Aaron or Moses for that matter. She was a prophetess and one who led the people into praising and worshipping God when they crossed the Red Sea [Exod 15:20].
Proponents of WO should at least be honest and admit that cultural dictates have forced them to bow down to feminist pressure and that new methods of Biblical interpretation have being cleverly introduced to justify moving away from a plain thus saith the Lord. Can I call it feminist theology?
While I’m at it, let me add this:
1] Ellen White was not ordained to the ministry of that of Elder/Bishop/Overseer or Pastor in this sense despite the rumours going around.
2] Ordination of women itself is not the primary issue here. It is really a matter of who can be ordained to what.
3] Whilst Ellen White supported the abolishment of slavery, she did not support the women’s rights movement or that of feminists for that matter.
4] To accuse the Church of discrimination is to accuse God of the same.
5] The Patriarchal system, (as opposed to a Matriarchal one), was given by God and is not manmade. Let’s not forget this.
My apologies Trevor for missing the point that you do accept that the Bible contains precedents of female leaders. Now you have clarified that you hold that the Bible does not allow for female elders, bishops, overseers, or pastors in this sense.
In response to this, I point you to Miriam again. She was one of the top three leaders in Israel (with Moses and Aaron). As such she outranked the 70 elders. Similarly, in the New Testament, the fact of female prophetesses establishes that women continue to serve as top leaders in the church. (Of course, in the Bible “top leadership” means being “chief servant”).
With regard to your insistence that headship be associated with leadership in a way that excludes women, this is simply contradicted by the inspired word. Christ is the head of the Church as the husband is the head of the wife. The pastor is not the head of the church.
You seem to state without evidence: (1) that since Ellen White was not ordained as a pastor—then no woman can be so ordained; (2) that women can be ordained but not as pastors; (3) that Ellen White did not support women’s rights; (4) that to accuse the church of discrimination is to accuse God; (5) and that patriarchy is God’s ideal.
The origins of the Patriarchal System in the Bible are in Genesis 3 and 4 – AFTER the fall. This was not God’s plan. It was an invention of sinful men.
You will never find a woman elder or bishop in the entire bible. A prophet is not neccessary an elder. A prophet just deliver a message from God. Ballam donkey was used by God to deliver a message to Ballam. It didn’t make the donkey elder or priest or bishop. Samuel was very young when he gave his first prophecy. You will never find a woman elder, priest or bishop in the entire bible. Again delivering a message from God does not make the medium elder or bishop. These are two different things.
With regard to elders, “the elders [who] obtained a good testimony” (Heb 11:2) include Sarah (11:11), Rahab (11:31), and other women (11:35). 1 Tim 5:1-2–“Do not rebuke a male elder, but exhort him as a father . . . [and] female elders as mothers.” Tit 2:1-3–“1 But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: 2 that the male elders be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the elder women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things.”
A blameless elder man (if married) is to be “husband of one wife” (Tit 1:5-6) and a blameless elder woman (if married) is to be “wife of one husband” (1 Tim 5:7, 9). Similarly a blameless bishop (if a married man) is to be husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2).
However, being husband of one wife was only one of the ways a bishop could be blameless. Unmarried bishops could also be blameless like the unmarried Christ who is the “the Shepherd [Pastor] and Bishop [Overseer] of your souls” (1 Pet 2:25). The qualification of an elder/bishop/pastor is blamelessness. This blamelessness could be demonstrated in various ways. Blamelessness in marriage and parenting were only two of many ways to be blameless (see 1 Tim 3; 5; Tit 1).
Paul’s discussion of elders begins with instructions on the rebuking of male and female elders (1 Tim 5:1-2) and ends with instructions on the rebuking of elders in general (5:19-20). Between these instructions on the rebuking of unqualified elders, Paul teaches about the financial honor due to qualified elder-widows (5:3-16) and other elders (5:17-18).
As such, the principle of financial honor applies to male and female elders—including elder-widows. Paul writes: “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine; for . . . the laborer is worthy of his [or her] wages” (5:17-20; cf. Gal 6:6).
Ellen White comments on this text when she writes: “make no mistake in neglecting to correct the error of giving ministers less than they should receive. . . . The tithe should go to those who labor in word and doctrine, be they men or women.” (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases, 1:263).
Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322.
“It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.”
First of all hebrew 11 does not say that Sarah or Rahab were elders. I don’t know how you reach that conclusion but I don’t see it in these verses 2 or 11.
Titus 2 speak of older speak of older men and women whatever that means. I agree that there are older women in the curch and younger women should look up to these older women who fear God.
Elders though are addressed in titus 1 and 1thim3 and there are no mention of women elders.
If the church stayed in all its conditions since the beginning, there would never have been Christianity as a world-wide religion which we know today.
There was no TV, radio, YouTube, automobiles; men wore togas and women were second class citizens. If there are some men who would like the world to be just like the first century, it would be without women, as they would refuse to return to that world.
I don’t know what you mean by 2nd class citizens. I have a wife and mom and daughter. I love and respect women. But I preach the truth of the bible. And according to the bible there is an order that should be msintained for the good functioning of the family and the church. Women have an important role to play. They should play fully play their role and encourage men to fully play theirs. Confusion is from Satan. Have you checked the divorce rate lately? Itis pathetic, my home is little heaven because every one plays his role and does not step on another role.
Hebrews 11 does include women among the elders who obtained a good report. And Paul writes to Timothy and to Titus about female elders. The fact that you do not know what that means does not change the facts. The fact that you do not know what 2nd class citizens does not change the facts either. This discussion is not about the divorce rate that you mentioned. The discussion is about whether women can be pastors and whether they can be ordained.
Ellen White writes that women can be pastors.
“It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.” Testimonies for the Church Volume 6, p. 322.
She also writes that they can be ordained.
“Women . . . . should be set apart . . . by prayer and laying on of hands.” (Review and Herald, July 9, 1895).
The Women’s ordination agenda presented to the delegates this summer in San Antonio has three (3) positions. The third position states: “There is a biblical pattern of male leadership in Israel and the early Christian church, but God made exceptions, such as the case of granting Israel’s desire for a king…” In 1 Sam.8:7 God says to Samuel (regarding this incident) “Heed the voice of the people…for they have not rejected you but they have rejected Me, that I should reign over them.”
After all of these months of intense Bible study, are the church leaders trying to tell us that the only way we can have women ordained to be pastors in the church is to have us formally reject God by this action? Should we as a people who are preparing to soon meet our God risk His displeasure by risking open rebellion against Him?
This is not the church’s position. This is the position of some members of the TOSC committee. God is in favor or female pastors and female ordination. Sooner or later the church will line up with God’s position on this issue.
You are wrong. This IS the way this subject was presented in my conference and union!
I was not commenting on how something was presented at your conference. I was simply pointing out that there were three positions within the TOSC committee. The third position does not constitute “the position” of the SDA church.
RE: “God is in favor or female pastors and female ordination.” [Martin Hanna].
——
This is not in the least bit what the Bible teaches, both in practice and theology. There is no real biblical position for the ordination of women to that of a pastor in terms of elder, overseer and bishop with full ecclesiastical authority bestowed upon them by the Church. It’s like arguing for Sunday observance. There’s no biblical position for this either.
I presented my reasons for concluding that God is in favor of female pastors and female ordination. My reasons consisted in quotes from the writings of Ellen White. I respect your freedom to disagree with these quotes.
Trevor-
You have said in a few words what is very true. And the accusation by someone of misogyny is not at all supported by the facts. It’s a feminist mantra to describe actions that oppose the feminist viewpoint.
Maranatha
Misogyny is alive in the SDA Church. The misogynist household family must most likely tiptoe around the Misogynist King of the castle,
to escape his wrath.
Sir, I would respecfully disagree. Adventist men aren’t women haters. Where is the proof of this? Adventist men in my opinion are more respecful, caring, loving and committed to their spouses and the women in their lives, both in the home and in the Church. This would include mothers, wives, daughters, sisters and the women in the Church family both young and old. This gentlemen like behaviour, as opposed to being brutes, is readily extended to the women in society as a whole. Adventist men therefore aren’t misogynist in any sense of the word I would say and neither is the Adventist Church.
typo = respectfully / respectful
Since you can not prove your point from the bible, you must stoop to calling people names with negative labels to influence the unlearned to reject bible truth.
There are indeed misogynists in the SDA church as in every other religious organization. But this is a different matter from the question of what the Bible teaches on the subject of female pastors and female ordination.
While Ellen White supports female pastors and female ordination, the Bible does not explicitly prohibit or require female pastors or their ordination. The Bible simply indicates that God will give pastors to His church. This is why this is not a fundamental belief issue for SDAs. Therefore, the ordination of female pastors may be permitted in parts of the church where this would enhance SDA ministry.
Sir, you firstly fail to mention here that the pastoral work Mrs. White refers to is work in the canvassing, colporteur and literature evangelist work, and other forms of gospel evangelism which we are not disputing. Secondly, you conflate what Mrs White said about the ordination or “laying on of hands” on women by failing to mention what what Mrs White says women can be ordained to. Nowhere does Mrs. White refer to women being ordained to the role of pastor in terms of church leadership. The Bible is very clear on who is qualified to serve in this capacity. Paul says in 1Tim 3:1-2 that a man shold serve in this capacity. Do we go with what the Bible teaches? I say yes.
Trevor, you argue that when Ellen White refered to women as “pastors to the flock of God” (Testimonies, 6:322), she was only referring to lay ministries such as the canvassing work. However, her support for the use of the tithe to support female ministers indicates that she did not regard these women as being involved only in lay ministries.
“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” (Manuscript Releases, 1:263).
“One reasons that the tithe may be applied to school purposes. Still others reason that canvassers and colporteurs should be supported from the tithe. But a great mistake is made when the tithe is drawn from the object for which it is to be used—the support of the ministers” (Counsels
on Stewardship, p. 102).
“I . . . will show you how I regard the tithe money being used for other purposes. This is the Lord’s special revenue fund . . . . I have had special instruction from the Lord that the tithe is for a special purpose, consecrated to God to sustain those who minister in the sacred work as the Lord’s chosen . . . . There is to be special labor given to awaken the people of God who believe the truth, to give a faithful tithe to the Lord, and ministers should be encouraged and sustained by that tithe” (Daughters of God, p. 256).
“The light which the Lord has given me on this subject, is that the means in the treasury for the support of the ministers in the different fields is not to be used for any other purpose. If an honest tithe were paid, and the money coming into the treasury were carefully guarded, the ministers would receive a just wage” (Special Testimonies for Ministers and Workers—No. 10, p. 18).
Trevor, I did not write anything in the name of Ellen White that she did not write. She wrote that women can be pastors. She wrote that women can be ordained. I never suggested that she wrote anything more than that.
I have concluded from what she wrote that women can be ordained as pastors. You have concluded from what she wrote that women cannot be ordained as pastors.
Neither my conclusion or your conclusion is explicitly written by Ellen White. We both have to take responsibility for our conclusions.
Similarly, the Bible does not explicitly prohibit or require female pastors or their ordination. The Bible simply indicates that God will give pastors to His church. This is why this is not a fundamental belief issue for SDAs. Therefore, the ordination of female pastors may be permitted in parts of the church where this would enhance SDA ministry.
Dear Mr. Hanna, Mrs. White said that “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.” [The Review and Herald, July 9, 1895].
This is as far as ordination of women goes as per quote above and again, this is not being disputed here. The question is: ordained to what?
Based on what Mrs. White has said in the above quote doesn’t in any way warrant what you claim she says. Pastors, yes, but not in the same capacity as an ordained pastor in leadership/headship. Just because she says women can be pastors in certain areas of the gospel work and be ordained for this purpose of service in these areas like those mentioned in the quote above, doesn’t in any way suggest that women are to be ordained as pastors in terms of Church leadership. This is why I am saying you are doing some gymnastics here and conflating a number of issues from which you’re drawing conclusions to make your picture fit the puzzle. What I am saying is in harmony with what Mrs. Ellen White says and what the Bible says. You have used her writings to create conflict with what the Bible instructs on this matter and have to therefore do more gymnastics with the Bible to make your case. And that is the real danger here with the position you hold. It leads to a moving away of a plain thus saith the Lord and starts to erode sound doctrine thereby giving way to other cultural biases to be railroaded on the Church.
Trevor, it appears to me that you are the one doing the gymnastics to avoid admitting that your conclusion is not stated in the inspired word. I have made it quite clear where the inspired word ends and where my conclusion begins.
You and I agree that Ellen White wrote that women can be pastors; and that she wrote that women can be ordained. I never suggested that she wrote anything more than that.
I believe that women can be ordained as pastors; you do not. I take responsibility for my belief. You do gymnastics to attempt to show that your belief is stated in the inspired word. But it is not.
Similarly, the Bible does not prohibit or require female pastors or their ordination. Therefore, the ordination of female pastors may be permitted in parts of the church where this would enhance SDA ministry.
Dear Mr. Hanna, please show where Ellen White says that women can be ordained by the laying on of hands as pastors or elders.
Please don’t use (or conflate) deaconess ordination and the canvassing pastor as proof like you are currently doing sir.
The ordination or “laying on of hands” quote below does not in any way have anything to do with the ordination of pastors.
“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.” [The Review and Herald, July 9, 1895].
You seem not to be reading my posts Trevor. How can we have a conversation if you do not read my posts?
I have read what you wrote sir.
I am only questioning the assumptions you make by wresting what Mrs. White wrote out of context. This is what all the WO proponents are doing and that is why I refer to it as gymnastics. I am not wresting anything out of context. Mrs. White calls for men and women to engage in the pastoral work of canvassing and you argue that they can therefore be ordained as pastors. And where do you get the ordination qualifier for your argument Mr. Hanna? From Mrs. White saying that women can be ordained by the laying on of hands “to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor.” So according to the assumptions you make, the canvassing pastor is the same as a church pastor and something like deaconess ordination, becomes womens ordination to that of church pastor. That is wresting it out big time sir in my opinion and with all due respect.
Again I ask, please show where Ellen White says that women can be ordained by the laying on of hands as pastors or elders for that matter.
I do not dispute that 1] women can be ordained by the laying on of hands, 2] serve as pastors in the canvassing work and 3] rightfully receive renumeration from the tithe if employed by the Church. But to just make huge assumptions by claiming this clearly shows that women can be ordained by the laying on of hands to that of a church pastor or elder is where I disagree. Furthermore, to then make another assumption that this should be an optional “what floats your boat” practice that should be left up to the dictates of cultural bias is to me abandoning the authority of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy.
Mrs. White in the GC page 243 refers to “the great Protestant principle that “the Bible and the Bible only” is the rule of faith and practice.” WO is a departure from this principle.
Similarly, the canvasser pastoral work taken in the context of what she wrote does not in any way suggest that women can be ordained as pastors. Of course, when wrested of of context it can be easily misapplied as can be seen in Mr. Hanna’s line of reasoning.
“The Lord Jesus, standing by the side of the canvassers, walking with them, is the chief worker… It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares the workers, both men and women, to become pastors unto the flock of God.”
You are not qualified to make assumptions about my position that do not reflect what I have actually written. I will not engage you further concerning these imagined assumptions. If you decide to read my posts and respond to what was written there–then maybe we can have a meaningful conversation. Attempted conversations that do not address what each other has actually written are counter-productive.
You and I agree that Ellen White wrote that women can be pastors; and that she wrote that women can be ordained. I never suggested that she wrote anything more than that.
I believe that women should be ordained as pastors. You do believe that women should be ordained as pastors.
Ellen White does not explicitly state what you believe or what I believe on this matter.
These are the facts about the point under discussion. If you want to proceed with a discussion based on these facts–I welcome that.
correction: “you do not believe”
Correction:
You and I agree that Ellen White wrote that women can be pastors; and that she wrote that women can be ordained. I never suggested that she wrote anything more than that.
I believe that women should be ordained as pastors. You do not believe that women should be ordained as pastors.
Ellen White does not explicitly state what you believe or what I believe on this matter.
These are the facts about the point under discussion. If you want to proceed with a discussion based on these facts–I welcome that.
It should be noted that the Greek word “aner” (a man, an individual male)in all its instances used in the New Testament always refers to a man – never a woman. It is this same word that is translated “husband” in 1Tim 3:2 which says “Therefore, an elder must be blameless, the husband of one wife…” This biblical instruction is further confirmed in Titus 1:6-7 which reiterates that an elder/overseer/bishop or pastor as we mostly call them, should be the “husband of one wife.”
Of the twenty nine times that the word “husband” is used in the KJV New Testament, every one of them, except for one instance where “aner” isn’t used, we find “aner”(a man, an individual male) being used. This is not coincidence. It is clear that the word “aner” (a man, an individual male) specifically and categorically refers to a man – never a woman. To simply deny this and say that a woman can fill these positions of leadership poses a serious problem. It questions the authority and validity of the Word of God and it’s inspired writers.
Furthermore, we find that in Titus 1:5, Paul does the same here as in his letter to Timothy, in which he addresses the matter of order in the Church which includes leadership or headship as some may prefer to refer.
In Titus 1:5 Paul is clear and precise in his instruction to Timothy in saying that “… you should set in order the things that are lacking, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed you.” From this it can be plainly understood that this was a practice that was to be to be put into place for the entire Christian Church and not as some proponents of WO suggest that this issue can be an optional “what floats your boat” practice just to appease the demands of certain cultural groups. It is rather obvious that certain cultural groups or communities that are highly secularised and where feminist ideals dominate are those that are leading the pack in the push for WO.
This practice from the NT Church as shown in the inspired word of God has continued throughout the history of the New Testament Church for the most part and is in harmony with the practice of order and leadership in the OT Church too. Women’s ordination to that of a pastor in this sense therefore does not in any way have sound a biblical basis.
So the real issue is not “ordination” of women, but simply “whether women should be pastors at all.” When plenty of women are already pastors, it is a silly game to debate whether they can be ordained. Either way, the “damage” is already done. And if we’re going to let women be pastors without ordination, why not let them be pastors with ordination?
Furthermore, the whole concept of ordaining pastors is foreign to the Bible. It was a Catholic concept. The concept of ordination has no basis in the Greek text of the New Testament. The Greek text indicates that in each town, the believers elected a number of mature and respected local believers as elders. The practice of “ordaining” people is of Catholic origin. Many Bible translators have written that concept into the text they produced, but it has no support in the Greek text of the New Testament. The New Testament does not contain any mention or instruction regarding laying of hands on those who were elected as elders. So we’re wasting time arguing over a nullity. Don’t believe me? See for yourself: http://www.biblepages.net/ie02.htm
Actually, the term “man” (aner) is often used in contexts where the message does apply to men and women. For example, this is the case in six verses in the book of James.
James 1:8 “A double minded man [or woman] is unstable in all his ways.”
James 1:12 “Blessed is the man [or woman] that endureth temptation: for when he is tried , he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.”
James 1:20 “For the wrath of man [or woman] worketh not the righteousness of God.”
James 1:23 “For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man [or woman] beholding his natural face in a glass.”
James 2:2 “For if there come unto your assembly a man [or woman] with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man [or woman] in vile raiment.”
James 3:2 “For in many things we offend all. If any man [or woman] offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.”
Clearly, there are cases when “man” (aner) includes women.
The elder man is to be blameless (1 Tim 3:2) in the areas of sexual purity (3:2), hospitality (3:2), teaching (3:3), ruling at home (3:4-5), reputation (3:7), experience (3:6). Similarly, the elder woman is to be blameless (5:7) in the areas of sexual purity (5:9), hospitality (5:10), ruling at home (5:8), reputation (5:10), experience (5:12, 15), and teaching (Tit 2:3).
Paul’s statement about the “blameless” elder or bishop being “the husband of one wife” (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim 3:2) is representative, since it is complemented by his statement that a “blameless” (5:7) elder-widow (5:1-3) is to be “the wife of one man” (5:9). The principle Paul promotes is the sexual purity of the elder, not that the elder is a married man. Paul makes similar representative statements concerning the qualifications for deacons. While a male deacon is to be blameless as “husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:12), the woman Phoebe has the same blameless character and therefore serves as a deacon (Rom 16:1). This understanding of Paul’s teaching is reflected in the Seventh-day Adventist church order as follows. “Elders and deacons should be persons of experience, chosen wisely. . . . [B]oth men and women are eligible to serve as elders and receive ordination to this position of service in the church.”
“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” (Seventh-day Adventist Minister’s Handbook, Silver Springs, MD: Ministerial Association, 2009, 94).
There really is no theological issue at stake. Adventist theologians determined 40 years ago that there is no biblical obstacle to women’s ordination. The WO vote this summer is a game of semantics and “ecclesiastical” politics. https://OrdinationTruth.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/politics/
“Adventist scholars, in 1975, found no theological obstacles to ordaining women to gospel ministry.” (Adventist Review, 3/7/1985)
“If God has called a woman, and her ministry is fruitful, why should the church withhold its standard act of recognition [ordination]?” (Biblical Research Institute, 1976).
So what is the real issue? https://OrdinationTruth.wordpress.com/equality/
The Bible,
It’s nearly impossible to find experienced people about this subject, but you seem like you know what
you’re talking about! Thanks
I am no longer certain where you are getting your information, but great topic.
I must spend a while studying much more or figuring out more.
Thanks for magnificent info I was searching for this information for
my mission.
It is a simple fact that we cannot live and exist well independently of others, we are interdependent beings. The image Paul gives us of the Body of Christ (that we are all individual parts that together make up the Body of Christ) gives us a visual way to think of this. Gender discrimination in the Seventh-day Adventist church cannot continue.
We are all one family in the world. At the foot of the cross there is only level ground. Building a community that empowers men and women in ministry to attain their full potential through each of us respecting each other’s dignity, rights and responsibilities makes the world a better place to live.
Special Edition” of the Adventist Review In Touch email news release, by the Adventist News Network on Sabbath, November 2, 2013 said:
“The world church is currently working together in a Theology of Ordination Study Committee with participation by all divisions to better understand the functions of ordination as well as the role of women in relation to ordination to the gospel ministry…”
“Working together?”
The biggest mistake we made in 2013 and continue to make is forgetting who’s at the end of the change. The most important skill that will help us avoid a change disaster is an authentic open mind. Hardly anyone was willing to step outside of their role. We were NOT working together!
It is impossible to discuss this topic in Adventism along with many others without understanding that the Adventist system was based on the Old Covenant much more so than the NT origin of early Christianity. Even today, many doctrines can only be fully supported using the Hebrew scriptures. The unique beliefs in Adventism cannot be confirmed using only the teaching given new Christians in the NT. Christianity was never to be simply another branch of Judaism but an entirely new religious system, open to all without gender or ethnicity.
That is why there is so much disagreement on WO. While Jesus and the apostles demonstrated that there was no differences to be made on gender, this was in direct contradiction of the entire OT in every way: women were always subordinate to men; they had no inheritance rights; and religious duties or services other than through their closest male relative. Those who adamantly oppose WO cannot find either Jesus or the apostles expressing such sentiments.
We use the whole bible, I am glad to see your acknowledgment of Biblical truth of Male Headship in the Old Testament. It is Going to surprise you to know that God is one, and Christ gave these commands.
A VERY ENLIGHTENING week end at the Sunnyside Church (Walla Walla Weekend) and even though the primary presenter Darius Jankiewicz from Andrews Univ and his support from WWU made it very clear that the development of the “headship” concept of not only the SDA church but of all churches of the protestant variety comes from an adoption of the ROMAN CATHOLIC concept of male headship.
His research, documentation, and clear cut presentation as to the etiology of this concept is so clear that it is very surprising that the TOSC committee, of which he was a part, did not incorporate that into their decision making. Even to suggest that the lack of WO in the SDA church or other protestant churches is anything other than a power struggle between men and women in leadership is totally missing out on the clear history as presented by Darius. Relying on the implications of EGW, (even though not as powerfully stated) is also a surprise because her implications are clear.
The last sentence should read NOT RELYING on the implications of EGW (even though not as powerfully stated, is a surprise because he willingness and accommodation to the female participation in religious leadership is clear.