Mid-America Union Conference Votes to Support Ordination of Women
by AT News Team
The executive committee of the Mid-America Union Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church this week at a regular meeting, “Voted to support the ordination of women in the Mid-America Union,” according to a news release from Martin Weber, union conference communication director.
“The committee also recognized the authority of the world church and the need for harmony across the various administrative levels of the Seventh-day Adventist faith community,” stated Tom Lemon, the union conference president. This clearly anticipates the most recent criticism from opponents to women in ministry; that to support it is somehow disloyal to the denomination despite the fact that the General Conference in Session is on record supporting the concept since 1881 and in 1990 when it voted not to move ahead with the ordination of women clergy specifically stated that there was no consensus among Adventist Bible scholars either for or against the practice.
At least two others of the nine union conferences (mid-level judicatories) in the North American Division of the denomination are already on record with the same position. Both the Columbia Union Conference and the Pacific Union Conference have officially requested the ordination of women to the gospel ministry as far back as the 1980s. Both have repeatedly renewed their support more recently.
This vote by the Mid-America Union Conference is significant in part because it is seen as a more conservative region of the Adventist membership in the United States. “If they voted this,” observed one retired church administrator, “it could undoubtedly be approved in any union in North America.” Under the General Conference Working Policy it is the union conferences that have authority to approve ordinations.
I'm grateful for this courageous action by the Union where I reside. Other reporters of this action indicate that a layman took the initiative. That is as it should be. Long enough the matter has been ensnarled by churchmen.
I second that and think that a majority of the unions taking similar action (perhaps all is wishful thinking) might enhance the seemingly somnambulate and obeisant stance taken for decades now while some of us have gone from middle age to late in life.
Thank you Mid-America Union for taking a stand to ordain women to the ministry of the Seventh-day adventist church. There is a need for women to be represented with equality in ministry. There are needs that women can fulfil that have been left undone. This brings God's gifts into full circle for His people. I have waited a lifetime to see it happen.
Where is equality in function found in the scripture? It is found nowhere but in the women's rights movement. Women are equal in value but even among the Godhead, they are not equal in function either. It is not an issue of whether a women may be better able to do a certain function but whether or not God ordained it so. Many women are much more deidcated to the cause than many men but this in and of itself will not fill all the requirements as laid out in scripture for this function of Elder/Pastor. A woman can never be a man and is therefore disqualified as the inspired apostle wrote and as was already stated most men do not qualify either even though they meet the requirement to be a man as part of the requirements.
God bless
Yes there is a need for women in ministry and there God given role is just as important as the man’s but it is not the same role. These roles complement each other allowing the circle of the family and church to be complete. Why not follow the direct teaching of the Word of God and direct quotes in context from the SOP? Why is this new light found at the same instance the world is pushing their political agenda and so many marriages and families seem to be dissolving right before our eyes?
Ellen White is clear in her writings on this matter… "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 598.
The primary object of our college is to afford young MEN the opportunity to study for the ministry and prepare young persons of BOTH SEXES to become workers in the various BRANCHES of the cause. 5T Page 60.
The sad part is that many view this as a strike against women’s ministry when in reality it is trying to uphold the blessed God given ministry that is so important for the home and the Churches existence. If you listen to the World it is suggesting that you don’t matter, your work at home and Church is not as important as the husband (house-band) of the home and church.
The World’s Debt to Mothers—The day of God will reveal how much the world owes to godly mothers for men who have been unflinching advocates of truth and reform—men who have been bold to do and dare, who have stood unshaken amid trials and temptations; men who chose the high and holy interests of truth and the glory of God before worldly honor or life itself.….. Adventist Home Page 243
How is calling for the ordination of women being in rebellion? It seems to me to be no different to those on the opposing side who call for the ordination of women as elders to be revoked. I think you will find that it is not a case of culture against the Bible, but of culture and the Bible on both sides. The fact that some people can't see support for the ordination of women in the Bible does not mean that none of us can. The GC has already affirmed that there is nothing in the Bible that demands or prohibits the ordination of women Therefore to support either side cannot be 'in rebellion against the church'. To ordain women when the GC has voted not to would be rebellion, but asking for it to be reconsidered, or a statement that an entity is in favour of it, is not. Considering all the politics over the last few decades from the right wing, I hardly think they can object to this on principle. It seems the right is no more willing 'to leave it God's hands'.
Rebellion was action taken by the NAD (then recinded) that clearly went against the desires of the world church. Harmony is needed in the various administrative levels of the SDA faith community…yes…it is also needed with the World church and more importantly the Inspired and Infallible Word of God. (2 Tim, 3:16)
Eph. 5:23, Gal. 3:28, Eph 5:22-33, 1 Cor. 1-34, Heb. 13:7, Titus 2:5, 1 Tim 5:1-2, 1 Tim 2: 12-14, Gen 5:2, Gen: 3 1-24, Gen 1:26-28, 1 Peter 3:7, 1 Peter 5:5 and Col 3:18.
The same principles of piety and justice that were to guide the rulers among God's people in the time of Moses and of David, were also to be followed by those given the oversight of the newly organized church of God in the gospel dispensation. In the work of setting things in order in all the churches, and ordaining suitable men to act as officers, the apostles held to the high standards of leadership outlined in the Old Testament Scriptures. They maintained that he who is called to stand in a position of leading responsibility in the church "must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." Titus 1:7-9. Acts of the Apostles Page 95
In an age when 'men' was assumed to include women, unless otherwise stated, I don't believe we should be placing that much weight on whether Ellen White used 'men' or 'men and women'. I don't see any solution to this problem – or many others – when those on the conservative side start with the assumption that their view is 'biblical' and any other view indicates that the one holding it is either deceived, or knows that their view is wrong but holds to it anyway. Unless it is accepted that honest seekers after truth can come to different conclusions, discussion is impossible.
Ellen White clearly makes a distiction between the sexes in first two quotes given from volume five of the Testimonies. This was not by accident. I would be one of the strongest proponets of ordination on women if there was support from the Bible or SOP.
I believe there is support from both, Even more importantly, I believe the Holy Spirit is calling and equipping women for ministry. We should stop arguing over whether he can or can't do that and ordain anyone he calls and equips. It is his decision, not ours. Interpretation of Scripture should be to understand what God is doing, not to decide what he can or can't do.
If this "is his [sic] decision, not ours," then the proper place to discover that is when the GC is in session, not at the local union or conference level, where such decisons would be perceived as defying the will of the world church.
Frankly I'm tired of the arrogance of those in the "western" world, who think they are so much more enlightened then our brothers and sisters in other parts of the world. They have access to the same Scriptures as we do, and the majority of them disagree with the so-called "progressive" (regressive in the minds of some) movement within the SDA Church.
Surely cultural context has something to do with the extent to which gender, ethnicity, education, and socioeconomic backgrounds, can influence opportunities for vocational and leadership roles. From my perspective, even the most "progressive" orientations within adventism in the US appear to be rather conservative in most ways. Even 50 years ago, when I attended SDA churches in Germany, Denmark, and Austria, attitudes there seemed to be far more progressive than in the US at at that time. There seemed to be a genuine warmth and openness that I had not often seen in US SDA congregations.
So, there are several nations in the world where strong women have been elected as heads of state. In such places, ranging from Europe to Asia and South America, the range of roles for women has changed. Yet, there are places where women are deliberately kept ignorant, dependent, hidden, and servile. Can anyone here imagine that Mrs. White was supportive of "keeping women down?" For his time, it seems, the Jesus described in scripture seems to have been "progressive." At least, he is portrayed as pushing against mindless tradition.
It is not my place to preach to SDAs. I am no longer one of you. But it just seems to me that Christians should always be among the most active in seeking fundamental fairness for all.
It's not about "keeping women down", for families in God's eyes are not one of the mindless traditions Jesus was "progressive" about……
"When the “well done” of the great Judge is pronounced, and the crown of immortal glory is placed upon the brow of the victor, many will raise their crowns in sight of the assembled universe and, pointing to their mothers, say, “She made me all I am through the grace of God. Her instruction, her prayers, have been blessed to my eternal salvation" My Life Today page 21
Help me understand how what I said could be interpreted as suggesting disrespect of mothers or that the familiy is a mindless tradition.
Without meaning to indicate that I think everything is about me, let me cite as an example, my own mother. She dropped out of Mountain View Academy a year short of graduation and married my father, who fell a little short of graduating from the old Redwood Academy in Eureka. They had three children, of which I was the youngest. She stayed home on our remote ranch and home schooled us in an SDA home school. For this, she was able to get a provisional teaching credential, as long as she took some coursework each year, either in summer school, usually at PUC, or through accredited remote learning programs. She began college while she was in the mid-1940s and finally graduated from PUC with a near 4-point average in 1963. Paul Stauffer, then the registrar, required her to take the GED before she could receice her diploma, but, of course, that was no problem for her. Just an irritation. She got her teaching credential and was able to advance professionally. She was a wonderful example of someone who dealt constructively with poverty, divorce, and exploitation, by advancing herself. She certainly inspired me to make the most of the educational opportunities that came my way. So, I salute my mother, and all mothers who positively inspire their children.
She was born in America the year women were granted the right to vote. Ellen White lived most of her life, if not all of it, without being allowed to vote–simply because she was a woman. She lived during a time when women were deliberately subjugated to men, without regard for merit. That is the kind of "keeping women down" to which I was referring.
I'm pretty sure that her motivation was not to receive praise from anyone or to obtain stars in her crown. She was serious about doing her best–just because she had internalized strong and positive values. But, as you all know by now, I was never convinced that life was about going to heaven or hell. That always just seemed superfluous. For those who knew her, and there will be some here, she was known as a very strict but very good teacher.
What is being overlooked, or perhaps not known, is that the MidAmerican Conference decision to ordain women is NOT undermining the G.C. The G.C. has specifically written that only the local congregation can admit or disfellowship members; that the local conference does not demand approval from either the union or division conferences: they have autonomy in these decisions.
So, we should cease with the remarks about flouting the world church, or acting in defiance. The G.C. has previously stated when in world session that there is no Bible reason for not ordaining women. If there is no biblical reason for withholding ordination for women, as the G.C. has stated, it is for the local conference to make ordination decisions–NOT the G.C.
The SDA Church does not have a theology or doctrine of sex. The Bible has much to say on the topic.
1) Only the members of an SDA congregation get to decide who is an SDA – not some central organization or centralized decision making body.
2) Only the other SDA congregations in a Conference get to decide which congregations are SDA congregations.
3) The Conferences join together voluntarily to join forces at the Union level – the Union's do NOT get to tell the Conferences what they can and can't do.
4) The Unions voluntarily share resources through the GC, but do not get ordered around by the GC.
This needs to be remembered by those who are insisting that the world church must wait until all divisions are in harmony about women's ordination. There is nothing in the Church Manual that prevents any conference to get permission from the world church before it ordains women.
Elaine, I agree, but why doesn't the local church make the decision to ordain? That's where the pulpit is. That's where the baptistry is. That's where ministry actually happens.
I agree with this 100% with ronaldg261. Local churches is what matters. Though I can see a point of having Conferences as a toll to help coordinate the dynamic among churches as needed.
The problem in Adventism is that the most important body is given the least power and the less important body is given extreme ower. Reduce significantly the money flow that goes "upstairs" and thing will immediately start to change.
Rotate the "power triangle" by 180 degrees, and things will get better.
God speaks with one voice and is the purpose of this movement to spread the Truth globally and corporately.
"But He knew their thoughts and said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house divided against itself falls.""
I applaud the Mid-America Union Conference for their position and decision. All the unions of the NAD should follow suit and the NAD should also support this decision. Ministry capacity is definitely not a Y-linked chromosomal capacity–it is shared by both genders. Gender discrimination should be as despised by the church as racial discrimination. Which brings another question to the forefront–that of racially-exclusive conferences.
We've tried living in the 1st century and then in the 19th century. Let's try living in the 21st for a while. It's about time we made a breakthrough in this. Pastorial ministry is a calling directly from God and not by the laying on of hands. Maybe we should be asking both men and women why they feel God called them into fultime pastorial ministry.
Mission Catalyst has been ordaining women since day one. Hope the denomination catches up with us some day soon! 🙂
The time to end discrimination agains women in the SDA church is past due.
At least now it seems that there is still some hope. Just need more Unions to do the right thing!
Women’s Ordination: Fallacy or Dishonesty?
“Those who argue that ordaining women as elders/pastors is not a theological issue are either biblically uninformed or simply dishonest.”
I have chosen to speak up on this issue because of the following quotation in the Spirit of Prophecy:
“If God abhors one sin above another, of which His people are guilty, it is doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is regarded of God as a grievous crime and equal to the very worst type of hostility against God.” Testimonies for the Church, volume 3, p. 280
Must we be silent? I think not!
Why The “We Need Female Leaders In The Church Because There Aren’t Enough Good Men” Is Just An Excuse For Rebellion And Sin Is 3:12, 9:16,1Tom 2:12,3:1-4,1Cor 11:1-3, Gen 3:16.Women Elders and Pastors in the Church of God it's a sin saith the law of God. 1 Cor 14:33-34,Mal 2:8. Anyone led by them will be lost or destroyed.
"My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water. . . . Now why go to Egypt to drink water from the Shihor? And why go to Assyria to drink water from the River?" (Jer 2:13, 18, NIV)
Choose Men Who Have Experience in Faith–Those who are thus appointed as overseers of the flock should be men of good repute; men who give evidence that they have not only a knowledge of the Scriptures, but an experience in faith, in patience, that in meekness they may instruct those who oppose the truth. They should be men of thorough integrity, not novices, but intelligent students of the Word, able to teach others also, bringing from the treasure-house things new and old; men who in character, in words, in deportment, will be an honor to the cause of Christ, teaching the truth, living the truth, growing up to the full stature in Christ Jesus. This means the development and strengthening of every faculty by exercise, that the workers may become qualified to bear larger responsibilities as the work increases.–Gospel Workers, p. 413. {ChL 54.1}Christian Leaders
It was at the ordination of the twelve that the first step was taken in the organization of the church that after Christ's departure was to carry on His work on the earth.–The Acts of the Apostles, p. 18. {ChS 14.4}
The Lord has constituted the husband the head of the wife to be her protector; he is the house-band of the family, binding the members together, even as Christ is the head of the church and the Saviour of the mystical body. Let every husband who claims to love God carefully study the requirements of God in his position.61 Ellen G. White, The Adventist Home, p. 215.
Here headship is again linked with protection. When the male fulfills the headship role, he acts as a family binder. He is carefully to study the requirements of God in his position. Immediately after this statement, Mrs. White observed that "Christ's authority is exercised in wisdom, in all kindness and gentleness; so let the husband exercise his power and imitate the great Head of the church."62 Ibid.
The husband is the head of the family, as Christ is the head of the church; and any course which the wife may pursue to lessen his influence and lead him to come down from that dignified, responsible position is displeasing to God. It is the duty of the wife to yield her wishes and will to her husband. Both should be yielding, but the Word of God gives preference to the judgment of the husband. And it will not detract from the dignity of the wife to yield to him whom she has chosen to be her counselor, adviser, and protector. The husband should maintain his position in his family with all meekness, yet with decision.63 Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, 1:307-308.
These writings are just inflamatory material with great potential to perpetuate discrimination of women. The most intriguing is that they were written by…. A WOMAN!!!
It's time to start treating women as first class human beings. This discrimination has to stop, it's no longer acceptable. The "rule of the thumb" has no use in our days!
Thanks for sharing what is Written Andrew.
Election and Ordination of Local Church Officers
The Apostle Paul writes to Titus: "Set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God." Titus 1:5-7. Lay hands suddenly on no man." 1 Timothy 5:22. {CCh 247.3}
In some of our churches the work of organizing and of ordaining elders has been premature; the Bible rule has been disregarded, and consequently grievous trouble has been brought upon the church. There should not be so great haste in electing leaders as to ordain men who are in no way fitted for the responsible work—men who need to be converted, elevated, ennobled, and refined before they can serve the cause of God in any capacity. {CCh 248.4}
From time to time, material has been published on the matter of women preachers, and the ordination of woman as preachers or elders, and much of this material, running into many pages, gives only human opinions, but not all the Bible evidence on the matter. God’s Word is to be our standard – not the opinions of men, or the opinions of the majority.
“But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils [Church committees, Business meetings, Board meetings, Conference committees, or General Conference sessions], as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, THE VOICE OF THE MAJORITY – not one or all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in its support.” Review and Herald June 7 1906 Great Controversy 595
In 1st Corinthians, Paul explains the correct Bible descending authority. This order of authority has never changed, and still remains in force today.
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God….For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” 1 Corinthians 11:3-9
The correct Bible order, then, is as follows:-
1. God the Father
2. Jesus Christ the Son
3. Man
4. Woman
Relating to the position of women as Elders, the Bible makes it plain that only men are to be Elders of the church.
“A bishop [male Elder] then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.” 1 Timothy 3:2
One of the charges that God brings against His people is that they are willing to allow women to rule over them, and God says the leaders are responsible for this situation.
“Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. As for My people, children are their oppressors, AND WOMEN RULE OVER THEM. O My people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” Isaiah 3:11,12
“All are in constant danger. I warn the church to beware of those who preach to others the Word of life but do not themselves cherish the spirit of humility and self-denial which it inculcates. Such men cannot be depended on in a crisis. They disregard the voice of God as readily as did Saul, and like him many stand ready to justify their course. When rebuked by the Lord through His prophet, Saul stoutly asserted that he had obeyed the voice of God; but the bleating sheep and lowing oxen testified that he had not. In the same manner do many today assert their loyalty to God, but their concerts and other pleasure gatherings, their worldly associations, their glorifying of self, and their eager desire for popularity all testify that they have NOT obeyed His voice. ‘As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.’” 5 Testimonies 88
In all matters of religious importance, human opinions are to be put to the test of the Word of God. God’s people must be prepared to sacrifice their own ideas, and surrender their own wills to the Word of God, if they are to retain and maintain their unity with one another, and their continued acceptance with the Lord.
“The Lord designs that our opinions shall be put to the test, that we may see the necessity of closely examining the living oracles to see whether or not we are in the faith.” Counsels to Writers and Editors 36
“THE SACRIFICE OF OUR IDEAS, OUR WILL, IS NECESSARY IF WE WOULD BE ONE WITH CHRIST IN GOD.” Our High Calling 24
“Let those who want the bread of life go to the Scriptures, not to the teaching of finite, erring man. Give the people the bread of life that Christ came from heaven to bring to us. Do not mix with your teaching human suppositions and conjectures.” Selected Messages Book 1 160
“THE WORD OF GOD IS TO BE OUR GUIDE, NOT THE OPINIONS OR IDEAS OF MEN.” Selected Messages Book 3 204
“When some controverted point is presented, are you to go to man to find out his opinion, and then shape your conclusions from his? – NO – GO TO GOD….Take your Bible and search as for hidden treasures.” Selected Messages Book 1 415
“It is not God’s plan that His people shall present something which they have to suppose, which is not taught in the Word.” Selected Messages Book 1 174
What about if all the ministers in a local Conference, or from several Conferences joining together, or even the Church itself in a General Conference session, with ministers from all around the world attending – what if they agreed that the Church can ordain woman as preachers, or have women elected by nominating committees to the position of Elders? – Or what if the government of the land, by passing some special legislation, stated that women were to have totally equal rights with men in all matters, including all matters relating to the church and religion? Would that make the matter right as far as you and I are concerned, or, more importantly, as far as God is concerned?
“MEN IN AUTHORITY ARE NOT ALWAYS TO BE OBEYED, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY PROFESS TO BE TEACHERS OF BIBLE DOCTRINE.” Testimonies to Ministers 69
“Christ’s..fearful denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees, and His warnings to the people not to follow these blind leaders, were placed on record as an admonition to future generations.” Great Controversy 596
I take it you haven't read any of the huge amount of litrerature arguing for the ordination of women solely on biblical grounds?
An abundance of literature in favor of a particular position is no evidence of its veracity. There is a huge amount of literature arguing for Sunday observance, as well, but it is only through clever eisegesis that such arguments can be sustained. So it is with women's ordination.
Kevin,
This is what happens when some other writings are given a higher position that the Bible. For many people Adventism=Whiteism. Some of EGW's writings are about a "shut door" …. It seems that there is a "shut door to women" as well. Also, EGW copied a lot from other authors, but I doubt she copied this stuff about women's discrimination from other people. Who else would write these things?
By the way, we only see MEN advocating against women all the time. It's time for women to get a voice and turn the "machista" tables upside down. Past due!
Thank you for sharing from God's Word Andrew as it was Jesus' only defence and is ours also.
Note my post above. There are plenty of very good Biblical reasons for ordination of women. You don't have to go to any other literature but the Bible. Early Adventist history only affirms it.
Some of the most common biblical verses utilized to preach discrimination against women have been, 1 Cor. 14:33-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-14; 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1:5-9
While objective evidence indicates that men and women are not identical, there is no basis for treating men and women differently with regard to vocational opportunities. Fine that one may choose a spouse or partner in sexual activity on the basis of gender, but we have reached a point when the old division of labor into hunters and gatherers seldom applies. I applaud the recognition by some in the church that women and men should have equal access to service roles. This pretty much doubles the pool of talent, and that can't be a bad thing. The church, like other organizations, needs all the talent it can get.
If we want to know the Truth on any subject we must go to the Bible and see what is sayson the TOPIC. When the bible speak of Elders/Pastors, what does it say? Do we mingle our opinion or should we study this topic as we do about HELL FIRE, the SABBATH, STATE OF THE DEAD etc.
The bible is inspired and thus does not discriminate but God differentiates. Why must there be supporters of those who aspire to a higher position than God intended? Is God the Father more important that the Son? The clear answer is no but His function is and has always been a headship role over the Son. Does the Son rebel? Never. Satan is the father of rebellion and it is now seen clearly in the men and women who support a doctrine contrary to the spirit of Prophecy and the Bible on the subject of Elder/Pastor function. The bible only states that this role is for QUALIFIED men and not all men and we have many in these roles who do not meet the specifications laid out and we need to be more diligent in keeping the whole Truth so that God may be honored by our faithfulness in all things as He ordained.
Paul's specifications were not his own but God's. There is one place where Paul makes known his views and clearly states that what he said in one place was not a command of god but his own opinion.
May God bless all of us as we seek to study as we have in the past which is to see what the bible says on the topic and not mingle it with the equal rights movement which is not of God but of man. Women are equal in value but men and women have different functions as do the angels (angels, seraphim, cherubim) and so does God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).
God bless as you remove your opinions and be guided by His Word!
So, "many are called but few are chosen." What standard should be applied to those who feel "called?" And exactly what does "called" mean? Feeling "called" to pastoral service is not unique to men. Women also feel that call. Is the "call" less valid when it is felt by a woman than when felt by a man?
As a person who felt "called," I am still uncertain about what the criteria are for deciding whether a "call" is valid or not. It seems as if the validation of a call was admission to, and completion of, a graduate program at Andrews University. For some, the "call" seems to have involved the perception that God spoke directly and audibly to each individual. After much prayer and seeking of inspiration from the Holy Spirit, I became unsure that I had been called. After all, I had received no direct instruction. Maybe I just was not able to talk myself into having a visual or auditory halucination. Maybe there is selection in favor of those who are either able to believe in a less literal "call," or who are able to either deceive themselves or experience hallucinations. Or, perhaps, some actually do hear the Actual Voice of God…. Who is to say? Does it really just get left up to the empirical fact of graduating from the seminary as a sort of trial by ordeal?
I'm guessing that some question remains regarding the authenticity of "The Call" of some proportion of the men who are ordained.
Joe,
Let's stay on topic. You are referring to Matthew 22:14. To be fair for those who are not aware and to stay in context, this is a parable referring to the investigative judgement where there is one standing there without a wedding garment and he is cast out. This refers to the blotting out of the Book of Life those who once accepted Christ but have rejected His Spirit in some or many things without repentance.
As far as qualifications for Elder/Pastor, the bible ONLY speaks of being a role for a MAN and one who has to meet certain qualifications just as the Priests in the Old Testament times had to meet certain qualifications. There were others who wanted to be priests and were even from the lineage of Levi and you know how the story turned out. Aaron's rod budded as He was accepted of God as God had ordained it.
God bless!
"The bible is inspired and thus does not discriminate but God differentiates."
How is differentiation not discrimination? Is that not "separate but equal" which was ruled as "setting apart" which was discriminating by the majority? In women's ordination the male majority has decided that women are different and therefore, they are the only ones who should make a decision discriminating against women because of their difference. This is not equality of all, advocated in the NT.
According to the G.C., each union is allowed to ordain whoever they determine is fit for that ceremony. The G.C. cannot refuse to recognize the union decision. Nor has the G.C. given a theological position on ordination, despite many who claim that the MACU is in defiance of the world church. Please substantiate such a position.
Elaine,
The bible also says that everything is to be received with thanksgiving and good for food. Does this mean we can now eat something that God said is not to be eaten? No… It is referencing things of which we know that God said to be good and offering these things to idols does not make them unclean. in the same way, the GC recognizs only QUALIFIED MEN for the role of Elder/Pastor and if/when they say the Union can ordain whosoever they wish it must be according to the bible criteria which the GC upholds to be only for QUALIFIED MEN.
Please do not try to contradict the bible and also what the GC meant as they also maintain that ordination is for QUALIFIED MEN alone.
God bless!
The GC also allows the ordination of women as elders. For most of our history we held that pastors were also elders. Even our current position of making a difference relies on only one text, and that is debatable. If we should decide, during our examination of what ordination is, that pastors are in fact elders (the traditional SDA and Christian position) will you then agree that the GC will have allowed the ordination of women as pastors (= elders) by default?
I think you will find there are many Greek scholars who are not as convinced as you are that the NT verses about elders are clearly only about men.
They. the GC, were not in full session when they allowed for women to be elders and yes Elder/Pastor is the same function but one is local and the other's credentials can be used globally.
The leaders who passed this at the Annual General Council did so erringly as there should be no stipulations either in ordaining Elders except according to what is said in scripture but they have made the acceptance of allowing women based on the opinions of men which is totally contrary to God's order in this matter or regarding any other Truth.
The GC must be in full session to pass such things for the world church.
"Paul's specifications were not his own but God's. There is one place where Paul makes known his views and clearly states that what he said in one place was not a command of God but his own opinion."
sorry for the typo 🙂
FWIW, I am pleased the Mid-America Union took the action it did.
From what some write here, you would think that a) the Bible has a clearly specified doctrine of ordination, and b) the SDA church adopted it word-for-word. In fact, neither are true.
The OT priest hood is irrelevant to our question since Adventists are adamant that that system passed away. If the priesthood passed away, then so did the requirements for belonging. And is there anyone who maintains that all our ordained ministers descend from Levi?
In the NT, Paul and others went around appointing ministers and elders, without any committee considerations–or committees, for that matter. While there was a "laying on of hands," it is not explicit that this took place every time or in a certain way. So this notion that we have a clear and coherent doctrine of ordination is mistaken. As a friend of mine pointed out, Adventists don't even have a clear ecclesiology; we just took the Methodist one from some of our pioneer's original church.
Having said all this, I hope this action results in a sudden surge of interest in Adventism by young adults, for whom this is supposed to be such an enormous issue. I hope so, but I have doubts.
For me, this is the tithing of mint and cumin. It needed to be done, but we're still leaving the other things undone. If it doesn't result in higher retention of our own children and grandchildren, how many other things will we spend our time on, instead of what really matters?
Hey Ed,
I have children and the best way to keep them in the church and on the right path is to uphold all things that God has called us to do according to His Word. Without following all things, there is no point of a church as a witness for the world or for a safe place to grow.
As Paul wrote also in a letter to Timothy as he wrote the qualifications for church leadership roles:
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness"
Let's follow what was written as things that contradict, even in who is qualified for an Elder/Pastor role, are rooted in satan's counterfeits. Let's stay on topic of what does the bible say about the roles of Elder/Pastor. It is as important as all other foundation which we uphold as God's remnant people.
God bless
It ISN'T Written in the Bible who should be ordained as a pastor in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. The usually cited texts are only notionally related to ordination, nor has the SDA church ever followed these to the letter. Paul and the other apostles appointed pastors and elders as they went around. Do you advocate we follow that? If not, then you aren't following the NT model either.
Ephesians tells us "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers . . . " It doesn't say he gave some men to be apostles, etc. We know there were female prophets. Mary Magdalene is known as "the apostle to the apostles." Paul names Junia as an apostle. Phoebe is listed as a deacon.
And as my daughter pointed out to me, every time in scripture when women press the point concerning their rights and functions among believers, God sides with them, from the days of Tamar onward.
And in Corinthians Paul urges us to seek "the best gifts." The only gifts listed in all three of his lists (Rom 12, 1 Cor 12, Eph 4), are apostles and prophets. So somehow we're asked to believe that women can be apostles and prophets but not evangelists, pastors and teachers.
So, I'm in fact in harmony with scripture on this issue. If you want to focus on one or two verses and ignore the context of the New Testament, or the historical context and practice of the SDA church, that's your privilege. Just don't try selling it to me.
If young adults are fed up with anything, it's twisting a few verses to make a case otherwise inconsistent with the scriptures.
With regard to Junia, you are referring to Romans 16:7. The passage states:
"Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."
Paul does not name Junia as an apostle but says she was of note, known or notable among the apostles. Totally different. I can be of note, known or notable among the conference leaders without being a conference leader.P
Phoebe is not listed a deacon as Paul calls for in 1 Timothy. The text you are referring to is Romans 16:1 and says:
"I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:"
The word servant here is translated from the Greek word diakonon (feminine servant). Deacon, as we refer to them today, comes from the Greek word that is close to diakonon but is diakonos (masculine servant) as seen in Colossians 1:7 and 4:7.
1 Tim 3:12 uses the plural masculine form of deacon (diakonos) which is diakonoi.
"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."
All 3 terms mean servant (diakonon, diakonos, diakonoi) however the one that Paul refers to for church leadership must be husbands (diakonoi) of one wife and the Greek word is masculine in gender as well to support that the husband must be a man and not gender neutral as some on this thread have proposed.
Your quoting of, "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers . . . " has nothing to do with Elders/Pastors (Bishops/Overseers) as we refer to the terms Bishop/Overseer. The word for pastor in that text is not as we refer to Elder/Pastor today. Perhaps we would be better off to use the terms Bishop and Overseer to make things less complicated. The word used in that text is "poimenas" and is also a masculine word as seen in the Greek Lexicon. Apostles is also in masculine form as "apostolous".
By the way, I'm not trying to sell you anything as you as anyone can believe anything you want. My goal is to represent God's Truth to those who read these messages so that they may know what is Truth and seek for more on their own and hopefully these Truths will bring more on the Lord's side on this issue as it is supported by the word of God. We all have opinions that we must give up when it comes to the test of God's Holy Word.
God bless!
Thank you for demonstrating the problem. Everywhere scripture is capable of more than one interpretation you interpret it according to your presuppositions.
You state: "Paul does not name Junia as an apostle but says she was of note, known or notable among the apostles. Totally different. I can be of note, known or notable among the conference leaders without being a conference leader." But the Greek can be read either way, because the phrase is ambiguous. Your declaration of "totally different" arrogates the authority to yourself, not to the Word as written. You have simply decided it 'must' mean that, because that reading concurs with your opinion.
As for Phoebe, your argument is preposterous. Given a woman referred to with the feminine form of exactly the same word translated "deacon" for men, you simply declare they must be different. But there is no other way to write "Phoebe the deacon" in Greek.
Then you instruct us that the word for pastor is not the same as the one we use for pastor today, while telling us that we should use the word "Bishop or Overseer." Uh huh. Odd how we keep having to substitute terms you prefer for what was written in order to bolster your opinion.
Well, what word are you going to use for the casting of lots? Rolling the dice? And do you support simply allowing somebody to just "appoint" pastors, as Titus is instructed? If you want the same system, let's use the same system.
So far, whenever the text matches what you want it to say, you use it as is. When it doesn't, you tell us we must use some other terminology. And somehow it's always you who are the arbiter of such matters. And don't say, "Oh, no, it's the Word that is the arbiter," because someone present you with the Word, you tell us what the Word means. You have appointed yourself Humpty-Dumpty: "When I use a word, it means whatever I say it means."
Finally, without a hint of irony, you state, "We all have opinions that we must give up when it comes to the test of God's Holy Word." Your approach reminds me of a little boy in elementary school. When the teacher told him to stop arguing with her, he replied, "I'm not arguing. I'm tellin' you." You don't have any opinions, you're just tellin' us.
Opinions vary, even on what various scripture means. One may assert that scriptural positions are clear, but others will nearly always disagree. The assertions of divinely revealed private knowledge are often open to dispute–whether having to do with "being called" or regarding the meaning of passages of scripture or SoP.
It is difficult to understand how some people are able to see everything as rigidly clear cut, while many more people honestly do not see things the same way.
Hopefully when God anoints His 144,000 end-time messengers, those who are female will not be rejected as God's spokespersons because of their gender.
The 144,000 are male virgins. That could only mean Roman Catholic priests!
Elaine,
Your mockery of this serious issue shows what spirit is behind your comment. This is not something to joke about as God's Truth is at stake and people need to know that as Jesus quoted scripture, to fend off Satan's attack of twisting the scriptures out of context while also applying what God did not say, we must also do the same.
God bless
Not that fast with Elaine!
Based on your comment, it appears that you don't know her well. She is serious, and what scares people the mosts, she is very knowledgeable.
Do some serious studying before you dismiss Elaine's comments! You won't repent…
Perhaps you would not be so quick to accuse Elaine of "mockery" if you would read Rev. 14:4 and take it literally. Elaine is a good and honest person who does not deserve to be ridiculed–especially when she is correct.
Those who insist that 'man' must mean 'man' when it refers to church leaders are also willing to point out that grammatical gender is unreliable as a guide to sex elsewhere. There is obviously a consistency in this, I just can't see it.
Kevin,
If "man" was not "man" in reference to the position of Elder/Pastor in Timothy and Titus, who else would be the husband of one wife than a person of the male gender?
"people", without regard to gender. Just like in much of the NT and Greek literature. If Greeks could refer to a woman as 'pater' because of her role, why not refer to female elders as 'presbuteros' or female deacons as 'diakonos'? Even 'husband of one wife' could be gender neutral. It is interesting we always read this as 'not polygamous' without pondering that, while divorce was common, polygamy was very rare in the Greco-Roman world. Perhaps that treads on too many toes? Translation is a wonderful tool for making clear what wasn't clear in the original, or making less clear what was very clear.
Kevin,
Your exegesis is not scripturally sound about gender being neutral. I am not sure of your background in Greek, but you may want to study into this a little more as "husband of one wife" is in fact as it states and not gender neutral.
I took 2 years of Greek, and have kept up with it as best I can since. I also had 3 years of linguistics. I tend to have an interest more in Greek as a system, and have been known to get excited about discussions of grammar that would bore most people. I would actually rather discuss the function of the middle voice or changes in the grammatical fuction of the perfect, or the development of the Greek system from Indo-European, rather than basic things like the correlation or not between grammatical gender and sex.
When God created "man" in his own image–male and female he created them" does that mean that "man" is only a male? In this verse, "man" means both male and female as the verse explains.
The creation story in Gen. 1 is always used when one seeks to prove a six-day literal creation. Yet, when someone wishes to isolate female from God's creating both in Gen. 1, then Gen. 2 is chosen to show that man was created first and woman was made from his rib. In Gen. 1, both were created as the last act of God.
In the story in Gen. 2, Adam was God's first creative act, and animals were afterward. When Adam found no mate, God created Even from Adam's rib as a companion.
These two stories cannot be harmonized. Either God created both male and female
together or Eve was made from Adam's rib an after his creation.
Elaine,
God created "human" in his own image. You must go to the Hebrew to see what words were used. Below, I have differentiated "man" in 2 ways to show the difference. Firstly "man" is translated from "adm" which means "human" and "MAN" is translated from "AISH" which means male gender.
Genesis 1:26-27
26Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Genesis 2:21-25
21So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman, for she was taken out of MAN.” 24For this reason a MAN will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 25The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
The translators use "man" in place of both human (adm) and man (aish). Genesis 1 says that "man" (adm/human), as seen above, was made both male and female and Genesis 2 says how God made the woman and was called so as she was taken from "man's" (aish) rib. The "man" (adm/human) said that she was now bone of his bone.
Genesis 2 in no way states that Adam was created before the beasts. It does say that God took Adam and placed him in the garden and brought all the beasts that He had made (past tense) before Adam and then He made Eve and brought her to Adam.
You are incorrect that the stories cannot be harmonized. It does not say that God created them at the same instant in time but says that He made humans male and female and in Genesis 2 He explains in more detail as how it took place. So, Yes, in Genesis 1 and 2 it is clear that God did in fact create humans both male and female but Genesis 2 just goes into more detail.
Perhaps this will help you:
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
God bless
Doesn't the fact that so many writers use man = human somewhat detract from your argument that when Ellen White writes 'man' she must mean 'male human'?
Many words, again, but, strangely, no apology to Elaine. Where is it written that we should be quick to falsely accuse but slow to apologize when wrong? Hmmmm. Does "By their fruits…" apply here?
While careful scholarship may demand facility in ancient languages, surely the understanding based on it is not thought to be salvific. If the fundamental message of God's love is not easily plain to anyone, how can it have any validity? The many words approach only obscures the message and–surely you know–is profoundly unattractive.
Joe,
What was stated incorrectly that an apology must be given by me to Elaine? Jesus defence as ours must be was/is IT IS WRITTEN. The point that was made about the 144,000 must be Catholic Priests was a direct mockery of Jesus' example in quoting scripture to defend Truth as well as her comment mocks Jesus Truth written by Paul that there is role distinction in the gospel ministry as you can even see what Sister White said below.
If there is an apology to be made, it is to God by Elaine and those on this thread who support her and do not see the error in her comment mocking God's Word with comments such as stated about the 144,000. I don't take things personally here but am a defender of the Truth as found in God's Word as IT IS WRITTEN.
God bless
It's obvious that for some MAN it's difficult to apologize. It's more important to keep talking than listening.
Sorry to touch a nerve here, "It is…," but Elaine pointed out that scripture indicates that the 144,000 are celebate men. Without acknowledging her accuracy and your own inaccuracy, you have chosen to focus on her light-hearted comment. Elaine knows scripture and is scholarly and is thoughtful and has a sense of humor. While everyone is worthy of respect and due consideration, Elaine has earned plenty of respect.
Of course, you do not have to admit it when you are wrong or repent of lashing out inappropriately. It is up to you. I take no joy in seeing rigid SDAs embarassing more rational members of the church. It saddens me to see the desperate attempts made to defend the indefensible. And, by-the-way, I am not Satan.
I have no personal agendas and Peter was not aware that Satan was controlling him so whether he controls someone or not will depend on whether they follow what is written or spoen by God or not. apparently Peter did not want to accept what God the Son said which is the spirit of satan.
This is not a social event on here but a serious matter of Truth vs error. Its not the place for joking around when Truth is at stake. There is nothing I have against Elaine or anyone else on here and hope that we can come to unity which the foundation must be IT IS WRITTEN.
God bless
Just for the record it should be indicated whether the two texts above originally belonged to EGW's legit writings or if they are part of the Whitepocryphal portion of her writings, aka plagiarized texts (her noctural job)
I am also curious if they were written (or copied) before, during, or after the "door was shut."
All very stirring, It Is Written, but that it doesn't say anything about your interpretation of women's ordination. And anybody can highlight whole lines of text.
Ed,
If someone were to offer you $1000 for bible proof on women's ordination as elder/pastor, would you be able to provide a text to cash in?
LOL
What a silly question. I already said the Bible is silent on ordination as it is practiced in the SDA church. Silent is silent. IF YOU are serious about following biblical procedures, we have one and only one example: the selection of Matthias.
It went like this:
So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
If you are serious about following the biblical model, then you should call for revoking the ordination of every minister not chosen by casting of lots.
If you are not prepared to do that, then I cannot take seriously your call to conform to what you claim to be scriptural standards.
Presbuterous as seen in Titus 1:5 is Greek for Elder as we refer to the Bishops of today. 1 Timothy 4:14 refers to presbuteriou (eldership) with the laying on of hands as Sister White calls Ordination.
You are correct that the word ORDAIN is not in the NT but the laying on of hands is referred to as such by Sister White. We can argue about words but the point of the matter is that this function of Elder/Pastor is for men alone and done so with the laying on of hands. If you don't like the term Ordination, don't use it but women want to be ordained as elders and pastors and Sister White refers to this word, Ordination, with respect to the laying on of hands for acceptance into the eldership.
Should I re phrase the $1000 question to show in the bible where a woman had the laying on of hands for the role of Elder/Pastor?
God bless!
So the Greek word prebuterous (I hate to break this to you, but we do have an English word straight from that one: presbyter) in Titus is Greek for Elder but we call them Bishops and 1 Tim refers to laying on of hands which Ellen White calls ordination.
And you consider that 5 link two language three author chain that you forged direct evidence?
Should I rephrase the question and ask whether you can find a new testament ordination where they state they did not use the casting of lots? Or is it your position that Matthias was not ordained?
Should I rephrase the question and ask whether you can find a NT where an individual used a committee to determine who would be 'appointe' as pastors?
And I'm fascinated to see that you think that being a pastor is not a spiritual gift. Wow.
So, EGW was "ordained" without laying on of hands?
There is no point in disputing that she was ordained, since there is plenty of valid documentation on it. But then, was it something done in the hiding?
Hand or no hands????
Frankly, what former SDAS think is really not important with respect to this brouhaha.
To those are members of the SDA church — this action constitutes rebellion at its worst. If one of your kids acted in such a fashion against the rules of your household you would undoubtedly take action. There can scarcely be unity when one church entity violates the constitution of the church.
http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/article/156/women-s-ordination-faqs/5-when-god-goes-callingy
It's really not a mature action to defy the world church and a very sad situation.
Nice to see how a woman such as Laurel Damsteegt, MDiv, MPH has the credentials she does, married to a theologian and she does not see the need to be ordained as an Elder or Pastor. She is a gospel worker in the truest sense and fulfilling the function that God has given to women.
Thank you for sharing this link with me.
God bless
What else can be done, then, to stop discrimination agains women in church?
You call it rebellion, I call it establishing gender fairness. Your word against my word. Which one benefits people and allows women to be part of the group?
It might be true that what former SDAs think about this issue is of no concern to some. In fact, I'm confident that what former SDAs think about anything may not concern some here. At the same time, there is a certain amount of hand-wringing about why people raised as adventists leave the church. One reason I comment here is that some people seem to continue to care why an honest person would leave the church.
In part, I feel that I was somewhat driven away by those in the church who are intolerant of gender fairness and ethnic diversity. In part, I feel that I was driven away by those who cling to indefensible dogma. In part, I feel that I was driven away by intolerance of intellectual honesty. In part, I feel that I was driven away by inflexible institutional greed. Way down the list, but something that also played a part, was the petty judgemental attitude of a few nasty-minded people.
At the same time, I have known many wonderful sincere honest loving Christian adventists. Also, many very fine FORMER adventists, people of other Christian and non-Christian faiths, as well as agnostics and atheists. I am always encouraged to see progress in the church toward more open, inclusive, honest, and fair policies. These seem to me to be internally consistent with the "good news" message of Christianity.
But "Truth Seeker" is probably correct, as I have previously concluded. I don't really belong here.
Truth Seeker:
If the action of the MACU was defying the world church, why do they allow the union conferences to elect the ministers in that union for ordination? These decision do not have to be approved by the world church as the autonomy of local and union conferences does not require approval of those selected for ordination. Where did this idea originate?
It's the same for local church congregations: they, alone, can choose their members and disfellowship as they see fit and the conferences cannot dictate those decisions.
Some of us recall that the G.C. tried desperately to have Des Ford's membership removed from the PUC church and they had no effect, as the local church refused to submit his name for disfellowship. The G.C. does not, and cannot dictate local policy but can only offer guidance and advice.
No congregation or conference can be in defiance of the G.C. on women's ordination because numerous times it has been stated that "There is no theological position on women's ordination, nor is there a biblical reason not to do so." It is still "being studied. Private opinions have no affect. If someone is a member in the MACU you can state your case to the conference, which many have probably done. All the opinions expressed here cannot change the action taken.
Ellen White is a messenger of God whatever some on this thread have proposed. She stated the following and will put to rest all controversy on this subject:
Do not carry your creed to the Bible, and read the Scriptures in the light of that creed. If you find that your opinions are opposed to a plain "Thus saith the Lord," or to any command or prohibition He has given, give heed to the Word of God rather than to the sayings of men. Let every controversy or dispute be settled by "It is written." {2MR 89.3}
God Bless!
In the light of this, let's murder those who break the Sabbath, and let's our slaves do the killing! (It's written!!!)
You make a mockery of Scripture, George, just like you do over at Spectrum. Those who take a low view of Scripture will always find way of belittling the inspired record.
The same applies to the silly argument over the 144,000. The symbolism in Revelation has been well articulated by many expositors. To take Rev. 14:4 literally in the midst of all the symbolism, goes against good exegesis.
Elaine may be knowledgeable, but she appears to glean most of her Biblical knowledge from the liberal and skeptical expositors of Scripture. That's hardly a balance approach.
It Is Written, you're doing a stellar job of defending truth. That's why I've stayed out of this for the most part. Keep the faith, brother.
Thanks for sharing on this thread brother. Some see these things that have been shared as a personal attack but nothing could be farther from the Truth. People must know that God's Word is the only defense against error and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
Somehow many people think that their opinions trump God's Word and it is my prayer that we all may awake to see Satan's delusions in earth's final hour and be ready for the Lord's soon return.
Perhaps we see a difference between God's Word and your intetretation thereof. One is inspired, the other isn't.
Horace,
"mockery of Scripture" is when people don't want to read the whole thing, just being selective about one's own interest. It seems that you don't read the part I mentioned, do you?
Why is it mockering to point out the "slave" issue and the "Sabbath law"? It just shows the inconsistency of some people.
By the way, using the word "mockery" was way too strong. It sounds like a verdict being pronounced by a judge on the bench…May be it was… But I mentioned a serious issue, and it's sad that you didn't get it righ – apparently just for the sake of perpetuating women's discrimination in church.
It Is . . .
I, for one, agree that Ellen White was a messenger from God. What we appear to disagree on is that when she said every dispute should be settled by "It is written," she wasn't referring to you using that screen name.
The name "It is Written" infers that the writer's opinions are those straight from the Bible.
If that were so, everyone who uses the Bible to defend positions would all arrive at the same opinion. We know that does not happen because some are reluctant to admit that their interpretation of Scripture is the only possible meaning, which borders on arrogant assumptions.
Elaine as I stated above, the reason we cannot all agree is as Sister White clearly puts it. It would appear in the context of the laying on of hands, or ordination as Sister White and our church defines it, that the opinions of those who promote this doctrine are opposed to a Thus saith the Lord as it can be found nowhere for Elder/Pastor roles. Wanting the scriptures to support equality in these roles is carrying your creed to the Bible as the support is no where to be found between the covers of the Holy Bible.
Do not carry your creed to the Bible, and read the Scriptures in the light of that creed. If you find that your opinions are opposed to a plain "Thus saith the Lord," or to any command or prohibition He has given, give heed to the Word of God rather than to the sayings of men. Let every controversy or dispute be settled by "It is written." {2MR 89.3}
It Is Written was chosen not to represent my views or that I am without fault but that the test of all doctrine must be brought to the test of It Is Written from the scriptures. Sorry if it appears arrogant. It is not my goal.
God bless
Honestly, it sounds like "I have the truth, and that's it!"
Yes, it resembles some arrogance in it… but, since it's not your goal, then…. may be you could change it.
I appreciate that having a made up "handle" is allowed, and there are sometimes reasons for being anonymous, but what are those reasons here? To avoid responsibility for what one writes? To make some point (all4Him, Truth Seeker, It is Written)? And what is that point? I'm right and you're not?
Rather often the advice anonymously given to others might also be appropriately applied to one's self. It seems that some of the literalists feel quite free to identify things as symbolic if that suits them. Regardless of what is written. Isn't this a matter of bringing one's "creed to the Bible?"
Hiding behind a pseudonym often reflects someone who is embarrassed to give his name. If comments are worth making, the individual should be willing to stand behind them. Like letters to the editor, many newspapers will not allow anonymous contributions. That might be a good idea for blogs as more than half the comments are hidden–fearing to reveal a name.
You may not know this, but for some church workers, expressing an opinion that is different to the church's opinon could be a danger to continued employment in some areas of the church. There are good reasons why some people prefer to be anonymous. Some of us have opened our mouth and said what we think often enough – online and offline – that it no longer matters. Not working for the church can make that easier.
On and on it goes and where it stops nobody knows. God knows, and His Word is not honored when He has told, thru His Word, that spiritual headship is a male function but culture wants to trump the Written Word.
One wonders why there isn't just as an energetic promotion for proper nurture of children. Poor latchkey kids while adults spend time taking the mother out of the home. Even in circumstances where finances permit the mother to remain at home. Restless modern Eves…
"Poor latchkey kids while adults spend time taking the mother out of the home. Even in circumstances where finances permit the mother to remain at home."
Good point, Truth Seeker. Where are the "progressives" on this one?
So fathers have no responsibility for their kids? If you read your Bible you will find almost all the advice on child rearing is addressed to the father. The same is true of all child rearing books in English up until the early C19th. It was the removal of the father from the home – and to a large extent from his children's lives – by the industrial revolution that put the responsibility for child rearing on the mother. Perhaps we should look at the greed of those who required (and stil require) an abundant and cheap source of labour before we start on women. The church is very big on 'family first' and encouraging women to stay at home until it comes to its own workers. Then we are reminded that it is a 'two income' world.
Truth Seeker,
You appear to be far removed from reality. Do you not know any women who must work to pay for their children's SDA education? Or, to put food on the table? Get out of your cocoon and visit the homes of most church members to see these "poor latchkey kids" who need to eat and have a roof over their heads. Where in this world do you live? Get acquainted with these women who would love to be home with their kids, and cannot as long as they need to eat.
Do you know any women who have long ago raised their children? What would you have them do that you would approve? Motherhood demands a short period of women's lives today. Should they be ignored?
You've done it again, Elaine; taken part of what someone said, misrepresented it, and then, and then shot it down. That's a logical fallacy–a straw man argument. You left out a key part of Truth Seeker's statement: "Even in circumstances where finances permit the mother to remain at home." He was not condemning mothers who are forced to work to make ends meet. But he was questioning the wisdom of mothers (who need to be with their young children as much as possible) who could stay home, but who choose to work and shift their responsibilities off onto baby sitters.
So only if the husband's income is insufficient for the family the woman is allowed to work? I know many professional women: physicians, psychologists, and especially nurses who are desperately needed for their chosen skills. With good day care and schools, their children become well-adjusted and often are more able to adjust socially than those cared for at home by one parent. With good care, studies have shown that such children are just as happy and often better trained than those with mommy all day. Have you not heard of these full-time mothers who so manage their children that the child is their sole source of pleasure? Children need to see their mothers working as they will most likely not be able to be a "stay-at-home" parent when they are grown.
In Sweden where nearly all mothers work and there is excellent state day care, they have far less criminal activity and less teen-age pregnancy. We don't need more "tiger mothers."
Statistics, studies, hogwash! A child needs its mother full time, if possible. It is the most important job in the world. People can be trained to do all kinds of necessary job, but a child has only one mother, and no one can take her place, studies and statistics notwithstanding.
"State day care?" State brainwashing and indoctrination school would be a better name for it. That's why the government in Sweden would like to ban home schooling. It produces too many independent thinkers.
Why not both parents share equally in child care? There are millions of fathers who stay home and care for the children while their mother works–this is the choice each family should make.
How long are you suggesting that a mother devote 100% of her time to caring for children? "A child needs it mother full time, if possible." That last word is impossible for many mothers. Mothering is no more or less important than fathering. In fact the real problem in society today is that far too many fathers have abandoned their children and their duties. What's your solution to that? Only the first year when the mother is nursing if she is lucky and take maternity leave, but it is only in Europe where there is much longer maternity leave and much more adequate day care–they consider it very important. In the U.S., it's every parent's task to find good day care and they struggle if there's only a few weeks maternity leave.
How many parents of young children today do you know where the mother stays home full time and cares for the children? Pre-school age or not? How many fathers make sufficient income to live on his alone?
Actually, in the State I live in, which has one of the lowest per capita incomes in the country, I know quite a few stay-at-home moms, and many of them are home schooling their children. As to absentee fathers, that is a problem, and I don't have a solution, other than to make it harder for them to shirk their responsibilies to support the children they have fathered and abandoned. They get no sympathy from me.
Thanks all for allowing me to share.
God bless
It Is Written…………… thanks for sharing from God's Word.
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is becasue there is no light in them. Isaiah 8:20
"And the man whose hair is fallen off his head, he is bald; yet is he clean." Leviticus 13:40.
Galatians 6:7
Isn't it incredible how the feminist movement has won over so many to their movement? One of the best concise books on the feminist issue was written by an SDA Pastor who converted from being a Lutheran Pastor. I've always marveled that such a convert seems to defend Scripture even more energetically than some laymen and Pastors brought up in the SDA church.
The book is by C. Raymond Holmes and is titled The Tip of The Iceberg. He even tells how the feminists are stealing our language. Amen!
The argument for ordination of women in the Christian churches – including ours – predates feminism. Some people saw gender equality as demanded by the bible long before anyone got interested in social or work equality, just as the demand to end slavery and later racism came originally from people reading the bible before society made the same demands. Perhaps Christianity is to blame for feminism? There seems to be a determined effort by the right wing to convince everyone that gender equality is based on anything except the bible. Like most lies, if repeated often enough, some people will believe it.
The Bible, (being the most published Book has been repeated often), clearly speaks of equality of salvation and grace. Yet is clearly gives men and women different roles in the home and Church. God's Word does not lie.
"Those who have yielded step by step to worldly demands and conformed to worldly customs will then yeild to the powers that be, rather then subject themselves to derision, insult, threatened inprisonment, and even death. Prophets and Kings Page 188
Aren't we all using worldly customs in our everyday activities? Do we live as the Amish, or the Israelites? Do we not use the telephone, internet, TV, cars, radios, planes and trains?
How is "worldly customs" defined? It's often used but only the writer knows exactly whe he means. Please explain.
You do this quite often, Elaine, but this time I'm not going to let you get away with it. I'm not sure how to categorize your current lapse in logic, but to equate certain modern conveniences with worldly customs is, for lack of a better word, just plain goofy. None of those things you listed is a "worldly custom." They are all useful items that can be used for good or evil. Why not include books in your list? Certainly plenty of worldly customs and evil schemes have filled the pages of millions of books. But we know it is not the book that is evil, but the content of the book.
And "worldly custom" is easily defined: it is whatever is out of harmony with Scripture.
I would argue that the Bible does not 'clearly' do what you say it does, if you take into account everything it says. If God values equality in salvation ad grace, is it not logical that he values equality in all things, and that the church should do likewise? That is why we opposed slavery, amd why we should continue to oppose racism and support gender equality.
Do you follow the Bible's teaching that women should not speak in church, nor should they teach? How does one choose from the same Bible that women should not be ordained, but overlook the teaching and speaking?
Elaine, may be it's the "fear factor," considering that some men must be really afraid of telling their wives to not speak in church. So they take a detour and build a "case" on the WO issue. Talk about inconsistency!!!
How does the Bible indict "worldly customs" When one speaks of worldly customs how are listeners to understand your meaning? There are many worldly customs that modern people today are using and adopting which are light years away from the times the Bible was written: women's education; women's freedom to travel; women remaining unmarried (this was very rare in Bible times). Then of course there is dress, which customarily changes through the years when women were covered head to toe. Are you ready to turn back to the customs in Bible times?
Are women now "out of harmony" with scripture when they work outside the home? When they teach? When they speak out in public, or church? All these were spoken against in much of the Bible. Who was it in Alice in Wonderland who said "when I use a word it means what I want it to mean."
"The world is largely given up to the indulgence of appetite; and the dispostion to follow worldly customs will bring us into bondage to perverted habits,--habits that will make us more and more like the doomed inhabitants of Sodom" Christian Temperence and Bible Hygiene page 53
Elaine like the comments on the spectrum article "Seventh Gay Adventist"…. where a person can be banned from the site for putting up a quote from Ellen White while a link to a perverse video is left in place. This morning I did not answer you back due to rushing off to work to make money so my wife could enjoy a day baking granola and gardening. But now after hearing your comments I better force her into a full time outside the home position so she will feel more fulfilled.
Neither force a woman to get out of the home or demand that she stay there. She has a voice, doesn't she? Let her use it.
Why is the red herring of "Seventh Gay Adventist" brought up? Are you the first to mention it here? AToday doesn't ban people unless they are using hateful personal attacks.
So that which is good for the gander…. is good for the goose? Should a man be forced to get out of the home and get a job, he has a voice doesn't he? I only bring the "red herring" up for if one deviates from "Thus saith the Lord" you bring up a whole new can of worms to nibble on….
Elaine, homosexuality is not a red herring. Those churches which have voted to ordain women as pastors, have usually aken the next step, and have accepted and ordained homosexuals. These churches have also bought into the evolutionary fairy tale. It is inevitable when one takes a low view of Scripture, treating as they would any other piece of ancient literature. It is either the inspired word of God, or it is not. If it is, we dare not tamper with it, twisting it to mean whatever suits our fancy. If it isn't, then there isn't much point in religion of any kind. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
Blah, blah blah!! so much for the "windy" rule on here. my question for you all is this…who is promoting this notion? scriptural basis for/or against this question is important. however, do-good crusaders are rarely finished with their work. (this is a crusade) their complaint of exclusion will have to be carried on the the next "social justice" issue. what will these do-gooders be asking for next? who will be forced to ordain to make the crusaders happy? most other protestant denominations already have the historic data on this subject.
It is interesting that within the last week the Pacific Union Conference has joined the Mid-America Union by reaffirming their commitment to the ordination of women. So, now you have one of our most conservative unions and one of those considered by some to be one of the more liberal joined in their affirmation that there is solid Bible, not cultural or social, reasons for ordaining women. Maybe it's time to let God's Spirit move us forward on this issue. It is just as possible that those who resist ordaining women do so on the basis of cultural and social and traditional reasons as it is that those who support it do so on the same basis. Rather than all the acrimony which does not reflect well on any of us, maybe it's time to with love and respect and an open heart and mind to try to find some common ground. Paul clearly tried, when it came to the subject of vegetarianism to be sensitive and respectful those who were traditionally committed to a vegetarian position (the weaker brother/sister) and had a hard time leaving their comfort zone and overcoming those traditions as he was willing to be very progressive in moving forward and supporting those who realized that, while it might be a health issue, was definitely not a spiritual one.
While I don't understand those who wish to ignore the plain implications of the New Testament position that would support the ordination of women, I can be honest that I have often resisted, kicking and screaming, when the Holy Spirit tried to move me to positions that were different from what I had often been taught or which violated my cultural and social prejudices. And, to be honest, I at times have not been at all sensitive and respectful to those who were struggling as the Holy Spirit pulled them out of their comfort zone.
At the same time, I have to admit that at times I have allowed cultural and social reasons to dominate my thinking on important subjects rather than God's Word. As I stated before in this discussion, I think that we have not moved forward in God's will on this very important subject for good cause, not good reason. There is plenty of solid Bible justification for ordaining women (note my offer above) that, had we based our efforts on those reasons would have been blessed by God. As we have often based our reasons on social justice (very important to God but secondary in this context), God has not blessed as He could have. It is time for some of us who believe that this is God's will to present the reasons in a respectful, gracious manner and allow His Spirit to change minds in ways that no amount of the wrangling and belittling on both sides will never accomplish.
I praise God that He has finally been able to begin to turn the great ship of our faith in the direction He has chosen for us to go. And, I give thanks for the spiritual courage of the members of the Executive Committees of both the Mid-America and the Pacific Union in following His lead! They, and we, will be blessed for their commitment and fortitude in a very violent and virulent storm.
Let fundamental fairness and love prevail.
Moose make sure it's God's Spirit that is turning the great ship of faith around and not the tides of worldly political correctness. It's ok to rock the boat…..just don't miss it. You mention all the New Testement support for womens ordination. We would be very interested to find out from you where it is at…. I once asked a pastor from another denomination where in the Bible did God change the Sabbath and he informed me it was in there, that I had not looked deep enough for it. Please let me know where to look….
Courage to be rebellious? Admiring a Church Division that has defied authority? What a horrendous example for the young and impressionable as well the newly converted. How faulty the judgement!
This is a perfect example of Division personnel submitting to and being duped by the feminist agenda. Aside from the controversy with respect to the ordination of women nothing good can result from blatant insubordination. Lets not be deceived.
I like the way that you seem to believe so sincerely in the idea that if you keep labelling something 'femininst' or 'rebellious', then you don't have to acknowledge that there may be another way of looking at it. Check your history books – the movement to ordain women predates the political feminist movement. From memory, some early 'feminists' actually suggested that the movement for political equality be postponed so that the more important fight for spiritual equality could be the focus. It didn't happen, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement for the ordination of women has been going on for longer than any organised political feminism. You still haven't shown how the decision to ask for the ordination of women is any more rebellious than so many of the right wing movements that want to change current practice. Perhaps we should start with those 'rebellious' people who want to change our fundamental beliefs. After all, the 28 in their current form were voted by the GC in session.
Martin Luther defied authority, his namesake, MLK defied authority, the "rebellious" founders of the United States "rebelled" against the British; the early Christians were insubordinate in refusing to obey the Romans.
Rebellion has a wonderful history. There would be no Protestant Christian today were it not for Martin Luther. It is good and right to rebel for justice, liberty and equality, vaalues which Christians stand for.
BTW, if there is a "feminist agenda" is there also a "macho agenda"? There are too many men who are eager for women to be ordained, so it is not defined by women, but by all those who believe in SDA Fundamental Belief, Unity in the Body of Christ:
…."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."
Excluding one-half of the body with a reservation that they cannot contribute equally to the ministry is exhibiting partiality in choosing only males. The opposite of partiality is impartiality, and that is not being exhibited by the church: they are partial to men within the ordained ministry, in defiance of the stated beliefs.
Elaine, seeing your many postings on this sight and others it makes me wonder why you put so much intrest in a church you choose not to be a part of? If you really want to "rock the boat", why not stay in it?
Many in your "macho agenda" are like the young pastors in fear of not being politically correct to keep options of getting a call. I know a lot of women that are not for WO because of Scripture and SOP.
If you are going to open ordination up without the Bibical gender roles that opens doors to LGBT who feel they also should not be overlooked.
Good reading — http://www.secondadventherald.org/pdf/WomensOrdination_StephenBohr.pdf
All4Him- I studiously avoid seeking advice from those who have left the Faith. It's certainly a privilege one has but why waste time on an SDA(?) site? I would find something constructive.
After all, only Adventists know right from wrong and can answer all possible questions about life. Only those SDA pastors who are opposed to WO should be heard. That way, there will be no possible confusion as they alone can interpret from the Bible and SOP what one should believe.
I realize you're being cynical, Elaine, but I've never heard an Adventist say that they have all the answers. But I would have more confidence in Adventist expositors of Scripture than I would in those from churches which have compromised in so many areas. Whether you like it or not, the main reason Adventists haven't gone off the deep end like so many other churches is because of the Spirit of Prophecy. It acts as a rudder or compass to keep us pointed in the right direction. If not for that we'd be like the World Wide Church of God, or the Episcopal Church, to name a couple which have lost their way.
Yes, it was TIC, but sometimes it is more effective in presenting a viewpoint.
The main reason Adventists have gone off the deep end is due to EGW (she is NOT the Spirit of Prophecy, despite claims). Had they used only the Bible, like all other Christians, they would not have such non-biblical doctrines, and makes them similar to the LDS with their extra-biblical authority. Accepting anything but the Bible defines a cult–which most have no problem in defining the Mormons.
Non Biblical doctrines? True Prophets point people back to the Word of God. The reason we have been given the writings of EGW is to point us to the Authority of God's Word.
Well said, All4Him. Ellen White always points us toward the Bible. Odd that Elaine would suggest that if we had "used only the Bible, like all other Christians" we would have not adopted non-biblical doctrines. If I'm not mistaken, most Protestant churches claim to derive all of their doctrines from the Bible. Sola Scriptura was their motto, but not anymore. And so we have churches which celebrate evolution weekend (in honor of the man whose theory has been responsible for thousands of people losing their faith in God and His word), endorse same sex marriage, worship on Sunday, and believe that one is either burning forever in Hell, or goes to Heaven when they die. Need I go on? These false doctrines are supposedly derived from Scripture, but after reading my Bible through from cover to cover dozens of times, I can't find those doctrines. But I can find the doctrines of the SDA Church, including the IJ, which so many seem to hate.
What you read in the Bible depends very much on what you are looking for and what your presuppositons are. I would argue ours are as good as anyone else's, but lets not pretend that someone with no knowledge of our culture, but with a good knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, would come to exactly the same conclusions we do. I don't believe our doctrines – even the traditional IJ – are 'unbiblical', but you do have to come with certain presuppositions before they are obvious. Some aspects are not obvious even then, but require a certain amount of 'path following'. The same is true of any other denomination, so I am not sure why anyone would think we should be ashamed of our beliefs. What some people do with them is an entirely different matter.
A stranger to the Bible, reading through, would not come up with the major doctrines unique to Adventism. One must have presuppositions to decipher the prophecies of D&R and come up with the specific timelines taught in Adventism.
One could discover God (depending on which book he relied on) who either loved or killed), and from the NT he would find Jesus and believe in Him and His message. After all, isn't that the whole and most important message of Christianity? What is the salvific importance of someone understanding the specific time prophecies? Nowhere does Jesus say that before one is baptized, he must fully understand and be able to explain all the 28 doctrines of the SDA church.
KISS.
Elaine I would have to repectfully disagree about coming up with major doctrines by just reading the Word. One example is Doug Batchelor who found a Bible in his cave and read it without outside influences. He then went in search of a Church that followed what the Word said. My wife and I have been attending a Full Gospel Church for wednesday night study and many of the members wonder why they are not keeping the Bibical Sabbath.
I doubt Doug Batchelor discovered the IJ on his own, or our interpretation of prophecy. The Sabbath is a different matter. It is somewhat clearer.
Butler- " But I can find the doctrines of the SDA Church, including the IJ, which so many seem to hate."
How true, Brother Butler. If we don't want enlightenment and resist it no one,including God,
is going to force us.
Ordination of women is, IMO, the devil's ploy to distract the faithful from doing much more important work involving the salvation of souls. Not only a distraction but potentially divisive. It boggles one's mind to what an extent the feminist movement has duped so many. A good book is The Tip of An Iceberg by Holmes. Very informative.
Those women in China, using the "devil's ploy" have converted thousands to Adventism.
Has the G.C. considered this potentially divisive? Why has non one been terribly disturbed by this situation in China? Has the G.C. condemned this action?
OMG, there could possibly be many more convets won by women in China–after all, China is fast becoming one of the greatest world powers, eclipsing the U.S. This rebellion by the women in China must be stopped! Why haven't the men opposing women's ordination spoken against this great revival?