New Movement to Prohibit Non-Jewish, Uncircumcised Gentile Clergy, from Ordination at Next General Conference Session in 2020

by Stephen Ferguson, July 16, 2015: Like many Adventists, I was disappointed by the recent vote at the General Conference Session in San Antonio 2015, which resulted in a “no” decision to the following resolution concerning women’s ordination: “Is it acceptable for division executive committees, as they deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry? Yes or No.”
It seems the majority of the Adventist world believes my female minister friends don’t deserve full equality with their male counterparts. Now let’s be honest. Those who oppose women’s ordination raise a number of very sincere and plausible biblical arguments.
They rightly point out there were no female Levite priests in the Old Testament Sanctuary. They rightly point out Jesus only ever chose male apostles. They rightly point to texts about the right of men to rule over women as a question of God-given headship. They rightly explain that those texts suggesting equality between male and female are only talking about equality of salvation in Christ – not equality for leadership roles. They rightly point out that references in the New Testament to female leaders are somewhat inconclusive, such as the Apostle Junia (a female name). They rightly conclude by pointing to an absence of ‘Thus saith the Lord’ that would positively authorise the ordination of female ministers.
I have to say in the past I never quite accepted these arguments. However, the majority of the world Church has voted, so perhaps those arguments do in fact represent the biblical truth – or at least the ‘present truth’. It has though on reflection made me question whether the majority who voted “no” are reading the Bible consistently, rather than being hypocrites risking God’s judgment. Nonetheless, I have faith in our delegates and I’m quite sure that wouldn’t be the case.
In particular, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that if women cannot be ordained as female clergy, then neither can uncircumcised Gentile men. Both the Old Testament and New Testament are, after all, far more concerned with the distinction between Jews and Gentiles than between males and females. As far as scripture is concerned, we might be focusing on the gnat and missing the proverbial camel. Just think about it logically and apply the same principles espoused by opponents of women’s ordination to the question of uncircumcised Gentile clergy.
For example, there were no uncircumcised Gentiles priests in the ancient Sanctuary. Women were not allowed into the Holy Place either, but at least they had the Court of Women, which was further inside. Non-Jewish men were stuck the furthest away in the Court of the Gentiles. Similarly, in New Testament times women may have been segregated as to their spot inside the synagogue, but at least they were allowed inside – unlike Gentile believers who often had to look in through a grill in the wall.
Jesus also chose no uncircumcised Gentiles to lead His Church. Presumably if He intended for there to be uncircumcised Gentiles in leadership He would have chosen at least one. In fact, there is a greater case for women apostles than Gentile ones, given women were at least in Jesus’ inner circle. Jesus did at least appear first to women, who in being the first to tell others about the resurrection of Jesus (literally the good news or gospel), made them the first apostles (if we take the original Greek idea of apostleship being ‘to be sent forth’).
There also isn’t much evidence for uncircumcised Gentile leadership in the New Testament either. Someone will of course mention the uncircumcised Titus, the sole potential example, but his standing and circumstance is as inconclusive as Junia’s. Yes, there are some vague biblical passages where Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Titus was an apostle himself. Likewise, just because Samuel anointed David didn’t make Samuel a king. As opponents of women’s ordination like to point out, you can’t develop an entire theology for a new innovative practice based on scant evidence from the Bible.
Finally, some will point to the biblical principle of male headship over females. Possibly true, but weren’t Jews equally chosen by God as leaders over non-Jews? Doesn’t Paul even acknowledge in Romans 11 the continued place for those remnant Jewish-Christians, as having a superior and more natural place than those Gentile-Christians merely grafted in as wild shoots?
As the husband has God-given authority over the wife in the Church (and not it seems just in the home, according to women’s ordination opponents), doesn’t the Jew likewise have God-given authority over the Gentile believer? As Paul tells us men have natural authority over women because man was made first, so too doesn’t Genesis 10 tells us Shem (the ancestor of Israel, hence the concept of an ‘anti-Semite’ being a hater of Jews) was the oldest son of Noah?
Sure there can be exceptions, such as the way God made Ellen White an exception from those gender restrictions about male authority. Likewise, God can invoke exceptions to the first-born principle, such as appointing Jacob over Esau, or giving the priesthood to the tribe of Levi rather than first-born. But the Bible clearly shows a principle of first-made headship. It applies not just in gender relations of male over female, but in racial relations of Jew over Gentile. That is, if we argue for such headship principles applying to the New Testament Church.
Otherwise, how can we claim the doctrine of headship but not Jewish dispensationalism? How can we claim equality of race but not gender? Again, it would seem we need to read the Bible consistently. If gender was not abolished in terms of Christian leadership, then how can we say it still applies in the case of gender? And I haven’t even mentioned the third trifecta of Christian equality found in Galatians 3, which is equality of status – that proverbial slave versus free.
With these thoughts of consistency in mind, today I am launching a new movement to have all uncircumcised Gentile clergy stripped of their ordinations, and a new prohibition imposed on any new candidates for ordination who are not both Jewish and circumcised. I am hoping to have this motion placed on the next agenda of the General Conference Session in 2020, in Indianapolis in five years’ time.
Naturally I am expecting all those who opposed women’s ordination to support me. Otherwise, that would potentially make those who recently voted “no” a bunch of hypocrites, and I have complete confidence that is not the case. As the current vote against the ordination of female pastors was easily defeated, I am likewise expecting some pretty smooth sailing for my proposed motion.
I do expect some opposition, though – mostly annoying liberal types. Some of these theological hippies will no doubt say it is madness to disenfranchise such a huge number of current and potential future candidates from the professional ministry. I understand that sentiment, but we have after all just disenfranchised over 50% of our current recruitment pool on the basis of gender.
The Church of Jesus’ day and the original apostles was a predominantly Jewish one. It was led by Jewish men who were circumcised. We cannot let the fact that today almost all Christians are Gentiles change the way we read the Bible strictly in its original context. Otherwise, we might as well say the feminist movement in the last fifty years can change the way we read the Bible. We either apply its original 1st-century context, without any room for cultural divergence, or we don’t.
What really matters instead is upholding a strict and literal reading of the Bible, prohibiting anyone from a position of Church leadership unless there is a clear ‘Thus saith the Lord’. And there is no such proof text positively authorising the ordination of uncircumcised Gentiles as members of the clergy, just as there is scant support for the positive ordination of women ministers.
In conclusion, my fellow Adventists, we can’t afford any more of these Korah-like rebellions. It doesn’t matter that most of our current male clergy won’t make the cut. There is a greater principle of truth at stake here. Men might feel called by the Holy Spirit to Christian ministry, but they should have thought of that before being born a non-Jew. I know many have said something similar to our female ministers, who make the ridiculous claim that they are called by God. In both cases, it seems the lack of appropriate genitalia trumps any supposed calling by the Holy Spirit.
But don’t fret. We’ll still have Clifford Goldstein and Doug Batchelor, who are both Jewish-Adventists.
Appreciate your satire here, Stephen.
Here’s a related notion that I think really could get some traction, and should. Why does “a husband of one wife” apply only to gender? Doesn’t it specify married state as well? A single pastor is not a husband. So there should be no single pastors. Not to mention, no pastors who have been divorced and remarried, like our GC ministerial director.
I have asked this question repeatedly of the anti-WO folks with no solid answer.
In addition, any Pastor who is childless or has only one child must resign his post, as the verse clearly states the pastor must have control over his children.
I fear that all along your discoveries homosexuality may come in the church. Ordination is not a benchmark of ministry.
Why is it that when people are advocating for not limiting the giftedness of the Holy Spirit that others raise irrational fears like homosexuals becoming pastors? Such a fear would be ridiculous if it were not so desperate and pitiful.
Stephen, instead of thinking more about this issue and ruminating over it you should pray more. This is distorted thinking of the worst I’ve read so far on the web regarding WO. In fact, it is delusional.
Paul was not married, yet was an apostle. Timothy was not a jew yet was a church leader, the same with many more.
I am very glad for the GC vote, but more need to be done, because today’s adventists are very much wotld loving and this is scary.
How strange that the conservative Sunday-keeping Protestants who in times past vehemently rejected use of Old Testament injunctions and consigned them to death at the cross, have in recent times scrounged far and wide in that same testament for a kind of “tough love” sort of Christianity that is very legalistic on matters such as child discipline and now, women’s discipline (non-ordination) on the sole basis of gender. By that count we would still have slavery in all Christianized nations.
I applaud Brother Ferguson for drawing attention (through satire invoked from the very pages he cites) to the fact that ancient pronouncements on sociology are often the first to succumb to “Present Truth” when the Spirit moves. Certainly the apostle Peter himself was shaken to his shoe-leather when he saw the Holy Spirit descend on the heads of otherwise-hopeless (and surgically non-compliant) Gentile Christians who believed the gospel of the apostles.
Likewise, today amply educated women believe that they are called in special, end-time ways to help expedite gospel proclamation, and by all accounts many of these women are prolific in their pastoral giftedness. The fruits of their labors are ample testimony…
What fruits:
25% less Baptisms than 5 years ago?
Almost 20% less professions of faith, more deaths, more missing.
Again, CHRIST in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
I would recommend that we follow the Law and recommend that everyone else should. I might also suggest just taking a look around you? How can you help anyone, if you cannot see.
I love satire also (and thank you Edwin for making my day), but we are now past that time and place. The place is here and it is now time to get to work. There are many lost that need the strength of comfort and Salvation.
It is also notable that hardline headship denominations are seeing lower and lower results from their outreach programs. Certainly in China where women provide a great deal of authentic leadership, the Adventist Church is being blessed abundantly in its growth.
What fruits? Please open your eyes! The women pastors whom I know are generally quite effective. Look at the places where the church is shrinking and what you will most find are four things: 1) Defense of traditionalism, 2) argument about theological correctness, 3) no seeking of the guidance and empowerment of the Holy Spirit, and 4) dedication to using evangelistic methods that are more effective at driving people away from God than attracting them to Him.
I have no choice but to open my eyes; works and involvement requires such.
I can state by fact Christ wanted strong families building a strong Church in Matthew 12 (and Mark 3):
29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
I can see the Mainline Protestant Churches, promoting the listed ideologies, shrinking by 5 million over the last 5 years; while the Evangelical Protestants have gained like.
There are simple reasons for those changes. Mainline churches have been on a long path of embracing Liberalism as theology and they are suffering the natural decline that comes when you follow the philosophies of men and do things like accept homosexuality as an “alternate lifestyle” instead of following God. Evangelical churches are growing because of their emphasis on seeking and following the Holy Spirit. You see neither in Adventism in North America, so that leaves a large number of our congregations withering and dying. But there is revival where people are seeking the Holy Spirit and, coincidentally, those are often where you find women pastors.
Tell that to Africa and Latin America. The church is booming there. I see quite the opposite to your statement.
Reality:
Did I miss something? Do the ten commandments say “no women ministers?”
Maybe you are right–the church has voted to add this to the ten commandments and the FB!
It is a total “false dilemma” that has no relevance to the issue. Like comparing apples to oranges.
Only if you’re behaving like radical Islam and trying to take us back to life like they think it was centuries ago. Only if you are dismissing the working of the Holy Spirit. Peter had a hard time accepting the idea of the Gospel going to the gentiles, so God had to give him a dream of unclean creatures and send him to the household of a gentile where they received the baptism of the Holy Spirit before they were baptized with water. So I sympathize with your resistance, but there comes a time when you either get on-board with God or He leaves you behind. Take you pick, but I want to be on-board and moving forward in whatever way spreads the Gospel, which theology-arguing and prophecy-obsessed traditionalists in the church are preventing in places like North America. So I challenge you to either show us how God is using you to grow the church as evidence that you speak from experience, or to be quiet and learn from those who are growing the church, including ordained women pastors.
Stephen,
Kudos for giving us some great satire! Sometimes we need a little comic relief of the type you have provided to help us see things in a different light and move on from the mire in which we have found ourselves.
It’s stuff like THIS that year Down the church, divide the church, make fun of God, make fun of other religions, make fun of Jesus Christ my Lord! You think THIS is going to win people to Christ? Think again, my friend! I don’t CARE if it IS SATIRE! It does not belong! Anywhere as far as I’m concerned! Let me know when you grow up! Satire is fine for the world, of worldly things, but not of God!
Yes, Ardis, not to mention Biblical greats. Elijah on Mt carmel is one of my favorite users of worldly satire!
Indeed I wonder if Ardis is himself being satirical? Doesn’t not belong? The Bible is absolutely completely full of irony and satire. Almost every chapter in Job is full of it. The Gospel of Mark is especially full of it, particularly through its use of the messianic secret motif.
There is a difference between crude jokes and godly satire. Jesus’ saying about planks and camels are all satire!
The passion of Christ is itself a satirical play on worldly coronation ceremonies of kingship. His throne was the Cross, His crown was of thorns, His robe was purple and scarlet given by the Romans, and His kingship was proclaimed publicly in a sign written in three languages.
Satire is ‘godly’ when it shames those who need to shame. It is for this reason the Bible tells us Jesus’ death on the cross shamed Satan and the evil powers of the world.
The greatest Christ-like proponents of civil rights and anti-colonialism understood the power of godly shame. For was it not Ghandi who continually used satire, wearing his little sari and challenging the might of the British Empire with his walk to the sea to collect salt?
But if I had to quote my favourite use of biblical satire, it would be Paul, and discussing circumcission, telling his opponents to castrate themselves. Get the joke there – circumcission vs castration.
It’s not just satire–it’s logic!
Thank you for the smile! Yes, this sounds as crazy as most of the reasons given for women not being ordained. It’s exactly how African Americans were treated and it took a lot of work to make sure they had equal rights. Why is our church so slow in doing the right thing????!!!!!! We should be the ones leading the world.
Indeed we now fight on headship on gender but until quite recently we had Christians who took very seriously the idea of headship based on race. It was only a few decades ago when white missionaries claimed headship, based no less on those same arguments about Noah’s sons, for the right to rule over all other races.
The world is wrong. Check the latest figures on marriage breakdown. The world is getting worst. Instead of blindly followig this world, we should rather uphold the Bible as the light of the world.
How sad to find christians leaving the Bible and looking up to the world for light!! Unbelievable. By the way I really appreciate Doug and Clifford.
I would like to nominate you for the Standish Bros-Amazing Facts-3ABN award for your contribution to fostering “19th Century Present Truth” in the 21st Century Adventist Church. Unfortunately, you will have to compete for the award with our current General Conference President.
PS Really, your piece is first class, jolly good.
Amen! Couldn’t agree more.
Dear Mr. Furguson
You’ve stated the same position in past comments on this topic but obviously you’ve now made it in the big league sir – guest blogger and all – so congrats in this regard!
You have however, as in the past, conflated the circumcision and ceremonial laws, (which were done away with at the cross), with the issue of who has authority in the NT Church in terms of holding leadership office – the office of elder, overseer or bishop.
Paul does not refer to the credentials of a Church leader as requiring that they be circumcised, Jewish or any other speculations you have mentioned in this regard. He is clear that a man should have authority in both the marriage context and in the Church. The word “aner” refers to a man and not a woman. So Paul is quite clear on this.
The only way around this is to use an alternative hermeneutic to spin it the other way. Your position is rather dangerous therefore as your arguments and speculations here offer Sunday keepers a strong ground for Sunday worship and other false doctrines that are going around, including homosexual marriage and homosexual behaviour as being normal and virtuous, of which you also take a similar position as in the case you make for WO.
You’ll get 100% from me for using your imagination and speculating about this, but not as much for providing concrete evidence that the Bible supports your conflation – or position.
Do our clergy uphold all of these requirements for eldership Trevor? Do they all have children? Are all their children believers?
Paul doesn’t not explicitly stay elders need to be circumcised, but that is an argument from silence – as those who promote WO use. Instead, to be consistent you need to show me a text that unequivocally says elders can be uncircumcised Gentiles. Otherwise, Paul could have simply assumed all elders would naturally be Jewish-Christians, who were scattered throughout the Empire through the Jewish Diaspora.
The issue of circumcision was handled separately by Paul and clearly in the context of the Jewish / Gentile narrative, of which request was made for Paul to address the matter as shown in Acts 15:1-2 due to tensions which surfaced within the Church at the time. Acts 15:4 tells us they convened to discuss this matter. There were apostles and elders that gathered for the discussion. From this we clearly can gather that the practice of electing male elders and apostles was already in place [before] the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council.
WO therefore is not at all the context of this Acts 15:1-4 narrative. The issue concerning WO in terms of eldership was dealt with separately by Paul under Divine inspiration in which he setting the record straight that men should serve as elders. The practice of ordaining elders was already in place as shown in Acts 14:23. In his letter to Titus, Paul clarifies who is to be ordained as elders as shown in Titus 1:5-6 for which they where lacking in this area of Church organisation and order. Paul wasn’t writing satire here.
Trevor: “WO therefore is not at all the context of this Acts 15:1-4 narrative.”
Trevor, I don’t understand your point about Act 15.The elders are most likely the Seven in Jerusalem (like Stephen) who were appointed in Acts 6. They seem to be Hellenised Jews, as Acts 6:1-7 explains. That is why the ruling council in Jerusalem, where Christians were Jewish-Christians, was ‘Apostles and Elders’.
The issue in Acts 15 was Gentile salvation – not Gentile ordination. Just as those who say Gal 3:28 is about equality of salvation – not equality of leadership.
Thus, I don’t see how Acts 15:1-4 would help you. Why would you think the elders in Jersualem, where the Jewish-Christian church was strongest, would contain Gentile-Christian elders. There is no scriptural support for that at all, and as I said, the context from Acts 6:1-7 suggests quite the opposite.
Trevor: “The issue concerning WO in terms of eldership was dealt with separately by Paul under Divine inspiration in which he setting the record straight that men should serve as elders.”
How do you get that? Paul seems to be obsessed that elders have just one wife, which many presume means not a divorcee or a polygamous. Your overemphasis on the gender of Greek articles also seems a pretty scant argument. As scant as Junia the apostle at least – certainly not a ‘Thus saith the Lord’.
I’m not expert in Greek but I think like French, gender of a noun and its article doesn’t necessarily denote actual gender. Moreover, most languages use the male gender as a default. We see this in Gen 1:27 when it says God made “man” (literally Adam) but made man as male and female.
In any event, Paul does mention female elders in Titus 2:3. Note this comes after Paul’s descriptions of elders in Titus 1. Note it says these women elders are mandated to teach. And the SDA Church already ordains elders.
Similar problems exist with deacons (lit minister or servant) which is a generic term that sometimes describes women, such as Phoebe.
And even if you are right, and Paul did mean male by elder, that still doesn’t mean Gentile men. You need to be consistent with your arguments Trevor.
In Acts, wherever the Holy Spirit was poured-out both men and women received it and all were empowered in the ways the Holy Spirit wanted. Since God decides who is gifted and how they will serve, to think we know the mind of God well enough to claim we know how He will or will not empower a person to serve is preposterous.
I have read that one of the more frequently invoked excuses given by evangelicals for not accepting Adventism as a legitimate communion is that it was founded by a woman, and no denomination founded by a woman (by rule of male headship) can by definition be of God. So (the argument goes) if the SDA denomination is in truth a communion led by God, either Ellen White is an imposter, or the Holy Spirit just, plain goofed in pouring out leadership power and strong charisma in her life. I am surprised so few Adventists are aware of this long-standing objection by Sunday-keeping churches, on the matter of Ellen White….
Trevor,
I think you are the one who has never answered if you believe in slavery.
While exceptionally well done, Stephen, you lose a few points for employing a topic with such an abundance of easy picking for the satirist.
As for foreskinology, you may not be the first with the return to required pastoral circumcision. Loren Seibold, I believe, once referenced Seventh-day Adventist congregations perhaps in South Africa where a deacon is tasked with confirming the circumcision of all visiting pastors who come to preach. Perhaps this explains why ordination of deaconesses has lagged that of deacons for so long. Dare not let the Holy Spirit get ahead of ecclesiastical practices of long standing and risk awkwardnesses.
Ardis has a point, seriously, though. Satire almost always, like voting, entrenches the targets as well as those with smiles. I’m up for the smiles though have no illusion regarding satire’s ability to move the church forward, as in away from clashes and on to collaboration. That said, as long as we don’t depend on satire to resolve issues, a little smile now and then feels pretty good. And feeling good is essential to seeking collaboration across the church.
I’m feeling pretty good, Stephen. Thanks.
Satire is the finest method to point up the absurdity in institutional governance. We need more satire and less deadly serious view of religion. At times it can be nothing short of imbecility–oops, misspelled impossibility, mea culpa.
History bears out that many who consider themselves the “highly enlightened” are in reality the most ignorant. And that’s a two way street, isn’t it?
But it should be noted that those who mock, scorn, and ridicule the bible are often the ones who are so absolutely sure of their position. True believers are always concerned about their conclusions and continually “search the scriptures daily, whether these things are so.”
If you abandon the bible, then there is no need to search…eh? And when you conclude the bible is not clear, and can not be understood, you free yourself from any fear of judgment either by God or man. Who can judge any standard that can not be understood?
And this is the dilemma that not only independent ministries who challenge bible Adventism may be guilty of, but the church itself uses the same scenario to justify a “no decision” mentality.
Adventism has no self identity it can state or define. In which case, at least on some level, it deserves to be mocked, ridiculed and scorned. The words of Jesus are highly relevant, “You worship, you know not what.”
Ignorance challenging ignorance is no big deal. It is only when truth demands accountability of ignorance, that ignorance becomes irate and destroys the instrumentality of truth. As in the case of Cain killing Abel. And of course, Pluralism is a nice “hide out” isn’t it? We all “love” each other, as long as their is no confrontation. Truth goes more by confrontation, than…
Bill how about not playing the man (me) and playing the ball a little. You suggest my article is ignorant and abandons the Bible. How exactly? Show us?
You say the Bible is clear. Ok, so us the text that unequivocally allows the ordination of Gentiles. I haven’t been able to find it. It says a lot about other criteria for eldership, but silent on the question of race.
The rest of your comments are wholly sociological and cultural. The state of Adventism and independent ministries etc is irrelevant to my question of whether the Bible teaches uncircumcised Gentiles can be ordained as ministers.
You wrote: “History bears out that many who consider themselves the “highly enlightened” are in reality the most ignorant.”
Who in these discussions has posted the largest number of the longest comments claiming to know how God can/cannot or will/will not work? You.
Two way street indeed.
God allows pluralism; in fact He invented it by giving us freedom.
infiltration. So we seek massive doses of affirmation by any and all who applaud ignorance as the highest good.
Stephen,
I don’t think you have any idea how close you come to the mark with your satire. Yes! God is the God of Election; Not the God of Equality. Yes! He has chosen the Jew: As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
Yes: physical Israel will have status – the status of his election. You and I, and all the gentiles, will never be equal with the Jew. Just like Esau was never equal with Jacob. God has chosen whom He has chosen.
Jesus is the King of Israel. By faith and grace I now have status. My portion now is with Israel. But I do not have equal status with the Jew.
I am content with my portion. Would it not be a dark and wicked covetousness for the adopted son to usurp the the status of the natural son? Isn’t the status of adoption enough? Praise God for the gift of His Son. He is enough.
Does the prodigal displace his elder brother? Does not the Father tell the elder brother: All that is mine is yours?
The status of man and woman is not equal. Neither is the status of the Jew and the Gentile equal. Election is of God. As Jesus said: I am sent but to the lost sheep of Israel. Israel is the very best analogy we have as to why we ought not ordain women as elders.
Galatians 3:28 would seem to suggest something different.
Galatians 3:
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Colossians 3:
10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
I think these suggest, when renewed, we are one in and belong to Christ. Does it not breach wisdom and purpose to break any of those pieces back out and into individuals again?
Perhaps we should all abandon our names and we can check in here as “Reality”? It would be confusing, but we could in a small way get rid of some of that individuality a name confers.
I am sorry. This is a satirical post, not a sarcastic one. Sarcasm probably doesn’t belong here and I am being sarcastic.
Equality is the enemy of individuality. Equality is the enemy of Election. God has brought ‘me’ out of Egypt with His mighty hand. It is in Christ I find my true, unique, identity.
Galatians 3:28 is not a crucible that cooks all of us into a homogeneous mass of ‘equality.’ It is our assurance we are all equally heirs to the promise of salvation in Jesus Christ – For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.
Julia,
Galatians 3:28 is always followed by that pesky 3:29 – And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. We are one in Christ, but we are not equal, neither are we heirs to equal portions. Christ is our portion. The slave is not equal to the freeman. The Gentile is not equal to the Jew. The woman is not equal to the man. Isn’t that obvious?
We are equally heirs. We are content with our portion.
This answer and interpretation of verse 29, as contextualizing verse 28, is nonsensical because Abraham’s seed included bond and free, males and females; all heirs to the promise. Equal heirs are equal; equal means equal.
Since there is nothing more valuable, how can it possibly be any other way?
Your position is entirely cultural; not Biblical.
Sorry Stephen, I didn’t see the word ‘equal’ there in verse 29. How nice of you to supply it. Heirs are always equal, eh? The things I learn here.
In Matthew 5, JESUS said in the Sermon on the Mount to teach the law:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
We are heirs if we belong to CHRIST; first. We are to follow and teach as such.
Ephesians 2:10 “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”
We have different jobs and protections; within HIS wisdom and for our benefit in HIS plan. Remember we ate the apple, broke the law and he had to send his SON; and that still is not enough for us. He is always there for us; but does that rate us more than spoilt children? Do we not act and sound like spoilt children? How does this look to the world and those seeking strength in the Church? Does this help them or serve GOD?
Perhaps you should continue to read the next few verses William, Galatians 4:1-7; and particular verse 1 with regard to the concept of the equality of the heirs.
Stephen I have read Galatians 4:1-7. I didn’t see the word equal there either. I did notice its all sons, no daughters. The language is literal only when you want it to be? If I have Christ, I have enough. Esau said; I have enough, my brother; keep that you have to yourself. I have enough. Equal inheritance, indeed.
William I am happy to say that in just about all the people I’ve spoken to about WO, of those you reject WO, you at least my friend do NOT seem a hypocrite. I’m sure most Adventists, especially those who oppose WO, would reject your dispensationalist-like theology here, especially given its link to Evangelical-Pentecostalism. But you at least seem to be consistent.
So I take it you would support my motion to have all clergy in future come from the ranks of Jewish-Adventists only?
Steve,
If it were biblical I would support your specific motion. Trouble is, Paul didn’t list Natural-born Jew in the qualifications of an Elder like he did being a man.
Dispensationalist? Pentecostalism? Whoa – I never knew! I thought the dispensationalist argued the dispensation of Israel was over – I’m arguing it never ended. My arguments do stand opposed to Roman Catholicism’s ‘replacement’ theology. The belief the church has replaced Israel as the apple of God’s eye. Catholics do tend to believe that God has rejected the Jews and made a new election – now God chooses the church, specifically the Roman Catholic Church. But that Roman Catholic doctrine isn’t biblical.
I will again take issue with your unique tendency to speak of Junia and Titus in this manner “…his standing and circumstance is as inconclusive as Junia’s.” Sorry Steve; we know lots more about Titus’ standing and circumstance than we do about the Junia. Junia is so obscure we don’t even know for sure he was a man. I don’t think Titus’ standing as a man is in question.
For one thing we know Paul resisted Titus’ circumcision. We also know Timothy was circumcised by Paul. Timothy’s circumcision is powerful evidence that Paul understood the covenant God made with Israel was an everlasting covenant. Timothy was a Jew. Titus was not. Paul did not teach the Jews to forsake circumcision. Acts 21
Who said Paul explicitly mentioned being a man as a qualification for apostleship or eldership or deaconship (assuming any of these roles are even the same)?
Husband of one wife.
Was there any black among the 12 disciples chosen by Christ? I am still searching to know in the early church the blacks who were ordained in the New Testament.
Maybe blacks should be excluded from ordination as well then? It was certainly the longstanding position of white missionaries of many denominations in Africa for a long time.
I raised the point of Shem in my article. Those who promoted segregation and slavery likewise use the curse of Ham. Same sort of argument.
“Same sort of argument”
—
How so? What does the issue of slavery have to do with WO? Nowhere does the Bible nor the Adventist Church teach or promote the slavery of men or women (except us being privileged to be the slaves of Christ). Using arguments like this ultimately attack God and accuses him of discrimination, judgmentalism and patriarchal domination. In fact the same sort of argument can be used to justify homosexual behaviour and marriage. The fallen Churches of Babylon have embraced this apostasy and it is understandable because they choose to disobey. Adventists who do the same will have no excuse. How can we call people to come out of apostasy when we ourselves embrace the same errors? It is imperative therefore for the current policy allowing the election and ordination of women to be reversed and removed. In fact this is what should have been voted on in the “no” in San Antonio.
Quite a few of you seem to object to my use of satire. But I wonder if those complainants are themselves being satirical? Doesn’t not belong? The Bible is absolutely completely full of irony and satire. Almost every chapter in Job is full of it. The Gospel of Mark is especially full of it, particularly through its use of the messianic secret motif.
There is a difference between crude jokes and godly satire. Jesus’ saying about planks and camels are all satire!
The passion of Christ is itself a satirical play on worldly coronation ceremonies of kingship. His throne was the Cross, His crown was of thorns, His robe was purple and scarlet given by the Romans, and His kingship was proclaimed publicly in a sign written in three languages.
Satire is ‘godly’ when it shames those who need to shame. It is for this reason the Bible tells us Jesus’ death on the cross shamed Satan and the evil powers of the world.
The greatest Christ-like proponents of civil rights and anti-colonialism understood the power of godly shame. For was it not Ghandi who continually used satire, wearing his little sari and challenging the might of the British Empire with his walk to the sea to collect salt?
But if I had to quote my favourite use of biblical satire, it would be Paul, and discussing circumcission, telling his opponents to castrate themselves. Get the joke there – circumcission vs castration. Go re-read Gal 5:11-12
The Bible is so full of irony scholars have written whole books on the subject. The following includes a list of such books one can buy from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=irony+in+the+bible
Galatians 5:
10 I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
Paul didn’t say to castrate themselves; he wished that which troubles them was removed. Did you wish to run WO through these verses? Does the viewpoint of the Church trouble you and do you “yet suffer persecution”?
2 Peter 1:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Do you wish us to be Mainline Protestant, which has lost 5 million members over the last 5 years (and promotes WO); or Evangelical (who have gained like amount)? Do you understand what dispensationalism is? When did the color of one’s skin become a factor? Is your shaming of others and satire included in these? Does this serve GOD or do you have a better plan? Do you have a plan?
Let’s not forget that when Jesus sent out ministers he said they should not carry money, any clothes other than what they were wearing, must wear sandles, and carry no baggage. Our pastors should have to abide this too.
Oh know…I took a suitcase to GC. I’m in violation…and I used an ATM. Double bad.
You missed out another: you voted yes.
My question to Seventh-day Adventist opponents of women’s ordination is does the Bible recognize any human authority as ordained by God? (Or put another way, does God recognize any human authority according to the Bible?)
Here is another approach this same question. In Scripture does God Himself ever invest any human beings with any ecclesiastical authority?
Matthew 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”
Mark 3:14 “And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,”
John 15:15 “Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.” 16 “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”
Acts 1:22 “Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.”
Acts 14:3 “And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.”
Acts 16:4 “And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.”
Acts 17:31 “Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.”
Romans 13:1 “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”
You might want to add Heb. 13:7,17, and 24.
Beware the bible butchers on both sides of any controversy.
This sounds like a different use of the word “ordained” and I don’t know the original languages. If it means “set apart” as I have heard, what is the issue? Set apart sounds very different than the Catholic ritual from where the churches got the modern concept.
The church itself is “set apart.” Teachers are “set apart” so is every one who spreads the Gospel. Ellen White was certainly “set apart.” Isn’t the term used by governments for some jobs like chaplains, making it a political issue? Isn’t it used by law as a permission to marry and thus political? I don’t know the answer, but the biblical events seem to be talking about something else, and in their era women rabbis and teachers would not have been acceptable. Certainly an Ellen White wouldn’t have been allowed to speak.
Stephen,
What does this text mean? “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” It sure sounds like Jesus Christ is giving human beings ecclesiastical authority. Maybe this is one of those texts where it doesn’t mean what it says?
OK then William, since it God Himself has invested human beings with such authority, what is the highest position or title that one can have in this economy? What is the largest responsibility with which one can be entrusted in this economy?
Tje text doesn’t say. What do you think?
What I think is that God did invest human beings with certain spiritual gifts and that they carry with them authority. I think that the greatest responsibility is on those on which the gift of prophecy is bestowed, because they are speaking for God when employing that spiritual gift.
This is why I asked the question to Seventh-day Adventists who are opposed to women’s ordination; because it is an untenable position for a Seventh-day Adventist who believes that EGW was given an authoritative spiritual gifting for the edification of this church.
It is an untenable position on a number of other fronts, but it is particularly nonsensical for a real Seventh-day Adventist.
Scripture is nonsensical? That doesn’t read like something a real Seventh-day Adventist would write.
I just quoted the text. I don’t really understand it. I would never call it nonsense. I just thought of it when I read your question.
I guess it all depends on your definition of a real Adventist – if I’m deemed not to be a real Seventh-day Adventist, can I still play in your sandbox?
By now, if you have been following this William, you realize that I asked the question which you (correctly, in my view) answered, only to set up the proposition that it is nonsensical for “real Seventh-day Adventists” to (simultaneously) hold the position that male headship forbids the church from recognizing and acknowledging the blessing and gifting of God, and the usefulness of such blessing and gifting in the body of Christ, in women via of ordination; and the position that Ellen White was endowed with an authoritative gift of prophecy for the edification of our church in particular.
Since we agree that God does indeed bless and gift human beings with even the authority to occasionally speak on His behalf; and since ‘real Adventists’ believe that this gifting was at times manifested in the ministry of Ellen White; it is nonsensical for ‘real Adventists’ to hold that male headship forbids an acknowledgement of what God has done in the lives of certain women. (Do you “understand it” now?)
It means Peter’s confession of faith “Thou are the Christ…..” is the “rock” that Jesus will build His church.
Jesus never built His church on Peter. But on Peter’s confession of faith concerning who Jesus is.
Bill,
I’m inclined to agree with your interpretation regarding the “Rock” upon which Jesus builds His church. Even though it is not the simplest interpretation of what is actually said. It seems
the most coherent. What about the keys and the binding on earth and heaven part? What do those words mean?
1 Corinthians 7:7 “But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.”
1 Corinthians 9:14 “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.”
Ephesians 4:“14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;”
1 Timothy 2:7 “Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.”
Titus 1:5 “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:“ 6 “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.”
1 Timothy 3:2 “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;” 12 “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.”
Yes the BIBLE recognizes human authority; all ordained of GOD. Should the question not be are you ordained of GOD; sufficient of humans to recognize your authority? Is that not your contention within individual ideologies, wisdom and logic?
The essential question here revolves around the concept of ordination, which does not appear in scripture, but which was developed in the apostate church for the purpose of elevating individuals to positions of spiritual, social and legal authority over others. That is contrary to the scriptural concept of the “koinonia” or “the common” where all who believe serve directly under the authority of the Holy Spirit.
Also, do not confuse leadership with authority because leadership is someone providing an example that inspires others to follow where authority is invested in a person by giving them an official position or delegating power to them. God designed for there to be leadership in the church but all authority belongs to Him and that authority is administered by the Holy Spirit, whom a very large number of Adventists know nothing about.
Indeed William. What is also interesting is that apostles were chosen without human intervention. That is the point of Matthais being chosen by lots – the Greek origin for the word clergy (literary chosen by lots).
Elders and deacons by contrast are most associated with the word “cheirotoneo” (χειροτονέω), literally meaning “to elect by raising hands”, from the root word “cheiro” (χειρο), meaning “hand” (Acts 14:23; 2 Cor. 8:19).
The first type of leadership is all God. The second type of leadership is an election by fellow human beings. The reason why Paul cites criteria for eldership is because it is a practical ministry where humans get to choose.
Therefore, sorry to burst the bubble but in some respect being an elder or deacon is not special. I say that will all respect. The Seven mentioned in Acts 6 were elected for the very practical business of ‘waiting on tables’.
So Titus doesn’t ‘do’ anything other than preside over elections.
Apostles and prophets and pastors and other charismatic leaders, which I think our clergy are (per my Greek lesson above), given their task is primarily to spread the Gospel and not ‘wait on tables’, don’t seem to be elected at all. God calls who He calls. If He calls a woman then who are we to question Him on gender, any more than questioning Him on race. God calls directly through the Holy Spirit without human election, as both Matthais and Paul (who makes a similar point that no one chose him, including none of the…
By election I mean human election – raising hands. Our elders and deacons are chosen by this.
Our clergy are instead elected by being called and chosen by the Holy Spirit – by God’s hands alone.
How I wish our elections in the church were a recognition of the giftedness God has placed in a person as evidenced by the results of their ministry than a popularity contest, as is so much more often the case.
I see no significant difference in scripture in the way people are called to different ministries because they are all called and empowered by God.
I think Stephen once must distinguish the Twelve (namely apostles and other charismatic leaders) from the Seven (namely elders and those appointed to practical ministry). The distinction is best seen in Acts 6:1-7. A common mistake on all sides is a failure to distinguish the two streams of leadership – both OT and NT.
God alone has jurisdiction over charismatic leaders. Apostles, prophets and pastors are made so by God. Humans only get to recognise it after the event. This is why Matthais was chosen unusually by lots, to emphasise it wasn’t a human decision. Paul likewise says no one chose him as an apostle except Jesus. I believe our ‘clergy’ fit into this category.
Elders and deacons by contrast are most associated with the word “cheirotoneo” (χειροτονέω), literally meaning “to elect by raising hands”, from the root word “cheiro” (χειρο), meaning “hand” (Acts 14:23; 2 Cor. 8:19). God leaves it to our human judgment. It is indeed a human decision. This is why Paul gives criteria. The Twelve call them to ‘wait on tables’.
The interesting point is the first elders-deacons were appointed because of perceived racism amongst the brethren. So the Twelve, all “pure” Judean Jewish-Christians allowed the congregation to elect Seven, mostly Hellenised Jews.
I don’t see how we could undo God’s calling of clergy – even of women. Likewise, God leaves it to us to elect elders – women included. Paul gives general guidelines, but most of our own wouldn’t satisfy it…
Acts 6:
1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
As you state, cheirotoneo appears twice; 2 Corinthians 8:19 has nothing to do with Elders or Deacons. Elder(presbuteros) appears 69 times and Deacon (diakonos) 30 times.
Now what exactly are you trying to derive from all of this? Everyone was elected.
1 Peter 5:
1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
Pastors are appointed and can be removed from office by the Conference Committee. Did you read the Church Manual? Even Conference Departmental Directors are not vested with administrative or executive authority; their purpose is only advisory.
Either you are a pastor bigot(but they know the call is to serve)or trying to justify your individual ideologies.
My points are:
1. See the Twelve are a distinct category from the Seven.
2. Compare how Stephen and the Seven were chosen by election compared with how Matthais was selected by lots to join the Twelve in Acts 2. Compare with how Paul was chosen by God directly as an apostle, and defends his apostleship saying no one chose him except God. Paul essentially rejects the Catholic notion of apostolic succession, as unlike Matthais the other apostles had nothing to do with his choice.
3. The word elder and deacon is indeed not mentioned in Acts 6. The idea that the Seven were deacons is just tradition. They were probably the very first elders. The categories of ‘appointed leadership’ (elder and deacon) probably wasn’t defined at this early stage.
4. Pastors in the SDA Church are sometimes treated like apostles, sometimes like elders – the offices often mixed up when we feel like it. I don’t think that actually reflects the NT, where there seems to be two major streams of leadership – charismatic and appointed. The SDA Manual is wrong.
There is a major scholarly article by Professor Robert M. Johnston of Andrews University‘Leadership in the Early Church During the First Hundred Years’ that explains it better than me.
Church historians also reflect two-fold ministry – of charismatic leaders (apostles and prophets and teachers) and appointed leaders (elders and deacons).
For example, Oxford Professor of Christian history Diarmaid MacCulloch (Anglican-Episcopalian, 1951-) explains:
“A similar stage can be detected in the late-first-century Church: a mobile ministry included those known as apostles and prophets, the local ministry in particular places consisted of a grade known interchangeably as bishops or presbyters, together with a separate grade of deacons.”
To cite another expert in the early Church, Jonathan Hill (Anglican-Episcopalian, 1976-) likewise points to the distinction between charismatic and appointed leadership:
“these bishops and deacons are chosen and appointed by their community (rather than simply turning up and exercising their charismatic powers), although we are not told exactly what they do… Perhaps we are to imagine the bishops and deacons as remaining in one place and running their local church, and then deferring to itinerant prophets when the latter arrive.”
I think it’s quite funny that some responding here don’t get what satire is…or they think satire is a tool of the devil. When Jesus spoke the “eye of the needle” thing..he too was using satire. When He said “if you eye offend you, pluck it out” he was using satire. In the mirror of satire…we can see the folly of our ways.
Good Job, Stephen!
Satire is undeniably associated with ridicule and mocking. I strongly disagree that Jesus used this particular figure of speech. The “pluck out your eye” is more hyperbole than satire I would say.
Only mocking those who need it Trevor. It is a biblical concept. Jesus mocked the Devil through satire on the cross, which is an ironic coronation ceremony. Paul mocked his opponents re circumcission when he told them to go castrate themselves, a play on words about the subject of cutting one’s member. Again, you might like to look at that link I posted to Amazon, listing all the scholarly books that are devoted to the topic of satire and irony in the Bible.
This may be satire – ha ha – but this disrespectful approach to the GC is why you will never prevail on this issue. You’re preaching to the choir and annoying the people you should be convincing.
This post-vote bitterness and sour grapes simply confirms the perception that AToday and Spectrum simply want to use the church to get their way, and when they don’t, they can’t handle it.
So laugh it up, but don’t expect to achieve anything.
Speak to the issues Jim, not the person, or people. One of the first noticeables in a conflict, and in this case, theological differences, is that the discussion starts on one level (theological discussions etc) then if consensus is not reached, one party will then lower the attack to the person, group etc. classic conflict resolution examples.
I personally find nothing wrong with the comments by Mr. Alvarez. He has observed some sour grapes from some quarters and expresses his opinion here in not approving of the satirical mocking of the outcome of the vote. What you may not know is that your comments itself don’t address “issues” too but zone in on discrediting the observations mentioned by Mr. Alvarez in pointing out your opinion on what Mr. Alvarez must say and how he should address this issue. What if Mr. Alvarez is right in his observation that certain groups are displaying the characteristics of sour grapes in one form or another. We also don’t know if English is his first language. The same advice you give to Mr Alvarez could also apply to the satirical article in question too.
It’s interesting for you to say this, because the worst comments I read and heard came from those who opposed WO. They would have applauded if given the chance. It was hard for me to believe the vitriol, because they did win! I think that bothered me more than the vote and made me wonder did I want to be in the same family with these people?
This article also mocks God’s law in requiring circumcisions in the OT. It may no longer be a requirement, but the requirement was the Word of God.
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked.
Whatever you say against the blog, could be seen as more disrespectful than any satire.
Mr. Stephen Foster asks: “My question to Seventh-day Adventist opponents of women’s ordination is does the Bible recognize any human authority as ordained by God?” (I know he is aware that proponents of WO can be asked the same).
I would say yes without any reservations: The Church has authority but it is subject to the Bible – the Word of God.
Acts 16:4-5 which says: “And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees in order to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.”
Jesus ordained the twelve disciples and the scriptures affirm that he is God. He gave them authority. He established the authority of the NT Church. His authority was also granted and ordained by God.
Trevor my brother, the question was a polemical trap; essentially a trick question. For Seventh-day Adventist to recognize that the Bible does recognize God-ordained human authority should have been obvious; since we acknowledge the prophetic gifting of Ellen White to be authoritative.
The entire basis for opposing women’s ordination is nullified if we, as SDAs, accept the authoritative prophetic gifting of a woman.
This is the part that has always puzzled me–seriously–it is not consistent with what they are saying. It certainly is not consistent with the Adventist Church. EGW was a teacher, preacher, counselor of church leaders, etc. If you are going to be an absolutist and literal forever you can’t be honestly in this church. You will have to do some intellectual gymnastics. And that’s OK, but don’t force it on others.
A good point you’ve raised sir and something worth considering in the WO narrative. From what I have gathered, spiritual gifts come directly from God and the gift of prophecy like all other gifts are given to both men and women as God wills, hence Ellen White receiving this gift. The Church does not elect or ordain a prophet. The office of elder on the other hand is not a spiritual gift and men only are eligible for this role for which they are ordained by the Church in this capacity, according to the Bible. We also have to note that Ellen White was never ordained as an elder, she did not baptise, officiate at weddings, organise churches or serve as president of the GC or any conferences for that matter. Her ministry as a messenger of the Lord is authoritative because of her gift and not because of any office she held. The fact that God used Ellen White in such a significant manner in the Church serves as a classic example of the Adventist Church supporting and accepting women in Christian service and ministry. This of course being subject to the word of God – the Holy Bible – as is everything else.
Trevor,
The Bible simply does not anywhere forbid women from being ordained as elders. Since it doesn’t, what is the Biblical principle that you are using to deny this, or any other office, to women?
Let the Unions who feel strongly about WO stop all ordinations, perhaps recall all ordination credentials of active pastors. Simply commission all pastors, male or female, and be done with it.
Mr. Ferguson provides a classic example of how forcing cultural bias into a theological makeover can create major conflict with related verses in the Bible. This is what those who have moved away from the Methods of Bible Study Document have done. They reinterpret scripture to get their desired outcome and try to explain away the scriptural conflict they create in so doing. A historical cultural hermeneutic is employed in desperation to dismiss the anomalies of their position. Cherry picking at its best. Cigarette smoking for example is not mentioned in the Bible and the ‘silence hermeneutic’ can be invoked to justify allowing it. The fact that just about anything can be justified shows how dangerous holding such a position is. That is how homosexual marriage and its related perverted behaviour has gained growing support among the churches of Babylon and now so-called Adventists want to bring that in. If WO is allowed then the Biblical position of our faith and what we believe crumbles like a house of cards. And they say such a position comes from God. Hmm…
Funny thing Trevor is I wrote the article to show exactly what you say I do is what those who oppose WO are doing! Are we both inserting our cultural biases?
What I find interesting is none of the opponents of WO, with the possible exception of William Abbott, have attempted to engage the biblical and logical arguments I have raised. My point demonstrates that opponents of WO are happy to excuse or ignore biblical arguments of Jewish headship (race) but seem fixated still on male headship (gender).
As I raised in the article, at least Pentecostals apply Dispensationalist theology to reaffirm the special headship of Jews still. Yet Adventists, including those who oppose WO, don’t usually hold to such thinking about race. How do those who oppose WO justify this?
Steve,
I’m not borrowing Non-Adventist theology from Mr. Schofield’s Study Bible. Nothing I said comes from his ‘Dispensations.’
As I said, I’m refuting Roman Catholic Replacement theology. The church has not replaced Israel as a new Israel. The Jew has not been ‘unelected’. He is not now ‘unchosen’ Jesus Christ is the door through which all now are brought into His people. Christ has called a people who are not His people. If we are joined to Him we are joined to Israel.
Steve, please don’t dismiss my argument. Engage it. Its biblical, not borrowed. It’s quite comparable with Adventism. Adventists are made for it.
Otherwise, refute it.
And assuming you’re William what then of Gentile leaders in the Church? Where were the Gentile apostles? Why should we allow Gentile leaders now then, when the Bible has no evidence of any and affirms Jewish headship?
Jewish Headship is not a biblical term. But the Election of the Jews is without repentance. Christ is the head of every man and man is the the head of woman
Paul’s lists the qualifications: “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. . . . Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.”
Women are excluded. Gentiles are not. “Christ is the head every man” is inclusive of Gentiles. This clause: man is the head of woman makes the the inverse false: “Woman is the head of man” Headship for woman is inconsistent with Paul’s logic. The proponents of WO have a serious problem with Paul.
They dismiss Paul’s canonical authority by denying or explaining away his prohibitions of women in headship.
Paul does not exclude Gentiles for headship in the church.
As to cigarette smoking, there was no tobacco around so we wouldn’t expect it to be mentioned. But there were Jews and Gentiles around Trevor – plenty of them. Similarly, those who oppose WO routinely engage the ‘silence hermeneutic’ for a host of their arguments too.
I have attempted to raise this in the article – perhaps you didn’t read it all the way through? As Jesus chose no women apostles, a common silence hermeneutic argument, He chose no Gentile apostles either.
Opponents of WO can’t have it both ways. They choose the Bible when it suits, silence when it suits and culture when it suits.
A consistent approach to reading the Bible would conclude both females AND Gentiles must be excluded from ordained ministry OR both females AND Gentiles must be included in ordained ministry.
Mr. Ferguson, I will admit this: the only bias those opposing WO have is that they have a Bible based belief bias. It’s proponents of WO that have a cultural bias which is governed by the unbiblical dictates and norms of society in terms of a gender bender agenda as opposed to those with a biblical belief bias. In making an attempt to try and equate both sides as having their own cultural bias you fail to show how those opposing WO are influenced by cultural bias when in fact they take a position based on consistent sound biblical based beliefs.
The position that those opposing WO is not argued from that of a silence hermeneutic sir. It is based on clear biblical instruction that men should be appointed to the office of elder. Opponents of WO do not need to use any silence arguments because by default they accept what the bible plainly teaches. Show us where the Bible says that Jewish circumcised males are only eligible for the office of elder. You’re making this up. Proponents make the assumption that WO is a legitimate practice taught in the Bible when it is clearly not.
I suppose you do not trust or believe the Andrews University seminary scholars who studied thoroughly the issue and came to the conclusion it was not biblical to oppose women in ministry. I want to hear you say this, as it answers some of my questions.
Really where is the text that affirms positively Gentiles as apostles first, and elders second? Perhaps you’ll show us?
Please could you elaborate on the question as I don’t get what you’re asking and whether it is relevant to the gender specific biblical instruction that men should be elected as elders. Is the question directed at me?
Trevor, you wrote: “The fact that just about anything can be justified shows how dangerous holding such a position is. That is how homosexual marriage and its related perverted behaviour has gained growing support among the churches of Babylon and now so-called Adventists want to bring that in.”
After being a life-long SDA, I’ve never heard of any Adventist wanting to allow gay marriage. Your argument that if anyone wants to accept women’s ordination must mean that they also want to accept gay marriage and even a gay lifestyle is just wrong. It’s a scare tactic used by politicos but doesn’t apply here. Just my opinion.
Ryan Bell
http://advindicate.com/articles/3029
But Paul said in Romans:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Romans 10: 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Within Dispensationalism, these verses do not void the Law.
Deuteronomy 10:
15 Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.
16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
18 He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment.
19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Our requirements are clear.
Deuteronomy 30: 1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee,
Again, in Matthew 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”
The BIBLE speaks for itself. You oppose Church established Doctrine and even the views of the majority. You provide zero value add to the body and promote negative value within wisdom. Your ideologies or derivations do not remove the curse or requirements of Law; nor do they promote the requirements of blessings.
Your actions do not help to relieve the poor, spread the word, build strong Churches, teach sound Doctrine to the young or rebuke within failures in any of such. Can you not look around and see many failures and unmet needs? How exactly is this Love or serving GOD?
A statement from Diarmaid MacCulloch that you reference above;“I was ordained Deacon. But, being a gay man, it was just impossible to proceed further, within the conditions of the Anglican set-up”. Do you think that your information sources may have motive?
You wish to teach our children; what is that motive?
Just some thoughts here in Love.
Against whom are you raising such an accusation? Do you actually know them to have personal knowledge to support what you presume is factual? How do such condemnations attract people to God?
Excuse me, but I don’t want to know the God you appear to know because I am only seeing condemnation of others instead of the love and forgiveness God has showered on me.
Agreed–out of touch with reality. He needs to practice and believe 1 Cor. 13.
Thoughts in love? Really reality. Attacking now the credentials of one of the world’s most respected historians as a personal attack? Really reality? I never quoted MacCulloch as a theologian or on the basis of his own personal morality but as one of the world’s greatest historians. If you can fault his expertise on history be my guest. Otherwise I suggest you cease with the ad hominem attacks – on him and on me.
Steve, How about a MacCulloch quote that some of those first century Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons were women? MacCulloch is an honest historian, whatever his sins.
Unlike some of our despicable Adventist WO propagandists, who have masqueraded as historians. Yes – that is an ad hominem attack. More precisely an ad historiographus attack. (but not on MacCulloch)
Sure thing William. Here is an entire article from MacCulloch on the issue of WO:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/07/female-apostles-fine-for-jesus
Steve, Thanks so much for the entire article. Phoebe and your favorite Junia, in all their obscurity – and that is it. Epicene names like Junia/Junio, then and now, are inconclusive. There is nothing in the text to establish Junia is a woman. Frankly it is unlikely Junia was a woman, because there weren’t women leading the church.
MacCulloch doesn’t make stuff up. That is why the article has nothing to add to our discussion. Everything you can say about possible ordained women in the new testament fits in a sentence or two. The rest is fluff trying to make something out of nothing.
MacCulloch talks about so many other things in the quoted article. Want to have a go at the essentially unanimous consensus for 1700 years that menstruating women were to have no part in the sacrament or appear before the Altar?
Curious? Why not quote from MacCulloch’s books? Do you just take it on faith he is one of the world’s great historians?
I’m also happy to oppose the majority where I think it is out of step with the Bible. I couldn’t in good conscience do anything else. If church doctrine was only a matter of majority opinion then we’d all be Roman Catholics, the world’s biggest Christian faith system.
Finally, your view and those like you, in opposing women in ministry, certainly doesn’t help either. You don’t help when you prohibit 50% or more of Church members from full recognised ministry.
And you have the nerve to claim I’m a hindrance to getting the work done. Give me a break. Your attitude is no different from the Judaizers mentioned in Acts 15. Just replace race with gender and we have a repeat of that issue.
“Just replace race with gender and we have a repeat of that issue.”
A totally false parallel. But rather typical of people who will “wrest the scriptures to their own destruction.”
Just what someone hiding culture as biblical principles would say.
whoa a Gay Man being ORDAINED as a Deacon how come , not even a thief, liar, gossiper, etc. Please be patient with me I am not educated as many of you who have written strong Polemic view on others statements.
Now my view is that how can one be Gay – thief adulterer fornicator etc. and be a Christian as said I am not educated like most of your but there is a word buzzing in my head called OXYMORON gay and Christian and thief and Christian I guess that is clear now.
1 TIM 1 VERSE 4 – 11 is what we should be concentrating on we have suffered CORPORATE MEMORY LOSS LOOK AT MATT 28 v 18 THEN WE FIND WHAT THE CEO KING JESUS HAS ASKED US TO DO
CLEM UK NEC Conference
Clem, your wisdom is much more valuable.
The person referenced is a history professor at Oxford and was an ordained minister in the Church of England; not within SDA, but his teachings were referenced.
We Love everyone; sins can be forgiven. The point is that we have specific Doctrine, guidance and commands in the BIBLE that have existed for millennia and must be followed.
2 Peter 1:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
The Corporation or CHURCH does stand for the BIBLE and our CEO. The interpretations are not left to spoilt children with individual ideologies or persons outside the Holy Spirit within other motives.
We all have the responsibility to make sure that happens. We have been requested by the Conference to address anyone that is not following sound Doctrine; it is our job anyway. But we must “speak, and exhort, and rebuke” firmly, but within Love. GOD will handle the rest.
Personal admission and public release is not accusatory. Endemic reality or questions within such are not accusatory.
William, the only accusation I see here is maybe you; raised by your own conviction?
Maybe if you did your job and rebuke failures, as required within scripture, your conviction would not weigh upon you; and others would not have to do such. Within your model; who does stand up to protect the Church? We are commanded to rebuke failures within all authority; who is suppose to do that? GOD will definitely protect, with or without us; sorry, but you just seem to want to make it more difficult. Are we spoilt children without need of rebuke? Maybe we need to eat the meat and grow; the difference between individual salvation and the Church.
Actually within correction of NAD and TED, I discriminated against the other Divisions that are doing their jobs; I correct that now and extend utmost thanks and appreciation.
Again; thoughts within Love.
dear reality
my text re authority is scriptural ISAIAH 58 V 12 as long as your life is in harmony with the father you are not a hypocrite and as long it with love not bashing others but restorative love
Clem
comments please
Clem,
Isaiah 58 is one of my favorite Bible passages because of how it outlines for us in conceptual terms the work God wants us to be doing. The Bible-pounding, doctrine-defending loudmouths in our church would do well to study it and learn how to turn God’s instruction into actions that minister His redeeming love in practical ways. I cry remembering about the number of times I have seen God’s love changing a person’s heart and drawing them to Him only to have the “teachers of pure doctrine” drive them out of the church. Often overcoming the offenses created by those defenders is the most difficult part of rebuilding faith in a person and turning them into soul-winners.
AMEN Bro William lets uplift each other with Gods Love
Clem
When responding to a specific comment it is best if you click on the “reply” hypertext at the bottom of each posting so you can respond directly. Otherwise your remarks appear to be of general application.
You don’t know me. You don’t know my spiritual history or the ministry God has given me to do. It is also obvious you don’t know what lessons God has taught me or how deeply I respect His incredible ability to work however He wants. So to say your views are “endemic reality” or believe they are even correct is being quite arrogant and dismissive of the working of the Holy Spirit in others. Where is the evidence that God is using you to grow His Kingdom? How much has your local church grown because of your ministry in it? What are you doing for God that ministers His great love in actions instead of just words. Until you can show us answers to those questions I am without evidence to see that God is guiding you in the rebukes you lob with such indiscretion and generosity.
It was with great pleasure that I read the article and posts this morning. This is wonderful teaching material for my college logic professor, Dr. Roy Benton. The article and posts are full of the most amusing logical fallacies on both sides: slippery slope, false conclusion, and argument from silence (most prominent), to name a few.
I support women’s ordination and really did enjoy the article. But, logic needs to be applied appropriately in all cases.
Stephen,
Depending on how far you want to push it. The Church should not move out of Palestine or the known reach of the first century Christendom. Or worst it becomes irrelevant outside of biblical time. One surely can confine the reach of the Great Commission to historical biblical boundaries then being biblical becomes museum piece Christianity.
What I see is when political correctness including gender equality becomes the most urgent burning central issue church growth declines.
So the developing world which encompasses majority of the word divisions and membership embraces literal six literal days of creation and affirmation of male ecclesiastical leadership as matter of truth and wastes little time debating them, church grow continues or accelerates.
Has preoccupation and emphasis on political or ideological concerns hampers the effectiveness of reaching the world with the more urgent Message of the Second Coming of Christ?
What should be our priority?
Stephen,
You said: “What I see is when political correctness including gender equality becomes the most urgent burning central issue church growth declines.”
That would certainly be the case in other people groups where it wouldn’t make any sense, and would put them off.
In secular society, they wouldn’t even give time to considering any church that didn’t think equality important. We will get the kind of people we deserve perhaps.
In not allowing areas to decide what works for them, we have stopped caring about a large part of the world. We’ve written them off and the next generations, and I think that is cruel. We are looking for numbers!
In the NAD and western nations any religion that refuses to recognize all as being equally qualified to do the Lord’s work not dependent on gender will not make many converts.
But in those areas of the world where patriarchy is practiced and is the pattern, it is flourishing.
Just as the Holy Spirit directed the apostles to allow the Jews to continue their practices and exempted the Gentiles, it enabled the church to grow. Had Judaism been enforced, the Jewish Christians would soon disappear, which happened, and Gentile Christian WERE the church by the end of the first century onward and there is no evidence of a continuing Jewish-Christian church.
The attempt to force uniformity on the entire world church with very different cultures will only be more divisive and result in two churches.
“the developing world which encompasses majority of the word divisions and membership embraces literal six literal days of creation and affirmation of male ecclesiastical leadership as matter of truth and wastes little time debating them, church grow continues or accelerates.”
Christianity has always grown more rapidly in those parts of the world where living conditions and poor education and poverty gives hope from their present conditions.
But teaching “literal six literal days of creation and affirmation of male ecclesiastical leadership” is not accepted in the Western world because they have accepted equality and independent, not group thinking. What happens when these divisions are losing very fast their young and better educated; the area contributing the financial means for third world countries to have received Adventism? Will those region be equal to the task of supporting a large portion of world Adventists?
What makes a part of the globe “third world?” It’s not skin color or lack of intelligence or ability. Some persons in these countries have talents in their environments that outshine the rest of us. (I once read that the person with the highest IQ ever recorded is an African-English girl in the UK).
I believe the Western lands excelled because of education and religion (which started the educational systems). If you look back at some of the European places before Christianity, you will find barbarians.
It is the same in the “third-world” countries that have lived with tribalism and discrimination for so long. Christianity should have changed this for those it reached, but it didn’t emphasize those social ideas. (Doctrine and distortions of it took first place, I suspect.)
It is not surprising that Islam has made such inroads into these countries, since it carries some of the same tribal discrimination and ideas about women. Instead of tribes they have sects that radical Islam punishes, most of those murdered are Muslim.
One should note that not all in the West – or the NAD for that matter – are supportive or a part of the secular gender bender agenda gay-think and groupthink of the West.
Economical development has cycles. Yes, the time will come when the world divisions where church growth persists will be able to support their own and may render a helping hand to regions in decline. We used to help build churches in China. Now many of their citizens are buying U.S. properties in cash. It is possible in a decade or so our brothers and sisters there will help to build our churches in North America. The front runners had already built for our Universities. Outside of our Church one of the largest endowment at Harvard were donated by citizens from that region.
I will note that some of the most sophisticated systems and models project at least 50 years, massive amounts of funding and intervention to achieve self sufficiency of less fortunate Countries; at best case.
I am afraid that economic development may be the least of our worries. We have 19 million more Souls without Religious affiliation in the US than 7 years ago. That is 19 million Souls.
We also have the same worries about protection that many other Countries have now. Many are afraid to walk the streets in Australia, Switzerland and now the US; with the juvenile jail systems overflowing.
In the US, BJS informs me we have 25,000 more females entering the jail system over the last few years than the years before. HHS informs me that almost 40% of the child abuse is by or allowed by the mother. CDC informs me that 680,000 more men than women assaulted with a weapon by their domestic partners. The results of a total failure of the family.
We can no longer allocate discriminatory funding from the US Federal Government (if we had the money to do so). Many other Governments are also financially inhibited; so many denominations are pitching in to help, increasing costs and delaying self sustenance.
We have many things to worry about or get off our behinds and fix. We created this self perpetuating and failing system; maybe we should look to the BIBLE for solutions instead of derivations and individual ideologies.
The result of the vote on women ordination was guided by the spirit of God himself. For, it was a disgrace to even think of ordain women. According to the Bible, woman is the symbol of the Church. How can a woman be the head of a woman? I hope that Mr. Stephen Ferguson pray for the Holy spirit to open his eyes so he too can see and accept the truth. Not to let guide by the devil
And I will pray for you as well for the Holy Spirit to touch your heart as to what Jesus stands for and how He has made us all equal partners in His Kingdom.
I could overwhelm with Bible quotes as some here do, but we all seem to read them through human and not heavenly eyes.
I’m sure the Roman Catholic bishops shared these exact sentiments when they had their majority votes in the ecumenical councils of the early medieval period. The children of Israel weren’t right when they voted for a king or the golden calf. I’m sure if the vote on WO was a yes, the whole idea of ‘majority makes right’ wouldn’t be said here by Michael and others.
“majority makes right”
——
Although a majority voted no, their position was based on a thus saith the Lord sir. You’ll be surprised how open minded and compliant those not in favour of WO are – when it comes to a sound reasonable biblical basis of belief. The fact that they do not accept WO shows that they comply with sound biblical hermeneutic as per Methods of Bible Study Document and that whenever the silence hermeneutic is used it is done so within reason and responsibly as in the case of my cigarette smoking example.
“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, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority–not one nor 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” (Great Controversy, p. 595).
I have read the Bible through a number of times, in various languages, and have yet to encounter even a hint of a suggestion that women are inherently inferior spiritually or otherwise disqualified to serve as ministers of the gospel, including prophets and messengers.
For more than a century we have employed women to give Bible studies (certainly the role of a teacher, at an evangelistic level) and rare is the church that has not welcomed a woman at some time to the lectern for Sabbath presentations. Clearly Ellen White was recognized as functioning at a level and pay scale equal to, if not superior, to that of a newly ordained male. She herself did not occupy a full-time pulpit and did not organize and close churches, but there is nothing in Scripture that would arbitrarily disqualify women from performing these functions.
Under the Imperial Romans the Apostolic Christianity of Jesus arbitrarily (led by the Holy Spirit)opened the way for Gentile males and in particular the uncircumcised to execute the roles of spiritual leaders among Christians, despite dire prohibitions recorded in the Old Testament, where Gentiles were forbidden on pain of death from entering Jehovah’s House of Worship, let alone leading services there.
By comparison opening the doors in today’s age to invite Spirit-filled women to help finish the work in preparation for the Lord’s return seems a much less spiritually dangerous function, and one highly appropriate in a world increasingly led…
A Gentile who wished to become a Jew and practice Passover as well as temple services, must first have to be circumcised. Those who were no could not participate in any Jewish ceremonies and holy days.
This was the most important and initial step into Judaism which was celebrated on the 8th day of a male infant’s birth. This was the crux of the controversy at Jerusalem and the first time circumcision was rejected, as well as all the Law found in the Torah.
Adventists accept the authority of the apostles together with millions of Christians with the exception that selected parts of the Law given to the Israelites became infused into denominational beliefs.
Why do you pray for someone to be persuaded to your point of view, which you obviously believe is right, instead of asking God to persuade all who follow Him to be united in following HIM and being persuaded to HIS point of view? Is not this “I’m right, so you are wrong” attitude so prevalent in church discussions not straight from Satan? God’s ways are so much higher and greater than our ways that, even when we think we know what is His will He has further dimensions of understanding waiting for us to discover. So often the clearest meanings communicated by such statements as you made are smugness, arrogance, disrespect for the views of others and a spirit that is not submissive to God.
Please be praying that we all will be submissive to God and open to following His guidance even if that means us changing our views on a topic.
Infallible Councilliar Authority is something all “real” Seventh-day Adventists reject. If the majority had voted yes. They would still be wrong.
Mr. Ferguson says: “As Jesus chose no women apostles, a common silence hermeneutic argument, He chose no Gentile apostles either.”
—-
This is not a silence hermeneutic sir that Jesus chose no women apostles. It is a credible biblical position which by comparing scripture with scripture we find that both the OT and NT attest to the precedence of patriarchy in terms of leadership in the Judeo-Christian Church. In other words the observation of what Jesus did not do is in harmony with other passages of scripture that attest to male headship.
A “silence hermeneutic” incorrectly used of course by your line of reasoning is to say that because Jesus did not explicitly prohibit the appointment of homosexual apostles therefore there is no conclusive evidence that homosexuals can’t serve as elders in the Church. I would call this an incorrect use of a “silence hermeneutic” because such speculation is not in harmony with other passages of scripture that do not condone or promote homosexuality or homosexual marriage.
To just assume that Paul was only talking to Jewish men is primarily a faulty hermeneutic because you make the assumption that he is only addressing Jewish men when he says that men should be appointed as elder. Other passages confirm he is very clear that a woman should not have authority over a man in Church leadership and in the home. Show us a verse where Paul says a women should be appointed as elder or where matriarchy is taught? Gentile or Jew?
typo – …was only talking “about” Jewish men…
Why do you assume Paul isn’t talking to Jewish-Christian men in the Diaspora? Why do you assume Paul doesn’t contemplate women as apostles (if not elders)?
Why do you use silence in one instance and not in another instance?
You’re expecting consistency in biblical interpretation?
Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. He went amongst the Gentiles establishing churches and appointing Elders. Where is the Apostle to the Women? Wasn’t one. So Ferguson’s false dichotomy falls apart.
But as for Homosexual Apostles… Just assume all the unmarried apostles, and Jesus himself… Well, you know, they must of been…
These propogandists can twist anything to their own destruction. Watch and see – its already happening.
I agree with you Steve.
I fully expected the church media and individuals to proclaim that everything done at San Antonio was under the blessing of the Holy Spirit.
However, the contrary view is that often the outcomes simply eventuate by the sheer weight of organizational momentum.
In other words, the visible church may roll on until the Second Coming even if the cry, “Ichabod,” is justified.
Should we not look to the prophetic results in the BIBLE? These are the things that will happen.
Revelations 2:
18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;
19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.
20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.
25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
Jude 1:
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
2 Timothy 3:
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
But we have confidence.
1 John 5:
14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.
16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
I think we all know how to look at Bible verses. I think the prophecy I know best is the one foreseeing both men and women having spiritual leadership of God’s people.
William Abbott: “Steve, How about a MacCulloch quote that some of those first century Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons were women? MacCulloch is an honest historian, whatever his sins.”
From Diamard MacCulloch as requested:
“In fact, the story of leadership in the early church is quite complicated and it’s clear from what scanty evidence survives that not all the first Christian churches were led by bishops, even when they had apostles hanging around. It’s also certain that not all apostles were men.”
It seems MacCulloch sees Pheobe as a woman elder:
“Amid the large number of folk whom Paul lists as sending greetings in his Epistle to the Romans are Phoebe, the deacon (administrative officer or assistant) in the Church of Cenchreae (a port near Corinth); Prisca, a “fellow-worker”; and Tryphaena and Tryphosa, “workers in the Lord” – descriptions which Paul also applies to men in the same passage.
Biblical translators and therefore historians have also tended to view Phoebe’s status as that of a “deaconess”; yet this is probably reading back from the third and fourth centuries, when female deacons were restricted to roles necessarily reserved for women, such as looking after scantily clad females in services of baptism. There is no good reason to suppose that first- and second-century Christians made such a distinction.”
Sorry forgot the link:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/07/female-apostles-fine-for-jesus
And contrary to (un)Reality’s view, the fact MacCulluch is an ex-Christian expert in the early Church means in many respects he has no personal stake in the outcome of this debate. But as an Oxford Professor, I doubt anyone could find a greater expert in the Early Church history than he. I recommend everyone read his book (very large) on the history of the Early Church.
Steve, Sorry about the snarky comments implying you had not read his books, perhaps. (Before I read this)
He is not a believer and while he is a good historian; his unbelief does effects his history – he says so himself. His History of the Reformation is also excellent. He is a liberal. Like Ron Numbers, honest, but not sympathetic. MacCollough remembers fondly when he could believe.
“what scanty evidence…” There is the quote. WO proponents have sifted a couple of grains of wheat out of the haystack of contrary, undisputed, evidence that Jesus Christ chose only male (Jewish male) disciples and the early church chose only male Elders, Deacons and Presbyters.
Write all the satire you like – you will never change the facts.
Phoebe was from Greek mythology, a prophetic and one of the original Greek Titans. There is lots of text on her.
Phebe is in the BIBLE and was a servant (diakonos), not of the office of Deacon (diakoneō), and she was an assistant (sucourrer) of many, including Paul; and we love and appreciate her. You have no right or possession to use her life or works or testimony for your or others individual ideologies.
This is why the interpretations are left to those moved and guided in wisdom by the Holy Ghost.
2 Peter 1:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
We Love you; but what does this have to do with GOD? The Doctrine has existed for millennia; GOD does not change, James 1:7 “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” CHRIST does not change, Hebrews 13:8 “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” You are the only variable; but no different from anyone else. The only thing that makes you special is to be one in CHRIST; with the rest of us.
Frankly, non-Christians are the best historians of the early church as they are never apologists. I have a number of books by various authors, most who are no Christians, one writes as a former Christian so he understands Christianity having graduated from its seminaries.
There are probably millions of Christian apolgetics written but for accurate historical accounts the agnostics have no axe to grind.
Then go create your own little universe, make you some minions, teach them love and let the ones that don’t love you write your doctrine; then you can come back and exchange notes with HIM.
HE created the universe, created us, gave us one rule that we broke, gave us simple Law in Love that we could not follow, gave HIS only begotten SON and it still wasn’t enough. Maybe you can create better minion with free will? Maybe you can create a better PLAN? Maybe we should just stick with HIS PLAN?
Yes Elaine, a good historian is not a apologist. But your post doesn’t acknowledge a good Christian also be a good historian. Its seems like you are saying they can’t even be historians – that their Christianity restricts them to apologetics.
Dairmaid MacCulloch is a good historian in spite of his agnosticism and his homosexuality – not because of it. Quite good. But probably not the best ever as Steve suggests, but quite good.
Who are inventing new issues for the manufacturing of Agenda items for GC 2020
Mr. Stephen Ferguson.
Stephen, thank you for trying. But those who are dead in their trespasses and sins refusing to follow the Spirit’s lead to progressive truth, just don’t get it. They crucify the Son of God afresh and think they are defending God. By crucifying women on their cross of male headship they are following their Pharisee progenitors. And unless they repent and in humility ask women in Adventism for forgiveness it may be an unpardonable sin. They call you and me Jesuit Adventists for wanting progress towards Edenic pre-fall equality, as they ape the same sins (male headship) that made the first church an apostate church. I am so ashamed of the men in this church for not standing up for our women. Cowards, and some of them seem proud of it. Satire can help those not yet convinced, but shame needs to be poured on those proud of their stance, and who dare use scripture to oppose the will of Christ.
Did Jesus ape male headship in his role as Head of the Church? Is that what you’re saying?
Did Jesus sin when he epitomised male headship as Head of the Church?
Jack,
A little scriptural irony here. Your mention of “dead in their trespasses and sins” made me think of the statement in Eccl. 9:5 about the dead knowing nothing and constrasting that with how the Holy Spirit gives us new life.
There comes a time when you have to stop arguing with the dead.
Jack has elevated issue of gender equality to the level of unpardonable sin. Isn’t sexuality being imposed on the Holy Spirit? If one is not careful a burning social issue could carry one into exuberant irrationality.
Trevor,
I respect and admire your perspectives and positions on Scriptural matters, theology, doctrine, etc.; and I largely agree with them.
On this matter of women’s ordination in the Adventist church, I respectfully disagree with you my brother because you and other fellow conservatives have failed miserably in pointing out how the Bible forbids the acknowledgment of ordination of women whom God is able to use for His purposes in the gospel ministry—as he uses males who’ve been ordained into the gospel ministry.
You and others of my fellow conservatives have failed to do anything except get enough votes on a procedural matter that is as much cultural and traditional as it is anything; that much is clear.
I had until fairly recently been ambivalent on this topic; leaning toward opposition to women’s ordination—based on a cursory review of some of Paul’s writings—and the fact that liberals were pushing it (so, it must be anti-Biblical and therefore wrong).
However taking the contexts and the entirety of Paul’s writings into account, and given the extraordinary weakness of the arguments that I’ve heard and read against it, I’m now convinced that the anti-position cannot be supported by anything actually in the Bible; or any actual principle derived from it.
Let’s face it; neither animosity toward theological liberalism, something we have in common, nor traditionalism can adequately substitute for sound doctrine.
Dear Brother Stephen (Foster), I respect your right to your opinion and it seems quite clear that you have made your decision on this matter in that you feel “conservatives” have failed “miserably” in “pointing out” a biblical basis for opposing WO.
I take it therefore that you have determined that proponents have [not] failed miserably in presenting a biblical case in favour of WO. Well, this is where we part ways (on this issue) brother, as I am not in the least bit convinced or impressed that proponents have a solid biblical basis supporting their position. If there is, then please show where the Bible supports female headship. (I use the term headship in a broad sense denoting servant leadership in submission to Christ and not as Head of the Church).
You have narrowed your EGW argument down to the fact that because her writings are accepted as authoritative that it therefore is game, set and match for pro-WO. There are a number of prophetesses in the Bible and we accept their ministry in this capacity as being authoritative having received the spiritual gift from God by accepting the Bible as authoritative. But does that make it right to then say that because we accept the prophetic gift of women (and men) as being authoritative that women can therefore be ordained as elders? If this line of reasoning is correct then that places the apostle Paul (and God) in direct conflict with such a view of which I would have to respectfully disagree with you my…
good brother.
“If there is, then please show where the Bible supports female headship. (I use the term headship in a broad sense denoting servant leadership in submission to Christ and not as Head of the Church).”
As you’ve acknowledged, the Bible furnishes examples of the prophetic gift bestowed upon women. What other higher example of “servant leadership in submission to Christ” can there possibly be than the responsibility, given to those with a prophetic gifting, to speak on behalf of The Living God, my brother?
Is ordination anything other than the church’s recognition and acknowledgement of what God has done, and is anticipated to continue to do, in the life of the ordained?
If the church can and has acknowledged the Biblical examples of women with the gift of prophecy; and can and has acknowledged an authoritative prophetic gifting of a woman for a remnant people in the closing days of earth’s history…I repeat an authoritative prophetic gifting of a woman in the closing days of earth’s history…then it is anti-Biblical to suggest that servant leadership in submission to Christ is exclusively male.
“But does that make it right to then say that because we accept the prophetic gift of women (and men) as being authoritative that women can therefore be ordained as elders?
Yes; because the responsibility of a prophetic gifting is easily as great as that of an ordained elder.
“If this line of reasoning is correct then that places the apostle Paul (and God) in direct conflict with such a view of which I would have to respectfully disagree with you my brother.”
It would place Paul in direct conflict with such a view if indeed Paul had denied the spiritual prophetic gifting of a woman as being authoritative; or would not have permitted Ellen White, for example, to speak publicly or in a church.
I believe that you undervalue the importance of the responsibility of the prophetic spiritual gifting, or overemphasize the male role in the Christian (as in, submission to Christ’s leadership and authority) economy; which is contradictory to the larger, broader, and overriding principles set forth by Paul, particularly in Galatians 3:26-29.
I was alarmed when I first heard the false accusations of “gender discrimination” against the Church, and that Ellen White was ordained, together with all the patriarchy bashing and gender bender agenda of feminism being railroaded on the Church – and not forgetting the insubordination of Union Conferences in acting out of their jurisdiction when it was not the purview of Union Conferences to decide on the criteria for ordination. When I saw the pattern of how this whole WO issue played out and how it was forced upon the church from the time of Camp Mohaven, when the NAD singlehandedly decided for the World Church on the election of elders by passing it of as an optional policy. When it became clear that a different way of reading the Bible was evident among Adventists – very much like how Dr. Desmond Ford sowed the seed of his own interpretations and views – It was then that I said no. When doctored gender neutral Ellen White quotes were used by some to lay claim that Ellen White supported WO, and even though she did not support the women’s rights movement, that she was in favour of WO. It was then I said no. When I saw the farce at the PUC Session where there was a female delegate wearing earrings and where they rudely interrupted counsel that it was not the purview of Unions to determine the criteria for ordination. When the plain teachings of scripture was trampled upon in order to appease cultural dictates and gender bender norms. It was then I said no.
typo – “by passing it [off] as an optional policy”
You saw earrings! Wow, no wonder you are so outraged. Lucky she wasn’t wearing a nose ring like Rebecca (Gen 24:22), or a ring like Zerubbabel (Haggai 2:23).
This comment in itself Trevor is illustrative in my own mind how much your position is motivated by culture, not scripture. But I don’t doubt your sincerity or the fact you can’t for a moment distinguish your own individual cultural biases from your cultural biases in reading the Bible.
If your son were to marry a women whose parents gave a nose ring as a wedding gift, I doubt you would much support the match. Yet that is what the Bible says, because that was the acceptable cultural practice of that time and place. You my friend will always read the Bible not in its original cultural context but through the lens of the 19th Century Victorian era. That would be fine if we lived 150 years ago but we now live in the 21st Century.
Brother Stephen, Phil Mills makes an interesting point:
“How can two groups, both professing to take the Bible as their standard rule of faith and practice, come to diametrically opposite views on such a basic issue as the biblical qualifications for ordination? We agree that these groups must be interpreting the Bible differently. The method of Bible interpretation is indeed “at the heart” of the problem… Rightly understood, the Bible does not teach contradictory doctrines. While it is possible that the method of Bible interpretation used by both groups is flawed, it is not possible for both of them to be right.”
You’ve mentioned this several times. What aspect of method of Bible study are proponents of WO supposedly not following?
Sir,with all due respect, I’m sure you are familiar with the alternative methods TOSC theologians and Bible scholars have used and the variations of these methods in varying degree as opposed to the Methods of Bible Study Document (MOBS) voted by the GC in 1986. It would be disingenuous to say they (and we) are reading the Bible the same way and yet two diametrically opposing views have resulted. Keeping in mind that TOSC was not a proportionately representative committee; but was more of a geographically representative collaborative exercise, we can therefore conclude that the alternative methods used weren’t in harmony with the world Church and were disproportionate, in that the world Church accepted method of Bible Study was marginalised by proponents in favour embracing methods that were a culture fit thereby forcing them to deviate from the MOBS. All those supporting Position One, which opposed WO, followed the MOBS document as opposed using culture biased methods. This also provides further evidence that those opposing WO have “not” done so from a cultural bias as you incorrectly accuse them of. In other words those opposing WO follow the biblical narrative as a basis of belief and not societal norms imposed and propagated by special interest groups and a government’s humanist ideals and bias. I would even go far as saying that in the finer analysis, WO is an attack on God and His Holy Word – the Bible.
Correction
…in favour of embracing methods that were a culture fit…
…as opposed to using culture biased methods.
Trevor may question wasn’t a trap (that will come later). I do remember vaguely looking at the voted methods of Bible study. But I don’t see how you say the TOSC disregarded that, given the TOSC comprised the very expert scholars who presumably formulated the methods document?
I’ve provided a link to the document so we can discuss further:
http://www.adventist.org/en/information/official-statements/documents/article/go/0/methods-of-bible-study/
The methods document primarily has its purpose in rejecting historical-criticism, which I have some experience in. I don’t believe the TOSC in any instant adopted historical criticism. Do you? If so, how?
“f. Study the context of the passage under consideration by relating it to the sentences and paragraphs immediately preceding and following it. Try to relate the ideas of the passage to the line of thought of the entire Bible book.”
I am not sure if opponents of WO have been doing this. They seem to hold on to isolated proof texts, such as an elder having one wife or women being silent.
“g. As far as possible ascertain the historical circumstances in which the passage was written by the biblical writers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”
Also not sure if opponents of WO have been doing this. I myself was attacked for referencing historical evidence, even though Ellen White herself did just that.
“I. Recognize that a given biblical text may not conform in every detail to present-day literary categories. Be cautious not to force these categories in interpreting the meaning of the biblical text. It is a human tendency to find what one is looking for, even when the author did not intend such.”
Relevant to our discussion about gender and case in Greek and the societal context of the original Bible authors.
“k. In connection with the study of the biblical text, explore the historical and cultural factors. Archaeology, anthropology, and history may contribute to understanding the meaning of the text.”
Again the importance of historical evidence, which WO opponents ignore.
“When parallel passages seem to indicate discrepancy or contradiction, look for the underlying harmony. Keep in mind that dissimilarities may be due to minor errors of copyists (Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 16), or may be the result of differing emphases and choice of materials of various authors who wrote under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit for different audiences under different circumstances (Selected Messages, Book 1, pp. 21, 22; The Great Controversy, vi).”
Wow, do conservative Adventists understand or even know this principle of the method’s document? I doubt it.
“p. The Scriptures were written for the practical purpose of revealing the will of God to the human family. However, in order not to misconstrue certain kinds of statements, it is important to recognize that they were addressed to peoples of Eastern cultures and expressed in their thought patterns.”
Again, I think opponents of WO are reading texts without regard to original cultural contexts. Rather than so-called evil of ‘cultural biases’ the methods document asks us to consider the original ANE context.
Like Rachel’s nose ring.
“q. As the final goal, make application of the text. Ask such questions as, “What is the message and purpose God intends to convey through Scripture?” “What meaning does this text have for me?” “How does it apply to my situation and circumstances today?” In doing so, recognize that although many biblical passages had local significance, nonetheless they contain timeless principles applicable to every age and culture.”
Finally, about distinguishing localised cultural and historic context for timeless principles. Again, I feel those opponents of WO fail to do this well, if at all.
So Trevor going through the methods of study document in detail, one can see your claims seem pretty much hyperbole. I think it obvious opponents of WO are the ones not following it. Of course you will disagree and we will continue to go round in circles. But I suggest you go reread the methods document in detail again, and ask for the Holy Spirit’s guidance as you do so. You may be surprised by its result.
The “proof text” study method originated with Adventists to convince prospective converts that the positions presented were all biblical because there were several texts presented, “here a little there a little” from different parts of the Bible, with complete disregard of the time and to whom it was written and under what circumstances (historical-critical).
If, and when Bible doctrines were taught and explained differently, when was that instituted and how widely did it become? Many of us in SdA schools well remember the need to quote a Bible text for every answer and if it were memorized, a good grade would result; no need to understand or critically evaluate.
What type of Bible study materials are being given today in TV or other evangelical campaigns that are different, and when were they begun?
I agree proof-texting is very problematic. A person can quote anything in the Bible to support anything, if a verse is taken in isolation.
For the life of me I can’t see Trevor’s point in saying WO proponents supposedly are at odds with the methods of Bible study document.
The problem with historical-criticism isn’t its tools for exegesis. Even Adventists use those tools, and often: form crticism, narrative criticism, textual criticism, structural criticism – or some variation thereof. Adventists even use a type of redaction criticism, and often, whenever they compile Ellen White’s writings. All of these methods in fact conform with Ellen White’s own very progressive understandings of how to read the Bible, including its human element and contradicitions and copying errors.
The aspect of historical-criticism that is problematic is its non-supernatural assumptions. Similarly, is the attempt to read the Bible using secular methods. The problem with that is a total disregard to the Bible’s genre as sacred scripture – in other words the principles enshrined in form criticism itself.
The key is to recognise the Bible is not dictated word-for-word by God. It is a product of human beings, using limited human language. Equally, it is not simply a human product, but human beings who are inspired by God. Most people take one aspect to the extreme.
Kings are ordained by priests unlike elders who are ordained by elders. That’s why David and Saul were ordained by the priest Samuel, likewise Salomon was ordained by the priest Zadok. However Paul being an apostle ordained elders in the various churches and asked the elder Titus a gentile to ordain other elders. Women have never been ordained elders.
Plus one does not need to even read the Bible to know that women can not be pastors. It is like man marrying men. Do you really need to read the Bible to know that this is wrong, you should feel it in your very guts that this is wrong else you are not right. (And we have the Bible also which condemns both practices. By the way the sin of Homosexuality is not plainly stated in the 10 commendments but it is derived from the 7th which deal with the relation between men and women, likewise women pastor is a violation of that same commandment. it is sad that the church has to waist valuable time on something as obvious as this. You will conduct 1000 votes with anyone who reads the Bible with open mind and unbias, you will get WO voted down 1000 times.
Children of the most High God, the Bible that was used 100 years ago, is the same Bible we are using today. If it is silence about WO, why should we assume that it does not say it cannot be done? If woman (wifes) in this context, are not heads of their famies but their husbands, how is it that they can be heads in the Church. The church is the extention of the home. We dont need Bible texts to understand this issue. The church never said woman cannot work in God’s vineyard, it says, woman cannot be ordained as pastors because there is no directive in the Bible. Let us close this topic, and start talking about how best to preppare others to meet their God. Shalom.