Senior Leaders Urge a Yes Vote at the General Conference Session to Safeguard Unity, Mission
By AT News Team, April 30, 2015: Some of the most respected and senior leaders of the Adventist movement released statements today asking delegates to the General Conference (GC) Session in July to vote “Yes” on the question allowing world divisions to make decisions about ordination. A web site includes written statements by six leaders and a short video with three of the six.
“It is now clear that there is not a biblical passage or a statement from Ellen G. White that clearly commands or opposes the ordination of women to the ministry,” said Dr. Angel Rodriguez, one of the most respect Bible scholars among Adventists. “The delegates do not have a unanimous biblical mandate on which to decide. … This is not about rejecting or modifying any of our biblical doctrines … but a matter of tradition.” He has served on the staff of the Biblical Research Institute (BRI) for nearly three decades, much of it as director.
“We have clear evidence that the Lord has been leading the church to ordain women to the ministry in to the ministry in places where this is indispensible,” Rodriguez wrote. “I am specifically thinking about the church in China. This is an important case, in that this decision cannot be considered to be an act of ‘rebellion’ … It was rather the work of the Spirit leading the church in China to make its work more effective.”
“My prayer is that we will say Yes,” stated Dr. Jan Paulsen, who served as a Bible teacher in Africa and Europe and retired as GC president at the session in 2010. “If we do not, both history and the Lord will, I fear, judge us severely. … Serious damage will be done to the global unity of our church if we do not allow those parts of our global family, for whom time and culture have come, the right an authority to grant women equal access with men to the ministry of our church.”
“As it nears the end, the [church] will conform more and more to the liberating rule of Christ,” said Pastor Charles Bradford, retired president of the denomination’s North American Division (NAD). “Where ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Galatians 3:28).” Bradford retired in 1990 and is now in his 90s, but still active in Bible study, writing and preaching. He was the first African American to serve as NAD president.
“As I preach the gospel in different countries around the world, I rejoice in seeing the diversity of our worldwide family,” stated Pastor Alejandro Bullon, the noted evangelist from South America. “For that reason I support the ‘yes.’ I am in favor of allowing each division to decide if they should or should not ordain our sisters.” Bullon is likely the best known Adventist preacher in Latin America.
Dr. Calvin Rock, who served as a GC vice president from 1985 until he retired in 2002, pointed out that Joel 2:28-29 has been considered an important text for the Remnant church and suggested that women who experience the call to the gospel ministry may be a fulfillment of that promise “of intensified ‘last-day’ gospel proclamation.” A yes vote “does not alter any of our 28 fundamental beliefs,” he wrote.
Recalling his own journey with the issue of women’s ordination over the past 40 years and the steps that the church has taken on this topic, Dr. William Johnsson, a Bible scholar who served from 1982 to 2007 as editor of the Adventist Review, concluded, “I have reached a settled conviction: we need the involvement of women in all phases and at all levels” of the ministry of the Adventist denomination.
The current GC officers have agreed not to take sides on the question in order to give the delegates freedom to vote their consciences, although sources have told Adventist Today that privately many, if not most, agree with these elders of the Adventist movement that a “yes” vote is the right choice. A three-page PDF can be downloaded at the Web site and easily printed out and copied for distribution in local churches, and the five-minute video can be shown in study groups and classes.
The full statement is available at www.adventistelders.com.
i believe that God wanted male and female to be equal. They are both doing the work of our God.
Yes, God want male and female equal, but in the same also God created us female and male different. God did not give us female the leadership above men. Since the beginning, us women have been trying to tear down God’s plan, and will not stop until us female ruin the whole world. Please, stop trying to take over God’s commandment. God said “the man is the head of the family, just like Jesus is the head of the church.” “Women should not rule over the man.” So why women? We need to stop! We (woman) kill everything from the beginning of this world, so why don’t we do something right and stop trying to take over the job God did not grant it to us.
I think most of us were aware that it would be politics as usual by most of those who have any influencial opinion on this matter. So we simply say, “Duh”, what did you expect?
I don’t mean to be disrespectful to those who voiced their opinion, but is it OK for them to state their view, while it seems the GC president must remain silent. Many have stated, or at least assumed that Ted Wilson is against women’s ordination and supports male headship. If so, then he should “man up” and say so. The fact that he holds the highest office in church administration does not allow him to “opt out” on what he personally believes.
Of course, I could be misled. Maybe he does support WO. At any rate, he has an obligation to state his own view before the GC sessions.
I am not expecting the church to make any definitive statement on this issue except to claim there is no biblical mandate discernable for the church to make such a decision. Mainly, it will be “business as usual” for most, and those who don’t agree will be forced to make a decision based on the church’s non-decision.
Again, the bible will be abandon for human speculation for the sake of unity. The false gospel with the liberal agenda will win the day unless something really dynamic takes place in the next couple of months. To claim there is no male headship apparent in scripture concerning church government is either willful blindness, or blatant rebellion.
My faith in what God will accomplish, with or without the SDA church is not moved by any final church decision or lack of it. God was never shackled by any church instrumentality in the past, nor will He be now or in the future. Novices have controlled the church for years and the fruit of their inability to discern bible truth is more and more apparent as time goes by.
As EGW has well said, “The shaking is a terrible ordeal” and will find most of us unprepared for its final outcome. But it is obviously a necessity and will force individuals to make a decision on their own and not simply say, “The church has decided.” Such are Roman Catholic in their spirituality and will be exposed as such by the shaking soon to take place with greater intensity.
I don’t look forward to it.
People of influence on both sides of the issue have made their voice heard. I don’t have any problem with that. This is not about “politics as usual.” This is about an issue that has implications for the worldwide church as a whole. Every member of the church, whatever level of influence they hold, has the right to contribute to the discussion.
And yes, that includes Ted Wilson. Some may argue that he “must remain silent.” I don’t agree. Whichever side of the issue he is on, he has every right to make his own conclusions known, and to share his reasoning. Leaders lead.
“To claim there is no male headship apparent in scripture concerning church government is either willful blindness, or blatant rebellion.” You forget one option: a different interpretation, based on the evidence of Scripture. I don’t intend to discuss the merits of “male headship” theology with you, as I don’t expect you to change your mind. All I will say is that I reached my conclusions in support of WO the same way, I assume, you reached your conclusions in support of “male headship” in the church: through a careful and prayerful study of Scripture.
One thing is certain. We can’t both be right, but we could both be wrong. In my evaluation for over 30 years, I see little or no difference between how a Sunday supporter over Sabbath keeping uses scripture to support their claim.
One major argument used to support WO is Galatians 3:28. How someone can take a scripture that addresses the ceremonial law ministry on earth vs. the ministry of Christ in heaven, and Paul’s affirmation that all can approach God the Father by way of His atonement and heavenly ministry, and then claim this negates orders of authority in church government is very superficial and shallow bible interpretation.
I don’t know how you arrived at your conclusion. Was male headship negated by the death of Christ and the gospel, or was there never any male headship in the scriptures to begin with?
How did man become head of the home? or is he? and if not, why has it taken so long to find this out? For me personally, I find nothing in the bible that would indicate that various ordained positions of authority have been negated by the gospel. In fact, I see it as nothing short of a blatant attack on the law of God and His authority to state positions of authority according to His intent and will.
Are there no orders of authority in heaven among the angels? who decides who holds what position?
But as I said, the larger issue is simply an attack on the law of God that will culminate in an attack on the Sabbath. Maybe it will have to go to this issue before church members really get involved and recognize the necessity to make a personal decision about various issues including WO.
Three times in Heb. 13 Paul exhorts church members to submit to those who hold positions of authority over the church community. Is Paul a novice who doesn’t know the meaning of the cross and its gospel application for today?
Obviously, I think people who stick to the bible will advocate male headship and Sabbath keeping on the same basis and spirituality. Namely, it is God’s authority who ordains various levels of authority in this world, including the church. And God did not abandon His authority to the church to change or manipulate His rules of government. Adam was head of the human family, not Eve. And Jesus is called “the second Adam.”
“Just because people won’t accept it, won’t change it.” Wolfe
“we could both be wrong.”
Of course! I am quite certain that I am wrong on all sorts of things. There’s no reason for me to think that I suddenly become infallible when it comes to the Bible! That is why I never rest on what I’ve always believed, why I’m always studying the Scriptures more and more.
“One major argument used to support WO is Galatians 3:28. How someone can take a scripture that addresses the ceremonial law ministry on earth vs. the ministry of Christ in heaven, and Paul’s affirmation that all can approach God the Father by way of His atonement and heavenly ministry, and then claim this negates orders of authority in church government is very superficial and shallow bible interpretation.”
Well, I’m sure that whenever you come across someone who uses that argument, you can discuss that further with that person.
“I don’t know how you arrived at your conclusion. Was male headship negated by the death of Christ and the gospel, or was there never any male headship in the scriptures to begin with?”
Boy, that is a long answer! And I just finished writing up an answer to someone with a similar question on a different forum. Tell you what, I will copy and paste it on here as a separate reply. The question was not exactly the same, but it does show “how I came to my conclusion,” and hopefully it will give you a better idea of where I’m coming from.
But to address some of your specific concerns…
Yes, I do believe that the husband is the head of the wife, per Eph 5:23. But if you study that passage carefully, you may realize that the term “head” is never used in the sense of authority. Rather, the overall context more strongly suggests that the images of “head” and body” are to convey the idea of unity, not authority.
Yes, Heb 13 calls on Christians to submit to leaders. BUT…these texts must be interpreted together with Paul’s instructions in Eph 5:21 that ALL believers submit to each other “out of reverence for Christ.” So while believers are called to submit to their leaders, those who hold leadership roles must also submit to the other believers. Mutual submission is a key concept.
“I see it as nothing short of a blatant attack on the law of God and His authority to state positions of authority according to His intent and will…the larger issue is simply an attack on the law of God that will culminate in an attack on the Sabbath…Obviously, I think people who stick to the bible will advocate male headship and Sabbath keeping on the same basis and spirituality.”
Yes, it IS obvious that you think that. But just because you think it does not make it true.
Here is the problem: Whether you believe it or not, I am not attacking God’s law. I am certainly not attacking the Sabbath. But I can’t make you believe that. You have to realize that on your own. And until you realize that I am not attacking God’s law, but SIMPLY interpreting the Biblical evidence…
…differently than you, we’re going to keep having problems.
“the larger issue is simply an attack on the law of God”
Well Bill, you keep threatening that if the SDA church allows women to be ordained, then we will soon thereafter abandon the Sabbath.
Previously I have asked you a question – where in the Ten Commandments is the commandment regarding “male headship”? Of course I can tell you that #4 instructs us to keep the Sabbath.
Or going-up to the Big Two (greatest commandments according to Jesus) where does one of these embody “male headship”?
Of course you know the answer – they do not!
So why do you keep escalating the question of “male headship” to the level of the Sabbath when that is not found in the Bible?
This is obviously a broad subject, but let me give you the basic summary I’ve developed:
1. To begin with, my understanding of Biblical authority: All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Christ (Mat 28:18), who exercises his authority through the Church as a whole (cf. Mat 18:15-20).
2. This authority is exercised through the church not in the “manner of the Gentiles” (Mat 20:25-28, especially in context). Christ’s authority is not expressed through hierarchy and positions of rule over others; but rather through the voluntary, sacrificial, mutual submission of each believer towards the other, “out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21-33). This concept of mutual submission best expresses the nature of the Trinity itself, where each member submits to each other (e.g., Mat 4:1; Jn 16:13-14; Jn 5:19, 22-23; and many others!).
And this, I believe, is an understanding of authority that is completely counter-cultural. You can find hierarchical leadership in any secular business or organization. Saying that hierarchy must be based on “male headship only” rather than “male and/or female” headship does not make you counter-cultural. On the contrary, I would challenge you to provide any example from the secular world that bases its leadership on mutual submission, where all are on the same level, where no one is “in charge,” where Christ alone is the head of that organization, in practice, not just in theory.
3. The pastoral ministry is not an “office” with authority inherent in it. The pastor of a church is not “the” leader. The pastoral ministry is one leadership role among others, including apostles, evangelists, prophets, deacons and deaconesses, etc. And just like with all the other various leadership roles, the pastoral ministry is simply one way in which Christ exercises his authority through the church; and the pastor is called ultimately to submit to the church, not the other way around.
4. Christian leadership, therefore, is not about hierarchy. It is about character. 1 Tim 3:1ff is not a list of requirements for an office that gives the office-holder authority over all others. It is an expression of the character of leader. And if you look carefully, you will see that the majority of the characteristics mentioned are one that are expected from ALL Christians, not just leaders. Implication: a Christian leader is one in whom the character of Christ is being formed, to the extent that those who follow that leader will have that same character formed in them. As Paul writes, “Be imitators of me, as I of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). Anyone in whom the character of Christ is being formed can be a leader to those who are behind them on the path of the Christian life.
Much (MUCH!) more could be said, but that is my basic summary. I expect there will be differences of interpretation and understanding between us on some of the texts I referenced. Fair enough. We can discuss those further if you’d like.
“How did man become head of the home?”
According to Genesis 3 this was a consequence of Eve’s attempt to place herself above Adam. This is affirmed by Ellen in the book PP which I assume you have read. And the apostle Paul also affirms this.
As I have repeatedly shown you, in Genesis 1 God says let THEM (that is the male and female created in the Image of God) have dominion over the lesser previous creatures on the earth. Nowhere in Genesis 1 or 2 does God say that the man is to rule over the woman or vice versa.
So I must ask you this question, Bill. Is the purpose of the remnant church to model the pre-fall or the post-fall human relationships to the world? If the goal of our teaching is to restore in man the Image of the Creator, would that not suggest that we seek to model the relationships of Genesis 1 and 2, BEFORE that Divine Image was seriously marred by the Fall?
Your evaluation of Ephesians 5 is a very poor one. The text says that the husband is the head the wife as Christ is the head of the Church and you are claiming this doesn’t infer authority. I hate to be so straight but I think u need me to be. You are ignoring the obvious. Unity can be found in the home and in the Church through submission to the Divine order. Man submits to God for the sake of his wife and the wife submits to her husband for the sake of God. To deny that is to deny the plain teaching of scripture.
The word ‘them’ does not infer absolute equality in Genesis 1 it only communicates that the two were going to become as one. Adam was made first and according to the apostle Paul this is the first reason he doesn’t suffer a woman to usurp authority over the man. The second is the fact that eve was deceived and Adam acquiesced in following her.
To suppose all hierarchy is contrary to God’s kingdom takes a determined effort to ignore scripture. Jesus wasn’t dismissing hierarchal structures he was presenting a hierarchy based upon different principles than those of the Gentiles. You’ve thrown the baby out with the bath water. That may be a convenient way for u to get to your predetermined conclusion but it’s not rightly dividing the Word of God.
“The text says that the husband is the head the wife as Christ is the head of the Church and you are claiming this doesn’t infer authority.”
If this comment was directed to me then then Matt has not understood what I wrote. However i do not recall commenting on Ephesians 5 so it may not be directed to me.
1) I agree that “male headship” is the Post Fall model for the home. The distinction I am making here is between Pre Fall and Post Fall. Pre Fall represents God’s original plan for human relationships.
2) The passage in Ephesians does NOT say the man is the “head” of women in the church. It draws an analogy that Paul also uses elsewhere between Christ being the “head” of the Church and the Husband being the “head” of the Home.
“The word ‘them’ does not infer absolute equality in Genesis 1 it only communicates that the two were going to become as one.”
1) The word “them” in Genesis is talking about Dominion. Adam and Eve had Joint Dominion over the animals. Unless you think this passage is referring to Eve as one of the beasts of the field or birds of the air or something else sub-human, there is no way you can construe from this passage that Adam had dominion over Eve.
2) Ellen in PP describes the relationship between Adam and Eve before the Fall as “Equal”. This is not my choice of words but rather I am quoting her choice of words. So if you think they were not “Equal” then you should argue with Ellen.
“Adam was made first and according to the apostle Paul this is the first reason he doesn’t suffer a woman to usurp authority over the man.”
1) All this passage says is that a woman should not usurp authority over a man. It does NOT say that a man should have authority over a woman.
2) In Genesis 3 Eve attempts to usurp authority over Adam. As Genesis 1 and 2 and Ellen in PP affirm, Adam did NOT have authority over Eve before the Fall. Eve forsook equality with Adam to try to gain the dominant role. In so doing she ceded the dominant role to Adam. This is the clear teaching of Genesis 3 as affirmed by Ellen in PP.
3) Paul is entirely correct in referring back to the Genesis narrative to explain why a woman should not attempt to usurp authority over a man.
Does ordaining a man constitute “usurping” authority? Clearly not if the congregation affirms his calling. But if the ordained man believes that he is now the “head” rather than the “servant” of the congregation, then he has usurped the authority of Jesus Christ.
Does ordaining a woman constitute “usurping” authority? Clearly not if the congregation affirms her calling. But if the ordained woman believes that she is now the “head” rather than the “servant” of the congregation, then she has usurped the authority of Jesus Christ.
The attack on the Sabbath in our Church that you mention has begun long ago and should be the issue being addressed at GC Session rather than WO.
SDA Church members in six island nations of the Pacific keep Sunday as the seventh-day Sabbath. This with support from the theologians and administrators of the Church.
If the wider Church family knew this do you think it would trump WO as an issue at GC Session in July?
The problem of where is the line between Sabbath and Sunday (or Friday for that matter) on a round earth is not a simple one.
The Bible does not ordain Greenwich England as the prime meridian for purposes of determining the Date Line. This is a matter of human practice and not Divine mandate.
Orthodox Jews consider the Prime Meridian for purposes of demarcating Sabbath from Sunday to be at Jerusalem. But the Bible does not say this either. It too is a matter of human practice.
Some would claim that the Prime Meridian for demarcating Sabbath from Sunday should be at the Garden of Eden which was the original Sanctuary on earth. However if you believe in a truly global catastrophic Flood, there is no way to determine where was the Garden of Eden since the entire ante-diluvian geography of earth was destroyed.
SDA theologians have been discussing this problem for decades. The Bible simply does not answer this question.
Nobody has told Ted Wilson to be silent. If Ted Wilson is now choosing not to press his own opinion on this rather contentious question, then that is probably because he believes it would not be helpful at this time.
Sometimes the wise thing to do is to NOT try to force your opinions on others, especially when you are in a senior leadership position.
WELL SAID, My Friend!!!! EXACTLY AS YOU HAVE SPOKEN. The next move WILL BE the HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT, and we, also know what GOD;S HOLY WORD HAS TO SAY ON THAT AS WELL. CONFORMITY TO THE WORLD HAS and IS TAKEiNG OVER. May GOD HAVE MERCY ON US, HIS WAYWARD PEOPLE
My statement above is meant for “notrocketscience” and “Fernando V”.
That is absolute nonsense! There is no connection whatsoever between the gay question and WO.
Please take note of what EGW says in 6T 322: “It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.” There you have it–both men and women pastors!
There is a historical connection denominationally between WO and Gay acceptance….see other denominations that began like this now accepting Gays as normal….
Those scary gays.
What a terrible thing privilege is!
To each his own. What REALLY ACTUALLY MATTERS IS GOD’S OPINION. You can laugh and make fun if you want to. We will see. You might want to mark those words, O wise one. I do not know everything, neither do you, Brother. I AM MARKING your all knowing WORDS, ABSOLUTE NONSENSE and will relish in the fact as to who will have the LAST WORD. I will be a little easier on you than GOD, HOWEVER!!!!
Although for many years I’ve possessed books for and against WO by S. Pipim and N. Vyhmeister, I’ve not yet bothered to read them, trusting those at the head of our work to make the right decision. When asked, I’ve always claimed it’s not a deal-breaker for me either way; that I don’t think the Bible either requires or forbids WO, and that what I particularly lament is the division the question has engendered, along with the energy and resources expended, for over three decades.
Recently an e-mail from Dr. Clinton Whalen, purportedly an associate director of our Biblical Research Institute, concisely sets forth biblical reasons why two of the three study groups comprising the TOSC “found clear evidence in Scripture for a biblical model of male leadership,” leading to the TOSC position summary # 3, “”We believe that there is a biblical model of male ecclesiological leadership that has validity across time and culture!” (TOSC Report, p. 100)
After cogently summarizing various biblical reasons why he believes only males should be ordained to the gospel ministry, Dr. Whalen points out that “The Jerusalem Council made its decision based on scripture and divine revelation. After deep, thorough Bible Study, we can reaffirm the Scriptural basis for the decisions of the GC sessions in 1990 and 1995. Why are we being asked to pray again for the Holy Spirit’s guidance on the WO matter? We were asked to pray for this guidance before the 1990 and 1995 General Conference session votes on this matter, which resulted in a large majority against women’s ordination! Do we think God gave the wrong guidance at that time? Or are we asking Him to change His mind? Are we going to keep on asking and voting and asking and voting until those in favor of women’s ordination get the “correct guidance”? (Kinda reminds me of how in close elections in Washington and Minnesota, one party kept recounting the votes until enough uncounted votes were “discovered” so that their candidates prevailed.) If this summer’s session initially turns down WO, I expect it will be brought back to the floor on the last day, while many delegates are making travel arrangements, shopping or sight-seeing, and it will ultimately prevail. And no doubt most GC and NAD leaders will feel relieved; but it may be like the relief from stomach cramps one feels when he (or she) thought he was only breaking wind. In our division, the ink will hardly be dry before the LGBT’s among us step up the agitation for their rights. And for the other divisions, we may only be exporting to them the conflict, rancor and distraction, (and rebellion in divisions that try to maintain the status quo) this matter brought us these many years. (Cut up a twelve legged starfish, and you end up with twelve starfish.)
Hopefully the full reports of the TOSC study groups will be made available to all the delegates, with ample time for them to study and pray over them, and the result will be a re-affirmation that our…
Do you actually love LGBT people? Or are they just a convenient theoretical tool to scare people?
This shows up the real spiritual state of our church.
Hopefully the full reports of the TOSC study groups will be made available to all the delegates, with ample time for them to study and pray over them, and the result will be a re-affirmation that our denomination is a revealed religion, where our responsibility is to study to show ourselves approved to God, and to determine from the Bible, not popular opinion or expediency, how our church should come down on such matters of import. As Dr. Whalen so eloquently puts it, “Because the issue we are facing today is theological and connected with the creation order, it is far greater than whether a woman should be ordained as a gospel minister overseeing the church. The question is whether Scripture or culture will continue to guide our church or are we going to interpret it as we see fit….As much as we appreciate diversity, it is Scripture, our Bible-based faith and practice, that holds us together, not diversity. It is this Bible-based unity that will protect us from the scourges of pluralism. Our confidence in the unity of Scripture can only be maintained if we continue to interpret it in the way the Bible clearly interprets itself. If we begin to interpret the bible differently in different places, there is nothing to keep the church from splintering over tithe, congregationalism, homosexuality, the 7 literal days of creation, and many other issues….If we allow diversity here, it will divide us. It already has divided us to some extent. When Israel demanded a king, rejecting God’s kingship and His plan for leadership over them, Israel was divided, and ultimately Israel was destroyed!”
To Jim Hamstra
I can return the question to you as this.
Where in the 10 commendments have you seen: thou shall not marry two men or two women?
#7 – Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Several later chapters are devoted to the various offenses that constitute adultery and how they are to be adjudicated, within the context of that particular culture.
The offense of “lying with” someone of the same gender ranks right down there with “lying with” an animal.
A man marrying two women was not in fact prohibited. Polygamy was widely practiced in that culture and was regulated but not prohibited. But as Jesus said regarding adultery “Moses gave you this command because of the hardness of your hearts, but from the beginning it was not so”.
Similar comments would apply to slavery, which was regulated but not prohibited.
What would Jesus say about the role of women and slaves in society today?
Tying these two questions together is actually quite relevant, because in the OT society women and children were treated as property which could be bartered or even sold. Selling your daughters into slavery was a common way of settling a debt. In the Mosaic code, if the slave-holder had sexual relations with her then he was required to marry her. Though it was common to treat her as a concubine or second-class wife whose children did not have rights of inheritance.
Since someone seems to have misconstrued what I wrote – –
The “two questions” that I “tied together” were posited in the sentence:
“What would Jesus say about the role of women and slaves in society today?”
What’d I tell ya? (The ink’s not even on the resolution yet.) Neither is there an explicit commandment forbidding the buggering of little children; but even if there was, it wouldn’t prevent those Paul declares in Romans 1:28 that God has given over to a reprobate mind (void of judgment.) In contrast God invites the truly faithful not to be conformed to the world, but “transformed by the renewing of your mind” “by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” that He might sanctify and cleanse the church “with the washing of water by the word.” (Rom. 12:3; Titus 2:5; Eph. 5:26.)
I fail to see what buggery has to do with WO. Nevertheless –
As a young boy I was sexually abused by teen-age girls. (No there was not any buggery but allow me to proceed.)
When I read and contemplated Matthew 18:6 / Mark 9:42 / Luke 17:2, I realized that Jesus was an adult whom I could trust.
Granted that Jesus was talking about ALL forms of child abuse, I think He would have included buggery among these offenses. And He warned of the most dire consequences to the abuser (ie the bugger in your example).
On the other hand, regarding sexual practices between persons of marriageable age, the Mosaic code is more focused on Who is involved that on What they do in the privacy (or lack thereof) of their tent.
Should homosexual marriage be allowed in the church because there is no commandment (in the given 10 commandments) which forbids it??
I believe I have adequately answered this question in the above response.
My original objection was to Bill Sorensen claiming that abrogating “male headship” was tantamount to abrogating the Sabbath.
I have never denied that there is much about “male headship” in the Bible. Both the Bible and Ellen clearly show that this is a CONSEQUENCE of the Fall and not the original status of Adam and Eve. Nowhere in the Bible is this a Commandment on the level of the Big Ten or the Big Two.
As with polygamy and slavery, the Mosaic code does regulate “male headship” by placing specific limitations on how much control men can exercise over women in various situations including sexual intimacy.
Go back and read Exodus and Leviticus and the first part of Numbers very carefully, in a very literal translation.
How do you know male headship was the result of the fall and it wasn’t there from the very beginning??
People must reject EGW to deny that Adam was king long before he abandon his position to Satan. But just so there will be no doubt of her position, here is what she stated.
“When Satan declared to Christ, The kingdom and glory of the world are delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will I give it, he stated what was true only in part, and he declared it to serve his own purpose of deception. Satan’s dominion was that wrested from Adam, but Adam was the vicegerent of the Creator. His was not an independent rule. The earth is God’s, and He has committed all things to His Son. Adam was to reign subject to Christ. When Adam betrayed his sovereignty into Satan’s hands, Christ still remained the rightful King. ” DA 129
She obviously understood male headship as the ordained authority God gave Adam before the fall. You must not only reject EGW, but the bible to deny this clear bible truth.
As many times as Bill twists Ellen I will respond.
Genesis 3 introduces “male headship” as a CONSEQUENCE of Eve attempting to place herself over Adam. In Genesis 1 God says let THEM (the male and the female in the immediate context) have Dominion over the animals.
Ellen in PP and elsewhere says exactly the same things. Adam and Eve we Regents over the animals. Never does Ellen ever say that Adam was King over Eve. This is wresting her words from their context. Go read it for yourself. What she actually says is that before the Fall they were Equal.
By careful and prayerful reading of Genesis 1-3, and of Ellen’s descriptions of these things in PP. This is where I discovered that my own belief in “male headship” was wrong.
In 1964 my wife and I graduated from Walla Walla. My wife had wanted to be a religion major. When she applied to the department to become a religion major, the chairman of the department called her into his office and told her she would not be allowed to be a religion major because there would not be a job for her. She could not be a pastor nor could she teach in any religion department at an Adventist school. He said all those jobs were for men. With great sadness she chose a different major.
My wife took her considerable talents into the business world where she became the human resource director of a major corporation. She had worldwide responsibility for 35,000 employees and managed 300 direct reports.
Now some 50 years later, the Seventh-day Adventist church is still trying to find a way to fully utilize the talents of half of its members. This debate would be laughable if it were not so sad.
How can your wife not being ordained hinders her from giving her service to the church?
Does she have to be ordained pastor to give a hand of service to the church?
Did you actually bother to think about what Gordon Reid wrote?
She was not allowed to be a Religion major because she would not even be permitted to teach religion in a SDA school in those days.
In some parts of the world these same arguments are used to deny women and girls more than rudimentary education, because they will not be allowed to use the more advanced knowledge, so why bother to teach them?
Do you really think this is God’s original plan for Eve and all of her daughters since?
If this is not clear enough from the Bible then go back and read what Ellen wrote about the relationship between Adam and Eve as originally created, and how that changed after the fall, in PP. When I studied this as a young man, I found what she wrote to be very clear and convincing. This is what convinced me that my own belief in “male headship” as God’s plan was wrong. It is nothing more than God’s accommodation to fallen human nature, like polygamy and slavery and flesh foods and circumcision and animal sacrifices and many other things that you can find in the Bible, that were NOT part of God’s original plan.
You seem to think that male headship is wrong. On the contrary I don’t see anything wrong with it.
Well then you need to go back and read Genesis 1-3 and the parallel chapters in PP.
It is clear from careful comparison of these that “male headship” was not God’s original plan, but a consequence of Eve attempting to achieve dominion over Adam at the time when she ate the fruit and then offered it to Adam.
Male headship becomes an issue when men forsake God as the ultimate head and thus oppress women. But as long as God has the first position in the heart of men, male headship is a blessing.
“male headship is a blessing”
Are you a man or a woman?
I am a man. But it deosn’t matter because even if I was a woman I would have still found male headship a blessing aas long as the men themselves submit to God.
I meant if I were a woman my would have still been the same. My gender has nothing to do with my view.
I have long since abandoned the fantasy that my “male headship” was a blessing to any woman. My struggle is to submit to the headship of Jesus Christ rather than to assert my own prerogatives, real or imaginary.
I have no idea what I would believe or do were I a different person, of the same or opposite gender. gender. One can fantasize what it would be like to be of a different gender if one wishes, but it cannot be more than a fantasy unless one believes in reincarnation.
At the end of the day, it is not about my personal preferences but it is about upholding the Bible, the Word of God.
At the time the church was so backward that the church said it would not train her to obtain a college degree in religion because all of the jobs were reserved for men.
Question: Does a man need to be ordained to give a hand of service to the church? Of course not. So why should anyone be ordained?
“Does she have to be ordained pastor to give a hand of service to the church?”
What a patronizing remark. Women can lend a hand in whatever ways men will permit. They can clean the bathrooms and mop the floors and help the sick and poor and needy, and teach children who are inferior to adults, and prepare communion emblems, but not serve the emblems or pray over them.
In short, women can do the kinds of humble things that Jesus did, but not teach or otherwise challenge the authority of the men. Jesus spent as much or more of his lifetime doing “women’s ministries” as doing “men’s ministries”.
Anyone who has spent quality time in local church work, would have to honestly admit that that most of the important service in most churches is rendered by women, and occasionally the men “give a hand”.
Thankfully, the TOSC Report addresses the most egregious and extreme positions held by some when your wife sought to use her talents in full-time professional ministry. (You two are to be commended for not letting the incident blow you away.) I remember shortly after I left the Univ. of Colorado in 1968, hearing a man some years later recount how his wife went into labor while they were traveling through Boulder, and how the charge nurse at the SDA hospital there refused to administer an epidural because, according to the nurse’s understanding, the church did not believe in drug medication. Despite the passing of 40 years, there will occasionally still be well-meaning, but misinformed members and administrators who try to instill more than either the Bible or faithfulness to Adventist doctrine actually require.
There are always at least 2 ditches. The devil utilizes them all. The many times and countless ways women are opposed in their attempts to learn and serve would, I hope, surprise you.
There is no such thing as “male ministry or female ministry” there is only MINISTRY.
Amen! And real ministry is empowered and guided by the Holy Spirit. Everything else is just pretending.
Likewise there is no such thing as male marriage or female marriage. However in a marriage, the roles of the man and the woman are very distinct. If it wasn’t so, then we can marry two men or two women. However we can’t do that because of role differenciation. The same goes for ministry, there are roles for men and others for women.
Plse stop with the confusion.
I agree – please stop the confusion.
I totally fail to see why people think this question is related to homosexuality. This is a reactionary “domino theory” that if we admit to being wrong about one thing, then every other belief we hold is threatened.
Seems to me Jim, your first comment today at 7:42 a.m. linked my comments on WO to the issue of gay marriage. (Or perhaps your comment was in response to earlier comments by others.)
Response to earlier comments from others.
I do not see that permitting WO inherently affirms or denies homosexual marriage or homosexual leaders for that matters.
There ARE some WO promoters who also promote these other agendas also. Please do not number me among them. Guilt by association is a tactic of Satan, not of God. Though I certainly have no shortage of guilt from my own sins 8-(.
At 7:42 am Bible Truth asked:
“Where in the 10 commendments have you seen: thou shall not marry two men or two women?”
At 9:29 am I replied to this question.
The issue is if we allow WO reguardless of what the bible teaches, the same can be done for homosexuality and anything you can think of. We then make the bible void and of no use.
Suppose we allow WO BECAUSE of what the Bible teaches?
By your line of reasoning WO could also be associated with cannibalism or witchcraft or other bad things that some might allow.
Alternatively I could claim that the proponents of “male headship” are actually encouraging Lesbianism on the part of women who prefer not to submit to a man.
I think we are better-served by considering WO on its own merits or otherwise, rather than trying to escalate it into the Final Conflict between Good and Evil.
What are the roles of men and women in marriage?
We talk about them a lot but I’ve never heard them defined.
There should be no rules set in concrete for marriage. Each couple should together plan their duties and be willing to be flexible about work schedules and with children.
As is the case with most ‘issues’ in the church, the underlying challenge is not to find what is right, but the assumption that being wrong has ultimate consequences.
John 3:16-17 makes it clear that when it comes to personal salvation, there is no condemnation on the part of the savior. It is pure salvation, unmerited and and like creation itself, inescapable. Our need of a savior is God’s justification for saving us.
This leaves us with a much more promising path. The path of Acts 15. What does the Holy Spirit seem to be doing in the lives of people when the Gospel of Jesus is testified to in their presence?
It is the testimony of the recipient, not their genetics nor their cultural roots nor their age nor their knowledge of scripture that determines the presence of the Holy Spirit among us.
The take away from Acts 15 is that the Holy Spirit’s presence is not constrained by Scripture.
Following the leading of the Holy Spirit is measured by how it feels to us, in our heart, not how our cortex twists and turns someone else’s words translated more than once, and copied many more times, and universally open to twists and turns of the rational process.
It is instructive that Jesus promised the gift of the Holy Spirit, not the New Testament. We just got both. What we are willing to embrace as the promised revelation is more telling of our personal limits than the limits of God’s will for us day by day.
It is more difficult to see the love of God in scripture than in the eyes of another human being. And that is as Jesus would have it. John 13 is unambiguous in this regard in quoting Jesus Himself.
These stalwarts of the Seventh-day Adventist faith are testifying to their experience of the Holy Spirit over a lifetime, a testimony they were unable to proffer in the strength of their prime. We do well to honor their reflective accumulated experience of the Holy Spirit.
I posted this earlier, but it bears repeating in case some did not read it.
“When Satan declared to Christ, The kingdom and glory of the world are delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will I give it, he stated what was true only in part, and he declared it to serve his own purpose of deception. Satan’s dominion was that wrested from Adam, but Adam was the vicegerent of the Creator. His was not an independent rule. The earth is God’s, and He has committed all things to His Son. Adam was to reign subject to Christ. When Adam betrayed his sovereignty into Satan’s hands, Christ still remained the rightful King. ”
You must reject EGW to support the idea that Adam was not king before the fall.
Ellen describes Adam and Eve as Co-Regents before the fall. This is clear in an earlier Ellen quote you posted on this web site, which you heavily redacted to make it appear as though only Adam was a Regent. And further more she makes it clear that their dominion was the lesser creatures. Which your redaction would indicate would include Eve. But again this is not what she actually wrote. And she also makes clear that they were Vice-Regents under the authority of their Creator who was the Sovereign Lord of All.
Nothing she ever wrote that you have presented (if you look at the complete passage and not your heavily redacted version) or that I have read, says that Adam ruled over Eve before the Fall.
I have never denied that Adam was King over the animals, only that he was King over Eve. Ellen in PP clearly says that Eve was created as Adam’s Equal, neither his Head nor his Foot.
Why do you desperately insist on twisting what Ellen has written about the pre-Fall condition of Adam and Eve? Which of us is being fair to Ellen and which unfair?
Years ago it was these very writings of Ellen that convinced me I was wrong about “male headship” which I fervently believed to be true. Will you allow Ellen to teach you or will you insist on manipulating her to mislead us?
Too bad we don’t live in an unfallen world.
Well someday we will. And when that day comes we will not be quibbling over human authority models.
So in the here-and-now, should the SDA church model its authority principles and practices on pre-Fall or post-Fall conditions? Of course we cannot escape post-Fall conditions in this life. But let us not make of necessity a virtue. Let us not in our struggles to deal with what IS, lose sight of what was MEANT TO BE and WILL BE.
Jesus Christ is the Head of His church. We are all (men and women) admonished to submit to one another (men and women) as unto the Lord.
Jim, you can reject the obvious meaning if you choose to. It won’t change the reality. Adam was head of the human race, not just the animals. Small wonder Jesus said, “Straight is the gate and narrow is the way, and few there be that go in thereat.”
People force and make the bible say what they hope it says, or want it to say to suit their own opinion. And this is what Sunday keepers do to justify their false doctrine. None the less, and honest and sincere individual will easily and readily see that you have simply twisted the obvious reality to suit yourself. But the church does this as well, so “What else is new?”
I am sure we all reach a point in which there is no evidence on earth that would change our mind. This is both positive in behalf of those who accept and embrace the truth, and negative for those who don’t. Since we are all “on the bubble”, we will hopefully move very carefully in any and all final decisions in regard to the bible.
We do this with Sunday keepers and realize none of us can determine just when a person has made that final choice that God Himself will not try to change even if it is wrong. So, in some cases, we simply witness until we can see our testimony has run its course and we let it be. Perhaps some other “means of grace” may be more effective based on time and circumstance. As we both continue to consider various issues, I hope we both realize the importance of arriving at the correct conclusion in harmony with scripture. I desire that for myself, and any and all in the world, as we are all “candidates for heaven.” And “whosoever will may come.”
I hope everyone has a great and happy Sabbath.
Might we be reading from different Bibles and different Ellen books? You are free to assume that I have rejected your clear word of Prophecy.
I have shown you where in the Bible and in Ellen I found the passages that convinced me that “male headship” was not God’s original plan for humans. Based upon the plain evidence from the Bible and from Ellen I repudiated my previous firm beliefs regarding this subject which were similar to those you remain convinced are true.
Rather than showing me where I have mis-construed those passages, you simply ignore them and plunge ahead along your own preferred path.
It is easy to brand those who honestly disagree with you as heretics. Christians have been doing this for almost 2 millennia now. This is not news but it grieves the heart of Jesus if I read John 17 correctly.
And yes I am firmly convinced of the truth of the Sabbath. And yes I refuse to trash on those who sincerely keep Sunday. We will all have a thousand years (literal or figurative) in heaven to get our theology straight. And we will probably need it. I fully expect some surprises are in-store for me. Are there any in-store for you?
Bill, use the Leave a Reply box at the bottom of the comments rather than the ‘Reply’ inside the last comment on the page if you are starting a new sub-thread. Your note here, otherwise of interest, is unrelated to my comment nor did you intend for your comment to be associated with mine.
“The take away from Acts 15 is that the Holy Spirit’s presence is not constrained by Scripture.” That seems like a very dangerous premise, especially considering Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Eph. 4:11-13 “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;…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;” and Isaiah 8:20, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” And speaking of emergent reveries, “Following the leading of the Holy Spirit is measured by how it feels to us, in our heart, not how our cortex twists and turns someone else’s words translated more than once…” fits right in.
IMHO, the action of the Jerusalem counsel in Acts 15, recognizing that the gospel invitation included Gentiles, cited the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as confirming many OT predictions. Indeed, a sea change reinterpretation of accepted Jewish understanding was involved, but it should not be concluded that the Holy Spirit moved contrary to the Scriptures He earlier inspired the prophets to write, else we will indeed be subjected to all manner of excess and unbelief. (Haven’t we lost enough young people who claim, while no longer “religious,” they are yet “spiritual?”)
As for the six stalwarts cited in the A-Today news article urging a “yes” vote, no doubt they are motivated by a belief that the Bible supports their position, as well as a deep aversion to seeing the church they love any longer convulsed and divided over this issue. (But as I opined earlier, a “yes” vote may simply export the angst NAD Adventists have endured all these years to the other divisions.) I would expect, however, before the issue is settled in San Antonio, (at least for another five years,) many other stalwarts will have expressed their deep respect for Scripture and longing for harmony and unity in the church in their advocacy for a “no” vote.
The Holy Spirit’s presence is not constrained by scripture is a ‘dangerous premise?’ Have you ever got that backward!
Scripture is a very incomplete and imperfect revelation of God where the Holy Spirit, who is God, is perfect and is promised to live inside all who believe. More than that, the Holy Spirit promises to lead us into all truth, which means our knowledge of truth from scripture is limited. Add that we have as scripture is limited in circulation to only a portion of this planet where the Holy Spirit is everywhere in the universe. So, if anything is making us “children tossed to and fro” it is our interpreting scripture without benefit of the Holy Spirit.
Maybe I should have been more explicit: As I gather, both from personal experience and numerous texts (such as 2 Peter 1:20,21 and 1 Cor. 2:14,) of course the Holy Spirit is needed to properly interpret and understand the Scriptures, and to avoid “private interpretations” and “being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine.” Indeed, are we not told to “try the Spirits whether they are of God” and to “prove all things?” (1 John 4:1; 1 Thess. 5:21) But how are we to do this? Is it not by “taking heed thereto according to thy word” that a young man shall find the wherewithal to cleanse his way? (Ps. 119:9). How likely are we to do this if, like the person to whom I was responding, we adopt an attitude that “Following the leading of the Holy Spirit is measured by how it feels to us, in our heart, not how our cortex twists and turns someone else’s words translated more than once, and copied many more times, and universally open to twists and turns of the rational process.”? Before I accepted the Bible as inspired, I harbored some of the same objections reflected in the above quote; until my good wife expressed her confidence that the same Holy Spirit who revealed Himself and His truth in dreams and visions, and who inspired the Bible’s authors to write down His precepts and promises, was fully capable of sufficiently preserving the accuracy of the inspired record down through the centuries so that those sincerely seeking to know God and His truth, need not err as they search the Scriptures. As incomplete as they are, as imperfect as they may be, the holy Scriptures are sufficient, when aided to the Holy Spirit, to give us vital understanding, and to enable us to test the spirits.
So I’ve no brief against our need of the Holy Spirit. The point I was making was that when we (or foreigners in cultures where the Bible is suppressed,) do receive “impressions” from the Holy Spirit, they will not run contrary to what God has clearly delineated in Scripture. For instance: recently the SDA lady who cuts my hair, and who had been attending church most Sabbaths, until she became manager of the salon where she works, told me “At first it bothered me to be working on the Sabbath, but then the Lord told me it was alright.” Should I have reminded her that the Holy Spirit will not lead one to violate the Ten Commandments; or should I have said something like, “Who are we to argue against the Spirit?” What would you have said?
P. S. I’ve added another post to our previous exchange of thoughts. (re. the cancelled sexuality conference in London.)
Not all actions of supernatural spirits are from God.
I know that at least one commenter on this web site has publicly trashed on Martin Weber on these pages.
But I think this recent NPUC Gleaner bears serious consideration.
http://gleanernow.com/news/2015/04/high-road-hell
We need the Holy Spirit to enlighten and enliven our assimilation of Scripture. Without the action of the Holy Spirit we cannot “rightly divide the word of truth”.
On the other hand we need Scripture in order to properly discern which supernatural spiritual phenomena are fro God and which from Satan.
Arguing that either obviates the other is nonsense.
Yeah, I guess in my comments and quote from Dr. Whalen, we did make the connection you speak of, Jim. The reason many see increased agitation on the gay marriage and membership issues as germane to the discussion, concerns the apparent willingness and drift among many SDA “shakers and movers” to let factors (running the gamet from cultural imperatives to a mystical consensus borne of emergent reveries,)other than a sound biblical hermeneutic, bear such an inordinate influence on the discussion, that a conclusion contrary to clear biblical injunctions may be accepted by so many SDA saints that that division is the inevitable result.
I do not see where ordaining women in China has led to what you claim would be “inevitable” division.
Or is it only “inevitable” in cultures that are steeped in religious traditions of male hierarchy?
Gentlemen, ladies, from my own research and perspective I do not see any restriction in the Bible nor in the SOP against women’s ordination. Personally, as a pastor I am not threatened by it. I know that God is in charge of this church. My sadness, however, lies in the words of some of our former leading officers. To argue for a ‘yes’ vote to prevent a split in God’s church is a very weak argument in favour of WO. Our defence of WO ordination must be based on the perceived feeling of the leading of the Holy Spirit, the silence of the Scriptures, and the silence of the SOP (if it is indeed silent). At this juncture we should encourage everyone to vote their conscience in light of the findings of the General Conference and their request. Then we should petition the delegates to allow the Holy Spirit to speak through the votes and to please, please, remain united and not split up as other protestant churches have done. To argue against the male headship that God instituted in Eden, and the ‘rulership’ or authority, that God gave man after Eve’s sin, is entirely misleading and wrong. If this argument is a defence of WO then there is a dearth of facts in favour of WO. For me, in spite of the headship that God gave Adam in Eden, and in spite of the authority, after sin entered, that God gave Adam over the family and his wife, we can still appoint (to use the word ordain in its original meaning in the NT ) women as ordained ministers to the gospel, since we find no biblical injunction against it, nor any admonition against it in the SOP. Let’s not be threatened by this action. And few will be threatened by it if we give everyone the right to vote his conscience and allow the Spirit to guide in the vote. And the appeal should be for unity. Why should we encourage people to vote and at the same time threaten that there could be disunity if the vote is not a certain way! The Holy Spirit leads better in a free exercise of our consciences. Our job is to call for unity, not for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote. Encourage unity regardless of how the people vote. If the vote is ‘no’, then those women eager for ordination, and those men eager for WO should be encouraged to trust the leading of the Holy Spirit at that point. We are not in a Chinese situation yet, that may come soon. If the vote is ‘yes’, then we should encourage the membership to stick together and press together and allow the Holy Spirit to lead in the church’s future. May God bless His great church. Soon we will all be under not a conference or a Union or a Division or General Conference, but under the impelling of the Holy Spirit as in the Latter Rain. And by the way, if any division or conference threatens to separate from the SDA church body, then leadership should call the constituency of that division, get a vote on which way the membership of that body would like to go. If they vote to be with the union of churches, then we should fire all the leadership of that division or…
Well said Ron…..
…or if the constituency wish to separate with the conference or division, then let them go on their own and chose their own denominational name and whatever goes with it. There’s nothing wrong with that. God’s church will still survived as it has over the millennia.
Actually, Ron, the Union constituencies are free to address this issue independent of the opinion of the General Conference executive committee, by design and has been the case for more than a century now.
This was made abundantly clear by the lawyers for the General Conference in demanding that the North American Division officers not promulgate their endorsement of ordination without regard to gender. The lawyers declared, at the behest of the General Conference leadership, that the divisions have no authority to approve or deny any conditions with regard to ordination because the divisions do not have constituency.
It was an effortless move at that point for Union Conferences to hold constituency meetings, put the matter of ordination without regard to gender before the constituency, and with constituency approval ordain women to the ministry. This has happened rarely but more than once.
Is there any doubt that if the General Conference officers believed they had legal grounds to step in and prevent this, they surely would have?
Nothing on the agenda for consideration at San Antonio will limit the authority of Union Conference constituencies in this regard. Or so it seems from a slight distance.
While Unions have authority to decide who to ordain, it is never outside the guidelines set out by the General Conference. Do you think Unions have authority to ordain a Roman Catholic to a position of authority in the SDA church?
You over state the authority of the Unions when you imply they have “absolute authority” in the issue of ordination. They are still under the authority of the GC. Just as a pastor can baptize individuals and has authority to do so. But never outside the local conference outline or the over all church definition of the qualification for baptism.
Just because someone is respected doesn’t mean they can’t mangle biblical truth.
It was Angel Rodriguez among others who promoted the idea that 666 is intensified rebellion, that 6 is being short of perfection as it is short of 7, and that there is no link to Vicarius Filii Dei. Ever since Edwin De Kock’s huge tome on the issue we know how false that is.
If he is capable of being wrong on 666, he is capable of being wrong on women’s ordination as well.
Bill G: I am not sure that the Unions can do as they please over against GC’s regulations. I do not think that that is correct. Of course what I meant was that if a conference or union or division wished to go rogue they can have the freedom to leave but only after the constituency voted. I will have to check out what you said. Thanks.
What should a pastor be?
An authoritarian figure who regulates and oversees the behavior of his members? Supervision is not a bad thing. But should we expect a pastor to monitor the members?
Should a pastor be more like a shepherd? One who leads by example and offers good advice?
Let us contemplate the two examples I listed first and determine which is most “Christlike”.
If you understand that Christ was more like the shepherd, then you also understand what should be the role of a pastor.
If a pastor should be a shepherd, one who leads the way rather than one who Lords over the sheep, then surely it can be imagined that a woman COULD be a pastor and still go home to her husband where he is head of his household.
I know it is possible because I see it clearly every sabbath. I had left a church that was too rigid, focused so much on micromanaging the members that it was uncomfortable. I went in search of a church that had the loving, caring spirit of my savior. I am so glad I found it. The woman there was a pastor but I didn’t know it right away as there were three elders who spoke the first three times I visited. The woman pastor greeted me and my wife each time by first and last name only. It was not important to impress us that she was a “pastor”. It was more important to make us feel welcomed. On our fourth visit she spoke and I saw in the bulletin she was a pastor, fully ordained. She had been so hospitable regarding us that we already felt affectionate toward her. AS she spoke there was a “nurturing” characteristic to her words. She was already the mother of two children so perhaps that was what came through.
That congregation was a “company” in 2002 when we began attending. From her nurturing of that infant church company we are now a full status church with about 35 members. We have an active youth sabbath school for all 14 of the children, and an active Pathfinder club that has brought home numerous first place ribbons from the fair and from the Pathfinder bible experience. I see only good things occurring with this woman in position of pastor.
She never “Lords” over the members but always has good advice. She nurtures the members the way a mother nurtures her children. And even sitting amongst the members one can sense she has total respect for her husband as head of their household.
If there is no solid biblical evidence forbidding women from being pastors, then I suggest the only problem is opinions of men rather then guidance from God.
Opinions are not words from God they are merely thoughts from imperfect humans.
My grampa once said, “Opinions are like armpits. Most people have a couple, and some of them stink.”
I just changed into a clean shirt 8-).
Seriously, PRAISE GOD for this blessed woman. May her tribe increase!
PS – Could you tell us where is this church?
I was wondering if someone who opposes WO would offer a retort. I had a ready answer waiting.
We now have a male pastor, Abraham Swamidass, a delightful, lovable fellow who brings an amazing perspective to the gospel. He shares insight and humor with every sermon. I find myself wishing I had video recorded all of his presentations.
Because, our dear lady pastor. Lisa Isensee, is so good at planting churches, she was asked by the conference to take a position doing just that. She is no longer our personal pastor, rather she is a conference wide pastor who teaches others how to do church planting.
So, we now have to share her with the whole state. But, she and her beloved family maintain their membership with us at MONROE, WI. Several times a year her family will be at another location helping plant another fledgling congregation.
She and her husband now have five children. The youngest will be two in a few months. All of the other four are home schooled! Two play piano and the oldest plays violin very well for his young 14 years.
I don’t know how she does all that plus maintains a huge garden every year to cut down the cost of feeding her precious five children.
I and my wife feel blessed to have found the congregation of Monroe. It provided exactly the kind of family experience we needed so badly. We have fellowship dinner every Sabbath. Really, EVERY Sabbath. Even during camp meeting the ones who aren’t able to go will find a small but friendly group to fellowship with.
We do a community service act of some sort at least four times a year with Pathfinders. It might be a visit to nursing home, food collection for the local pantry, things of that nature. We have had Jennifer Jill Swirtzer visit twice in the last five years, and Jaime Jorge provided a concert about a year ago. Mark Anthony graced our basement just last week.
So, for a small church congregation, I’s say this Woman Ordained church is quite healthy!
“I was wondering if someone who opposes WO would offer a retort. I had a ready answer waiting.”
As Protestant Christians, we follow the bible as the final authority, and not what we perceive is a “good experience” to determine truth from error. This “spirit ethic” is exactly what the bible says when it is stated, “And the whole world wondered after the beast.”
Nothing is more deceptive in evaluation of truth than the false theory, “It must be right because it works.”
A temporary level of success will end in total failure after a period of time. And more than a few “false revivals” are based on the “outcome based” result to determine success. The bible has been abandon by the SDA church based on this false theory. And the church is abandoning the bible more and more and opting for political agendas to accomplish the way they think truth should be advanced.
A pastor is an authority figure in the church and not just someone to give us good advice. Just as a father does in the home. Women are not qualified to hold this position as clearly stated by Paul. I don’t care how kind, and loving, and patronizing a woman may be, she is not qualified to hold the position of elder or pastor.
Sunday keeping came into the church by way of the same reasoning. Look at all the people “converted” when the early church abandon the bible for political advantage. “It works, so it must be right” is not the way we determine the will of God on any issue when the bible has given us a clear mandate on any given issue. “Straight is the gate and narrow is the way, and few there be that go in thereat.”
Human reasoning and speculation always lead to the road to destruction.
Abraham Swamidass? Is that Abraham Lincoln Swamidass from India? I believe I went to school with him at AIIAS, Philippines. That’s his full name. Ask him if he remembers Ron and Ingrid Henderson from Europe. Thanks.
How I wish we had more church planters like her in a thousand more places across North America.
It is as simple as that, Michael. Thanks. Regardless of the beautiful attitude which is paramount in any pastoral relationship, in the case of WO the Bible is the way to God; fortunately we also have the SOP that confirms the Bible’s authority. We therefore move ahead in faith that the Holy Spirit will lead the church forward. Of course this is a repetition of a previous GC session where we expected the Holy Spirit to lead, and the vote was no. Yet we who believe that God is in control must in these circumstances believe that He is still in control-even if we are out of control (for the time being). We have seen this time and time again in the church of the OT and the church in the NT leading up to our time. God is more eager to save people than we are, and will see that the job is done, in spite of our prejudices and behaviour. Let’s continue to trust Him all the way. Soon He will return.
I became a seventh day adventist 8 months ago because I belived on what they taught. Another reason I joined the church is because I thought the male headship is biblical. My former church ordains women and I was not comfortable with that. So I left. Now the SDA church has really confused me on this issue. I stopped going to church 3 months ago. The church is spending a lot of time and resources on this issue instead of spreading the 3 angels message. It could have been a great blessing is the main agenda at the GC was on how to preach the 3 angels message and reach for souls that are perishing. There is no burden for souls! I don’t think I will ever come back to a church that I thought had the truth. May God help many like me who are caught up in this drama of women ordination. It’s a distraction from the devil.
Eddie, please get back to church. The reason God is leading His church in this direction of WO, is because this is the last hurdle for the church to deal with before He pours out His Holy Spirit in mighty power on men and women to finish the work. Were just about ready to go home. This is the time to stay in the ark of safety before the storm comes.
Amen Eddie,
I know what you are going. Plse don’t give up on God because of these rebels. Me too I converted to SDA because I thought they cared about the Bible Truth. I realised that many of those in the church today didn’t chose to become SDA but they were born SDA. So they are not actually converted. If you can find a sabbath keeping which stands by the Bible Truth, I would say join them and leave these comedians. Else take courage go back to the SDA, start a work of reformation. If they still persist in their error, then leave this church with your fellow and start a small church on your own. But Never submit to the lies of this rebellious generation.
Eddie,
The primary reason women have been allowed into ministerial positions in other denominations has typically been political correctness. Such churches typify the Biblical warning about those who have a form of godliness but deny the power of God. As a result many of them have become spiritual cesspools. But the same has happened in a far larger number of churches with male ministers. So it isn’t the gender of the minister that is the problem, but whether or not they are empowered by the Holy Spirit and called by Him to serve in such a position. That lack of empowerment and calling explains why membership in the SDA church in a number of countries is level or dropping.
On the other hand, I can show you a list of churches with female pastors that are growing, thriving and spiritually strong. One example of this is the largest SDA church in the world, in Vietnam, which was established by a woman who still serves as head pastor. Add that the majority of Adventist home churches in China are led by women. They are growing and multiplying. What better evidence of God’s blessing could you ask for?
Hopefully this topic will challenge you to dig deeply into scripture and see what God actually says instead of just adopting what some influential teachers and others claim that it says. I would suggest that you pay particular attention to Paul’s discussion in Hebrews, chapter 7 about the change in the priesthood that was made necessary by Jesus becoming our High Priest. Paul makes it very clear that the old system of priesthood, which is used as the model for male-only ministers, has been done away with. Add Galatians 3:28 and how the Holy Spirit gives gifts to whomever He chooses and the issue is no longer who humans pick for what position, but recognizing whether God has chosen anyone for any position.
Eddie, please do not cash in! Do not throw the towel in. Please read the Bible books of the Judges, Chronicles, and the Kings. You will see the terrible mess God’s church got into at that time, yet some of the best and most important prophets were sent to these two kingdoms to call back to God. God did not give up on His people, but disciplined them until the Messiah appeared. Next the raised up the Christian church and eventually the Remnant church found with the SDA church. We are told that many will go out and that the church will be victorious, so why jump ship in high seas my friend? Even if you can swim you will not make it-too many sharks are after your soul! The only safety is in Christ and his Remnant church. God bless you my friend.
Israel was the beloved of God, but when she chose to do like all the surrounding nations and indulge in their sins, God couldn’t help but allow her to experience the result of her rebellion. SDA is the remnant church as long as they submit to the Bible. When it becomes official (if ever she dares allow WO) that she chose culture influence over the Word of God, I won’t call myself an SDA anymore.
Au contraire, if we stand by Scripture we are the true SDAS. If a group takes over the church who don’t embrace fully Bible injunctions they have by default become the “outsiders.”
It is clear to me that culture is the *main* driver of WO; there may be some who sincerely believe the Bible is not clear on the issue.
Years ago there was a magazine published by the SDA church and it related how one could tell an SDA in a crowd. Can we do that now?
Take a look at the following site and scroll down to Talbot.
http://www.adventistreview.org/1510-19
or I will be a nominal SDA ready to leave as soon as the opportunity arises for a true bible following church instead of folks who want to impose their twisted view on the Word of God. I converted to SDA because I cared about the truth and I still do care about the truth.
Everyone I have heard express such a view was already very close to the back door of the church with their feet in motion. In most cases they were dealing with a fundamental spiritual issue and the topic about which they were complaining was merely a the most convenient thing to grab and swing as a weapon to draw attention to the fact they were already leaving the church.
For me its not a theological issue that we should not ordain but a sociological one. The church is already feminized and lacking appeal to men and boys who are leaving in droves……how do you think we are going to fare when the pulpits are flooded by women…. Better….or will we simplistically blame men for not being there?
This veneration of white, Midwestern American expressions of masculinity has elevated it and its expression over the Bible.
Effectively, instead of subjecting culture to the scrutiny of the Bible–the Bible is subsumed by this culture (most commonly manifested in the neo-Calvinist movement that finds deep sympathies in the SDA Church–especially among traditionalists).
In this climate, Jesus definitely looked like me and my buddies.
Mark Driscoll was the epitome of this:
“In Revelation, Jesus is a pride-fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is the guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up.”
Indeed, Jesus was a beer-swilling, football-loving, working class Midwesterner (Joe the Plumber?).
Male headship is a right zoo. It is the nose of a Calvinist camel that is opposed to the character of God as revealed in Christ and if left unchallenged, will rip the church apart.
P.S. Avoiding church because it doesn’t appeal to your masculinity is idolatry/self-worship of the highest order.
AMEN & AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!
“We should never let the impression prevail that only a *privileged few* have a knowledge of the Scriptures and that others must refer to these-one or another of their favorite ministers-as *authority* for their doctrines. People should be educated to search the Scriptures for themselves, to dare to think for themselves, taking the Bible as their *guidebook*, their standard of faith.” Letter 12, 1890. {CTr 332.6}
When we revere such men are we falling into the trap described by EGW? You decide.
To those who feel they must leave the SDA church if WO is approved by the next GC Session, or continues to be practiced in some places regardless of the vote, let me ask you to carefully and prayerfully study John 17 and then how this concern of Jesus played-out in the Book of Acts. Throughout the NT era we have no record that Peter and James and John and Paul agreed on every point of belief and practice. Yet they were committed to furthering the cause of the Gospel with the Gifts that God had given unto them.
Anyone who is looking for the perfect church will not find it in this life. Anyone who can only maintain Christian fellowship with those who agree on every point of faith and practice, will eventually end-up in a very small church. And even then it will not be a perfect church because WE are not perfect and WE are the Body of Christ on earth. So what we have in the Christian faith is a Body with a Perfect Head and Broken Members. Get it? The Church is broken because WE are broken – not somebody else but US.
From my youth onwards I have wrestled with all of the things that are broken in the SDA church. And I have fearlessly examined most of our teachings and found that some of them are arguably broken as well. So why do I remain a member and active participant and supporter of this church? The answer is NOT that I hope to convince everyone else to become as I am because I am BROKEN.
When Jesus asked His disciples whether they would leave when so many others left, their answer was “Where else would we go? You have the words of life.” Where else would I go? Where else would I find as much deep understanding of the words of Jesus and the character of God as remains in this church despite its disagreements and its dysfunctional behaviors?
Jesus did NOT say that all men will know that we are His Disciples, because we always agree with one another. Rather all men will know that we are His Disciples, because we love one another even when we disagree. And He was not talking about abstract “tough love” from a distance. He was talking about loving up-close and personal. Loving so much that we would rather keep close together even when we differ. After all that is how He loved us. He came to earth in human flesh to get as close to us as Divinely Possible. And it was NOT because we agreed with Him or even liked Him.
Let us have this attitude within ourselves that Christ had (and still has).
WO proponent use Gal3:28 as the fondation of their claim. But the same can be used for advocating homosexuality. Seeing this way, man and woman are same at all level. So it doesn’t matter if I marry a woman or a man because both are same according to Gal3:28. Actually this notion that this is a new testament concept is just false. Man and woman, jews or gentils, slave or free have always been one in the eyes of God from Adam onwards. The only advantage of the jews is that it was the only nation to officialy accept the Lord as their God. But God never rejected the other nations per say. On the contrary, He longed for them to know Him. People are so blinded by their ego. Anyway do as you wish, but at the end of the day there will be reckoning.
Really? Well, maybe it is time you learned that God is not limited by your concepts. If He can make an axe head float or make a donkey speak, He is capable of doing anything He wants with anybody He wants, including making women leaders in the church. He’s already doing this in a whole lot of places where there either are no men in the church, or where the men are not equipped by Him to be leaders. So you’re arguing for a lost cause where God is already miles ahead of you in doing what you say He won’t do.
In some parts of the world too there are powerful homosexual pastors. So it is also the time to acknowledge them too in the church and even marry them since they are ‘used’ by God for his work. Maybe God has moved on this issue too.
God can use anybody. In the past he used Nebukadnezzar a babylonian king for his work. He even used Balaam donkey. He use kids, homosexual. I mean he uses who He wants. Does it meant who should be ordaining donkeys and kids for ministry because anyway God can use them??
“or where the men are not equipped by Him to be leaders.”
Can you tell me where there is such a place? Thanks.
SDA’s used to be the most intense bible students in the world. Not today, since the false application of the gospel has “dumb down” any intensity to carefully examine every issue by way of scripture.
The law has been undermined and even denied by claiming we need not keep the law to be saved, and we are not saved by keeping the law. To such, I would ask, “Are you telling me we need not do the will of God in order to be saved?” “Are we not saved by doing God’s will and keeping His commandments?”
In the days of Noah, he prepared an ark and exhorted any and all to avail themselves of this place of safety during the flood to come.
Would they not be saved from the wrath of God by doing what God had commanded? How silly to claim we are not saved from the wrath of God by keeping His commandments.
If a policeman stops you for speeding, and simply gives you a warning, are you not saved from the penalty of the law by following his instruction to stop speeding? Just so, we are also saved from the wrath of God and penalty of the law if we do two things. One, accept the atonement Jesus paid for our sin and transgression, and two, stop sinning and obey God’s law.
It is true no one is saved from the penalty of the law solely because we stop sinning and keep the commandments of God. We must accept the atonement of Christ and His mediation in our behalf. But we must also return to obedience to the law or we are not saved from the penalty of the law. To claim we are not saved by obedience to the law is a blatant attack on the law of God and undermines God’s authority to command and demand obedience under the threat of the punishment for disobedience.
Christians are not released from the necessity to obey the law to not only “get saved” but to remain saved. And one important aspect of the law is faith in Christ. The law not only requires obedience, it also requires mediation. So EGW has said.
“When the judgment shall sit, and the books shall be opened, and every man shall be judged according to the things written in the books, then the tables of stone, hidden by God until that day, will be presented before the world as the standard of righteousness. Then men and women will see that the prerequisite of their salvation is obedience to the perfect law of God. None will find excuse for sin. By the righteous principles of that law, men will receive their sentence of life or of death (The Review and Herald, January 28, 1909). 1BC 1109.4”
Whether we obey the law will determine if we pass the final judgment. And the law includes faith in Christ.
“The law has been undermined and even denied by claiming we need not keep the law to be saved, and we are not saved by keeping the law”.
Living in the Spirit also demonstrates our obedience to God’s Law. One cannot be without the other. He who says “there is no need to keep the law” is contradicting God’s Perfection, His Righteousness. Does not living in the Spirit fulfill the Perfect Law of God? If we have the Love of God in us we automatically do what is Right—Love God and our fellow man. If I steal from someone, how do I Love/Care for that person?
Today many companies require that their employees work on the Sabbath, (seventh day). If an employee said to the employer: “You want me to work of the Sabbath, and by doing so I am violating my commitment to my God, then would you object if I took whatever I wanted from your premises?” I’m sure the response would be: “You can’t do that, you would be stealing.” That part of God’s Law suits him, but not the other one. So we see that all who deny the importance of the Law are in fact choosing what suits them, that is, “If I need to work on the Sabbath, and it is important for me to keep making money, then the Sabbath Law does not apply to me”.
“17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” James 2:17, 18.
This is always interpreted incorrectly by those who want to excuse themselves from living according to God’s will. The Faith is in our hearts, by which we live in Christ Jesus. The works are the outward manifestation of our life in the Spirit. If we steal or murder or commit adultery we are fulfilling the desire of the flesh, the sinful nature, and not the Spirit.
There is some apparent confusion between causes and effects.
Keeping the law cannot save us. This is entirely clear from the writings of Paul.
On the other hand the Bible is clear that refusing to keep the law can result in being lost.
How can both of these statements be true?
Obedience is not the ROOT of our salvation but it is one of the FRUITS.
Likewise in the final judgment we will not be found worthy because we have kept the law, but to the extent that we truly obey God this is evidence that we have accepted God’s Gift of Grace wrought in the substitutionary life and death of Jesus Christ the God-man.
The OT vision of Joshua the high priest given to the prophet Zechariah, uses Hebrew language that closely parallels the language of the Day of Atonement (yom kippur). This vision makes it clear that not even the earthly high priest was clean enough to stand before Yahweh wearing his own garments. On the Day of Atonement it is not the obedience of the high priest nor of the other believers in the camp that were accepted by Yahweh, it was the atoning sacrifice. Only on the basis of this sacrifice could the garments of the earthly high priest be reckoned as clean.
On the other hand, on the Day of Atonement anyone who rejected the atoning sacrifice could be banished from the camp.
By living in the Spirit we do not concentrate on fulfilling the requirements of the Law, but rather the Will of God. As Paul points out concerning his calling, which has a far greater weight than following the Law to the letter:
“1 Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord.” 1 Cor. 4:1-4.
What Paul is saying, his commitment to following Christ overshadows his weaknesses.
Peter’s lesson from the Lord Jesus was made clear also:
“And when He had spoken this, He said to him, Follow Me. 20 Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21 Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.” John 21:19-22.
“Keeping the law cannot save us. This is entirely clear from the writings of Paul.”
The only law we don’t have to keep to be saved is the ceremonial law according to Paul. It was Paul who said, “The doers of the law shall be justified” Rom. 2 and he was not talking about the ceremonial law.
Salvation in the bible is defined in a more comprehensive meaning and application than many, if not most, in the SDA church would define it. God forces no one to obey the law, nor do we “automatically” obey the law if we believe in the atonement. We choose to obey the law as a moral imperative to be saved, just as those before the flood must choose to get on the ark. I am sure many claimed to believe in the love of God, and claimed they were believers.
To choose to believe is fine. But we must also choose to obey to be saved. And this is the point James makes. Paul teaches that works without faith in Christ are dead works. James teaches that faith in Christ without works is dead faith.
Each supports that fact that you must obey and believe, or, believe and obey and it does matter what order you do this. In the old covenant, it was obey and believe, because Jesus had not yet made the atonement. In the new testament, it is believe and obey because Jesus has already made the atonement. And this is the only difference between the old and new covenant.
Neither faith nor works are “automatic”. If they were, man has no moral accountability to do either. It is by careful consideration of truth that we decide. And truth is the moral motivation to persuade us to accept God’s point of view instead of the devil’s.
It is the devil’s position that God is solely responsible for what we do, either good or evil. God can only persuade us, never force us. In light of the gospel, the will is free to choose. And many do not choose God’s way, even when confronted with truth. So no one will “automatically” believe, nor will anyone “automatically” obey. Faith is a choice, just like obedience is a choice. This is why it is a false doctrine to claim we are saved by faith alone, and obedience has nothing to do with our salvation. We only obey because we want to, not because we have to. This is a lie of the devil that the SDA church has embraced and advocated for years.
While faith and works are always in harmony, they are two aspects of truth that must be articulated in a bible context and not advocated by human reasoning. So, EGW has said.
“Faith and works are two oars which we must use equally if we [would] press our way up the stream against the current of unbelief. “” NL 37
And Paul can say, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling….”
Modern Adventism has attack the element of fear as part of the Christian motive and now teach an assurance divorced from fear that is simply not biblical. Fear and assurance work together to create the true Christian motive for loyalty to God.
Christians were never given the Sabbath. It is not a problem for the entire Christian world, only for Orthodox Jews and Adventists who follow the same Law and prohibitions of observing the day and dietary laws.
Why have the letters to the Christian churches telling them that Christ has replaced the Law? That we are not to be burdened with the Law that even the Jews could not bear?
The Sabbath HAS been a burden to so many in their attempt to follow the OT theocratic Law never given to Christians. Of all the Bible “proof texts” for Sabbath, the entire body of guidance, instruction, and courage to new Christians in the NT goes unmentioned in preference of the Hebrew Bible.
Elaine’s persistently erroneous claims and commentary regarding the Sabbath are proof of the ‘value’ of the freedom from always being right.
“Modern Adventism has attack the element of fear as part of the Christian motive and now teach an assurance divorced from fear that is simply not biblical. Fear and assurance work together to create the true Christian motive for loyalty to God.”
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. (1 John 4:18 NASB)
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. (1 John 4:18 NIV)
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23 NASB)
I think most Christians would agree with the last part of this sentence. The free gift of God is eternal life. This gift comes to us through Jesus Christ.
What is not agreed is the first part of this sentence. Wages are something we earn – they are not free. Who owes us our wages? The entity we were serving to earn them.
If when we sin we are not serving God, then why do so many Christians insist that it is God who owes us the wages of death for our sin?
Is eternal death the PENALTY FOR SIN or is eternal death the CONSEQUENCES OF SIN? This is not necessarily an either-or question. It may indeed be some combination of the above.
Nevertheless how you answer this question shows very much about your view of the character of God. And this the fundamental question that is being disputed not only within the world but even within the Christian Church.
Now let me make clear that I believe in a final judgment. I do believe that God will at some point eradicate evil from all of creation. But I also believe that the wrath of God is directed against sin, because of the destruction that sin wreaks upon all that God has created good. So God’s purpose in eradicating sin is not to punish sinners, but rather to clean-up the mess once and for all.
As long as our service to God is motivated even in part by fear, according to John we have not been perfected in love.
From the Torah all the way through Revelation, the authentic bases for worshiping God are gratitude to our Creator and our Redeemer, gratitude that God has already done for us what we could never do for ourselves.
Worshiping the gods to avert their wrath or gain their favor is the animus of paganism. This is the kind of worship that Satan demands. And it does not give glory to God.
Stephen, you did not answer my questions, only divert.
As an Adventist believer, why avoid such questions?
The struggle is not with Women’s Ordination, but with having to be right, and defining what is right biblically.
If the first church council recorded in Acts 15 were to have felt equally compelled, circumcision would be a Seventh-day Adventist fundamental belief.
Christians were never given the Sabbath. It is not a problem for the entire Christian world, only for Orthodox Jews and Adventists who follow the same Law and prohibitions of observing the day and dietary laws.
Why have the letters to the Christian churches telling them that Christ has replaced the Law? That we are not to be burdened with the Law that even the Jews could not bear?
The Sabbath HAS been a burden to so many in their attempt to follow the OT theocratic Law never given to Christians. Of all the Bible “proof texts” for Sabbath, the entire body of guidance, instruction, and courage to new Christians in the NT goes unmentioned in preference of the Hebrew Bible.
Had the demand for circumcision been ordered, there would be no Christian church, period. The Jewish-Christians, while continuing to circumcise, disappeared from the record while gentile Christianity became the church by the end of the first century.
Circumcision was the rite required of all Jewish males before they could become Jews and study Torah. That would have made it impossible for Christians to observe the Law, which is why the controversy at Jerusalem almost split the early church. The wisest and most important decision to mantain a growing church eliminated the entire system of Judaism for freedom in Christ. The Law was only a guardian until Christ came, and replaced the Law so that all ethnicities, nationalities and sex are equally accepted by Christ ans His church.
Bill:
I would agree. See my comments for May 4 below.
You WO proponents are fighting a lost battles. In all generations people have tried to suppress the Truth and substitute the Truth for their lies. It started with pharisees killing Jesus to promote their lies, the persecutions of the christians by the romans, the prohibition to read the bible by the catholics, the change of sabbath, homosexuality marriage and now WO ordination. But guess they have always Failed, because nobody can change the Truth and God jealously protects his Truth and reveals it to the serious seeker of Truth. Likewise you will also fail. Women can never be men and can never have the roles of men. Deal with it before your lies destroy you. Women you have a role to play, do it and forget about being men.
Well the Truth in the Bible is that there is no command to ordain women.
But then neither is there any command to ordain men (except as I have shown earlier in the English tradition of Bible translations going back to Wycliffe who translated the passage in Titus as “ordain priests”). After the Reformation, English translators replaced “priests” with “seniors” or “elders”. But only later did they abandon the word “ordain” for “appoint” or “establish” etc. The word “ordain” is no more in the Greek or even the Latin than is the word “priests”.
So I am glad to hear that Bible Truth is confident that the Truth about the Bible will ultimately prevail. The truth in this case is that we are arguing about a Practice of Humans, rather than a Commandment of God.
Women cannot be pastors or elders according to the bible whether or not the word ‘ordination’ occurs in the new testament.
The problem is not ordination per say, but ordination to What. This is the problem.
See my comments below for May 4. I think you accurately share one aspect of this debate: it really isn’t about the rite of ordination.
And dont listen to the men encouraging you in your folly, they don’t have your best interest in their heart.
“We have your best interests at heart” is what the slavemaster tells his slaves; “Trust me, I know what is best for you.” But the slaves refused to listen and finally rebelled. There’s a lesson there that many have forgotten.
The slavemaster you talk about, am sure they are not themselves slaves of Christ. Because if they were slaves of Christ they would follow his teaching in treating their slaves like their own brothers (philemon 16).
I would gladly be the slave of someone who is himself/herself slave of Christ, because I know they will treat me as brothers and not abuse or exploit me. However it is my obligation to rebel against them once they themselves rebel against the authority of God through the bible.
We should get back at the ideal of God as stated in the Bible instead of encouraging more and more rebellion against the Word of God. And WO is a rebellion against the Word of God which will never be accepted by true servants of God.
“I would gladly be the slave of someone who is himself/herself slave of Christ, because I know they will treat me as brothers and not abuse or exploit me.”
That is not what Peter said. Read his counsel to slaves. He speaks nothing of rebellion of the slave owner is not treating them well, but to humbly submit to the mistreatment.
We need to quit rationalizing the slavery issue away. The facts are, no where in the OT or the NT was slavery every spoken against or hinted at being abolished. Thus, to argue WO or none WO from silence on the matter is not a strong position to take. Below I give what the issue really boils down to.
Peter said slaves should submit to their masters and Paul asks the masters to treat their slaves as brothers.
The bible is a whole, you can’t take one part and ignore the other.
They both go together, they are complementary.
The comment “I would gladly be the slave” completely surprised me. From your comments I can see you as the slave owner giving directions to others but not the owned slave being directed. Even as a brother, I am guessing you would feel best at being the older brother.
Jesus the older brother and we are all younger brothers at the same level recieving instructions from him (both slaves and masters must submit to Him first).
LOL. Thank you for continuing to provide directions to others. I was not commenting on being a slave to Jesus. I still think you would have a terrible time being owned by another person.
As long as this person submits to the requirements of God as stated in the Bible, I will be just fine.
But if you are a slave then you do not get to decide to obey your master only when your master is giving you directions consistent with your understanding of the Bible.
In other words you would welcome being a slave to a master such as yourself. Or as you suggested earlier you would welcome being a woman married to a husband such as yourself.
@ Jim Hamstra
That’s why we need to die to self and live in Christ. Paul could say: ‘I have been crucified with Christ. If I live it is no more I but Christ who lives in me.’
Womens ordination is just another move to destroy God’s church. Satan has been working hard behind the scenes to destroy the family which is a representation of the church. Leaders such as Dr. Angel Rodriguez, Dwight Nelson, and others that are pushing womens ordination are either completely deceived themselves or are wolves in sheeps clothing devouring the church. Unity in the church has to do with keeping Gods Commandments, statutes, and judgements not compromise for the sake unity. We as a church should be focused on the Three Angels Message. Maybe it is time to start cleansing the church.
“Womens ordination is just another move to destroy God’s church.” If one extends the family structure to the church then there may be a basis to this statement, but the bible isn’t clear that it does.
“Unity in the church has to do with keeping Gods Commandments, statutes, and judgements not compromise for the sake unity.” Women’s ordination is neither of the categories you state. It isn’t even a fundamental belief or a voted guideline or statement in the church. So I find this argument lacking in any standing to the discussion.
Below this I have shared what I see as the core issues facing us on this point of WO. I truly believe that lack of humility on either side is what is keeping this from being resolved in a Christ-like and amiable manner.
I think it boils down to what weight you give either for WO or against it to the Scriptures that are core to either position. One thing for sure, it isn’t about the rite of ordination that separates. It is the issue of “does the headship of husband to wives translate to the governance of the church?” I think both sides agree that ordination as a rite doesn’t bestow special power or authority upon its subject, but is simply a form of confirmation.
The anti WO group have their points: men are the leaders and authority figures in the Scriptures. They base it largely on Gen 3:16 as a divine prescription upon male/female relationships. Since the family is the core component of any society out of it comes the bases and the rationale behind male only leadership in the church position of pastor. Even if we didn’t have a rite of ordination that is the way in which the church should be structured to govern.
The anti WO group from that position do a lot of reading into texts things that don’t exist save for the reading into them. On their face they don’t explain anything that leads to headship of all men over all women. They are left with the clear fact that no women are recorded as having been leaders in the church as pastors.
The pro WO like to state that men and women were entirely equal at creation and that was disrupted out of sin. Some see the Gen 3:16 as prescriptive and some see it as descriptive. Many also see the headship reserved for the husband wife relationship alone. Beyond that those gifted should exercise their gifts in the body of Christ, and gifts aren’t gender specified (all are under the Head of Jesus).
The pro WO group can’t find examples of women leading congregations, the Junia slant isn’t at all clear to make a case she was an apostle. Yes, some women were clearly leaders, but none stand out as the position of oversight of a church.
So both sides have their strengths and both have their weaknesses. Neither has an explicit mandate for their position. The ordination rite itself is really a straw man argument and distracts to what the fundamental dispute is: can women call of God to preach and teach be leaders irrespective of male senior colleagues, or should men only be in places of administrative leadership in the church. That is what the question at GC ought to be about, but we are wrangling over ordination which isn’t the point at all. The vote is pointless. It takes us know where either way.
The question should be: can our church live with the two views? Can unity be achieved though different interpretations of Scripture on this point exist? As long as both sides see this as a zero sum question, we will not achieve unity. Until both sides humbly admit there is NO mandate for either position, we can’t possibly achieve a cohesive unity in this matter.
Kevin,
An excellent analysis.
I take your conclusion and take the issue a step deeper to ask: How willing are we to let God be in control instead of us trying to control everything in the church? There is a whole lot more argument of viewpoints than there is seeking of God’s will. What makes it even more complicated is how the long-term absence of the Holy Spirit in the church has left us with so many misconceptions about God that in many cases we have precious little of the actual knowledge of God that comes only from the experience of watching Him work and being empowered by Him. This often means the loudest opinions are from those who have the least actual knowledge of God. This adds credibility to a truism my grandfather taught me: Ye shall know who doesn’t know Him by the volume of their arguing about Him.
William:
“This adds credibility to a truism my grandfather taught me: Ye shall know who doesn’t know Him by the volume of their arguing about Him.” Your grandfather was a very astute and perceptive man!
It certainly comes down to an issue of “control.” Both sides want to “control” the issue since neither side has an unqualified mandate to go one direction or the other.
Appreciate your comments very much. Thank you.
Yep.
This is another way of saying that on both sides there are people trying to take control of something that isn’t in the Bible.
When you have no clear mandate one way or another on a point, and upon a point such as women’s ordination, there is the very real tendency to take it and seek to control the issue to pursued others to your particular side. Think about the history of this and it is clear this is precisely what is going on. TOSC only proved this even more: no mandates for either side, but it is clear that both sides are seeking persuasion and even intimidation to move the matter to the conclusion they desire. That is but a receipt for disunity and hard feelings.
Voting ourselves out of this hasn’t worked, and isn’t going to work this time. Sigh.
But so much of our Adventist DNA is about being RIGHT. We have the TRUTH. So if we have the TRUTH and others do not agree with us, then others must be WRONG.
In this regard we stand very much in the tradition of the Protestant Reformers who wrangled interminably with each other over matters of faith and practice.
Since I have both Adventism and Calvinism in my DNA I have inherited a double dose of this particular malady 8-(.
So let me share with you the Dutch man’s prayer. “Lord help me always to be right, because it is so hard to change my mind when I am wrong.”
Very well said, Jim. I really like the thoughts here. This “must be right” syndrome is ingrained in myself as well in the same way (Calvinism through Baptist upbringing). I so can relate to the double malady of DNA gene damage!
I sit here chuckling now over the Dutch prayer and I am Scot, English and Native American.
So, how do we get away from this obsession with being right and correct? It has been a big struggle for me but I can tell you that the more experience I have with God’s leading in hands-on ministry, the less important it is for me to be right. The difference this has made was illustrated to me this past Sabbath our church met in a state park and a group from another church an hour’s drive away joined us. The group have become very frustrated with what they see happening in their church and are seeking solutions. I was sharing about some of the ways during the formation of our church that we decided to do things differently from the traditional SDA model and the positive results we have been enjoying. A woman who joined our conversation was quick to describe how she knew exactly what God wanted her to be doing, but when I asked her what evidence she had of God blessing her efforts, the only answer she could give was that she knew she was doing what God wanted because she was right! A bit later she got up to make a second trip to the desserts table and once she was out of hearing range the other woman looked at me and said, “You see what we’re dealing with, don’t you?”
Well I am 50% Frisian (which non-Frisians generally conflate with Dutch), 25% from adjoining Dutch provinces, 20% from New England and 5% from Nieuw Netherland.
So while this prayer might be humorous for some, for me it is no laughing matter.
If as the Apostle Paul says we need to die daily, then those who would rather die than change their minds should pray this prayer daily.
William,
I think that every congregation probably has one or more of these dear souls who would rather die than change their minds. Sometimes a congregation cannot move forward until these stalwarts who have been “in the way for a long time” pass away.
Still we are all God’s children and fortunately God is far more patient that are we.
“The question should be: can our church live with the two views?”
For those who hold strong convictions on one side or the other, the obvious answer is “NO”.
For those who have little or no conviction, or claim the issue is not definable, the answer is “Yes”.
In which case, you haven’t solved anything by your views.
Bill, you have expressed the “zero sum” approach to the problem. Note: I said that neither side can claim a clear mandate and those are the facts. Emotional fervor from either side doesn’t make a mandate.
Since there is no mandate on either side what is transpiring is a let us work to persuade all who will listen to come to our side and if we get enough on our side we can get that right vote. It’s a losing cause to pursue it that way, and basically this is how it is being addressed.
The KEY is admitting no mandate no matte which side you are on, which I admit isn’t something my comments are going to produce within anyone. That has to come some other way, in a person’s interaction with God’s Spirit.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say “neither side can demonstrate a clear mandate”.
People on both sides can and do “claim” a clear mandate, however dubious and unsubstantiated these claims may be.
I have not said that they don’t claim one. They certain do. To claim is one thing. To actually have one, is another. My perspective is coming out of having read most of the TOSC study papers and it is clear that either side can make a good case, but not, in my view, a clinching case. There are strengths and weaknesses on both sides, and no matter what anyone wants to say, our culture, personalities, etc. influences conclusions. It has moved me to try and think of this issue in broader terms that attempts to appreciate both sides strengths and weaknesses.
I know, it is idealistic to suggest we might be able to live and do ministry with both sides existing, as they do now, in the church. I just think the whole vote coming us is going to be mostly a complete waste of time and energy. It won’t end future votes. It won’t stop ordination of women, nor will it unordain women.
Including myself, I just think we need a lot more humility on this matter than any of us have.
Could it be that both sides are right in their claim of a mandate? Could it be that God supports both sides of this issue and does not really care which side we choose? Since both sides seem to be able to extract support from the Bible for their position, is it possible that God is just leaving it for us to decide?
Being “right” is in the Adventist DNA. We began that way: all the other churches were wrong and only Adventists had it right, which they called the “truth.” The effort to maintain that position has caused the church to be so exclusive that few have been able to “make the grade” and many gave up, hopelessly that it was impossible. And what has been achieved? In the NAD the new converts are so minuscule as to be embarrassing to mention. If that’s the only route to heaven, who wants to live next door to someone who is always right? They are a pain in the church, as noted above.
“Bill, you have expressed the “zero sum” approach to the problem. Note: I said that neither side can claim a clear mandate and those are the facts. Emotional fervor from either side doesn’t make a mandate.”
Obviously, this is your opinion. But just because you claim there is no mandate, doesn’t make it so. So for what some would term as radicals on both sides, your “opinion” is worthless. And unless you deal with the issue from this perspective, you have no way of solving the issue in any credible way. You simply say, “There is not issue” and you think this solves the problem.
I guess we all have our opinions. Thus, it will never be solved.
Bill,
It is one thing to have an opinion and quite another to insist that anyone who disagrees that opinion is wrong.
As I have often written on this web site, if one insists that one can only have fellowship with those who agree on everything important, one will end-up in a very small church!
“Bill,
It is one thing to have an opinion and quite another to insist that anyone who disagrees that opinion is wrong.”
I am well aware, Jim, that the liberal agenda cares less about what is right, than unity. So you can mock and scorn the idea that being right has any credibility in the male headship vs. WO debates.
Some of us would rather be right according to the bible than violate our conscience for the sake of unity.
” if one insists that one can only have fellowship with those who agree on everything important, one will end-up in a very small church!”
You are correct about this, Jim. We will surely end up with a very small church compared to the world wide movement that abandons truth for what they call “the better good”. And the spirit of those who mock the idea of being right as being ultimately the most important issue will no doubt attack and persecute those who think all issues are important, and nothing in the bible is irrelevant.
Are you aware that most of Christanity considers the SDA position on the Sabbath as trivial and irrelevant? Do they not also advocate compromise for “the greater good” of humanity?
Kevin says, ” Yes, I believe if entered into rightly we can co exist with two views of women in ministry and I can honestly say that without pushing for one side or the other as “being right.”
Typical of the liberal agenda that scorns “right” for the sake of some false humility and compromise for the sake of unity.
No doubt, most will eventually opt for this argument in the SDA church, and the same spirit will opt for Sunday keeping for the same reason.
William Noel said….”I fully agree. Allowing both points of view allows both for the direct leading of the Holy Spirit and the adoption of policy that is compatible with the social customs of an area. Rigid policy creates the illusion that doing something contrary to the policy has to be in opposition to the Holy Spirit when the actual result is preventing us from seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit and being open to His leading.”
This is typical of the Roman Catholic “spirit ethic” that transcends the bible. So you abandon the bible in favor of some “spiritual” concept based on human speculation instead of the word of God. You may persuade many, even the majority, but you won’t persuade the “elect” who hold the bible above any spirit ethic to determine truth and experience.
Christ commanded us to love on another, and not to judge. How can there be love and no judgmentalism if everyone else is so wrong and you are always right? How does it infringe on your conscience if someone sees things differently? His conscience, not another’s should be his guide.
” How does it infringe on your conscience if someone sees things differently? His conscience, not another’s should be his guide.”
That’s not the point, Elaine. They are asking everyone to abandon their conscience for the sake of unity. Both those who support WO and those who oppose it. I have no objection to anyone who follows their conscience. But as Luther said, “My conscience is bound by the word of God.”
This whole “unity” thing is satanic.
And by the way, Elaine. Love has a law, and it is the ten commandments. So it is called the “law of love.” Any “love” defined outside and opposed to the ten commandments is not love at all. In fact, the whole bible is about the love of God, His kingdom and government. So, anything that attacks God authority and His kingdom is not love.
God ordained male headship. To attack this “law” of God is to attack His authority and rule. Modern “love” is based on human opinion and speculation motivated by emotions and not objective declarations of God’s word.
William Noel: There is no reply under your interesting experience that you shared, so I am seeking to comment with a new post.
Your story truly illustrates the problems with “being right.” That alone should give us pause about whatever side we may bend towards or be securely in. That is my point of needing a huge dose of humility in this matter. Yes, I believe if entered into rightly we can co exist with two views of women in ministry and I can honestly say that without pushing for one side or the other as “being right.”
I fully agree. Allowing both points of view allows both for the direct leading of the Holy Spirit and the adoption of policy that is compatible with the social customs of an area. Rigid policy creates the illusion that doing something contrary to the policy has to be in opposition to the Holy Spirit when the actual result is preventing us from seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit and being open to His leading.
The church should be the light of the world not the other way around.
Don’t try to do like everyone else, however try to do as God wants.
Pagan nations allow women as priests, however God told Israel not to do like their neighbors but to have only men as priests.
Jesus, the apostles and the early church did not change this paradigm although nany women were used mightily by God going back to the old testament to the early church, yet they didn’t change this paradigm set by God himself.
Neither Christ nor the apostles appointed priests in the NT. The Jewish system with its sacrifices and temple are not part of Christianity.
True there are no more priests, but the church has overseers as bishops or pastors and from the time of Jesus no woman has been allowed there though there were many women capable. Why? Because the same paradigm of having men leading the flock which started from the priesthood and continues with the pastor era and which originate with God has not been abolished. And we are still compelled to follow. If we disreguard it, well we can get rid of the Bible altogether because it becomes absolutely useless. Culture becomes the new authority.