Should Ted Wilson Speak at the Pacific Union Conference Session?
by Ervin Taylor
I would like to conduct an informal and unscientific poll of readers of this blog.
Here is the poll question: “In light of what happened at the Columbia Union Conference session, would you recommend to Ted Wilson, the President of the General Conference of SDAs, that he speak to the delegates during the August 19, 2012 constituency session of the Pacific Union Conference?”
Before you indicate your vote, please reflect on what happened when he spoke to the union session delegates. He asked them to vote No on the question of whether the Columbia Union Conference should authorize ordination to the gospel ministry without regard to gender. The delegates proceeded to vote overwhelming Yes.
Therefore, if you are in favor of the Pacific Union Conference authorizing local conferences to ordain women, would it make sense for you to be also in favor of having Ted Wilson voice his opposition?
Alternatively, if you are not in favor of the Pacific Union Conference authorizing local conferences to ordain women, would it make sense for you to also be opposed to having Ted Wilson voice his opposition?
Please vote YES or NO in response to the following: “In light of what happened at the Columbia Union Conference session, would you recommend to Ted Wilson, the President of the General Conference of SDAs, that he personally speak to the delegates during upcoming Pacific Union Conference Session?” You are welcome to state the reason(s) for your vote.
Thank you for participating in this poll.
Yes.
The respect for his office demands that he at least be invited, and the situation is sufficiently important that he should attend – even if people don't like what he has to say.
Given the 'damage has already been done' (regardless of whether you support WO or not), the best thing Pres Wilson could do is try and talk down the whole importance of all this now. He needs to make clear that this decision will have no impact on Unions outside the West who don't support WO.
The more he can talk done the issue, the greater it will keep the Church together. The most dangerous thing he can do is talk up the issue, with further talks of 'grave consequences' as he did last time. It is that sort of behaviour that will lead to schism; whereas, his principal job is to maintain unity.
Yes
But I disagree with Stephen. It is time to make a stand for truth, to stand for principles. I do not believe for one second that those who will allow the non biblical practice will leave other unions alone but will continue to lobby and coerce other unions under the guise of "discrimination" Almost all WO proponents believe that not to have female pastors is discrimination, subjegation etc. yet they always say that this will not be forced on other peoples.
For me there is a disconnect if it is discrimination are proponets of WO saying discrimination is okay in other places? Then again if it is not discrimination then there was no need for WO in the first place. I still maintain that there is no biblical imperative for what is happening and many will find themselves guilty for apostacy. Besides if we look at other churches that introduced this practice did it help them or derail them. The sda church was still the fastest growing in spite of this so why change a winning formula?
It appears we agree he should talk.
It appears we disagree re what he should talk about.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
"For me there is a disconnect if it is discrimination are proponets of WO saying discrimination is okay in other places?"
Slaves, obey your masters – or so said Paul. We live within the cultural reality of our societies. Just because Paul understood that slavery was a cultural reality of his day didn't mean he was an advocate of slavery.
Like on the issue of slavery in NT times, it is possible for Unions in the West to eliminate discrimination against women whilst understanding the cultural reality that abolishing discrimination in other parts of the world is not practicable at the moment. Similarly, in aparteid South Africa the SDA Church allowed segregation based on race, even though such an idea would be fiercely opposed as discrimination elsewhere in the world.
Moreover, doesn't the US still have segregated Conferences based on race – and where it is the African American community who desires this racical segregation? Just because the GC or NAD allows this form of discrimination in your part of the world doesn't mean it would be acceptable for 2 seconds in Europe or SPD (Australia and NZ). Perhaps President Wilson and the GC has a little less moral authority on the issue of WO given the World Church in effect allow racial discrimination, despite FB#14 and the clear teachings of Gal. 3:28?
Tapiwa
What other churches introduced was allowing women to be ministers. We did that over 100 years ago. All other churches, having decided women could be ministers allowed them to do so and ordained them; or decided women couldn't be ministers and did nto allow them to do so. We are the only ones to argue women can be ministers, but can't be ordained as ministers. I would like you to list the Bible verses that support women being elders and pastors, while forbidding them being ordained. All I have seen quoted seem, if taken literally, to forbid women being elders and pastors while saying nothing about ordination.
Yes.
Of course he should go and make an appeal to the PUC. Doing so will illustrate (as it did at CUC's "Rebellion of Korah" revival meeting) how far out of harmony with the rest of the church these people are.
Or how far out of harmony HE is with the people of the PUC….
NO. His divisive comments and stance demonstrated at the Columbia Union Conference disqualify him, demonstating clearly that he is either not willing or not able to lead the Church in a theologically and practically balanced manner that is arguably required to meet the needs of a global Church.
A president that can pandy to theological conservatives and or power hungry male chauvinists has no place to speak nor lead. I never voted for someone to come in and lead this church back 60 years!
Divisive comments? I think maybe the shoe was on the other foot. It's the rebellious unions which are being divisive in this. They are the ones going against church policy. Elder Wilson was simply appealing for unity.
"Unity" cuts both ways, don't you think?
Don't think it is likely to effect the outcome very much. The vote at CU was about 80/20, perhaps it would have been 90/10 without his visit. I for one do not believe people voted yes because he said vote no (in my mind that would confirm Jean's rebellion theory). It may have made some who planned to vote yes, more determined in their voite, but that doesn't change the outcome.
I actually think that he should follow his conscience despite my suspicion that his conscience is poorly educated and influenced by his concept of how Adventism relates to the Body of Christ. My opinion is all based observation from afar so take it for what its worth.
"I actually think that he should follow his conscience…"
That's a very honest answer Rudy and with much integrity.
I would hope everyone who speaks and/or votes will do likewise.
Maybe, but it is complicated when that person is the President. Speaking one's personal mind in such a situation might not necessarily be the best. No one is saying Pres Wilson should suddenly support WO, because that is riddiculous. But no one is saying Pre Wilson should make 'grave warnings' like he did last time either. Presumably Wilson could still say his bit about his personal views but then say something that aims to maintain the unity of the Church.
It's like sitting and watching delegates vote for or against you. Proper decorum usually calls for the one who is being voted for or against, be out of the room while deliberations are going on. (Someone will surely correct this impression.)
Since he really has no voice in union deliberations and only his personal opinions and should not be interjected into this voting, it would be far better, and more courteous and present total neutrality if he didn't show up. It is improper to try in any way to affect the PUC vote. His wishes are very well known and since the outcome of the vote is almost certain, he would be receiving a second blow to him which would appear quite personal. NO, he should not attend nor speak.
Elaine,
As I said earlier I think Ted has to follow his conscience, BUT I think if contemplates the situation with any wisdom he would probably see things the way you have just described.
I believe the bylaws of the Constituency Meeting makes it his business, and extends the right to Division and GC reps to be present at the meeting and contribute. Whether it is moral for him to try and persuade a no vote – that is a different question.
Church leaders have the right to attend any meeting held by a 'lower' level of the church. The conference president can attend and speak at any church business or board meeting, but may not vote. He also has access to any minutes of any meeting. In the same way a Union president has the right to attend any conference meeting, and so on. There really is no moral, constitutional or policy reason why the GC President should not attend any union session and request the right to address the session. Ted Wilson did what he was entitles to do at the CUC session, and has the right to do the same at the PUC session. The GC President is not expected to be neutral, just to respect the right of the session delegates to vote according to their conscience. He presented the view of the GC executive as expressed in their letter to CUC. That is what he should do as GC President, whether he persoanlly agrees with it or not. It may not be politically wise for him to attend the PUC session any more than it was for him to attend the CUC session, but I am not sure it is unwise from a pastoral view. Considering the flack he has taken from the left for being too political in the past, perhaps we should give him some credit if he does what is not in his own political interest.
The process being worked out for the PUC meeting is to vote on changing the bylaws to properly reflect the process of ordaining ministers without regard to gender. The only question has been, which of the two items to clear first, or to vote on them together.
" It is improper to try in any way to affect the PUC vote."
This sounds like the ethical thing to do–make it apolitical.
One of the more dramatic anti-ordination scripts declares that "radical feminists" are agitating the ordination issue to further "their agenda." On the other side, pro-ordination voices often blame "patriarchal ultra-conservatives" of using the issue to try to transport the church back to Victorian times.
In both cases we are allowing fringe elements in these two groups to write the working script of this discussion. A more realistic position that fits observation is that on behalf of a number of women who have invested themselves at cost and time, and show evidence of a calling from God, certain areas of North America now believe it is time for the church to recognize the validity of God's spirit working through these women. Ordination is not so much a recognition of individuals, per se, but an acknowledgement of God's blessing on them, as called individuals—as Ellen White's experience well demonstrates.
On the other hand, those who may not support women's ordination seem to be largely traditionalists, who ask a not unintelligent question, "We've got along without ordained women pastors for more than a century; is this really so important, all of a sudden?" These are not inflexible Adventists, but mid-streamers in the church who want to keep the church balanced and on course, and fear that a great concentration of energy on the ordination issue will take our focus away from our primary work. The balanced, prayerful observers on both sides of the issue find tremendous wisdom in allowing each union to determine the pace of any change in ordination policy in their territories. If those unions that proceed with ordination demonstrate (and just supposing) that God refuses to bless the ministry of ordained women in these territories, others looking on can and will be guided. In this sense, then, the current approach in the North America is both rational and unifying. If ordaining women proves to be a grave mistake, the fruits will tell on a smaller scale; likewise, if God is blessing His people with the beginning of a latter rain that calls women to fully acknowledged full-time ministry, that too the fruit will tell. To frame the discussion on the basis of radical positions makes for vigorous discussion, but produces more smoke and heat than light. Let us not allow artificially inflexible positions by vocal minorities to distract us in this discussion….and I know how hard it is, sometimes, to stay on track when firebrands take to the floor!
Edwin,
Discussions of topics in the church often mirrors the modus operandi of politicians. Currently we are hearing a huge number of (often conflicting) claims about "radical" this and "Ultra-whatever" that. Reality rarely supports the claim being made. Such charges are typically raised by those who have no evidence with which to defend their position. The results of their claims are distraction from the search for answers to the pursuit of irrelevance and the disruption of real discussion about contesting ideas that leads to learning. Such distractions reveal the lack of spiritual relevance among those making the claims and the lack of focus on seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Agreed, William — how about that? 🙂
Therefore, the focus should be on the example Jesus set, His words, and the rest of the written Word through his all-male group of disciples… none of which put forth one iota of support for WO.
Yes, I think he should be allowed to speak. I think the PUC meeting should be conducted exactly as was the CUC meeting, with all speakers respecting the time limits and avoiding the use of fire-and-brimstone treats and dire warnings of consequences. People are voting their individual consciences here. Ted Wilson is–at present–the titular head of the church in his position as President of the GC. The PUC has nothing to lose by allowing him participation. But his position does not give him the power to rule or override by unilateral (or group) mandate the valid votes of the actual Union Constituents. By the GC's own established church structure the Unions already hold the responsibility of approving ministerial applicants to the ordained ministry. I pray for all participants to hold kindness and Christian love in their hearts.
The GC President can't say what his personal view is without it being confounded with the official GC view. That was one thing the last GC President was very clear on. No church official can give a personal view without at least some of his/her hearers considering it to be more than that. At a Union session the GC President really should stick to official statements. If there was clear evidence of GC policy being broken this session would not be happening. So all he really should do is point out that it is out of step with much of the world church and that there will be consequences of voting 'yes'.
The whole issue of 'rebellion' and 'apostasy' is simply hyperbole by those opposed to WO, but there will be real consequences in CUC and elsewhere if the session votes 'yes'. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that a 'No' vote would be free of consequences either. Central to any speech should, I would think, be an appeal to consider wider issues and maintain as much unity as possible with the rest of NAD and the world field. I really doubt the appeal to wait longer will be accepted by the delegates. Waiting for the report on ordination will not solve this issue, as it deals with what ordination is, not with whether women can be ordained, which we have debated for decades. I suspect it will take many more decades before we can reach a consensus world wide on that, so being asked to wait isn't realistic.
I'm sure that Korah and his accomplices thought that the categorization of their actions as rebellion was also hyperbole. Didn't get them far, though. If defying the intent of the vote at a duly constituted GC session is not rebellion, I don't know what it is.
For an individual to assert categorically that the most giving (financially) and arguably most mission-attentive union on the face of the planet is "in rebellion" certainly must indicate that God has spoken to them in a special and unequivocal way (and I mean this literally). Based on the huge contributions the Pacific Union Conference has made to the world field, and its status as the final abode of the most admired woman the church has every produced (Ellen G. White), perhaps it would be more appropriate to "be still and know that He is God." He will judge and He will reward, as we go about seeking to fine-tune our antennas to receive more bountifully of the Spirit's blessings.
I wonder if the Judaizer-circumcission faction of the Early Church used the Korah insult against Paul and his raddical notions that Gentiles need not be circumcised – in fact, that in Christ there is no male or female, Jew or Greek, slave or free? As Protestants, we believe in the priesthood of all believers, not a Levitical Priesthood. Our ministers are not priests, unlike RCs, so the Korah analogy doesn't really fit.
Many who were there – even those who voted what you would consider the 'correct' way – have said the intent of the vote at both GCs was not to deny the ordination of women permanently. The votes were not to move ahead with ordination (at that time) and not to allow the Divisions to make their own decision. Neither vote stated that the SDA church believed ordaining women was wrong, neither addressed the issue of women working a pastors. Therefore neither the NGU nor CUC sessions were in rebellion. I still believe that the GC would have acted to stop the session if that were true, as they did when NAD tried to vote in that the president must be 'ordained/commissioned' instead of the voted GC postion of 'ordained'. The GC may disapprove of the result, but that in itself is not 'rebellion'. It has to be clearly in breach of a GC policy or voted position to be 'rebellion'. Had the president of executive committee made teh decision, that may have been different. But it was the church in session who voted the decision.
It would be more admirable and also humble if Ted didn't attend this meeting. His warning of "grave consequences" was totally out of place. If he had some specific punishments in mind, he should have mentioned them, otherwise, such an inference was totally out of place and was beyond mere persuasion.
He should recall his father's mistake in fighting against Merikay Silver on the wrong side. This should have been sufficient example to understand that the G.C. has limitations in handling such situations. Risking another union's refusal of his persuasion would not add to his presidential position.
Consequences need not be punishment. If you have not contemplated the consequnces of the vote at NGU, CUC and soon at PUC session, perhaps you should. It goes beyond just the fact that – without a GC decision to halt the process – woman in those unions will now be ordained. Once the session was called, there were going to be consequences no matter which way the vote went. Some of those consequences are likely to be significant and lasting. And I doubt all will be positive, no matter which side you take.
Elder Wilson should decline to attend the Pacific Union Session, while extending his best written wishes that God's will be done in all things—and that he trusts the wisdom of unions to determine, in their territories, how best to select, acknowledge, and celebrate those who show evidence of God's special call to ministry.
Merely His pressence at the CUC constituency session validated the process. His pressence at the PUC vote would further that validation, even though not showing up will not affect his validation.
If he intends to represent the corporate body of church members, it is best that he meets them face-to-face, no matter how for off center they may be. It would be in bad taste, though, to cancel a prior engagement just to impose his pressence at PUC.
Believing his pressence will make no difference as to the outcome of the meeting, I … claim … ambivalence.
He should show up and speak…if, that is, he can bring himself to say something like the following.
"It is not much of a challenge for Christians to be in unity when they agree. The real challenge to unity arises when they don't agree. Jesus said observers would know who his disciples were because they love one another. I don't think He meant that because they love each other, they will always agree. They will confound the observers and love each other, and continue to be in unity with each other, primarily when they disagree. That is the real test of Jesus' statement. The stronger the disagreement, the greater the opportunity to show Christian love and forbearance in unity, which will truly amaze the observers. It's a piece of cake to be nice, cozy and unifed when we agree. No test there. So now the challenge to our world-wide fellowship is to cling to and grow our unity in a moment of strong, diverse opinions."
In other words, let healing begin. And let it begin with Elder Wilson.
Much agree – we can only hope.
Ed I so agree. I think he should be there even tho hearing his pain when he talks makes me sad. Believe in WO but not sure what is right for our union right now. I remember reading abt when Ellen White was trying to get women to dress more healthfully. She found she had to take it by degrees. Not sure what will best move us forward to total unity in mission. Praying God's will.
The SDA church is hemorrhaging its best and brightest because it can't get out of the middle ages. I hope Ted Wilson keeps doing what he is doing because it will continue to destroy an organization that has lost relevance. I find no place within the SDA church for honest dialog. Leadership has been reduced to the lowest common denominator. It needs to die.
I don't think that Ted Wilson and others realize that it's too late. The cat is out of the bag.
Richard,
Though spoken with more force than I might have used, I am forced to agree with the heart of your observation. Unfortunately, both individuals and organizations must be reduced to the threat of extinction before they will recognize and deal with the problems that are destroying them. Whether it is an alcoholic lost in drunkenness or a church without the Holy Spirit, the condition is the same.
Ted Wilson is on the right side of history. He's doing everything he can to save the church from further decline, and he's being attacked mercilessly for it. "Progressives" would lead us down a path to darkness–a new era of "Dark Ages," perhaps even worse than the Middle Ages.
Richard Harty is calling for what amounts to anarchy, and where are the protests?
Jean – it appears that gridlock is what will be the putty between the church's bricks. Now the "progressives are leading us down a path to darkness (Dark Ages)". The reaction to Richard's comments is Anarchy. This is all part of the indoctrination tactics. We can't even state the real issue without a morality smackdown that shuts us up good and proper. We put our tail between our legs and cower down which the conservative element flaps their righteous lips in slandering the person who called a spade a spade.
Jean – your comment "He (Ted Wilson" is doing everything he can to save the church from further decline". If we go all the way back in SDA church history to 1919,church leaders also were doing everything they could to save the church. Information was being held "close to the chest" from the body of the church – information that should have been divulged. Now, TW is between a rock and a hard place with differing concerns regarding WO throughout the World Church. Meanwhile, the church is hemorrhaging – people are giving up, exiting to start other church groups or joining mainstream Christianity. Ironically, the right wing is saying, "good news, that is the sign we have been waiting for – the end of time and Christ's Second Coming.
I know it is very difficult for many to hear this message. Yet, I am afraid it is an accurate message. For those who wish to be true to the message of Jesus, it is very hard to justify the fragmentation of Christianity into many little doctrinally distinct organizations like the SDAs. The creation of sects and cults really is not consistent with the message of Jesus. In my opinion, the truest version of Christianity is a very personal matter–not a matter of public show and political organization and structure and separation and indoctrination. I do not see any of the religions claiming to be Christian that really are consistent with the message of Jesus. This seems to me to be a powerful argument against the validity of all the Christian sects and denominations, including adventism. In a sense, it is a validation of the notion that we are all simply humans, that we have some serious limitations based on "human nature."
So back on topic. Shouldn't the GC prez attempt to actually exert some leadership? And should he not, as a leader, be responsive to his constituency, while, at the same time, remaining true to the principles he holds? If it turns out that he is too out of touch with his constituency, shouldn't they simply insist on replacing him?
Being responsive to his constituency would mean that women's ordination is dead; to remain true3 to his principles would mean the same.
The world church, by number and majority of divisions are most likely in the nations that are not ready to see women ordained. His own conscience has already been proclaimed in his remarks and actions.
This is why the only solution is to allow the various divisions to decide whether WO would benefit or restrain membership growth in the respective divisions. Uniformity is an impossibility with the very strong sentiments on both sides. Like the apostles settled the first disagreement, it should choose not impose or force divisions to abide by one rule for the world. Just like trying to use only one language to spread the Gospel, it is totally ineffective.
You ended up stumbling into the truth in my opinion, relative to “human nature.”
Churches are imperfect and imperfectly (if at all) reflect the message of Jesus; because churches are comprised of imperfect human beings.
Human nature and the imperfection of human beings is the basis for Jesus’ message. The painfully evident imperfect reflection of the love of Jesus is an argument for the validity of the purpose of churches—where this imperfection is exposed and acknowledged.
YES, without questions. He is the GC President. More Conferences he speaks at on this sujbect the better. It will help draw the line in the sand on this issue. The GC stance and the various Conference's stance. I am most anxious for this to happen.
Richard Harty – if you were a physician and I were hemorrhaging, I would want you to lead the team decisively, aggressively, fearlessly, bravely. The diagnosis is grave, it requires a direct approach and yet there is fear in abundance (like where is the oxygen – and we need to intubate immediately but fear of what might happen if we intubate?). Consequently – we are stuck like a deer in headlights as a church. WO seems to be the straw breaking the back.
What I find fascinating – the blog Mission Catalyst has very few comments. When we are hemorrhaging, it's important to search out where it is originating and what is causing it. We as a church have been systematically ignoring key symptoms, obsessively continuing to cover up, and now it's "we have to wait and see if the patient will survive because there are no magic potions available for a miraculous recovery".
This seems funny, although I know this is something about which I shouldn’t laugh. It is, in all reality, deadly serious. But when I was growing up, I would occasionally hear that near the end there would be a shaking time, “when all who can be shaken out [presumably of the church] will be shaken out.”
I laugh because how is what is apparently occurring, with the church "hemorrhaging," etc., any different than what was described then?
Yeah, I know, the progressives or liberals who don’t think there will be an end, or whatever, will laugh as well. I fully realize that it’s not funny, because there will be a ‘last laugh.’ But, again, the irony is somewhat amusing.
(I repeat I know it’s not funny.)
Of course, if we were losing only nominal Christians we would not have cause for consern. But we are not. We are losing people who by their lives demonstrate a commitment to Christ and his work. Whether this is or is not 'the end' any church losing (or unable to attract) people who are true followers of Jesus should be concerned.
Kevin, I couldn't agree with you more.
Neither of us is qualified to determine who is or is not a real Christian (as opposed to in name only).
Whether we continue to attract and maintain Christians to the denomination is not as important as the message that Christians accept.
Everyone who truly accepts Christ and will ultimately be loyal to Him if/when tested will avoid the mark of the beast; which is the bottom line for end-timers.
The advent message isn’t about a denomination.
I think terms such as 'un-Christian', 'cultural Christian' or 'nominal Christian' are cheap shots with no real meaning. Sometimes like calling someone 'unAmerican' (or 'unAustralian' in my case).
I agree that the advent message isn't about a denomination – it isn't a Church it is a Movement. I actually like that the GC is actually called I believe 'The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists' (i.e. we the people) not 'The General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church'.
Neither of us is qualified to determine who is or is not a real Christian (as opposed to in name only).
Oh c'mon, Foster, that's not true.
Simple test: Does the person keep the True Sabbath™ (i.e. sundown Friday to sundown Saturday)?
Yes –> Real Christian™
No –> Not real and therefore doomed.
See, here we go agreeing again Tim.
If I’m not mistaken, you are (again) being facetious to make a valid point; that being that Jesus certainly has sheep that have not been of this fold.
The Sabbath, in my opinion, is not yet a test of loyalty to Christ; at least not on a macro basis. The vast majority of those who will be in paradise will never have heard of the Sabbath or the SDA Church.
So your 'formula' is not necessarily applicable; which I think was your intended point.
I do love the trademark though (it was kind of clever). But of course I agree with Stephen.
Too true, Stephen Foster. Saturday Night Live would have a field day with this whole WO thing. Just for clarification, was there any specific comment that was funny or the whole debate? I felt Richard was totally brave in his assessment. Brave in that we as SDA's are aware as to how to be politically correct and we can't speak too strongly about issues because it would automatically indicate apostacy. I for one appreciated his candor and sincere outcry of his assessment.
Should TW attend the PUC Mtg? The official GC response of the CUC Mtg. was not a surprise and supports what he stated at the last mtg.
I'm a little confused here.
There is no Biblical basis for WO, to which one might say, "well, there's also no commandment forbidding it." That's not precisely true, but I'll circle back to that in a moment. When no explicit instructions exist in the Bible, shouldn't you turn to the Lord's example for guidance? Jesus chose twelve very male disciples to serve as the foundation of His church and to spread the Good News. If the Lord had intended for women to spread the Word, He in His perfect wisdom would have set a precedent for such a thing. That He did not do this is telling. The rationalizer might then say, "well, times were different back then, and Jesus was just going with the flow and stuff because nobody would have taken women seriously as teachers of men." But didn't Jesus come down here specifically to buck the trend? He did nothing but turn traditions upside down — why should this one have been any different?
There -are- a few passages where it seems that women were "supporting" the church in various nebulous ways, but a careful reader will see that the support was never in the form of a leadership role.
I remind you of Paul's words in 1 Cor 4:37-38 — "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized."
Therefore Paul is speaking on the Lord's behalf. Got that? Good. Now I remind you of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 — "11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." Amen!!
Further, the Lord says in 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 — "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."
Now, Ted Wilson did what any good leader should do and stuck his neck out to defend the basic tenets of his organization and, as it happens, His God. Yet here are many of you deriding him for doing so, advocating for lawlessness and disobedience under the guise of allowing individual conferences to choose their own way.
You're all members of the same spiritual body, and a body fractured will soon fall. Either you can side with the leader of that body, who was surely positioned there by the Lord in order to lead His flock, or you can side with those who'd defy the Lord's example through Jesus and His guidance through His written Word and thereby hobble crippled into your future. The choice is yours.
Of course, I am just a homosexual atheist, so what the heck do I know? :> Sure is entertaining to read all the rationalizing going on, though.
“Jesus chose twelve very male disciples to serve as the foundation of His church and to spread the Good News. If the Lord had intended for women to spread the Word, He in His perfect wisdom would have set a precedent for such a thing.”
Likewise, if He had intended non-Jews to preach the Word, arguably He would have chosen some. Perhaps then we should prohibit certain people from becoming ministers on the basis of race? Perhaps we can be like the Mormons, who stopped black people from becoming ministers until the 1970s. If you pick gender, you have to pick race also.
“That He did not do this is telling.”
The irony is Paul was not appointed through Apostolic Succession – He did not personally know Jesus, he did not make a living from his ‘charisma’ as an itinerant preacher but from working for a living, and He was not appointed in succession from the other apostles. Thus, the sort of arguments used against WO very much mirrors the challenges Paul faced in trying to say he was a true apostle.
In Gal 1:1 he addressed these challenges full on, noting his source of spiritual authority as an apostle came from God, not from men:
“Paul, an apostle —sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.”
Paul also makes clear in other passages, such as Eph 4:11 that being an apostle or prophet is a spiritual gift from God – again not chosen by men:
“So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers.”
"If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized."
And yet prophets were women – both the OT and NT tells us so.
“Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet… For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.”
And yet those same Adventists who are against WO seem to be the most ardent supporters of Ellen White, who may have heard of is a woman! And guess what – she was not submissive, she did teach, she did have authority over men and she didn’t remain quiet.
As Kevin says numerous times, these texts are about women working as ministers – not being ordained as ministers. Adventists have already disregarded the strict and plain reading of these texts long ago in listening to Ellen White. If anything, the conservative elements of the Church have, since her death, made her more vocal and given her more authority over men.
“Yet here are many of you deriding him for doing so, advocating for lawlessness and disobedience under the guise of allowing individual conferences to choose their own way.”
We aren’t the Roman Catholic Church and Ted isn’t our Pope.
“Sure is entertaining to read all the rationalizing going on, though.”
The world is filled with rationalization, including by Christians and non-Christians alike. Of course it is possible to twist the Bible so it says whatever we want it to say.
Tim said, "Now, Ted Wilson did what any good leader should do and stuck his neck out to defend the basic tenets of his organization and, as it happens, His God. Yet here are many of you deriding him for doing so, advocating for lawlessness and disobedience under the guise of allowing individual conferences to choose their own way.
You're all members of the same spiritual body, and a body fractured will soon fall. Either you can side with the leader of that body, who was surely positioned there by the Lord in order to lead His flock, or you can side with those who'd defy the Lord's example through Jesus and His guidance through His written Word and thereby hobble crippled into your future. The choice is yours."
Wow, in a strange twist of fate, I find myself agreeing with Tim. His logic here is irrefutable. How is it that a professed atheist can see it, but so many professed Christians cannot? Very interesting.
Tim's time in Adventism was not wasted, as he can do a good impression of a conservative SDA. When he becomes one (mé genoito!, as Paul said), or affirms that he believes the Bible is that consistent on what women can or can't do, then we can discus this. But I suspect he is aware that Paul both tells women to be quiet and not to talk or hold authority over men, and also gives examples where women do just that.
A completely unrelated topic. It's been said that conservative Christians do not in general appreciate or enjoy satire or irony. Not even in the Bible. I wonder if that is true? I rather enjoy both.
But I suspect he is aware that Paul both tells women to be quiet and not to talk or hold authority over men, and also gives examples where women do just that.
I am, but can you point me to an example of a woman holding a position of spiritual authority over men or a position of leadership within the church?
Phoebe was a deacon – 'diakonos' alwasy implies authority in both secular and sacred contexts. That Paul specifically designates her a 'diakonos' of the church leaves no doubt she ws not just a general 'sevant' to all and sundry. She is also described, at least in the Greek, as Paul's 'patron'. In Greco-Roman society that put her in superior position to Paul.
Junia was an apostle. Despite the best efforts of conservatives to argue otherwise, we know of no non-authoritative apostles (except for the trading ships – surely a red herring). Every other 'apostle' mentioned in the NT and in Christian history is a regular, garden variety, top of the hierarchy type apostle. St Chrysostom, a paragon of feminism <sarcasm> mentions that Junia was blessed almost beyond belief by being an apostle when she was merely a woman. Unlike later commentators, he was a native Greek speaker and near enough to the C1st, that we can't assume he misread the Greek. He read Paul as saying Junia was not only an apostle, but 'great among the apostles'.
Priscilla and Aquila taught and seemed to have had a home church. There is good evidence to link having a church in one's house and being an elder. The fact that Priscilla was almost always mentioned first makes it clear who was in charge. They (including Priscilla) taught Apollos, one of the men Paul seemed to view as his equal. A later commentator states unequivocably that Junia went on to become a bishop, but to make that more palatable he makes her male. He does the same for Priscilla (Priscus), without explaining her/his relationship to Aquila. A rather serious oversight 🙂
Priscilla and Aquila, and others are mentioned as 'fellow workers for Christ'. No one would have any problem with identifying all as church leaders, or at least as evangelists, if it were not for the fact that some are female. The denial of church authority to any woman mentioned is based on the belief that women cannot be church leaders. That has led to all sorts of attempts by conservatives to make the Bible say anything other than it does say. So every other 'diakonos' mentioned in the context of church is a deacon, Phoebe is a 'servant'. Every other 'apostolos' is an apostle, but Junia is either deemed a man ( a positon now thoroughly discredited), or made a 'messenger'. Priscilla, depsite being named in the position of honour, is conjectured to have sat demurely by Aquila's side as he did the manly leading and teaching.
But I suspect he is aware that Paul both tells women to be quiet and not to talk or hold authority over men, and also gives examples where women do just that.
I am, but can you point me to an example of a woman holding a position of spiritual authority over men or a position of leadership within the church?
*sigh* stupid double post…
Preach it, Tim! In an interesting twist on something Jesus said, the "stones" have cried out in the sense that an atheist is speaking truth because so many members are like those people in that stupid movie (I hate to admit that I watched it) who had been invaded by the "body snatchers."
Tim
If you were a conservative SDA I probably wouldn't metion this, but as you are not … From Roman records we know there were female 'ministrae' among the Christians. That implies formal cultic service, which is likely to carry authority. Also, as historians have pointed out, Roman policy in dealing with religions was to deal with the leaders. If they saw the religion as benign, the leaders could be included in the local elite, if they saw the religion as a threat, the leaders were coerced into compliance or exectued. It is hard to explain the number of female martyrs unless they were leaders in the church.
If you read the NT literally, if you interpret narrative passages by those that are viewed as commands, then you can remove any reference to women in positions of authority. A simple matter of 'the Bible interprets the Bible'. If you interpret the Bible in historical context, a different picture is formed. It is possible we disagree on using outside sources to interpret the Bible, but I doubt it.
The fact that Roman historians noted such things, does not mean they were the accepted norm for the church.
But it does suggest they may have been. And it does provide data that they did exist. The argument 'there is no evidence for women in postions of leadership' loses its force with each example that shows there is such evidence. It also increases the probability that those Bible texts that seem to name female leaders actually do so.
If you pick gender, you have to pick race also….? How many female Levite Jews were asked to serve as priest?
And guess what – she was not submissive???? …. Show me where she was not submissive to her husband? Show me in her writings where she did not place the male as spiritual leader of the home and church?
It those that are pushing for womens ordination that must twist the Holy Scriptures and put words in Sister Whites mouth….
In Gal 1:1 he addressed these challenges full on, noting his source of spiritual authority as an apostle came from God, not from men: ……Yes the same Paul refered back to Genesis 3:16 too for he took Gods authority as truth.
If you pick gender, you have to pick race also….? How many female Levite Jews were asked to serve as priest?
All4Him – we aren't Levite Jews – we are protestant Christians, who believe in the priesthood of all believers. That is the point! If there was any correlation between Jewish priests (which mind you are the Kohens, not the Rabbis we have today) and Christians ministers, none of our ministers would qualify.
And guess what – she was not submissive???? …. Show me where she was not submissive to her husband? Show me in her writings where she did not place the male as spiritual leader of the home and church?
Thanks for proving my point yet again. I have no problem with the notion of male headship in the home, but in the Church, anyone can be called to spiritual leadership, regardless of gender, race or status (i.e. slaves). You are the one who tries to argue that these gender-restrictive texts should apply to spiritual leadership, not merely leadership in the home. If Ellen White can be a leader in the Church but submissive in the home, why can't other women do the same?
Didn't Ellen and James live apart for a while – so they could both follow God without interference from each other? I don't know that James would have labelled Ellen as 'submissive'. And he certainly saw no opposition between Ellen being a wife and mother and a very strong voice in the church. She wouldn't stay quiet even when the church leaders fervently wished her to. However we slice this, one thing remains clear: God can call a woman if he chooses, with or without the church's approval. And it isn't just apostles and prophets who are 'gifts' to the church, but also evangelists, teachers and pastors. If God's calling a woman as a prophet makes her ordination by man superfluous, doesn't the same apply if God calls a woman to be an evangelist or a pastor?
Stephen so if the "sins" of headship and submission have been abrogated by Calvary, the so has the sin of homosexuality?
Headship and submission are considered by many to be part of God's curse at the fall. I have not seen anyone suggesting homosexuality was.
So was male headship a punishment for Adams sin?
No, it was because Eve sinned. Surely you can read the account.
Why then was only the second half of Genesis 3:16 abrogated?
Becasue the first is not the result of sin – unless you are going to say Eve had no desire for Adam before she sinned.
Women still encounter pain in childbirth….. Is that not the result of of sin?
Yes, but we do all we can to prevent that.
Dear All:
I don't know if you are a pastor, but if you are how do you handle the situation where the woman, either by conversion after marriage or some other reason, is married to a nonbeliever? The man cannot be the spiritual head in these cases and the woman must take it on. Or what of an unmarried woman or widow with children? The Bible does say that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the woman–isn't that spiritual headship to a degree?
"we are protestant Christians, who believe in the priesthood of all believers."
This a primary tenet of Protestantism, established by Martin Luther. If you are a Protestant, you have rejected priesthood which is symbolic of Roman Catholicism which has priests. Claiming to be Protestant by denying their most essential belief and difference from Catholiscism is really quite funny; demonstrating quite an ignorance of Christian history.
Adventists can be the strongest supporters of Papal Tradition when it suits them.
It's odd, that someone claiming to be Protestant, would uphold Roman Records, as a sorce of truth. The truth is, by the time Roman Records were written, the Christian Church had been going through alot of changes, caused by those who desired to assert themselves over others.
And as for women Priests, they were alredy an accepted fact by pagan groups, before Christianity was romanized. It was no big thing to christianize that, anymore than Christmas and Easter.
And this is what Martin Luther spoke out against. He was himself a Catholic Priest, by the time of his thesis. He spoke out against the corruption of the church hirearchy, but it was never his intention to do away with, or otherwise supplant the offices of the priesthood. To the contrary, he demanded that the corrupt church officials, stop living lies and begin to live up to the calling of their office.
I'm curious if the votes "for" Women's Ordination, which are the culmination of decades of frustration felt by female, disenfranchised church members, have overflowed "at this time" — in some measure — as a response to the church electing a leader who is so clearly blinded by the gender equalities that God has tried to teach and emulate?
Simply put: Is Ted the red rag to the raging bull of hypocrisy and inequality that our church has practiced and taught since inception? If so, I doubt that his followers could have seen this coming. If so, perhaps this is one reason that God permitted his election. A lot to swallow for those against WO, I know.
May I suggest that Mr. Wilbur has proposed a very interesting thesis that prompts the followiong question: Who is the individual most responsible for causing the long simmering dispute in the Adventist Church about the ordination of women to boil over in 2012? Who precipitated the crises? Mr. Wilbur's thesis suggests that the person who is most responsible for this crisis is none other than the current President of the General Conference of SDS, Dr. Ted Wilson! I, for one, see a lot of evidence that this view should be seriously considered. In addition, Mr. Wilbur posits that this is why God permitted his election so as to bring this matter to a head. What do others think about these suggestions?
They blamed Jeremiah for their problems 2600 years ago. If they had listened to him they wouldn't have been overrun by the Babylonians. Maybe there are parallels today.
Jean,
Care to share the parallels you see between Ted and Jeremiah?
Actually, I was thinking the Moses might be a better example. The Israelites continually blamed him for their problems. Both he and Jeremiah were trying to point the people to their only hope: obedience to God. Instead, they prefered to conform to the culture around them. Today, instead of listening to someone who is trying to point us back to our only hope of salvation, too many among us want to be like the other churches, which have caved in to the popular heresies of the day: evolution, cheap grace, acceptance of homosexuality, abandonment of the Biblical roles for men and women, denial of the validity of the ministry of Ellen White . . . . I'm sure there are more.
Actually, if I recall Jeremiah actually told them to give up and stop fighting the Babylonians, which he was considered a traitor for suggesting.
It is not difficult to find something in the Bible that appears to parallel a local situation. With so many hundreds of stories, there will always be one that fits–according to subjective interpretation.
No, it's not an attempt to adopt the culture but to return to an ancient culture that prevailed thousands of years ago. There have always been those who want to return to the "primitive godliness" of the first church but their understanding of it is created in their own minds. A careful study of the early church shows discord and disagreement from the first and fighting over who decides orthodoxy and heresy (the majority and powerful do) and heresy yesterday becomes tomorrow's orthodoxy.
It should be noticed the extreme irony that when the 3ABN program was discussing WO, not a single woman was shown or spoke out! Debating women's place in the church was being decided by an all male group!
How can one not see that men from Eden have decided the place for women: kinder, kirke and kuchen.
So, basically you're blaming God; because it was He who only allowed men to be priests, and who ordained 12 men to be the first leaders of the church.
12 Jewish men – don't forget race. And no slaves – no forget status. Are you saying then God prohibits some races of certain status from becoming ordained Ministers?
At that time, the Jews had not yet lost their status as God's chosen people. After they murdered Jesus, it was over for them, and the vision given to Peter (along with the oupouring of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius and his group) clearly showed that the Gentiles were to be included as part of God's family. There has been no such revelation regarding role distinctions in the church.
But, using your logic, we should mostly ordain fishermen and IRS agents, since that's what most of the disciples were.
I'm not sure why any of us continue to debate this. We are not going to convince each other.
God in Eden, after sin, predicted that death would now occur; that men would rule over women, that despite this rulership, women would still feel desire for their husbands; that men would henceforth have to work uncomfortably hard in thistle-encumbered fields; that women would suffer in childbirth.
IF this was God's will for mankind (i.e., He intends these problems to continue, through His Divine Plan) we need to close our hospitals (pain, suffering and death are Good). Let's pull the air-condtioners out of our shops, homes, and vehicles, for God wants men to sweat! Let's beat our wives with religious fervor, for God wants us to rule over them! And when Mom starts to deliver Junior, let's hold the anesthetic for God knows suffering is really good for her—better yet if she dies and gets it over with! This may sound a bit radical, but isn't this what the Bible says, by some readings? And what the Bible says, it literally means! If we want to preserve the part about male rulership, we've also got to get rid of the air-conditioners and the weed-killers, sell off the hospitals, hold the pain-suppressants, and go back to subsistence farming, and welcome death gladly when it comes and puts us out of our misery. God is a God of love, and he wants us all to suffer! That's present truth, the message that we must carry to the ends of the earth and that will bring on the Time of Trouble. (Well, the Time of Trouble part, that much would surely be true!)
Now, personally, I was taught as a young Adventist to do everything I could possibly do to erase the curse of sin on earth. I still believe that, and that's why I paid for two Caesarians for my wife (under anesthesia, I might add), provide her a car with air conditioning (and leave the A/C on while I'm riding along with her) and nurture her with the loving touch. Nor do I encourage her to worship the ground at my feet, perhaps because we both worship a man with scars in His feet. She and I were both dedicated at birth by our physician fathers and nurse-mothers to do everything we could to erase the curse of sin… But maybe we’re wrong, suppose? Maybe we’re in rebellion too. We didn't think so, but are we accursed because of our errant opposition to the curse of sin?
Edwin A. Schwisow – you are so articulate!! You said outrageous words to make a point. I for one was ready to get into the fetal position and pray to die!! Not really (just being a little obsurd).
I worked with a physician in Boston a few years ago (before he took wings and became famous). In his book "The Path to Love" (Spiritual strategies for healing) he stated "The union of self and spirit is not only possible but inevitable. The spiritual meaning of love is best measured by what it can do…love can heal, renew, can make us safe, can inspire us with its power. Love can bring us closer to God. Everything love is meant to do is possible. Knowing this, however, has only made the gap between love and non-love more painful." Deepak Chopra, MD
I wonder what his counsel would be for us on this issue.
It's a pity this has become an 'us VS them' issue, rather than just 'us' trying to find a solution. That is what made the council in Acts work: they wanted to find a solution where nobody lost. It is interesting that in the record we have of it, no appeal is made to Scripture, but rather to what could be seen by all. The gentiles had received the Holy Spirit. There was no hint in Scripture that circumcision would ever cease to be the sign of belonging to God, and all the promises of the inclusion of Gentiles said they would come to Jerusalem, not that God would accept them where they were. The conservatives were right: there was no biblical basis for accepting this. But the gentiles had recieved the Holy Spirit. What could the church do but say 'amen' and do what they could to keep Jew and gentile together as one community. Now we have a large grooup within the church that sees the Holy Spirit leading women into ministry and blessing their efforts. Can the church see that and say 'amen'? The interesting question – and I am sure more than one GC committee member is looking for an answer as we read this – is what are the conditions that give both sides what they believe is right while keeping the community together?
The solution in Act is that they were one in Spirit and TRUTH. Compromising has gotten us where we are today and people in the church on both sides are waking up to that fact. You can't have one arm around the world and the other around Jesus it will tear you (or a church) in two……
Which is, I am sure, what many of the 'Judaisers' said as they heard the results of the council. If God is calling women to ministry – and many of us believe we have seen that in action – then there is no compromise involved in accepting that. Being in step with God is never wrong. When it comes to actual compromise, then I will agree with you, but recognising what God is doing is something different.
Surely, the solution with the Jerusalem controversy was compromise: They did not all reach the same conclusion; there was diversity from the beginning; unity without uniformity. The Jews could continue with circumcision and their rituals; the Gentiles did not have to submit to circumcision or the Judaic rituals.
This is exactly the solution that should be followed today: the third world nations that wish to follow tradition of a male only leadership should be allowed to continue that practice; but the first world countries (Gentiles) should not be forced to follow the traditions, which in this instance would be male leaders only.
This decision was not based on biblical truth but a bold and innovative decision that allowed the Christian church to spread very rapidly. Had the Jews won out, there would be no Christian church today; only a Jewish sect. That is a historical truth.
God is calling us all to action…..the compromising happens in what roles we think are ours rather then following His commands. What caused the rebellion in heaven? "It's not fair" was the cry…though there was a design for unity in the way God planned.
I'm not saying God is not calling women to minister in for His kingdom. Lucifer was called to minister in heaven the problem is he thought he deserved a higher postion, and convined a third of the angels in heaven to agree. Christorculture.com
Been there – not convinced. If God is calling women to pastoral ministry, then they are not seeking a 'higher' position than they should.
God uses His Word to show His will and Prophets to point us to His Word. You would have to twist Scriptures and SOP to to show where women are called to "PASTORAL" ministy……
Same argument – reverse. Could add Papal Tradition against you in mine.
You need to find a verse that shows men called and ordained to pastoral ministry also. We use only one Bible verse to 'prove' pastors and eleders are different, and nowhere is there a record of men being ordaiend as pastors.
We use only one Bible verse to 'prove' pastors and eleders are different, and nowhere is there a record of men being ordaiend as pastors.?
So Acts 6:6 and Acts 6:8 and Acts 6:10 are not related??? Stepen was stoned for what he preached….
"Stoning" was equal to ordination? Why mention Stephen? How is that relevant?
No Elaine…why mention Stephen?
He was choosen and ordained to preach…… He preached so well that they brought him before the council. Then in Acts chapter 7 he gives his accusers a HIStory lesson and forgives them as they stone him to death.
I don't recall in the Acts story that God gave them a vision that the Gentiles should not be forced to submit to circumcision. It was a decision made by the apostles. Did they claim that God told them what to do? Could it be that God allows humans to have the sense to realize the problem and come to a solution rather than relying on the casting of lots?
As long as Ellen White lived, there was no question that in the Adventist little flock, women in the end times were called to the very loftiest spiritual responsibilities. Ours was a special, exceptionalist church for a special time, commissioned to help erase the curse of sin and receive a special outpouring of Spirit to prepare the Way of the Lord. Significantly, it has only been since the Sunday churches have become agitated over women in ministry in the wake of Ellen White's death that the question of women in the highest levels of ministerial responsibility has crossed the gulf from Babylon to Adventism.
Ellen White's example of spiritual equality (even spiritual superiority) to men's (remember Foss and Foy?) is of an entirely different order, and is extremely Spirit-driven. To say that women in Adventist ministry today are career-driven disciples of radical feminists is neither factual nor fair, neither spiritual nor truthful. These are women who like Ellen White believe they are called to ministry, who in many cases have cried to God for deliverance from the Call, and whose senior pastors and mentors have seen the fruit of their work, and concur that this is of God. As long as Ellen White lived, the question of women ministering by the highest levels of Holy Spirit power and authority was of no significant import in the Remnant. I am sensitive to the concerns of individuals who come from other faiths and have problems with Adventist positions on the Sabbath, use of alcohol and tobacco, abstention from unclean foods, and the role of the Messenger, Ellen White. But we should beware lest those who enter Adventism become the driving force against our standards, among which is the unique demonstration in Ellen White that God can and does call women in the end times to the very highest pinnacles of spiritual leadership and responsibility.
If we allow a misapplied point of view to continue to hold sway in top-down fashion, ultimately it will make of none effect the ministry of Ellen White, and will unpardonably deny that the Holy Spirit can give its best gifts to women. It is altogether fitting that here, in the cradle of the birth of Adventism and in a territory where the Messenger spent her final decade, that a stand be taken once again in the matter of our Landmark position on the role of women as leaders in the commission to finish the work. What happens in America will ultimately be emulated elsewhere, and there will be a revival of this tarnished truth. There will be no split in the denomination, unless a split is artificially enabled as a self-fulfilling prophecy. As America leads, the church ultimately follows even today, and the time has come to recognize the call of women as full partners in the proclamation and discipling of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples.
I can remember while working at another Christian organization, one particular group of people used all the anti-women biblical quotes to show me that SDAs could not be a real Christian church because of its woman leader–EGW. This was more important to them than the Sabbath issue.
Again I have to say it seems VERY clear to me that one should not be an SDA if they hold literally to these biblical "proofs" about women. They just go contrary to Adventism's very existence. I would like to hear "All" or Jean speak to this. And also to the fact that ordination did not exist in the Bible but came about through the Roman church. How do they defend any kind of ordination or use of the word? Many of our workers have a laying on of hands as a ceremony, even babies that are dedicated.
The fact that the Catholic Church believes something doens't make it erroneous.
I'm not sure why those other Christians were hung up on the fact that we had a female prophet. There were many of them in Bible times. But there were no female priests (in spite of it being common among pagan religions) or pastors. If this major change should take place it is curious that God did not give Ellen White a special revelation on the matter. We wouldn't be having this ongoing debate if she had made a clear statement on it. But, since it's not there, we have to use our best mental gymnastics to make her promote something that she does not promote; while at the same time we twist Scripture to support it.
There are also no Adventist priests.
Ella as you read EGW you see where she places great emphasis on the importance of educating women for positions in the mission fields. There is so much that they do for the Lord work and should never be looked down on. No where in here writings are they called to be shepards of the flock.
The primary object of our college was to afford young men an opportunity to study for the ministry and to prepare young persons of both sexes to become workers in the various branches of the cause. 5T page 60.
Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be men of blameless reputation. 5T page 598
These two quote are not flukes for they fit in with the rest of her writings…..
There is an urgent demand for laborers in the gospel field. Young men are needed for this work; God calls for them. Their education is of primary importance in our colleges, and in no case should it be ignored or regarded as a secondary matter. It is entirely wrong for teachers, by suggesting other occupations, to discourage young men who might be qualified to do acceptable work in the ministry. Those who present hindrances to prevent young men from fitting themselves for this work are counterworking the plans of God, and they will have to give an account of their course. There is among us more than an average of men of ability. If their capabilities were brought into use, we should have twenty ministers where we now have one.
Young men who design to enter the ministry should not spend a number of years solely in obtaining an education. Teachers should be able to comprehend the situation and to adapt their instruction to the wants of this class, and special advantages should be given them for a brief yet comprehensive study of the branches most needed to fit them for their work. But this plan has not been followed. Too little attention has been given to the education of young men for the ministry. We have not many years to work, and teachers should be imbued with the Spirit of God and work in harmony with His revealed will, instead of carrying out their own plans. We are losing much every year because we do not heed the counsel of the Lord on these points. Testimony Treasures Volume 2, Page 416
Now some will say she meant women and men and I beg to differ because she uses both sexes and then uses only "men" when it comes to pastoral postions in the ministry.
God can and does use anyone or anything He wishes for His work. Some people refuse to believe in the Bible because of "talking donkeys" (re: The quest for reason)
This in no means belittles women that they are given different roles of great importance. Together we can finish the work as a team if we submit to Gods Will our service, then to argue over power and position.
I learned as a child that one of the serious theological shortcomings of Catholicism was its claim that the cross of Christ alone was insufficient for salvation, and that the intercession of the Church of Rome through priestcraft was additionally required. Prompted by the ignominy of the sale of indulgences, the Protestant Reformation targeted specifically the Catholic priesthood and its sale of masses and other forms of grace as antichrist. The entire idea of Christians needing any kind of priests to gain admission to the courts of grace in heaven is still a sacrilege. To pattern the Adventist pastorate in any way after a professional, Jewish priesthood that was desolated and abolished at the cross raises serious suspicions about the theology of those who limit the pastorate to males. The priests before Christ were males because (like the male sheep, cattle, and goats) they presaged the Son of God, who like the fallen Adam would be a male (interesting that in Genesis 2, Eve did not directly disobey God, she disobeyed Adam, who had been told about the Tree of Knowledge and its problems before Eve was created; hence Paul's admonition in his day that women should listen to their husbands and not try to teach them without knowledge, as Eve in her deceived state taught Adam that the fruit was good to eat afterall).
The Adventist pastorate today in no sense figuratively represents the male Jesus, coming to offer his body and spirit again on our behalf. Today the pastorate's sole calling is to spread the Gospel of the Kingdom. To cite the Old Testament priesthood as a precedent for the Adventist pastorate is a serious detour toward the persistent pagan practices of Babylon.
One big advantage of a priesthood over our traditional view is that priesthood derives its power solely from God through the priestly system. Our system derives authority from God and from the community. At least in theory, the GC president is called by God and that call is recognised by the community. That puts all presidents on the same level as all have the same authority. All are elected, and all answer to their constituency either directly at sessions or indirectly through the executive committee. They also answer to God, but in that they stand in the same place as all of us. That is what makes the 'showdown' between the GC and the unions so interesting. Both really have the same authority, and the only difference is the somewhat technical issue of whether the actions of the unions do or do not go against policy voted by the GC session, as both are subject to that authority. If you believe the GC votes in 1990 and 1995 establish a policy of no ordination of women, then they are going against policy. If not, then the union sessions have the right to take the action they have.
I don't find this convincing since pastors in all denominations were men in those days. The church is not stagnate. I was asking about the anti-woman statements by Paul. To take the Bible literally on this you could not be an SDA. Ellen White certainly did the work of a leader/shepherd. There was no ordaining done in the bible as we understand it today. As she said, if we took the principles of the Bible seriously, we would need no "revelations" and none were given on the subject at that time. Because we ignored a basic biblical principle of equality of persons in years to come, we now have this problem. I am one who thinks the best idea is to do away with the term "ordain" and have all workers on the same spiritual level. It was this jostling for recognition and power that caused Jesus pain. But if we continue to want to use a Roman Catholic practice, at least it should be equally applied. Also we need women pastors to counsel women.
"Ellen White certainly did the work of a leader/shepherd"
She did not do the work of an ordained minister and never claimed to be one. She never baptized, conducted weddings ect.
"Also we need women pastors to counsel women"
The Bible commands for the older women to teach the younger does not say for them to become pastors to do so.
"Ellen White certainly did the work of a leader/shepherd"
She did not do the work of an ordained minister and never claimed to be one. She never baptized, conducted weddings ect.
"Also we need women pastors to counsel women"
The Bible commands for the older women to teach the younger does not say for them to become pastors to do so.
Are you not aware that all the women functioning as pastors in the PUC may perform baptisms, conduct weddings, etc. This proposal in the PUC does not change that. My granddaughter was baptized in the Northern California conference by a female pastor.
Until we have clarity on what ordination is and who it is to be applied to, it is perhaps unwise to apply our current ecclesiastical understanding to the NT. It is not clear from the NT that it is the work of pastors to baptise (Phillip was only a deacon, Paul seems not to have been in the habit of baptising his converts), ordain others (Paul and Barnabbas seem to have been ordained by the church, and no one mentioned is identified as an elder or apostle), or organise churches (where is a reference to this?). Marriages were not performed by priests, apostles or elders until long after NT times. And nowhere is ordination or any of these activities connected with the term'pastor'. It occurs only once as a 'gift' bestowed by the Holy Spirit upon the church. Not one reference in the Greek NT demands any idea of being set apart by a superior to do teh work we identify with that of a 'pastor'. If we argue that the pastor's work is detailed under teh description of the elder, then why are we arguing over something the GC decided decades ago? TheGC gave the divisions the right to make any decision over ordaining women as elders in 1974, and that has never been challenged. If pastors are now to be identified as apostles, we have the example of Junia as an apostle. If we choose to identify pastors as deacons (perhaps with more rationale than with apostles), then the last GC voted to allow women and men to be ordained as deacons, and we have teh example of Phoebe as a 'deacon of the church' in the NT.
Which kind of makes the issue of whether Ellen White as a prophet also functioned as a pastor somewhat irrelevant.
"AllforHim" apparently has not noticed that whether EGW would have or would have not thought that women should be ordained would be of importance only to those who believe that EGW opinions on matters of theology or polity should be regarded as somehow infallible.
Let's assume for the purpose of discussion that EGW would not have been in favor of women's ordination and let us assume that she was "inspired." Inspirited men and women make mistakes Let us assume for the purpose of discussion that EGW was a "prophet." That does not make her infallible. Prophets make mistakes.
Whether EGW would or would not have been in favor of women's ordination is an interesting historical question. I assume that some of our Lutherian friends would be interested in the views of Martin Luther on points of theology but the Lutheran Church is now living in the 21st Century and Luther's views do not dictate contemporary Lutheran theology, I do not see any fundamental difference between the role of EGW in contemporary Adventism and the role of Martin Luther in the contemporary church named after him.
May I submit that Adventists could reasonably be respectful of most of EGW's views (some may have serious questions about some of her views, so there are exceptions), but her opinions on various questions–including women's ordination–should not dictate how a 21st Century Church witnesses to the contemporary world.
Since Luther did not claim visions, I don't see him in the same situation as EGW. He did hold some errant views. Now I don't find all of EGW's pronouncements or written letters, etc. of the same value. Can you imagine people taking seriously every word you uttered as from God? What a terrible situation to be in. Like us, she mirrored the knowledge available at the time (for example, the cause of earthquakes). We also make a lot of mistakes in interpreting the terms and language used in her era. None, I think, is more twisted than the word "insane" which could have met anything at the time from stressed out/neurotic to real mental illness. Anyway this is off the subject.
The ultimate source of religious authority is the people of the church rather than the hierachy. What power and privilege the hierarchy may have, it is derived solely from the people; whether the people recognize and give deference to the hierarchy or whether they ignore it, determines the future of the church. Never forget that: there is no power that the people do not endorse.
Elaine has gone to heart of the matter yet again. Without funds provided by church members, the hierarchy would have no full time jobs and thus no authority or power. Those who pay tithe to the church provide the church institution with its resources and the poeple who run the institution somehow get the idea that they are the institution and must "protect" the instituion. The solution? Pay tithe to your local church only. If enough people did that, reforms would come very quickly.
Even better, use your tithe to directly help those in need. Delete the middleman.
Spiritul and ecclesiastical authority has no direct relationship to wealth, nor should it. Although Paul did effectively limit both elders and deacons to men (and women – thinking of Priscilla?) of wealth by stating they must rule their 'oikos' well. Only men of wealth and power were thus eligible,as they were the only ones with 'oikoi' to rule. As a side benefit, they were the ones with an 'oikos' in which the church could meet.
Using tithe as a bargaining ploy seems to me to be both unnecessary and unChristian. Tithe or not as you believe is right, but don't use it to make threats.
Perhaps going into a tangent, but the Church (and not just the SDA one) uses the texts re 'gathering into the storehouse', meaning the Temple to justify the payment of tithe to the local conference. But i) there isn't a Temple anymore; ii) we don't generally follow the Jewish ceremonial services, including Temple taxes etc; iii) we don't have Levitical priests anymore; iv) what about the second tithe to the poor and alien; and v) to apply to the Temple analogy, shouldn't all the money go to the GC in Washington, otherwise it suggests there are multiple Temples, which would be contrary to the intent of the text?
I never understood this at all. I also love that most denominations say the Jewish ceremonial and civil laws don't apply any more – except this one of course!
Bravo Elaine and Ervin! I have believed for some time (this discussion at AT regarding WO seals the deal for me) that the only significant way the people of the church can influence decisions at the GC is to divert or withhold tithe and offerings. It takes time but some have been doing this for years. In one church where I was treasurer for a time, two physicians supported the local combined budget literally. When one moved away and the other died shortly thereafter the church was in dire straits. The tragedy is that most members of the local church are totally oblivious of what is happening at the GC. Also, even though the members have the POWER you were speaking of, they don't recognize that. They, in their minds, believe the GC has the power – and the church historically, innocently, obediently follows directions given. Indeed, some of us have been witness to the politics and power and vicious actions at the top if an individual does not agree.
I believe there will be a continuation of people experiencing their spiritual fulfillment elsewhere. The current situation is gridlock, oil and water. How can those of us who are pro-WO go half-way? Equality is not half equality. Those who believe in submission and suppression of women will continue in their belief.
You and Ervin have tipped your hand when you speak of withholding tithes and offerings. Those of us who are against WO are accused of trying to hang onto power, but now we see who is really tryng to manipulate the church into conforming to their wishes. It also indicates the low opinion you folks have of our church leadership, that you would imply that all they care about is the money. I have very little respect for that kind of attitude. If the money is being used improperly by the leaders, God is well able to remedy the situation without disgruntled members taking matters into their own hands. And you wonder why we call it rebellious.
There is nothing in the Bible about tithing as a command: it is an OT law. There is nothing identifying the "storehouse" and it can be whatever the giver wishes it to be. Nowhere in the Bible is it to be sent to the conference–there were no conferences at that time, so the offerings received were used locally.
"As long as as the readiness is there, a man is acceptable with whateer he fan afford; never mind what is beyond his means. That does not mean that to give relief to others you ought to make things difficult for yourselves; it is a question of balancing what happens to be your surplus now against their present need" 2 Cor. 8:12-14. Unlike what we were taught: pay tithe regardless if you don't have enough for food or rent.
So you don't believe Malachi 3:10 means what it says? That applied only to the OT? God will not bless those who are faithful in their tithes and offerings? In case you had forgotten, nothing belongs to you. I't all came from God. You owe Him your first and your best. Was Jesus wrong when He commended the widow who gave the last of her funds to the church? There are a lot of people out there who would beg to differ with you, Elaine. They have put God to the test and have been blessed beyond what they ever expected.
Read again. I said nothing about NOT tithing, Malachi was written to the Jews, and Paul was addressing the NT Christians, you recall.
That many people differ with me doesn't keep me awake at night. My aim is not merely to please or have anyone agree with me. (I believe that you also aren't hoping for 100% agreement with you.)
Nor did I suggest that anyone should not pay tithe. I suggest you should be a more careful reader and not put words in the mouths of someone who has written something. If it is not clear, question the writer, not trying to read someone's mind. Or, do you practice ESP?
Of course it means what it says. But tithing applied specifically to Israel as a sign that they acknowledged God gave them the land. Tithe never applied outside Palestine and adjacent lands. As originally instituted, it also went to the Levites locally, then they tithed to the priests in Jerusalem. By the time of Malachi, the Levites had been excluded because of their corruption and tithes went straight to the priests. What exactly is mean by the 'storehouse' is debatable, as is what exactly it corresponds to today. You could argue the temple in Jerusalem correspnds to the GC itself.
We also seem reluctant to apply the whole tithing law and insist on a tithe for the poor and for attending feasts in Jeruslaem. Just think what would happen to camp attendance if every SDA family had to put aside a tithe that could only be spent within the camp ground. And what our community services people could do with that tithe for the poor.
Sorry to repeat myself, and perhaps going into a tangent, but the Church (and not just the SDA one) uses the texts re 'gathering into the storehouse', meaning the Temple to justify the payment of tithe to the local conference.
But i) there isn't a Temple anymore; ii) we don't generally follow the Jewish ceremonial services, including Temple taxes etc; iii) we don't have Levitical priests anymore; iv) what about the second tithe to the poor and alien; and v) to apply to the Temple analogy, shouldn't all the money go to the GC in Washington, otherwise it suggests there are multiple Temples, which would be contrary to the intent of the text?
I never understood this at all. I also love that most denominations say the Jewish ceremonial and civil laws don't apply any more – except this one of course!
What I get from this is the idea that most of the proponents of WO would prefer an congregational type church structure, rather than the one we have now. Then they could ordain their own pastors who would preach smooth things. And you could forget evangelizing the world, or getting a pastor who isn't afraid to preach the truth. Because in a congregational system, the money stays local, and they can easily become self-focused. The missionary efforts of the SDA Church over the past 150 years would have never been possible under a congregational system of church government.
I believe you are, in most cases, jumping to unwarranted conslusions. Many supporters of WO are not supporters of congregationalism.
Sorry I wasn't suggesting congregationalism per se – sorry if I gave that impression. The NT certainly seems to have some sort of centralised hierarchy, and Paul did submit himself to the authority of the Apostles and Elders 'in session'. But Paul showed a lot of independence and outright insubordination to leaders 'out of session'.
As to payments, I am still not convinced Apostles took payment from a 'tithe' on the Levitical model exactly. Paul's one-off offering for the poor in Jerusalem hardly seemed to be akin to OT (and modern SDA) notions of tithe-paying.
There was certainly payment of course, but the Apostolic model seemed to be similar to the Cynics school, which was to receive hospitality as an itinerant preacher. Preachers accepted hospitality, but only enough to cover them until their next location. The irony is that Paul was challenged because he did work for a living, because the implication then was that he was not sucessful enough a preacher to live off his charisma.
Not sure where any of that leaves the SDA Church though?
Tithing is a good and useful system. Perhaps that should commend it without a need to dig into its past or to argue its continuing validity as a demand. Can we not do things simply because they work well?
This is the saddest part of the whole discussion: people are ill-informed about the church and its decisions and of course the hierarchy has no reason to educate them about what is going on. Why should they? To do so would be jeopardizing their very livelihood?
The further this discussion goes on the more I see the hopelessness of the discussion of WO. It's like trying to mix oil and water. We found a way to homogenize milk. How do we get homozenized? How would we feel about it? Then I think of Einstein's definition of insanity – doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. That is what we are doing now. with exasperation on both sides.
In making the point by withholding tithe and offerings, we are now accused of "all they care about is money", going further to say "have very little respect for that kind of an attitude". I'm grappling with "If money is being improperly used by the leaders, God is well able to remedy the situation without disgruntled members taking matters into their own hands". That comment deserves to be analyzed by the group.
Jean – Would you please expand on your comment "God is well able to remedy the situation without disgruntled members taking matters into their own hands"?
Dear All:
I don't know if you are a pastor, but if you are how do you handle the situation where the woman, either by conversion after marriage or some other reason, is married to a nonbeliever? The man cannot be the spiritual head in these cases and the woman must take it on. Or what of an unmarried woman or widow with children? The Bible does say that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the woman–isn't that spiritual headship to a degree?
I sent the above previously, but somehow it didn't get on. Even though I don't see the WO issue as you and Jean do, I am glad you are on here and give some insight into your understanding. I am particularly interested in your reply to the above as it is a common issue, and church magazines have not addressed it. Also wondering if you would see a resolution in having all pastoral workers as commissioned only and on a servant leader level without the superiority of the word "ordained." This would also include denominational officers.
If you believe that we are all 'priests', then the issue becomes less difficult.