To Ordain or Not to Ordain, That Is the Question!
by Dan Appel, May 10, 2015: As we draw closer and closer to the upcoming General Conference session, many of us are getting deluged with material concerning one of the items on the agenda – whether or not to ordain women to ministry. Having read a number of the books, papers and videos that are proliferating throughout our world church trying to create a groundswell against the idea of ordaining women and implying that there is only one way a committed Christian or Adventist could look at the issue, and believing that a person needs a fair and balanced opportunity to examine all sides, I decided to write the following essay.
Recently, our General Conference President issued an amazingly bold, courageous and unexpected call for people to study for themselves the issue of whether or not women should be ordained for ministry. He called the people in the world church he leads to return to the rock-solid foundation that undergirded the Protestant Reformation and the stated tradition of our own church – “Sola Scriptura!” – and to study the Bible evidence, one way or the other, for themselves.
Normally, a person in his position would issue a charge to hew to church tradition and orthodoxy or make a plea to his followers to carefully study any number of different extra-Biblical sources and authorities or issue a call to arms to defend what has always been. Instead, as we approach what promises to be a watershed moment in the history of this issue in our church, our world President has taken us back to the Bible – what we claim is our only true source of authority on issues of this nature.
Given the almost instantaneous scramble to spin what he said by those who are almost frantically committed to maintaining the status quo, and the sudden proliferation of invitations to seminars and special events proclaiming that they will reveal to their attendees why the Church has always been right in their traditional position, it is refreshing to hear our president entreat to go beyond the religious traditions of the 1920s through the 1960s and to submit to the Bible’s authority alone in this matter.
In the spirit of his invitation to use the Bible alone, I have prepared the following Bible study guide outlining some tools and principles that might prove useful in your personal quest to discover God’s will in this matter. And, I join our President in praying that God’s will will reign supreme in this matter.
Credit should be given where credit is due! So, again, I would like to honor our President’s courage in the face of what must be almost overwhelming opposition to his choice from some of his most influential and well-heeled supporters, and pray that it signals a sea-change in his approach to leadership that will begin to unite our increasingly fragmented world church!
Pastor Dan M. Appel
“To Ordain or Not to Ordain, That is the Question!”
I heard a sermon a while back where the speaker spoke at length on the subject of the ordination of women. It would have been very easy to view his remarks as nothing more than an emotional polemic and to dismiss them out of hand. Because he is someone whom I respect personally, I felt his ideas deserved careful consideration so I headed to the Bible to study the subject. His arguments deserve careful and thoughtful scrutiny because they are the major arguments put forth by the Church’s leadership in the Dark Ages and by many even today who argue that women should not be ordained to gospel ministry.
The Adventist Church has chosen at least twice in the past to not ordain their women pastors for good cause, not for good reason. Much of the impetus has been the women’s liberation movement that was prominent in North America, especially during the 80s and 90s. As a church which has claimed to take the Bible as our rule of belief and practice, this was not a good basis for change. Because we did not take the time to thoroughly and carefully study the subject from Scripture, God, I believe, kept the change from occurring in our church. But the fact that it was rejected in the past for good cause does not mean that it should not be adopted, for the right reasons, should we take the time to do our homework in the Bible and show good Biblical basis for doing so.
That is what I hope to begin to accomplish in this article. I have no interest in countering the sociological and biological arguments which are often given for opposing the ordination of women. Those who would claim things like the intellectual inferiority of women and hormones and gender-determined inability to lead and minister do much more damage to their own credibility and the veracity of their arguments than I could ever hope to accomplish.
I would like to look carefully at what the Bible teaches on the subject and offer my reasons why I believe God would be in favor of ordaining women if we would just be open enough to his leading to give him a vote at the upcoming General Conference Session.
A Basic Biblical Paradigm
When God called Abram out of Ur of the Chaldees and led him to Canaan and promised him that he would be the father of many nations, he wasn’t just referring to the Jews and all of the Arab nations. We begin to discover the extent of this fatherhood when we come to Mt. Sinai with the Israelites after their 400-year captivity in Egypt. God’s intention for Israel was that they would become “God’s own possession among all peoples . . . a holy nation, a kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:5-6). God told Moses to speak these words to “all of the children of Israel.”
One either has to argue that God was only intending the males to be considered “the children of Israel,” and that his intent was that only the males in Israel would be his own possession and part of his holy nation, or you must accept that both males and females were to be a holy nation and a kingdom of priests.
God carried Israel out of Egypt on eagles’ wings (Exodus 19:4) for a purpose. He didn’t set them aside as special because they were better than anyone else; nor were they to serve just themselves; but they were to be his means of taking the Good News of the Kingdom of Light to the rest of the world. Every Israelite, rich and poor, prominent and hardly known, male and female, servant and freeman, was to be actively involved in the priestly ministry of taking the Gospel to the nations.
In Exodus and Leviticus we discover the tribe of Levi set aside, perpetually, to be trainers constantly preparing each new generation to minister effectively. God designed that every Israelite would be spoken of as “ministers of our God” (Isaiah 61:6), and that they would bring those from all nations and tongues who accepted citizenship in the Kingdom of Light and that they too would be chosen and trained to be priests and Levites (Isaiah 66:18-21). It was to be an ever-widening circle of people called to relationship with God, trained in ministry, and sent out to tell others. The Gospel, to use Jesus’ words in Matthew 28:18-20, “was to go to the whole world – to every nation, tribe, tongue and people” until the whole world knew about his love for humanity. The day would come, God desired, that “every pot in Jerusalem and Judah would be sacred to the Lord of Hosts” and that anyone coming to Jerusalem to sacrifice could “choose any pot in the country and use it to make his sacrifices” (Zechariah 14:20-21). Unfortunately, Israel began to imagine that they were chosen because they were somebody, that they were somehow better than everyone else and that their value lay in their specialness to God rather than in God’s ability to use them. Instead of becoming a nation of priests taking the Gospel to the world, they became exclusive and hoarded the Good News to themselves. The Levite males, who had indeed been chosen by God for the special task of leading the rest of the people, men and women alike, into ministry became closed and exclusive. As a consequence, the males in Israel began to imagine that they were more privileged than the women and instead of leading them into intimate relationship with God and ministry and honoring them as equals, they relegated them to secondary position in the spiritual life of the community and nation. When the New Testament Church was driven out of Judaism after Pentecost, God once again tried to restore his dream for his people.
Jesus, when he was here on earth, picked 12 males as the first servant leaders of his church. Those who argue that Jesus only called males to be in his inner circle are correct. But, he chose them not because they were the only ones to be qualified by God, but because they were the only ones culturally acceptable to lead his people from a narrow, mistaken view of God’s will to what he had designed for them to be.
Peter, one of his inner circle, understood God’s intent for their leadership when he tells us that Jesus told them that his followers were: “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were no people but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy but now you have received mercy” (1 Peter 2:9-10).
One cannot pick through this passage and apply some attributes to both men and women – a chosen race, a holy nation, God’s own people who are called to declare God’s wonderful deeds, God’s people who have received mercy – and just one to men only. Again, one either has to say that only men are a chosen race, a holy nation, a royal priesthood and God’s own people who have received mercy, or one is forced to acknowledge that all those terms apply to both genders.
It is even clearer earlier in the chapter where Peter says, “Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:4-5).
Again, either the call to come to Jesus as one of his chosen and precious ones and to allow him to build us into a spiritual house so that we can offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus as holy priests all applies only to men, or it all applies to both men and women. The great New Testament theologian, Paul, was one of the most gender-progressive people in New Testament times. At a time when women, if they made it through the door of the synagogue at all, were forced to sit in a separate part of the building behind a screen in silence, he encouraged women to sit with their husbands in the main part of the room (1 Corinthians 14:33-35). He did encourage them to remain silent while they were in the building and to not push for leadership so that they did not “upset the apple cart” and destroy his efforts to lead people to where God wished them to be.
Paul’s clearest statement on the subject of the spiritual equality of men and women is found in Galatians 3:27-29 – For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 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. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
John, in the Revelation, picks up on this theme in two places when he writes: “To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, everyone who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen” (Revelation 1:5-7).
Again, in Revelation 5:9-10 he writes, “Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom people for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth.”
As in the previous verses, either Jesus freed only males from their sins by ransoming them from everywhere on earth by his blood and made them a kingdom, priests to his God and father destined to reign on earth, or it applies to all no matter their gender.
Once again, as in Old Testament times, rather than using their position as servant leaders to lead all of God’s people into their priestly ministry (called, during the Reformation, the “priesthood of all believers”), the male leadership of the church instead took the opportunity to make priestly ministry an exclusively male domain and to use it to exercise that power to subordinate women.
In the process, one of the most basic Biblical concepts was lost, and God and his church on earth misrepresented.
Now that we have laid a basic theological baseline for the Bible’s purpose for both men and women in ministry, what about those texts that seem to state or imply something different?
Because much of the textual basis used by those who oppose or favor ordaining women is drawn from the writing of Paul the Apostle, we need to remind ourselves to use good hermeneutics as we seek to determine just what the Bible, and especially Paul, meant in certain places and instances. As Peter said so eloquently, “. . . our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking . . . as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand . . .” (2 Peter 3:15-16).
Using the conservative historical-grammatical method, it is fair to try to determine which of Paul’s statements are personal and cultural and which are based on sound theology. Even when he is talking about clearly held beliefs we need to ask which are his opinion and which are a clear “thus says the Lord.”
The New Testament statements most often used to combat the notion of ordaining women are as follows:
Colossians 3:18-20 – Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
This passage sounds clear-cut, and if it were the only text from Paul we had on the subject, it would be pretty clear that in the family, wives are to subject themselves to their husbands.
But, Paul speaks in other places on the same subject, where he takes the opportunity to clarify what he intends.
In Ephesians 5:21-33, Paul says, “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
The identical word is used in both Ephesians and Colossians. Here “subjection” is a two-way street, required of both spouses in a marriage. Paul describes what he intends in Ephesians 5:33 when he says that each one should love his wife as he does himself, and the wife should respect her husband. The meaning of the subjection Paul admonishes wives to have for their husbands is not blind obedience, but respect – something not given because it is deserved or demanded, but because the person offering it chooses to do so. Men are challenged to give up themselves (their pride, power and desire to control) for their wives as Jesus gave up himself for the church. Love always gives up its desire to dominate, and serves. Paul clarifies his meaning when he says that husbands are to spiritually lead their wives to God by lining up themselves and becoming servants in love to lead them to a relationship with God. In this setting, the “subjecting” Paul advises for men is much greater than that which he advises for women.
This is far from the power and pride of position that characterizes many who wish to use this passage to exert their predominance over women.
Another passage often used by those opposed to the ordination of women is 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, where Paul says, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head – it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. . . . (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels. (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.) Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.
This passage must be considered as a whole.
First of all, Paul says that what he has delivered to them on this subject is part of, literally, the Jewish traditional laws (paradosis), the Jewish traditions handed down orally from Moses’ time to the Pauline present which illustrated and expanded the written law. Paul was still keeping many of these non-Biblical traditions because they were a part of his religious culture, not because he believed that they came from God – although he tried to excuse them by appealing to religious grounds like any good Talmudic rabbi would.
If we are going to be honest about what Paul intended, we must admit that the issue in this passage is hair – the hair of the Christian. Anything he says about the relationship between men and women is by way of illustration – based on tradition and Paul’s opinion based on those traditions. After stating his opinion that the head of every woman is her husband, he goes on to state that any woman who prays or prophesies without her head covered might as well have her head shaved. In fact, he goes on to say that if she is not going to wear a veil she might as well shave her own head.
Most in today’s religious world, even those in very conservative circles, would say that what Paul says here about hair here was cultural, based on his times, and not normative for the Christian. No one I know insists that his wife and daughters veil their heads in church. And, if he does not veil their hair, I have never heard of him trying to shave his wife’s head, or advocating that she do it herself. It is therefore disingenuous to make his aside illustrations a standard for whether or not women should be ordained.
Titus 2:2-6 – Bid the older men be temperate, serious, sensible, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Bid the older women likewise to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind, and submissive to their husbands, that the word of God may not be discredited. Likewise urge the younger men to control themselves.
First of all, it should be obvious from this passage that the issue is not whether women should or should not be ordained. Rather, Paul is admonishing all concerned to live lives that will not discredit God or the church in the eyes of the world. In a culture where men ruled the women that were their legal chattel, Paul is concerned that women not use their freedom as followers of Jesus to bring discredit on the church so they should be respectful of their husbands.
1 Peter 3:1-6 – Likewise, you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, when they see your reverent and chaste behavior. Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing, but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. So once the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves and were submissive to their husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are now her children if you do right and let nothing terrify you.
Even a careless reading reveals that this passage is not about ordination of women or even the place of women in the larger scheme of things. It is about winning souls for Jesus.
Peter is writing to women whose husbands were not Christ followers, and he suggests that the wives, through their respectful behavior, can win their husbands to Jesus. It is a voluntary submission or respect to someone who is not a follower of God for a purpose, not because God or even the church demands it. Sarah chose to relate to Abraham and to win him to a relationship with God, Peter says, and so can you if you are willing. (This is an interesting insight into who originally, way back in Ur of the Chaldees, first became acquainted with God in Abraham’s family. Sarah’s choice to respect Abraham apparently won him to God just like any other wife has the opportunity to win her unbelieving husband.)
1 Timothy 2:11-15 – Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
This passage may be one of the most rationalized passages in all of scripture. Most commentators dance through these verses like Fred Astaire. Let’s just let Paul say what he says and ask ourselves if this is what the larger context of the rest of the Bible teaches or if this is another of those hard-to-understand Pauline sayings that were based on his opinion.
Does any thinking Christian really believe that the Bible teaches that the only way that women can be saved is by having plenty of babies? In addition, does God really intend that women learn obediently in total silence and never teach anything to any man? Finally, is it the message of scripture that Eve and all her female descendants are the source of all the bad that has happened in this world, so this is her lot in life and she should get used to it!
If a person truly believes that Paul was basing his statements on God’s intent and that this passage is normative, then he should be willing to practice and advocate everything in this passage. If we don’t believe that everything Paul says here is an accurate picture of God’s will, then it is not reasonable to pick bits and pieces and apply them to the subject of ordination.
Many sincere, well-meaning Christians down through the centuries have used the Bible to justify their desire to “be the boss.” The strongest human drive is the drive to control others. It is convenient to be able to find a Bible verse that justifies it. But the Bible, when a person just reads Scripture with an open mind, does not teach that women should not be ordained. On the contrary, it was God’s original intent that his people restore the equality that was in the Garden of Eden before the Fall. He set in place leaders who he hoped would make it happen, and intended that his church would illustrate the restoration of the equality between men and women that comes when our sinful humanity has been redeemed.
Maybe it’s time we finished the work God gave his Church and honor the female side, the heart, of the priesthood of all believers.
To review, if you are going to take the Bible passages as literally as many wish, then you have to take all that they say literally. You cannot pick and choose your way through them, using some of what Paul and Peter said and ignoring the rest.
How Did We End Up in This Mess?
The subject of the ordination of women was not a major issue in early Adventism. Women held many responsibilities in the church hierarchy equally with men; a female prophet spoke and wrote authoritatively in and for the church and was credentialed as if she was ordained – even though she never felt the need to be formally ordained because her ordination, she believed, was from God. Women led out in church services, preached, evangelized and were generally accepted in roles that were unusual in Victorian America.
There were apparently instances where women were licensed to preach and were considered by those who worked with them as ordained – even though we are not aware if they did or did not go through a formal ceremony.
As time went on, though, in a Victorian age dominated by men where women were often chattel and were not considered equal or physically or mentally capable enough to deserve a vote in national or local elections, women were increasingly relegated to second-class status. To support this situation, well-meaning but misguided men trying to defend their position, developed theologies that were as egregiously wrong, hermeneutically, as those developed to defend slavery. Emotionally they were attractive to those proffering them, but Biblically they were very weak. Eventually, during the Women’s Movement of the 1960s and 1970s, some women of the Adventist Church began to agitate for a change. Unfortunately, the basis for many of their arguments was social rather than Biblical, and the church was very slow to change. On the other side, the same tactics and arguments used against abolition and women’s suffrage were used to discredit the idea, and it was reduced to a slow simmering volcano that occasionally raises its head – generally around General Conference times.
The issue was made worse by a set of circumstances that virtually destroyed any meaning of the idea of ordination itself.
A number of years ago, the Adventist Church faced a difficult dilemma. The Church had a two-tiered system of setting aside individuals for pastoral ministry. A person went through a period of being “licensed” (eventually called commissioned) – sort of a time of professional probation; then, when he was judged to be ready, was “ordained.” The church claimed the same tax privileges for both classes. The IRS then ruled that for individuals to be entitled to the same tax benefits, they had to be allowed to perform the same duties. In short order, commissioned or licensed pastors were allowed by the church to perform anything an ordained person could.
This created a second awkward situation. We had commissioned women in many areas of church service clear back to the late 1800s. Suddenly, by IRS ruling, these commissioned employees were qualified to do anything ordained ministers could do.
This created the theological equivalent of the Keystone Cops, as church administrators scrambled to figure out what to do, and those on the fundamentalist side of Adventism sprang to find some way of holding on to their two-tier – male and female – distinctions in the church. Soon we were left in a position that made a mockery of ordination for everyone involved.
Because of the widely and forcefully held diversity of opinion on the subject, the Church at large has continued to “ordain” men to ministry and has chosen to “commission” women – even as certain Union and local conferences have begun to ordain them. Both commissioned and ordained individuals can fulfill the same responsibilities, perform the same functions, lead and direct the same activities, programs and departments, and take advantage of the same tax and employee benefits. The two words have become absolutely synonymous – their meaning and choice for use determined solely by whether they are being applied to a man or a woman. The semantic hairsplitting that leads to the distinction between the two different classifications is demeaning to both genders; it degrades the whole idea of ordination; and it creates an artificial distinction, not based on scripture – the main reason why a growing number in the church are beginning to call for the elimination of ordination altogether.
At some point we will either have to say that the ordination of female clergy is truly a moral issue and refuse to bow to government pressure and penalize all of our commissioned individuals by not allowing them the legitimate tax advantages our ordained clergy enjoy, or we should realize that the issue is primarily a cultural one and set aside our personal prejudices and vote to ordain women.
There are parts of the world where ordaining women may never be practical – where, culturally, it will probably always be anathema. There are other areas where the majority of the church may consider it culturally and theologically acceptable – where the majority feel that there is legitimate reason to ordain women. If it is one of those basic areas that define who we are, then we should not budge and compromise. If, on the other hand, it is not, then we should be willing to allow others to see things differently than we do and not attempt to impose our will on them. In those cases, it should be a matter of personal choice, not church mandate. That is one reason why recent church councils have recommended to the world church that each Division be allowed to make the decision for themselves.
One thing neither side should be willing to allow this subject to do is to divide our church any longer.
As Augustine said, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things love.”
I believe much of what you wrote is simply conjecture and biblical revisionism colored by a lens of misguided egalitarianism. I believe your explanations of those verses are weak and some actually reek of intellectual dishonesty.
You said “But, he chose them not because they were the only ones to be qualified by God, but because they were the only ones culturally acceptable to lead his people from a narrow, mistaken view of God’s will to what he had designed for them to be” you do not have any proof that he chose them merely for cultural acceptance that is your opinion and not based on any biblical evidence. Besides I do not think he chose a tax collector and a zealot for cultural acceptance so that point is patently false.
I also have a problem with this statement “Now that we have laid a basic theological baseline for the Bible’s purpose for both men and women in ministry, what about those texts that seem to state or imply something different” you did not establish any baseline, you simply showed verses that show equality in access to salvation and not in the area of functional leadership roles. You then use this faulty baseline to discredit texts that do not fall in line or reinterpret them to fit your narrative.
I basically disagree with your hermeneutic on every single verse as i feel they are being reinterpreted with a ordination lens and hence I feel that you are advocating for a counterfeit equality which is different form biblical equality.
I have not read all 47 comments here, neither have I read the whole article. But, I have read enough to know that “sin is at the door”!!! Why do we have so much discussion about a subject God is silent about? Why isn’t this enough for us?
God chose Mary to be the mother of Jesus. He could have brought Jesus to earth some other way and not get a woman involved in bringing Jesus into our world! Then who heralded the risen Savior? A woman, Mary Magdelene. THESE WOMEN WERE ORDAINED BY GOD TO DO WHAT THE DID, THEY DIDN’T NEED THE ORDINATION OF MAN TO DO IT! Ellen White was chosen as Prophet after “2” men before her were asked to fill that role and declined! She has said through inspiration that in the last days, (NOW), that God would bring WOMEN to the forefront and would use them in a mighty way to help FINISH SPREADING OF THE GOSPEL!!! We do not need man’s ordination for that, we ALREADY HAVE GODS APPROVAL AND ORDINATION FOR THIS IMPORTANT ROLE GOD HAS FOR US IN HIS VINEYARD!!!
Why must we go beyond what God has ordained? I know that “I” do NOT need the Church’s approval or ordination to do what “I KNOW” God has called me to do. But I believe that because of the unfairness and injustice women have suffered in our SDA Movement, (sorry to say), women who want to work for God by preaching the word, and who want to be paid by the Conference for working in this capacity have felt the only way to get paid is by becoming a Pastor!
In the past women in our Movement have been taken advantage of, and back in the early 1980s I was instrumental in speaking up on behalf of ministers’ wives who were expected to do things for free and WITHOUT pay! I did a presentation for a group of seminary wives and then confronted the “then” head of the seminary department of Andrews University, showing him what Sis White had written. After my family and I left Andrews I heard that what I started took root and something was done to acknowledge ministers’ wives.
Our Conference is not really set up to acknowledge women in work for God, and I believe that if women could be employed to work for God and get paid for it women would NOT have felt the need to be ordained as ministers!!!
God has given me many gifts and talents to be much more than a minister, but if I wanted to be employed by the Conference for a position other than a minister would I get hired so easily? NO! SO THIS is why I believe we have this dilemma, and it is about to split our beloved Movement! God help us as we weather this storm, which is prophetic.
As you must know, the pope will come to speak with Congress this September about the Sunday Law disguised as “Family Day”, “Climate Change”/Global Warming”! Then on December 8th he will usher in the Year of Mercy, and open the “Door of Mercy” at the Vatican. He will seal shut that Door on November 20th 2016. Those who have not accepted the Catholic faith by that date can expect persecution!!! STOP WASTING TIME…
Council about arguing on points which the Bible is silence, and then predicting things about the Popes visit of which the Bible is silent is an interesting irony. Wasting time on both is indeed a shame. We are not going anywhere until the gospel goes everywhere. I do think energy best spent is sharing the good news of Jesus’ transformative love. That will be part of what truly ushers in the coming of Jesus.
James at this time in earth’s history we are called to preach and teach PRESENT TRUTH! Sharing and teaching the love of Jesus should be a part of Present Truth, but mainly we are called to alert people of His Second coming, the 3 Angels’ messages. Do you even know ANYTHING about the year of Mercy and what it all means? In Matthew 24:4, Jesus begins His conversation with His disciples by warning them NOT to be deceived! We are encouraged to KNOW our enemy, the Bible isn’t silent about that! We should be encouraging one another to keep alert in these treacherous days instead of being sarcastic or cynical about information that obviously most SDAs are oblivious about simply because most of our pastors are NOT doing their job which is to alert the members. How many SDAs know that our probation closes after the enforcement of the Sunday Law? Not alerting God’s people of such important information is a sure way of causing them to be lost! We do satan’s work when we are more willing to find fault than to alert of sure danger. Let’s get our priorities right, for Jesus is coming soon, but before that we must get ready and BE ready to stand!are YOU doing that and encouraging others to do the same???
can you simplify you language such as egalitarianism.
What sin is committed when women are ordained?. Why didn’t God specify this in the ten commandants and ceremonial law?. Does the Bible say that Women should never be priest or prophets or kings?.
I believe God does not have problem with women to be ordain. the problem is with man and women. It is the issue of having true love of God and unity of working together and putting aside pride by both man and woman. Women who are able should be ordained and man should become humble in this matter and women who are ordain should also became humble in this matter.
If we have the love of God and a desire to work together in finishing Gods commission than we should allow able woman to be ordain and accept them with open mind.
Our high priest is Jesus in heaven now and we are all co workers with Jesus. The Bible emphasis the point of respect for one another as equal participators in gospel work. Galatians 3:26-28
Peter, it’s not about “WE” allowing women to be ordained, it’s about encouraging what we know to be God’s ideal for us as humans. We can search the Holy Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation and not find an account where even one woman held a position as priest. Remember, Miriam was of the tribe of Levi, and was a prophet, but not a priestess, (Exodus 15:20). Elizabeth, John the Baptist’s mother was also of the tribe of Levi but was not a priestess, (Luke 1:5). BUT both women were used by God, they were both ordained by God to do what HE called them to do. THAT is what is important, that we are ALL where we are called by God to be, filling the roles we are called to fill, otherwise it becomes sin, and disobedience to us. Let’s seek to obey God and do what we KNOW we should do because it is biblical rather than to do something we have to argue or vote on because God is silent about it. AND He’s most likely silent because He expects us to already know the order and roles men and women have in the home, society and the Church. No need to wonder when we study God’s word thoroughly and trust it as it is written, instead of attempting to read into it some other meaning God NEVER intended.
Miriam and Elizabeth lived under a priestly system that God later abolished. So, what scriptural basis do you have for believing God continues to require something that He terminated?
God did not abolish male headship. Nowhere in the new testament you will fing women elders. Jesus Himself did not change this paradigm set by God. The work of the priests has been translated into the bishop work. But the paradigm of having male heads of the flock has not been abolished or changed.
The real problem of our Church today, is not the ordination of women pastors, but, it is a problem of immorality.Our pioneers were inspired by God in organizing this great Movement.Since Satan, the great author of sin and father of all of those self-proclaim scholars, will always find a way to give counsels and advises. The are blind and ignorant, but yet, the are the intellectuals who know God’s plan. I too, salute our president for his wisdom. May send His Holly spirit to guide us and vote for the truth, and may God bless the Seventh Day Adventist Movement.
Immorality is a symptom of a greater problem with our spiritual health: our generalized disregard for the Holy Spirit. Connection with the Holy Spirit will resolve that and a whole lot more, including WO.
Tapiwa,
I understand you are echoing what you have always heard in your culture. I suspect you don’t like change. Please remember Jesus chastised those who wanted the higher status. The best answer would be to make all preachers equal with no ordination. Would you be willing to give up your ordination for the kingdom of God?
Do you believe in slavery which was tolerated in the Bible but which Ellen White said was a great sin? Things do change. The Bible says women should not teach men. That would mean no women teachers and that you could not accept the ministry of Ellen White.
I am really interested in knowing how you deal with these questions
? I am not baiting you but sincerely want to know.
The bible ask the masters to treat their slaves as brothers (phil16). If you cannot treat your slave as your own brother, you don’t deserve a slave. I would gladly be the slave of someone who treats me as brother for he/she wouldnot oppress or abuse me.
Amen Brother!
You accurately reflect objections to so much of what those who support WO use as a basis for their argumentation. Very insightful.
See:
http://advindicate.com/articles/2015/5/14/equal-but-not-the-same
Well said…..Thank you…….!!!!!!
Missing from all these discussions is the most critical question of all: “What does the Holy Spirit want?” If we’re supposed to be operating under the guidance and empowerment of the Holy Spirit, as scripture promises all believers will be doing, does our arguing without Him being the central focus of our discussion not reveal how far we have wandered away from Him and that we no longer really believe in God? Absolutely.
At its’ foundation the issue is very simple: has God equipped a person to be in a particular role in church leadership? The evidence is found in the results of their work. The majority of men currently in pastoral work are not gifted for it and shouldn’t be there, so that leaves us with a dearth of the leadership God wants us to have so we will actually be doing His work and preparing people to meet Jesus. Whether those leaders are men or women is up to Him to reveal and empower. Our task is not to argue about whether women can be empowered for a particular role, but to be seeking the empowerment of the Holy Spirit for ourselves so we will each be doing what He wants done.
William, your whole idea is so basically Roman Catholic in its spirituality that some at least reject anything you have to say for that reason. We don’t ask what the Holy Spirit wants without first considering what scripture states. The Spirit always works through the word, and you seem to ignore this basic truth.
As for the article, it is simply the same-o, same-o arguments used by those who advocate WO and will never persuade anyone who denies the basic way the argument is formated as Tapiwa has pointed out.
So it is nothing new, nor will it change anyone’s mind who has already carefully studied this issues. It will simply affirm those who already agree with Dan’s presentation.
Those who oppose WO do not accept the idea that the gospel has negated various orders of authority and administration that God ordained from the beginning. And neither does the priesthood of all believers mean anyone and everyone may be qualified to hold any office without respect to the issue of gender.
At this point, it is not likely anyone will persuade anyone else to “change their mind” and the best that can happen is those who have never really considered the issues study for themselves and decide the issues for themselves. If you have already decided, it is not likely you will change your mind. Still, both sides hope to persuade the majority they are holding the true position concerning the matter.
And for your part, Bill, you have utterly failed to demonstrate that “male headship” was God’s original plan for humans, whereas both the Bible and Ellen clearly show that it was an accommodation the the attempt of Eve to usurp the pre-eminence of God (to become like God and thus superior to Adam).
The bottom line here is whether in our church practices, we should be upholding the pre-fall or the post-fall condition of humans as the ideal.
If reading the Bible and taking God’s plain statements at face value is being “Roman Catholic” then they’re setting an example of devotion to God that is putting many Adventists to shame.
Those who would dispute the author’s claims regarding God’s original egalitarian ideal for ministry, and who claim to take their Bibles seriously, might want to consider the evolution of the Courtyard in the various temples of the Jews.
1) In the original Tabernacle in the wilderness, there was one courtyard where priests and believers, men and women, freely worshiped together.
2) In the first Temple built by Solomon, there was a separate courtyard for the priests. The Altar of Sacrifice and the Laver (or Bath) were in this inner courtyard. The believers were no longer allowed to approach the Altar. This was a practice of men and not commanded by God.
3) In the second Temple built by Zerubbabel, there were separate courtyards for the men and the women, as well as an inner courtyard for the priests. Here is the first Bible record of men and women worshipers being segregated. This was a practice of men and not commanded by God.
4) In the third Temple built by Herod, there was added another courtyard for the Gentiles.
So in the time of Jesus there was a spiritual “pecking-order” instituted by men rather than by God:
Priests ->
Jewish men (males over 12 years) ->
Jewish women (and presumably their children) ->
Gentiles
But this was not commanded in the OT by God. Rather it was the accumulation of centuries of rabbinical traditions.
Now it is certainly true that in the Jewish rituals only the priests were permitted to enter the Sanctuary itself (which symbolized heaven). But in the Courtyard (which symbolized the community of the faithful on earth) the Law of Moses made no provision or requirement for segregation between priests and believers, men and women, slave and free. This was added later by human traditions.
That’s why I said, Jim. Same-o, same-o. Male headship was ordained by God in the beginning according to EGW.
“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.” Desire of Ages, page 129
You will never convince anyone who believes EGW and the bible that Adam was not king over the whole earth. And Adam sold out the human race, not Eve.
Well I believe in the Bible and Ellen and you haven’t convinced me.
The way you apply this passage it appears that if Adam hadn’t sinned then the sin of Eve would have been of no consequence.
And I have shown you many, many times where Ellen says that Adam and Eve were created EQUAL. And where God says let THEM have dominion.
You can cherry-pick your Ellen quotes to make it appear otherwise, but you simply ignore the mountain of Bible and Ellen evidence that refutes your position.
I do not deny that in the NT Adam is used as a representative for all humanity in relationship to the Fall. But this was not the status of Adam and Eve before the Fall according to either the Bible or to Ellen.
I don’t think at this point, Jim, anyone can convince you. As to Eve and her sin, EGW states that had Adam not sinned, God would have dealt with Eve individually. She was not equal to Adam in authority and administration, but she was equal in value in the ministry God appointed her. I suspect a woman’s influence and ministry is more valuable and comprehensive than any man as far as teaching the principles of God’s kingdom to her family as well as various roles she may fill in the church.
But it does not include ordination to elder or pastor. And so far the General Conference will not acknowledge Sandy Roberts as valid as the SEC conference president. I hope they hold this position as others do.
To claim Unions have full authority or ordain anyone to any position is bogus. Only if they follow GC guidelines are they free to ordain anyone they feel is qualified. Just as a pastor has authority to baptize anyone he deems is qualified for church membership as long as he follows the qualifications stated by the church.
And this same principle applies to Union Conference authority to ordain people for any particular ministry. Their authority is transcended by the GC who delegates authority in harmony with GC specifications. What the Unions are doing is rebellion.
I am not sure who is claiming that Union Conferences can do whatever they want to. I did not write that so I do not know why you included it in your reply to me.
I would however point-out that in the book of Acts it was the local congregations that laid hands on those being sent-out and prayed for them.
You can make whatever claims you wish regarding Ordination as practiced in the SDA church now or in the past. But you will not find these rituals and rules as we practice them spelled-out in the Bible. They developed in the post-Apostolic church. I am not saying they are wrong but I am saying they do not come from the Bible.
Regarding Adam’s sin, it was his choice that made the human rebellion against God unanimous. One could just as well make the case that if Adam had sinned first and Eve had chosen to follow his lead, that we would lay the blame on Eve.
Regardless, nothing you have presented here refutes the clear statements both in the Bible and in Ellen that before the Fall Adam and Eve were Equal. Both the Bible and Ellen affirm that they held Joint Dominion over the earth, under the sovereignty of God.
It is indeed strange that a Movement dominated by the influence of a woman finds it so difficult to open the door for women called by the Holy Spirit to serve in the Gospel ministry!
Eric, EGW was a prophet. The church does not ordain a prophet. Only God does that and whether the church accepts a prophet or not has no relevance to their God ordained ministry.
In which case, to compare EGW’s ministry to any ordained church ministry where the church does the ordaining, is not valid.
What’s a prophet exactly?
And what about apostles? What are they?
If a woman can be a prophet, so can an apostle, an evangelist, a pastor and a teacher (see Ephesians 4:11). There is absolutely no gender stipulation for any of these 5 spiritual gifts. This scriptural text is very plain and if we cannot see this we are possibly blind. Remember, Ellen White was criticised in her day because she was a woman – very much the same prejudice as exists today against woman pastors. The human heart is the same in all generations!
God doesn’t “ordain” anyone in these human rituals. The ritual is done my humans and was begun by the Catholic church.
Bill S.
If I understand correctly, the prophet, whom God speaks directly to does not need “mans” ordination because God does it.
But the person who is in a lesser role then that of a prophet, a pastor, a role that is lower then that of a prophet since God does not speak to the pastor in dreams and visions, has human ordination.
So what is greater, the prophet or the pastor?
A women can be a prophet and speak with authority, teach, and lead (EGW) men, but only as a prophet. If she (EGW) were to ever step down from her role as prophet and function as a pastor we would’ve a problem, she has not been ordained by men and since women cannot be pastors we treat her as being in what, apostasy, rebellion, sin????
Prophet>pastor=woman can be prophet but not pastor
Really???
Have the Catholics abandoned their Biblical belief that their women must have their head covered in church???
True. The SDA Reform offshoot uphold this, but bizarrely teach it means long hair not covering the hair of women in church
Bill,
“Just as a pastor has authority to baptize anyone he deems is qualified for church membership as long as he follows the qualifications stated by the church.”
This appears to me as exclusive, instituted criteria adhered to for organizational purposes only? The church’s baptismal vows keep genuine believers in Jesus Christ locked out and unqualified for baptism. If one does not accept one or more of the “fundamental beliefs” of the SDA church, this is basis for disqualification, is it not?
That’s right, Daniel. The rite of baptism saves no one without faith in Christ. Neither can we know the exact spiritual condition and understanding of any given person. None the less, every denomination has the right to define a “bare minimum” spirituality to join their fellowship. It does not mean they are saved, or not saved just because they join the church. In which case, we need not hurry people into baptism and vote them into the SDA denomination.
They may be “saved” even they don’t join the SDA church. But that does not negate the need to define the SDA fellowship and the minimum we expect from a person who wants to join the fellowship.
‘As Augustine said, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things love.”’
Ah yes Augustine of Hippo. Who used the official persecuting powers of the State to crush, kill, imprison and forceably convert his Donatist schimistic rivals in North Africa.
Because Einstein was at best an agnostic, does that make the theory of relativity wrong?
If as an agnostic Einstein tried to teach theology then it would cause serious doubts – yes. Augustine taught theology and it is on theology that he is problematic.
Just a thought as I read the back and forth on what I wrote.
Rather than damning the messsenger, why not deal with the issues involved. Maybe you can convince me if you are willing to try to open-mindedly and graciously answer my arguments. Several of the things I mention – specifically God’s intention that everyone who was a true follower would become part of the priesthood – are not anything I have seen discussed elsewhere and as far as I can tell are not part of the same-old same-old William describes.
It is always easy, when you have no answers, to start name calling. Wouldn’t we all be better served if instead of slurs we tried to be a little gracious with each other.
One of the main reasons many avoid blogs, or at least the replies posted on them, is the lack of civil discourse.
I write what I write because I honestly believe it is what God’s Word says on whatever I write on. I am willing to grant that those who might disagree with me are very sincere, and I am willingly to consider their ideas with an open mind, but it’s hard to hear them when they are shouting invective or insulting my intelligence or fidelity to the Bible or God.
As for the first post/reply. I may be naive, but I have no idea what the writer is trying to say – especially when it comes to hermeneutics. Maybe if they would be a bit more specific it would help me.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Dan. Sorry blogs can’t be civil and intelligent. Mostly tit for tat ad nauseum. When it comes to “ordination” little is said about it in the Scripture. We have built upon tradition. But the rite of ordination isn’t really the issue with anti WO…..the issue is the unique and sole spiritual leadership of the male. The rite isn’t the point: the spiritual authority and who holds it, is. I once agreed with the anti WO, but now have migrated away from it based on further reflection upon Scripture and dealing with my own biases and up bringing, which frankly effect our interpretation of Scripture MUCH MORE than any are really willing to admit.
Listened to an excellent lecture out of Mercer University (a Christian institution). It was about how the Bible was read and understood by abolitionists, southern slave owners, and slaves themselves (slaves even taking different views of slavery!), and how the position and state of the reader heavily influences what is seen in the same texts each used to either refute or defend slavery.
Listening to the lecture brought to my mind the current debate on WO and how people can take the same text and see something different and give different emphasis to different parts of the same passage at hand.
Dan, I heartily agree that a tremendous dose of humility is badly needed in this discussion. To quit treating each other like members of rival gangs in some impoverished city is a must. It’s embarrassing and heartbreaking to witness and experience how we are addressing each other on this issue. Our faith has become much less attractive because of it.
“Paul’s clearest statement on the subject of the spiritual equality of men and women is found in Galatians 3:27-29 – For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 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. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
What I want know is why do we focus on gender and not Paul’s two other points of Christian equality: race and class? Reading the NT itself, race and class seemed to be a far greater problem than the issue of gender.
Those who oppose WO draw a distinction between equality in salvation of Christ, which applies to everyone regardless of race, class or gender. However, they distinguish that from leadership and ordination, which they say is STILL tied to notions of gender. But why then is leadership and ordination not STILL tied to biblical notions of race and class?
In particular, can anyone who opposes WO then tell me why:
1. We should allow people from ANY RACE to be a Christian leader and ordained as a minister? All the apostles were Jews. All ordained NT ministers seem to be Jews. Titus seems only to have been a helper – his status is about as clear as Junia the female apostle. God established the Jewish race as spiritual leaders and who says that “racial headship” has now changed any different from those attempting to do away with “gender headship”.
2. We should allow people from ANY CLASS to be a Christian leader and ordained as a minister? Paul said for wives to obey their husbdands but in the same breath he said for slaves to obey their masters! Do we interpret this to establish an ongoing principle of “class headship”? I’ve seen quite a lot of churches ordain as elders people who lack a university education, and who are ‘slaves’ of their employers. Maybe we shouldn’t allow such ordinations on the basis of class?
How do those who oppose WO pick-and-choose on the issue of gender but not on race or class? Seems pretty hypocritical to me. Either you apply your theology consistently or your theology is nothing but built on the shifting sands.
“How do those who oppose WO pick-and-choose on the issue of gender”?
Because their arguments are based upon the traditions developed by the post-Apostolic church.
So those who oppose WO are hypocrites?
To say something potential controversial, but it needs to be said, I suspect those same people who now oppose WO on the basis of “gender headship” are the same people, who not very long ago, would have been denied ministerial ordination on the basis of race or class!
When the first Christian missionaries went to Africa a major debate was whether black African converts could be ordained as members of the clergy. Same as in China and many parts of the non-white world. And need I bring up the curse of Ham?
Today we all scoff at how outrageous that notion of “racial headship” was, but at the time serious white Christians took it very seriously. They even could legitmately point to both OT and NT texts to support their views.
Same goes for class. It wasn’t long ago that ordained clergmen, especially in “establishment” denominations like the Anglican-Episcopaleans, had to be of the “gentlemen” class. Again, today it seems silly but again proponents of “class headship” could be supported by the same sort of OT and NT proof texts quoted today.
Nothing new under the sun…
In fact, one could even argue “class headship” for ordination has got worse – not better. In the early day of the SDA Church, and like most early Christian movements going back to the original apostles, clerics came from almost every class and educational background. Today, most Christian denominations (including the SDA Church) require a high-level educational degree, such as an MDiv. Is this not an example of “class headship” in action?
So if we have “gender headship” and “class headship” for our ordained ministers why not “racial headship”?
That WO is even an issue illustrates how far the church has wandered from God. Our practices have become dominated by the traditions of men instead of the instructions of God and our devotion is to tradition instead of actually doing the work of spreading the Gospel. We’re wasting our time arguing about whether or not something works instead of letting it work for the glory of God. That so much energy is being devoted to argument instead of service is tragic.
Can’t agree more, William. This argument is tragic and indicative of our lack of spiritual maturity. And to do a third vote to try and make this settled? What is that saying? “Insanity is doing that which doesn’t work over and over, again.”
I never accused anyone of being a hypocrite. Though others have leveled that charge against me (and might be right – I certainly have my flaws).
We all have our biases and opinions and we are all reluctant to change.
I myself was once a staunch defender of “male headship” as God’s original plan. Then I revisited the first few chapters of Genesis in light of Ellen’s narrative in PP and changed my mind.
No Jim but I am. Those who oppose “gender headship” and perhaps even “class headship” but forget then about “race headship”
We all have our individual biases and blind spots. Some are personal biases and some are religious biases and some are cultural biases.
Living in a college dorm room for 3 years with a young man whose ancestors hail from Africa, was very eye-opening for both of us. He was a person who could openly discuss many of these questions with me. We learnt a lot from each other.
And in my academy dorm I spent a lot of time (after lights-out and room checks) in a neighboring room where a mixture of Afro and Anglo guys hung-out together. Also a very eye-opening experience for all of us.
And throughout my student days I also spent a lot of time with my sister and her friends. Also an eye-opening experience.
And I have worked closely with Jewish and Hindu and Muslim men and women (as well as RC and JW and LDS and others).
You can learn a lot about yourself, by listening carefully to what others are saying. If you are willing to listen and can gain their trust, it is surprising how much others will open-up to you and share what is in their hearts.
On the other hand, if you are convinced that you are the only one who knows anything (about God or whatever) then you are tempted to preach rather than share. Sharing is always a two-way street. Too many Adventists (and too many Anglos and too many Afros and too many Asians and too many men and too many women and too many Liberals and too many Conservatives and too many gays and too many heteros) prefer to live their lives on one-way streets because we feel safer there.
Jesus was a friend of sinners of every stripe. And as a life-long habitual sinner that is very good news for me.
Dan Appel,
I’m not sure from which English Bible you’re quoting from, which is translated from either the NU-Text or M-Text; but would the following verses have a different meaning when distinguishing between male and female members if “kings” was used, rather than “kingdom”?
Revelation 1:6:
“To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father,…” (NU-Text and M-Text)
“To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father,..” NKJV from (Received Text)
Revelations 5:10:
“and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth.” (NU-Text and M-Text)
“And have made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign on the earth.” NKJV, from (Received Text)
Interesting thought.
Since we tend to associate the term “King” with the male gender in English it may well have subconciously affected our thinking without us even realizing it.
One version I just checked, which many believe is very accurate because it is based on the language John would have spoken in his everyday life is the Aramaic Peshitta and is based on very early accurate manuscripts. It translates 1:6 as “And has made us a spiritual kingom to God and his Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
John is quoting Exodus 19:6 which reads, “And you shall be to me a kingdom and priests and an holy people. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”
This is the earliest mention of this concept of priesthood in the Bible and ultimately forms the foundation for the whole concept which is expanded in Leviticus.
Much of what we as Adventists believe and practice is based on King James’ version of the Bible which the Kings translators did their best to make accurate and faithful to the best manuscripts they had. Fortunately we now have older and better manuscripts on which to base our newer translations – with translators equally committed to accuracy. But, it is hard, when you have grown up memorizing and studying and basing your belief and practice and have even formulated your theology on certain faulty translations of particular texts, to even consider change – even if it is more accurately based.
It has been accurately stated that the dog that barks and snarls the loudest is often the most scared.While I have a great deal of sympathy for those who are desparately frightened by changes such as the women’s ordination issue and who find it pushing them out of their comfort zone into a place which is very uncomfortable. As off-putting as their emotional diatribes are, I understand. I have been where they are and have reacted the same way – maybe even worse. I praise God for those who were graciously patient with me as I continued to study and learn and allowed God to soften my heart.
But the bottom line for me is if I have to chooe between long standing and often cherished positions and what the Bible teaches about God’s will, by God’s grace I will go with God’s will.
Dan,
Thank you for your explanation regarding variances within the original Texts. I am fully aware of this issue. As far as the Aramaic New Testament authenticity is concerned, that is another issue altogether.
“Since we tend to associate the term “King” with the male gender in English it may well have subconciously affected our thinking without us even realizing it.”
The mention of “kings” in Revelation 1 and 5 goes further than the gender issue. We see in the following passages that the “sons of God” refer to the New Spiritual nature created in the image (likeness) of Jesus Christ:
“19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.” Rom. 8:19
“6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” Gal.4:1-7
“10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” Heb. 2:10
Paul refers to this again in Gal. 4:19: “My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you,”
The ‘Kingship” in each and every Believer is Jesus Christ Himslef; this attribute is not of ourselves, but of God. The “Priesthood” in us is also of Christ, and not of ourselves. The Glory is His, not ours.
10 And have made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign on the earth.” We reign by His Power and Kingship, and offer up Spiritual Sacrifices through His Spirit.
The motives of each individual seeking ordination will only be judged by God, whether they are inspired by the Holy Spirit or have their own agenda to fulfill. As I said elsewhere, it’s a serious issue and the spiritual implications should not be taken lightly.
And, no, I am not “frightened” nor “uncomfortable” with the issue of WO. I am not threatened by this issue at all.
Unless you become as a child, you can’t enter the Kingdom. What should that tell us?? All of this arguing and heat about headship. It is the Holy Spirit that calls one to be an apostle, a prophet, a teacher, a pastor, a lover of God. One need not belong to any church organization to be wooed by the Holy Spirit. i myself can be a bearer of the “GOOD NEWS”, without being ordained by any Earthly organization. The speculative parameters of mankind doesn’t override God’s calling. In the beginning the male of the species was created as the muscular physical specimen to physically protect the female childbearing mother of nations, of which a softer, gentler, sacrificing, loving nature, was required. But the soul bearing brain of woman was equal to the man, intelligence wise, EQUAL. Think for a moment, currently the church is made up with a plurality of women. Our generation has less than 40% of husband and wife
procreating. The male species scatters his seed indiscriminately, among many women, and gloats of it. The male has abandoned any reason to be a patriarch to the family. He is macho, proud, devoid of Godly demeanor. It is the woman who provides the nurturing role for the children, and “praise God” for the devoted Grandmothers who carry on when their daughters go astray as do the males. Having held high offices in the local church, it was always the women who provided the time, planning, and carrying out the majority of every need, while the male provided the Pastor cushy role, but taking credit and standing forward for photo opts. The Holy Spirit is calling for “who so ever will” to step forward and shout the Love of God to each and everyone of His children, not just the lord and elected king of the castle. The macho male has a forever traditional demand to flex his male ship, which is phoney baloney, and he is unable to face the intellectual equality of the female.
“The male species scatters his seed indiscriminately, among many women, and gloats of it”. Speak for your self brother. You must be living on the planet of the apes!!!
Am sorry Dan Appel, but you’ve miserably failed in your attempt to justify WO through the Bible.
And that is because . . .
You make a lot of presumption without any bible evidence. In addition to what Tapiwa said (the first post), I would add if Jesus was so concerned about the culture he wouldn’t have dined and feasted with publicans or he would avoid being around prostitutes or “sinners” or he would definitely not touch any unclean things like dead bodies or lepers. There were many women capable, but He didn’t choose any of them because God had already declared that only men should be the sheperds of the flock of God. This is witnessed from the choice of priests to the elders of the church. No wonder Paul forbids women to teach (unlike preaching which is allowed to women.).
The hysterical aversion demonstrated here to female ordination is both hormonal and learned behavior, culturally nourished, and has nothing to do with God, Ellen or Scriptures. When faced with defeat, those hiding their misogynistic attitudes in fortresses of holiness have arrived at the bastion of their last resort. And they are doomed, to be overrun by reality since defensive holiness doesn’t fare well in corporate settings of denominationalism. Oh, the church will probably attempt the appeasement path with carefully contrived words to allow victory claims for all. But the sham, if there is one, won’t appease the Glorious Guardians of Good, the traditionalists who will revile the invasion of “modernism” into their disappearing precincts.
Beside the cultural development, there are two more extremely powerful energizers for anti-WO behavior. Ego and testosterone. These two are the Twin Peaks of no-woman’s-land and the masculine man cave/zone sullied by feminine unwanted and unwelcome intrusion. Once there was clear demarcation for the sexes. Not so today. Now woman commentators hang out on NFL football sidelines with a referee on board this year, golf has female analysts, women supply the military with officers and commanders, women doctors are common as are women pilots and CEOs. Man’s former world of dominance has disintegrated and now church.
I know all this from my own experience, about which I have confessed on a recent opinion piece on this forum.
Do I suppose that my little note here will change any minds? Silly. No. All I suggest is for those so opposed is to stop for a while and ask themselves what really is behind their opposition. And, why do you have to search so far and wide to defend what is really not a religious issue, but a hormonal and an emotional one.
Larry,
“and has nothing to do with God, Ellen or Scriptures”. In that order? Or just, nothing to do with God?
Daniel, none of the above. “God” doesn’t care (not sure what gender he/she is), Ellen was a woman, and Scriptures are ink on paper. So crank up testosterone, inflate ego to afterburner, because that’s all you have, and fight mightily to keep them women in their place!
Larry,
That wasn’t very nice. I wasn’t referring to WO, but you saw it that way.
And regarding “testosterone”, who’s, yours or mine?
I guess I missed your meaning. Your pull quote was from my reference to WO. So I assumed you were an opponent to WO and your remark was a backhand slap at me! So my testosterone reply was a good natured rejoinder!
So set me straight, so I can modify the hormone thing!
It’s the same feeling demonstrated by boys who have a tree house with a sign “no girls allowed” which gives them a feeling of macho superiority while the little girls know who and why they are here: to mother and care for immature little boys until they grow up and recognize that girls are pretty nice and may be nice to live with. But that immature attitude soon sees that they are wise, compassionate, tolerant and relate personally in a way that is very much appreciated.
To expand this to the world and the church, both are impoverished without both sexes.
Are you saying that Christ was afraid to speak against the “culture” of His day that kept the women away from ordained positions??
Dan Appel,
In examining the Exodus experience of Israel you omit the leprosy of Miriam. It bears heavily on the question of women’s ordination. While both Miriam and Aaron confront Moses about their status, the judgment and punishment fall entirely on Miriam. Miriam has no status in Israel, no office, while Aaron is the high priest. Chronologically Moses has just appointed the seventy elders. Evidently this provokes Miriam and she covets status and acknowledgment that the LORD has spoken through her also. I reproduce Numbers 12:1-14 below for reference.
1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.
2 And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it.
3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)
4 And the Lord spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out.
5 And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth.
6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
9 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he departed.
10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.
11 And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned.
12 Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother’s womb.
13 And Moses cried unto the Lord, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee.
14 And the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again.
I want to draw attention to verse 14 and ask two questions:
Does not the LORD Himself draw specific attention to the sex of Miriam in justification of her punishment? Why does the punishment fall entirely upon Miriam?
The only other person in Scripture to be plagued with leprosy by God was Gehazi, the covetous servant of Elisha. Coveting status that God has not elected us to is perilous. Miriam is our example.
Equality is is something Lucifer grasped for. Election is God choosing whom He will choose…
Dan,
An excellent reminder that it is our relationship with God and our obedience to Him that matter far more than our gender.
I’d like to challenge you and others to just stop talking about WO because of how certain any discussion is to stir-up fruitless controversy that does not bring anyone closer to God. There are far more profitable and beneficial topics on which we can and should be expending our keystrokes.
William, what you have written is worth careful consideration.
As I said in my essay, I think that God delayed the adoption of ordination for women in our church for the very cause you write about. It was being grasped at for the wrong reasons. The motivation was all wrong. At the same time, because a person’s motivation is wrong does not necessarily mean that the basic issue is wrong.
The only redeeming value coming out of the initial debates on the ordination of women could be that it caused many of us to go back and to examine what the Bible directly and indirectly said on the subject as well as to examine our own hearts concerning our motivations for opposing it..
When we did, many of us have concluded that, for the right reasons, it is God’s will to ordain women – that God can elect to call a woman just as much as he can elect to call a man.
Thanks for some great thoughts.
Because Miriam was the initial instigator of which Aaron was, once again, a follower not a leader. She just happened to be a she. There is no evidence her sex condemned her.
14 And the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again.
Why does the LORD God use such sexually biased language to describe his sentiments about Miriam and her covetousness?
There is no gender bias in this story. Miriam was the chief instigator as Kevin said. She was not singled-out for special punishment because she was a woman, but because she deserved to be punished.
If Amram had spit in the face of one of his sons it would also have been a disgrace.
The law of leprosy was that after being healed one had to wait 7 days before being allowed back into the camp. The only point of this passage is that Miriam was subject to the same laws as any other Israelite.
The only gender bias in this narrative is in the minds of readers who are looking for gender bias. Do you really think your God would smite a woman with leprosy and spare a man who was equally guilty?
Jim,
Miriam coveted status she was not given. She was not given status because she was a woman. That is self-evident in God speaking of her in a sexually biased comment. Look at the language the LORD uses.
Do you really think your God would smite a woman with leprosy and spare a man who was equally guilty?
That is a straw-man question. I said Gehazi, Elisha’s servant was struck with leprosy. It is the plague of God for covetousness. Miriam was coveting a station withheld from her. Arron and Moses were chosen. Miriam was not. God’s own language about the matter makes it clear she was not chosen because of her sex. God chooses whom he will choose, for the reasons He chooses. It is contrary to the biblical narrative for the church to choose women for headship.
God has always differentiated between men and women. This is clearly visible from the creation itself. Why are men and women so different physically and psycholigically?
Dan,
The important question is what the Bible teaches about men and women, and their roles in the nuclear and the extended family (the church). In this area – biblical interpretation, however, you are no trained scholar, and your paper is not the result of textual empirical research but of deductive reasoning – speculation.
While I cannot deny that your article is good entertainment, there is clear evidence in the document that your conclusions are deductive,and not inductive, and cannot be taken seriously.
Eduard,
I will take the compliment on the entertainment value of what I wrote and smile at your judgment of my lack of training or aptitude as a biblical scholar. You just might be surprised.
As to whether my conclusions are deductive or inductive, just because someone disagrees with your own chosen conclusions, inductively arrived at, does not mean that their inductive methodology is faulty.
One rarely attracts someone to their way of thinking by trying to diminish them – in other words, you rarely make yourself look big by trying to make the other person look small – which all too often happens in this forum.
In law school, my attorney friends tell me, you are taught that if you cannot attack the evidence or the idea, then attack the person. And if that doesn’t work, then yell loud and hope that it influences the jury.
Just possibly, if you were to try to graciously present your ideas instead of trying to demean me, it might make it easier to hear what you are trying to say.
While I may not agree with his conclusions at this point, at least William Abbott took the time and energy to place his ideas in the market place rather than attacking the messenger. That approach is much more likely to sway the thinking of those who read what he wrote.
Eduard,
Well stated. Well targeted. Duly noted.
Thank you, Dan, for your summary of Bible arguments for and against WO. It seems to me, though, that the title is misleading and that this confusion will be the source of most of the conflict after the vote in San Antonio. “To ordain or not to ordain” may be a very important question, but it is not the question the delegates will decide in San Antonio. There the question is not whether or not to ordain women but who should make the decision.
It is true that many people who favor assigning the decision to the divisions take that stance because they favor the ordination of women to ministry, and almost all who favor a no vote take that position because they oppose the ordination of women — but that is still not what is on the ballot. Only one vote is scheduled and that vote is to authorize or not authorize divisions to make their own decisions.
Clarity on this issue may not be very important if the vote is yes. Regardless of how the vote is understood, the divisions will decide what to do in their territories. But clarity on what is actually being voted will become “the question” if the vote is no. Though a no vote will simply mean that the GC administration’s proposal failed, so nothing changes, it seems very likely that the male headship advocates will proclaim that the GC in session voted not to ordain women to ministry — which is not on the ballot. Some may go so far as to claim that the no vote means women cannot be pastors, church leaders, adult SS teachers, cannot baptize or perform weddings, cannot serve as local church elders, cannot train at the seminary to be pastors, etc. In fact, a no vote won’t say no to any of those things, but many will believe it did.
I think it is great to argue for or against ordaining women, but let’s recognize that that topic becomes instantly obsolete the moment the votes are counted. At that point the question will become a division question, not a GC question, or the whole discussion goes away and the church waits for the next proposal to discuss.
You’re right.
The underlying issue is one of the church, a matter of ecclesiology, and whether, to be the church, we all need to be in lock-step on issues like this in the various cultures around the world.
Charles DeGaulle used to take great pride in the fact that at any given moment he could tell you what each student in France was studying. Does being the Church mean that we have that kind of unanimity around the world; or does it mean that we agree on certain foundational issues and principles and allow freedom in the rest. Then the discussion could center on foundational issues – what exactly it means to be a Seventh-day Adventist, what it is that defines us, and what may be important but open to individual interpretation.
Our current General Conference leadership appears to want to take a DeGaulle approach and is pushing for greater and greater uniformity around the world – irrespective of culture or individual situation. Some of the rest of us are more concerned with unity in diversity – within carefully chosen boundaries comprised of the basics.
Thanks for thinking, and for your thoughts.
In other words, women’s ordination is here to stay. The horse has long left the barn and it ain’t coming back.
That will not change the difference between men and women.
I was baptized in an Arkansas creek almost 80 years ago.
My official capacity in our church began over 60 years
ago with various positions. The one I treasured most was
church pastor. I have served on many committees and that experience leads me to predict that regardless how the
vote goes on WO, the organizations presently ordaining
women will continue to do so. I also predict more women
will be elected to administrative positions. I have a
PhD degree.Some say PhD means “Piled higher & deeper”
Yes, WO will remain in the church and continue as a practice no matter the vote in July. The vote is an exercise of futility.
I appreciate this article!!!! It was balanced and reasonable and calm.
Those of you who are being hostile and negative sound like you didn’t even read the article. Some of your rationalizations don’t even apply to what the author said.
The Bible uses us! We don’t use the Bible to speak the way we want it to. Its an ancient book about ancient people and their culture and journeys with God. We learn from the stories but can’t use cultural things as edicts for forever. Principles and morals last but behavior and culture changes and should! We should not limit the God of the universe to only the words written both as inspired and also personal opinion by others. I think He is larger and more magnificent then we allow Him to be. He created us and we chose to disobey and are living with the consequences. He wanted so much more for His beings and works with us where we are but would so wish we had stuck with plan A.
The topic of women ordination is taking ground more than anyone could think. So many people are confused and hope for the final decision from GC. Whether it could be a reality or no, I “think” women have a role to play in preaching the gospel for the second coming of Jesus. Sometimes, I feel sad because in some SDA, women can’t preach. Some pretend that they have to shut out in the congregation as a “God law”. That’s my biggest problem, not ordination. God’s church will always exist whether we accept ordination or not. It can not be failed. It is a sin if women preach from the plattform? Is the Bible against that? Could the women not able to deliver a central sermon in the sabbath worship? Some pretend doing that, they are grasping for headship or attempting against man dignity who is only God image. Why didnt Jesus come on earth as woman…? Only the priest sacrify the lamb…? Bla bla bla…I think there is no relation with preaching the gospel. A woman can preach without being a pastor paid by the conference. If there is a problem, could someone clarify my doubt.
The topic of women ordination is taking ground more than anyone could think. So many people are confused and hope for the final decision from GC. Whether it could be a reality or no, I “think” women have a role to play in preaching the gospel for the second coming of Jesus. Sometimes, I feel sad because in some SDA, women can’t preach. Some pretend that they have to shut out in the congregation as a “God law”. That’s my biggest problem, not ordination. God’s church will always exist whether we accept ordination or not. It can not be failed. It is a sin if women preach from the plattform? Is the Bible against that? Could women not able to deliver the central or main sermon in a sabbath worship? Some pretend, by doing that, they would be grasping for headship or attempting against man dignity who is only God image. Why didnt Jesus come on earth as woman…? why only the priest sacrify the lamb…? Bla bla bla…I think there is no relation with preaching the gospel in the church from the plattform. A woman can preach without being a pastor paid by the conference. If there is a problem, could someone clarify my doubt.
Having just read the article and the replies we must conclude that there is a huge amount of heat surrounding this topic.
No wonder GC President NC Wilson decreed this subject must never be taken to the floor of the GC in session.
Then and now each ordination committee affirms or denies the call of the Holy Spirit of an individual to serve as an ordained pastor. A vote to ordain, recommends the pastor to be accepted by the rest of the world as a qualified pastor. Ordination assists the pastor in moving around in church employment. Remove ordination and the unordained pastor may still be invited to serve in any place they are valued.
Do not think for a moment that a vote to allow divisions to decide this issue will force the rest of the divisions to accept or not a pastor who disagrees on this subject. On the other hand do not think for a moment that an entire union will simply respond to a “NO” vote and conclude that the vote is the voice of God telling them they don’t know how to read the Scriptures.
Where do we go after a “NO” vote? Those who think “YES” will practice their “YES” and those who think “NO” will have to decide if they will reject entire unions as rebellious simply because they could not, by compelling sharing of the Word, alter the conscience of the “YES” believers.
It seems to me that either the Holy Spirit will work a miracle of grace to unit all believers on this subject or we will have to agree to disagree and part ways conference by conference, union by union, division by division. Let’s pray for unity and humility.
In the end the vote will not be electronic or by a show of cards. The vote will be taken by our feet, one pair at a time.
It was Luther who said: “I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God.”
Today, either we must convince through sound reading of the Word or we have no basis for working together. Majority vote will not cut it and it never has.
I will not force you to have a woman pastor. Do restrict me from having one if I believe God’s Word supports this and the Holy Spirit affirms it. I MUST live according to MY understanding after careful study of the WORD.
Allen Nash, You meant to say, “Do ,em>not restrict me… correct?
“A bird and a fish might love each other, but where would they make a home?” Where and how shall we worship together if we are separated on this issue?
The issue of WO is controversial—on this we all agree.
Can we make room for differences in practice within the church, leaving it with each ordination committee to decide which candidates are qualified?
Is there anyone who believes the GC is infallible either in session or out of session? Is there anyone who believes the moment the session begins all votes are inerrant, without fail, ever!
Either we unite based on the clear teaching of God’s Word or we make allowances for the debatable subjects so the church is not divided.
Those pro WO draw a circle to include those Anti-WO. Will those Anti-WO draw a circle to include those pro, or would they prefer to have a church without the Pro-WO?
In the face of warnings of “dire consequences” if union conferences vote in favor of WO ahead of the GC session, unions have voted YES anyway. It was not an act of rebellion. It was an act of loyalty to God’s Word over the threats of “a king.” The practice of WO is here to stay because sincere believers are convinced God’s Word teaches it.
It is a dangerous game that is being played by the Anti-WO group. If you don’t believe this is right then don’t practice it, but don’t try to require those who do believe it is right follow your practice, unless you really don’t want our participation in the gospel commission! This is all about mission vs. human power.
Has this issue become one of the testing truths? Can we not embrace each other and allow for differences on points, which are debatable? It is clear this issue is not one where there is consensus.
Those pro WO are not asking that a female pastor become the GC President. They are simply asking their understanding of God’s Word be valued. So, YES, do NOT try to restrict my conscience.
“In the face of warnings of “dire consequences” if union conferences vote in favor of WO ahead of the GC session, unions have voted YES anyway. It was not an act of rebellion. It was an act of loyalty to God’s Word over the threats of “a king.” The practice of WO is here to stay because sincere believers are convinced God’s Word teaches it.”
Correct me if I am wrong but this is my understanding of how the SDA Church is set up to function:
The Unions get together by means of delegates every 5 years to deal with common interest such as changes to the church manual, etc. Each Union does not write their own church manual, this is done collectively. While it is the Unions that ordain individuals to ministry, the qualifications for ordination are determined when the Unions meet together every 5 years. A president and other GC officers are then elected to oversee the world wide work and remind the individual unions of what they have collectively voted in session. The GC president, in warning the Unions to wait, is not acting as “a king” but is doing the job the Unions collectively voted him to do. The Unions are not rebelling against the GC president but against the other Unions. It is the Unions meeting in session that can impose “dire consequences” if they choose.
But are we trying to put new wine into old wine skins? Is our concept of church structure and how it relates to ordination correct? Does the need for change go far beyond the limited concept of ordination?
That is all the vote is about: allowing it, but not forcing it. To agree to disagree and still live together in harmony based upon love for Christ, each other, and a respect that says and believes each is seeking to do God’s will. It is as differing viewpoint on the governance of the Church, not a disagreement over a fundamental belief.
We can then return unite with the catholic church as we are at it. Nowonder young people don’t take church seriously.
thanks William for noting my typo… oops
Brother William you asked: “Where and how shall we worship together if we are separated on this issue?”
Let’s not mix up uniformity with unity.
We will each worship where we are welcomed and valued. If my position that WO is Biblical offends you, if you are in the majority, and if you make an issue of it then I will need to worship in another congregation. If we have a male pastor why couldn’t we both worship at the same place? I am willing. Are you willing to have me?
Are you suggesting that a simple vote William, will unite the birds and the fish so they will then by virtue of the vote be able to dwell together? No, of course not because we are NOT dealing with an issue so greatly different as birds and fish.
Do we agree on the fundamentals of belief? Yes, then we can be members of the same church and work together. Can I allow you to eat chocolate and still welcome you in MY congregation or MUST we agree on this practice before being willing to worship in the same place, etc. etc. etc.?
It is up to you if we worship together. I am not going to exclude you because of your view on this subject. I can accept either a male or female pastor. Can we both accept a male pastor and work together for the cause of God? Must we be exclusive or did I misunderstand you?
Roman Catholics use the term, “Separated Brethren” to describe heretics and schismatics these days. I’m good with that. Adventists and Catholics are united in more doctrine than we are separated. But we are remain in fellowship; separate. We cannot eat the communion together, we cannot confess our sins the same way, we don’t recognize the authority of the church and scripture the same way. We gather for worship on different days.
Perfect agreement is not possible in this sinful world. Jesus Christ prayed for us that we would be one, even as he and His Father are one.
The business at hand is to persuade. Instead the plan is to separate. You will do your own thing. It is righteousness to you. Not ordaining women is unrighteousness because God has created us all equal.
How can we join with you? To us, we read the bible and we see the ordination of women to headship as disobedient. We think Israel and the Church, historically, have not erred but been faithful and obedient to the Word of God. In the past we have correctly understood God has not choosen women for headship.
Even if we are wrong, we are sincerely wrong, and we can’t compromise and go along with the unbiblical change of doctrine. It would be obeying man rather than God.
I wasn’t aware of our church doctrine on male headship. Can someone direct me to the correct fundamental, or agreed upon statement or guideline with that information?
Its in the bible: Ephesian 5
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
William, even though our study of the Bible on this particular issue has currently led us to different places, your gracious approach to presenting your convictions is refreshing. Thank you!
Unity in fundamentals is essential.
To view the differences between those pro and anti WO as the extreme differences of birds and fish creates a polarization that seems beyond excessive.
We agree the business at hand is to persuade. Sincerity goes a long way in fellowship. Elevating a practice that has never been a core belief of the SDA Church to a “we would be obeying man rather than God” seems to inject the need to force each other to conclusions we cannot persuade.
Again, no one is forcing YOU to accept a female pastor as YOUR pastor. If I hold the sincere belief I can accept a female pastor, are you indicating the two of us cannot continue in one fellowship? I have no plan to separate so unless you are wanting to force me away from you why don’t we worship together on the same day and worship the same Creator as He designated.
The strange new doctrine is male headship. When giving doctrinal studies, using SDA lessons from Amazing Facts or any other source, reviewing the fundamental beliefs of our church did I miss a pillar of faith—male headship? Actually THAT is the new doctrine that has crept into this debate.
Separation is NOT the solution so I hope anti WO proponents don’t push it that far. Again I can accept you and worship with you. Can you do the same for me? Or are you advocating male headship as one more fundamental belief of the SDA Church?
Allen,
As I see it, the root issue is whether we can reasonably or logically presume such a limit on the ability of an unlimited God who plainly tells us He will do what He wants when and how He wants to do it. So, if the opponents of WO lose the vote and cause splits in churches as they threaten will happen, were those splits not already happening? I think probably so. Have we lost anything with their departure? I don’t think so because the people who argue such views often are already going through the back door and we can’t force a person to stay who isn’t willing to let God be God.
Allen,
Of course we can worship together, but not in full communion. We will not be one in doctrine. We will be separated by our differing beliefs. If this were a discussion about ordaining transgendered persons, the same would apply, we could worship together but we would be separated by different doctrine. I have attended mass in the Roman Catholic church. I can kneel at communion rail, but I cannot take the communion. I draw as close as I can. But I am separated from my fellow believers in Christ by my divergent beliefs.
Ordaining women is no small matter. You have to throw out the universally accepted, historical, plainly obvious, understanding of scripture and of how God has ordered Israel.
Jesus, the Son of God, is the King of Israel. He is utterly complete and wholly man in Himself. He is the Head of the Church. He is, was, and always shall be, a man. God the Father will always be masculine.
God has not chosen women for headship. He has chosen them to be daughters, sisters, wives and mothers. As the scripture says; ..for the husband is the head of the wife.. ..therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing..
Many in the Adventist church are intent on implementing the Doctrine of Equality. To them it is a righteous doctrine. Their biggest obstacle is the Doctrine of Equality is not biblical. Instead the bible teaches the Doctrine of Election. God chooses. Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Samuel, Saul, David, Mary, Jesus – He chooses Israel. The LORD Jesus said, “I choose you, you did not choose me”
Some of the proponents of Women’s Ordination declare; “God is choosing women and we will thwart Him if we impede His Spirit” But God has not changed His mind. He has chosen whom He has chosen.
Dan Appel has attempted to discuss the issue from a biblical perspective. He is to be commended. He tackles the hard verses too and says… “it says what it says” one point for the other side,(maybe)’ Almost all the argument for WO is not biblical argument at all.
Jesus Christ had some hard sayings about adultery and divorce. The church has struggled and largely failed to be faithful to His doctrine for all these 2,000 years. In His Sermon on the Mount where the Lord teaches with authority and expands our understanding of the Law, teaching w/authority, not as other men. He chooses to harden not lessen the inequality of Man and Woman.
..But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Consider how He reinforces the unequal station of…
Jesus is NOT here affirming the unequal station of men and women regarding marriage or divorce as God’s intention. Read the whole story. “Moses gave you these laws because of the hardness of your hearts but from the beginning it was not so.”
And it pains me to see within the SDA church those who are defending our treatment of women because of the hardness of our own hearts, whereas from the beginning it was not so.
The language that Jesus Christ uses is not the language of equality. It is the man lusting after a woman. It is the man divorcing, it is the man causing the woman to commit adultery. No reciprocity – instead unequal status.
It is the remarriage and divorce that was not from the beginning. Not the different status between man and woman. It is more than obvious what Jesus is talking about. The words, the sentences, the ideas; all reinforce an inequality between man and woman.
I’m not defending anything – I’m repeating what Jesus Christ said.
“Given the almost instantaneous scramble to spin what he said by those who are almost frantically committed to maintaining the status quo, and the sudden proliferation of invitations to seminars and special events proclaiming that they will reveal to their attendees why the Church has always been right in their traditional position,”
Author of this text is condemning those who have tried to explain the traditional position of the Church, yet the purpose of this essay is to give his spin on the Bible texts he chose regarding this matter. Why is his approach any different? Is that the true meaning of the words “study Bible for yourself”? People just cannot stop helping us to study Bible.
Edmund Jones,
I haven’t had the pleasure of knowing you, but I truly appreciated your comments! You’ve been around long enough to have seen similar dilemmas and how they resolve. God gets it done with or without us.
Cherry, we have left plan A so long ago, no one seems to remember what it was!
Dan Appel,
Thank you for your thoughtful insight and clear discussion. I won’t be at the GC but I get the idea of what is being thought over or not thought over.
Happy Sabbath to all
Don’t you people have anything more important to do than debate (I really wanted to use another word) each other. You seem to just go in circles.
It is interesting how the discussion on the topic of the ordination of women to ministry has shifted the past several months to a more basic discussion of the idea of “male headship.” Even that is not the core issue, but it gets closer than the ongoing discussion about ordination.
Wherever one stands on the subject, it is important to understand its history in the Adventist Church. One excellent historical source is a recent e-book. You can read it at: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/433232
The irony is that many who would have strong feelings about reading any authors other than Seventh-day Adventists, especially when it comes to anything biblical, are supporting a doctrine introduced into Adventism by fundamentalist non-Adventists.
As I said, whatever side of the issue you are on, this e-book will be a great resource.
May I greet you in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The SDA Church Has dropped its Standard way back as from 1914 during the first World War. when the leaders approve the resolution to defend the father Land .
I appreciate the author’s timely article/”essay”, use of Bible texts, personal effort and interwoven personal opinion however measured.
Time afforded to ordination without regard to gender is a waste. Regardless of ANY General Conference finding/decision, the deeper more poignant query SHOULD be: By what authority were churches (namely SDA) allowed to ordain genders in the first place?
Ascribing church ordination and/or certification to men has long been the authority of the individual churches. A person may say it has been the General Conference BUT….each church has decided and submitted names whom they believe are ‘called’. The state in which the SDA church has found itself is the proverbial painter’s corner! How so? Read on.
Consider this: For decades, the SDA church has afforded ordination etc. to young church laymen (not laypersons; gender intentioned) and MEN in other fields of study; persons that were NOT religion OR theology majors! As these individuals have painted the walls and halls with sermons and evangelistic meetings and arrived at the final room and final corner, the church MUST broach the question: How can [it] justify ‘ordaining’ and/or ‘certifying’ grossly unqualified persons (namely ‘field-of-study-hoppers’ FOSH) and NOT ordain QUALIFIED theology major graduates of opposite gender (female)!!!
My point of “wasting time” (of which I too have done) is that giving time, breath and effort to this topic distracts from the eschatological final orbit, dusty state, wobbly condition of this orb we call ‘home’. This gender issue is a demonic conniving distraction! It’s about saving souls NOT about the gender of the person in the pulpit! The SDA church MUST and WILL allow each church to decide. Afterall, that IS and has been, the off-the-record policy. : )
However flawed our current SDA ordination practices may be, and they are, in fairness it must be said that the call of the Holy Spirit to pastoral ministry does not only fall on those whose college studies were directed to that calling. And it fairness it must be said that the SDA church does have a process in place to affirm those callings.
In fairness it must also be said that all of the original 12 Apostles and most of the other early leaders both in the Apostolic church and in the SDA church, were “FOSH”.
It is not only your academic studies that qualify you to work for God. The most important qualifications for that vocation are the Gifts of the Spirit. And God gives those gifts according to God’s own choices and criteria, not ours.
Jim,
Well said!
Next week at the Gulf States Conference Campmeeting, I will be presenting a week-long seminar on Gift-Based Ministry that focuses intensively on the Holy Spirit. As God has led me in preparing my presentations, I have been impressed time and again about how large of a role the Holy Spirit has played in spiritual history and how important it is that we be connected with him and how greatly God wants to be able to work through us. I have also been impressed with how quickly disbelief separates us from Him and prevents us from seeing His promises fulfilled. So your point about the church not having a structure for recognizing when a person is called by the Holy Spirit highlights the church’s greatest weakness because it means we aren’t even looking for the source of the power Jesus promised would inhabit us and work through us. We aren’t seeing God do amazing things, so we’re not expecting to see Him do great things and thinking everything should be done the same as always. So we should not be surprised that people who have not experienced the power of God could hold such strong opinions against the ordination of women. After all, it was unbelief that prevented Jesus from performing many miracles in his hometown of Nazareth and it is unbelief in the Holy Spirit that is preventing people from either seeing or understanding the working of the Holy Spirit as He tries to awaken the church to action. They remind me of Isaiah’s lament in chapter 42:18-20: Hear, you deaf; look, you blind, and see! Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like the messenger I send? Who is blind like the one commited to me, blind like the servant of the Lord? You have seen many things, but have paid no attention; your ears are open, but you hear nothing.”
May God rescue us from such unbelief!
Jesus said, “I came not to bring peace, but a sword.”
Many seem to want peace at any price, even if it means abandonment of scripture. The discussion is a moral issue that many if not most refuse to recognize. Those who do consider it a moral issue on both sides will never compromise for the sake of unity. “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
No one has any authority to claim one thing is important, while something else is incidental. Women’s ordination to elders and pastors is a novelty that came into Adventism a few decades ago. It is simply not biblical as many scholars have pointed out from the outset. The church made a terrible mistake, and is now trying desperately to justify itself for its folly.
And as for “saving souls”, no soul is saved unless it is from disloyalty to God and His word, to loyalty to God and His word.
Male headship was ordained and established by God in the beginning and EGW agrees in this comment.
“The most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. Daniel 4:17. AG 41.1
Among the lower creatures Adam had stood as king …; but when he transgressed, this dominion was forfeited. The spirit of rebellion, to which he himself had given entrance, extended throughout the animal creation. Thus not only the life of man, but the nature of the beasts, the trees of the forest, the grass of the field, the very air he breathed, all told the sad lesson of the knowledge of evil. AG 41.2
Not only man but the earth had by sin come under the power of the wicked one…. At his creation Adam was placed in dominion over the earth. But by yielding to temptation, he was brought under the power of Satan. “Of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage” (2 Peter 2:19). When man became Satan’s captive, the dominion which he held, passed to his conqueror. Thus Satan became “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4). He had usurped that dominion over the earth which had been originally given to Adam. AG 41.3”
Unless the church is able to repent of its faulty action in ordaining women to positions they are not qualified to hold, the outcome will continue to lead the church on a downward path until it is no longer useful to God to accomplish His goal.
None the less, God will yet create a community of believers by way of the bible who will honor Him by careful obedience to His word and thus accomplish His will as He intended in the beginning.
Let Gods will be done. Let not arguments splint the remnant church.
Amen !
I guess Paul would say after a long dialogue on any subject, “Let the ignorant remain ignorant.” Or, “Ephriam is join to idols, let him alone.”
So if each side considers the other side and their position, each side can consider the other side “ignorant” and “joined to idols” and at some point “let it alone”.
By the way, Brent Shakespeare has an article on ADvindicate that represents my view and with him, I agree on his main points.
According to Ellen whom you love to quote, our greatest sin is neither “ignorance” nor “idolatry”. “The inhumanity of man toward man is our greatest sin.” This saying she borrowed from Robert Burns rather than from the Bible but it is true nevertheless.
I cannot fathom how denouncing those who disagree with you as “ignorant” or “joined to idols” manifests the spirit of Jesus, or how it builds-up the community of believers.
If you can only maintain fellowship with those who see things in exactly your own way, you will end-up in a very small church.
“I cannot fathom how denouncing those who disagree with you as “ignorant” or “joined to idols” manifests the spirit of Jesus, or how it builds-up the community of believers.
If you can only maintain fellowship with those who see things in exactly your own way, you will end-up in a very small church.”
Take it up with Paul and the other bible writers including the concepts Jesus articulated. Your “big tent” concept is neither biblical nor Protestant. And we don’t measure success as Christians simply by “how many”. We measure Christanity by truth in scripture.
So, your amazement is not impressive as the bible defines God’s church as a small remnant. No “big tent” theology in scripture. But rather, “Straight is the gate and narrow is the way……..”
You may want to reconsider your whole concept of how to define the church and on what basis you do that. Or….maybe not.
Read John 17. And then the Book of Acts.
Circumcision was a big a deal then or bigger, than is WO today.
I have to ask:
Why did Paul circumcise Timothy, apparently with his own hands? Why did Paul resist the circumcision of Titus?
Well I explained this once before but here it goes again.
1) In the Jewish tradition you were considered to be Jewish if your mother was Jewish.
2) Timothy’s mother and his maternal grandmother were Jewish. Therefore the Jews would consider Timothy to be a Jew.
3) An uncircumcised Jewish male was an affront to Judaism.
4) Paul circumcised Timothy so that Timothy would not cause offense to (Christian or non-Christian) Jews.
5) Titus was a Gentile so none of the foregoing applied to him.
I failed to mention –
6) Circumcising Titus would be an indication that Gentiles required circumcision to be saved. This was directly contrary to Paul’s teachings.
Bottom line – circumcising Timothy was the right thing to do because it sent the right message to the Jews (Christianity was not opposed to Judaism), whereas circumcising Titus would have sent the wrong message to the Gentiles (Gentiles had to become Jews to be saved).
In the same manner, ordaining women is an offense to some and refusing to ordain women is an offense to others.
This is NOT about the Bible per se, because the Bible does not instruct us to ordain anyone (unlike circumcision which was commanded in the OT for any male who wished to be joined to God’s people). It is very much about personal, religious and cultural biases regarding traditional church practices.
Here the example of how Paul related to circumcision (which was dividing the Christian church in his time) is very instructive. Ordain women where refusing to ordain them is an offense. Do not ordain women where ordaining them is an offense.
This is the motion that will be considered at GC Session and I certainly favor its approval.
Jim,
So the circumcision of Timothy was about not giving offense to the Jews? It (the circumcision of Timothy) sent the right message to the Jews?? But it was all for show, right? No substance to it, if I read you correctly. As Paul says, “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing”
Maybe, just maybe, the covenant of circumcision was and remains binding on physical Israel. Maybe there is more here than just messaging and spin. Maybe it was just plain wrong for a Jew to be uncircumcised. Maybe Paul is talking about God’s superseding covenant of grace when he says, “circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing” Gentiles didn’t gain a thing getting circumcised and they risk a false faith in the flesh if they did. Jews on the other hand, couldn’t be faithful to their calling without being circumcised.
In other words: “the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” God hasn’t changed his mind about Physical Israel and circumcision. It is the law of God. The law of the Jews. And He hasn’t changed His mind about gentiles and circumcision either. It is nothing to them.
In other words, Jesus opens the door, (becomes the door) wherein gentiles can be reconciled with God. But He does not create equality between Jew and Gentile. What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much in every way:
This all has bearing on the status of women. God has called them to very high status, what can be higher status than “the mother of God”. But God has not called women to the same status as men. Men and women are not equal. Neither are Jews and Gentiles.
The prince of this world is the God of Equality.
Discarding all extra-biblical literature concerning the true meaning of “Remnant”, mentioned in the Scriptures, what would we find?
“The inhumanity of man toward man is our greatest sin.” Where is God in all this?
Daniel,
About Jesus and His knowledge of Satan’s thoughts. Jesus tells His disciples, “No man knoweth the day nor the hour, …not the Son. …only the Father” When the woman with the issue of blood, Jesus perceived the power had gone out of Him, He said, “Who touched me?”. Jesus knows all things but He knows them as a man who is wholly Man.
Also the mount of transfiguration, as they all come down, Jesus tells the disciples who were with Him, “tell no one of the vision”. Jesus uses the world vision to describe the event.
When my eldest son would say “I love you Daddy” (after quarreling with his brothers where he had the upper hand), I would reply “then love my sons”.
According to Jesus, the Second Greatest Commandment is to love our neighbors as ourselves. That would include those who dialogue here. As we can see many times on this web site, it can be very tempting to resort to name-calling when we have a strong disagreement. Jesus also talked about this temptation in His Sermon on the Mount.
I know there are objections, examples where John the Baptist and even Jesus called groups of people “vipers” and “hypocrites”. But they were prophets of the first and second magnitude, and the Holy Spirit called upon them to reprove sin. Disagreeing with someone is not inherently a sin. In your anger do not sin.
PS – I have only sons by birth. The daughters did not come until much later 8-).
“Disagreeing with someone is not inherently a sin. In your anger do not sin.” Noted.
William,
Good questions.
In “The Downside to Testimonies” I described, how I saw through Scripture, to FP (4th comment from last) regarding the reason Jesus could not know the hour of His return.
In regards to the woman with the “flow of blood”, do you think He asked that question because He didn’t know, or because He wanted the woman to come forward and explain what had happened to her and to Him? He could have kept what happened to Himself, but He didn’t. Not only that, is it not a lesson to everyone that we sometimes need to “touch” Jesus, rather than expecting Him to make the first move? But just another thought to this event: Is it not more than a coincidence that both the woman and the daughter has something in common—twelve years?
Was Jesus limited, while in the flesh? Of course. How else could He have suffered and died for sinners? But He “knew their thoughts”, nevertheless.
Jesus’ “transfiguration” was real, but the appearing of Moses and Elijah was that which came as the vision. But for whose sake was this vision? Jesus didn’t need confirmation that the Law and the Prophets Testified to Him. Yes, it was a vision, as Jesus said Himself.
If you mean Jesus was “wholly man” in regards to His physical body, yes.
In regards to Who He was before coming in the flesh, we need to read the whole Bible. But just a quick reference, read: Ps. 40:6-8; Heb. 10:5-10; John 1:14. Also: Heb. 4:12, 13.
But I’m sure you knew all this?
The church in council has indisputably agreed Jesus Christ has two inseparable natures in one person. I am not a heretic; not on this point.
I marvel at the incarnation. I am utterly ignorant of the infantile cognition and the learning of the Christ. His human nature precludes the possibility of knowing things without sequential learning. The divine nature knows all things without sequence. I am content in this ignorance. Jesus Christ’s epistemology is unfathomable.
Yes. The church agreed in council about the Incarnation and Trinity to settle long-standing disputes. Had it been made clear from Scripture, would it have been necessary? It was NOT a belief during the lifetime of the disciples, nor by the early church but in such manner church beliefs and traditions are formed; and then made necessary for beliefs to affirm.
Much as the 28 Fundamental Beliefs were ALL agreed by Adventist church “councils,” so all the added beliefs become man made traditions to be followed. Are all the men who determine these beliefs inspired of God to make them?
The councils agreed but Elaine disagrees. So what exactly is your take on the divine and human nature of Christ?
As to conciliar infallibility; I am a heretic. I wasn’t repairing to authority. Daniel and I were discussing Jesus Christ and how exactly it is that He knows all things.
To further that discussion I pointed out the church has more or less believed for a long long time in two inseparable natures in the Man Jesus Christ. Wholly man and wholly God. Both a human and a divine nature.
I don’t pretend to understand. I’d be happy if you would share your thoughts on the what the disciples believed. I think Paul’s letters are the foundation of this doctrine myself.
We both agree that the councils decided the Incarnation and divinity/humanity of Christ. They did not have to meet to decide on the crucifixion or Resurrection, as those were he initial reasons for beginning a new religion.
Had the church from its beginning agreed on the Incarnation and divinity/humanity of Christ there would not have been the long struggle between the two positions before forming the Nicene Creed, now accepted by all Christians and Adventist, after first rejecting it.
Dan Appel,
“Maybe it’s time we finished the work God gave his Church and honor the female side, the heart, of the priesthood of all believers.”
I don’t quite understand this statement, could you please explain what you mean by it?
Daniel,
From my stody of the Bible, it appears that God has been trying for millenia to get his church to include women and non-levites, even non Jews, in the “priesthood.”
Many who oppose the ordination of women cite God’s statements after the fall in Genesis 1:16 as the place where God first placed women in subjection to men in marriage and ministry and that everything else in the Bible flows from that point.
It appears to me that they neglect a very important paradigm – that God has made us repairers of all of the things sin brought to our world. In other words, we are chartered by God to restore things to what they were before the fall, any where the occur. That is the ultimate meaning of our self-identity as a church as “repairers of the breach.”
As stated in my essay, when God called Israel out of Egypt, one of the first things he did was affirm the fact that everyone was in Israel who was a true follower of his was considered by him to be part of a nation of priests – regardless of gender. He called a group of males he hoped he could trust to train the nation, his people, to carry out their priesthood. Instead, they perverted it and made it exclusive – thereby thwarting God’s dream for his people.
The same thing happened in New Testament times where Paul and others again affirmed that all God’s loyal followers – men, women, slave, free, Jew, Gentile were all called to the priesthood of all believers. Once again, as the church moved away from God’s plan, it thwarted God’s plainly stated dream for an egalitarian priesthood of all believers.
Now, for the right reasons, the Bible’s reasons, we have the opportunity to carry out God’s plan for his people.
God did make man and women different – but equal. God originally designed marriage as a partnership, not a boss/subordinate relationship, with each bringing unique and special traits so that the whole was much greater than the parts, By and large, to generalize, women bring a tenderness and graciousness to any situation and relationship that provides a balance that God designed. One of the many things women bring to our churches and would bring to ministry is that “heart” side of what God designed.
That is what I meant. The question when it comes to this issue now is, will we hold on to the result of the Fall, or will we work to restore what God originally intended.
That to me is the greatest issue in Austin when it comes to this question. Will we, as the Jewish leadership did in the New Testament, hold on to our cultural traditions, or will be willing to work to return to God’s original plan.
Having said that, this issue has taken on symbolic implications that are eclipsing the issue of Women’s ordination.
It has been said that almost all of the major fights in church history used theological issues and terms, but were really about power and control. That has become the underlying issue, the gorilla in the room as it were, in this dispute. We do and will debate the theology, but it is really about the issue of what the Church really is. Is it a group of people, marching lock-step, like Orea cookies, doing and saying the same things wherever we exist, increasingly controlled by a central authority – or is it a group of followers of Jesus who share certain basic beliefs and who allow each other latitude and grace beyond that. In other words, are we committed to unity or uniformity?
Sadly, we have been traveling to the place we now find ourselves since the 1980’s when we first published our Statement of Fundamental Beliefs. While we may try to claim that we do not have a creed, to quote Shakespeare, “A rose by any other name is still a rose.” From a people who originally allowed considerable latitude beyond the basics and who vociferously opposed anything resembling a creed, we have become increasingly creedal – wishing to define more and more minutely what it is that defines a “true” Adventist. Further, more on the more conservative side of our worldwide family are expecting the hierarchy of the church to enforce their tightly defined definition of truth.
That is definitely not historic Adventism. Our early Church was defined by what one of our founders, Ellen White, defined as the “Foundation Stones.” Beyond that, there was room for discussion and even debate and definition. One example would be the whole topic of who exactly Jesus was – created or eternal – with Uriah Smith and James White as Arians on one side and Ellen White on the other. Another would be the whole understanding of what is meant by Righteousness by Faith which exploded in 1888 and which has reverberated in our church ever since. The hierarchy at the time was so concerned that Ellen White, in her support of Jones and Waggoner, was leading the church astray that they banished her to Australia where they hoped she could do less damage from afar.
Ultimately, when the votes are taken in Austin, the debate will center around Women’s Ordination, but issue will be about how powerful we want “the top” and a few exercising power to be. Do we wish a church modeled on Roman Catholicism or do we want one built on the Bible?
Dan,
I have an interesting story along the lines of what your question is about; “…how powerful we want the top and the few exercising power to be”
Two weeks ago the Kansas-Nebraska Conference sent out a conference-wide publication called, Conference Communique. In it, the conference president, Ron Carlson, wrote an article very much in favor of adopting the ordination committee’s recommendations in Austin. What was startling was the absolute absence of biblical argument. It was almost entirely an appeal to the authority of the ordination committee. http://www.ks-ne.org/article/385/departments/communication/conference-communique
I wrote Elder Carlson the day I received it. I asked respectfully permission to submit an article for publication which would present biblical arguments against women’s ordination.
This is a controversial proposed change in doctrine. Don’t you think the conference membership would appreciate hearing both sides of issue? Elder Carlson has chosen to ignore my email. No response. We are well acquainted and on good terms (I think). This has also come up with the Mid-American Union. They won’t publish my letter either. But at least Elder Lemon, the Union President, is extremely courteous and carefully replies to any email I send him.
I don’t want them to ‘share power’. I just want them to engage the basis of our doctrine: holy scripture. I think they view this as a political battle to be lost or won against the reactionary few, aka, Ted Wilson.
The real work at hand is to persuade. What you have tried to do here Elder Appel, is the only way to win. Its an argument, not a campaign. If you get your way but leave the other side unpersuaded – you will lose.
Your post admits women’s ordination is innovative. That puts a special burden on your side to persuade.
Persuade me/us with biblical arguments. We have no other basis for doctrine but Scripture.
Yes, this is about power, but it shouldn’t be.
So I guess the correct default position for Christians is NO INNOVATION?
Innovation is ‘new’ as in ‘new light.’ Stasis doesn’t have to prove the new light is false. The burden of proof falls on the innovator. You teach a new doctrine.
Persuade me the scripture teaches men and women are equal. Persuade me God has chosen them for Headship.
I’m not sure where NO INNOVATION came from. Another Straw-man?
Dan Appel,
Firstly, I would like to thank you for answering my question, especially with the way things have transpired during the last few days. Unlike the person, (next comment below) who slapped me in the face and then refused to answer my question.
I like your approach Dan, you have an open mind and are willing to examine all points in discussion.
Have you considered my last reply to you regarding the “sons”? I woke up this morning and was wondering how you saw this. As it is, (this only came to me after noticing the differences in Bible translations and through further examination into the matter it became apparent) I was actually expounding on the spiritual qualities of each and every believer in Jesus Christ; who are part of His Kingdom and who have, by His atoning sacrifice and Love toward us, been made “kings and priests unto His God and Father.” And it is by His Spiritual attributes in every believer of whom Paul says: “26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 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. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Gal. 3:26-29 Paul start by saying: “For you are all sons of God” and then explains by what means we are all “sons of God”.
“One of the many things women bring to our churches and would bring to ministry is that “heart” side of what God designed.” I understand what you are saying by this statement, I too have a mother who loves me and nurtured me. But for me, and I think you agree, the “heart” of all believers is Jesus Christ. It is this “foundation” which we build on. For I understand that for anyone to have access to the Father one needs to have the “heart” and “mind of Christ” in them; it is His perfect attributes in all believers which the Father sees and not our sinful nature, because we have “put on Christ”.
Therefore “male headship” or “women leadership” has no basis in the Kingdom of God, because Jesus Christ is the Head, Leader, Author and Finisher of our Faith, His Faith in us. It is by Christ and His Sovereign rule and High Priesthood in each and every believer that we have been made “kings and priests unto His God and Father, to Him be the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen”.
I’m not sure how you took my remark earlier in which I said: “I am not threatened by this issue at all”; but I trust you understand now. May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you and every believer who has the Spirit of Christ in them, and by whom others will come to know Jesus Christ.
I am a fellow sinner, saved by grace, as are all who wrote comments above. The ground at the foot of the cross is level for all believers, whether male or female, and that is where all of us stand.
Let’s quit wasting time arguing about this WO and get on with the job of taking the Gospel to the unsaved world. If the subject of WO is such an affront to you brother, then just turn the other cheek and take it.
Sigi,
May God bless you! We need more people like you who are focused on spreading the Gospel and getting the job done instead of just arguing about it and thinking that’s doing the job.
I think those in North America who oppose the ordination of women are fewer than the volume of their arguments might make them appear. I’ve also noticed that, of the few of them I’ve actually met, not a single one was active in spreading the Gospel.
Sigi
“If the subject of WO is such an affront to you brother, then just turn the other cheek and take it.” Who are you referring to?
I think many of us understand that the issue is “Who will hold the power to control the church?” And we also understand that the truth of any doctrine is secondary to this agenda by church leaders. Thus, we can not expect the GC sessions to deal honestly with the theology of the matter. Many have already stated they will simply follow what ever the church decides and are asking everyone else to do the same.
This spirituality is so obviously Roman Catholic, we could wonder how anyone could miss the point and not rebel against this idea. As Noel said, “Persuade me if you can by the bible”, and if not, there must necessarily be a split in the church by way of doctrine.
Some of us don’t consider unity all that important if it is not unity on bible teaching. I think Luther would say “Unity be damned, we want bible truth.” They tried to persuade Luther on this issue of unity and authority. When the asked him if he believed in properly ordained authority, He said, “Yes, but I think that excludes the whole Roman Catholic church.”
And the same can be said for any church that advocates unity and authority above scripture. The fact is, the church bungled badly in ordaining women, and now is trying desperately to justify past actions with a lot of political agendas totally outside the biblical norm. And they may well pull it off, since most people are more than willing to let someone else dictate their morality than take the time and effort to investigate the issue carefully and stand on their own personal moral convictions.
This has always been true in history, and we can rightly assume the same is true today. I live in the Ks. Neb. conference and Carlson is a true politician who will just “go along” with the final decision of the church for the sake of expediency. Just as most pastors will do the same in any and all the conferences. And the members will follow suit.
I am reminded of a comment by James White. In evaluating the Catholic and Protestant spirituality, He stated, “The Catholic church claims it can never be wrong, the Protestant spirituality states, ‘We could be wrong, but we never have been.'”
He understood this as simply being a more subtle concept of church infallibility. At this point, we could ask, “When has the SDA denomination ever admitted it was wrong?” When has any present leadership confessed that decisions in the past were not only faulty, but blatantly false in meaning and application?
We will soon see if the SDA denomination will simply follow what James White stated about Protestantism, or actually admit a blatant error in allowing the ordination of women to positions of authority they are not qualified to hold according to scripture. And we must remember that what the church allows, is what the church approves of. Jesus said, “He that is not for me, is against me.” There is no neutral ground. Just as there is no neutral ground in salvation.
So, to say, “I could be wrong, but I never have been.” is more subtle and dangerous than to willingly admit some infallibility beyond the possibility of error.
The biblical tradition of male headship is so clear and obvious, it was inexcusable to ignore it in the beginning. When a man and woman get married, she accepts his name as her own, and not the other way around. This is a legal transaction that does not change who she is biologically, but gives her a new standing in her husbands family.
God gave this principle in human relationships to help us understand the spiritual truth that when we accept Christ, we have a legal right to heaven by way of His name and righteousness. None the less, by obedience to the family laws of the kingdom, we also obtain a moral right to heaven as loyal members of God’s family. Thus, the legal and moral aspects of God’s law and kingdom work together in perfect unity and if you don’t have one, neither do you have the other.
Disobedient children can and will be dis-inherited and forfeit any legal right to heaven. Just as a divorced couple leaves the wife out if she has been disloyal in her commitment in the marriage.
When Adam sinned, Jesus divorced him. Adam was legally cut off and morally depraved. And his act included all his children. None the less, Jesus has made an atonement and each one of us can “opt in” to God’s kingdom by marriage to Christ and loyalty to His Father’s law.
Male headship is so obvious, it is clearer than the Sabbath vs. Sunday. So, I conclude by saying, “I may be wrong, but I never have been.” (oops) Well, maybe once……
The situation is very serious because of the principle, even more than the specific issue of WO vs. male headship. Will the church continue to defend itself on every level, or finally admit it made a major mistake by the ordination fiasco? We will soon see.
Bill,
The headship argument is biblically powerful and it is quite distracting to the WO proponents. They think we are changing the subject; which is humorous We can refine our understanding of headship if we emphasize the headship of Christ. The term, male headship, is not a biblical term. It is the maleness of Jesus Christ and the maleness of the Father that result in the specific differentiation in God’s election.
Our biblical argument is strongest when it attacks the false god equality. WO proponents take ‘a priori’ that everyone is equal in the eyes of God. Equality has become the highest good in the world’s eyes.
Nothing could be farther from biblical truth.
You are absolutely right: Sabbath is clear and obvious in scripture. Clearer still is the subordinate status of woman in the scripture. We are all subordinate to Christ. But there is no equality in our election in Christ. We are all equally sinners. Equally, our portion is death, without God’s election.
But it is Christ who has chosen us, not we who have chosen Christ.
WO proponents are kicking against the goads. They are choosing to Ordain Women to headship and God has not chosen women for that.
The “maleness of Jesus Christ and the maleness of the Father?” Really? The Bible says God created us in His image and we have both male and female in the species. So the logical implication of your claim is that either the writer of Genesis was lying when the declaration was made that “Male and female created He them” (Gen. 1:27), or that women somehow were mistakenly included in that description.
The lengths to which you are willing to stretch scripture to support your claims are reminding me of that once-popular doll called Stretch Armstrong.
The Image of God: God the Eternal Mind, The Eternal Word and the Eternal Holy Spirit.
The image of God in man: The human mind, the inner word, the spirit of man.
I have no idea what you meant.
Who wants to belong to any organization where women are all second class, not equal to the male, created as a male in God’s image. This ignores the text that both male and female were made in God’s image. Apparently, there are some men who do not believe that part of the Bible, nor the verse in the NT that no longer are there male and female, we are all equal before Christ. I bow to no man as my superior!
Was Jesus a man Elaine? Do you bow to Him as your superior?
William Noel,
It is not a stretch to assert Jesus was and is a male. Neither is it a stretch to observe the noun “Father” as in “Father in Heaven” specifically designates maleness.
Natural Theology which depends on reason and that type of theology can get around God’s maleness. Biblical theology, is stuck with the texts. God is who He has revealed Himself to be: Jesus the Son and God the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Which scripture have I stretched? You are implying that women are equal with men because male and female are both made in the image of God. The text doesn’t say they are equal. In fact, it’s a stretch. Because woman was made a helpmate for Adam. As subordinate as employer and employee.
Your argument has a serious logic problem because God did not differentiate between men and women when He created both in His own image. So denying women the opportunity to serve God in whatever way He chooses is a deliberate act of discrimination based on sin-induced misconceptions instead of the declarations of God.
William Noel,
I don’t know how to respond.
“God did not differentiate between men and women when He created both in His own image.”
They seem pretty different to me.
William Noel,
“..while God made diversity within the human race..
I am going to assume from your quote you agree with me that men and women are different from each other. “Different” “diverse” and “unequal” are synonyms.
Now where have I ever said, that Adam and Eve weren’t both made in the image of God? If Mary can bear the Lord Jesus Christ in her womb, how can any believer say women don’t reveal in themselves the image of God?
Here is exactly what I said: You are implying that women are equal with men because male and female are both made in the image of God. The text doesn’t say they are equal. In fact, it’s a stretch.
William, why do you write the following? “Now, if it challenges you to consider how the image of God could be revealed in both male and female…” I am not challenged by this: I embrace it. I believe it. It is true. We agree on this, ok?
Man and woman are not created nor chosen for interchangeability. Just once, quote some scripture. Man and woman are not equal. We are different from each other. for the husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the Church… …I will make him an help meet for him.
Logic is never a problem. But it ain’t Authority either. Please engage the argument with scriptural authority. Tell me what the bible says. Not what you think.
Anyone who writes that “Sabbath is clear, just as the subordinate position of women, is interpreting his own bias to the text.
The NT is the Christian’s Bible; and not the OT which was written for the Hebrew people. There is not one single text in the entire NT giving instructions to the new Christians that they must now BEGIN observing the seventh day with the Jews. As pagans, they worshiped idols and unless they were told explicitly all the necessary rules and prohibitions involved in properly observing Sabbath, they could not do so. But Paul, the “apostle to the Gentiles” failed, utterly to tell them of the Sabbath’s importance. In fact, he specifically wrote that no one was to judge them on a day the observed to the Lord, as it was only a shadow, and the reality is Christ.
Adopting the laws of Judaism was antithetical to the new Christians, but for Adventists, they have preferred to mine the OT for many of their doctrines, while paying little heed to the letters written just for Christians found in the NT>
Whoa Elaine! Where to begin? The Sabbath, I said the Sabbath, not Sabbath-keeping. It’s true Bill said Sabbath vs. Sunday… I just think the Sabbath is obvious in Scripture. It is a commandment, the seventh-day, the children of Israel have always observed it.
In Scripture women are subordinate to men. If I follow Dan Appel’s argument, he is okay with that because it doesn’t mean women should be today. Bill is right. It is really obvious in scripture women are subordinate to men. Really obvious. If you can’t see that – you must be interpreting your own bias into the texts.
To pick-up from above, while God made diversity within the human race, He created both male and female to each fully reflect the image of God. Now, if it challenges you to consider how the image of God could be revealed in both male and female, feel free to let God use the intellectual challenge to expand your understanding of who and what God is and His abilities.
William, part of my comment was directed to church infallibility. And I doubt the church would ever admit it was wrong on any fundamental issue. They use the idea of “private opinion” when something has been advocated and now proven false. But anything they have refused to refute, is ipso facto endorsed. The church must advocate truth openly, and oppose error by the same format.
Many ideas and articles have been published in our “official” publications that are blatantly false. Namely, the Review and the lesson quarterly. If these publication do not represent basic and fundamental Adventism, then what does? And these are not personal and private interpretations, but church endorsed false doctrine.
William Noel,
“I have no idea what you meant.”
It was intended to clarify what part of man (mankind) is in the image of God.
Have we concluded yet that the entire subject is a disputable matter? If not we are very slow. Within the variations on the theme there are two distinct views and the lines are clearly drawn. Has anyone seen any evidence that minds are being changed? I have not seen any.
Romans 14:1
“Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. ”
An no I am not wanting to talk about food offered to idols. The point is clear. There are issues historically on which sincere believers are not agreed.
Unity is based on agreement. Either we divide into two denominations, one pro WO and one anti WO, and I do NOT advocate that, OR we must agree that we respect each other and make allowances for other points of view.
What matters more to us? Being the winner of the argument or finding a peaceful solution? The problem of having winners means there must therefore be losers.
Our BEST arguments, presentations of scripture and reason are not bringing us to a conclusion. This is exactly why a former Wilson GC President said this topic should never go to a GC session for debate and decision. It is just too divisive. Anything that cannot be simply and clearly taught from the Word only and agreed upon by the vast majority without disenfranchising a large block of membership should be left alone. TOO late.
Sticking by our guns leaves just one that benefits… the enemy of Jesus.
Since we seem to be bound to vote on this, just remember a NO VOTE is a vote to divide, a YES vote is a vote to accept and respect each other.
A YES vote does NOT force anyone to have a female pastor.
“A YES vote does NOT force anyone to have a female pastor.”
That’s true. A person could always just leave the church. Or, if they stay, rebel against church authority when the church does ordain a woman pastor to their church fellowship. Or, violate their conscience and pretend it doesn’t matter.
So, there are some options, none of which is acceptable to anyone who supports male headship as a moral issue.
Unity in essentials, diversity in non-essentials.
Since we have not agreed that this issue is an essential—a fundamental belief, let’s not use it to divide the church. It is a DISPUTABLE MATTER, which is why after months/years the debate has not come to a conclusion.
The dream of a conference being so insensitive as to force a female pastor on a congregation that is adverse to it… There are many issues that individuals sincerely believe, which are not “do or die”, “black or white”, “yes or no”, yet we worship together in peace and harmony. We still can be a peace with each other.
Should we vote to close down the church in China, which has ordained female pastors serving with success and the blessing of the Holy Spirit?
Under inspiration the apostle Paul wrote: “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.”
I understand you hold your views sincerely. I do not debate that. I hope you can accept that I hold my views equally sincerely.
It is NOT necessary for THIS topic to divide the denomination, or the local congregation, IF we will discipline ourselves and refrain from judging each other as apostate if we differ in view.
Allen,
We can all be wrong. But we can’t all be right. We ought to be able to agree if the bible interprets itself. If you can show me in the bible, I’ll go along with women’s ordination.
Let’s get busy and persuade. “It isn’t that important” is a cop out.
After all the hundreds of thousands of words written from a wide variety of perspectives on this web site alone, I seriously doubt that you will likely be persuaded by even more words 8-).
Nobody can show you women’s ordination in the Bible because nobody can show you ordination (of anyone) in the form we practice it today, anywhere in the Bible.
Jim,
It is vital we try. What is left for us to do if we quit? Isn’t persuasion the work of the evangelist?
can two walk together, unless they be agreed?
That is brotherly love. To persuade that Jesus of Nazareth is Messiah/King. Truth is not relative. It is the only glue that holds people together. I might disagree with you about women’s ordination. we can discuss that. If you believe truth is relative – how can we debate that?
The world now lives as though there is no truth beyond the autonomous will to power. Every man will decide what is true for himself. Every man will make his own truth.
That is the problem with Allen’s – “can’t we all just get along?” Israel has to wrestle with the Angel of Truth. We have to keep debating until we are agreed.
So I am waiting to be persuaded. Talk to me about the scripture. Let the Word of God do the heavy lifting.
“Unity in essentials, diversity in non-essentials.
Since we have not agreed that this issue is an essential—a fundamental belief, let’s not use it to divide the church. It is a DISPUTABLE MATTER, which is why after months/years the debate has not come to a conclusion.”
God has ordained no person or church the authority to decide what is essential and what is not essential in the bible. Sinful man may attempt to declare by his own wisdom what he thinks is essential. And thus the early church decided the day of worship as the 7th day Sabbath was not essential. Then changed the day of worship to Sunday. And by the way, they still hold to this same theory that you have advocated claiming they are ordained to determine what is essential, and what is not.
So, many people on both sides the issue would consider your statement bogus and having no meaning to anyone with moral convictions about the matter, one way or the other.
Brother Bill,
“God has ordained no person or church the authority to decide what is essential and what is not essential in the Bible.” AGREED
What is essential to UNITY is finding common ground. Words have been and continue to be shared in abundance. Persuading is not changing minds.
It did not change minds in Paul’s time and thus his statement about DISPUTABLE matters. What seems clear to some does not seem clear to others.
Brother Jim,
“Every man will decide what is true for himself. Every man will make his own truth.”
Actually each of us must be fully persuaded in his own mind and heart. The basis of that persuasion is CLEAR Bible teaching. We find clear Bible teaching on many subjects and when those subjects are agreed upon we join forces to labor for the Lord together.
As I read God’s Word it is abundantly clear that those God calls He enables and those He enables are expected and required to serve. I will accept those who reject women who are called and enabled to serve as long as they will allow me to recognize God’s leading. I cannot walk in agreement with a church that denies what the Holy Spirit has done and is doing. There are clear lines and it cannot simple be let’s all just get along.
If someone is interested in actually discussing a so called “headship” text, I am willing, but the quick reading of a verse does not result in full understanding.
After watching a two hour (approx.) airing of three men claiming they speak for the SDA Church on the subject of WO, with only at best casual reference to scripture, and after watching a Sabbath sermon with one of those presenters stating repeatedly he was following the Bible exactly I did not see ANY study of scripture ONLY a reading of a verse and then a personal observation of what it implies without doing ANY digging into context, word meanings, etc. I had to shake my head and say if that is rightly dividing the Word of Truth we are in BIG trouble.
I am looking for common ground. Come July of this year and something will happen. We live in perilous times and we will either see the Lord work a miracle of grace or members will vote with their feet.
I do not wish to force the anti WO believers to have a female pastor. I do not want them to force me to not allow a female pastor. I attended a church with a female church and was totally blessed by her preaching, her kindness, her organization, and her ability. I cannot deny what the Holy Spirit has done.
My conclusion is either we agree to disagree on this matter, which this denomination has NOT agreed is an essential, it is not a fundamental worthy of destroying the mission of the church over, therefore we must find peace or sink the ship. I am looking for a way to keep the ship afloat.
The recommendation to the GC Session is to agree to leave this with the World Divisions. For me that is a minimal starting point to agree to disagree.
Is it really necessary for us to draw lines so sharply that we ONLY will worship with and work with believers who view this topic exactly as we do?
If so who will worship together? Who will work together?
“No woman should be allowed to speak in church.” Can such believers worship with the: “women can teach a Sabbath School Class” believers?
“Women can preach but they can’t be the senior pastor.” Can such believers worship with and work with the: “A woman cannot preach” believers?
“A woman can be ordained as long as she has a male senior pastor over her.” Can those believers worship and work with those who believe: “A woman may be ordained and serve as senior pastor”?
If everyone MUST agree with ME or I cannot worship with and work with them then the prayer of Jesus that we all may be one as He and the Father are one…
Jesus and His disciples ate with unwashed hands, but Jesus did NOT exclude those who opposed Him. Jesus was lifted up to DRAW all to HIM. YES?
The problem Alen, is don’t see the intensity others do about the matter, and so you offer a solution that will not be acceptable to either side.
There is no middle ground for those who hold a high level of conviction on both sides. Your political view is worthless to both sides. For some it is as intense as the Sabbath/Sunday issue. Are you suggesting we should all just “get along” and not demand accountability to scripture on this issue?
You say, “scripture is not clear”. And so do Sunday keepers as they defend their position. Either get on board on one side or the other, or just sit and wait for the church to tell you what to believe and do. But don’t chide people about unity simply because you have no personal convictions one way or the other.
Truth stands above unity. And this is the real and final issue.
I realize views are held strongly. It is abundantly clear to me. Help me understand why head covering is not a part of this discussion. It appears only some verses are included in the discussion.
Overview of headship
Headship-Man Head of Woman
In 1 Corinthians, Paul addressed quite a number of issues, and most of them were very serious. Some contributed to serious problems in the troubled congregation in Corinth.
Rather than jump into a study of chapter 11 without understanding the context, I asked the Lord to lead me and I started reading in chapter one. By the time I arrived at chapter 11 it was clear there was an underling issue of sexual immorality. (Remember 1 Corintians was written as one letter, not separate chapters.)
The problem: Some married women dressed (according to the standards of the community) in a manner that suggested they were not married (when in fact they were) and they were looking for contact with a male other than their own husband.
Paul establishes that we should follow his example of honoring the most important one in our lives. The man is the head of the woman, Christ is the head of man, and God is the head of Christ.
Having said that he goes into the issue of how women and men should dress in church to show honor to “their head”. Women should cover their heads, and men should not cover their heads. This was a rule Paul had for all the churches.
Paul advocated for following the customs of the time and place for showing honor to those who are chief/prominent to us.
It is a fact women look to their husbands, men look to Christ, and Christ looks to the Father. Later Paul notes that woman came from man and man now comes from woman so neither are independent of the other and all comes from God.
Once I read the entire passage it was clear to me that chapter 11 has nothing to do with establishing men in a position of authority requiring that only males be ordained as minister. It is clear that women are to show honor to their husbands as the prominent one in their lives.
It is clear to me that either all women at all times must be silent in church and wear a head cover OR we are able to understand that while the PRINCIPLE does not change (honor to the prominent one in our lives) HOW we show honor does change from place to place.
Barefoot in church vs. keeping your shoes on… both show respect, but it depends on where you live.
If we understand 1 Cor. 11 to mean women should not be ordained as ministers, do we also understand women MUST wear a head covering in church? If not why not?
Truth stands above unity. AGREED.
Has all truth been discerned?
If, however we must agree on EVERY scripture there will not be many in your church or mine. Do we think we must be right about everything and if others do not agree with us on a single point then they are heathen?
If the circle of acceptance is so small that full agreement on every text is required where is the love? Taken to this extreme the mission of the church is dead in the water and there is only one winner… the enemy of souls.
In an effort to be understood I offer the two posts below. Please don’t blow me off. Share your understanding from the Bible please. I will read with an open mind and heart. Thanks brother.
WHO IS HEAD AND OF WHAT?
1 Cor. 11:3 “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”
1 Cor. 11:4 “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head (Christ).”
1 Cor. 11:5 “And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head (her husband)–it is just as though her head were shaved.”
So men to honor Christ take your hat off and women to honor YOUR MAN cover your head when you pray or prophesy.
Clearly Paul teaches women may pray and prophecy in church with a head covering.
(NOTE: If the head cover practice, does not apply to that time and place then ALL women who pray or prophecy in church MUST cover their heads.)
1 Cor. 11:6 “If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.”
In those parts of the world where it is viewed as immoral/immodest for women to appear with cut hair or uncovered heads the practice is still followed. We are united in this diversity of practice.
1 Cor. 11:7 “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.”
(NOTE: Scripture teaches both man and woman were together made in the image of God, so the context of this teaching must understand that both men and women will show honor to God by properly following the customs of their world upholding their marriage vows.)
1 Cor. 11:8-9 “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.”
(NOTE: In this context the woman can show honor to her husband by acknowledging their marriage by her head covering. Paul must clarify this issue because of the tolerance of sexual immorality in the church of Corinth.)
So far has Paul offered any instruction to indicate a woman may preach or be a pastor as long as she is not ordained? Paul did not suggestion a restriction on women praying or prophesying in the church and he mentions nothing about ordination restrictions.
If we understand from this passage as read so far that women must not be ordained, then it follows they must also wear a head covering and never cut their hair.
Please help me understand from scripture if I have misunderstood something?
Oh, and one last thing. I am the head of my wife. She honors me as her husband by her behavior and modest dress. No other man is the head of my wife. Together we honor the Lord by our proper relationship with each other excluding all others. As one we honor Christ.
Consider the original meaning of MAN as used in this passage: “a male, husband or future husband.”
Dealing with immorality in the church is Paul’s focus.
Zero restriction is made for women in ministry, only that they be modest and not flirtatious.
One man told me the Holy Spirit made a mistake when calling…
It is not as difficult as you make it out to be, Allen.
Paul is dealing with male headship in the context of the culture of his day. But when he affirms the principle of male headship, he does not state cultural issues to support his view. Rather, he points to creation, sin and the fall. That is, he affirms male headship on an historic event, namely how God established and ordained this order in the beginning.
So he deals with male headship in the culture of his day, but he does not make any culture the basis of his authority for male headship.
Sabbath keeping may vary in certainly situations. But we don’t base the authority for Sabbath keeping on the variable situations that come up in society. We base Sabbath keeping on an historical event, namely, creation, and the God ordained blessing He pronounced on it in the beginning.
Let’s not make a problem about male headship based on certain cultural norms. It is founded on the God ordained authority given to Adam in the beginning.
Bill
Please do not ignore the context. What is your position? Must women wear a head covering in church? If not why not? Scripture please. The head covering is directly tied to the headship issue. Why is one to be discarded and the other to be enlarged as it appears?
Please persuade me. (With scripture?)
I’m on my phone, so will be brief. It appears that the heads hip argument only goes as far as the fall. I suppose that whether or not a person adopts that position depends on whether or not one believes we should be stuck there, or whether one believes our mission is to work to restore what was pre-fall. Are we serious about being “repairers of the breach” or not? If so, then we have a responsibility to do so – as I have mentioned above, God tried to do in this area in both the Old and New Testaments
“To Ordain or Not to Ordain, That Is the Question!”
—–
I respectfully disagree that that is the question.
The question is: “Ordained to what?” That is the real question.
When pro-ordination enthusiasts take their cultural glasses off by using the eye salve Christ provides to the Lukewarm Church to enable them to discern between truth and error, and light and darkness, then the errors of their ways will be seeing for what it is.
Trevor, I am comfortable to drop all ordination. Biblically speaking a case can be made for that. Jesus sent the 500 out after his resurrection, which included women….
Mr Nash, do you then dispute that Jesus ‘ordained’ the twelve? Did Jesus ‘ordain’ the 500 to that of “Elder, Bishop, Overseer or Pastor” in this sense? Moses ordained the 70 Elders in the OT under God’s instruction and this practice therefore comes from a Judeo-Christian biblical basis and teaching and not from Catholic tradition as many have erroneously suggested.
Please show ‘one’ instance where a women was ordained as an Elder, Bishop or Overseer or Pastor in this sense in the OT, NT or the Spirit of Prophecy inspired writings. Just one.
Show one time when a woman in that culture was given any official recognition. It will not be found. The wisdom of God would not call a woman in a place where women were treated as they were to serve in a high profile position. Show one time any one other than a decent of Jacob was called to office. Is that proof no one but a descendant of Jacob should be ordained to any role? On the other hand there is no command against any woman serving in any role to which the Holy Spirit has called her. Am I correct?
“The Saviour’s commission to the disciples included all the believers. It includes all believers in Christ to the end of time. ”
Desire of Ages, p. 822
“There is no place for tradition, for man’s theories and conclusions, or for church legislation. No laws ordained by ecclesiastical authority are included in the commission.”
Desire of Ages, p. 826
“And John answered and said , Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.”
Luke 9:49
“And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.”
Luke 9:50
“Christ commissioned His disciples to proclaim a faith and worship that would have in it nothing of caste or country, a faith that would be adapted to all peoples, all nations, all classes of men.”
Desire of Ages, p. 819
“Clothed with boundless authority, He gave His commission to the disciples: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,” “baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:19, 20, R. V.”
Desire of Ages, p. 819
“At the time appointed, about five hundred believers were collected… Suddenly Jesus stood among them.”
Desire of Ages, p. 818
“This was the only interview that Jesus had with many of the believers after His resurrection. He came and spoke to them saying, “All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth.”
Desire of Ages, p. 818
Jesus, with ALL power called ALL believers and commissioned each one to go, teach, baptize and make disciples. Seems like that includes women as well as men if we take Jesus at His word.
In spite of any past history, following His resurrection Jesus shared His power for the purpose of sharing the gospel in all the world.
It seems Jesus needs EVERY dedicated worker He can get. The field is great and so is the mission. Why limit the workers? Why not send men and women out to open new work. No need to quarrel over pastoring the congregations already in place.
GO, TEACH, BAPTIZE, MAKE DISCIPLES. GO INTO ALL THE WORLD, AND I WILL BE WITH YOU TO THE END OF THE AGE.
Are the quotes above and the assumptions you have made based on them your basis for supporting WO? Can’t you see that you have read your own bias into what is written in the Bible and Ellen White in order to support a position that is unbiblical. You are saying that God the Father, the Holy Spirit and Jesus, or Paul for that matter, didn’t chose women as pastoral leaders because they respected the political correctness of the day, throughout both the Old and New Testament. That’s stretching it quite a bit I would say.
It would be very ironic if the endeavor to gain WO led to the elimination of the practice of ordination. This has happened before: once women gain equality in a formerly male profession, the profession itself is seen less important or having less prestige.
OTOH, the much greater entrance into men in the nursing fields increased the pay and prestige for nursing!
Which will it be for WO?
Some did not like my appeal to accept each other and work together. Some said let’s persuade each other.
Please consider the number of verses I have shared and reviewed verse by verse. Will someone who is honest in heart please share verse by verse to I can understand why women should not be ordained, but they can cut their hair and not wear a head covering. Those points go hand in glove. Either they stand or fall together but we can’t pick and choose what we like.
I am willing to be persuaded by the Bible and support from the SOP. I will not be persuaded by human reasoning and a general reference to the Bible. Please share the clear explanation verse by verse as I have done. If you don’t agree with my explanation please share the scriptures that will show my error, but don’t simply sweep it under the table.
If we don’t come with the right spirit (Holy Spirit) we won’t be persuaded “though one rose from the dead.”
You said, “I am willing to be persuaded by the Bible and support from the SOP.”
OK, fine.
“The most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. Daniel 4:17. AG 41.1
Among the lower creatures Adam had stood as king …; but when he transgressed, this dominion was forfeited. The spirit of rebellion, to which he himself had given entrance, extended throughout the animal creation. Thus not only the life of man, but the nature of the beasts, the trees of the forest, the grass of the field, the very air he breathed, all told the sad lesson of the knowledge of evil. AG 41.2
Not only man but the earth had by sin come under the power of the wicked one…. At his creation Adam was placed in dominion over the earth. But by yielding to temptation, he was brought under the power of Satan. “Of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage” (2 Peter 2:19). When man became Satan’s captive, the dominion which he held, passed to his conqueror. Thus Satan became “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4). He had usurped that dominion over the earth which had been originally given to Adam. AG 41.3”
This is too plain to be misunderstood. This is EGW’s position. I accept it as the biblical position as well, based on all the bible evidence.
“The most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.”
Daniel here is talking to an absolute monarch of an earthly empire. He is telling the earthly king that God’s authority is superior to military and economic power.
Although this is an important spiritual concept, I fail to see what it has to do with governance in the Christian Church. Unless the Christian Church comes to think of itself as an earthly military and economic power. Now that has at various times and places happened. And in Revelation that religous-political conflation is metaphorically called Babylon (ie Confusion).
So if you are discussing the governance model of secular or religious Babylon then this text applies. But I thought we were discussing the governance model of the Pure and Faithful Woman, the Bride of Christ?
Regarding your Ellen quotes, you have (intentionally?) redacted those parts that talk about Eve having joint dominion with Adam over the other creatures. You are trying to make Ellen say exactly the opposite of what she says if you include her complete commentary on these parts of the Bibel.
The issue, Jim, is male headship. Did God ordain male headship? Now you want to move to a different point and discussion various applications of what male headship can mean. Let people first admit that God has ordained male headship in at least some context. From there we can discuss how and if it may apply to the church and spiritual matters.
I am not the one dancing around the issue of what is clearly and obviously scriptural for anyone who will objectively evaluate the bible position. But just so we can see a situation that Paul uses concerning Adam and his position as head of humanity, I’ll post this verse.
“As in Adam, all die, even so in Christ, shall all be made alive.” I Cor. 15:21. Read the whole chapter, and then decide if Adam is “king” in both physical and spiritual matters concerning the human family. And if Christ has now taken his place as “king” in both physical and spiritual matters.
Now read Rom. 5:12 and on to the end of the chapter. Is Christ the second Adam or not? Eve is not mentioned, because while she “ruled” with Adam, she was not the primary authority, nor did her sin plunge the human family into condemnation and death. It was Adam and only Adam that held this responsibility.
So, to imply that since Adam and Eve “reigned” together, they held equal authority and/or accountability in the decision to “opt out” is not careful bible interpretation.
Very sloppy conclusions on clear and obvious teachings and implications. And this same Paul is the one who tells us women are not qualified to be elders and pastors and are gender excluded.
Adam was head of this world, not Adam and Eve. The parallel is in the home where both husband and wife administrate the home government, but the man is the final authority and her authority is derived through her husband.
And just because this relationship has been abused, does not give anyone a right to alter and/or change and deny what God Himself has ordained for the welfare and benefit of the human family.
“Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church.” (Ellen White, Signs of the Times, 1-27-1890).
http://EqualOrdination.com/pastor-is-not-the-head/
Just a side point. “Babelon” is a two-word title derived from Akkadian, the language of the eastern fertile cresent.
Bab = gate
Elon = gods
Babylon means, literally, “the gate of the gods” and this is of course a reference to the Etemenanki, the temple/tower of heaven and earth. Ascending it (as in the “ladder” of Jacob) as the Babylonian king did at the New Year’s festival in the spring, brought him to the realm of the gods.
This has gotten confused with English “babble” which is from a completely different source.
And the principle is clear for sects and “denominations” just as much as for empires. The emperor says in his confession that the Most High rules according to his own will in the heavens and on earth. Was ancient Israel a secular empire or a religious one? God chose David “a man after my own heart” which does NOT mean David was righteous, because the phrase means literally “a man of my own choosing.”
That is, there was NO merely secular empire in the ANE, and the words applied just as much to the king as THE HEAD AND CHIEF PRIEST OF THE RELIGION OF THE EMPIRE.
And I see the hobbyhorse of “male headship” — an utterly false non-biblical concept emanating largely from Rome (and from there, Satan) is being still ridden hard.
Would you if this was an ungodly religious-political power then using it s governance model to justify the governance model of the Christian church would be inappropriate? or is the Christian church another Kingdom that God can give to any human of God’s own choosing?
In a sense the answer is YES because God has given the authority over the church the Jesus Christ the God-man. But here the proponents of Male Headship are using these texts to try to support the idea that in the Church there is someone on earth with “kingly” or “priestly” authority underneath Jesus Christ but over believing women.
My comment was not directed at the nature of ancient absolute monarchies where of course the King, being absolute sovereign, could be as a God or a High Priest (depending on the local tradition) to his subjects.
My point was that in the Christian Church we have One King and High Priest – Jesus Christ. And He is presently in Heaven NOT on Earth.
Now I know I am treading on dangerous ground with what follows. But I hope that you would agree with me that unlike the Abrahamic covenant (involving the dreaded S-word), Christian leaders are NOT Vassal Kings ruling under the sovereign authority of Jesus Christ.
If you want one man as absolute ruler over the Christian church on earth, then you might wish to consider the Church of Rome. If you want to be a Vassal King under Jesus Christ then you might want to consider the Latter Day Saints. If you are willing to wait for the life to come to be a Vassal King then you might also consider the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Not only are such models of church authority NOT a part of SDA (or most other Protestant churches) doctrines, they are diametrically opposed to most Protestant theology.
To follow Jesus Christ is not to gain or maintain control over anyone else. It is to surrender control over yourself and over everything you hold dear (including your wife and your children and your earthly possessions) to Jesus Christ.
Well of course they are using that in that way. For the very simple reason that in the patriarchal society of the Ancient Near East, only males were kings. (Yes, there were too exceptions, the two women Pharaohs, but neither died of old age, and look what happened to Athaliah.)
The question is this: is ORDINATION the key to serving as priest? Remember that in the ANE only KINGS and FUNCTIONARIES WHO EXERCISED ROYAL AUTHORITY were “ordained” with the holy oil to the office.
This is why Aaron and all his Aaronite successors were ordained. The KING and the KING alone was the high priest of his nation. But kings could not spend all their time functioning as priests, given the rest of their important duties.
Consequently, the concept of the highest priest becoming, in effect, an extension of the king developed. As Moses exercised royal authority (among many other things in the undifferentiated office of judgeship) it was in line with ancient thought that Aaron would be his extension by being “ordained” to the high priesthood.
All the other priests were by extension ordained as they were “in the loins” of Aaron.
BUT BUT BUT a separate issue is that very fact. OTHER PRIESTS SERVED AS PRIESTS WITHOUT DIRECT ORDINATION. If we use the Biblical model of national priesthood (the change from patriarchal priesthood) we have to look closely at those priests.
ALL OF THEM. THE MALE PRIESTS. AND THE FEMALE PRIESTS.
What? What? What?
Am I making up additions to the Bible?
Nope. One poor soul above felt free to tell us you could look from Genesis to Revelation and find that no women served as priests.
Such is the assured nature of ignorance of the facts. (Now Eng Hamstra, I am not talking to you individually as you know!)
Read on. I choose to speak to the Biblical data in the next installment.
When the Wilderness Sanctuary was set up, Israel was arranged as a War Camp. The thirteen tribes were arranged in a perfect square around the Sanctuary, but NOT up close to it, as some poor artists have depicted.
Across the broad open square came the men of Israel bringing, as the case might be, a “peace” offering, a whole burnt offering a thank offering, an offering for a special event — a particular feast or the birth of a child, etc.
At the main gate of the moveable temple the men of Israel were met by the priests. But wait, Leviticus says the men did not come alone, but the whole family was brought before Yahweh in the great open court that constituted the first “court of Israel.”
This was a HUGE affair that went on ever day, the moreso on the Sabbath, now revealed as a special blessing to Israel.
The people of Israel were met by the priests who all served under Aaron who had been “ordained” so to speak, to his royal task.
The priests are said to have “served” before Yahweh, in the same sense of the men of other tribes “serving” in the hosts of Israel as they went forth to war. We will see this presently. For now, an overview.
In fact, in English we retain the verb “to serve” as in “to serve in the Armed Forces of the U.S.” with quite the same meaning. We say an active-duty Marine is “in the service” regularly. The very verb in Hebrew that supplied “to serve” as a warrior or as a priest gives us the noun that is so familiar.
Yahweh is said to be “THE LORD OF HOSTS” and here “hosts” is tsevaoth. You may at times have noted a Advent congregation singing “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” thanks to Father Luther.
(And let us note that after several false starts, The Reformation really began when a theology teacher who knew the languages and as much background as he could gain from the rabbis started saying what was what.)
In this hymn we hear from Luther that “Lord Sebaoth” his name. Of course, the Advents, with typical lack exegetical understanding — (“the self-proclaimed peopleof the Book”) will sing loudly “LORD SABBATH HIS NAME.”
Nope. Not even close.
Now that we know that the priests “in service” were part of “the hosts” or armies of Israel, we need to take a closer look at what happened when a man and his family arrived at the end of the lines to be “served” by the ministering priests who were on duty.
Next.
We know that the War Camp of Israel in the opening chapters of Numbers was designed exactly like the Egyptian armies of the 18th and 19th Dynasties. No surprise there, for Moses and Joshua were veterans of the Egyptian imperial campaigns.
In the center of the broad square sat the god-king’s (Pharaoh’s) tents. In that place sat the Sanctuary in the Exodus.
The crush of families (not just men, but men, women, and children, arriving as families) meant a great deal of the work of the daily sacrificial system would be bottlenecked at the East Gate of the Sanctuary.
Now some important “triage” would have to be done if the system was to work. Some families came with a sin offering (uh-oh) but some with whole burnt offerings, some with thank offerings, some with “peace” offerings/offerings of well-being that were to be eaten with the lay family and the priest’s family to which they were assigned.
The “sons” of Aaron did the actual killing and quartering of the animals, which might be anything from a huge bull to a little pigeon, and let’s not forget the numerous cereal (grain) and drink (vintage) offerings as well.
In Exodus we read how the potential bottleneck was hangled:
“And he made the laver of bronze and its base of bronze, from the mirrors of the ministering women who ministered at the door of the tent of meeting.” Ex 38:8
This is significant and needs further examination. Firt, the laver was the first step in the sacrificial system. While the Sanctuary as a whole was made from the jewels Israel took from Egypt, the laver-wash basin was ONLY from the “serving” women.
And yup, the verb is “tseva” the very word for armies going forth to war or priests serving in the Sanctuary.
Now, the priestly families were all Aaronites, and they alone, male or female, would be involved in the daily and sabbatical sacrificial system.
The other Levitical families — Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, also “served” the Sanctuary, but in a different way. They maintained the physical structure, carried the heavy furnishings and huge tent-like coverings and broke down the walls, pillars, bases, sockets in this moveable temple.
All of this was “service” as Numbers 4 makes clear. That is, the whole tribe of Levi were — like the other tribes — part of the “hosts/armies” of Yahweh, and all were serving as his troops.
Now, the numbers in Numbers are wrong because of a misunderstanding of a single word (Hebrew stretched over many centuries) but the numbers who left Egypt were still large. The women of Israel made the hangings, veils, covering, and linen fencing around the Court of the Sanctuary.
And the “serving women who served at the gate” (doubtless the wives of the serving priests) were more directly involved every day in the conducting of the Sanctuary service.
Perhaps this was a fluke? A special situation while in the wilderness?
Nearly four centuries later, near the end of the Period of the Judges (Moses to Samuel) we read this:
“Now Eli was very old, and he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting.” 1 Sam 2:22
Yes, the system is still in place. The verb is still “tseva” and here are the usual meanings, the predominant of which is military, of course:
(Strong’s 6633 for those who love ancient history):
I. to go forth, wage war, fight, serve
A.(Qal)
I. to wage war, fight, go forth to war
ii. to serve (at sacred tent)
B.(Hiphil) to cause to go forth, muster
Make of it what you will, the priestly women were dong the same thing as the priestly men. they were “serving” in Yah’s “hosts/armies” as they carried out their functions at the beginning point of a Hebrew’s experience with the sacrificial system.
Hmmmmm. None but “father” Aaron experienced anything like “ordination” and yet both men and women were considered to be carrying out the same duties.
Make of it what you will. But don’t ignore it.
Allen;
On the website, you’ll find an article by Jon Paulien(former GC President) recently posted in the Summer Edition Adventist Today, titled Circumstances Alter Cases and the Ordination of Women page 32.
I think Paulien makes the best case he can in favor of women’s ordination. Perhaps the best case that can be made. The problem is: the opponents of women’s ordination (at least myself)don’t believe this is a question of circumstance. It is a question of woman’s status. The proponents of women’s ordination assume women are created equal in status to men.
Proponents never prove this assumption biblically. Opponents of women’s ordination see innumerable examples of woman’s unequal status in scripture. But those examples are all summarily dismissed by the proponents as meaning nothing. The remarkable story of Miriam coveting the status of ordination reserved for Aaron, Moses and the seventy Elders and God’s stern rebuke to her(rebuked obviously as a woman) is dismissed by Jim Hamstra as free of “gender bias”
The fact that Eve was created for Adam, to be his help meet, is likewise dismissed as meaning nothing. God doesn’t say He created them for each other. God Himself speaking says: “It is not good for man to be alone,I will make him a help meet for him.” Instead of acknowledging the unequal status of man and woman in the text proponents impute equality where there is obviously inequality. No refutation – its just ignored.
There are some many significant biblical passages that address the unequal status of women: but those texts are studiously avoided as having no bearing on the question of ordination.
Paulien treats the circumcision of Timothy and the uncircumcision of Titus as a matter of circumstance. It is not. It is a matter of status. Timothy is a Jew. Uncircumcised, he is in a state of disobedience. As Paul said, the circumcision is nothing, and the uncircumcision is nothing — but a keeping of the commands of God
You keep talking about the Holy Spirit calling whomever He wants. The Holy Spirit doesn’t contradict the the election of God. If God had chosen headship for women we wouldn’t read in scripture: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.NIV Paul goes on to explain its a matter of status not circumstance: For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Dan Appel had the honesty in this post to say, “they got us here” regarding 1 Timothy 2. So Allen, persuade us through the word of God that the LORD created and gave woman equal status to man. I already know we all…
We see how they try to create some exception to the rule, and then claim this negates the rule itself. Even if there is an exception to any rule, it is faulty logic and reasoning to claim this negates the rule. Yet this is the way many does with the issue of authority in various situations.
If man dies, his wife becomes the sole head of the home. How would this interpret to the idea that the principle of male headship in the home has been negated and abandon? But at least some will find some exception in various circumstances of where women have held levels of authority, and the claim this negates the principle of male headship. Totally faulty reasoning.
Please first, my question. When applying the statements of 1 Cor 11 to mean the male is the only one authorized to be ordained as a pastor, is it your understanding also, therefore that all women everywhere must not cut their hair and must wear a head cover when going to worship?
These points are all a part of the passage, which is set in the whole of 1 Cor. which addresses the issue of immorality in the church of Corinth.
CUT HAIR, HEAD COVERING YES OR NO?
Jon Paulien was a seminary professor at AU and is now a professor at Loma Linda.
Jan Paulson was formerly President of the GC. These are two different persons.
With all due respect, Jon Paulien is a professor currently at LLU formerly at AU.
Jan Paulsen was the previous GC President.
I was reading some comments by Elaine Pagels today which reminded me of what I have found missing in the discussion of the creation story as it relates to the headship debate. Her words were in the context of what the early Christians found so compelling about Christianity. “…but this religion is saying that every person,man,women,child,slave,barbarian,no matter who, is made in the image of God and is therefore of enormous value in the eyes of God…That’s an extraordinary message. And it would have been enormous news to many people who never saw their lives having value.I think that is a powerful appeal of this religion…The Christian religion seemed to convey a sense of human worth in two ways.Both by the story of Jesus and his simplicity and his humility in terms of social status, in terms of achievement, in terms of recognition during his lifetime. And also in the story of creation; it conveys the royal status of every person.” In all the back and forth bickering of who is head of whom this sense of wonder and the
value of each person seems to be lost.
No, No, No, we are trying to keep the value of each person from being lost. You are Exactly right! The infinite value of each individual to God is the key to understanding the women’s ordination debate.
It is the differentiation and uniqueness, not equality, that confirms God’s elect. It is the Jew first and then the Gentile… not equality between Jew and Gentile. Always the circumcision is first. Only for the sake of the fathers, Abraham, Issac and Jacob, can Israel hope. Only in God’s choosing can the chosen people hope. Jesus saves the world, for Israel, for Himself, one soul at a time.
The status of Equality destroys salvation. Equality gives us standing, in a legal sense, before God. To demand of God our due. He MUST love us equally. He must grant equal status to gentiles, women, children, homosexuals. God must remedy the inequality – because He is the God of Equality.
He is the King of Israel. He chooses whom He will choose. He has chosen CHRIST to be the head.
I’m sorry, William, but I find your arguments unconvincing. It was the slaves and women, who in many ways were treated as slaves, in the early Roman Empire that found value in the way the “least of these” were equally valued by God and found solace in Christianity. Early Christianity continued operating with the Jewish ethic of responsibility for the care of widows and orphans- expressions of the high esteem that Christians felt about all of their community being created in God’s image. To argue that women are not suited because of Eve’s mistakes seems to me harsh and unGodlike. I do think I understand what you are saying, I just don’t agree with you.
Michael, I quote you – “I do think I understand what you are saying, I just don’t agree with you.”
I think you understand what the Apostle Paul is saying. You find it harsh and un-God-like. Are you subordinating the authority of scripture beneath your own judgment?
Why do you insist on saying ‘equally valued’?
Jesus says, “See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.”
We all agree, at least for now, that little children are special in the eyes of God. No hint of equality. Jesus doesn’t say, The father loves them equally with you. Jesus never says anything remotely like that. Show me where Jesus teaches the Doctrine of Equality?
“..unto the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me” Don’t the very words “least of these” denote inequality?
God values each soul infinitely. That is not hyperbole. The hazard and suffering of the cross were infinite. You are asserting Equality is a right and in doing so you diminish the cross. Of course all of us are made in the image of God. But we are not made the same.
Creation is the work of differentiating. All things are equal in the beginning. Jesus Christ did not think equality with God was a thing to be grasped. Lucifer apparently did.
What do you think of the parable of the workers. Some work through the heat of the day, some half the day, others only for a short while. All are paid the same. Equal pay, but hardly equality. They grumble about the Master’s unequal treatment of the workmen. Through this parable Jesus Christ is teaching us: He chooses whom He will choose.
Let us listen to what Christ is saying. Let’s not condemn Him for being harsh and un-God-like. That is a perilous path.
Honestly, don’t we recognize that the statement of Jesus, “…on to the least of these..” is meant to expose the diminished view of humanity towards those who are not landowners, financially able, etc.?
Jesus is not supporting a caste system. He is acknowledging the status as viewed by humanity and elevating the downcast by His gospel. He is clearly noting He stands with those looked down upon by others.
If you insist on reading the passage this literally then Jesus was not even talking about the women as being “among the lest” because He only includes His “brothers”. So what you do (good or bad) to the least of the males you have done unto Jesus. But whatever you do (good or bad) to the females has no effect on your relationship with Jesus.
You cannot selectively exclude the women and girls from these declarations only when it suits your masculine fancy or your misogynist agenda. Either the women and girls are in the game or they are not in the game. They cannot be partly included and partly excluded.
There seems to be a consistent misunderstanding of grammar as regards the Biblical languages. In general (as in English unless you are being VERY “pc”) when you say the gospel must be preached to all men, the masculine noun (English fails to be clear on masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns) …. the masculine noun stands for both sexes.
Only when a writer or speaker intended to single out females separately from males, not as humans but as the opposite sex, is the feminine used.
Thus you cannot construct a sound doctrine on the usual and commonplace use of “men” “mankind” as excluding women, which it does NOT.
This whole issue about women’s ordination is actually a non-issue. Regardless of the vote in San Antonio, we will still have women pastors (because they were approved in 1990, and there is no motion on the table to rescind the 1990 policy adopted by the world church).
Regardless of the vote, these female ministers will still preach, teach, give Bible studies and evangelistic meetings, lead communion services, chair church board meetings, perform weddings and funerals and baby dedications, visit the sick, pray for the lost, etc.
The vote at the GC has nothing to do with whether we will have women pastors, or what functions they will perform. We already have lots of women pastors (including several female senior pastors), and they’re not going away.
All of the time, money, and energy expended on this debate is needless; it’s just a tempest in a teapot. Because all it amounts to is whether female pastors will be called “ordained” or whether we will continue to call them “commissioned.” Their work is the same, either way. The only difference is the name.
There is no biblical reason to insist on continuing to call them “commissioned” instead of “ordained.” It seems that nobody sees the pink elephant in the room: regardless of what label we give them, they are still pastors! Changing the title (or refusing to change it) won’t change who they are. And it won’t change whether God has called them to the ministry. It won’t change their role or their function.
The vote at the GC amounts to nothing but whether to allow individual divisions to call women pastors “ordained” instead of “commissioned.” It’s not a big deal.
Look at these facts at: http://EqualOrdination.com/facts-about-wo/
Exactly. Ink on paper, their decision. No ex-cathedra. The church lives by practice not the pontification of men who hide behind scriptrue to conceal their psychological reasons for keeping women pastors at bay.
Has anyone considered the loss to the church of its young people who will not accept anyone as being subordinate or second class?
Young people represent the future; and the future of the church will not be what they see for themselves in a two-tier system. Paul did not always reflect Christ’s ideal but inserted himself in the equation: remember he said it was better not to marry? How many follow that advice? How many demand than women cover their heads in church? If so, for what possible reason?
The selective choice of text in support of one’s position denies other texts that are simply ignored. It is both inconsistent an hypocritical.
Correct, Elaine. One need look no farther than the verse, “I do not let a woman speak in church.” (See http://EqualOrdination.com/women-not-to-speak/ ) Even most anti-WO’s say it’s OK for women to preach, “they just can’t be ordained.” But how can it be OK for them to preach (or be a Sabbath School Superintendent, etc.), when Paul apparently said they can’t? As you point out, it’s all a bunch of hypocrisy and cherry-picking the scriptures.
The best answer is: let the women pastors be ordained because it really isn’t a big deal. They will still do the same job and have the same responsibilities regardless of their title or label.
There is no justification for discriminating against women by withholding a particular word from their credentials certificate. What matters most is not what they are called, but what job they do; and it will be the same either way.
This is the thing that distresses me a great deal. The anti-WO folks fear that ordaining women pastors instead of commissioning them as has been wisely noted will open a door through which all manner of evil will follow.
At the same time they ignore the negative impact this is already having on the youth and young adults of the church. Does anyone care about people? Do we care if we tell the largest percentage of the church we don’t think YOU may use your spiritual gifts?
For all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. We each are “equal male and female” in our need of the Savior Jesus Christ. In the Holy chambers of our GOD, there is no male nor female. Our God blesses the extension of the “Gospel Message” by “whomever will come”, to share His love. The male species is misogynistic and arrogant to think they are superior.
some days ago the challenge was put out there to persuade using scripture. I share a half dozen texts IN CONTEXT from 1 Cor. 11 which concludes with Paul stating that to meet the problem in Corinth the women should honor their husbands (man) by not cutting their hair or shaving their head, and by wearing a head covering.
This alone should make it clear this is not a directive for all time in all places! It is all a part of the same letter from Paul. The hair, the head covering and the honor of the husband is all one argument.
Will someone open 1 Cor. 11 and explain to me how the passage says women may not be ordained as a pastor? And if you think you can explain that from the context of the entire book of 1 Cor. then help me understand why you do not also hold to the no hair cutting and not requiring the head cover.
The same can be said for women silent in church. We all recognize that in the Western world all are welcome to express themselves in church. Further Paul says women should cover their heads (in church) when they pray or prophecy. clearly Paul does not require women to be silent in church. That and other statements are focused on to the exclusion of context to force a view.
Elder should be the husband of one wife. Does this mean a woman may not be and ordained pastor? does it mean a man may not be an ordained pastor if he is not married? Does it mean a man who is ordained must step down if his wife dies? The arguments are foolishness and make God’s Word to appear in conflict with itself, which it is not.
Let’s be honest with ourselves and the Lord and ask Him to send His Holy Spirit to guide all of us into all truth.
The enemy of souls is laughing out loud at this attack on the mission of the church. The one who is not for the gospel of Jesus and sending forth every worker possible is against Jesus. Am I right or wrong?
Talk it over with Jesus.
Allen,
1 Corinthians 11: 7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
The whole passage is about the inequality inherent between man and woman. Paul speaks to specific circumstances about women, their long hair, veils, shaven heads, and directs the Corinthians to conduct themselves in a certain way, differently than the men – because they are women. Woman’s sex and status are different than man’s. So Paul tells them to
Again an overly-literal interpretation of this passage makes Paul some kind of pervert.
If Adam was created with male genitals, then at least that part of Adam was created for Eve or it was created for self-stimulation or it was created for homosexual relations or for bestiality or for no purpose whatever?
Paul is making a very specific analogy here and not a blanket statement of universal principle.
Or was Paul as some have speculated, a closet gay?
Allen,
1 Corinthians 11: 7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
The whole passage is about the inequality inherent between man and woman. Paul speaks to specific circumstances about women, their long hair, veils, shaven heads, and directs the Corinthians to conduct themselves in a certain way, differently than the men – because they are women. Woman’s status is different than man’s – but dependent on man’s, because she was created for man. So Paul answers the ‘why’ part of the implied question by specifically referring to the difference between men and women at the creation.
Now – Allen (or someone) please answer my question. Where does Jesus teach the doctrine of equality? The ‘least of these my brethren’ is a great place to start. The language excludes women and it implies some are ‘least’. You say Jesus is standing with the downtrodden. But you don’t get it from the text. The text is telling us we ought to love and care for these ‘least ones’ as though we were doing it unto the Lord himself. Please show me in the texts where Jesus teaches the Doctrine of Equality. Anywhere in scripture is fine. Just read what is there and show me.
Marvin, As Elaine points out it is a big deal. In personal terms what a no vote could say to my daughter and grand-daughters (and to my son and grandson, too.) “The church values you, dear. Just not in the way we value the boys.” It makes me wonder if there is anyone studying the affect on self-image that the change in succession customs (First born succession regardless of sex) has on British girls and boys.
Old traditions die hard. My late husband, from the Deep South as I was, still clung to the eldest son as more important than daughters. His first born sibling, a girl was not seen as valuable as he was.
When our first born daughter finished nursing school, married a dental student, she asked her dad to help he attend medical school for which she was eminently qualified. He preferred rather to help her husband with dental school and she was greatly disappointed as he favored male in such professions. Later, they were divorced and he walked away with the diploma that she had supported for more than 5 years!
She later learned two graduate degrees and is making the equivalent of many physicians as a nurse practitioner. When my husband began medical school in 1950, only three females were admitted; today the proportion of males and females is almost equal. It is sad to think of how many women were not allowed in professional schools but today they are represented as leaders in all professions and no acadmic studies or positions are closed to them.
The church is the last, as is often is, to recognize the equality taught at the beginning of the church’s inception.
Andy-Maybe its time to call a time out,to admit the obvious,that there is basic disagreement about the importance of and application of different Bible texts in the ordination debate and let the chips fall where they may in San Antonio. There may be unintended consequences for either a yes or no vote.They can be and will be dealt with later, but it is important that we have basic respect for each other. If we are instructed to love our enemies, this should be a piece of cake, huh?
I meant Allen. Sorry.
Obviously, those of you who agree with WO see no big deal on how the church handles the issue. You are fully convinced that your opinion will be the one accepted and for those who see it differently, it is a “in your face” attitude you all hold.
And I have affirmed that in my opinion, what you have stated will no doubt be the final outcome. This forces those of us who disagree to make some decision about our relationship to the church since the church will not represent our understanding of the moral implications of WO. You don’t have to make a decision. As far as you are concerned all is well. It will be the male headship faction that will have to make a decision.
I know you think your position is a “lock up”, but you may actually find that it will not go so well as you imagine. And your argument of equality in authority is not biblical on any level except that we are all sinners, both men and women, and thus we all have equal access to the Father by way of Jesus Christ.
If your argument for equality in authority on any and every level is valid, then men are not the head of the home and there is no distinction in any type of government on earth, or, anywhere else for that matter.
If your argument is that men have abused and misused authority and thus male headship is negated by the gospel, you are simply throwing out the law because of abuse of the law. But in the end, every argument for equality in authority is bogus and will not stand a careful evaluation of the matter from scripture. And the fact the church has already ordained women to positions of authority in the church is no argument either.
The church has blundered on many issues in the past and has now blundered to a point that it may well not be possible to correct the error. Certainly not without a split in the denomination. And just who will retain the name “Seventh-day Adventist” will come into play as well.
So, just because the church has already ordained women outside the biblical mandate will not justify any ongoing justification in light of the present and clear challenge by those who oppose the previous action.
In the end, you won’t solve nor deal with the problem by simply ignoring it as many would suggest as a viable solution. It might well suit you, but there are thousands of SDA’s who will not accept this solution. Nor can one church ordain women while another church claims it is not biblical. This will obviously split the church. We can only wait and see at the present time.
Bill,
We can’t know the future. It could be a train wreck for the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. If we vote this change it certainly will change forever the basic approach of how we have previously let scripture interpret itself.
Ordaining women (even as local elders) forces the interpretation. Circumstances now will trump scriptural authority. Its ironic: the authority of scripture is why those early Adventists didn’t accommodate themselves to the circumstances of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath.
It is quite discouraging in the discussions here at Adventist Today to see how little the participants care about what the bible says.
Here is what Michael Wortman writes: To argue that women are not suited because of Eve’s mistakes seems to me harsh and unGodlike. I do think I understand what you are saying, I just don’t agree with you.
All I did was quote Paul, chapter and verse. 1Tim. 2:12-14
How can we even discuss questions on doctrines if we don’t accept the authority of scripture? We are Adventists; people of the book. We have no creed. The bible is our creed.
Bill Sorensen, I have no idea what will happen at GC or afterwards. But I can never accept this change in doctrine unless I’m persuaded from scripture. I am frustrated that the participants in this discussion don’t seem to even understand where we are coming from.
Bill, Unlike you I don’t think that WO will pass. I suspect that what we see on American sites like this one is not necessarily a reflection of what is the view of the world-wide church. I do think, however, that if Ted Wilson is fearful that the financial base of the church is threatened by a no vote and therefore he reluctantly felt compelled to endorse a yes vote, it is possible. I think an important test of Christianity at its best is its ability to deal will various tensions within the community without it affecting the affection members with differing views have for each other. I realize that this isn’t always the Protestant way, but nonetheless I can hope.
Michael, I think being hopeful is always commendable. None of us can see exactly what God will do, or how He may bring about the results we feel are truly biblical. But history also tells us that God will not force the human will, whether it is an individual, or a corporate group of individuals.
And I think for myself, as well as many others, one of our main concerns is the indifference that many, if not most people have to the challenge of the situation. The church has gendered the attitude that we should all just go along on “what ever the church decides.”
With this attitude, the church can then make some political statement about the issue with no real definitive meaning and the people will generally accept it.
My guess is this. They will claim the issue is not clear enough in the bible, and thus no definitive statement is necessary since no one can really know for sure just how it is. This will let them off the hook to define the issue one way or the other, and therefore, we can expect some statis quo conclusion and ongoing exhortation of the evils of dividing the church.
This is how they challenged Luther when he presented his biblical views on salvation and the merits of Christ alone as the sole meritorious cause for redemption. The church claimed the merits of Christ were/are in the believer and thus, the believer’s works played a part in the meritorious cause for salvation.
For some then, and even now, it seemed like a trivial matter on just how the merits of Christ worked in the salvation process. But for the Reformers, it was a highly intense issue and demanded a clear and definitive explanation.
What is evident is this. The more intense any discussion is on any given subject, the more necessity there is for a very clear and definitive explanation. Each and every point must be dealt with so there can be no loose ends to create continued confusion.
The church wants lots of “loose ends” to hang their hat on and leave them off the hook for a clear definition. For at least some of us, that won’t work, but for the majority, it may well serve their purpose to sell unity over scripture, based on the claim scripture is too ambiguous to create division.
I understand your distress about the indifference and lack of what you consider seriousness that you see in how I interpret scripture. But some of us are in a bind, Bill. It’s a struggle to just believe. In some ways I envy your certainty about religious life and teachings. What I have taken from my Christian background and upbringing is the enormous necessity to be kind to others and to treat them with loving respect. The impetus to discuss WO for me is rooted in this, more so than scripture, although I do believe that respecting and caring is expressed so well in the life and teachings of Jesus. That is the sum total of what I am completely certain about. I know that this makes many want to throw up their hands and shout. But this is what you are dealing with, Bill, and I am naive enough to wish that somehow there is room enough in the pews to accommodate people like you and me.
The issue is not whether we should treat people with respect and kindness. This is an objective given and it should of course, be emphasized. We should treat Sunday keepers with respect, but this will not solve any theological problem between Sabbath keepers and Sunday keepers.
The devil is working earnestly to create some generic Christanity that is less and less definitive with a “big tent” mentality. And more and more people are opting for this agenda. It is a false gospel and false idea of love that allows this idea and interpretation of Christanity. EGW makes this comment about this kind of spiritual thinking.
” There is hope for every one of us, but only in one way by fastening ourselves to Christ, and exerting every energy to attain to the perfection of His character. This goody goody religion that makes light of sin and that is forever dwelling upon the love of God to the sinner, encourages the sinner to believe that God will save him while he continues in sin and he knows it to be sin. This is the way that many are doing who profess to believe present truth. The truth is kept apart from their life, and that is the reason it has no more power to convict and convert the soul. There must be a straining of every nerve and spirit and muscle to leave the world, its customs, its practices, and its fashions…. 6MR 12.2
The SDA church has been pulling down the standard more and more for decades. We all hate guilt. If we can bypass guilt by lowering the law, many are more than willing for this to be. Victory over sin is the only way we can relieve guilt in a biblical context. But the SDA church is taking away the law and this will also release us from guilt. It is a Satanic and non-biblical way to take away guilt. But the church has been doing it for years with bogus applications of scripture on various levels. “Judge not, that ye be not judged” has been wrested and convoluted so far outside the biblical norm in the SDA church that we must at least consider modern Adventism as the ultimate antichrist that transcends Rome. And this is just one scriptural concept convoluted by the SDA church. But it is certainly a major one. It destroys every other bible doctrine and its dynamic. And there is no apparent let up in the ongoing apostacy.
I incorrectly posted this on “We cannot pass this way again”; but I think it’s appropriate in both places, I suppose.
It’s not what it appears to be. The outward manifestation of any good or evil reveals the heart of man. Has anyone considered the following Scripture passages: Isa. 3:10-12; Rev. 2:20-23? So who or what is really behind all this? And, no, I’m not referring to women in general; but the one inside, causing God’s people to err.
1.Change the position of the church? Which doctrine establishes male superiority and rulership?
2.Unity vs Scripture? Please do not think the pro WO feel forced to reject the Word for unity. God’s Word is supreme and the ONLY rule of faith. It is offensive to suggest that one understanding of the Word requires that another understanding of the Word is therefore a rejection of the Word.
3.Unity must be based on the MIND and THOUGHT.
4.Now we are back to where we were some days back when I was advocating for peacefully worshiping together and others saying NO this is so important that I find your position as far away from mine as the Catholic church, as different as birds and fish, and we cannot dwell together.
5.Which group gets the name Seventh-day Adventist? Hmm, is this a topic that we would rather destroy the mission of the church so one side can be PROVEN RIGHT?
6.Can we agree to honestly pray for reformation in our own lives and the out pouring of the Holy Spirit in the lives of every member as well as every delegate to the GC Session?
7.As for me I will continue to worship where I do and support the congregation through thick and thin in their mission to share the gospel regardless of if there is a female or male commissioned or ordained pastor or our congregation shares a pastor with a dozen other congregations.
8.I take this position only after a sincere study of God’s Word and the Spirit of Prophecy. I asked the Lord to guide my study, to reach my heart, to remove all inclination to sin and this is where I stand by the grace of God, but please don’t say I have rejected God’s Word for the sake of unity. It is not true. You cannot judge my motives or understanding, so please stop taking the position that you are faithful to the Word and I am careless. The fact is we just do not read it the same.
9.Luther and the issue of salvation is hardly comparable to this debate. Such a position elevates the value of this debate, which is about a practice, which is acceptable in some parts of the world already and not in other parts (based on God’s Word), and so because our own cultures, our own upbringing does affect our view of scripture we are at odds on this subject.
10.Yes—No, Win—Lose divide to conquer. So far there is only one winner in all of this and it is not the mission of the church. Speaking of Mission, how much energy have we put into sharing the gospel during this debate? Have all of us already been defeated by the enemy of souls??? …. peace
Allen,
There is no doctrine of male superiority and rulership. (where do you get this stuff?) What? Are you asserting nothing is being changed concerning Women’s Ordination? It has always been thus? Come on!
The Headship of Christ- the authority of scripture – scripture has no interpreter; the scripture interprets itself. These are the doctrines being changed.
Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. He is elected, (chosen) by God the Father. God has not revealed Himself as an androgynous being. He has revealed Himself as the Father and the Son. God is a man. The God of Israel, Jesus Christ, the creator of all things, seen and unseen, He created woman, to be a help meet for man. Woman is subordinate to man and his ‘helper’ in procreation.
Paul puts it this way: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
The doctrinal problem created by Women’s Ordination is the establishment of a false doctrine: The Doctrine of Equality.
Allen, I have asked and asked – will you or someone here please show me in the Scripture the Doctrine of Equality? You yourself say; “God’s Word is supreme and the ONLY rule of faith Show me in the Bible your new doctrine.
Please don’t mumble about ribs (or sides) signifying equality. Or copy Galatians 3:28 without including verse 29. Dig into the hundreds of texts that subordinate wives to husbands and women to men. Explain to me the equality of God’s election in the story of Abraham. Explain to me Equality in the covenant of circumcision. Why aren’t the daughters of Jacob chosen to rule? Explain away the motherless Saul and David. Ruth is the mother of David. Ruth is Chosen – explain away what she was chosen to do – the purpose of her calling?
Jesus did not change the status of women. Please show me Jesus teaching or practicing the Doctrine of Equality? I have been asking someone to do this for on this thread for fourteen days.
Explain away Paul’s explicit commandments not to ordain women to headship?
You say: “God’s Word is supreme and the ONLY rule of faith
Please, in our discussion here, open the bible and show me the new Doctrine of Equality.
I am not Allen.
Paul in Galatians introduced a radical concept to those who did not believe in Equality.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.”
Do not underestimate the significance of ALL being HEIRS of the Promise. In the society of Paul’s time, slaves and women had no inheritance, nor would a Jew bequeath any of his possession to a Gentile.
Paul here is clearly saying that the Christian Church is NOT intended to be like the prevailing societies and customs of his time.
Now I am well aware that Paul counseled women to be in submission to their husbands and slaves to e in submission to their masters. And that he counseled Timothy who was at most 1/4 Jewish as we would reckon ancestry, to be circumcised, because under Jewish legal traditions (not mandated in the Bible) your ethnicity was matrilineal, though your heritable rights were patrilineal.
So this question of Male Headship vs Equality in Christ comes down to whether the Christian Church in its governance, should seek to model worldly authority structures, or to model the voluntary submission of Jesus Christ.
Counseled Timothy? Paul circumcised Timothy. Because a Jew ought to be circumcised. They are called and chosen differently, distinctly, from Gentiles. Jews and Gentiles are not Equal. to the Jew first and also to the Greek The promises of God to Abraham, we are by grace, in Christ, now together heirs. We share that status. But we remain differentiated. We do not cease to be male, female, Jew, Gentile, slave and free.
Jim, you reason about Equality. You talk about stuff in the bible. But you fail utterly to show me in the Bible the Doctrine of Equality. Where does Jesus teach Equality?
I continue to be puzzled by these assertions of masculinity within the Godhead.
Does God the Father have male genitals? Or did Jesus Christ the God-man have male genitals before the Incarnation? And what would be the gender of the Holy Spirit? And what about those OT passages where God suckles God’s daughter Israel? You can more convincingly argue from the Bible that God has breasts than male genitals. And indeed Israelite paganism did embrace Asherah as the female divine consort for El.
Of course this is entirely absurd because God is a spirit and does not have gender in the human sense. And according to Genesis 1 BOTH male and female are created in the Image of God. And Genesis 1 does not restrict that Image to being from the neck-up or from the waist-up.
I would argue that this persistent insistence on the “masculinity” of God is actually a Pagan attempt by Men to create God in Our Own Image, which is the ultimate expression of Idolatry.
The term Father and Son denote maleness and masculinity. God has revealed Himself as male. You know as much about Jesus Christ’s body (the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world) as I do. I know He has a body, a Man’s body, and Jesus Christ is a man throughout eternity.
I think you got to deal with Jesus being a man. You can’t dismiss the Son’s maleness as “a pagan attempt by Men creating God in their own image” Where in the Bible is that?
Put away the genital talk, okay? Unless you want to talk about circumcision and how that relates to the false Doctrine of Equality.
And according to Genesis 1 BOTH male and female are created in the Image of God.
Yes, of course. We all believe that. Its in the Bible. They were both created in the image of God. Show me where it says they were created Equal; equal in status. They share status and yet they are different in status. Created to be different. Eve is created for man, to be his help meet. It does not say they were equal; created for each other, nope, to the contrary.
They were not created equal. as Paul explains: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
There are no passages in Scripture where God suckles Israel. If you quoted them instead of referencing them it would be obvious.
“Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.
This passage of Scripture is not God the Father revealing Himself to Israel in the feminine. No way.
For thus says the LORD, “Behold, I extend peace to her like a river, And the glory of the nations like an overflowing stream; And you will be nursed, you will be carried on the hip and fondled on the knees. As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; And you will be comforted in Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 66:12-13)
Very Good Jim, You got me, I was not familiar with the Isiah 66:12-13 text. Don’t quit now.
“9.Luther and the issue of salvation is hardly comparable to this debate.”
It is absolutely comparable to the debate, and this is why so many like yourself refuse to deal with issue for what it is. You hope to downplay the importance and intensity of the issue and then accuse anyone who opposes your evaluation of trying to split the church and destroy unity. Those who advocated WO in the beginning are the one who created this present fiasco. Not those of us who oppose it. Some of us have opposed it for decades, and now more and more people are beginning to see the result of WO. It has prepared the way for the Gay movement and every other false idea the has embraced for several decades.
One side is right, and one side is wrong. There is no compromise as one side is biblical, and the other is not.
Bill, why are you concerned with worshipping in the church with those who favor having women pastors?? You can’t lose your faith, nor your inheritance of the kingdom. Also you can worship in churches not having women pastors, should you be worried, because the SDA church, as an entity isn’t going through as a “group”; only those members who’ve accepted our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, by faith and His Grace. All God’s children love each other. all can worship our God together. It won’t take perfection, other wise no one will enter. There will be some who’ve never met our Savior, Jesus, but God knows the heart of every single soul.
“Bill, why are you concerned with worshipping in the church with those who favor having women pastors??”
Earl, God ordained the SDA church to defend bible faith, truth and doctrine. Any departure from this commission and responsibility is treason to His intended goal.
So for the same reason I don’t worship in a church that keeps Sunday holy, neither do I care to worship in a SDA church that has abandon scripture and opted for culture and Pluralism.
Hopefully, this answers your question.
The Bible does not say that Christ is the ‘Headship’ of the Church does it? No, certainly not. It merely says that he is the ‘Head’ of the Church. Surely a rudimentary understanding of these terms would suffice as clearly having a marked distinction between them. (Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.)
The fact that Christ is ‘Head’ of the Church does in essence imply Headship of course and it is in this sense that the term headship is used – to denote the act of functioning as Head. A closer look at it would show that male headship is fulfilled even in Christ. 1Cor 11:3 says that: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” All three references of Head in this verse refer to a male figure in terms of their headship. Christ and God are equal; but the head of Christ is God. Men and women are equal but the head of the women is the man. Male headship in this sense is therefore in harmony with the Bible. It does not imply the usurping of Christ as sovereign Head of the Church but merely refers to the subordinates of Christ who have the authority vested in them by the Church to serve as servant leaders under the Headship of Christ as heads in both the family and the various structures of Church organisation. Male Church leaders incertain roles don’t serve as the head ‘of’ the Church but as head ‘in’ the roles assigned to them by the authority of the Church in Christ Jesus.
Both terms, Headship and Head, are useful terms used to describe and define roles yet they are distinct in that one is a Sovereign Title in terms of Christ being the Head of the Church and the other a servant role denoting Church leadership in subordination to Christ. Headship therefore is quite a useful term that is in full harmony with the biblical principles of Church leadership and does not in any way conflict with Christ being the Head of the Church.
The concept of the term male headship is well supported by the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments, even more than the term ‘sexual orientation’ – which has been wholeheartedly embraced by cultural Adventists yet a term that has an undeniable biblical basis is rejected for obvious reasons, one being the efforts to appease the feminist agenda and their related interest groups.
When Paul says that the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, isn’t he using a convenient truism of the day as a metaphor to support the idea of Christ’s position of “shepherd over the flock?” One can extend metaphors to ridiculous extremes in fear of being accused of not adequately respecting the place of scriptures as a spiritual guide. Certainly there are are many Christians who would pay lip-service to this idea, but in function in western society the husband and wife act as a team.
Conceptually, that is how many couples see themselves. I would say from the high divorce and low marriage rates it doesn’t work very well.
But that self-conception lends itself very well to homosexual marriage. No man and wife – just a team.
And, as in many effectively functioning teams, leadership can flow back and forth depending on the situation and the particular strengths and weaknesses of its members.
Ty Gibson released a thoughtful and insightful analysis recently: http://EqualOrdination.com/a-closer-look-at-wo/ . It is definitely worth a careful read.
Amazing website for WoW gold and challenge mode mounts World of Warcraft items for sale. Buy the best tradable WoW items,challenge mode mounts. Purchase WoW gold at the most affordable prices!