Women in Leadership—a Logical and Theological Mandate

by Martin Weber, March 29, 2015: Global Adventist delegates to July’s General Conference Session will vote whether or not the 13 world divisions will have authority within their own territory to ordain women as pastors. North American Division leaders favor such an outcome. Following are reflections from a veteran of the discussion.
Achieving inclusivity has been a challenge for our church. Regarding ethnicity, age and gender, Seventh-day Adventists have straggled behind secular society in facilitating human freedom and dignity. Sadly, our church had to be shamed into ethnic equality during the civil rights movement. We’ve been frightened into respecting young adults to keep from losing their membership (and their tithe). Female employees had to actually sue their way into the gender equality required by the law of the land—but only in terms of pay. Adventists still deny women equality in professional church administration by taking refuge in governmental religious “freedom” protections.
But from whom are we protecting ourselves? And how is that working out for us—quenching the Spirit’s gift of leadership in women, while questing for inSpirited revival and reformation?
A misadventure in diversity
In the early 1990’s, church administrators tasked the GC Ministerial Association with organizing Friday night communion service during a week of spiritual emphasis for headquarters employees. All of us agreed with our Association director, the late James Cress, that Holy Communion must reflect the diversity of the body of Christ in ethnicity, age and gender.
To be inclusive of women, we decided to invite trusted and beloved “mothers in Israel” among the office staff to participate. They would distribute Communion bread and grape juice to GC employees.
However, when we informed our administrative representative, a GC vice president, he tactfully but emphatically denied his own Ministerial Association’s initiative. Why? Because ordained deacons who bore the sacred responsibility of serving Communion are exclusively males. Women can bake wafers, set tables and clean up afterwards. But they are unsuited to serve with males in the actual service.
One argument against ordaining women is that it will lead to ordaining homosexuals. Actually, for the past 40 years now we’ve been ordaining women as local church leaders. You probably have women elders in your congregation. Has that opened the door to your church ordaining homosexuals? Rejecting the ordination of women pastors for fear of bringing on homosexual pastors makes as much sense as rejecting a woman prophet to save us from a lesbian prophet.
Other escapes from ordaining women also suffer logically and theologically. Why do we label women in the role of deacons as “deaconesses”? And where is the biblical warrant for that? It would make just as much sense to call our teens “deaconettes” when they take up the offering.
Back to our Ministerial Association Communion drama. As we prayed about and discussed our situation, Dr. Cress suddenly interrupted with a joyful shout: “I’ve got it! Listen to this: It’s true the church doesn’t ordain women as deacons—but we do ordain them as local elders! So let’s invite women employees who are ordained local elders to distribute the emblems Friday night. That ought to satisfy administrative concerns, since elders ‘trump’ deacons in ecclesiastical hierarchy!”
The Ministerial Association staff rejoiced—we had found our solution. But our smiles faded after announcing our strategy to the supervising vice president. He didn’t share our enthusiasm, even though this godly leader—whom we all respected and loved—could offer no reason for gender exclusion enforced by General Conference administrators. He just sadly but firmly pronounced: “This has never been done before.” Evidently tradition rests on precedence, not principle.
We also were “advised” (warned) not to disrupt “unity” (uniformity?) at church headquarters by making women leadership at Communion an issue of “controversy” (honest discussion). Nobody tried to explain why the Adventist Church allows ordination of women as local church elders since 1975 but not as local church pastors—when the New Testament makes no such distinction between elders and pastors.
Ellen White was a woman
An even greater theological conundrum for thoughtful Adventists is how Ellen White factors into this discussion about women in leadership. One truth is beyond dispute: Sister White was a woman—fully engulfed in ministry. She wielded more global leadership authority than any Adventist male who ever lived. Ponder that while church historians argue whether or not the famous ordination documents that bear Ellen White’s name are valid.
Actually, the Bible doesn’t specifically address the matter of women being ordained. The New Testament discussion focuses on women not teaching men and being silent in church (as mandated by both Jewish and Greco-Roman culture). But Ellen White was anything but silent! She instructed and rebuked entire assemblies of (male) church leaders.
Which raises an interesting point. Those today resisting leadership for women tend to invest supreme authority in Sister White’s leadership and teaching—often as an infallible interpreter of Scripture. How do we explain this inconsistency to our neighbors—or even to our own young adults as we try to persuade them not to abandon their church family?
Let’s hope that our church will cease being in a state of denial regarding women in ministry. Let’s pray that delegates to the General Conference Session will resolve this matter both logically and theologically.
Martin Weber, DMin, retired from four decades of denominational ministry to become the Adventist product manager at Faithlife Corporation, makers at Logos Bible Software. The archives of Adventist Today magazine (1993 – 2013) will become uniquely searchable in the Logos interlinked library; it is currently on sale at a pre-publication discount.
Women as pastors? I am still wondering why I need to hire another Christian to pastor me? Where did Jesus teach that? And how about the “worship service”, was that what Jesus came to establish? I still do not understand the benefit of that tool. I would rather gather with other Christians and praise God in other formats, but my thinking does not get far with the “churched”. Instead a lifeless building gets the privilege that I thought I received.
Where is the formality with Christ? All I see Him do is break down those barriers and admonish His followers to trust and follow Him through His Spirit. New Testament history does not look like what I experience in “the church”. Instead I see in both Adventism and other denominations an unwillingness to trust the Holy Spirit’s leading.
If as a whole God’s people think this is a worthy concern, I feel lost towards that body. I get the smallest reducible unit of the church/body/community of Christ is the family and the priestly role belongs to the husband. When I carry that thought and extend it to the whole of the body I do not see what I would like but instead I see an organization that looks like a business with employee concerns. It bothers me to think about professional Christianity and the lack of recognizing the distance we have come from Christ’s teachings.
Amen
Martin, I forgot to mention that I appreciate your point of view both here and in the Gleaner. Thank you for sharing these thoughts.
Martin,
I have long appreciated your incisive explorations of topics and your ability to ask questions that touch on the heart of a topic. You have done that again.
Because we haven’t done something that way before is no justification for not at least trying it. The pathetic pace of church growth in the old, industrialized countries of the world shows us how badly we need to be trying those ways we haven’t done it before.
You lost me back there in your retelling of why the GC ladies did not serve communion at that time. I’m still hung up on the logic of women as officiants would lead to homosexuality. Was there some logical explanation given for that, it was it just desperate silliness?
This true account is just another nail in the coffin of the church which many have buried. No longer do those who believe fully that “There is no Greek nor Jew, neither slave nor free, neither male nor femals, for you are all ONE in Christ Jesus.”
When any church claims to be Christian and denies this pillar of Christianity, it has departed from the clear Word of the Holy Spirit who inspired the apostle Paul.
Either Paul spoke truth, or he spoke falsehood. The Church has chosen to ignore it since its existence.
I have agreed with Elaine Nelson essentially 100% of the time for many years. I regret that my agreement index might have to slip down to the 99.9% level because of her statement that “Either Paul spoke truth, or he spoke falsehood.” Her comment was in the context of the fact that the Christian Church has historically ignored the “nether make nor female” comment of Paul. Obviously, the fact that this principle was not followed can not denied. However, perhaps Elaine’s point about “Either Paul spoke truth, or he spoke falsehood” has written quickly and she will be coming back to nuance this statement. If she does, I wonder if she would agree that the two options presented, i.e., “truth” or “falsehood” are not the only ones might wish to us in this case.
This is because it seems to me that Paul’s beliefs on matters of theology are a mixed bag. Once you accept the view that some of his theological concepts are problematic to various degrees, you don’t have to have only two categories in which to place them.
I would appreciate Elaine’s further development of her statement in greater detail.
It was made for the affect of extreme contrasts. Did Paul mean this as a permanent principle? In what situations would it not be true? What word the opposite of truth would have been more appropriate?WDYT?
That Paul appeared to contradict himself in his writings is no different than all humans depending on the specific context. In his writings to churches they depend on the audience and the reasons according to the needs he sees.
Is the statement quote a universal timeless principle or another explanation? Is there a time or place when it would not be applicable?
Martin: “…the New Testament makes no such distinction between elders and pastors.”
I am not sure if I entirely agree. I believe both the NT and early Church history clearly distinguishes two streams or paths of Church leadership: the spiritual (charismatic) path, consisting of apostles, prophets and teachers; compared with the administrative (appointed) parth, consisting of elder (later including bishops) and deacons. The Didache (c.90) is a good example of an early Church document which still distinguishes these two streams of Church leadership, before the supression of the charismatic stream by the appointed stream starting with the Montanist Revival.
There are two important points which flow from that:
1. First, the important point is in realising charismatic leaders don’t need ordination – they are called by the Holy Spirit. Ordination is only the Church’s acknowledgment of something God already does. The fact Ellen White was never ordained only emphasises that. It is why Matthais was chosen by lots (the origin of the word in English ‘clergy’).
By contrast, it was elders and deacons who needed ordination. This was especially since there was problems with so many having charismatic gifts, including the gift of prophecy during NT times.
Thus, our women pastors don’t need ordination precisely because neither do our male pastors! They are called by the Holy Spirit Himself, and ordination matters not one wit.
2. The commonly cited proof texts about the husband of one wife and obedient children (most forget that latter requirement) only applies to appointed leaders – not charismatic leaders. So again, if a local church wants to stop a woman being ordained as a local elder go ahead; but they have no power to deny the calling of a spiritual leader, which is the calling of the Holy Spirit alone.
The SDA Church has bizarrely got this biblical and historical concept all backwards! We allow women in administrative roles as elders and deacons (even GC Vice Presidents) whilst failing to recognise their calling as spiritual leaders. Again, Ellen White was only ever a spiritual leader, as a prophet, apostle, teacher, evangelist and pastor. Yet she never claimed to be an administrative leader, like her husband who was a GC President.
I wish our Church would actually approach this issue with some nuance.
Steve,
Regarding your first comment about distinction between elders and pastors, the word translated “pastor” is never described in any detail in scripture and concepts about the pastoral role in the church are all post-apostolic and largely Roman Catholic in origins. What scriptural foundation are you using to distinguish between the two?
Yes William, it really isn’t elders vs pastors but elders vs apostles. Is there any evidence that say Paul was an elder as opposed to a prophet? The best scriptural evidence distinguishing the roles is Matthais in Acts 2 vs Stephen in Acts 6.
There is no scriptural evidence that Stephen was a mere ‘deacon’ – that is also Catholic tradition. It is likely he was the first ‘elder’ or rather appointed leader, along with the others who made the 7.
The NT clearly alludes to the 12 spiritual leaders vs the 7 appointed leaders. I think the various names (and the SDA decision to use ‘pastor’ itself) somewhat confuses the issue. The bottom line is ‘charismatic’ leadership vs ‘appointed’ leadership.
As Oxford Professor of Christian history Diarmaid MacCulloch (Anglican-Episcopalian, 1951-) explains in A History of Christianity (London: Penguin, 2009), 131, the early Church really depicts two broad models of leadership – one local and the other itinerant (travelling):
“A similar stage can be detected in the late-first-century Church: a mobile ministry included those known as apostles and prophets, the local ministry in particular places consisted of a grade known interchangeably as bishops or presbyters, together with a separate grade of deacons.”
Steve Ferguson wrote: “It is why Matthais was chosen by lots (the origin of the word in English ‘clergy’).” I have no idea where you got that the word clergy comes from “chosen by lots” but seems far fetched.
c.1200, clergie “office or dignity of a clergyman,” from two Old French words: 1. clergié “clerics, learned men,” from Medieval Latin clericatus, from Late Latin clericus (see clerk ); 2. clergie “learning, knowledge, erudition,” from clerc, also from Late Latin clericus. Meaning “persons ordained for religious work” is from c.1300. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clergy
Also your statement about the Didache seems very contrived. What it says is:
15 Appoint Bishops for Yourselves
15:1 Appoint bishops for yourselves, as well as deacons, worthy of the Lord, of meek disposition, unattached to money, truthful and proven; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers.
15:2 Do not despise them, after all, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers.
15:3 And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the gospel. But to anyone who acts amiss against another, let no one speak to him, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the gospel of our Lord.
http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html
Thanks for saying so well what is truth. As an addition to Sr. White’s being chosen by God, it might be noted that God ordained her as His messenger even before the 7th day Sabbath had been restored to his early Adventist church family. I believe God was speaking by illustration what His will for His church family was way back then. There was no church to ordain her at that God so God did what needed to be done to set her apart for the work of ministering.
Martin, thanks for a refreshing voice of reason amidst the cacophony of confusion on women’s ordination. You are so right: we have to get out of the state of denial and reach a logical and theological conclusion.
I don’t know if you’ve seen this article on the subject – you might enjoy it, too: “Exposé: It’s Not Theology, It’s Politics” https://OrdinationTruth.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/politics/ . It shows how illogical and unfair it is to deny ordination to women when the church is already granting virtually the same status under a different name (“commissioned”).
Thanks for pointing out how irrational it is based any anti-WO theory on Ellen White, when she herself was a woman and was listed as an ordained minister in the Yearbook. Every leader should read your article and the blog mentioned above, before voting this summer. It would be nice if someone could convince the Review to publish them too.
Martin Weber – Ellen White yielded no leadership authority. She had about the same amount of power or authority as an advisor to the king. The advisor may be 100% right, but it is up to the king to listen or not. The king has the power.
Likewise, Ellen White was God’s spokesperson. However, it was up to church leadership to take her advice or not. She was in no position of power in the church.
Through her prophetic authority, she actually had great influence over the direction of the church. Those other leaders are pretty much dead and forgotten, whereas her memory, writings, and influence are still widespread. She had at least as much authority over the church as any pastor or conference official. However, the reality is that none of them are supposed to wield power and authority. Ministers are servants and shepherds, not kings or queens. Jesus (not a pastor or conference president) is the head of the church.
Both Leo and Bob are right in a certain way. Ellen White was a charismatic (I use that in its original Greek context) leader: apostle, prophet, evangelist, teacher and pastor. Charismatic leaders don’t need ordination. They are chosen by God alone, hence Matthais selection by lots. It is where we get the word “clergy” from (Greek for chosen by lots).
Ellen White was not a “king”. That is the role of appointed leaders: elders, deacons (and eventually bishops). It is appointed leaders who are selected by prescribed criteria, being the husband of one wife and having obedient children. Only appointed leaders need ordination.
Thus, our clergy don’t need ordination because they are charismatic leaders “called” not appointed. This whole debate about WO is backwards or pointless.
It is even more pointless when you consider that the vote this summer is basically just a matter of terminology. http://www.tinyurl.com/WO-semantics What’s wrong with using the term “ordained” since the GC already approved female pastors worldwide 25 years ago? Regardless of what you call them, women pastors are here to stay. So you’re right, the whole ordination debate is pointless and ridiculous.
It is clear to many of us that the push to ordain women is *mainly* as response to the feminist movement. While I fully agree there should be equal pay for equal work, the feminist movement has not been an unmixed blessing.
Essentially WO is about surrendering to cultural pressures which are unrelated to theology and what is best for the SDA church.
Maranatha
So? We could replace in that entire statement the word “feminist” with “civil rights movement” or even “abolitionist movement” and we’ve have the history of equality on the basis of race, as opposed to gender. In either way, Christians are called to the radical egalitarianism exemplified in Gal 3:28, despite Paul’s realisation in this broken world that slaves need to obey their masters or women need to obey their husbands under Greco-Roman law.
Well said, Steve. Read this: http://www.tinyurl.com/MinistryEquality
“Feminist Movement” went out with the 80’s. It is an outdated expression that has been replaced with equal rights for all, whether of different gender, color, place of origin or religion.
Equality is just what the word means: All humans are equal in value and deserving of respect without being placed in a particular status or position. This is the Christian position since it was severed from the ethnic roots of Judaism. Either one accepts that this is part of the Golden Rule that each individual deserves the same respect he would wish for him, or reject the first ideal and goal for all believers. If there are no superiors nor inferiors with God, surely there should be non with man.
Elaine I very much agree, although I think your reference to “Judaism” here might be a little clumsy and some might read it as a little anti-Semetic.
The system embodied in 2nd Temple Judaism was certainly unequal but in fact based on cascading series of exclusions: first gentiles, then women, then ‘feminine’ men like eunuchs, then ‘real’ Jewish men, then Levites, then priests and finally the High Priest.
Christianity certainly destroyed that prejudice and ushered in the ideal of true equality. However, the first Christians (who were all Jews) didn’t make this up. It represented a strong thought in Judaism itself, especially bound up in the eschatological hopes of later prophets, from Isaih, to Jeremiah to Amos.
Steve,
Your allusions to 2nd Temple Judaism are totally correct.
Previously on this web site I have commented on how the number of barriers progressed from the Tabernacle in the Wilderness to Solomon’s temple, to Zerubbabel’s temple, to Herod’s temple.
How ironic that those who proclaim most loudly for all Adventists to unite by faith with our Heavenly High Priest in the Most Holy Place, seem to be most determined to preserve the barriers in the courtyards that were never commanded by God, but devised by men (notably circumcised Jewish male descendants of Aaron).
Even more amazing that Adventists spend much moe time decoding the Hebrew Bible and neglect the NT where the book of Hebrews explains the sanctuary as it relates to Christ AFTER His resurrection.
Had more time been spent in delving into the NT, especially the books written AFTER Christ’s resurrection the unique doctrines claimed by Adventists would never have become Fundamental Beliefs. ALL the doctrines that ONLY Adventism erected are not found in the NT written by and for Christians.
Christianity isn’t severed from the ethnic roots of Judaism as long as Jesus the Christ is head of the church. Passover starts tonight. The universal message of Passover for believers and and unbelievers is: God has chosen Israel. There is no equal rights for all – there is redemption for those whom God has chosen. God has chosen Israel.
There are always superiors and inferiors with God. The differentiating Creator – who separated the light from the dark – and brought order, a differentiated order, out of the chaos of Tohu-va-bohu. Equality is not the goal, unless you are Lucifer.
Amos 3:7 says, “Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.”
And Isaiah 61 says,
The Year of the Lord’s Favor
61 The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,[a]
2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,
3 and provide for those who grieve in Zion—
to bestow on them a crown of beauty
instead of ashes,
the oil of joy
instead of mourning,
and a garment of praise
instead of a spirit of despair.
They will be called oaks of righteousness,
a planting of the Lord
for the display of his splendor.
4 They will rebuild the ancient ruins
and restore the places long devastated;
they will renew the ruined cities
that have been devastated for generations.
5 Strangers will shepherd your flocks;
foreigners will work your fields and vineyards.
6 And you will be called priests of the Lord,
you will be named ministers of our God.
You will feed on the wealth of nations,
and in their riches you will boast.
7 Instead of your shame
you will receive a double portion,
and instead of disgrace
you will rejoice in your inheritance.
And so you will inherit a double portion in your land,
and everlasting joy will be yours.
8 “For I, the Lord, love justice;
I hate robbery and wrongdoing.
In my faithfulness I will reward my people
and make an everlasting covenant with them.
9 Their descendants will be known among the nations
and their offspring among the peoples.
All who see them will acknowledge
that they are a people the Lord has blessed.”
10 I delight greatly in the Lord;
my soul rejoices in my God.
For he has clothed me with garments of salvation
and arrayed me in a robe of his righteousness,
as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest,
and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
11 For as the soil makes the sprout come up
and a garden causes seeds to grow,
so the Sovereign Lord will make righteousness
and praise spring up before all nations.
Martin Weber seems to point out that “the church” was positioned to be a leader in the world and instead has played catch up too often. But we need not fear, Jesus is still knocking at the door because of His great love for those, yes even those who have everything, even God’s prophetic guidance.
Huh?
In other words, God foretold the mission of the church, through Jesus. If Jesus can live up to Isaiah 61, then we are not to back down but follow suit. We have come up short.
And James quotes Amos in Acts 17 as to why Gentiles are now allowed into the kingdom. Amos predicts a time when these exclusion distinctions of Temple Judaism will be done away with in the Messiah.
Amos talks about the rebuilding of the tent of David (the Temple), which in James’ time was a bizarre statement because Herod’s Temple still existed. James’ point in Acts 17 is that the “true” Temple is actually the body of Christ, the people, not the building down the road in Jerusalem.
Interested Friend, I comment on your statement, “It is clear to many of us that the push to ordain women is ‘mainly’ as response to the feminist movement.”
I disagree with you completely. I believe that the move to give recognition to qualified and dedicated women preachers is rather a response to the prophecy of Joel 2:28, “And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy (or preach), your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions.” If we believe that we are living in the latter days and we believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit let us be very careful not to reject the evident work of the Holy Spirit. Christ called that the unpardonable sin.
My wife and I have three granddaughters who are Adventist ministers, one is a senior pastor of a large church; the other is a youth pastor also in a large church and the third is the Young Family pastor in a very affluent church. I know those three granddaughters far better than most people. And to infer that they are moved by human feminism or worse still by Satanic spiritualism is the height of absurdity. I am persuaded that each of them has been moved by the call of God and of the Holy Spirit as verily as I was.
As a church we need to stop playing games with the words “commissioning” and “ordaining”. Let us just proceed to recognise the calling of God and take time to set these women apart by prayer and the laying on of hands. The harvest fields are ripe and the world is calling for the church to unite its forces, both men and women, to present Christ and His message of love to all.
The elder or pastor must be the husband (not wife) titus 1.
Your daughters are clearly violating the word of God.
You should pray for their repentance before it is too late.
Women can not be pastors or elders.
The age of Institution as Problem Solver is no longer working, because the Instituion is itself getting in the way of solving problems that it’s existence creates.
IMO, Milton Adams of Florida, has done an outstanding job at working within the confines of denominationalism that is the SDA “church” by creating a version of Simple Church that was endorsed by the GC and NAD. http://www.simplechurchathome.com While I do not agree with the idea of the local conference getting the tithe, I understand it was a necessary compromise to get the approvals he needed to establish an alternative “church”.
The core of his philosophy is to get the “church” to recognize its members as “missionaries” which then grants them the privileges that God otherwise gives them and the institution withholds.
If only more Christians and members of the SDA “church” had an interest to know what can be known regarding organization. Here is a link that I would suggest many read: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankviola/whoisyourcovering/
It never ceases to amaze me how those who object to sending tithe to their local conference, nevertheless are glad to accept services funded from that tithe by the local conference (eg up to 35% of the cost of your church school teacher, and medical and retirement benefits for church workers to name just a few). I guess it is human nature to want “something for nothing”.
I view returning tithe to the local conference as a way for the churches within a geographical region to pool their resources to support services that all but the largest could not provide by themselves.
Yes I know many examples of conferences squandering money in ill-advised manners (some widely publicized and others never publicized). But I also know many examples of pastors, evangelists, local church leaders and individual members squandering their money in ill-advised manners.
Besides, if we eliminated local conferences, then who would Adventist pastors and teachers and lay members blame when things are not going well?
I personally don’t care how a local conference gets its money to do its ministry. They don’t care how I get my money to do my ministry either. I in no way am supported by any local conference ministry and neither is the Simple Church to which I referred above. In that context there is no logical reason to support a structure that does not support you/me, the non-recipient, of their benefits.
Maybe this comment of yours has merit somewhere else.
Religion, like politics, is always local. People are always more interested in their own city, county and state which is the same for religious organizations. The local congregation is where most people put their time and interest as well a money.
religion is not politics. In Christianity we dont go by what the majority says but by what the bible says.
And according to the bible, women cannot be padtors or elders titus1.
Well I am interested to see when and whether and how the Simple Church will embrace the concept of sharing?
I don’t need your help and you don’t need mine does not sound like the Spirit of Christ (who emptied Himself and took the form of a servant) to me.
Giving is NOT about supporting my own ministry – it is about supporting the work of OTHERS.
William: “Steve. Regarding your first comment about distinction between elders and pastors, the word translated “pastor” is never described in any detail in scripture and concepts about the pastoral role in the church are all post-apostolic and largely Roman Catholic in origins. What scriptural foundation are you using to distinguish between the two?”
Yes William, it really isn’t elders vs pastors but elders vs apostles. Is there any evidence that say Paul was an elder as opposed to a prophet? The best scriptural evidence distinguishing the roles is Matthais in Acts 2 vs Stephen in Acts 6.
There is no scriptural evidence that Stephen was a mere ‘deacon’ – that is also Catholic tradition. It is likely he was the first ‘elder’ or rather appointed leader, along with the others who made the 7.
The NT clearly alludes to the 12 spiritual leaders vs the 7 appointed leaders. I think the various names (and the SDA decision to use ‘pastor’ itself) somewhat confuses the issue. The bottom line is ‘charismatic’ leadership vs ‘appointed’ leadership.
As Oxford Professor of Christian history Diarmaid MacCulloch (Anglican-Episcopalian, 1951-) explains in A History of Christianity (London: Penguin, 2009), 131, the early Church really depicts two broad models of leadership – one local and the other itinerant (travelling):
“A similar stage can be detected in the late-first-century Church: a mobile ministry included those known as apostles and prophets, the local ministry in particular places consisted of a grade known interchangeably as bishops or presbyters, together with a separate grade of deacons.”
My ideas basically come from:
‘Leadership in the Early Church During the First Hundred Years’, by Emeritus Professor Robert M. Johnston of Andrews University.
Steve,
I pretty much agree with you and add that the diversity of gifts the Holy Spirit gives often equip a person with abilities that do not confine them to a single role. They may start in a single role and be known for it but as they grow spiritually and they are given more gifts by the Holy Spirit their ministry will naturally expand and diversify.
Perhaps our clearest distinction of roles is apostles where the root word means “one who is sent out.”
From the prophet herself: “It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.” 6 T 322.
Haven’t you taken that out of context, Pastor? Check the statements before and after the quote you have made.
Whatever Martin Weber’s argument is – I will tell you what it isn’t. It is not an argument about scripture. “By what authority…” If you want to change the way the church has ordered itself, the only valid authority for change would be argued from the scripture.
“If you want to change the way the church has ordered itself, the only valid authority for change would be argued from the scripture.”
The operative phrase being “the way the church has ordered itself” which arose as much or more from Roman culture as from any NT directive. So what did not arise from Scripture can only be changed from Scripture?
Go ahead; change whatever you want. By what authority do you ordain the change? Women in headship is an innovation. Its prohibited in 1 Tim 2:12 (and lots of other places by inference)
So by what authority would you ordain the change? Your own head?
By what authority do we ordain men who are unmarried or married but childless?
Exactly, these same proof texts say an elder must be able to govern his own household, not having rebellious children, because if he can’t govern his own family how can he govern the Church?
How then did say the Apostle Paul or young Timothy satisfy these requirements, if we are to take them so literally?
Having grown-up as a PK, many of my childhood friends were PKs. We played together while our dads were doing camp pitch, camp improvements, workers meetings, etc. And we went to boarding academies and colleges together.
Knowing many PKs VERY well to this present day, I would say that at least half of all their fathers should have been de-frocked due to the overt “rebellion” of their children.
Last year I had the opportunity to share an evening with some other old-time friends who were in our area. Of six people gathered around a table sharing a meal, three were former PKs. I was the only one who regularly attended the SDA church. Based upon this “random” sample of “apostasy” among PKs perhaps 2/3 of all pastoral fathers should be de-frocked.
I must confess to being a Sinner myself though still within the Church. So that would make it 100% of pastors being de-frocked.
Some would object that not all of our transgressions can be blamed upon our fathers. This may be true but should we deputize our Ordination and Credentials committees to make these judgments?
I might also say that the sense of “abandonment” felt by many pastoral families where the pastor is “married” to his (or her) job, is a major contributing factor to the “apostasy” of many pastoral spouses and children. When the pastor is supposed to be modeling God before his (or her) congregation and family, it is natural for the other family members to blame God or the Church for the unfortunate pastor’s personal shortcoming. This is especially true for those who feel emotionally abandoned by the pastoral father (or mother). This bear scars which often do not heal in this life.
By what authority William do you say slavery should be abolished? The same sort of arguments you use now were the same sort that allowed supposedly Christian white men to subjugate their fellow black men.
The Gospels calls for raddical equality (Gal. 3:28). Since you seem content at abrogating that message, the onus rests with you, to say discimination still exists, not the other way around.
During NT times, Paul understand the reality of his world, so he even said ‘Slaves obey your masters’. But that was clearly not his ‘ideal’. The same goes for gender discrimination.
If we adopted your way of thinking there would be no African-American ordained ministers. In fact in some Churches, this is exactly what did occur for quite a long time!
Freedom and equality in Christ is not an “innovation” – it is the essence of the Gospel. If you look at early Christian history, you’ll find your position is actually the proto-Roman Catholic one. It is the “innovation”.
For example, it was the Catholics who killed women out of Church leadeship with the Council of Orange. Going as far as the 3rd and 4th centuries, there were women prophets and apostles. During the Montantist Revival, made famous by the backing of “Church Father” Tertullian, there were two women apostles-prophets, who were then attacked by the proto-Papal bishops.
You are the one upholding the “innovation” of Papal Rome. Go read some history!
Radical equality. The rebellion of Korah. “All the people are holy” The rebellion of Lucifer, who would be equal with God. Radical equality, “in the beginning the earth was empty and void” – darkness, chaos; equality.
God has been differentiating and making all things unequal since the beginning. The New Covenant is not about ‘radical equality’ It is about Jesus Christ, the King of Israel, the redeemer of Israel, saving His chosen people. Equality in Christ? Phooey! Grace and life and salvation in Christ, not equality.
Equality is the essence of the gospels? Please show me where. …if you Christ’s ye be Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. Remember the inequality of God in choosing Abraham.
Let’s face it – whether they recognize it or not, men are clinging to the exclusive power they have wielded over centuries until it seems to them to be an inherent right. They are extremely fearful of being relegated to a lesser place. And no wonder, as we look at the fast-increasing prominence of women in the secular world.
The only thing that matters is what does the bible say about it. From the old testament to the new testament God has ordained men in position of leadership.
If you have a problem with that, you can leave the church and live your life according to the desire of your heart. But if you want to stay in the church, then you die to your preferences and follow the Word of God.
NO, no, no. Logical and Theological mandate, it is rather an immoral and a logical shame on you the advocate of women leadership. God had always appointed and gave women a role that no man can achieve Why don’t you disciples of the dragon let the Holy Spirit open your eyes so you can see? I mean, who are you to correct God. Where were you when God created Adam? Repent so you can surely save. God is able!
Good Friday mediation: Under the Old Covenant, the firstborn male heir received a double inheritance, but now through the blood of the New Covenant, male and female are joint heirs together with Christ, the Firstborn from the dead and head of a new human race, fully equalized in Him (Gal. 3:28).
Male or female, on our own we are but unprofitable servants–wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked. But in Christ together we are rich, increased with goods, and in need of nothing further to be God’s beloved children in whom He is well pleased.
Elder Weber,
The text doesn’t say, “fully equalized in Him” It says, “ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
The promise and Abraham’s story are about God choosing. God has chosen Abraham, Issac and Jacob. God has chosen Israel. Jesus Christ has been crucified “King of the Jews” If we are Christ’s our portion is with Israel.
It is not merely Good Friday. It is Passover. Memorial to the Sovereign Creator of all things seen and unseen who has chosen whom He will choose. He has ordered the world as He has seen fit. He has redeemed it from sin and death for Christ’s sake and Israel’s sake. He is not the God of Equality. He is the differentiating Creator and Redeemer.
Since this fear of ordaining homosexuals has stirred the “saints,” I am trying to understand why a celibate homosexual could not be a pastor. There is clearly no biblical reason and biological research (as well as observation) tells us the condition cannot be changed any more than being heterosexual.
Does this mean no single male can ever be a pastor?
This will surely come up in the future. What if God calls such men?
How many single (never married) pastors do you know?
Only one when he went into pastoral work, but then he got married shortly after.
And did you know any who were divorced or widowed or who had no children? I know one whose wife decided she did not wish to be a pastor’s wife so she left him. Since he obviously could not rule his own family presumably you would disqualify him from continued service as a pastor based upon the words of the Apostle Paul?
Martin-
Heart warming to hear your honest assessment of the dilemma occurring. I appreciate your clarity and courage to tell it like it is. Maybe at the GC session God will move to bring in new leadership which understands the priesthood of all believers so revival and reformation can occur on a much boarder stage.
Revival and reformation according to the world. I want no part in such revival. But revival according to the Word of God (the Bible), am all for it. And according to the bible, women cannot be padtors or elders titus1.
It’s the same old song and dance: older males telling women what, where, and how they should act. As long as women acquiesce no changes will be made.
How did women gain the right to vote? How did they gain equal work and pay protections? Not be quietly waiting for men to realize the inequity. Men need to be “reminded” in way not forgotten.
What do you mean, “‘reminded’ in a way not forgotten”?
Apparently, it needs to be repeated.
Christianity is not democracy. Here we dont follow what we want but what the bible says.
Good Friday?/ I thought Friday was Preparation Day. That’s what I was taught in church school which I attended.
Were my teachers wrong?
Most people who work on a bi-weekly payroll with Friday paydays, know that two kinds of Fridays alternate:
1) Good Friday
2) Passover
My bank deposits on Thursdays. I have good Thursdays.
Yes.
I largely agree with Martin Weber’s points in this article.
Nonetheless, my reading of the NT, especially Acts 6:1-7, is that there are basically two streams of Christian leadership: The Twelve and The Seven. It was the Roman Catholics who, after the Montantist Revival, wiped out these two streams. Again, don’t take my word for it and simply re-read Acts chapter 6.
Terms like ‘clergy’, ‘pastor’ (lit. shepherd), ‘deacon’ (lit. ‘servant’, the same word in Greek as ‘minister’ are largely generic descriptors during biblical times. They didn’t get their institutionalised meaning until many centuries later (i.e. the rise of the proto-Catholic Church). Texts can be provided if requested. Thus, this debate will go nowhere if we get caught up in these titles.
Instead, we need to focus on the two steams: the Twelve (incidentally usually apostles, prophets and teacher) and the Seven (usually elders and deacons).
The Twelve are chosen by the Holy Spirit (e.g. Mathias’ selection by lots or Paul’s by vision). The Seven by contrast are elected by humans (the biblical word used in connection with the selection of elders is “cheirotoneo”, literally meaning “to elect by raising hands”, from the root word “cheiro”, meaning “hand” Acts 14:23; 2 Cor. 8:19).
The Twelve are tasked with the more intellectual role devoted to the Word. The Seven by contrast are to ‘wait on tables’, which is to say a practical Gospel (Acts 6:2).
The Seven need ordination to give them authority. There is no evidence of the Twelve ever needing ordination, although as say in the case of Paul it was given afterwards, as a recognition by the Church of a calling God had already made.
So my question is follows: Of those who oppose women’s ordination or women in ministry generally, which stream do they say women are prohibited from – The Twelve or The Seven?
Assuming that there is significant difference between the selection of the twelve and the seven overlooks the working of the Holy Spirit. The entire life and mission of Jesus was empowered and guided by the Holy Spirit and the twelve had been baptized by the Holy Spirit so they were operating under the same infusion of power and guidance. So their action in selecting the seven was guided by God as much as the action of Jesus in selecting the Disciples. The difference was the work for which they were selected and empowered. This brings us back to the fundamental truth about the Holy Spirit: that He empowers whomever He wants for whatever purpose He wishes and that He does it regardless of gender or social status.
What scriptural evidence can you provide to support your claim that the Twelve were ordained, or that that Seven needed ordination? What did any of them need more than the empowerment of the Holy Spirit for the ministry He wanted them to perform?
Good question.
The evidence of appointed leaders of the Seven getting ordained is found in Acts 6:6.
I don’t think there is any scriptural evidence that the Twelve needed ordination. That is the nature of charismatic ministry – the Holy Spirit alone chooses. Paul and Barnabas, as apostles, were engaged in charismatic ministry like the Twelve. They were also ordained (laying on of hands). However, this only occurred after the Holy Spirit had called them (Acts 13:1-3). Professor Johnston makes the point about apostles:
“a person was called to it directly by Christ or his Spirit. It was not an office to which one was elected or humanly appointed. It was a function to which one was divinely called. The church could extend its recognition of that calling, but its reception did not depend upon such recognition and normally preceded it.”
And saying someone in appointed leadership is not to say they aren’t “spiritual” are guided by the Holy Spirit. It is just that they are engaged in more practical ministry – vital in fact. Like Martha in the kitchen.
Appointed leadership is nonetheless different from charismatic leadership. A person with the gift of prophecy is of a different type and magnitude of Christian leadership than someone who is a good administrator and elected by their fellow Christians.
“What did any of them need more than the empowerment of the Holy Spirit for the ministry He wanted them to perform?”
If they were called to lead a local congregation they needed some kind of public affirmation from the group they called t lead. In the Bible the form of that affirmation varies with time and circumstance.
Exactly. God makes it obvious when a person is gifted and I am always amazed by how God lets the gifted display His power in ways that overcome opposition to their ministry.
Women cannot be elders or pastors titus1.
Excellent article, Dr. Weber! As you said, “Let’s hope that our church will cease being in a state of denial regarding women in ministry.”
I’ve also written on women’s ordination and recently updated the article. You are invited to read it at http://www.tinyurl.com/MinistryEquality . Thanks.
William Abbott: “So by what authority would you ordain the change? Your own head?”
The Gospels calls for raddical equality (Gal. 3:28). Since you seem content at abrogating that message, the onus rests with you, to say discimination still exists, not the other way around.
During NT times, Paul understand the reality of his world, so he even said ‘Slaves obey your masters’. But that was clearly not his ‘ideal’. The same goes for gender discrimination.
If we adopted your way of thinking there would be no African-American ordained ministers. In fact in some Churches, this is exactly what did occur for quite a long time!
Freedom and equality in Christ is not an “innovation” – it is the essence of the Gospel. If you look at early Christian history, you’ll find your position is actually the proto-Roman Catholic one. It is the “innovation”.
For example, it was the Catholics who killed women out of Church leadeship with the Council of Orange. Going as far as the 3rd and 4th centuries, there were women prophets and apostles. During the Montantist Revival, made famous by the backing of “Church Father” Tertullian, there were two women apostles-prophets, who were then attacked by the proto-Papal bishops.
You are the one upholding the “innovation” of Papal Rome. Go read some history!
To Stephen Ferguson,
You wrote: “Appointed leadership is nonetheless different from charismatic leadership.” Why? What would make them necessarily different? Was not the purpose of the Holy Spirit in giving gifts to people a charismatic act in all cases, but where the recipients were equipped to minister according to how He wanted them to serve, including some in positions of leadership?
This discussion also conveniently ignores that the concept of “ordination” as it is practiced and defended today is not found in scripture. We should not be discussing ordination at all, but the empowerment of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
William are you denying the Twelve are different from the Seven, as recorded in Acts 6:1-7? I’ve already explained how these two types of ministry are different, just as the ministries of Mary and Martha were different. I have already explained how the selection of both types are different, one by extreme manifestations of the Holy Spirit (whether by lots or vision) and some by election (lit. in Greek by the showing of hands).
You seem to be getting caught up with the erroneous idea that I am somehow suggesting the Seven were not “spiritual”. I am not saying that because Acts 6:2-3 doesn’t saying that. But not everyone has the same type of manifested gift. Not everyone has such extreme charismatic manifestation such as the prophetic gift. Some people need to be elected to help the administration of the Church run smoothly.
You need to understand the context of the early Church. My understanding is there was such charismatic gifts that Church order became a problem – Paul’s discussion of tongues being case in point. Those with amazing gifts didn’t need any ordination to give them authority – their authority was self-evident, as the Didache makes clear.
But what about where there are a multitude of prophets, or a multitude of people with gifts of tongues etc? Don’t say it will always be harmony because the NT clearly teaches that wasn’t always the case!
The solution was for the major apostles to appoint senior people with no apparent amazing spiritual manifestation to help maintain administrative order. They needed “ordination” or the rite of laying hands because they didn’t have any obvious amazing charismatic gift. They were basically “normal” people.
My concern William is your theology will actually end up excluding people – not including people. Your way of thinking might suggest if someone is “normal” without an obvious manifestation of charism is not a “true” leader. That is what Pentecostals teach re tongues, as if all must have it to prove they are “true” Christians. That I am afraid is not consistent with the NT.
And I’m not sure your line of thinking is actually helping the case of WO.
There is an exception to Paul’s warning about the disgrace of women speaking in church: a woman can preach if she is a prophetess.
If she happens to be anything else, she must be silent in church. To help women avoid this sin, small strips of duct tape will be passed out at the entrance of the church, and women must apply them to their mouths to keep them closed.
This will also prevent them from singing along with the congregational hymns, but they can still hum (and thus “make a joyful noise”).
Exceptions may also be made for children’s Sabbath School teachers, and possibly for Sabbath School Superintendents. Church clerks may also be allowed to make announcements. However, any such women will be required to comply with the duct-tape gag requirements immediately after completing those duties.
Any women desiring to preach must present an official ID card identifying her as a prophet.
lol as most satire, I realize this exact thing would not happen, but point sadly agreed with.
And she will be allowed to speak only if she can show a birth certificate proving she was born on Nov. 26, 1827 because there’s no way the Holy Spirit could possibly have gifted anyone since then to be a prophet. 😉
This pressure for WO very obviously emanates from the feminist movement which has engulfed our fair land. Little kids now come home to an empty house because women have to be fulfilled.
OK I realize some have to work but many do not have to.
In the Tip of an Iceberg, C. Raymond Holmes shows how the movement has even invaded our language.
One poster refers to something about equality. WO is not even remotely related to the principle of equality.
See: https://www.adventistarchives.org/evaluation-of-egalitarian-papers.pdf
Women cannot be church elders. This is completely unbiblical.
Women cannot be church elders.
Three points:
1. We already do. The issue is only the “ordination” of women ‘pastors’. However, the issue is stupid because “ordination” is not a biblical word but a pagan word. The Bible only talks instead of laying on of hands. We already do that for women pastors but call it “commissioning”. And we have long ordained women elders.
2. Who says a ‘pastor’ is the same as an ‘elder’. The NT and early Church history denotes two types of ministry: a charismatic intellectual ministry and an appointed administrative ministry. Mary vs Martha is a good analogy. The two models are also well shown in Acts 6:1-7.
3. Who says it is unbiblical – you?
Sorry and a fourth:
4. Who says women can’t be elders anyway? Can you demonstrate any elders in the NT who weren’t also circumcised (which incidentally was a far bigger issue in NT times than gender)? If you are obsessed with genitals then why focus on penises vs vaginas and not uncircumcised penises vs circumcised penises? As for me, I don’t really by this genital obsession.
Whatever the motives behind this discussion, or questionnaire, one has to acknowledge it involves speaking before an audience. Whether these people are genuinely seeking to “speak” from a desire to serve the Lord Jesus Christ, or fulfil an inner passion of notoriety, that will be something they will give account for.
The fact that there are so many opinions and views on this subject, does not exclude its serious nature. As I, and others pointed out earlier in this post, all members of the Body of Christ are referred to as the Bride of Christ, or the Woman, and Christ is the Head. Unless the Words of Jesus are spoken through the Holy Spirit and in turn through a member of the Body of Christ, everyone should keep silent. Does anyone here feel that is the general consensus?
I’m not implying we should all just sit in the congregation and stare into the sky. The Apostles, before they received the Holy Spirit, remained together in Jerusalem, during which time they spent in prayer and supplications, and, I’m sure, Scripture reading. But after they received the Holy Spirit they were sent throughout the world preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, and yes, William,(not limiting God to preaching only) performing many miracles, casting out demons, healing, prophesying, teaching, etc.
In all my comments I have not mentioned male or female, and for good reason. I do not condone female dominance nor male dominance, especially when it comes to ungodly men and women. They, as far as I am concerned, can’t rule themselves, let alone their wife and children. No wonder there is such wickedness in this world today. And it is only going to get worse. Lawlessness is rampant. But I trust we all have a greater understand, and that, we receive from the Lord Jesus Christ.
PS
This above comment was meant for:
“An Open Letter to the Opponents of Women in Ministry – Ten Questions I’d Like You to Answer”, not here. Sorry.
Someone keeps posting “women cannot be elders or pastors” here. But the General Conference has already allowed ordination of women as elders for at least 25 years, and women pastors have been officially endorsed that long, too. In fact, there have been women pastors since the beginnings of the church, back in the time of Mrs. White.
I suppose we can abandon scripture and opt for human logic if we choose to do so. It is probably how the early church opted out on Sabbath keeping and decided to keep Sunday instead.
I assume they were convinced it was a “spirit led” decision and thus a good idea. Human reasoning over the bible has been a classic move into apostacy again and again. One simple example, Solomon who married many wives with the intent that they would be “converted” to the true God. And, by the way, it worked, at least on his first wife.
Another example where success became a curse and gendered abandonment of God’s commands. But, Adventism, like Solomon, has been abandoning the bible at a steady rate for many decades. And now we have the Gay movement calling, “little pig, little pig, let me come in, or, I’ll huff and I’ll puff until I blow your house in.”
And, hey, why not? Since the church has opted to claim no one can “judge” anyone or anything, why shouldn’t the homosexual life style be clearly acceptable in the SDA church of today?
Solomon said, “The curse causeless shall not come.” The abandonment of the bible is the cause and the curse will intensify more and more as we near the end.
Proportionately, there were many more women pastors in Ellen White’s time than now.
Many female pastors served in Mrs. White’s era, as early as 1872. Are you saying Mrs. White was in apostasy because she said nothing against having those female pastors (and even said some things in favor of women pastors)?
In reality, the Bible does not prohibit nor require having female ministers. After a deep study of the Bible and the Pen of Inspiration, “Adventist scholars, in 1975, found no theological obstacles to ordaining women to gospel ministry.” (Adventist Review, March 7, 1985) The General Conference Biblical Research Institute concluded in 1976, “If God has called a woman, and her ministry is fruitful, why should the church withhold its standard act of recognition?”
plse read carefully Bill’s comment above.
You wrote: “But, Adventism, like Solomon, has been abandoning the bible at a steady rate for many decades.”
Many decades, huh? That means the ordination of women and gay rights are just the latest “tempests in a teapot” that in a few years will be but memories and those who advocate for things like “male headship” will have found other things to argue about. Argue they will, because they’re more interested in arguing than doing the more important things on God’s priority list.
Now, I can already hear someone’s keyboard clicking with a reply that WO IS THE CRITICAL ISSUE of our day that directly impacts on the church’s ability to do God’s work. Give me a break! Each of the topics that got argued before WO were seen and argued with vigor using the same claim. So the problem is not the particular issues, it arguing instead of working to grow the Kingdom of God!
Plse read carefully Bill’s comment above.
Yes, I would agree, we need to read carefully Bill Sorensen’s comments–and others who oppose women’s ordination–so we can clearly see the faulty reasoning. As we says: “Adventism, like Solomon, has been abandoning the bible at a steady rate for many decades.” Obviously he is referring, most immediately, to the women’s ordination question. In his eys, “abandoning the bible” equals “doing things of which I (Bill Sorensen) disagree.” Yes, please read carefully those who opppose women’s ordination.
” In his eyes, “abandoning the bible” equals “doing things of which I (Bill Sorensen) disagree.” Yes, please read carefully those who oppose women’s ordination.”
Dr. Taylor, I am not the only one who takes this position. And I have opposed this church action for decades just as many others have. I assume you have at some time read “Adventist Affirm”? The whole purpose of this journal was to oppose the many departures from the bible the church had entered into since the Questions on Doctrine fiasco.
Male headship, (a phrase coined by the late Bacchiocchi) in the SDA discussions, is certainly no new issue in the SDA church. The church now has a major problem of how to deal with this issue in some political way so as to patronize the majority and hopefully, not have to actually “repent” and admit is was a terrible non-biblical decision. And those of us who defend scriptures have more and more issues with the church that has continued to abandon more and more bible truth in the name of Pluralism and toleration.
Over all, the church has mis-used the gospel over and over and has been undermining the law for decades. It may be that this whole ordeal will not reach a full disclosure until the Sabbath is directly and openly attack by many church leaders. They have surely sown the seeds for it and the final display may well be nearer than we could perceive. And we now know that “every wind of doctrine” that EGW stated would come, has come.
Proportionately, there were many more women ministers in Ellen White’s time than now. Many female pastors served in Mrs. White’s era, as early as 1872. Are you saying Mrs. White was in apostasy because she said nothing against having those female pastors (and even said some things in favor of women pastors)?
In reality, the Bible does not prohibit nor require having female ministers. After a deep study of the Bible and the Pen of Inspiration, “Adventist scholars, in 1975, found no theological obstacles to ordaining women to gospel ministry.” (Adventist Review, March 7, 1985) The General Conference Biblical Research Institute concluded in 1976, “If God has called a woman, and her ministry is fruitful, why should the church withhold its standard act of recognition?”
Careful study of this list will show that only in California was there any “ordained” woman minister other than Ellen White. That would be Lulu Wightman in 1908.
It took California another full century to elect a woman to the position of Local Conference President.
A linear projection from these two sample points would suggest that sometime around 2120 a woman will be elected to Pacific Union Conference President.
One might be tempted to project that a century later a woman might be elected NAD or GC President. But that would only be likely to happen if one of these institutions moved to California.
Meanwhile in China, beyond the pale or pall of the New Jerusalem (aka Silver Spring) Council, word has it that much of the leadership of the SDA church is thriving in the hands of women?
Certainly the arrival of Jesus on the Jewish scene and his representation of something as incomprehensible to the Pharisees and Sadducees as a “Kingdom of Heaven” ranked as supreme heresy—as out of line with the vector of accepted Temple dogma.
Historically “apostasy” generally appears most pronounced, not when the old is abandoned, but when the newer and more truth-filled is resisted to the death….
Several commenters here argue from Bible precedents that there are no women leaders in the Bible. I would almost agree – certainly the overwhelming majority of leaders recorded in the Bible were men.
Reasoning from precedent, since we have such a paucity of Bible examples of women in leadership roles, clearly this must be God’s intention for all times and all places.
Thus we have placed God in a cage. Bound by precedents of past Divine actions, God is limited to only doing over and over that which has already been done.
To those who reason thusly I will ask, is it possible for God to do something new, something without precedent? How do you explain Isaiah 43:19? How do you explain Joel 2:28?
Yes I know that in the immediate context they are referring to things that should/could/would have happened a long time ago. But could it be that God has yet in-store for us things beyond our comprehension, things we could not imagine until they happen? (see Job 37:5)
“Thus we have placed God in a cage. Bound by precedents of past Divine actions, God is limited to only doing over and over that which has already been done.”
God places Himself in a cage, as you call it, so we won’t go speculating all over oblivion as to what we are free to do or not do as the case may be. This is why we have a bible that defines God’s will in objective givens that are non-negotiable.
That we will no doubt see and understand some things that are obscure to us now, it does not include a denial of clear bible teaching on historic principles established by God Himself so we won’t go off speculating on things that are clear. Male headship is a clear and non-negotiable as the 7th day Sabbath. And quite frankly, easier to support and validate by scripture as well.
If you want to look for excuses to abandon the bible, you will no doubt find some. But “just because you won’t accept it, won’t change it.” God ordained male headship is non-negotiable and not subject to human speculation. It is clear by way of scripture.
“Male headship is a clear and non-negotiable as the 7th day Sabbath.”
Which of the Big Two (Love God supremely and Love your neighbor as yourself) or the Big Ten enshrines the obligation of Male Headship? I do remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy. I did honor my late father and my aging and frail mother.
I do not recall ever memorizing the commandment about Male Headship. I do not even recall that particular phrase being in any of the half dozen or so Bibles I have read from cover to cover.
I was taught Male Headship in my childhood and youth. I abandoned this Commandment of Men when I read what Ellen wrote in PP about the original status of Adam and Even and how it changed as a consequence of the Fall.
PS – I also did not read in the Bible where God has placed himself in a cage. God is able to do New Things whenever God sees fit.
The whole bible is the word and commands of God, Jim. Where does the bible say, “Thou shalt not smoke?”
But we have this clear statement in Gen. that placed Adam in the garden as “king” and “sovereign” over all creation in this world. And do you suppose in the book of Job where all the sons of God came to a council in heaven with Satan claiming to represent this world,
that it would have been Adam and Eve who attended had they not sinned? Although it does not tell us precisely, and we don’t build doctrine on speculation, I think we can conclude that only Adam would have been there had there been no sin.
EGW tells us plainly that Adam was crowned king. As time goes along in human history, it is often that certain objective givens are so plain that no one doubts them. But, if and when they are challenged, a clear definitive statement must be made to show this fact and affirm the biblical mandate.
When Lucifer sinned in heaven and claim a higher level of authority, EGW tells us God assembled the heavenly host and affirmed Christ as head of all creation. PP. Later she states this was no new position, but one that had always existed. The angels already knew this, but it was affirmed because of the controversy over this issue.
The reformation affirmed the bible as the only rule of faith and practice. This was no new truth, but it was affirmed because the church usurped authority over the word, and had to be officially stated. And there are other such illustrations.
Just so, male headship is no “new” revelation, but one that everyone knew and accepted until this new idea of equality in authority and no gender specific qualification applied. So once again, it is necessary to affirm the obvious from the bible and show its application all down through history. And your following post about “fighting against God” may well apply to those who want to abandon the obvious truth of male headship and advocate their own idea of how the church should be run.
Sad to say, this whole issue will split the church and not because of those who advocate male headship. And the WO issue is only one of many that has come into the church in the last few decades. So it is not the only thing that will split the church. It is simply a present high profile issue along with others of equal importance advocated by a false application of the gospel.
No one will convince everyone. Neither side will yield their position. Yes, some will go one way or the other, but not everybody. The outcome does not look good for the politicians who seek “unity” at any and all cost. If you think your position is scriptural, hold your ground. If I and others can not persuade you but the bible, don’t give in. We don’t expect Sunday keepers to give up their position unless we can convince them by the bible. The same applies in this conflict.
“EGW tells us plainly that Adam was crowned king.” Thanks for reminding us that pastors are sovereign rulers, and ordination confers kingly authority upon them. Your syllogism is: “All kings are men. Pastors are kings. Ergo, all pastors must be men.” But the false second premise results in an invalid conclusion.
I could indulge in specious reasoning, too: “All queens are women. Pastors are queens. Ergo, all pastors must be women.” (Or how about: “Adam was naked and named the animals. Ergo, my pastor should go naked and name some animals.”)
But I need not waste my money buying a kingly crown nor a queenly tiara for my pastor. Pastors are shepherds and servants–not rulers or potentates. And “Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church.” (E.G. White, Signs of the Times, 1-27-1890).
Ordination is merely a human form of recognizing that God has already called persons to dedicate their life to sharing the Gospel. God is no respecter of persons;; and what God has done in heaven, the church should be willing to recognize on earth.
The current GC policy of “commissioning” women puts them in an ecclesiastical “no man’s land”: “We, the church, are willing to ‘kinda, sorta’ recognize that God has called you to be a shepherd and servant and share the Gospel.” That is about as sensible as saying: “I saw a lady who was a little bit pregnant.”
“But we have this clear statement in Gen. that placed Adam in the garden as “king” and “sovereign” over all creation in this world.”
Well the last time I asked you where in the Bible is this “clear statement” you trotted-out a heavily redacted Ellen quote about Adam being “king” over the inferior creatures (clearly referring to the other animals and not humans in the part you redacted, and about Eve sharing that dominion with Adam in the part you redacted).
So I will now proclaim that you have utterly FAILED to show us anywhere in the BIBLE where this alleged “clear statement” is found.
Genesis 1 clearly says let THEM have Dominion over the ANIMALS. In the immediate context of Genesis 1 THEM refers to MALE and FEMALE. Genesis 1 teaches exactly the OPPOSITE of what you have been claiming. In fact it says nothing at all about the man having dominion over the woman or vice versa.
You must be reading or writing your own Bible.
Leave these women alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these women; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.
We will always stand by the bible against any heresy of the world.
I am glad that is your position. I too will stand by the Bible against any heresy of the world.
“Bible Truth,” it might help if you respected the Bible enough to capitalize it. The fact that you spell it as “bible” may be rather telling.
I wonder which “bible” you will “stand by.” Perhaps the New World Translation?
There’s no doubt “Leadership” is necessary for any congregation for organizational purposes. However, in the case of spiritual leadership the Bible clearly shows that this role only belongs to God.
In 1 Sam.8:5 the elders of Israel asked: “Make for us a king to judge us like all the nations”. To which God instructed Samuel: 7 “And the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.”
As Jim stated, there is nothing in the Bible to say Adam was a king. I don’t think “dominion” over the animals, etc, means to “rule” as though the animals need someone to “govern” them. But rather mankind were of a higher order in God’s creation compared to animals. Its certain man was not given authority over animals so they could kill and eat them and abuse them.
So now, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, has been restored as King and Sovereign Ruler over all things, not only creation and man, but “principalities and powers in heavenly places”. All things are subject to Him.
Testifying and witnessing for Jesus is not limited to men. It is not a matter of “leadership”.
Many Christians desire to speak on behalf of Jesus Christ, and what a blessing that is. But Jesus is the Head. When Jesus Christ is glorified there is no doubt the Spirit of God is at work.
Like I said, Daniel, not many people will change their mind at this point in time. There are many who will just do whatever the church tells them to do. They have no conviction either way, and these are the ones the church hopes to control in their quest for “unity”.
As I mentioned before Paul in Heb. 13:7,17 and 24 affirms the authority issue in a clear and concise way. Many, if not most, formulate an opinion before they really take the time to carefully consider the implications of the issue.
Just as a side question to you Daniel. Do you think a man is head of the home? And if so, do you then think Christ is not head of the home? The point being, just because Christ is head of the church does not mean that He does not appoint various headship roles that govern under His authority. And this is how heaven is set up.
Was not Lucifer and all the angels under the authority of Christ? Does this mean there were no orders of authority in heaven?
I think the argument that Christ is head of the church is more than a little superficial to negate delegated authority by Christ in the church community. And then follow this reasoning by claiming there is no authority in the church community and elders are only servants, not authoritive leaders. Yes, they are ideally servants. But this does not negate the authority role they have in the church community.
Apparently Paul didn’t think so either as stated in Heb. 13.
But on some level, people don’t really care anyway. To them, the bible is an open-ended book with all kinds of ideas with little or no moral imperatives. It is what has been termed the “principle based theology”. So, we can keep Sunday or Saturday, or any other day as long as we “love Jesus” and this is the principle we should follow in defining bible teaching and application.
And “if it works” it must be right. Well, as I said, most will opt to do whatever the “church decides” as this is the convenient choice and frees them from any moral obligation or duty to study and decide for themselves what the bible really says about any issue.
I love reading comments like Bill’s. They have such confidence that their views are so completely right, even on issues where the Bible is less than clear. I reckon they should go and read the book of Ecclesiastes. It is only people who are so sure of themselves who are able to do such terrible things in the name of God they don’t really know.
Bill, I’m not sure how you concluded that I was saying there was no need for “leadership” in the church community? There are many roles within the church which definitely requires “leadership” and their authority should be acknowledged. As Christians these leaders should also posses qualities where by others benefit from their conduct and speech. No doubt they would also have many spiritual attributes which others would find encouraging and therefore follow their example.
Yes, man is head of the home, and Christ is head over them; just as He is Head of the Church. But to say man should be head of the wife in an authoritative sense, is questionable. Why do I say this? I have seen many “Christian” families where the husband’s authority is not motivated by Love, but a dictatorship spirit. How many husbands do you think are governing their families with the same spirit of Love with which Christ has over the Church? And how many husbands are even wise enough to govern themself let alone anyone else? And what about the godless husbands? I pity their wives and children!
It appears I have concentrated on the Spiritual side of this article, but the fact is all problems, whether in the family, church and throughout the world, are all related to the spiritual condition of man. What we see in the world with all its evils comes from the heart of man. The spiritual aspect of life is where the changes must take place.
So, my main reasoning behind my earlier comment was in regards to who should be our Spiritual guide. Because if we do not have God Leading us in the Way of Truth and Righteousness, then we are not qualified to lead anyone in matters pertaining to family nor Church matters.
And, no, I will not do whatever the church tells me. Churches have become clubs. Sorry, but it’s true.
Hopefully, you would agree, Daniel, that just because a principle is abused, it does not negate the principle. Man has abused his authority on every level of government from family, church and civil. This does not negate the principle ordained by God for various types of government in this world.
And as you suggest, self government is the first requirement to be qualified for any other level of authority. We are all subject to Christ’s authority and will be judged by Him. There are various arguments by those who deny male headship, and one favorite argument is there is no levels of authority in the church, since Christ is head of the church. The various positions are not positions of authority, only various levels of service. This is clearly false if anyone cares to study the issue by way of scripture. Certainly there are levels of service but there is also the element of authority that comes with these positions.
Oh well, like I said, many, if not most, are not really that interested in the matter. A parallel to most Christians who have no interest in what day is ordained by God as the one and only holy day. Adventism is becoming more and more trivial concerning our particular declarations of truth, and now the SDA church has developed the same attitude about more than a few bible issues being discussed and agitated in the church today.
The final outcome is probably near.
“just because a principle is abused, it does not negate the principle”
I am not Daniel, but I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. For almost two millennia the principle of the priesthood of ALL believers has been abused by Christians. Stripping away all the accumulated layers of abuse is a painful process. Abuse is a gift that keeps on giving, because the underlying attitudes that foster this abuse are passed-along as bedrock truth, from generation to generation.
It is very painful to have to honestly and critically re-examine one’s own beliefs and biases in the light of the revealed Word of God. I know – I have had to do this. Most but not all of he beliefs inculcated in me from my earliest days have withstood this test.
DISCLAIMER – I am NOT claiming there is a Bible mandate to ordain women. In fact, as I have looked carefully in the Bible I have found NO mandate to ordain ANYONE. This does NOT mean I find no mandates for civil or religious authority in the Bible. It DOES mean that the means by which such authority is affirmed changes at various points in the Bible to reflect the human culture of the time and place.
Those who insist on a strict Bible mandate for affirming civil or religious authority should require that all men who are to be affirmed for any such authority, first must be circumcised, then let their hair and their beards grow long, then wash themselves and don their linen undergarments, and then either the resident Prophet, or the resident High Priest, should pour so much olive oil on their heads that it drips down off the bottom edges of their beards. And women need not apply for nor even witness this ordinance, lest there be shock and disgrace from what might be seen if the oil soaks the linen underwear.
The closest thing to our Ordination that I can find is the NT practice where the local congregation (NOT restricted to previously Ordained Clergy), gather around the persons being set apart for a specific mission. Then the local congregation then lay their hands on those set apart and pray that God will bless them in their mission. I find this not being restricted to or even primarily intended for pastors.
So yes I think we should seriously consider returning to the NT model. And abandon the later practice where the Bishop and his “congregation” of previously Ordained Clergy, gather around and lay on their hands and pray.
Jim, I doubt seriously anyone will “buy” your conclusions. The priesthood of all believers simply means we can all come to Christ without going through any earthly priesthood. It has no other meaning as it was stated in opposition to the ceremonial law where earthly priests affirmed forgiveness by way of their representative office. We all now approach God the Father for forgiveness of sin solely by Jesus.
To affirm or assume this negates the ordination of pastors and/or elders in the church will not be supported by NT evidence. And even those who advocate WO don’t accept or agree with your conclusion. They simply claim there is no gender qualification for any office. When they quote Gal. 3:28-29, they are so far from the historical context of the meaning and purpose of this letter by Paul, they wrest its application far beyond any viable meaning.
It simply affirms that Adventism in general as a church is woefully ignorant of scripture, its meaning, and application. Not only among church members, but even more especially by those who hold positions of influence and authority. None the less, I think it is highly doubtful the church would ever adopt your view as it would never fit the agenda of the liberal mindset to ordain women in any and all levels.
It seems quite likely that the church will opt for conferences and local churches to decide locally if they want to ordain or not. We are now a congregational style of church community, and top down mandates are not likely to be accepted from now on. The church is already split, and it is just a matter of time until the outward manifestation becomes the reality. Unless of course, God has some agenda that is not now seen in the church community. Perhaps this summer we will see what materializes, but I am not “over-expecting” as some people I know think the outcome will negate women elders and pastors. Of course I am for it, I just don’t expect the church will do anything that dynamic for the obvious political reasons concerning money, power, and authority. When the church seeks unity at all cost, then we can know the church is far more political than spiritual.
The priesthood of all believers simply means we can all come to Christ without going through any earthly priesthood. It has no other meaning as it was stated in opposition to the ceremonial law where earthly priests affirmed forgiveness by way of their representative office. We all now approach God the Father for forgiveness of sin solely by Jesus.”
Well Bill, much of what you wrote in these sentences is true. However the Pristhood of ALL Believers does not stop when we individually approach Christ for forgiveness of our sin. To be a Priest means to be wholly consecrated to the Service of God. EVERYTHING we do is to be done in service to God, not just our prayers.
Paul says that we have been entrusted with a Ministry of Reconciliation. Who are the beneficiaries of this ministry? Is it only for ourselves or does it extend to our fellow-believers, and to the unbelieving world around us?
Bill and Jim, I agree with most of what you wrote.
To go further into this issue will no doubt attract severe criticism from both men and women. I strongly believe in upholding spiritual truth according to Scripture. At times I may see things contrary to Scripture, but that must be addressed. I examine myself and my thoughts by using Scripture to verify whether or not those thoughts are from God, or just my imaginations.
Bill, you wrote “This does not negate the principle ordained by God for various types of government in this world.” That is true. But as far as the “types of government” are concerned, I assume you are talking about Church “governance”?
I noticed that in both these articles: “An Open Letter to the Opponents of Women in Ministry…..” and “Women in Leadership….”, there has been no mention of 1 Corinthians chapter 7.
The Spiritual principles behind 1 Corinthians Chapter 7 should not have been overlooked during these
leadership/authority debates. It describes where our priorities lie. Are they towards the affairs of this world or matters pertaining to God?
Verse 32-34: 32 But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. 33 But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife. 34 There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband.
Although this Scripture passage seems extreme, it does not exclude married people from the Body of Christ. All it does is prove some are able to dedicate their lives to Christ at a much higher level of commitment, compared to others. I think it is a blessing if we can dedicate our lives totally to the work of God and lead as many souls as possible to Christ.
I think everyone should consider where their priorities lie before desiring positions of “authority” or “leadership”. It’s a reasonable question, is it not?
Jim: “DISCLAIMER – I am NOT claiming there is a Bible mandate to ordain women. In fact, as I have looked carefully in the Bible I have found NO mandate to ordain ANYONE.”
Totally agree Jim. Bill is arguing that “ordination” should be reserved for men. Ironically, “ordination” is not biblical but a term from pagan Rome. The SDA Church already “commissions” women in ministerial roles, as well of as elders.
Perhaps Bill would like to explain the difference between “ordination” and “commissioning”?
Even presuming they are the same thing, I don’t believe our clergy NEED ordination or commissing. I can’t find a single text in the NT that suggests any such need – happy to be corrected? Where the rite of laying on hands occurs (is that the same or different from ordination or commissing?) this seems to occur only AFTER being called by God.
It is merely humanity’s affirmation of a choice already made by God. It doesn’t in itself confer spiritual authority.
As the son of a pastor and the father of a pastor, I have been to my share of ordination services. I have even been invited to participate.
I am NOT opposed to Ordination. I AM opposed to claiming it is a Biblical mandate rather than a human custom. Those leading in these ceremonies believe they are publicly affirming persons who have already been called by God.
Now I must state that there is a legitimate human need for those being placed in positions of civil or religious Responsibility (yes I intentionally chose this word rather than Authority), to be publicly affirmed. This is beneficial for both those who will be lead and those who will be leading. And I think that Ordination or Commissioning (I have seen both rituals) is an appropriate way to meet this need.
But nobody has yet shown where in the Bible these are given as Requirements or Commandments. We should not teach as Doctrines the Commandments of Men (or of Women). It is Religious Tradition that elevates a long-standing practice to the status of Doctrine.
As I have already explained, there IS a specific ritual prescribed for induction into the Aaronic Priesthood. Those who claim the Aaronic Priesthood as their Bible precedent for selection of pastors, might wish to seriously consider the LDS faith. These folk do take their Bible roles and rituals very literally.
Women cannot be elders or pastors. titus1
Jim: “Those who insist on a strict Bible mandate for affirming civil or religious authority should require that all men who are to be affirmed for any such authority, first must be circumcised”
Also agree. Why does Bill and others only confine the principle of ‘headship’ to gender? Why not also class or race?
There is certainly as much biblical proof if not more that free men have headship over slaves or lower classes – ‘slaves obey your masters’. There is equally as much biblical proof for Jewish-circumcised believers to have authority over uncircumsised-Gentiles – all the men in the Twelve and the Seven were circumcised.
Again, no one is saying slaves and uncircumcised can’t be saved, just as those who oppose WO say women can’t be saved. We are only talking about a question of headship authority.
As a white, university educated, circumcised adult man, why should I accept the authority of men who are not of my race, lack a university education, or lack my Western citizenship, or are uncircumcised, or are indebted in a menial job (the modern equivalent of a slave?) Surely this is as relevant, if not more, than a question of gender?
Why does gender matter so much when the NT can equally be used to promote headship authority based on class and race?
Steve, “Ironically, “ordination” is not biblical but a term from pagan Rome.” Good point. This raises more questions: Is “ordination” a procedure whereby Pastors and other members in leadership roles are regulated by the church? Is it not a type of acknowledgement of one’s training which was conducted through their own Universities? Would a pastor of another denomination be accepted to speak, for instance, in the SDA church if that pastor was not ordained a SDA minister?
What would happen if a man, directed by God, who was not ordained by any church, asked to speak to the congregation? Would he be accepted or rejected? Who makes the rules in this situation, or who decides if what that man needs to speak about is acceptable?
A few months ago the speaker in our church was a true Christian gentleman who was neither SDA nor an ordained pastor of any faith. He was for a number of years the Presiding Judge in the courts of our county. He gave a very convincing testimony of how he was led from nominal Christianity to a close personal relationship with Jesus Christ, of how that experience transformed his own personal relationships and also his role within the criminal justice system.
Not only has his ministry within the criminal justice system been instrumental in rehabilitating many offenders, it has in the process saved the taxpayers of our state almost $1 Billion in incarceration costs. But his purpose is not to save money, it is to minister to convicted offenders in a redemptive Christian manner.
This was one of the most heavily attended church services we have had, and with good reason. The gentleman was not just preaching the word (though his presentation was Biblically based and Biblically sound). He was testifying how God is using him in the courst and in the prison system.
Jim, the Judge’s testimony to his relationship with Jesus Christ is evidence that all who have a desire to witness for Jesus Christ are not acting through ulterior motives. All the first Apostles would have been lead by the Spirit of Christ to proclaim the Kingdom of God without any ordination by men. It is sad that many people find “ordination” to be a pre-requisite for doing God’s will and feel they have to address large congregations in order to be affective. Many questions arise in relation to the true purpose and motives behind such human traditions.
Did anyone read Titus 1:5?
Meaning what about Titus?
The Geneva Bible and the KJV render “katastēsēs” as “ordain”. Almost every more recent English translation (including the NKJV) renders this verb as “appoint”.
One might consider this rather prominent English usage of the word “ordain” in the late 18th century:
“We the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution”
No laying-on of hands, no downward delegation of kingly authority. A government established by the People for the People.
“For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint (katastēsēs) elders (presbuteros) in every city as I directed you” (NASB which is one of the more literal translations that is still readable)
“For this cause left I thee in Crete, that the things lacking thou mayest arrange, and mayest set down (katastēsēs) in every city elders, as I did appoint to thee” (Young’s literal Translation which is perhaps more literal that the NASB but less readable)
Apparently things had become a bit disorderly in Crete? Maybe we need to have our Presbyters (or Elders) appointed (or set-down or established) by our Episcopos (or Bishop or Overseer) today?
I think Bill is trying to point out that Titus was an uncircumcised Gentile and making the inference that he was an elder. However, there is no biblical evidence that I can see that Titus was actually an elder or otherwise someone in appointed leadership in the order of the Seven.
Titus may well have been an apostle of the order of the Twelve, or merely a helper of Paul. He is no different from Junia or Priscilla (women helpers) or Oneimus (slave helper). There is nothing to suggest an uncircumcised Gentile could be an elder on the basis of race anymore than a women or slave could be.
But that is if one applies Bill’s sort of logic and applies it consistently without hypocrisy. The problem is he can’t do it consistently and without hypocrisy. Which is why he has a problem justifying Gentile-uncircumcised elders or slave-lower class elders, as much as he now wants to argue for continued prohibitions on women elders.
I however approach this issue from a fundamentally different theological perspective.
the bible clearly states that men should be elders. However the bible does not states that circumcised men or free men should be elders. Going by this reasonning, I still uphold that women cannot be elders since the bible clearly says husband should be elders or pastors titus 1.
Sorry on second thoughts Jim you are probably right re Bill’s point. Yes you are probably right – that Bill is trying to point to an ‘ordination’. No one is denying the rite of laying on of hands. It is the English word “ordination” that is unbiblical. It comes from the Latin ‘ordio’ re pagan Roman “orders” and was first used by “Church Father” Tertullian.
My other point still stands though. If we have laying on of hands on women pastors, which we call “commissioning”, how is that different from the “ordination” of male pastors? There is no different – just a pagan Roman name to describe that otherwise biblical ritual.
And as you pointed out, who says ordination is “required” for our “clergy”? I don’t think it magickal but merely a human recognition of the Spirit’s prior calling. Paul makes it clear that his ministry as apostle in no way relies on human recognition, notwithstanding that he was indeed given such recognition by the other apostles (but seemingly was not universally accepted by all).
I am not a Greek scholar, but studying a good lexicon I do think there is a connotation of delegation of authority in Titus 1:5. Paul the Apostle “instructs” Titus the Bishop to “appoint” Elders.
We can formally model this delegation hierarchy:
Jesus Christ (the Head) ->
Paul (the Apostle “chosen” and “sent” by Jesus) ->
Titus (the Bishop “instructed” by Paul) ->
anonymous (the Elders “appointed” by Titus)
If we claim that this is the appropriate model for our church governance today, then the Mormons have it right and the Adventists (cf the Methodists, Baptists, etc) have it wrong.
So in some sense this comes back to the question of Apostles today:
1) Do we have a Quorum of Twelve Apostles (cf Joseph Smith)?
2) Do we have an unbroken Succession of One Apostle (cf the Vicar of Christ)?
3) Do we have Zero Apostles (cf John M Wood)?
4) Or possibly none of the above?
A formal model of the SDA hierarchy of Constituencies:
1) Baptized Members comprise a Local Church. (However not all Baptized Members belong to Local Churches.)
2) Local Churches comprise a Local Conference. (However not all Local Churches belong to a Local Conference.)
3) Local Conferences comprise a Union Conferences. (However not all Local Conferences belong to a Union Conference.)
4) Union Conferences comprise the General Conference.
There are a plethora of exceptions large and small to the above structure but basically this is the SDA governance model since 1903.
Every level in this structure elects its own leaders and boards, and appoints its own committees. And regarding this particular discussion, every level can and does affirms its own Elders and other agents as necessary and expedient.
Nobody can claim that this model is Biblical but arguably, and despite its flaws, it has served us well for over a century.
“Ordain” is the correct word and its meaning is equally obvious. “Just because you won’t accept it, won’t change it.” Gerald Wolfe
I am not the one who “beats around the bush” to avoid the obvious. Those who deny ordination are the one who do that. But no honest reading of this scripture will convey any other meaning than ordain, or some parallel word that means the same thing.
I think it would be nice if A-today would publish this letter for discussion on this forum.
“ED REID ENTREATS ADVENTIST REVIEW TO CORRECT MISINFORMATION ABOUT WOMEN’S ORDINATION
Apr 19, 2015 G. Edward Reid”
Here is one place where you can read this letter along with some commentary by others.
http://advindicate.com/articles/2015/4/19/ed-reid-entreats-adventist-review-to-correct-misinformation-about-womens-ordination
Having read the letter and the commentary, I find it interesting but by no means conclusive. As is pointed-out in the commentary, there is material in Ellen’s original Review article that can be used by both sides in this debate. She does NOT call for women to be ordained (nor men for that matter).
My own reading of the article is that she is calling for everyone (both men and women) to improve whatever opportunities they find for “missionary” service. One of the main concerns in her article is that already one generation after the formation of the Advent movement, most of the members are relying upon the professional clergy to “finish the work”.
I have a lot of respect for both Stan Hickerson and G Edward Reid as EGHW scholars. Apparently they disagree regarding the question of WO? I do not think this detracts from the credibility of either of these fine gentlemen. Rather it shows that this is not a simple question.
Bill,
I would be the last to accuse you of beating around the bush 8-).
Are you telling us that for more than two centuries almost every English Bible translator has incorrectly translated the Greek word “katastēsēs” (literally to “set down”) in this passage?
It might also interest the reader to note that some other early translations of this verse read “ordain priests”. Could it be that the earlier translators might have been reading their own church practices into their Greek texts?
There is an interesting progression of translations of this phrase from “ordain priests” to “ordain elders” to “appoint elders”. Tyndale was the first to substitute “seniors” for “priests”. So maybe we should only “ordain seniors” (males eligible to join AARP)?
Seriously, I have now consulted perhaps a dozen English translations from Wycliffe to the present. The overwhelming majority read “appoint elders”. I have a Bible compiled from 26 different English translations. This one shows very few variant translations for this phrase. I think the consensus of the translators is very clear.
I have now also looked at a few German and French and Dutch translations, going back to Luther. They use words that mean to “make” or to “establish” or to “set up/down” or to “put in place” elders.
It appears that “ordain” was transliterated from the Latin into English by Wycliffe and several subsequent translators followed his precedent.
I stand corrected. The Latin Vulgate does not use the word “ordain” either.
Here is an interesting web site with parallel translations/transliterations. You can see for yourselves the important variants.
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B56C001.htm#V5
I should add that the earliest translations were more dependent on the Latin rather than the Greek texts. And we know who was promoting the Latin Bible, and seeking to exterminate more modern translations.
I think it is clear that the word “ordain” in this passage originated from the Latin texts rather than the Greek texts.
I stand corrected. The Latin Vulgate does not use the word “ordain” either.
Here is an interesting web site with parallel translations/transliterations. You can see for yourselves the important variants.
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B56C001.htm#V5
Bottom line is that it appears we have Wycliffe to blame for translating “constituas presbyteros” (Latin) as “ordain priests”.
So we can go with Wycliffe and ordain priests, or we can go with Luther and the overwhelming majority of Greek scholars and appoint elders, or we can (in keeping with the precedent established by Henry VII and perpetuated by James I) compromise between the Catholics and the Protestants and ordain elders.
Make that Henry VIII (or Henry the V-8), founder of the Episcopal (ie led by Bishops) Church of England.
“The apostle Paul writes to Titus: “Set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God.” It would be well for all our ministers to give heed to these words and not to hurry men into office without due consideration and much prayer that God would designate by His Holy Spirit whom He will accept.
Said the inspired apostle: “Lay hands suddenly on no man.” In some of our churches the work of organizing and of ordaining elders has been premature; the Bible rule has been disregarded, and consequently grievous trouble has been brought upon the church. There should not be so great haste in electing leaders as to ordain men who are in no way fitted for the responsible work—…….”
5T
Ellen While knows what “ordain” means and so does everyone else who wants to know.
I agree that most of us THINK we know what “ordain” means. What some refuse to believe is that the phrase “ordain priests” was introduced into the English Bible by a Godly RC Priest named Wycliffe. It does not appear either in the Greek texts or in the Latin Vulgate. Nor in any of the major German or French translations (which use their words for “establish” or “set in place”, etc). From Tyndale onwards the phrase changed to “ordain elders” (“seniors” in Tyndale). But that still reflects a church tradition rather than the original language.
I am NOT opposed to Ordination. I AM opposed to claiming that one particular mode or custom for Ordination is a Bible mandate. Why? Because I do not like to lie to people about what the Bible teaches.
For a large portion of her work, Ellen quotes from the KJV (1769 and later revisions, not the 1611 original). later in her life newer translations became available and she also used them.
i have no problem with quoting from or memorizing from the KJV. i do have a problem with someone claiming that the particular choice of words in the KJV where better translations are now available, must be the basis for our doctrines.
For some SDAs and other Protestant fundamentalists, the KJV has attained the status once reserved for the Latin Vulgate in a previous Religious Tradition. Appeals to tradition have become all too common among some SDAs including some of our elected leaders. This is a complete reversal of the stance of the founders of this church!
We must resolve to be “people of the Book” rather than “people of the Red Books” or the “people of the church of our childhood”, as it was or as we prefer to imagine it.
“While Christ is the minister in the sanctuary above, he is also, through his delegates, the minister of his church on earth. He speaks to the people through chosen men, and carries forward his work through them, as when, in the days of his humiliation, he moved visibly upon the earth. Although centuries have passed, the lapse of time has not changed his parting promise to his disciples. “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” [Matthew 28:20.] From Christ’s ascension to the present day, men ordained of God, deriving their authority from him, have become teachers of the faith. Christ, the True Shepherd, superintends his work through the instrumentality of these under-shepherds. Thus the position of those who labor in word and doctrine becomes very important. In Christ’s stead they beseech the people to be reconciled to God.
The people should not regard their ministers as mere public speakers and orators, but as Christ’s ambassadors, receiving their wisdom and power from the great Head of the church. To slight and disregard the word spoken by Christ’s representative, is showing disrespect, not only to the man, but also to the Master who has sent him. He is in Christ’s stead; and the voice of the Saviour should be heard in his representative.” Gospel Workers page 11
Maybe 40 or 50 years ago a person could ask a church member this question, “What does your church believe about……..(fill in the question)? and the member could give a reasonable answer that would be a concensus of church teaching that would represent an overview of church doctrine.
Not today. The best we can do on more than a few questions is simply say, “I can’t tell you what the church believes, all I can tell you is what I believe the bible says on any given issue.”
Doing a jail ministry is really the most rewarding thing I have ever done as a church member. I am free to explain the bible without asking someone’s permission or explaining why I teach what I teach. I suppose I am technically still a SDA church elder. At one time I was the head elder of a conservative church until the conference president decided I was not qualifed and did all in his power to destroy my influence and ministry.
I was head elder when we had no pastor for a year. Before the new pastor came, the board of elders sent him a letter explaining our position on various issues in the church. He showed it to the conference, and they told him to ignore the letter. This simply shows the utter contempt the conference has for the local church and their self appointed authority over all the individual churches.
But the final point is this, no one knows what the SDA church believes about many things and we have no identity to affirm who we are by way of teaching and doctrine on many issues. So all we can do is say, “No one knows what the church believes, as it has no belief on some subjects.” And pretty soon, we have no belief on any subject as it is not politically correct to oppose anyone on anything except to affirm church authority. Some of you know this is true, and for those who don’t agree, “Just because you won’t accept it, won’t change it.” It is very obvious on more than a few levels.
Bill you are harking back with nostalgia to a Golden Age that never really existed except for a brief period in your own mind. Just look at Ellen White’s own lifetime, when people struggled and there was no consensus on things ranging from as fundamental as the Trinity to righteousness by faith.
The SDA has had no consensus and still has no consensus on issues ranging from the nature of Christ (pre-fall Adam or post-fall Adam replicating the 451 AD debate) or your own pet-topic of original sin.
Adventism fundamentally stands for progressive revelation and present truth. That is what the SDA Pioneers fundamentally believed. Many didn’t want a consensus in a creed as you seek to look back to with nostalgia, because it was that sort of dogmatised religion many of our original SDA Pioneers lived.
And as for Ellen White, she was inspired but I’ll shock you by saying she wasn’t infallible. She said so herself. She told us to keep progressing forward. She said we have things not just to learn but to UNLEARN and that a person needs to be willing to give up their CHERISHED VIEWS.
Re women, she lived in the Victorian 19th Century. She was progressive within the strictures of her context. She told black people not to marry white people in recognition of that cultural stricture, even though as an abolitionist she was no racist. She understand the difference between biblical ideals of radical egalitarianism and cultural realities.
Paul was the same. He lived in a context where both misogynation, racism towards Gentiles and slavery were the norm. He told slaves to obey their masters, yet he was likewise was an abolitionist at heart. He too like Mrs White understood the difference between biblical ideals of radical egalitarianism and cultural realities.
Unfortunately my friend you’re too old and set in your ways to take Ellen White’s advice or get Paul’s nuances of cultural context. I get that and whilst it saddens me, I know you won’t live forever. Neither will anyone in your generation.
Your generation will be dust in a few years, if not a few decades at most, and then the Spirit can lead my generation (the under 40’s) into that next step of the Adventist journey. That might sound harsh but that is the future.
I still prefer to believe that Jesus might return before I am 6 feet under 8-).
My generation are the parents of the under-40s. I hope my children and grand-children find some value in my continued occupancy of space and time and other resources on this planet.
I definitely agree with Mr Ferguson that his generation represents the future of our church. However I would point-out that a substantial chunk of the giving is still coming from my generation so you might not want to write us out of the script quite yet 8-).
As it happens I can tell anyone who asks, what the SDA Church teaches on virtually any topic where we have a settled (or even unsettled) position. I can tell them the range of opinions among those I consider to take their Adventist beliefs seriously. And I do get asked this question more often than you might think, especially from some of my non-Adventist relatives but also in other contexts where people learn of my religious affiliation. By comparing my beliefs with other Christians I have also come to understand a lot of what their churches teach.
More importantly, I can show anyone who asks, what does the Bible teach on virtually any topic that the Bible treats. I actually get asked this question far more frequently that the one about our church. And where there is reasonable uncertainty I can explain the range of opinions and their rationale.
The person who knows one answer to every question knows enough to be dangerous. The person who does their homework can explain what are the major differences of opinion and what these are based upon.
Paul says that where there is knowledge it will cease. It is important for all of us to admit to ourselves that our knowledge is at best partial and incomplete. That is why I much prefer to point people to the passages in the Bible that treat a given topic and let them draw their own conclusions. Though I am not hesitant to explain my own conclusions and my reasons.
And I remain a SDA because I think we have a better explanation for more of the difficult parts of the Bible than do the wide range of other beliefs I have encountered. And I apologize to nobody for taking the Bible as the ultimate authority rather than Ellen. Too many traditional Adventists have conflated the lesser light with the greater light. And that in turn has needlessly driven a lot of others away.
EGW is not infallible and I have never suggested she was. None the less, for any viable SDA, her view on 1844 and the IJ is beyond challenge if you claim to be SDA. It is the spiritual dynamic of the whole movement. You can not deny this and still be SDA anymore than someone can claim to be a Christian and deny Christ.
I have no problem in explaining 1844 and the IJ in my jail ministry, and I don’t need nor use EGW. It is a false dilemma to claim the doctrine can not be proven from the bible. And most who deny the IJ use it for an excuse to claim it can not be proven by scripture, and can only be proven by EGW. This gives them a faulty excuse to abandon the historic SDA faith.
But here is the fact of the matter. Many who claim to support EGW and the bible, understand neither. So they convolute both the bible and EGW. As a classic example that I have referred to in the past is Kevin Paulson. He thinks he supports both, but in fact, supports neither. And as I said, I only use him as a classic example of more than a few who hold some of the same views he does. Because of this, many assume EGW is not scriptural.
I also agree that any church community that God has ordained may well be caste aside if and when that community is no longer useable and functionable for God intended purpose. A church is simply a “means of grace” to help individuals understand the word of God and prepare them for the second coming. Adventism is such a mass of confusion on so many levels, there is not much left that God can use.
The church’s view on righteousness by faith has as many meanings as people to explain it. And unless the doctrine of original sin is advocated and accepted, there is no possibility for the church to explain righteousness by faith. If you can’t explain sin, how can you explain the atonement, its value, and application? Literally impossible. Which simply means, you can not explain the bible nor anything in it as it is taught in light of the atonement.
Adventism was a novice movement with little understanding of basic Christanity. If EGW had not been alive to support the doctrine of the Trinity, I doubt it would be a confession of faith today endorsed by the SDA church in general. While we think as a church that we are “mighty in scriptures”, the fact is we are “mighty in ignorance” on basic bible Christanity. And the bible is becoming a dead letter as the church opts for self authority more and more.
I remain a SDA for the same reason Jesus continued to witness to the Jews until they killed Him. And like Paul, my goal is that “I might by all means, save some.” In the church, out side the church. All the same to me. Jesus sought to save individuals. I do the same.
I met Martin Weber years ago at Richard Marin’s house in Fallbrook, Calif. We both considerable younger then. He was a real “seeker” for truth and in the following year wrote a couple of “Hot Potatoes” books. And later a book entitled “Who’s got the Truth?” He commented on Morris Venden, George Knight, Jack Sequeira, Ralph Larson and Graham Maxwell. In some areas, he exposed some false doctrine in Adventism by various writers. He then concluded the book with his own view on “unity”.
A few years later, the church “bought him off” and gave him a job in the denomination. After that, he became editor of the Mid America Outlook magazine. And when someone interviewed him and asked him about his former books on Hot Potatoes, he stated he is now a SDA “sweet potato”. His present views are considered more than a little liberal by some conservative scholars. I wrote a friend and said he is now a “SDA couch potato”. He attack traditional Adventism and often supported the idea that it is historically a system of legalism by implication. In one issue, he claimed his dear old mother could not find love in the SDA church and had to attend a Lutheran church to find a loving fellowship. This is the kind of drivel we had to endure when he was editor of the Outlook magazine. And he took every possible opportunity to advocate Women’s ordination in any and every way he could.
A woman is now editor, and she isn’t any better in her spirituality than he was. So what kind of article would you expect from Martin Weber published on this forum? I am not suggesting he is not a Christian, nor others who hold his opinions. But I am suggesting that the present spirituality in Adventism that he and others represent is a deluded understanding of the bible and the modern spirituality has warped the gospel totally outside its biblical meaning and application.
God will yet create a community of believers who not only claim to be subject to the bible, but actually know what it teaches. Won’t that be a novelty in light of the constant confusion manifested not only in the other churches, but even more especially in the SDA community?
Do you really think these personal attacks on fellow believers are what Jesus wants from you?
If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. (1 Cor 13:2)
The test of love is not how you treat those who agree with you, but rather those who disagree with you.
“If you can’t refute the message, shoot the messenger.”
Whoa there Bill. What I meant by becoming a “sweet potato” rather than a “hot potato” is that I made a personal decision not to employ sarcasm in my description of people (as I did in Adventist Hot Potatoes)–no matter how much they may deserve it. My avoidance of sarcasm for the past 24 years since AHP does not mean I avoid controversial subject matter (or I would not have written the present article that has, predictably, stirred up the hornets’ nest). It’s not about being “bought off” by the church–it’s about not gratuitously offending my brothers and sisters. Here’s the Scripture that transformed my approach: “In meekness instruct those who oppose themselves, if perhaps God will give them repentance according to the truth” (2 Tim. 2:25). After all, truth without love is a lie.
Martin,
There is no question that your perspectives on various SDA theological issues have suffered radical changes during the past three decades. Do you agree with that?
We used to exchange messages on “The SDAs On-line forum,” launched in 1994, when Ralph Blodgett was the forum’s “sysop,” and your position was that of a conservative Adventist (I still have the “Charter Member Certificate).
While we all change perspectives with time, your positions on some issues has been a reversal of your previous perspectives. Now I am confused, and my questions to you are:
Which is the truth? What you held three decades ago, or what you hold now?
Were you wrong then? Did you believe untruths? Did you teach false doctrine to the church members?
One cannot shift from “the milk is white” perspective to “the milk is black” perspective without a fundamental visual shift.
Do you think that what you believe now is the truth?
Are you going to turn around again 360 degrees in a little while? Can we trust your judgement in theological matters?
I have no problem with your decision to become “civil.” Political correctness requires this today, although the language you advocate is not biblical. Jesus and the apostles spoke very harshly with certain people – especially leaders. The Bible is loaded with invective. Take a look at my paper, “The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked” in Academia.edu. How do you explain such a language from them?
The issue is your radical shift from white to black. Who were you 30 years ago, and who are you now? Were your beliefs biblical then? Are your beliefs biblical now?
Who are you – theologically?
Eduard
P.S. Is your father still alive? I used to meet him years ago at the Camp Berkshire in upstate New York.
Only a fool or moron never changes his mind. All zealous Adventists have been encouraged to contact other Christians for the express purpose of trying to change their minds and convert to Adventism.
Elaine,
I partially agree with your statement. I have changed my perspective on certain theological issues during the years. But we are talking about a 360 degree shift here – a radical shift – which is not very common. Then, when we were talking, Martin was sure that his position against women ordination was right and biblical. Now he is also sure that his position in favor of women’s ordination is right and biblical.
Was he teaching untruth then? Was he deceiving the SDA church members? Is he teaching untruth now? Is he deceiving the SDA church members? Which is it?
I am curious what his answer will be.
Eduard
P.S. Bill, I consider it inappropriate for you to denounce the spirituality of my successor at the Mid-America Outlook magazine. Brenda Dickerson is a wonderfully godly and talented woman. You are the first person I’ve ever heard disrespect her, if you consider that a badge of honor.
Regarding what you describe as the “drivel we had to endure” in my sorrowful report that my “dear old mother” left Adventism just before her death (due to the insensitivity of her church). Not everyone considered my lament to be drivel. In fact, an influential person at Logos Bible Software happened to read my blog and contacted me (his mother suffered a similar experience). We became friends and he invited me to visit Logos headquarters, where I was eventually hired to become the SDA product manger. Since then, more than 500 of the most poverty-stricken pastors around the world have the world’s finest Bible software on their humble laptops. I’m working closely with SDA leaders and pastors on five continents to do for our church what the church cannot do for itself. If that is the fruit of my “drivel,” may God be glorified.
Pardon me now as I sign off; I’m invited to a weekend conference in Vancouver with hundreds of non-SDAs, where I’m anticipating more significant and purposeful interaction than might be possible in this present dialog.
Does anyone else see the irony here, that on both liberal and conservative extremes are those convinced the SDA church has failed / is failing / will fail?
One one extreme the accusation is that we abandon traditional teachings and practices. On the other extreme the accusation is that we refuse to abandon traditional teachings and practices.
Regardless of their rationale, the outcome is never in doubt in their minds.
For my part I will leave our destiny in the very capable hands of Jesus Christ, the author and perfecter/finisher/completer of our faith.
Which is more beneficial – remaining in the church so you can attack it from the inside or leaving the church so you can attack it from the outside?
I suppose calling Martin Weber a “couch potato” could be considered an attack on him. I only used it in contrast to his own statement that he was now an Adventist “sweet potato”. And if you had read his book about the five people I mentioned, you would have understood my concern for his present position.
Everything else I wrote is truth and if he disagrees, he can come on the forum and state his own position.
Christians are not politicians when it comes to doctrine and theology, and if you want to declare what you believe, that is fine, but you should expect to be challenged if you do any “challenging” of your own. Why should anyone expect to be immune from criticism after they have freely done the same to others?
Adventism has been a “challenging” ministry from day one. We challenge every church and their doctrines that we consider non-biblical. Jim, I consider your position the highest level of duplicity about challenge and disagreement. You are apparently what some would call a “fence rider” who hopes to be OK without supporting any position.
Let the bible be the determining factor of all truth. Now we have “spiritual icons” that are beyond challenge for what they believe and/or what they teach. And I never said these people were not Christians. I did say they were deluded on many issues just like Sunday keepers and other issues of Christian faith.
I’ve always listened to those who were critical of what I believe, and like all sinners, I am sure I have not always seen their point or agreed with their evaluation. Let them qualify and re-qualify as many times as necessary to be sure they are understood, and I’ll do the same. If the difference remains, then someone is right, and someone is wrong. Or, of course, both could be wrong. But it is certain that both can not be right.
Unity at all cost is neither biblical nor is it a viable gospel application of how to resolve conflicts in doctrine and teaching. It seems apparent this is the format the church has adopted and we see the result is anything but commendable.
“duplicity” ?
I am totally baffled. Where have I been misled anyone regarding what I believe or why?
Well, Jim, you seem to “damn” people who remain in the church and demand accountability to scripture as they understand it, and then you “damn” those who leave it for the same reason.
You of course, stand in the middle and don’t take sides.
So you ask this question, “Which is more beneficial – remaining in the church so you can attack it from the inside or leaving the church so you can attack it from the outside?”
And this question,
“Does anyone else see the irony here, that on both liberal and conservative extremes are those convinced the SDA church has failed / is failing / will fail?
One one extreme the accusation is that we abandon traditional teachings and practices. On the other extreme the accusation is that we refuse to abandon traditional teachings and practices.
Regardless of their rationale, the outcome is never in doubt in their minds.
For my part I will leave our destiny in the very capable hands of Jesus Christ, the author and perfecter/finisher/completer of our faith.”
So anyone who does not agree with you is “extreme” but you are right down the middle and will let Jesus take care of the problems.
I don’t doubt your sincerity. I do doubt that you see the real dynamics of all the issues being debated and discussed. And I guess some of us would ask you, “Just how is Jesus going to take care of all these problems? Will He wave a magic wand and say ‘hocus pocus’ let all these problems disappear?”
I don’t think so based on past history in church disagreements and conflicts. Jesus always uses human instrumentalities who stand up and demand accountability for false teaching. I think this is more than a little obvious as you examine church history both in the bible and in the historical development of the church.
As EGW has said, “There will be two parties in the church”. And only one will rightly represent the kingdom of God. And the issues will not be resolved by compromise. If I have misunderstood your position, feel free to clarify what you meant and what you mean. But my conclusion is this, the church is more willing to defend itself and its authority than the word of God. And this is typical of any “means of grace” that goes more and more into apostacy.
WOW, WOW !! if it were possible you could just read what you have written above, and apply it to yourself, but afraid you are unable to do that. my o’ my. the LORD is in HIS HOLINESS temple. let all the EARTH BE SILENT BEFORE HIM. Praise God for His blessings to each of us, for exactly what we each need, because at the moment we see through a dark glass. Help me Lord for I am not like all others.
“WOW, WOW !! if it were possible you could just read what you have written above, and apply it to yourself, but afraid you are unable to do that.”
Hmmmmmmm…… is that “the pot calling the kettle black.”
Besides, if I wasn’t here, who would you have to disagree with? All you do is agree with each other with massive doses of affirmation of how you are “highly enlightened” compared to anyone who would still believe in the 1844 event and the SDA interpretation of that event.
And neither do I take one side or the other concerning elements of legalism in the church vs. elements of antinomianism. And I am glad that the on-line Review is rather open to many and varied opinions as people respond to the various articles published. And as I said before, A-today has been more open for dialogue than Spectrum as they cut out anything they think is offensive to their over all spirituality.
Hopefully, we are not here to win a popularity context, nor just dialogue with any and all who agree with our own conclusions. And I still believe God can and will create a community of believers by the bible who understand the basic issues of the controversy and affirm loyalty to scripture.
When any “means of grace” be it an individual, or church community begins to defend itself over and above the bible, you can be sure that person or church is on the way to apostacy. So my main concern for the SDA church is their willingness to set aside scripture for the sake of unity. If the can “sell” the idea the bible is not clear enough to make a definitive statement on any given subject, then they can exhort everyone to just do “whatever the church decides”.
This is has been the focus by many in influencial positions in the GC over male headship vs. women’s ordination. I reject this position as do some who advocate WO. So, I support male headship, but if it can not be affirmed by scripture, and WO can, then the bible must be the final focus of determining the issue. Not political agendas for the sake of power, money and church unity. Such a “unity” is not Protestant, but Roman Catholic.
Jesus has appointed no one the Earthly role of hangman, or arbitrator, although at times in past history the Popes have assumed the
role.
And Luther I guess when he called the pope the antichrist and devil’s apostle.
The Overton window. It is time to test acceptance of the homosexuals as SDA “pastors” and of “gay marriages” to be “officiated” in the SDA church. It is coming!
Eduard,
A 360-degree shift leaves you on the original course, but a 180-degree shift turns you in the opposite direction.
William,
Right. I meant 180 degrees. Still, I hope that the content of my post made clear what I meant – Martin shifted from a firm “NO on women’s ordination” to an also firm “YES on women’s ordination.” How did did happen, and what are the reasons for the change? Was he right then? Is he right now?
Eduard
Scripture tells us that God overlooks our past ignorance about Him as we grow in our relationship with Him. So, does changing one’s view on a topic mean that what they taught in the past was wrong? Technically, yes. But any argument about past wrong view vs. current right view tends to very quickly overlook something very important: the need for growth in our relationship with God. Because someone held a particular view in the past may mean only that it was not an issue for them at the time so they had not been forced to study the topic in-depth, where it has since become an issue requiring them to study. So their past opinion may have simply been ignorance.
I can look back in my life and see a couple topics where my past opinions were merely adoptions of the opinions of others, but where I had not been personally confronted with it so I had dealt with it only in theory. The first example is how God relates to homosexuality. It was theoretical to me until 1980 when I found myself working with an inner-city ministry in New York City where I was confronted with it on a daily basis and needing to learn about how God’s redemptive power reached to people whom I had previously believed were beyond redemption. That was a steep learning curve where I was seriously challenged and the result for me was a greatly deepened understanding of God’s power to redeem. For me that was a 180-degree turn.
A second example is my understanding of spiritual gifts. It was theoretical until I found my faith collapsing and becoming part of a new church plant effort with a focus on following the Biblical example of the role of the Holy Spirit empowering members for ministry. I threw myself into it because it was new and exciting and offered me hope. I was busy. I was a deacon, taught Sabbath School and held several other positions. Then I got really frustrated when I didn’t see God fulfilling His promise of empowerment, quit every position and came extremely close to leaving the church. Then God worked through some dramatic circumstances to bring about a Holy Spirit revival in me and a number of others. That was when God led me into the ministry that I am doing now. That’s also when He showed us clearly that He is no respecter of social status or gender in His empowerment of people to spread His redeeming love and I know several women who are far more empowered to lead in the church than any pastor I’ve ever met. So that’s not my theoretic view, that’s my view based on experience and watching God actually working.
So, let’s not debate theory about God when we can share about actual experience with God and what we have seen Him doing.
“So, let’s not debate theory about God when we can share about actual experience with God and what we have seen Him doing.”
William, why do you constantly attack scripture as non-relevant, and opt for experiencialism?
But you defend Martin Weber in his change in doctrine from male headship to Women’s ordination. And we could refer to Kevin Paulson who did just the opposite according to his own testimony.
Some of us don’t give a “hoot” about your “experience” unless it is clearly supported by the word of God. And it seems evident that modern Adventism is opting for a “spirit ethic” like you endorse, over clear revelations of bible truth.
This will no doubt be a major factor in dividing the SDA church. Just as it was in the early church over the issue of Sunday vs. the Sabbath. And the Catholic church still claims spiritual revelations transcend the word of God. It seems you do the same.
“change in doctrine from male headship to Women’s ordination”
Where is either of these listed among the 28 FBs of the SDA church?
A more accurate characterization would be “change in practice”.
Martin – ” Actually, for the past 40 years now we’ve been ordaining women as local church leaders.”
And the pressure is growing and growing to accept *practicing* gays into full fellowship in the SDA church.
You seem to have forgotten that, Martin.
And women should never have been granted the status of local elder or pastor. Succumbing to the extended role of a female pastor was all about money!
http://tinyurl.com/k7mrdoj
Ty Gibson released a thoughtful and insightful analysis recently: http://EqualOrdination.com/a-closer-look-at-wo/ . It is definitely worth a careful read.