.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
Opinion
Z - Archived Bloggers & Columnists
Z - Guest Writers
2012
|
About the Ordination of Women to the Gospel Ministry
Submitted: Aug 6, 2012
By Eric C. Webster
I wish to submit reasons why I believe men and women should be treated equally when it comes to the question of ordination to the gospel ministry. If at any time the system of ordination is changed to anything else I maintain that equality should still be maintained whatever the system is called. As ordination is the current practice in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I am arguing for that exact same privilege for women pastors. Here are my reasons.
1. The Gifts of the Holy Spirit are Not Gender-based
I believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not gender based. There is no indication that these gifts are promised to men alone. The entire church may be recipients of these gifts.
I have heard it said that it is quite in order for a woman to be a prophetess but a woman should not be an elder or a pastor of a church. How do we make such a differentiation in the gifts given by the Holy Spirit.
The gifts of the Holy Spirit are listed in 1 Corinthians 12, in Romans 12 and in Ephesians 4. Let us look at some of these gifts listed in Ephesians. In listing the gifts given by the Holy Spirit Paul writes: “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11, 12).
What is there in the above passage which says that God can gift some women to be prophets but He will not gift a woman to be a pastor? There is no such distinction in this passage. Any differentiation made is not by the Holy Spirit but is made by man through custom and tradition.
The prophet Joel makes it clear that these gifts of the Holy Spirit will be even more pronounced in the latter days. He writes: “And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh, Your sons and your daughters shall prophecy; Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions. And also on my menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days” (Joel 2:28, 29). The context of the passage confirms that this applies especially when there is salvation through the remnant in the latter days.
Notice that “your daughters shall prophesy [or preach] and the Spirit will be poured out on menservants and on maidservants”. The Holy Spirit is not making any distinction based on gender. If the Holy Spirit calls a woman or a lady to be a Pastor and gifts her with the ability to preach and teach what right do we have to say, “The Church says you can’t do this”?
2. The Priesthood of All Believers
Ideally, every member of the church who is baptized is called to be a priest and can stand between God and man. We do not need an earthly priest. Christ is the only Mediator and all members can function as priests to bring sinners to God. This is the thought of 1 Peter 2:9, “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.” This royal priesthood consists of all members of the church, men and women, young people and boys and girls without reference to age.
Some would like to say that the priesthood in Old Testament times from which this passage comes, was confined to men and so this priesthood in 1 Peter 2:9 must also be confined to only men. But that is faulty reasoning. Often Old Testament passages which appear to be localized and particularized are made general and wide in the New Testament. If we want to confine the priesthood of the New Testament to men only on the basis of this text, then also the ‘chosen generation’ and “His own special people” are confined to men.
On the basis of this passage, I believe that any woman can function as a ‘priest’ or pastor if the Holy Spirit gifts her for such a work. What God has chosen we have no right to prohibit.
3. Come into Line with God’s Might Moving
The church should always be ready to move into line when God moves in a special way. One period when God moved mightily in the affairs of the world was when multitudes of Gentiles began to join the early church in the days of Paul and the apostles. The question of circumcision was agitated. A group in the church in Jerusalem insisted that all these new believers should be circumcised according to the instruction given to Abraham as a sign of the eternal covenant. (See Genesis 17) Paul began to teach that faith in Christ was supreme and circumcision should not be made a test of fellowship. This position was confirmed at the general church council in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15.
When one reads Genesis 17 in the Old Testament one can understand the position taken by those who maintained that circumcision should remain a requirement. After all it was clear Scriptural instruction. Who gave the church permission to move away from the authority of Scripture? Today, most Christians, including Seventh-day Adventists believe that the mighty moving of the Holy Spirit in the early church revealed a new direction for the church when it comes to circumcision.
I maintain that there is another mighty moving of the Holy Spirit today which to some might seem to be a moving away from some Scriptural instructions given by Paul on the role of women in the church. This movement is opening up the Church to the exercise of all the gifts of the Spirit by both men and women. This has become evident in the great work done by women pastors in China and by more and more women in ministerial work in different divisions of the world church.
If the Holy Spirit is moving in this way what right do we have to insist on no pastoral role for women or two tiers of ministry, one for men and one for women? One in which men may be ordained and receive full recognition and another for women as second class pastors who may not be ordained? I believe that the moving of the Holy Spirit indicates that the church should open its arms fully to welcome women ministers on the same footing as men.
4. Both Men and Women Are Called to Servanthood, not to Headship
We hear it said that Paul calls men to a position of ‘headship’ over the woman in the family and that this applies to the church as well. Men can have headship over the wife and over the church family but a woman may not be ‘head’ of a church family.
I would suggest that in the church, men are not called to ‘headship’ but to ‘servanthood.’ This also applies to women. They are also called to ‘servanthood’ in the local church and not to ‘headship.’ I will return to this in a moment.
In the marriage setting we could make a case for the teaching that the man should be the head of the wife. But let me also remind you of the ideal relationship in the family. In the Garden of Eden, before sin, the ideal was partnership between husband and wife. After the entrance of sin it became rulership and then God said the man would rule over the woman, he would have to labor for sustenance, and there would be pain in childbirth. All of this is identified as the results of sin, and this rulership has opened the gates to all types of abuse against women.
As Adventists we often hear that we should get back to Eden in diet and many other ways. I would suggest that in Eden the relationship between husband and wife was partnership and after sin it became rulership. As the gospel takes possession of our hearts and we move back to Eden we will move in the home from rulership to partnership.
Coming back to the church, I believe that rulership on the part of the man is out of place. Men are called by God to servanthood in the church. And this call is for women as well. Thus in an ideal church situation neither men nor women are to exercise ‘headship.’ Each is to demonstrate ‘servanthood.’
Jesus made this clear in speaking to His disciples as they contended about who was the greatest. “But Jesus called them to Himself and said, You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you, but whoever desires to become great among you let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you let him be your slave. (Matt. 20:25-27) Today, God is inviting both men and women to positions of servanthood in the church rather than ‘headship’ and ‘rulership.’
Conclusion
I believe that the clear call of the Holy Spirit to the Seventh-day Adventist Church is to treat men and women in pastoral work with equal dignity. We are called to recognize the mighty working of the Holy Spirit in bestowing gifts on all without prejudice towards gender.. This calls for the ordination of both men and women on an equal footing as the Lord calls and as the Church recognizes that call in the usual way.
We must not sit on the fence in this issue. Either we recognize the above or we must go all the way in the opposite direction. We will then have to give preeminence to a literal understanding of Paul’s counsel on women without regard to local custom and tradition and follow him all the way. Not only would we have no women local elders or pastors, women would not be permitted to preach in any local church if men were in attendance for a woman must be silent in church. This would also apply to teaching the Word in any Sabbath School class where men were present. No woman should ask questions in church or in Sabbath School.
In Paul’s day there were church assemblies often in homes and there was no distinction between a divine service and Sabbath School. Whatever the nature of the assembly, women were to be silent and only ask questions of their husbands in private. Of course no women should be allowed to be chair of a committee that includes men for this would be ‘headship’ and ‘rulership’ over the men in the group. Also we might as well go all the way and make it clear that the Theological Seminary is not open to any woman wanting to take a theological or Biblical studies course where she would end up being qualified to lead men.
In the view of some the Bible upholds slavery and in America those who supported slavery based many of their arguments on Scripture. It was a slow process for Christians to move away from slavery and this took place only in the 19th and 20th centuries. Should we be surprised that it has taken an equally long time for the church to move away from the subordination of women to the equality depicted in Galatians 3:28? “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
How should the Adventist Church handle this issue as they approach the General Conference Session of 2015? I think we should remember that we can have true unity in diversity. If we insist on unity defined as complete uniformity on this issue we could split the church. We should recognize the honesty of those who believe that the Holy Spirit is leading the church toward equality in service. Likewise, there are those who honestly believe that the counsel of Paul on women should be followed in the Church today.
Here is my suggestion. The General Conference should work towards presenting a policy of equality to the world church. If the whole Church is not ready to move towards women’s ordination, vote a recommendation that each Union around the world be allowed to decide what to do in this regard. Many of our Unions will want to follow the example of China and just get on with the work of the Lord in their area and ordain their women pastors. The General Conference Session of 2015 should then suggest that the Church move in this direction and by 2020 or 2025 the whole world might be ready to follow the pattern of many Unions throughout the world. By thus recognizing diversity we would be able to maintain the unity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Eric Webster is an ordained minister and veteran leader in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He is a respected Bible scholar and has long served as director of the Voice of Prophecy Bible School in South Africa.
________________________
Join in the discussion:
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
As a fellow South African I would especially like to thank you for your courage in speaking out on this matter, I wish that more of our African brothers and sisters would follow your example. I feel privileged and honoured to have witnessed your life of faith and dedication to God, and pray that he will continue to bless you as you and your wife witness for Him.
Courtenay Harebottle
"Those who have yielded step by step to worldly demands, and conformed to worldly customs, will then yield to the powers that be, rather than subject themselves to derision, insult, threatened imprisonment, and death" Prophets and kings P 188
Christorculture.com
But we have been round in circles with these arguments before haven't we All4Him?
Can I suggest what is going to happen in reality. In the Western world, most of those who oppose WO, as they oppose the use of drums in Church, are older people. In the next 10-30 years, those people are going to die - a sad reality of life. You already see the vast majority of people support WO, and with few exceptions those opposed simply won't be alive shortly.
The only way I can see that this inevitable situation will not occur is one or more of the following occurs:
-
The democratic make up of Western SDA Churches change through the rapid loss of its 'Western' (i.e. usually white but not always) members, and rapid growth and influx immigration of 'non-Western' members. For example, you see a large influx of South Pacific Polynesians into the SDA Church, who tend to more conservative. They also begin to have a greater say, because some 25% or more of new Ministers are Polynesians, much more than their 10% or less total population (I don't have the exact figures).
-
The Developing World, through its effective control over the GC (e.g. appointment of Pres Wilson being a good example) tries to impose a conservative revival within the Western Church. You see that with the GC's endorsement now of GYC, which used to kind of be on the fringe.
I think the first scenario is more likely than the second. Despite protests from people such as Nathan to the contrary, part of me suspects the One Project is a de facto pro-liberal movement launched to try and counter the rising influence of the GYC movement. I hope that is not the case, but deep down I suspect that motive in the mix.However, I am still not sure if it will be enough for the conservative wing of the Church to turn the Western Church conservative again, and to overturn these Union moves to allow WO. I suspect it is probably forever too late. I am not making a moral judgment over what is right and proper, or what should happen, just speculating about what will happen given the Church's demographics.
Good points and observations. However, my greater concern in this larger issue is whether or not we individually or collectively as a church will allow the Holy Spirit to work. The Holy Spirit is the most frequently-referenced and active revelation of God in the Bible. In Genesis we see the Holy Spirit at work in creation and the last mention of God in Revelation is about the Holy Spirit. Everywhere in between the people who did great things for God had one thing in common: empowerment by the Holy Spirit. Everything Jesus did was through the power of the Holy Spirit. He taught his disciples to seek and use the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. It was the Holy Spirit who energized and directed the early church. It is wonderful seeing the One Project directing attention to Jesus. But that is one step short of where God wants us to be. I am seeing the Holy Spirit work in my ministry and the ministries of others. It is where the Holy Spirit is embraced that the church becomes powerful and arguments are replaced by celebrations of God's power at work.
Will you seek the emowerment of the Holy Spirit so you can be transformed and energized to do God's work beyond anything you have ever imagined possible? Will we as a church pursue the Holy Spirit as Jesus instructed? That is our need.
Again, I am not saying any of this is either good or bad - just trying to discuss the reality on the ground.
It is likely that Polynesian and South American churches will follow the pattern of the Polish and other churches of former generations - after the first generation, they blend into the wider church. The danger is that the loss of those past the first generation will lead to the church being dominated by first generation immigrants, who do tend to be more conservative - in the case of some African and Asian groups, sometimes even more conservative than our home-grown far right wing.
1) One extreme is represented by a man who attended my church when I was in late primary/early high school - so the early 70s. If a woman got up to speak in SS or church, he left the room. He believed women could lead and teach women, but not men, or even boys beyond about 10yrs old. Even below that, he believed women should only be teachers in children's SS if no men were available. There are still people who take that view in virtually every part of the world. They tend to have a high commitment to taking the Bible literally. The culture encourages this conclusion, at least on this issue, in some places.
2) Others take what we could consider the 'traditional conservative' view, that women can lead and teach, as long as it is not in a position the church recognises by ordination as granting 'ruling authority' in the church. So not pastor, elder or deacon - and therefore no preaching from the pulpit. That is what the practice was in my church up until the 1980s. If a woman did speak from the front, it was always from the floor in front of the pulpit, not behind it, to signal she did not speak with church authority. When we occasionally had a visiting female speaker from the Conference office, she preached from the floor in front of the pulpit. The first time one such woman stood behind the pulpit to preach led to quite a bit of discussion about the propriety of that. There are many people all over the world who are still very comfortable with that position, and beleive it is both biblical and culturally appropriate.
3) what we could call the 'comtemporary conservative' view, which is that women can do the work of pastor, elder or deacon, but can not be ordained to those positions, or they can be ordained as elder or deacon, but not pastor. It depends on whether elder and deacon is seen as conferring authority or not. I find this the least satisfactory position, and the least easy to defend biblically, even though it is approved by the GC, as is position 2)
4) women can hold any office and be ordained to any office. This is not exclusive to the western world, but I would guess probably about 90% of its supporters are found there or were educated there.
I see more evidence of support for postion 1) among members in some developing areas than in the developed world. Africa is a good example, although it is not uniform. If we take a literal approach to Scripture, and privilege commands and teaching over narrative, then this position is easily defended. It also has most of the last 2000 years of Christian history behind it.
I don't see a lot of support for position 4) in developing countries. Most members there would fall into position 1) or 2), with a small but growing number being willing to accept 3). I suspect that when they move to western countries, their children tend to move more towards positions 2) and 3), while the adults are unlikely to move beyond position 2). I know there is support for position 4) among some Polynesian groups in NZ and Australia, especially among the younger generation, but I don't know that even the pastors of their churches could give accurate numbers. I know that some young Africans sometimes struggle with the way women in Australia speak up and will even contradict or disagree with men in public. That varies somewhat depending on the culture of their home. I suspect they will assimilate over time, but it may be 50-60 years before those communities hold the same values as the wider community. In the long run I don't see western Unions becoming more conservative on this issue. Not unless there is severe haemorrhaging of all but the most conservative young people from the churches. That, plus continued migration from conservative areas could tip the scales.
If a vote came at Division level in the South Pacific, I would hesitate to predict how it would go. So much would depend on the position the leaders took publicly (if any), and who spoke for and against. I think the same applies at Union level for PNGUM and CPUM. I would be surprised if it didn't pass in AUM and NZPUM. The problem with SPD is just its sheer diversity. After a year in PNG, I thought I understood it. After 2 years, I suspected I knew nothing. After 3 years, I knew that everything I said about a place may be 100% correct (at that time) and yet anything from 0% to 100% may apply to the next village. In Polynesia it is more likely to be at the level of island group on most things, but there is still a lot of diversity even within small groups. That is what makes the Pacific interesting. The slogan "PNG - Land of the Unexpected" was not just a marketing slogan :)
One question that has not been answered is how the vote would go if, rather than being a proposal to ordain women, the proposal was to restrict women from the role of pastor, or even elder and deacon. There was passionate resistance to the move to ordain deaconesses at the last GC, and the vote to simply ordain deacons without regard to gender surprised and angered many delegates. We assume we have settled the question of women doing the work of deacon, elder and pastor, and all we are arguing over is ordination, but I really think we may be wrong there.
why does Ted demand that all SDA churches everywhere abide by the same rules? Since no one has given a biblical or theologically persuasive reason for views on WO, it should never be considered a decisive issue but only one of cultural acceptance. Just as in some island countries it is considered "proper dress" for the preacher in the pulpit to wear a shirt not tucked in his pants--it would be a faux pas in many parts of the country; or that hats should or should not be worn by women. Fighting 100 years over silliness!
I see many parallels
By disallowing North-America, and European Divisions to treat women pastors as equal to their male counterparts, they have forced the hands of those who see equality as a mater of conscience to act from their convictions. Church policy can never trump conscience nor should one ever be asked to compromise a moral conviction for the sake of following policies that are adaptable to time and place.
It is unclear if Dr. Webster's call is for Unions to wait until 2015 to act. Waiting could have been morally tolerated if the Divisions had been allowed to proceed with the now defunct e-60 policy proposed last year. By disallowing North America to allow Women to serve in all positions of church leadership, the General Conference leaders have thrust this issue to the forefront, and should not be surprised that Unions are voting matters of conscience over matters of policy.
The church organization's CEOs should be leading us according to the principles of Jesus and directing the world church gradually to equality in Jesus. Because they have not done so, women continue to be abused and treated inhumanely in many parts of the world. Just ask some of our missionaries who have witnessed this behavior. Jesus set an example for the future when he spoke to the woman at the well and rescued another woman from those who would stone her. Women accompanied men and supported the Gospel in a time when women were not allowed to participate in their cultures.
Now our organization has the opportunity to take a stand for moral justice and equality before the world. Yet there seems more concern to be in control than trusting God to lead the church into the future and prepare all people for His return. We decieve ourselves by using "unity" as a reason for not doing the right thing; that is not God's way. It was used by the Roman church and by the Jews of Jesus' day who feared losing control of the people. Remember it was our Savior who saw through their lack of love. Now I don't think the men at the GC are bad people, and some in their hearts must question their decision; may they not be short-sighted. I am praying for them.
I am also praying for some women who may want ordination for selfish reasons and personal power. Everyone must examine their own motives in order for God to bless. That is why it might have been better to do away with ordination all together that all could be humbled and become true servant leaders and part of the priesthead of all believers. Now that would be a powerful message to the world and especially the secular world that so distrusts organized religion. Right now our example is a poor one in those parts of the world where Christianity is dying out.
Would this not be entirely differen:
"some women who may want ordination for selfish reasons and personal power"
by subsituting "men" for women?
"some men who may want ordination for selfish reasons and personal power."
It is both demeaning to women and assumes that only women who want ordination are seeking it for power and men have no selfish reasons for power.
Surely, no one could really mean that. Could it be that is the reason the G.C. hasn't ordained women--they are selfish and seek power unlike the very self-giving men who never seek power?
Women may want power, but men are totally exempt for that desire? This shows a very sexist statement to even hint that women might wish ordination for selfish reasons but that men are exempt from such feelings.
Please, listen to someone saying that and re-read to see that it is very demeaning to women.
I don't appreciate the way you twisted by words.
On the other hand, look at all the beautiful paperweights and ornaments that have been created from the ash blown off St. Helens May 18, 1980 - what an awesome, devastating sight. Who knows what we will look like as we continue to take on this debate.
Unfortunately, I've long since lost count of the times I've seen a person ordained more on the basis of how they got along with conference leadership and their ability to "play by the rules" while never considering any empowerment by the Holy Spirit.
Look at Christ own example He chose 11 apostles that were men and one chose himself and when they replaced Judas a man was choosen.
Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2:7 (KJV) Whereunto I am ORDAINED a preacher and goes on into chapter three where he writes...
Gods Will Paramount: Please explain what you think Gods Will is on the following EGW quotes......
The primary object of our college was to afford young men an opportunity to study for the ministry and to prepare young persons of both sexes to become workers in the various branches of the cause. 5T page 60.
Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be men of blameless reputation. 5T page 598
These two quote are not flukes for they fit in with the rest of her writings.....
There is an urgent demand for laborers in the gospel field. Young men are needed for this work; God calls for them. Their education is of primary importance in our colleges, and in no case should it be ignored or regarded as a secondary matter. It is entirely wrong for teachers, by suggesting other occupations, to discourage young men who might be qualified to do acceptable work in the ministry. Those who present hindrances to prevent young men from fitting themselves for this work are counterworking the plans of God, and they will have to give an account of their course. There is among us more than an average of men of ability. If their capabilities were brought into use, we should have twenty ministers where we now have one.
Young men who design to enter the ministry should not spend a number of years solely in obtaining an education. Teachers should be able to comprehend the situation and to adapt their instruction to the wants of this class, and special advantages should be given them for a brief yet comprehensive study of the branches most needed to fit them for their work. But this plan has not been followed. Too little attention has been given to the education of young men for the ministry. We have not many years to work, and teachers should be imbued with the Spirit of God and work in harmony with His revealed will, instead of carrying out their own plans. We are losing much every year because we do not heed the counsel of the Lord on these points. Testimony Treasures Volume 2, Page 416This is a true saying, if a MAN desire the office of a bishop HE disireh a good work. A bishop then must be blameless HUSBAND of one wife....1 Timothy 3: 1,2
"What about the ten commandments?" I asked.
They pointed out that in the 10th, it specifically says not to covet "thy neighbor's wife." Clearly it was speaking only to men. Everything in the Bible, in fact, where it said man, meant man only. "He who has clean hands and a pure heart" may stand before God. "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly," etc. (I should make it clear that my friends were not sure they believed all this; they were merely sharing what their study group was learning.)
I read for myself the part of the syllabus that was disturbing them the most. It said that if a man told his wife to do something that she knew was a clear sin, and against the law of God, she could gently, submissively try to point it out to him, but if he held firm, she was to do as he asked, and God would hold her in the clear because she had obeyed his one command to her, to obey her husband, and would hold the husband guilty for the sin of both.
"Let me understand this!" I gasped. "If my husband wants to bring another woman into my bed (I've known of men who did this) and I can't talk him out of it, I'm to submit to this??!!"
The husband said, "All I can say is, it makes me want to be really careful to obey the will of God, if God is holding me responsible for both!"
I felt that the group was saying a woman was not a free moral agent, almost that she did not even have a soul of her own. We dropped the discussion, and I am happy to say they didn't stay in the group for long.
The point can rightly be made that Eve sinned against her husband (questioned his understanding of what God had told him; thought she knew better than he about the tree, etc.), but Adam sinned directly against God. Within this context, St. Paul is by no means pointing out that femaleness is inherently naive, unreliable, and slow to comprehend. He is establishing that in the matter of Adam and Eve, Adam was created first and possessed a head start of knowledge that she needed to respect. In St. Paul's day, likewise, the apostle seemed to instruct the men first (perhaps they had more time to sit with him and be instructed outside the home), with the expectation that they would pass the information along to their families. Much of what is read today as an apparent subordination of women can be better explained, in context of Genesis 2, as Paul's admonishment of women to listen at home to the theological and practical instruction he wants them to learn from their husbands. It's good counsel even today, in context of many families especially in the Third World, where men are often far better educated than their wives.
Sadly, this still represents many Christian groups that truly believe the man is solely responsible not only for his wife, but their children. The extreme views
are regularly seen in the media where men have beaten their wives and children for not obeying him.
Such stories only bring Christianity into disrepute.
Do you really think Steven was stoned for passing bread to widows? Was the sermon of Acts 7:2-53 something he came up with on the way back from the bakery? Why in Act 6:5 are there only a list of men? Paul states in 1 Timothy 2:7 that he is "ordained a preacher"... When the Bible speaks of Elders/overseers as stated in Acts 14:23. As also they "laid hands" on Timothy as stated in 2 Timothy 1:6.
I have not seen a answer to my simple question????
(Gods Will Paramount: Please explain what you think Gods Will is on the following EGW quotes......)
Women will and have played an important role in the finishing of the work. Instead of fighting for position and power they should press on in Godly service and submission.
Men and women are equal but have different roles given by creator God. Oil and water is a good analogy. A engine must have both to run, take either away and the engine will fail. Yet if you find the water from the radiator and oil from the crankcase mixed together you more then likely have a blown head gasket and you engine will not last long....
You make it sound as if women only seek ordination in order to gain position and power. Surely you don't believe that position! Even people who are opposed to women's ordination accept that women who serve already as pastors serve God honestly and genuinely according to God's calling.
The only thing that ordination of women would do would be to acknowledge their ministry.
How would this sound in reverse:
"Men only seek ordination in order to gain position and power." Men should press on in godly service and submission."
In a car's engine: which is subordinate: oil or water?
Not sure what your point is about the oil and water in a car's engine. Both are essential to the operation of an engine. If one is missing, the engine will not last long.
In the context of this discussion, more important than why anyone wants to be a pastor is the necessity for those calling and employing pastors to be sure they are calling the ones God has called, and not those he has not, nor refusing to call any God has called. Unfortunately, gender is not the only reason why some people get a call from God but not from the conference president. We have come a long way in eliminating prejudice from our organisation, but we are not home yet.
In a car's engine: which is subordinate: oil or water?
Water is.... Oil was designed to rise above yet both are needed for the engine to run.
Does the Adventist Church want to be the one who pours water into the oil reservoir of the Lord's Engine?
I rest my case.
Yours in the authoritarian literalist love of the Master Mechanic,
Tim
We naturally (physically) raise above and are equal in the sight of God, yet we are given different roles by God.
Its a God given creed to shepherd to lead
Which of the 12 foundations will have a female name? (12 apostles)
Which of the 12 gates will have female names? (12 tribes of Israel)
Acts 6:5 speaks of 7 men being choosen and ordained
He also gave the necessary gifts to Lucifer who decided he wanted more.....
"Eve had been perfectly happy by her husband’s side in her Eden home; but, like restless modern Eves, she was flattered with the hope of entering a higher sphere than that which God had assigned her. In attempting to rise above her original position, she fell far below it. A similar result will be reached by all who are unwilling to take up cheerfully their life duties in accordance with God’s plan." Patriarchs and Prophets 58,59
Amen, All4Him. I'm finding myself agreeing with you more and more often lately. The Spirit at work between us? Hmmmmm!!
Now I'm not racist (at all), but the quote above also demonstrates the error of the Civil Rights movement (not to mention women's rights, gay rights, et al). The Lord establishes a hierarchical societal structure for a reason -- some are higher than others, some are lesser, and some are free, and some are given in bondage. Who are we to try to "reposition" ourselves in society, or worse, overturn tradition at all? E.G. White wrote clearly and forcefully in this passage, her hand guided by the Holy Spirit. People trying to "rise up" in the name of "equality" may sound pleasant, but it is a grave error and contrary to the Plan.
Those calling for WO are as disobedient children breaking the 5th Commandment by dishonoring their Heavenly Father.
Now I'm not racist (at all), but the quote above also demonstrates the error of the Civil Rights movement
You all are bound and determined to make WO win, aren't you? LOL I could never have thought up such a perfect plan to make WO suceed as all of you have. My standing ovation to you all!!
Also from P&P page 58:
‘Eve was told of the sorrow and pain that must henceforth be her portion. And the Lord said, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." In the creation God had made her the equal of Adam…but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter and made her life a burden.’
As to ancient and modern Eves rising above their stations, obviously:
1. Ellen White is talking about a domestic setting (as was Paul when he gave counsels re household codes). She is obviously not talking about the Church, suggesting women cannot exercise spiritual leadership. Otherwise, Ellen White herself would be the biggest hypocrite of all time!
2. There are also plenty of other Ellen White quotes where she talks about where doing the Lord’s work is more important than domestic chores. There are also plenty of quotes where she talks about women in ministry who deserve to be paid from the tithe – hardly the 1950s-style woman you might have in mind.
3. Christ’s own admonishment that Mary stay at His feet rather than help Martha in the kitchen illustrates what Jesus thought was more important.
4. No one is denying that women have a very important role, especially relating to children – but so do fathers. Yes, women can and arguably do neglect their children when they put say career above their children – but can do men. However, many women don’t do this – but so do good father. Again, we are clearly talking about people’s domestic lives, not leadership in the Church.
In conclusion, I think we sometimes mix things up when we confuse the relations between men and women in their own households, compared with the relations between members in the Church. Ellen White might have been submissive to James in their home (but the evidence shows they actually quarreled a lot because she was hardly submissive at all) but she was still the spiritual leader of the entire SDA Movement in the Church realm.
To keep using a female spiritual leader to say women can’t be spiritual leaders is just absurd.
The point, is Eve was hardly the 1950s American housewife you might want to portray her as. She probably was more akin to a woman in a traditional hunter-gatherer society, which are 'equal but different'.
Traditional Australian Aboriginal men and women have defined gender roles, and special 'secret men's business' and 'secret women's business', but one is not necessarily superior to the other. However, there are many Aboriginal women who are the matriarchs of their peoples.
Moreover, if Eve was gathering, what was Adam doing - he clearly wasn't hunting! Gen 2 says his job was to care for the garden. Again, I believe Australian Aboriginals do 'care for the garden' in varous ways, including deliberately starting bush fires.
Modern patriarchal structure is much more a feature of modern sendtry lifestyles following the introduction of agriculture and domestication of livestock. It was hardly God's original ideal, and such a sinful model should hardly be upheld by Christians today.
but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter and made her life a burden.’
Moreover, if Eve was gathering, what was Adam doing?.... It said said SHE seperated from her husband that was contrary to the divine direction of God. Stephen if you read SOP in context and not leave things out the picture becomes much clearer as it mirrors Biblical teaching on this matter.
How sad that Moses, if he truly wrote Genesis, did not have the insight that a writer could "fill out" thousands of years later.
Yes Elaine God spoke to Adam, was he not the head of his household. In Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and told them to be fruitful and multiply before sin. Bible states Adam was in charge of naming the animals and even his wife. After sin in Genesis 3:9 God calls Adam the one responsible for the household. In Genesis 3:17 KJV the ground is cursed because Adam "hearkened unto the voice of his wife".
"How sad that Moses, if he truly wrote Genesis, did not have the insight that a writer could "fill out" thousands of years later."
2 Timothy 3:16
Such an analogy is ludicrious. Look at all the women who are, or have been leaders in Israel, India, Germany, and other nations, a well as U.S. cabinet officers. Any governing instituion that does not equally represent women is suffereing the wonderful contributions that women offer.
This was demonstrated yesterday in the eloquent presentations made by women pastors in LLUC.
Elaine, the problem is that just because there are a plethora of nations who allow women to be leaders doesn't mean that doing so is pleasing in the eyes of the Lord God. Just look at how many nations condone homosexuality, or allow women to rule over their bodies and freely have abortions. Are we to say these things are right according to the Word just because they're relatively common? Of course not.
Likewise, while the Bible emphasizes that it's a man's responsibility to love and care for his wife, it also lays out clear limits to a woman's place, both in their immediate families and in God's Family, the Church. A woman is to remain silent and obey her husband, which is pleasing in the eyes of the Most High who made them.
Kevin has come back at this by stating that the word used in reference to certain Biblical women -- "diakonos" -- implies spiritual leadership over others. This is categorically incorrect, as even a cursory Google search will demonstrate. Diakonos also means "one who serves," and was used historically in reference even to errand-runners. It in no way, shape or form suggests that any women in the Bible served in positions of church leadership -- they served, as all members of the Church serve Him. The use of "diakonos" in reference to these women simply emphasizes that they were participating members in good standing within the church family. Nothing more.
You people (not you necessarily, Elaine, but everyone here) seems to want to have their cake and eat it, too. Either you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, or you don't. If you want to run around rationalizing everything -- which is precisely what I get accused of doing when I suggest that homosexuality isn't a sin -- then that's fine. You can run around and make silly little statements like, "oh well gosh, oh boy oh heavens to betsy, doncha know, women have made so many contributions yanno, doncha think like they could be ordained and stuff, ohhhh heavens to betsy, I'm sure the Bible means to say this..." That's fine. Run around doing that until you pass out if you'd like. But as it is written, "Heaven and Earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." The Bible is very clear on this topic, and you all betray the Divine Plan set forth by our Heavenly Father in your rabid efforts to twist His Word just because doing so makes them a "better fit" in today's society. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Tim,
You're addressing an old gal who's been around too many blocks, blocks set up by men to prevent women from reaching their full potential.
When I was growing up there were only three vocations open to women: nursing, teaching, secretarial. I never saw female physician until I was grown.
Role models were so few and far between we could not dream of anything above a low-paying job or finding a husband who could support us.
There is nothing in the Bible that requires women to marry, bear children, or for men to assign her roles. Proverbs extolls the business woman, as was Lydia. Just as men, women have a variety of talents and they should not be limited. Paul wrote "I am not giving permission for a woman to teach...." This was his own conviction at the time, just as it was his personal statement that it was "better to be single than to burn." When did you last hear a preacher commending against marriage and preferring singlenness?
This was what Obama was saying yesterday: men have no right to debate what women should choose to do with their own bodies. This is the same audacity that the G.C. has enacted for many years: An all-male conference on "what to do with women in the church and whether to ordain." Where were the women for whom they were making decisions affecting their entire lives? Is this the ideal: women submit to men making all decisions and the meekly accept as if it were the Lord speaking? Do men have sole preroagtive to speak for God? To claim that the Bible limits women is to read it completely out of context. When you pull out your Bible as defending a position that is not there, you are bearing false witness. Show me where the Bible says that women should NOT
preach, teach, or excel in business. God did not: it was Paul, and many of the cultural things he wrote were based on a particular place and time. Taking things out of context is another misuse of the Bible.
Then you proceed to slide down that slippery slope and have hit bottom when you begin to suggest that "women want to have their cake and eat it too." What part of the cake are you allowing women to eat, if any? Or should we merely bake the cake and hand it over to the fellows?
And by the way, I have always protested that homosexuality is NOT a sin. Please give me the courtesy I have given you by not judging women as disobedient to God by desiring the same equality that men have always had.
If men can be fathers and have a vocation, so can women. What about those who never are mothers? What about mothers' long life after children have grown and left home?
Is it time for us to rejoice that you have rejoined the fold?
I will also take scholarly (and expensive - even at half price) Greek lexica that interpet words in context over Google searches any day. I love Google, but he simply repeats everything ever said without evaluating it. Just look up what he has to say about 'homosexuality' (actually, any topic under the sun) if you don't believe me.
I just saw you used 'heavens to Betsy' - obviously you have not given up your wicked ways and gotten back on the straight and narrow way.
When/if the SDA church gets around to seriously discussing homosexuality, I hope you're still around to contribute to the discussion here. Enjoy your cake, whether you choose to eat it, decorate it, share it, or simply keep it for the memories.