.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
Opinion
Tutsch, Cindy
|
The Great Divide
Submitted: Feb 20, 2013
By Cindy Tutsch,
I watch him stand at the microphone and begin a speech that simultaneously assaults my ears and raises my hackles. Beside me sits an extraordinarily gifted female pastor whose spiritual journey I’ve followed closely since she committed all her spirit, energy, and talent to her Lord Jesus at age fourteen. The next year, before I baptized her at Sunset Lake, I asked the Spirit to anoint her for kingdom service and enable her to identify His gifts.
Over time, I’ve watched this young woman graduate from academy and college, marry, earn an MDiv, and as a pastor, lead scores of individuals to Jesus, mobilize hundreds of multi-cultural young adults for evangelism and service, preach life-altering sermons at her home church and at the General Conference Session, provide team-building leadership to initiate sustainable urban ministries, including literature evangelism, organic community gardens, tutoring, and cooking schools, ably and systematically mentor pastoral interns, lead evangelistic campaigns and mission trips, serve articulately on commissions and boards at every Church level, and plant churches!
And now the speaker is declaring emphatically that the Church must apologize to pastors who are women for ever calling them into pastoral ministry in the first place!
My growing indignation is stifled mid-course with his next words.
“I’ve dedicated my life to this Church, because I believed the Church held Scripture as authoritative, that it was not to be reinterpreted to accommodate culture or historical criticism.”
Now his voice shakes with emotion as he pleads, “Is this still my Church? Am I now to watch it slide into higher critical interpretations that alter the plain teaching of the Word of God?”
Suddenly, instead of the elderly man at the microphone, I see my dad. Both courageously chose Adventism mid-life at great personal sacrifice. Both gave themselves wholeheartedly to the cause of God, working in education and ministry for the Church they serve loyally with every fiber of their beings. Though outwardly aging, both wait with inner expectant joy for Christ’s Second Advent.
I wanted to call out to this dedicated, God-fearing saint, “Don’t paint us all with the same brush! Most of the people in this room who support gender inclusive ministry also hold a high view of Scripture. We affirm the authority of the Word of God, the sacredness of the family, and the centrality of missions. We believe strongly in a literal Creation week, a pre-Advent judgment, the inspiration of Ellen White, biblically defined marriage and sexual activity confined to a married man and woman. We support and participate in the proclamation of Revelation’s Three Angels. We support inclusiveness because of biblical mandates, including Ephesians 4 and Acts 11 that show it is the Spirit who calls and anoints men and women to pastoral ministry and Church leadership. Lay down your fears! We are not your enemy! Together, with every wall of partition broken down, we will become together that ‘army with banners’ that proclaims the Loud Cry through the agency of the Holy Spirit in Latter Rain power.”
I worried for my young pastor friend, the only committee member under the age of forty, lest she become disillusioned hearing an ecclesiology that limits, rather than expands, her ministry, that condemns, instead of affirms, her sacred calling.
I needn’t have worried.
Our elderly brother approached my friend after the committee adjourned.
“I apologize to you for this great injury the Church has done you by calling you into pastoral ministry,” he began. Gently, her young face radiating the love of the God she serves with passion, she declared, “I cannot accept your apology. It is the Lord Jesus who has called me to be a Seventh-day Adventist pastor. It is He whom I serve, and who gives me joy in my ministry. What God anoints, no human being can annul.”
My heart goes out to them both.
Humanly speaking, it seems that The Divide is too great. In our humanity, we can never cross it. But God is in the business of interrupting human history with acts beyond our frail human-driven solutions.
Just as Peter was shocked by the message of inclusiveness he learned from the vision of motley creatures in a sheet, so we too may one day be startled by a message to church leaders from God Himself.
I pray fo
r the day we all understand that the cross of Christ is the bridge over The Great Divide we have dug with our own inert ideas and understandings. I pray that we meet at that cross together as one “melded humanity,” united in our mission and believing and living our oneness in the Spirit. I pray that we return to the roots of our Adventist movement, with no hand held back that could be carrying out the calling which God Himself has given.Because while we again spend time, resources, and energy to quibble about who is authorized to dispense the water of life, those who are dying of thirst cry desperately for rescue.
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
First, welcome back. I have been missing your posts. I appreciate the sensitivity with which you present topics and stay focused on God.
Sometime issues in the church have to literally die of old age. Considering that the majority of the most vocal critics of the ordination of women are retirees only a few years from the grave, the next few years will silence many of the critics and we will be better able to watch and see how God leads us into ministry experiences we can only dream about today.
That's a great illustration of how those who know they have been called by God will find ways to minister despite the obstacles people put in their path.
Another point that cannot be ignored is that the cultural camp is largely driving this cause. Unfortunately with their consistent hostile track record in attacking traditional Adventist beliefs and the wholesale compromise of church standards, their hollering isn’t taken seriously by the church at large who see the creeping compromise as adverse and not in the best interests of the church (for now at least). There is enough room in grace for us all to repent, I suppose - and come into line. There are also many women too who aren’t in favour of WO for various reasons.
The hurriedness of the recent lobbying and voting made the whole cause look even worse in my opinion and made leaders more prudent about making shotgun decisions. That should be considered too. Lastly, sending the church on a guilt trip in order to force change is not going to erode the deep theological implications that some questions raise. The fact that this is not just a cut and dry decision - should at least permit GC to brood over this, even if it takes a while. This will call for patience. I remember how the disciples were fighting among themselves about who was the greatest among them: Do we?
The 1973 scholars concluded that there is “no significant theological objection to the ordination of women to Church ministries” and recommended a pilot program for including women in pastoral and evangelistic roles “where the ‘climate’ in the field would appear receptive”. They also recommended that “qualifications for church offices which require ordination . . . be listed without reference to sex.”
Subsequent GC sponsored studies have reached the same conclusions. How long should we be patient when our church seems hesitant to follow these biblical findings in deference to traditional culture? Should we not push for the application of what our best scholars have found in Scripture? Or, should we let politics keep us from following Scripture?
Really, that is what I thought was the core message of the Gospel. Perhaps there is a hierarchy, but if there is, it is upside to what we human beings think.
"As far as I can tell most who say WO is biblical employ higher ctriticism..."
What do you mean by higher criticism? Given the argument for those who support WO mainly comes from the NT, what does discussion about Q, pseduo-Pauline tracts, or Synoptical theories have to do with it?
What thing that many of these modern methods do try to do, especially re NT studies, is to look behind the veil of 2,000 years of tradition, Church Fathers and ecumenical councils. Funny thing is, that is the sort of thing I always thought Adventism, as a restorationist denomination, tried to do also.
When you strip the tradition, Church Fathers and ecumenical councils away, one finds that there is little biblical reason to oppose WO. The fixation with restoring it is nothing less than adhering to Papist tradition, along with the notion of:
-
apostlic sucession (where elders-bishops were originally elected by their congregations);
-
vestments (originally clothing of Roman pagan aristocrats);
-
collars (originally worn by Greek philosophy teachers);
-
titles of papa (father and pope);
-
wealth, prestiege and earthly powers of magistrates (derrived from the powers of pagan priests and vestal cultish leaders);
-
celibacy (as much derived from pagan Platonic-Gnostic philosophy as anything else);
-
priesthood (subscribing clergy as successors of Jewish Levitical and pagan priests, overturning the original egalitarian views of the NT period, with its priesthood of all believers, both male and female);
-
monarchal bishops (originally mere the head elder, a first amongst equals);
-
apostlic bishops (where bishop subsumed the previous separate offices of apostle and prophet after supressing the Montanist revival, where Tertullian was the last notable supporter);
-
metropolitan and patriarchal bishops (organised on secular provincial lines, with Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and later Jerusalem ruling over the other bishops); and
-
the notion of 'ordination itself' (which actually is a pagan Roman word not found in the Bible, used to refer to the elevation of rank to one of the 'orders', say Equestian or Senatorial).
"The fixation of God's people wanting to be like the world has brought ruin from time imemorial."Indeed true. But the fixation of conservative Adventists against WO is so ironic given they are almost the most anti-Catholic, and yet are staunch supporters of Papal tradition on this issue.
The fact that Jesus only ordained 12 men and 0 women with the laying on hands is very significant in NT. Since, the significant teaching examples that Jesu did before His death on the cross could not be changed according to the ancient laws of wills and covenants. But, now in modern times, Adventists leaders controlled by polictical correctness want to do a makeover of the clear examples that Jesus left us. The plain words of Scripture are being discarded for PC instead. I never thought that I would see this happen in my lifetime. Truth is lying in the street bleeding, as we speak.
Yes, the 12 is very signifcant.
12 months in calendar
12 signs in Zodiac
12 Sons of Jacob/tribes of Israel. (daughters ignored) Israel a male dominated culture
12 Titans/gods (equal genders) In greek mythology. Ancient Minoans had Female god Athena. Culture gave women equality. Inheritance matrilineal instead of patrilineal!
12 main gods in the Greek Pantheon.
So in a drama with a fascinating blend of the Greek Odyssey and Hebrew Messianic thinking a new hero is born. His 12 men, like those of Odysseus, were incompetent and bungling. Failing to obey orders, failing to watch, and so on with 14 similarities.
Jesus, the new hero begins with 12, but treats women with equality. It is women who take a lead role during and after his death in the plot. Perhaps the 12 is indeed significant, but for the opposite reasons you think.
The 12 sons of Jacob are to be the names of the twelve gates in heaven also.... Your right we are spiritual Israel. Are you going to line up with the PC police a petition God on His reasoning?
Actually I did not see much in it to do with God/god. I saw shared mythology!
But... could it be agreed upon that it was God's intent to instruct the children of the Israel the New Covenant after the Golden Calf event when He instituted the Sanctuary Services by which we have the New Covenant in all of it's constituent parts?
I do believe God intended the children of Israel to understand the process of forgiveness of sin -- via blood, by the sanctuary services. But I believe there are things about the New Covenant that no one who lived under the Old could completely comprehend -- and that Christ (while here on earth, under the Old Covenant) was constrained to communicate.
Further, it is implied that that was intentional. Christ said, while here on earth, there were things HE couldn't yet tell his disciples:
“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear," John 16:12.
Perhaps, the role of women in spreading the gospel might have been one of those presently "unbearable" things . . .
If you are addressing my last post, perhaps you misunderstand what I am saying. I was responding to mojo's assertion that Christ has 12 male disciples and 0 females -- implying that that is what was intended for the church for all time.
I am simply asserting that what Christ did was limited and bound by the Old Covenant law, so, as he said, there may have been things that, while here, he could not tell us. There may be been other, more inclusive, criteria under the New Covenant, per the texts you cite in Galatians, for example.
Will become an empty shell? It is a present reality in a large number of places..
"...if the church doesn't arrive soon into the 21st century, the church in North America will become an empty shell."
The Union Conferences who have chosen to be insubordinate in this case should be discussed by Cindy. Women should not hold headship positions in the spiritual realm.
Maranatha
Second, union conferences have not been insuboordinate. Our church structure was designed for decision-making to filter up, not down. The unions are functioning as they were designed to function by making decisions in the field that have not yet been settled by consensus. The General Conference leadership has been overreaching (though I believe it has been well intentioned) because business culture has caused us to drift toward a top down authority structure. If you take the time to read the original documents reporting the creation of our church structure, you will see that I write the truth.
According to these documents, the creation of unions was intended to "decentralize power" and "distribute the responsibilities of the General Conference, placing them more fully and definitely upon those who are on the ground where the work is to be done and the issues to be met". Thus, "a thousand details [were] transferred from the General Conference Committee to those whom the Lord has called to his work, and whom he has placed in the field where the details are to be worked out" (General Conference Bulletin, 1901, No. 3, pp. 513-514).
This is what a few were saying since someone provided the G.C. Working Policy explaining just that. Many were crying "insubordination" based on emotions and not the stated policy giving unions the right to choose who they ordained.
The Union Conferences who have chosen to be insubordinate in this case should be discussed by Cindy. Women should not hold headship positions in the spiritual realm.
Maranatha
I know you will say such arguments are ridduculous, but it wasn't that long ago when these sorts of arguments really were the norm. We still have racically segregated conferences in the SDA Church after all! It took 'politically correct' folk to try and overturn these stereotypes which have less to do with Thus Saith the Lord and more to do with tradition and power.
Are you able to carry a child to full term? Does your body produce it's needed nutrition for the first months of it's life? No it's not about tradition but God given traits to lead and provide as the shepherd of the home and Church.
The Union Conferences who have chosen to be insubordinate in this case should be discussed by Cindy. Women should not hold headship positions in the spiritual realm.
Maranatha
Talking of male members (which you seem to think is an important basis for ascertaining qualification to ordination), was it also significant that He chose 12 circumcised Jews? Should we then limit ordination based on race and culture as well? Is that the sort of Gospel you believe in?
Why do you pick some of the criteria of the 12 apostles and not other criteria? Show me the Bible text where it allows you to make such a selection based on male reproductive organs?
Is it just me but does it seem completely bizare that those who claim women should not hold headship positions in the spiritual realm then turn to a woman - Ellen White - the SDA Church's premier headship position in the spiritual realm, to justify their position!
Great point! I love your insights.
political correctness hadn't then been coined.You can thank Lyndon Johnson, for his infighting vigor, & ability to bring both parties to action that should have occurred 100 years earlier.
Truth Seeker says"the Union Conferences have chosen to be insubordinate"
FACT:
The Union Conferences acted in full subordination to the Holy Spirit who chooses sons and daughters to prophecy
and in full subordination to Christ who ordained a woman as his very first evangelist
who brought hundreds back to Christ
in contrast to 12 men who still believed in headship and delivered their zero sum performance.
We must carry our cross and pay the price today to remain subordinate to Christ.
Even when following Christ still conflicts with culture
we are not given permission to submit to worldly culture in place of Christ.
Being disobedient to Christ and subordinate to the culture is not an option
to those who know the Way the Truth and the Life!
We are called to be "truth seekers" in our walk as well as our talk.
Others see Christ dwells in us by our fruit.
The Union Conferences acted in full subordination to the Holy Spirit who chooses sons and daughters to prophecy?
"I have been shown that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered." 3T p. 492.
Written by a women who passed the Biblical test of a true prophet, yet the vote taken in 1990 and 1995 is mute to continuous actions of the insbordinate Unions Conferences.....
All the more as we see the Day of YHWH approaching!
When we place our cart before the horse and worship our Culture before our Creator we err!
The Sabbath is a call to worship the Creator not our Culture!
The GC is NEVER asked to give instructions to YHWH!
YHWH gives instructions to His People!
Joel 2:28 And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy...
Acts 21:9 Philip the Evangelist had four daughters which did prophesy...
Exodus 15:20 Miriam, the prophetess, took a timbrel...
Judges 4:4 Deborah, a prophetess, judged Israel...
Luke 2:36 There was one Anna, a prophetess...
We live in a culture that says YHWH will not pour out His Holy Spirit on women.
We cannot use counsel from an angel from nor any hierarchy on earth as an excuse to disobey YHWH and reject the Creator who says to His Apostles:
Acts 2:16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
Acts 2:17 In the last days, YHWH says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.
Acts2:18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
It is written. We know the YHWH talk. Now we need do the YHWH walk!
The time for discussion is past!
I have never said we should not have prophetess...they have been used by God in the OT, NT, and today. There have also been priestess but NOT in the Gods church.
That they may have Elders in everytown Titus 1:5
Ellen White says to ordain men as the Bible states in Act 6:1-6
Overseers and shepherds of the church Acts 20:28, Ephesians 4:11
Hands laid on and ordaining of men Acts 6:6, 1 Timothy 5:22
Elders appointed in every church, Act 14:23
HUSBANDS OF ONE WIFE Timothy 3:1-6, Titus 1:5-9
Paul's example 1 Corinthians 9:16
You are right we need to follow the Creator and his Word and example NOT Culture!
Is there women waiting for ordination so they are able spread Gods Word???
It's about submission and service NOT position and power...
Isaiah 8:20 rings clear throughout all ages
The Adventist Church teaches we should follow the Bible only, YES! Was Paul Catholic? Are the ordination practices in Acts 6 Catholic tradition?
Choose Wise Men—For years the Lord has been instructing us to choose wise men,-men who are devoted to God,—men who know what the principles of heaven are,-men who have learned what it means to walk with God,—and to place upon them the responsibility of looking after the business affairs connected with our work. This is in accordance with the Bible plan as outlined in the sixth chapter of Acts. We need to study this plan; for it is approved of God. Let us follow the Word.—The Review and Herald, October 5, 1905.
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.” Titus 1:5-7. 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.” 1 Timothy 5:22. 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—men who need to be converted, elevated, ennobled, and refined before they can serve the cause of God in any capacity.
Excellent point! Why do we even ordain anyone? The concept od ordination is not based in scripture, but in the Catholic tradition of inducting a person in to the clergy class, whom they view as a superior class who are authorized to rule over the common people.
You write "The Adventist Church teaches we should follow the Bible only, YES!" But then you do not use the Bible you use Ellen White. I respect Ellen White, I follow Ellen White, but she made it clear that all our doctrine comes from the Bible and not from her. So please let's stay with the Bible on this one. I will clarify even further. We practice three ordinations: Deacon, Edler, Pastor. We say that if ordained a deacon you have to be ordained again to be an elder. We also say that once ordained as an elder you don't have to be ordained again to become a deacon. There is no hint in the NT that there were three "ordinations". That comes from the Catholic rites: Deacon, Priest, Bishop. So again the REAL issue is not whether should be ordained it is whether men should be ordained the way we do it today. Since we have allowed women to serve as pastors I am in full support of them being given the same credentials as their male counterparts. They minister in the same way. But if we stopped ordaining men that would take care of the issue of whether to ordain women or not.
Yes we have allowed women to serve as pastors and it is not Biblical nor is it endorsed by the SOP.
Please show me where in the Bible it says to ordain deacons and that you need a different ordination to become an elder and then a third and more superior ordination to become a pastor. I mean it seriously. You could help me. I am currently involved in a PhD disseration which is tracing the history of the three ordinations in the Adventist church back to the Roman Catholic Church. When I have completed my studies it will become much clearer. But consider this. The word ordain does not appear in the Greek NT. We do have laying on of hands but no reference to a laying on of hands for deacons with a separate and superior laying on of hands for elders and there is no reference in the NT for laying on of hands for pastors. In fact the term pastor only appears once in the NT in Ephesians 4. The terms elder and bishop refer to the same person. We have interpreted bishop to be pastor for our purposes but that is our interpretation. There were only two offices in the early church: deacon, bishop/elder.
When the church shall truly have the spirit of the message, they will throw all their energies into the work of saving the souls for whom Christ has died. They will enter new fields. Some who are not ordained ministers will be laborers together with God in visiting the church. Christian Service pg 18
These were not votes to forbid the ordination of women. Both votes came in answer to requests to depart from neutrality (with the church having no previously voted positions) and take a pro WO stance. Both requests were denied, leaving the GC neutral. The 1990 document even says that it does not reflect a consensus position. If the situation was reversed and a request to take an anti WO stance had also been denied by vote, it would not have resulted in official permission either.
The proof that the GC is offically neutral on this question is that there is no direct theological statement among our doctrines or offical statements and there is no prohibition of WO in the General Conference Working Policy book or Church Manual. The closest things we have to official positions are the various study committees that have found in favor of women in ministry and our anti-discrimination postion in the Working Policy (Fundamental Belief #14 and Working Policy BA 60).
But we aren't talking about ordaining deacons or elders-bishops per the example of Stephen and the Seven - the SDA Church already ordains women in these roles!
We are talking about spiritual leaders, namely the apostles per the example of Matthias and the Twelve.
You seem to always confuse the criteria for the 7 with the criteria for the 12!
You've presented two possibilities. But neither is applicable. It does not have to be either, but a simple acceptance that God favored neither sex, and in the NT, which is the only theological foundation for Christians, Paul set the beliefs necessary for Christians, and the main precept is found in Galatians3:23-28 "There are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Chist Jesus." This was a radical departure from Judaism where women were subordinate, could not worship with men but were separated in many areas. Christianity was no longer a racially, ethnic religion only for Jews, but available for all with no differentiation of sexes of races.
Many draw religious precepts from the Old Covenant rather than being guided by the NT. The NT is the prescriptive for Christians on how we should live, while the Hebrew Bible was prescriptive for them, but now under the New Covenant, the OT is descriptive of how they lived.
If you enjoy articles on Wikipedia on culture and women, you might enjoy the entries for two other terms: "cult of domesticity" and "cult of true womanhood." These, and other articles that you can find on Google, give definition to the culture that Seventh-day Adventists seem to have largely "countered" while Ellen White was alive, but conformed to after her death in 1915. In her 1999 book "Adventism in Crisis" (1999) non-Adventist sociologist Laura Vance, divides Adventist history into three phases: our original position of acceptance of both men and women as leaders, followed by our almost complete accommodation to lingering 19th century culture of domesticity, and our third phase of accommodation to the culture of equality. She saw the Adventist discussions in the 1990s as a conflict between our first accommodation and our second accommodation. She conducted research, with the help of Roger Dudley of Andrews University, which demonstrated that neither the proponents of the first or second accommodation knew much about our original position and how counter-cultural it was.
May you please define radical egalitarianism for me so that we do not delve into semantics. I still maintain that radical egalitarianism is not biblical. so that we have a working definition I would like your definition of what you understand by radical egalitarianism so that I do not unwittingly employ strawmen arguments
For spiritual matters, including spiritual leadership, I take Galatians 3:27-28 as my benchmark, which is to say the Holy Spirit chooses who He will, regardless of gender, status or race. I would no more say a woman can't be a spiritual leader than I would say a person of a certain race (which was a barrier not so long ago and still a barrier in some areas of the SDA Church, even today) or status-class. I take it that spiritual leadership is wholly by virtue of spiritual gifts, as made very clear in Eph 4:11.
If, however, you are talking about more temporal matters, of appointed leadership, then I am more willing to admit that there may be such differences. In Papau New Guinea, it may be a simple fact of life that many indigenous locals don't have the education and cultural responsibility to be administrators of what amounts to million-dollar Church organisations, even if they have amazing spiritual gifts. It is of course not anyone would wish but that is how it might seem on the ground at the moment.
You might wish to comment on the history of such matters in Africa, as to the race and class of people who historically led the SDA Church there. How does raddical egalitarianism fit in with your views when we talk about race and class-status, not just gender?
For appointed leadership, being elders-bishops and deacons, then yes, the proof-texts of 'man of one wife' might apply. I don't believe they are talking about gender but happy to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, they only apply to these human-appointed elders-bishops and deacons, not Spirit-appointed apostles and prophets.
We see the distinction in the life of Ellen White. She was never in Church administration, never being President like her husband James. However, she was spiritual leader premier.
If you want to keep women out of administration of the Church - whether at Conference level or at congregational level, you have my support. But you can't keep women out of spiritual leadership as apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists or pastors. The problem is we have it backwards, in ordaining women elders but not women pastors - if anything, it should be the reverse!
Great, now we are getting somewhere and into the heart of the debate about what ordination is exactly and where and when it is needed and for whom.
You are right, there is no statement about ordination because the word ‘ordained’ is a Latin term meaning to be promoted to one of then-society’s orders – from commoner to the Equestrian Order or to the Senatorial Order. The terminology was appropriate by the Papacy when the Church began to exercise temporal power as the official religion of the Empire.
You are also right re no direct statement of Matthias’s laying of hands. You will note that the ultimate decision was by lots, where we get the word ‘clergy’ from – Greek for ‘chosen by lots’. Why do you think that was? I think it was to emphasise that God alone (whether by Jesus personally or the Holy Spirit thereafter) makes the ultimate decision.
‘The qualification mentioned is that it should be "of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." There is no human now living who meets this criteria.’’
Indeed. Roman Catholics argue this probably away through the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. However, Paul never knew the historic Jesus and claimed to be an Apostle – something the other Apostles questioned as invalid.
As no human now living now knows Christ, and in the absence of the doctrine of Apostolic Succession (which would arguably disqualify not just Paul but all SDA ministers), how should we decide? There appears to be perhaps a two-step process:
‘I suppose we are afraid to follow their example regarding "casting lots" among qualified individuals is that we are worried that the lot might fall on a woman.’
Indeed.
‘On the other hand Acts 6 does mention the laying on of hands for the seven deacons and Acts 13 the laying on of hands for Paul and Barnabas "for the work to which I have called them’
Indeed, the 7 appointed leaders (which we commonly call deacons but may in fact have been the first elders) appear quite distinct from the 12 apostles. The apostles created this separate order of leadership so they could remain focused on spiritual leadership whilst the elders could devote themselves to temporal leadership matters. The elders-deacons were of course ‘spiritual’ people, but they had a more temporal function involving ‘waiting on tables.’
Whereas the apostles were chosen by God alone (i.e. by Jesus Himself or the Holy Spirit thereafter) it is the elders-deacons were appointed by men. It is only these appointed elders-deacons who are judged by the proof-text criteria of ‘husband of one-wife’ – not the apostles. It is also only the appointed elders-deacons who require ordination, because like Matthais (who wasn’t ordained) spiritual leaders are ultimately chosen by God.
‘In neither case are these called apostles at the time of their ordination or commissioning.’
Yes indeed. It appears these separate models of leadership – spiritual (apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and pastors) versus temporal (bishop-elders, deacons and deaconesses) – remained separate for quite some time in the early Church period
It appears that the Roman Catholic Church crushed the two-role model after the Montanist Revival, where in effect the appointed leaders (bishops) destroyed the last remaining vestiges of spirit-appointed leaders (apostles and prophets):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanist
I believe that higher ctriticism is antithetical to christianity itself that why I am against WO the hermeneutic employed is a historical critical one. For example I am sure you believe that Radical Egalitarian then can you explain his verses which people like myself and other opoosers of WO like to use?
However, I have problems with we utilised human tradition, most of it from human tradition (not higher criticism as you say, which I am not sure you know what that is), which comes from Roman Catholocism, and before that from Roman and Greek secular society and pagan philosophy. There is a spiritual hierachy, but for spiritual roles of leadership, God chooses that hierarchy.
Both the OT and NT attests that God's selection of spiritual leadership is not the same method we choose our hierachies. God has chosen women, children, poor people and foreigners as spiritual leaders at time. These include roles such as apostles, prophets and seers. Even how we define these roles is not that easy to define (given texts such as 1 Sam 9:9).
Thus, I have no problems with hierarchies for spiritual leadership, as long as you recognise that God chooses - not some human beings. Why do you think God made this point when he asked a white man first to be the SDA prophet, then a black man, and then finally a woman?
My other major problem is that people confuse these spiritual roles (i.e. apostles and prophets) with appointed roles (i.e. bishops-elders and deacons). It is only these appointed leaders to whom the potential-gender restricted requirements of 'husband of one wife' apply - they don't apply to spiritual leadership roles.
The proto-Papacy effectively destroyed the former role, when the appointed roles (i.e. bishops-elders) outlawed the spiritual roles (i.e. apostles and prophets) during the Montanist revival. They did this precisely because these new cadre of bishops-elders felt threatened by the Montanist spiritual leaders, who were 1 man and 2 women who claimed to be prophets. Out of the early Church Fathers, only Tertullian supported them.
The rest as they say is history, and the appointed leaders have dominated the Church ever since. One of the first things the Papacy then did was ban women deaconesses, which wasn't revived for another 1,600 years or so.
It is no coincidence that the SDA Church had a spiritual leader, and one who was a woman! Why then are we stopping woman from continued spiritual leadership, fulfilling the roles of apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and pastors, which are spiritual-gift roles (Eph 4:11), being quite distinct the appointed leadership roles of bishop-elders and deacons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanist
Dwight Nelson was trumping up EGW the other day as being a leader of the SDA church, and she was of sorts, but the Prophets were given a different spiritual gift, it could come upon male or female. It was not the same gift as the Apostolic gift. Do you think that our theologians are so smart these days, that they can discard 2,000 years of the all male Apostolic calling? After all Jesus is the One that set it up, not EGW or the GC.
Why - where is your proof from the Bible?
Why is the gift of prophecy different from the gift of apostleship concerning gender? Forget 2,000 years of Papal tradition for one moment and tell me from the Bible why that is so? And don't go quoting texts about bishop-elders and deacons, because those appointed roles are different from spiritual leadership roles of apostles and prophets.
The 12 Apostles selected in Acts are very different from the 7 appointed elders-deacons, as Acts 6:2; Acts 6:3; Acts 6:5 and Acts 6:6 demonstrate. Don't confuse the distinction between Matthais' method of selection as an Apostle as part of the 12 in Acts 1:26, with the selection of Stephen as one of the elders-deacons in Acts 6:5. There has been far two much confusion about these two very different orders or models of Church leadership.
And then explain to me whether gender distinctions also apply to the other spiritual leadership roles of evangelist, teacher and pastor from Eph 4:11? And explain why from Thus Saith the Lord, not Papal tradition, why gender criteria attach to some of these roles and not others?
Read on... Don't forget Acts 6:7; Acts 6:8; Acts 6:9; Acts 6:10, Acts 6:13 Stephen does not seem to be preoccupied with setting tables and gave his life as so did the Apostles.
Proof from the Bible can be examples in the Bible....
And don't forget that apostles didn't always travel around either. Whilst Peter in Antioch and Paul in Anatolia did, remember James (the brother of the Lord) remained in at the Jerusalem 'home church' and didn't appear to go anywhere.
However, I broadly have no problems with this view of the distinctive roles of apostles vs elder (bishop), as this is indeed how it works largely in many of our own churches. We have clergy (exercising the role of apostles) establishing and overseeing several churches (like Paul and Peter), or exercising spiritual leadership over large 'home' churches, whilst we have elders governing in those local churches.
Re Stephen and the other elders-deacons, no one is saying they didn't have a degree of spiritual leadership. Of course they were spiritual leaders. But Acts 6 is explicit in noting they were explicitly established for local and administrative roles, compared with the primary spiritual and apostolic roles of the apostles.
Your local Church deacons collect the offering, do the garden, moe the lawn and fix the plumbing, but this doesn't make them lesser Christians. No doubt many a deacon would account themselves well as Stephen did if they called to their own personal Cross as Stephen did. But a deacon's role is fundamentally different from say the Church's clergy. Don't you agree?
In any event, nothing you have said answers Mojo's claim that the spiritual role of prophet has no regard to gender but apostles (i.e. clergy like Matthais 'chosen by lots') have to be men. And Mojo was ambiguous about the other roles in Eph 4:11 - whether teachers, evangelists and pastors need to be all men or whether women can do these roles?
Still waiting for the Thus said the Lord on gender restriction for our clergy...
As far as Elders duty, at the momment we have no pastor in the church I am attending, the Elders are in charge and are leading out.
Please show me from Gods Word where Women are directly called to the role spiritual leadership of the home or the Church?
Is Genesis 3:16 nailed to the cross? What leadership roles were followed by Abraham Genesis 26:5?
Could the words of Isaiah 3:12 still be in effect today? Acts 20:28
I actually agree with you here.
I totally agree Elders and Deacons are very similar roles. I have read various opinions suggesting the 7 in Acts 6 were actually ordained elders (not deacons as we usually think), where in Acts 15 we note the Council of Apostles (i.e. the 12) and Elders (i.e. the 7). It appears only in later periods as the Church expanded that appointed leadership inserted after elders the newer sub-role of deacon, and similarly in time the additional role of bishop. They are all types of appointed roles.
I am also happy to admit that there may be gender restrictions for these appointed roles. I am not convinced that 'husband of one wife' is talking about gender restriction at all, but assuming it is, then these proof texts only apply to these appointed roles of bishops-elders-deacons. They don't apply to spiritual leaders such as apostles and prophets. Do you agree?
'As far as Elders duty, at the momment we have no pastor in the church I am attending, the Elders are in charge and are leading out.'
As to an elder's duty, I am happy to admit the model intended is of spiritual leaders (i.e. apostles, prophets - clergy) travelling around starting Churches, re-visiting Churches etc etc. I am also happy to admit that the spiritual leader is chosen by God, and then the spiritual leader chooses the appointed leaders in each local church.
It would appear that Ellen White embodied these differences. She was chosen by God. She was in full time ministry. She held ministerial credentials. She and most of our early, fully paid clergy, simply didn't sit in a home church as most of our clergy did. They travelled around starting new churches, re-visiting, and then returning and giving spiritual guidance when issues arose. Ellen White acted as apostle and prophet la premiere (by the way she never called herself a prophet to my knowledge), but she never attempted to act like an Elder.
So again, women like Ellen White can clearly act as clergy, being shepard of several churches (or the whole church in Ellen White's case). If gender restrictions apply, they only apply to the elders of local Churches. If in your local church you restrict eldership to men, then I support that. But you can't reject the spiritual authority of female clergy if you are given one. If you do, you are no better than the early Churches who rejected Paul's authority as apostle, claiming he lacked Apostolic Sucession unlike the 'Super-Apostles'.
'Please show me from Gods Word where Women are directly called to the role spiritual leadership of the home or the Church?'
I am not saying women can or should be head of the local Church, because that is the role of the elder - not apostle-clergy. Again, although I personally disagree, I will concede you the point of assuming the Bible suggests elders-bishops in charge of local churches should be men in accordance with 'husband of one wife'.
Same might go for men being head of the home. I'll concede you that point. Again, remember James White may have been head of the home (although I believe that was disputed, as Ellen White was quite bossy) but in the world Adventist Church, Ellen White was effectively our Super-Apostle.
But you must then recognise that apsotles-clergy, who exercise spiritual authority above and beyond a series of Churches, as Ellen White did, can be women if chosen by God. You must recognise women can establish new Churches, conduct visitations, give counsel and make authoritative decisions as the apostle Paul did and the apostles did in Council in Acts 15.
It's obvious that the words choosen "Without regard to gender" have been made for further objectives. After watching the sermon by Trisha Famisaran (Assistant Professor of Religion and Philosophy at La Sierra) given at the Hollywood Adventist Church sheds a little light on the end game strategy. I would rather get my truth from the Word of God than the words of Lady Gaga.
It's obvious that the words choosen "Without regard to gender" have been made for further objectives. After watching the sermon by Trisha Famisaran (Assistant Professor of Religion and Philosophy at La Sierra) given at the Hollywood Adventist Church sheds a little light on the end game strategy. I would rather get my truth from the Word of God than the words of Lady Gaga.
Very Funny, Stephen! Brave, too!
Recently had discussion with a person who claimed Adam had primacy over Eve by virtue of being created first.
The discussion went silent when I asked him the signifigance of apes and monkeys being created before Adam....
Ok, I guess this draw the discussion back to fundamentals. Who or what exactly are our clergy? Why do we call them 'pastors' and not priests? Why don't we call them apostles?
Are they the same or different from those exercising the roles of prophet, teacher, evangelist and pastors, noted as spiritual gifts in the NT?
Who are our elders and deacons? What about bishops? How do they differ from our clergy - do they differ?
If the roles don't differ, why did the apostles caste lots to appoint Matthais to make 12 apostles again, but the apostles them appointed 7 elders-deacons?
Why do we call our paid, ordained clergy ministers when they literally mean deacon?
Who is entitled to ordination? Where is the word 'ordain' found in the Bible? What is ordination exactly then? Who needs ordination? What does ordination do exactly? Do both clergy and elders-deacons need ordination or just some of these roles?
Who is entitled to the rights of an apostle, including rights to travel and payment from tithe, as Paul asserted is the right of an apostle?
The problem is we (and I mean the entire Church) are arguing about details of gender for roles, when we aren't even sure about what those roles are exactly. We are arguing about a rite of ordination even though we don't actually know where that is or what it is.
Why do we call our paid, ordained clergy ministers when they literly mean deacon?
Titus 1:5 is not talking about deacons also check Acts 14:23 it is Elders not deacons....... Just by repeating something many times does not make it a fact! The Bishop/Overseer/Shepherd is stated in 1Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 to be the Husband of one wife.
'Just by repeating something many times does not make it a fact!'
I totally agree, but perhaps not in the same application as you. That is what tradition is isn't it - saying something over and over again, sometimes even for thousands of years. We can't wholly get away from tradition of course and not all tradition is necessarily bad. However, I would postulate there is still aspects of Adventism that still owes more to a continuation of Roman Catholic tradition than it does to the Bible.
As to your points, of which I am not entirely sure what you are actually saying:
- My understanding the word 'minister' is Greek diakonos, meaning 'servant' or 'minister'. My point is it is funny how we call our clergy 'ministers' where I guess we call instead call our deacons 'ministers' if we wanted. That is all I was saying.
- I do believe elders became separate appointed roles from deacons, in the same way elders and bishops eventually came to be seen as seperate appointed roles. However, if you go right back to Acts 6, it appears there were only two formal roles or ministries in the Church - apostles and elders. When the church grew too large, the office of elder seem to divide in two in the same way it later divided in three. In our own Church, we don't like to use the word bishop for anti-Papal senitments (even though there is nothing wrong with the term), and even though we have Presidents who operate as would-be bishops and often call our highest leaders (with irony) 'elder'.
- The word 'clergy' is Greek for chosen by lots, which seems to be a replacement of Matthais as the replacement apostle. The 12 apostles seem distinct from the original 7 elders-deacons. Thus, elders and deacons in our Church should and do have different roles from our clergy.
- As I have said before, I am happy to accept the proof texts such as 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6 restrict women - but they only restrict them to eldership - not apostleship-clergy.
- Paul and Timothy appear to be clergy (presumably apostles) but not elders. They both could not have satisfied the criteria for eldership, as they both had no wife and children. And Timothy seems too young. Young Timothy seems to be contrasted in quite a different light from the elders, who seem to have tried to boss him around. It is not that different from many a young SDA pastor who has had to leave with bossy, older elders (I hope not like you All4Him LOL).
- It appears only apostles-clergy are entitled to special rights, including earning a wage, assistance with travel, and taking one's wife on travel (1 Cor 9:1, 2, 3). It is not much different from Pastors today, who often have to drive around visiting many churches.
- The role of the apostle-clergy appears to be a bit of a traveler, administering to a number of churches. It seems quite different from elders and deacons, who seem limited to one local church.
- There don't appear to be any proof texts in the NT forbidding woman from being apostles-clergy. I note the NT in fact mentions the woman Junia.
- In many ways an even greater barrier in the early church than gender, given woman could approach an extra gate towards the Holy of Holies than the gentiles.
- Whilst all the original 12 apostles were circumcised Jews, this did expand, first with Paul probably breaking the limitation of just 12 apostles (which was something many others doubted his authority on), then the Hellenised Cypriot Jew Barnabas, then to gentile God-fearer like Timothy who Paul circumcised, and then finally even uncircumcised God-fearers like Titus.
- Similarly, the third great barrier (the first two being gender and race) being class-slavery broke down in the Church as well, with Paul asking for Philemon's release as a slave given Philemon's assistance to Paul.
- It was only after the failed Montanist Revival that the proto-Papacy, which became dominated by local bishops and elders-presbytrs of big urban cities, who basically destroyed and subsummed the role and titles of the apostles. Thus, bishops claimed the spiritual roles and gifts of apostles and prophets, elders-presbytrs as evangelists and pastors, and deacons as teachers. And thus the separate spiritual leadership model of the early Church died.
Again, let me say it again, because we can't seem to get past this point:THE PROOF TEXTS ABOUT THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE AND OBEDIENT CHILDREN (1 Tim 3:2 and Tit 1:6) ONLY APPLY TO APPOINTED BISHOPS-ELDERS - NOT APOSTLES-CLERGY!
THERE IS NO BIBLICAL EVIDENCE OTHER THAN PAPAL APOSTLIC TRADITION THAT APOSTLES-CLERGY NEED TO BE MEN (i.e. just because Jesus appointed 12 circumcised Jew and non-slave Jesus men is no proof, given the Church quickly broke down barriers of race, class and even gender)
The scripture model of selection for service is one directly guided by the Holy Spirit. Today's reality is that the role of the Holy Spirit is minimized, if not ignored. It is common that a person gets picked as a pastor based far more on their ability to get along with certain people in the power structure of the conference than anything else. Any examination of empowerment by the Holy Spirit is either ignored or casual and of minor influence in the decision. This is often mirrored at the local church level where giftedness by the Holy Spirit is often regarded as a threat by long-serving elders and others of influence because that person's giftedness contrasts with their concepts of how the church should operate.
We have a long history of clergy being a separate class who have been elevated to authorityabove the common people and few, even in the Adventist Church, have ever questioned that authority in more than a passing manner. The real question of authority is not whether we will be subject to human leaders but if we, both individually and as a church, are willing to recognize the supreme authority of Christ and the empowerment given by the Holy Spirit to all believers regardless of social status or gender. The role of the church should not be to select people for leadership positions but to recognize who is qualified for leadership based on their giftedness and the results of their ministry and to let them assume the positions for which God has prepared them. More than that, leadership positions should never be for limited terms, but for as long as the person is empowered by God.
I have often heard the claim made that demoting the claimed authority of the local church, conference, etc., is a denial of the authority of Christ in the church when that argument is used to allow people to stand in substitute roles and exercise authority that belong exclusively to God. This is the same argument used by the Catholic Church to justify the claimed authority of the Pope. The only difference is the level at which it is applied. A variant of this argument is the claim that recognizing the authority of the Holy Spirit above human authority is a prescription for chaos. There are few statements a person can make that more clearly demonstrate their lack of experience with the Holy Spirit and the severity of their disbelief in the power of God. I can tell you from personal experience that the power of God is seen only when believers devote themselves to building their relationship with the Holy Spirit and choose to become subject to His direct leadership. No, He doesn't reveal the same thing to everyone. But He builds roles in the church where the members respect the giftedness of others and they learn to work together as distinct but inseparably joined members of the body of Christ.
Today's reality is that the role of the Holy Spirit is minimized, if not ignored.
I have said it before and I'll say it again, one should look at how Matthais was selected as the replacement 12th apostle. He was chosen by lots, which is where we actually get the word 'clergy'. I believe the other 11 apostles did that to emphasis that the Holy Spirit, not they, actually did the selection. This is quite different from the way the 7 elders-deacons such as Stephen were selected.
We are continually confusing the Holy-spirit gifted 12 with the 7 appointed administrative leaders.
We continually forget that all the proof texts about 'husband of one wife' only relate to the appointed administrative elders of elders-bishops. These criteria (even assuming they relate to gender) do not apply to Holy-spirit gifted leadership roles, which are all appointed by the Spirit alone as made clear in Eph 4:11.
It is common that a person gets picked as a pastor based far more on their ability to get along with certain people in the power structure of the conference than anything else. Any examination of empowerment by the Holy Spirit is either ignored or casual and of minor influence in the decision.
Totally agree. Paul was similarly chosen as an apostle by the Jesus Christ alone in vision. Not by some human selection panel. However, today we insist on effectively a Roman-Catholic apostolic sucession model, where other human clergy select other clergy. Can you imagine if we had a modern Paul?
I have often heard the claim made that demoting the claimed authority of the local church, conference, etc., is a denial of the authority of Christ in the church when that argument is used to allow people to stand in substitute roles and exercise authority that belong exclusively to God...A variant of this argument is the claim that recognizing the authority of the Holy Spirit above human authority is a prescription for chaos.
Agreed. That is effectively what happened in the early Church. After the Montanist Revival (supported by the Early Church Father Tertulian) failed, the bishops of the Church in appointed leadership effectively destroyed and subsumed the last vestiges of a Holy-spirit led leadership model.
As for chaos and order, elders do have a real role to ensure order. That is why they exist. Paul gives counsel for orderly worship. That is also why it is only bishops-elders-deacons who need ordaining, because they needed some authority from the 12 apostles where they otherwise dealing with Spirit-led leaders such as prophets, evangelists, teachers etc.
But He builds roles in the church where the members respect the giftedness of others and they learn to work together as distinct but inseparably joined members of the body of Christ.
There is a place for both models of leadership - spiritual and appointed. There is certainly a place for appointed leadership of bishops-elders-deacons. These appointed leaders are selected by very visible criteria. Although I have doubts, I am even willing to give traditionalist Papal-Adventists the benefit of the doubt in saying elders must be men.
However, we need to recognise that it is the Spirit alone who appoints Spirit-led leaders of apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers and pastors. There is no biblical support, only Papal arguments of Apostolic Sucession, as to why woman can't fulfill all of these Spirit-led roles.
If Matthais was chosen by the Spirit alone, why can't anyone today - including a woman?
Before we so assuredly give credit to the Holy Spirit, shouldn't there be more than a simple subjective feeling?
proof for ones own will.
I agree with Elaine for in Romans 10:7 it means more than a simple subjective feeling.
Your suspicion of the Holy Spirit is obvious. Like most Adventists, you've been taught to suspect any claimed working of God as in insidious Satanic deception. As a result you are reflexively rejecting the present-tense promises of scripture about the Holy Spirit inhabiting and empowering all believers. It is not a promise to be fulfilled at some indefinite future date, as most Adventists have been taught. So you need to ask yourself a question: If you are not seeing the Holy Spirit empowering and guiding you, on what basis can you claim that you are a believer?
You keep raising the question of truth. The promise is that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. That promise is also a clear declaration that the amount of truth revealed to us is incomplete because God is so much greater than us and has not revealed all to us. Since God has far more to reveal to us than we presently know, the working of the Holy Spirit cannot be tested by measuring against what we believe, but instead must be measured by how much God teaches us. Any measurement using our present concepts of truth is at serious risk of misleading us.
If we are not allowing the Holy Spirit to empower and guide us and lead us into greater truth then we are disobeying the commands of God and allowing ourselves to live under a demonic deception.
So you need to ask yourself a question: If you are not seeing the Holy Spirit empowering and guiding you, on what basis can you claim that you are a believer?
William thanks for your concern... I do know God is leading and guiding in my life. The greater truth God leads us to will not contradict the Word of God. "For Faith comes from hearing and hearing comes from the Word of God" Romans 10:17. By asking for the Holy Spirit to guide before reading the Scripture and by putting self aside the Spirit of Truth will lead.
The Sabbath sermon at the Hollywood SDA church Febuary 23 by Trisha Famisaran titled "Repenting from Our Patriarchy and Heterosexism" would be an example of comparing ones opinions and feelings verses sound Biblical Truth. God does not contradict Himself neither does His Word. His Spirit will not contradict His Word.
If one refuses to compare the Spirit to the Word of God the "spirit" may very well be a demonic deception as you mention.
First, I am glad you believe God is working in your life. What evidence can you offer as proof? Do you see God working through you in supernatural ways to create new believers as was common in the early church when the power of the Holy Spirit was seen in all believers? Do you see God doing great and even miraculous things in concert with your ministry? Do you even have a ministry into which God has guided you and which is the thing you desire most in life to do because you know it is what God wants you to do? How many people have you brought into the church in the last year, five years, or ten years? If you can answer those questions we can have a useful discussion about the Holy Spirit. If you can't answer them I hope you will meet Him soon.
Second, you have given a great example of how opinion can often substitute for truth. This is a two-edged sword that typically cuts far deeper into the accuser than the person accused. You claimed that speaker of not speaking the truth of God and you may have been right. But, how do you know that your opinion was not equally misguided? That you disagreed with her is no evidence of her error, but a challenge to you to study, reconfirm the foundations of your beliefs and renew your relationship with God. Galatians 3:27 clearly declares that God does not consider being female a disqualifier when He chooses to empower someone. This is clear proof your claim that women should not hold pastoral positions in the church is clearly contrary to scripture. On what other topics do you need to discover more of the truth the Holy Spirit promises to lead us into?
I have used God given talents to write gospel songs for truth not money and have seen them make a difference in laws and lives. Even was in the baptismal tank with one of the souls I have had the privilege to bring to Christ by invitation of the pastor that baptized him. There is a lot that non-ordained men and women can and should do for the Lord.
Secondly, how to know if the speaker is not speaking the Truth of God? By using the method of the Brereans and to compare it to the Word of God (which is not written as opinion but Truth) The Bible disagrees with her not myself. It is not gender issue but substance about gender that is misguiding. And if you want to judge me at least show by Scripture your proof for ordination of women!
Galatians 3:27 speak of our salvation, for we are all clothed with the "robe of rightousness that is offered to all".... which leads into the next verse on salvation for all. Galatians 3:28
So please answer the following question with a yes or no....
Compared to Gods Word do you believe the sermon in question was Truth the Holy Spirit is leading us into?
I was encouraged by the NPUC to postpone the executive session on WO until the ordination study committee is completed.
As for spiritual leadership models, these are essentially derived from gifts given by the Holy Spirit per Eph 4:11. Admittedly for anyone who professes to have a spiritual leadership gift, it is somewhat problematic for others to judge. It is also difficult because God chooses regardless of race, status, wealth, nationality, age and gender - God judges on the heart. It is increasing, Of course subjective feeling is not enough. However, the matter is not impossible and it is not new.
The People of God have been dealing with this for a very long time with the spiritual leadership role of prophethood. Many a person has claimed a subjective gift of prophethood and not be borne out. Whether someone is a true prophet is indeed a question for believers to judge.
I would assume it is the same with the other spiritual leadership roles, including apostles-clergy. A good example of this is Paul himself. He never met Jesus personally but only in vision, yet claimed to be an apostle. Many of the other apostles (who Paul sarcastically calls 'superapostles' didn't believe Paul was really one of them). Paul had a lot of trouble gaining acceptance.
Are there any similarities here to female spiritual leaders in our Church. How will the ordained female pastors in say PUC be treated by the other parts of the world Church. No doubt Paul would have some words of comfort for them and exclaim, 'welcome to the club.'
The leading and empowering of the Holy Spirit is self-evident because of the power displayed and the results produced. There is great suspicion of this in the church because most claimed believers have never seen it happen. Worse still, they have been taught that it will never happen until some day in the future when there will be a major outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Tell me this: If you haven't seen the Holy Spirit working today and your have been taught to suspect the working of the Holy Spirit as a demonic deception instead of the working of God, how will you recognize that future outpouring and trust that it is from God?
The concept of "casting lots" is quite different today than in Bible times. Today the predominant concept is a chance outcome in gambling where a rolling of the dice can produce a result ranging from 2 to 12. But in Bible times and the culture of that area "casting lots" was believed to be a way by which divine will was revealed.
All4Him keeps invoking the so-called proof texts such as 1Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 but they are irrelevant because they have nothing to do with these Spirit-gifted roles. They are talking about appointed administrative roles.
Again, you see the distinction clearest in the selection and purpose of replacing Matthais as the new 12th apostle with the manner of selection for the 7 elders-deacons. People keep having argument about why women can't be part of the 7 when we are actually talking about how one becomes one of the 12.
Likewise, Paul when he had the vision didn't instantly begin his apostleship work. He fled to Arabia-Syria for a time, then visited the apostles Peter and John.
So I am not denying those called by the Spirit per Eph 4:11 to be a member of our clergy should instantly start that role once called. Of course they have to have training.
What I find personally immoral though is that many young Adventists (including but not just limited to women) feel a calling to the Minister and our colleges and universities allow someone to spend thousands of dollars and years of training. And then you know what, after it all the college or university says - so sorry, too bad - no job for you.
P.S. I am not a pastor nor has this happened to me for those who think I have a personal interest in any of this. I don't.
You have inadvertedly hit the nail on the head with this problem. We are viewing these ministries as 'just another job' and not as the Spirit-appointed roles they are per Eph 4:11. If God selects someone to the ministry, whether they have something between their legs or whatever the colour of their skin, who is it for a bunch of old men in a committee to decide otherwise?
Looking a bit deeper than what is reported in the mainstream media about which college graduates are not getting hired reveals some surprises. Those not getting hired tend to have degrees in finance, law, social sciences and similar. There still is great demand for engineers, chemists, materials scientists, etc. Hiring rates are also showing the differences between the average and the excellent. Businesses are more likely to hire someone who shows how they are involved in their community in positive ways, got better grades, did extra research projects, marketed themselves creatively, etc. By contrast, the situation is showing how a culture promoting the concept of people being entitled to things like a job reaps terrible results when the natural economic results of that concept are realized, as we are seeing now. We have sown the whirlwind and now are reaping the harvest.
You wrote: "When one is chosen by the Spirit for their Spirit-lead role, that doesn't mean that person has nothing to learn or starts that role instantly.
So true! Discovering the ministry God wanted me to perform was just the beginning of learning in so many ways. Have I made mistakes? Many! Have I been imperfect? No question! Has God covered-up a multitude of my errors and made beauty out of my imperfection? That, my friend, is something that keeps me in continually amazed.
How to "know one's calling" is often a difficult challenge. I think so because of the concepts that have been built around the position and role of clergy in contrast with the real calling and empowerment of the Holy Spirit. I'm not saying we should do away with our ministerial programs. Rather, I'm saying we need to be sure of a person's calling prior to admitting them into that training. Evidence of that calling is producing results using the power of the Holy Spirit.
Imagine if the Council of Apostles (spiritual leaders) and Elders (appointed leaders) in Acts 15 had chosen to do that? If the early Church had taken over 30 years to decide the issue of GO (Gentile Ordination) in the same way the SDA Church has over WO (Women Ordination) then the Christian movement probably would have been dead in the water.
What matters to God is not gender, but our willingness to serve in His power and according to His guidance.
As for SOP quotes, she told us many times to use the Bible and the Bible only, so I prefer to obey her instructions and let scripture speak for itself.
Christ has a ministry for all men and women to do, but the role of the shepherd of the home and Church is given to the Father. SOP mentions shepherd over 1500 times in reference to clergy/minister/pastor.
Yes the SOP also points to the Bible so you are right that scripture can speak for itself...just don't take it out of context.
The Christian church from it very conception, was in tune with the culture of the world, which cannot be ignored for it to have prospered.
The first acceptance: recognizing slavery and refusing to send slaves back to their masters.
The prevalent culture of adopting a structure borrowed from the Roman government.
Accepting the Romans as governing them rather than fighting its restrictive practices.
Today, the cultures of the various world areas are not challenged: polygamy is allowed in those nations where it is practiced; allowing divorced members to retain their membership, and many more.
Any institution that is a cross purposes with the prevailing culture will soon become, or choose to ostracize themselves (Amish, Reformed LDS, and others).
Culture is an important factor in ministry and what is accepted as normal in one culture may be offensive in another. God is very aware of cultural differences. Since His objective is the spreading of the Gospel it would be contrary to His character to create a situation preventing achievement of that objective. At the same time there is no reason for us to think God will be limited by our restrictive concepts.
HOW MANY TIMES ARE WE GOING TO KEEP HAVING THIS SAME POINT DEBATED?
You are talking about Shepherds, which is to say bishops-overseers-elders-shepherds. ELDERS ARE NOT CLERGY!!!
Our clergy our apostles-pastors per Eph 4:11 and Acts 1:12-26 and distinguishable from elders and deacons per Acts 6:2-3.
Are you deliberately trying to be misleading? I don't mean to shout but can you for once make it clear whether you agree or disagree that apostles-pastors are the model for our clergy, and apostles-pastors are different from elders-bishops-overseers-shepherds? At least then we can have a meaningful discussion.
Your arguments tend to be totally irrelevant, because your proof texts such as 1Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 are only about elders-overseers-bishops-shepherds - not apostles-pastors-clergy. Again for the avoindance of any doubt:
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER WOMEN CAN BE ORDAINED AS ELDERS-BISHOPS-OVERSEERS-SHEPHERDS BUT WHETHER WOMEN CAN SERVE AS APOSTLES-PASTORS-CLERGY!!
It would be great if we could actually debate the issue, not your side issue which is also totally irrelevant because the SDA Church, with some irony, allows women to be ordained as elders-bishops-overseers-shepherds.
I have challenged you several times but still:
YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED A SINGLE BIBLE TEXT TO SHOW WOMEN (OR GENTILES OR SLAVES FOR THAT MATTER) CAN"T BE APOSTLES-PASTORS-CLERGY.
All4Him, everytime I try to get you to answer the question you shift the subject, your classic being to start talking about the criteria for bishops-overseers-elders-shepherds again. If you can't make any meaningful argument, then why be so critical of women who claim to be called by the Holy Spirit? That sounds like pretty arogant stuff, to let your own cultural misogynist prejudices block out possibly the Holy Spirit's own calling?
P.S. So for the shouting, but trying to get a straight answer is like trying to nail down jello.
“The apostles derived their name and function from the fact of being sent by the Lord as missionaries. They were not the only one to receive gifts of the Spirit. There were also ‘prophets’, like Agabus (Acts 11:28; 21:7), and teachers, accredited as instructors in the faith… by ‘first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, next miracle-workers, then healers, helpers, and administrators’ (1 Cor 12:28). The first three in this sevenfold hierarchy are the chief ‘orders’ of the first missionary generation.
Sixty or seventy years later Ignatius was speaking of Antioch and the Asian churches as possessing a monarchical bishop, together with presbyters and deacons. In his time there were neither apostles nor prophets. The exact history of this transition within two generations from apostles, prophets and teachers to bishop, presbyters and deacons is shrouded in obscurity, though our sources give occasions glimpses of the process…
…The Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians implies the existence of two distinct orders of ministry…
…Evidently the churches established by the travelling missionaries soon came to have local, stationary clergy, subordinate to the general oversight of mobile apostolic authority. For a generation or more the apostles and prophets coexisted with this local ministry of bishops and deacons…”
If the proof texts about ‘husband of one wife’ only apply to stationary bishops-overseers-shepherds-elders and not mobile apostles-pastors-teachers-evangelists-clergy, then there is absolutely zero biblical evidence to suggest women cannot act in a full capacity, and enjoying the right the same, as apostles-pastors- teachers-evangelists-clergy.
So the opposition to WO rests wholly with that same Papal tradition that, which Chadwick notes, killed the office of apostleship altogether and subsumed it with the Bishops who today are now about to elect a new Pope! Which model is more biblical?
Shepherds who fail at home will fail at church—He who is engaged in the work of the gospel ministry must be faithful in his family life. It is as essential that as a father he should improve the talents God has given him for the purpose of making the home a symbol of the heavenly family, as that in the work of the ministry, he should make use of his God-given powers to win souls for the church. As the priest in the home, and as the ambassador of Christ in the church, he should exemplify in his life the character of Christ. He must be faithful in watching for souls as one that must give an account. In his service church there must be seen no carelessness and inattentive work. God will not serve with the sins of men who have not a clear sense of the sacred responsibility involved in accepting a position as pastor of a church. He who fails to be a faithful, discerning shepherd in the home, will surely fail of being a faithful shepherd of the flock of God in the.—Manuscript Releases 6:49
Much like the generic words 'minister' or 'ministry', whether that word applies to pastors, elders or both, the fact remains that the Bible clearly distinguishes Spirit-appointed roles per Eph 4:11 of the 12 compared with the appointed roles of the 7. You keep trying to avoid the main subject because you know that your stance is not based on the Bible but just Papal Tradition.
Your latest notion that the orders of apostle-pastor-clergy are the same as elders-bishop is absurd. It also isn't even what we currently practice, given the SDA Church manual recognises their differences.
Those who occupy the position of under shepherds, as elders of the church, are to exercise a watchful diligence over the Lord’s flock. This is not to be a lording, dictatorial vigilance. They are to encourage and strengthen.—Manuscript 43, 1907. (“Exhortation to Faithfulness to Church Members and Elders,” March 12, 1907.)
But the point remains - she seems to be distinguishing the role of pastor-clergy with that of elder-bishop.
All those professing to be shepherds, who feel that to minister in word and doctrine, and bear the burdens, and have the care which every faithful shepherd should have is a disagreeable task, are reproved by faithful Paul, “Not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.” All such unfaithful shepherds, the chief Shepherd would willingly release. The church of God is purchased with the blood of Christ, and every shepherd should realize that the sheep under their care cost a priceless sum. They should be diligent in their labor, and persevering in their efforts to keep the flock in a healthy, flourishing condition. They should consider the sheep intrusted to their care of the highest value, and realize that they will be called to render a strict account of their ministry. And if they are found faithful they will receive a rich reward. “And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.” Spiritual Gifts Volume 3 page 125
Is he the shepherd of the flock? The work of a shepherd is not all done in the desk. He should talk with all the members of the flock, with the parents to learn their standing, and with the children to learn theirs. A minister should feed the flock over which God has made him Testimonies for the Church Vol 2 page 618
A minister of Christ, a teacher of the truth, a true shepherd, is in one sense a servant of all, anticipating the wants of those who need help, and knowing how to be useful here and there in the great work of saving souls. Gospel Workers page 276
Much like the generic words 'minister' or 'ministry', whether that word applies to pastors, elders or both, the fact remains that the Bible clearly distinguishes Spirit-appointed roles per Eph 4:11 of the 12 compared with the appointed roles of the 7. You keep trying to avoid the main subject because you know that your stance is not based on the Bible but just Papal Tradition.
Your latest notion that the orders of apostle-pastor-clergy are the same as elders-bishop is absurd. It also isn't even what we currently practice, given the SDA Church manual recognises their differences.
Those who occupy the position of under shepherds, as elders of the church, are to exercise a watchful diligence over the Lord’s flock. This is not to be a lording, dictatorial vigilance. They are to encourage and strengthen.—Manuscript 43, 1907. (“Exhortation to Faithfulness to Church Members and Elders,” March 12, 1907.)
But the point remains - she seems to be distinguishing the role of pastor-clergy with that of elder-bishop.
Her is some interesting facts:
From the rich treasury of her writings, the compilers of this book have brought together a selection of inspired counsels that apply most directly to the life and work of the local church pastor. Research was done by the General Conference Ministerial Association using the CD-ROM, 1990 edition, of The Published Ellen G. White Writings. It was discovered that Mrs. White used some derivative of the word Clergy 114 times, Minister 10,762 times, Pastor 385 times, Preacher 735 times, and Shepherd 1,540 times..... Pastoral Ministry Page 13
I think the most clear quotes are found in 5T
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
Her is some interesting facts:
From the rich treasury of her writings, the compilers of this book have brought together a selection of inspired counsels that apply most directly to the life and work of the local church pastor. Research was done by the General Conference Ministerial Association using the CD-ROM, 1990 edition, of The Published Ellen G. White Writings. It was discovered that Mrs. White used some derivative of the word Clergy 114 times, Minister 10,762 times, Pastor 385 times, Preacher 735 times, and Shepherd 1,540 times..... Pastoral Ministry Page 13
I think the most clear quotes are found in 5T
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
Some questions for you then:
1. Why are you paying tithe? Who does it go to? If you don't see a distinction between the role of pastor and elder then why do we pay tithe to our pastors and not our elders?
2. Why are you opposing WO? If you believe the roles of elders and pastor are the same, and the GC has already allowed women to be ordained as pastors, then you seem to be saying they are effectively already ordained?
3. I assume you don't have a pastor in your Church? You obviously don't think you need one, because elders are sufficient then?
4. If the office of pastor and elder are the same, then why do you maintain a difference in the Church? I take it you think our current Church Manual is wrong then in distinguishing the two roles?
5. You would agree then that you believe in a monarchical bishop role like the Roman Catholics? So you are adopting the Papal position on this then?
'If you want to take the words of Henery Chadwick over Ellen White go ahead...'
If you want to take your interpretation of Ellen White over the Bible... I don't recall Ellen White new everything there was about the 1st century CE, and it may come as a shock there have been more recent scholarly discoveries since then. Moreover, Ellen White admitted she isn't the final word on progressive truth.
But that doesn't mean the orders of apostle and elder were the same. The 12 were still different from the 7. The Bible makes than plain. You can try and twist the scriptures to fit your own culture all you like, but the truth is you are sill following Papal Rome.
2. Why are you opposing WO? If you believe the roles of elders and pastor are the same, and the GC has already allowed women to be ordained as elders, then you seem to be saying they are effectively already ordained?
All4Him, I must say with respect your position is absurd if you think the order of pastors-clergy and that of elders is the same.
But All4Him you still have not answered my most basic questions. You are saying the order of bishop-elder the same as that of apostle-clergy. You even went further to say I was absurd to suggest the orders are different. If that is the case then, you still have not answered:
1. On what biblical basis (you know from the Bible) do you say bishop-elders and apostles-pastors are not different?
2. If the two roles are the same, why do you pay tithe?
3. If the two roles are the same, then given the SDA Church already ordains women elders on what basis do you say women can't be pastors?
I would like actual Bible texts - not just Ellen White quotes. We are supposedly 'People of the Book'.
1) Bishop is simply an "overseer" one who has leadership Acts 20:17; Acts 20:28 is not this the role of a pastor?
2) Even the poor widow who gave two mites to a corrupt church was blessed......
3) Because the SDA Church already ordains women elders does not make it Biblical... With the push for
ordination of women the words "without regard to gender" are used which is a similar trojan horse this
time it will be used by the LGBT for if we deviate from Gods Word where does one draw the line?
... at equality and respect for fellow human beings.
Do you really want to perpetuate a discriminatory, judgmental, patriarchal society from thousands of years ago? I don't.
In short – a bishop is not an ‘apostle’, and it is apostles who are our ‘clergy’. The term ‘clergy’ is from the Greek ‘chosen by lots’. Apostles are different from bishops-elders. So if you mean are bishops-elders-overseers our clergy, then – no they are not. Part of the problem is the Adventist use of the term ‘pastor’ to describe its clergy, which is probably not the most biblical term to be used.
Moreover, so you are saying given you are an ordained elder, you are effectively one and the same as an ordained pastor then? So you are saying the SDA Church does need a professional, paid clergy, because anyone who is an ordained elder is actually a member of the clergy then? Your stance doesn’t just seem at odds with progressive Adventism but historic Adventism as well.
Importantly, your texts from Acts 20 don’t prove that local elders-bishops are the same as traveling apostles-pastors-clergy. In fact they demonstrate the opposite! Paul is the apostle-pastor-clergy, and Paul is travelling around making contact with the local elders-bishops he had appointed.
Again, you are missing the difference in roles. For example:
Formal leadership roles in the Early Church can be broadly categorized into three types, two of which disappeared in the subapostolic period… The three types, listed in order of appearance, can be denominated (1) charismatic, (2) familial, and (3) appointive. I am using the term “charismatic” not with the modern connotation, but in the original sense based on Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12. (page 1)
Why would the bishops and deacons be despised? Because the charismatic prophets and teachers were more exciting and constituted an uncontrollable locus of power in the church. (page 13)
One reason why the bishops were able to take over from the apostles and prophets was that some of them claimed divine inspiration. As the Didache said, “they also minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers.” So the prophetic gift faded out because it fell into disrepute. It happened in Israel and in the early church. But about the year AD 156 there was an attempt to revive it by a man named Montanus, who also reinvigorated the expectation of the imminent Second Coming of Christ. Associated with him were also two prophetesses, Prisca and Maximilla. Eventually the “new prophecy” failed. (page 14) (emphasis added)
In his time there were neither apostles nor prophets. The exact history of this transition within two generations from apostles, prophets and teachers to bishop, presbyters and deacons is shrouded in obscurity, though our sources give occasions glimpses of the process…
…The Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians implies the existence of two distinct orders of ministry…
…Evidently the churches established by the travelling missionaries soon came to have local, stationary clergy, subordinate to the general oversight of mobile apostolic authority. For a generation or more the apostles and prophets coexisted with this local ministry of bishops and deacons…” (emphasis added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanist
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/agp/AGPc20.html
I suspect even if the Angel Gabriel came down and told you women could be apostles-clergy, you still wouldn’t believe it.
Stephen wrote:
- apostles in turn are given spiritual authority over elders (1 Tim 4:6,12), including the power of young apostles to ordain new elders (1 Tim 5:22; Acts 14:23);
So a Bishop(overseer/shepherd) of a church... who is to be the husband of one wife....Is not to be considered Pastor? You mentioned a while back that women were called to be Apostles but not Eders (this is contrary to current practice). If this is so, and your statement above says Apostles in turn are given spiritual authourity over Elders, how does this match the Word in 1Timothy 2:12 or the very Words of God in Genesis 3:16?Isaiah 8:20
No, bishops are not pastors (where I am assuming by the word 'pastor' you mean our clergy). Bishops are different from apostles. It was the bishops of the proto-Papacy who eventually overthrew the authority of the apostles and prophets. The last deathnell of true apostlic clergy ended with the Montanist revival in 165 AD. In the Montanist revival, 1 man and 2 women claimed to have the prophetic gift, which was something the now very powerful bishops of the major cities of the Roman Empire would not stand for.
Whether these Montanists were real prophets or not, the point is the appointed bishops overthrew the power the apostles and prophets. They did this by claiming they were actually now the true leaders descended from the apostles through the doctrine that became known as Apostolic Sucession, supposedly going back to Peter and his keys. And so, the Roman Catholic Church was born.
So as apostles and prophets are indeed different from bishops-elders, then your so-called prooft texts about the husband of one wife, IF they restricted gender (which I doubt), would only restrict the gender of bishop-elders. These proof texts would not restrict the gender of apostles nor prophets, nor teachers, pastors or evangelists per Eph 4:11.
Now you are rather clutching at straws. By what authority did Ellen White, the missionary (lit apostle), prophet, teacher, evanglist (regular public speaker) and pastor (massive number of pastor letters) do all these things, if you say a woman has no right to spiritual leadership? She exercises it from God Himself, through spirit-led leadership per Eph 4:11, like her predessors like Deborah the prophet and judge (Judges 4:4).
The irony is just before you were relying pretty much only on a woman's teachings and now you are saying a woman can't teach! You will say, but she was special - she was no ordinary woman. I say - exactly! I am not talking about ordinary woman in leadership, as might be the case in say elders of local churches. Women called by the Holy Spirit are special, and can and are called to be the apostles of our Church, even if men like you want to ignore that fact.
As for Gen 3:16, that is God's prediction of the curse of the Fall. Men use their sinful inclinations to dominate women - it isn't God's desire. The text shows God made man and women equal. As Christians, Jesus made clear we should live as it was 'in the beginning' (Matt 19:8), which means gender equality. In the church, we are a beachhead of the Kingdom to Come on earth.
As for 1 Tim 2:12, Paul is obviously addressing a localised situation, and the passage must be read in context. Otherwise, it means Ellen White has no authority in our own church. In fact consider:
Junia (a woman’s name);[1] for prophets, we have Anna,[2] Elizabeth,[3] Mary[4] and the four daughters of Phillip;[5] and for evangelists, pastors and teachers, there was Phoebe,[6] Priscilla,[7] Euodia and Syntyche[8]
As far as the SOP she is such a grand example for you but you refuse the clear teaching she has on the matter... I think you need to read what she says for the first time, again.
You can have the last word Stephen I am not going to write anymore for you do not listen. I pray you listen to the study committee when they serve the decission on this matter. I promise to do the same!
Yes indeed. God no more wants women to be subjected to inequality, to all the domestic violence and horrors of being dominated by men, than he wants men to die of famine because of the difficulties of toiling the soil.
The curse is God’s pronouncement of the affects of sin. Inequality in all its forms is not what God wants, whether it be for the Gentile, slave or woman. As Christians, Jesus made clear we are to live as ‘in the beginning’ as much as possible, as if sin has been destroyed, which means to live in equality between the genders.
Your logic reminds me of those who use to save racial inequality and slavery were all part of God’s divine order. It took other Christians to point out that was not God’s original pre-sin plan, and as such, Christians should be called to destroy racism. The same goes for distinction of class and gender in the Church.
‘As far as the SOP she is such a grand example for you but you refuse the clear teaching she has on the matter... I think you need to read what she says for the first time, again.’
A couple of points here. First, you seem to have a faulty logic, in saying women cannot have authority to teach men, and yet you rely on the woman Ellen White for your authority.
Secondly, you seem to be having sour grapes just a little because I did listen, but I asked you to provide me with proof from the Bible, which you were not able to do. Ellen White is not our proof for doctrine, as she herself has made known several times. So one could argue you are not the one listening.
Thirdly, you have not provided anything from Ellen White that is conclusive. The problem is the Ellen White quotes (and the Bible proof-texts about ‘one wife’ for that matter) are only obiter dicta statements, meaning the author is not actually concerned with the question of gender roles for women in ministry. Thus, you are twisting some statements in a way the author probably did not intend. Hanging one’s hat on the use of the word ‘man’ or ‘men’ is especially problematic, as it commonly, both in ancient languages and English, is a generic word to mean human beings generally. Often these words are not intended to have a specific intention of a particular gender. Those who support WO can equally provide their own Ellen White quotes.
Fourthly, as for listening, I have more than given you the benefit of the doubt. I have agreed that perhaps we should presume the proof texts of ‘one wife’ amount to gender restriction (although I am less than convinced). However, you have refused to listen to my primary point, being that those gender restrictions only apply to appointed leadership of elders-bishops, not charismatic leadership of apostles-pastors-clergy.
Fifthly and similarly, let us even assume Paul’s texts about women not teachings are not localized but a general teaching still applicable today. However, those principles obviously cannot apply to ‘special’ women called by the Spirit; otherwise, figures such as Deborah or even Ellen White herself would be false teachers and leaders without authority. Women called to ministry are not ‘ordinary’ women but ‘special’ women called by the Holy Spirit.
Finally, if you want to stop women in your local church being elders or teaching men – go ahead, I support your right to make that decision without Conference interference. However, you equally cannot prevent or stop women called by the Holy Spirit to one of the gifts of being an apostle, prophet, teacher, evangelist or pastor per Eph 4:11.
‘You can have the last word Stephen I am not going to write anymore for you do not listen. I pray you listen to the study committee when they serve the decision on this matter. I promise to do the same!’
Thankyou All4Him – I have enjoyed our discussion. I hope you will finally listen to the ordination committee when it concludes that ‘there is no scriptural barrier to the ordination of women’, as the two last ordination studies have concluded in the last few decades. I hope you listen when the ordination committee concludes that it is culture, not scripture, that is the barrier to ordination, just as issues of race and class continue to act as barriers in some parts of the world, even though they shouldn’t. But if you have refused to listen to the last two ordination studies, I have great concerns that you will simply refuse to listen again.
For me the issue isn’t actually about women receiving due equality as barriers of race and class have similarly being broken down. Rather, it is much bigger than that. It is a question of whether we are going to have a truly apostolic Spirit-gifted clergy as contemplated by texts such as Eph 4:11 and Acts 1:25,26. The alternate choice seems to embrace the Roman Catholic doctrine of Apostolic Succession, which is actually not apostolic at all, but rather represents the monarchical rule of appointed bishops-elders over spirit-chosen apostolic leaders. If you accept the latter model, then you unitedly support the key doctrine of the Papacy, and in that the authority of the Pope, who is just about to be re-elected.
So it really is a choice – the Holy Spirit or the Pope. How should we decide?
God bless
Stephen
Steven it is Christ vs Culture.... not the Holy Spirit vs the Holy See.....
Mark my words if the intended language of "ordain without regard to gender" is implemented the church must be ready for the onslaught of LBGT+ who will will be knocking on the courthouse/church doors for their trojan horse is even at the door. If we do not follow thus says the Lord by His Word and by the SOP we open the door to any deviation and will be unable to shut it.
Blessings, All4Him
Indeed it is one of Christ vs Culture. However, as the 2 previous ordination committee have already reported, it is culture, not scripture, which is the only remaining barrier to WO. As we have discussed in absolute thorough detail, there is not a scrap of biblical evidence which can prove women cannot be apostles-clergy, if called by the Holy Spirit per Eph 4:11.
'...not the Holy Spirit vs the Holy See'
Actually it is the Holy Spirit vs the Holy See. In fact, the modern Papacy was born in the late 2nd Century when the appointed bishops destroyed the last vestieges of the spiritual power of prophets and apostles during the failed Montanist Revival. So this whole issue is tied up with who and what the Roman Catholic Church is and what it represents, and your position seem well and truly on the side of Sacred Tradition, the culture of elite power and Papal authority.
'Mark my words if the intended language of "ordain without regard to gender" is implemented the church must be ready for the onslaught of LBGT'
I don't agree but you are quite wrongly (and immorally in my book) mixing issues. The question of WO has to be determined on its own merits, not on the fears of how it might relate to different issues. The biblical principle is very clear from Exodus 23:3.
As to Jewish Talmud and other sages have long noted, this means one has to determine the case before them on the facts and evidence before them, not on how we might fear it might relate to wider issues. Even if your fears are genuine, they can't alone be used to do an injustice in prohibiting women called by the Holy Spirit to be apostles-clergy, simply because men like you fear of the future implications.
WO can only be determined on the biblical evidence before us, and as we have seen, it is culture, not Christ, that is the only remaining barrier to WO. If instead you think Sacred Tradition, of 'it is right because that is how we have always done it', or 'how will this lead to future issues', may I suggest you might have much in agreement with the Roman Catholic Church and the Cardinals about to now meet?
In that issue of Sunday keeping, like this issue of women's ordination, at least the Roman Catholic Church has the decency to admit that its position is based on tradition. It's a shame that those opposed to WO don't have the same honesty, recognising that they in fact deny the core Protestant teaching about the priesthood of all believers, that there is not a scrap of biblical evidence proving women can't be called by the Holy Spirit to be apostles-clergy, but instead are in fact as much a servant of the Papacy on this issue as the Sunday-keeping Churches are on the issue of the day of worship.
In my respectful opinion, the SDA Church can never undertake its true role of reformation and revival, as President Wilson is calling, until it recognises gender equality for the exercising of spiritual gifts, including both that of apostles and prophets, but also teachers, evangelists and pastors per Eph 4:11. I say this because the Bible itself predicts that the end-time Church will having women (note not just 1 woman Ellen White) exercising amazing spiritual gifts per Joel 2:28. There is great irony that whilst President Wilson wants reformation and revival, his obstinant support of sacred Papal tradition over the Bible by opposing WO may in fact be inhibiting the very revival he supposedly is so keen to desire.
Prohibiting or preventing revival? You're right on the mark. So long as we let our traditions and viewpoints be first and foremost in our belief system we will never let the Holy Spirit do the work of revival that He so greatly desires to do. There is no question in my mind that traditionalism is the biggest single factor preventing church growth, at least here in North America. It is only when we pursue the Holy Spirit and surrender to His guidance that the church grows.
You have made some excellent points. Actually the problem started when, under pressure, the church agreed to permit women to be elders. Talk about the slippery slope - that was it. Remember what Samuel Gompers the labor leader said when he was asked what he wanted? His reported response was - more, more, more.
Was it the devil's ploy to cause divisions and even insubordination in the matter of WO by influencing the brethren to permit female elders?
The drive to ordain woman seems primarily to stem from obeisance to the culture and quite unrelated to a clear thus saith the Lord.
Maranatha
So we have a clear choice, whether to allow the SDA Church to become just another false institutionalized and 'orthodox' denomination like the Roman Catholics, or to have a true Reformation and Revival and become a dynamic, Spirit-led, movement? Papal Tradition or Holy Spirit - it's our choice.
The church from its beginning has adapted to and practiced within the local culture; and cultures vary around the world. Today, there are many nations where Christianity is hardly permitted and others where it is the major religion. The Amish, Hutterites, and Reformed Church of LDS have preferred to live apart from culture and some don't believe in education past thne 8th grade, and live in communes with one man telling everyone how they should dress, what they should read, and give work assignments.
The Christian church only grew because it followed the command to "go into all the world" and that could not be done, if they had chosen to withdraw and ignore the local cultural habits. It is not sinful to ordain women: where is there such a text that commands that women should not be ordained? The Bible never gave instructions for there to be conferences: general, union and local. Is the church disobedient for this organizational structure? There is nothing in the NT that tithe is mandatory or that it should be sent to the "storehouse"==read conference office.
Had the church waited until they got a direct "Thus saith the Lord" for every decision, there would have been no church. Think about it.
I agree in this sense. Assuming if the Bible makes gender distinctions for certain appointed leadership roles in the Church, then I admit there is some (although tenuous at best) biblical support for the gender restriction of elders, given the so-called 'proof texts' about 'husband of one wife.' However, even then I note we seem to gloss over the other criteria of requiring obedient children, which I would submit most of our current leaders actually fail.
But there is none (zero, 0%, ziltch, nutta) biblical evidence preventing women being spiritual leaders of apostles (where we get the notion of 'clergy'), prophets, evangelists, teachers and pastors (which we curiously have adopted as our title for clergy).
In that sense, it made no sense to allow women to be elders but then prohibit women being clergy. I agree that I would feel a lot more comfortable if the Church had done the reverse, allowing women to become clergy but allowing each Church to decide if it wants to prohibit women being elders. Why did the Church make a decision which was the reverse of logic?
Do you know how long it took me to read these posts on this page? You don't want to know.
As a person who has been ordained as a Deacon and as a local Elder and does lay-preaching, I feel that I need to first follow my Lord & Savior Jesus Christ and follow the inspired Word of God as detailed in the Bible.
The example of what I'd do if the ocassion arose can be found right here in these Bible texts below. Now understand, this is not something that the church brethren would approve as they want an "Ordanined Elder" to perform this rite. Yet, if God led this situation to be presented to me, I would do exactly as Philip did here:
Acts 8:26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
Acts 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
Acts 8:31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Acts 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Who am I to have to tell someone to wait, that they can't accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior because there is no ordained minister around for miles??? Not me, for if Jesus puts me into this position, then I figure that God had this all planned out ahead of time and I just happened to be the nearest Christian to the person accepting Jesus Christ as his Lord & Savior and seeking baptism.
Nuf said.