Women in Ministry

[Woody]

Qin Zheng Yi (QZY) began her journey to Adventism by way of reading THE DESIRE OF AGES, as loaned to her by a SDA minister.

She has a daughter, Rebekah, who is in a doctoral program at Andrews University, and plans to return to China to establish a SDA Seminary.

Thought this was interesting also Gregory .

1988: Chinese SDA woman pastor performs baptisms.

Mrs. Hui Ying Zhou is reported to have baptized at least 200 persons in Wuxi, China. She attracts up to 1,000 to Sabbath services.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Gregory Matthews

... Ellen White was given the credentials of an Ordained Minister. She accepted and carried those credentials for a number of years. If she has thought that to be against the Bible, whould she not have proclaimed by voice and pen that such was wrong? She clearly proclaimed the error of other stuff that the "bretheren" did.

If that had been wrong, do you not think that God would have instructed her to reject those credentials?

EGW clearly proclaimed sin as sin. Why did she not do such in relation to her credentials?

Would you tell us that the denominaiton should publicly repent of what it did in regard to EGW?

Do you know if, during Ellen White's time, credentials of an ordained minister were ever issued to any other woman by the SDA church?

YES

Helen Williams receives license as an Adventist minister (1897-1914). Lulu Wightman receives license as an Adventist minister (1897-1907, 1909- 1910. She is listed in 1908 as an ORDAINED minister. (See Josephine Benton, Called by God, Smithsburg, MD: Blackberry Hill Publishers, p. 80.)

[Taylor]

Really? That IS interesting.

[Tom Wetmore]

Quite seriously, Beryl, the charade of similarity is all rather silly, just so we can "avoid" the ordination thing. The reality of day to day pastoral functions for women pastors further reinforces this distinction without a difference.

Some time back I carefully reviewed the Church policy requirements for ordination. All the criteria qualifying a pastor to be eligible for ordination, woman pastors must meet to be commissioned. These are typically pastoral milestones giving evidence of the genuineness of the call to ministry. And the singularly most significant demonstrative evidence of the call to the ministry is souls won to Christ. That is the Scripturally based Church policy and includes quotes from EGW that the strongest proof of the calling and thus qualification for ordination is soul winning. There are are countless women pastors that satisfy this proof just as readily, if not more so, than most of their male colleagues.

Tom

[olger]

I understand what you are saying here, Tom.

I appreciate the soul-winning efforts of men & women alike. God bless them.

Are we right to equate outreach with church leadership? By no means. All are called to reach out to others.

As in the home, Biblical leadership/headship in the church is restricted to males. But...

Not all men are qualified to lead in the church. The Scriptural qualifications for leadership/headship in the church excludes most men and all women. On that point the Scriptures are clear.

Passive men is one of many great sins in our western culture, and I was just as guilty as the next fellow shortly after I was married. God brought me out of that lethargy and gave me the ability to love the heart of my wife. Praise Him.

blessings,

oG

[Beryl]

Quote:

The Scriptural qualifications for leadership/headship in the church excludes most men and all women. On that point the Scriptures are clear.

Sorry, Olger, the Scriptures are clear that BOTH MEN AND WOMEN were called to leadership.

Have you ever read the book of Judges? Who were the judges? Read Judges 2:16 -- "Then the Lord raised up judges, who saved them out of the hands of these raiders." These were the spiritual and religious leaders of Israel, raised up by the Lord Himself to fulfil this task. With the attitude of the Israelites, this was an impossible task. "But when the judge died, the people returned to ways even more corrupt than THOSE OF THEIR FATHERS...." Judges 2:19.

In Judges 4 we have the story of one of these judges, Deborah. Yes, God actually selected a woman, not only to be a prophetess (as Ellen White was) but also a judge (GC President -- well, there were no "Divisions", so she was the person in charge of God's church on this earth (Israel), just as the GC President is today), and the Israelites numbered in the millions, too!

By using two women to do what the men would not do (-- go on -- read the chapter!) God delivered Israel from the Canaanite king.

Yes, God mostly chose to work within their culture, which was a Patriarchal culture -- but He did not hesitate to use women a in leadership role when that suited His purpose.

And God does not change!

Beryl

[olger]

Hello Beryl. Keep cool today (I hear it's hot down under).

The book of Judges closes with these summary words: "And every man did that which was right in his own eyes." It is theologically inadequate to present the book of judges as a divine pattern when it is primarily laden with abstract examples of what not to do. It compares well with the thoughts of Jesus in Mark 6:34.

"And Jesus, when He came out, saw much people, and was moved with compassion toward them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and he began to teach them many things."

Cultural Insularity:

The claim that the Bible is culturally biased is one that arises when people wish to implement a shift in interpretation of the Bible. "Thinking outside the box" must never lead to thinking outside the Book.

For instance, If Jesus was culturally biased in His selection of 12 men as His disciples, then you leave Him no room but to chisel some of the names of men off of the foundation of the Holy City itself.

The "patriarchal" language of the Bible represents not an accomodation of cultural injustices but rather an expression of God's created orders.

The Godhead

What looks like a simple difference over the interpretation of Scripture easily slips into a subtle debate about it’s authority. And behind it all, the very nature of the Godhead is being questioned. To man and woman have been given the answer to a mystery. As in Ephesians 5, the sacrificial love of the husband, and the submission of the wife illustrate to a watching world what God is like. It is a mystery made known to all. Any disruption in these roles & relations result in a witness lost and a mystery stolen from those who would benefit by it.

Teaching (didasko)

• The Scriptures forbid a woman to didasko a man (1 Timothy 2:12).

• The same scriptures call for women to didasko younger women (Titus 2).

• Paul calls on Timothy to commit the gospel truths to other men so that they might didasko others (2 Timothy 2:2).

• The church of Thyatira is signally rebuked for allowing a “woman Jezebel” to didasko and seduce God’s servants (Revelation 2:20).

• A Bishop must be the husband of one wife and able to didasko (1 Timothy 3:2).

• Peter and the apostles continually didasko’d in the temple and in every home (Acts 5:42).

in Him,

brother Gerry

[Tom Wetmore]

tu Yes Beryl, well stated!

To believe as Gerry has suggested would require one to ignore all of the references to women throughout Scripture, many of which have already been noted in this topic. (It reminds me of Thomas Jefferson's Bible out of which he literally cut any passage that he did not accept or believe... It turned it into a swiss cheese Bible...)

But there is also a mistaken premise in Gerry's argument against women in ministry. That is the notion that the call to ministry is fundamentally and always a call to leadership/headship. Yes, some ministers do become leaders, but most do not. The call to ministry is to serve, it is the role of a servant appointed by the King of kings, to serve the Church.

But deeper still is the heresy of the headship of the clergy. (As I have posted before, this is a very Catholic concept...) No man, or woman, is called to the role of headship in the Church. Scripture makes it very clear that the Church has only one head. The head of the Church is Christ, and Christ alone. For any man, or woman, to usurp that role is to be an antichrist.

And below the head is the body, the Body of Christ. And Galatians 3:28 proclaims that we are all one in Christ Jesus since the sin produced distinctions of male and female, nationality, and any form of oppression/subjugation are gone. And one essential element of that oneness is the vital inter-relationship and unity between the head and the body. Take one away and the other dies - one cannot function without the other.

Tom

[Tom Wetmore]

...It is theologically inadequate to present the book of judges as a divine pattern when it is primarily laden with abstract examples of what not to do. It compares well with the thoughts of Jesus in Mark 6:34.

That is simply untrue and ignores the point the Beryl indicated as identified in Judges 2:16, that it was the Lord himself that raised up these judges. The judges where the God appointed shepherds of the sheep for that period after Joshua and the elders who lead the people with him died and until the people demanded that God give them a king, (a royal head, if you will) which we know was against God's will for His people.

If one is to follow your rationale for disregarding the book of Judges, one can do so with many other parts of Scripture which one is disinclined to accept, including those NT references which you rely on at the end of your post.

Quote:

...The claim that the Bible is culturally biased is one that arises when people wish to implement a shift in interpretation of the Bible....

But that is exactly what you just did with the book of Judges... :R

Quote:

For instance, If Jesus was culturally biased in His selection of 12 men as His disciples, then you leave Him no room but to chisel some of the names of men off of the foundation of the Holy City itself....

???? That makes no sense at all...

Quote:

...The "patriarchal" language of the Bible represents not an accommodation of cultural injustices but rather an expression of God's created orders.

I assume that by that you would have to include the patriarchal practices of having multiple wives and slaves, neither of which is condemned and which is most definitely accommodated throughout the OT and even in the NT. And as for God's created order, read carefully Genesis 1:27,28 where God created mankind, male and female, and appointed them as equal co-rulers of all creation.

Quote:

Teaching (didasko)

• The Scriptures forbid a woman to didasko a man (1 Timothy 2:12).

And couldn't this just as easily benefit from your denigration of Judges?

Quote:

• The same scriptures call for women to didasko younger women (Titus 2).

And with more than half of the church being women, wouldn't it make sense to have women well trained and fully qualified (as EGW recommended) to carry out this function? And if one follows this line of reasoning and the usual rationale and culturally recognized basis, a man was not to teach women. Indeed a rabbinical saying was that it would be better to burn the Torah than to teach it to a woman.

Quote:

• The church of Thyatira is signally rebuked for allowing a “woman Jezebel” to didasko and seduce God’s servants (Revelation 2:20).

And men teaching heresy and leading others astray are also frequently rebuked, condemned and warned against. The operative point is the teaching of heresy, not that it was a woman. If you read this to mean that all women are not to teach, then you ignore many other NT references of women teaching, such as Priscilla, Phoebe and others. And to be consistent you would have to understand the rebuke and condemnation of specific men teaching heresy as meaning that no man could teach either.

Quote:

• A Bishop must be the husband of one wife and able to didasko (1 Timothy 3:2).

And the same qualification was indicated for a minister of the church (diakonos) which Phoebe, a woman, is identified as being. As I have pointed out before, the Greek phrase that is translated as "the husband of one wife" is literally translated "one man woman" which is to really a Greek expression that seems to describe a monogamous relationship. Certainly in the context in which it is written of moral/character qualifications, reading it as male gender exclusive concept makes no sense.

Tom

[Woody]

Thank you Tom for so clearly pointing out the flaws. I would just add that it is interesting how the one side keeps deciding when they want to think that the word Man is Man and when Man = Woman. It would seem very inconsistent when they keep using words to apply to women when it states men. But later way ... Oh see it says only a man.

It is almost laughable.

[Beryl]

Quote:

It is theologically inadequate to present the book of judges as a divine pattern when it is primarily laden with abstract examples of what not to do.

And the other books of the Bible are not?????

Come on, Olger -- let's face it!! If the Book of Judges can't be used because it told things as they were -- please point out to me which Bible book I can read that does NOT point out how sinful mankind (male and female)really is!

GOD HIMSELF appointed the judges (Judges 2:16). Did He make a mistake? Barak respected God's choice to the extent that he refused to go into battle unless Deborah accompanied him!! And God, in turn, saw to it that another woman (Jael) did the job that normally would have been done by a male -- that of killing Sisera.

God usually works within the existing cultures, which He is doing today in calling women to join the army of workers for Him. Once again, men are standing in His way!

Beryl

[olger]

`lo Tom.

Unless we are prepared to condone all the actions of the Judges, I maintain that it was a time when confusion reigned among God's people. It sounds like you agree. Their (Israel's) cry for a king was not good either.

Not all Biblical actions are meant for our emulation (David killing Uriah, and Samson lusting after women for instance). That was my point, emphasized twice in the book of Judges that "Each man did what was right in his own eyes" (7:26; 21:25). In other words confusion reigned, buttressed by personal pride!

Deborah (like Ellen G. White) was a prophet. Miriam was a prophet, as were both of her brothers. And, like other women in the Bible, she was never a priest (Doug Batchelor & Dr. Leslie Hardinge have pointed this out as well).

The authority of a few women as prophets should not be confused with exercising headship authority in the home (as husbands) and in the church (as elder or pastors). We can do so only by resorting to questionable reinterpretations of Biblical teaching.

To claim, as some people do, that the priesthood of all believers eliminates gender role distinctions requires a substantial leap of logic. It is not validated in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Pro-ordinationists can only sustain their reinterpretation of the concept by imposing on the Bible the feminist concept of “full equality,” understood to mean the total obliteration of male-female role differentiation. That is the conclusion of my study. Incidentally I did not discount the book of Judges based on cultural revisionism, but rather acknowledge the moral disorder that defines most of the book. It was, as now, a low-water mark of Godly male leadership.

As to the foundation of the New Jerusalem, I ask forgiveness if I confused you. Let me clarify:

More simply, IF Jesus the Christ chose His disciples based upon cultural accomodation, then that assumes that He would have preferred to have some women included in His inner circle of 12 disciples but couldn't. Do you see where this thinking is leading?

IF our Lord chose His disciples based upon temporal cultural accomodation, don't you suppose that he would have corrected this problem when he built the New Jerusalem? In other words, evangelical feminists leave Him no choice but to chisel some of the names of men off of the foundation of the Holy City and insert the names of some women just to be "fair." . It is astonishing that professed believers could dishonor God by bringing such a charge against Him.

"Hogwash" as Grandma used to say.

I believe that Jesus chose 12 men as His disciples because He wanted to. Revelation 21:14.

I'll address your other points in a moment. Till then I remain

your truly,

oG

[Taylor]

It could also very well be that Jesus chose 12 men becuase he was a man and to travel and sleep anywhere, including all of them together in the fields was not something that would have looked right if he had women as part of his 12 disciples. That would have opened his ministry up to gossip not becuase they were women who followed him or ministered with him but because he was male and his other disciples were male and their travel arrangements would have been suspect to gossipers.

[olger]

`lo Beryl

I won't restate my entire premise each time an objection is raised. But I will call your attention to a portion of what I have already said on the subject. Remember this?

Ministry or Leadership?

• What does the Bible say?

• Women are called to minister

• Women are not called to leadership.

• My deepest anxiety in all this is that women will take it personally, dismissing it as another chauvinist put- down. I recognize that there are festering wounds among us among us and possibly unjust suppression in some homes. I can only say, it is not in my heart to add to those hurts. To do so unnecessarily would sit heavily on my conscience. So why raise the issue? First I happen to believe in Bible truth. I base my convictions on the revealed mind of God rather than the concealed motives of man.

• Second, departure from truth carries serious danger in both belief and behavior. I confess that when I began this study in 1994, I did not realize how much was at stake.

• It is only when we find something difficult or disagreeable in the Bible that we discover our real understanding of the inspiration and authority of Scripture.

Do you agree that the Bible teaches male headship?

Role Distinctions

Are there Biblical role distinctions between man & women?

• Notice the times that God speaks to men and women separately. Genesis 3, Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3.

• The Bible’s assertion that Adam was the first sinner recognizes his position as the federal head of the human race (Romans 5:12).

• After the Fall, God walks through the Garden and calls out to Adam. Why not both of them, or why not to Eve? Because Adam was the head, also implied in His warning to Adam to not eat of the tree (no record of God ever telling Eve exists. It is thus assumed that as Adam was the head of the family, he was responsible to tell her).

Deborah:

• Passing on a message from God (as He has given it, without expansion, explanation, or application) is not seen as exercising leadership authority.

• Judges were raised up to deal with national defense Judges (2:16), but they had a moral as well as a military function, namely to preserve internal holiness that prevented external attack (2-17-19). The latter role was more prophetic than judicial. They were not agents of a centralized government (Gideon refused to found a royal dynasty, on the ground of divine rule (Judges 8:22-23). Among them is Deborah who thus judged Israel. Three facts about her are stated:

• She was a wife of Lapidoth, she was a prophetess, and she settled disputes. She was able to bring an inspired word of wisdom or knowledge to bear on each case.

• Unlike other judges, she did not lead when invasion threatened, but delegated (or more accurately, the Lord delegated through her) this task to the man Barak. He, with less than masculine courage or chivalry, insisted on taking her into battle, ensuring his forfeiture of the honor of victory (Judges 4:6-9).

• Her triumphal song praised the Lord that the princes (ruling men) took “the lead,” showing that her attitude was maternal rather than matriarchal. She was no Joan of Arc, in spite of the apparent shortage of strong men.

• The entire book of judges is the sad portrayal of confused nation with each person doing that which is right in their own eyes” (Judges 21:24).

Warm regards,

oG

(using minimal exclamation marks)

[Beryl]

As in the home, Biblical leadership/headship in the church is restricted to males. [/quote

AND..........?????? What happens when the male turns his back on God?

The task of teaching, training the children etc falls EQUALLY on both parents. However, more often than not it is mainly in the mother's hands.

Had the counsel of Ellen White regarding the training of women for ministry been carried out, it would have resulted in many men being saved from being put out of the ministry because of wrong relationships which arose, and still arise.

Likewise there would have been many women saved for the church because they would have had a woman minister, who had been trained, with whom they could have confided.

I know of women who have left the church because a male minister would not believe that "??????" could possibly be abusive -- why, he was a highly respected elder of the church (and a demon at home). These dear women needed a trained woman with whom they could confide, a woman who was not just a deaconess, but someone with the training and position to be able to do something to help -- such as relieving such a man of his position in the church by exposing some of his evil deeds.

Men and women think differently, and that God-given difference needs to be recognised, and catered for in the overall ministry of the church.

It has been needed for many years. God showed that He is no respecter of persons back in the 1840's when He first asked a man to be His prophet (which would have been in line with the current thinking at that time) but when that man refused, then God (who knows the end from the beginning) brought forth His choice -- a woman -- and for that we can be eternally thankful.

God made man and woman to stand side by side -- as equals. That is His standard.

Beryl

[olger]

Hi sister Beryl. You're up late (or perhaps it's early).

I realize that there are many passive men in in our world and shame on us, I say.

Ordination

To focus on the ordination of women is misleading unless the ordination of men is also questioned. There is no New Testament warrant for limiting priesthood to one gender. The real issue is whether any ordination puts woman in a position “over a man”.

• It is in the very context of Gender relationships that we are warned not to malign the word of God (Titus 2:5) and not to imagine that the word of God originated with us (1 Corinthians 14:36).

• The Bible calls for the ordination of male elders in every city and clearly outlines their qualifications (Titus 1:5-9).

• The real issue is whether at any level the relationship between sexes is as God intended it to be.

• The conclusion drawn is that the paradox of gender in creation (horizontal inequality & vertical equality) remains a feature of life in this present world and is consistently maintained throughout the Old and New Testaments.

• To be true to the Bible we must stop putting women in positions of leadership over men.

Unequal Yokes

• When a woman is spiritually ahead of her husband, it is increasingly difficult for her to regard him as the head.

• The church has created many unequal yokes in this way, making possible the breakdown of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:15).

• Without intending or even realizing it, Christians have often encouraged wives to become spiritual leaders to their husbands.

• The best way for a wife to convert her husband is to change herself (1 Peter 3:1-6).

• The marrying of believers with unbelievers is a grave error that the church should avoid. At least let there be extensive premarital counseling prior to marriage of young adults. It is this plow that Nancy & I have put our hands on.

regards,

oG

[Beryl]

Olger, what you seem to be missing is the realisation that God, throughout history, has worked within the existing cultures . And, if we read the Bible carefully, we find that His ways of dealing with situations changed as the cultures changed.

Let me give to you a few illustrations.

Marriage

God's original plan was -- one husband = one wife. However, long before we get to the end of Genesis we find the plural and multiple wives were common -- and I have not noticed any complaints from God! Does that mean that He decided He had been wrong in the first instance? No, but He gave directions as to how these wives were to be treated. He even gave Leah a helping hand, enabling her to produce many sons for Jacob in the hope of winning his heart.

Abraham gave in to Sarah's suggestion that he take her handmaiden as a concubine and so produce an heir, and while this child lost his place as heir with the birth of Isaac, God still cared for him.

In Genesis 25 we read that Abraham took another wife, who bore him 6 sons, and that, before his death, he gave gifts to the "sons of his concubines" (note the plural use of "concubines") and sent them away to the east.

Esther

Esther became a part of the king's harem, and, in a "beauty pagaent" was selected as the one to be the queen. That was the culture of the day, and God used Esther in that position to save His people.

Elkanah, Hannah and Peninnah

A priest with 2 wives. We do not know who was the first wife -- perhaps it was Hannah, with Peninah becoming a second wife when Hannah had no children.

David

David, "a man after God's Own heart", had 6 wives (2 Samuel 3:2-5), plus taking back Michal (3:14,15), plus he would have inherited the wives and concubines of Saul, then he later added Bathsheba., and it was only regarding Bathsheba that God punished him. God was allowing what was part of the culture of the day, but punished David for what was not part of the culture (Bathsheba).

I could add on more, but I won't. Culture changed, and in the time of Christ we do not hear of multiple wives.

Let's look at the culture of the New Testament. In the time of Christ, women had reached just about their lowest status. Once again, Jesus worked within the present culture -- up to a point! While He chose 12 male disciples, that was not that He degraded the women, but in that culture the adding of women to His official list of disciples would have done harm to His work, but He did not discourage the women from being His followers, and, in that way, being part of "the team".

After Jesus returned to heaven, the group waiting and praying for the Holy Spirit included named women. When the Day of Pentecost came they were ALL TOGETHER -- and the Holy Spirit in its fulness was poured out on them all together. There was no distinction.

When, many years later, Paul was ministering in Corinth he gave to them many instructions. Most of this was in keeping with the culture of the day. Paul had a church full of enthusiastic men and women. The yoke of idol worship was thrown off -- and Paul had to put down a few rules in order that the church not be seen as being so far away from the cultural norms that it put people off.

He had to deal with the situation of either a husband or a wife becoming a Christian, and the partner not -- how should be believer relate to the unbeliever in that culture. These members had come to Christ direct from idol worship -- and the question of prostitution had to be dealt with. In those days the sign of a prostitute was to not wear a head covering. New Christians were expressing their freedom in Christ by doing away with the traditional head covering -- Paul told them not to do so, but to still keep their head covering. For the advancement of the early Christian church, it was essential that the "norms of society" be adhered to, so as not to bring disrepute upon the church.

That is why, in chap.14 Paul speaks of orderly worship, which, in the culture of the day did not permit women to speak in church. We do not live in that culture.

In Ch.12 Paul deals with the "Gifts of the Spirit". He firstly assures us that we are EACH part of the "body of Christ", and that the gifts given are by appointment of God (not humans). Firstly there are the apostles. They are of a special class, especially called by God for a special work. Then the list of gifts goes on -- prophets (we know there are males and females here, though not stated), teachers, workers of miracles, gifts of healing, helpers, administrators, gift of languages. Then he points us to the best gift of all -- the gift of love to one another.

Olger, we are living in a different culture from the one that existed in Bible times. To me, it makes no difference. I have long since retired from denominational employment -- but I still love nothing better than when I have the opportunity to lead someone to Christ. When I graduated with a Bible Workers' Diploma, the thought of ordination never entered my head. They didn't even want a female in the Ministerial Class at college (although a minister's daughter insisted and completed the course, but only received a Bible Worker's appointment!). But I believe that I was following the call of God, and that first year in ministry resulted in 53 souls making their decision for baptism. Discrimination against females in the Lord's work went further than that. My male fellow-graduants were able to get a loan through the conference office to enable them to purchase a car for their work. I could not, because I was not a minister -- only a Bible Worker, even though my "results" proved that I was my share of work. For the years of my ministry I had to use public transport -- night and day. Wages paid my rent, food, and enough to add somewhat to what was a meager wardrobe after college days. However, through those days and nights of public transport, there was only once when I felt that I was in real danger. It was one of the many night visits that I made, and while waiting for the tram a car with a male driver pulled up and asked if I wanted a lift. He waited and waited, then suddenly started the car and took off in a terrific hurry -- and I said a furvent "Thank you, Lord."

Olgar, I am not trying to have women take over the world -- but I certainly believe that this world is ready to receive women ministers!

Back in the 1950's a lady minister would not have been accepted, either in the Adventist church or in any of the other Christian churches. It just was not done.

Now, however, a female minister WOULD be accepted. With few exceptions (including the Adventist Church) today a female minister would be accepted by the world in general, and can do a wonderful work in dealing with the females who need help, who would not sit down with a male minister. I am presently dealing with 3 separate ladies, none of whom would be interested in inviting a man into their homes -- minister or no minister! Especially when they are alone.

Please, read your Bible in the context of its cultural settings. The message is the same, God is love, God wants to work with us all. Allow God to use whom He chooses -- male or female -- in His work. Don't continue to stand in His way. We want it to finish soon so we can go Home. Men can't do it alone. The title of Pastor is important these days. It gives confidence to the "person in the street" -- confidence that she is talking to someone who has the backing of the church. The time has come!

God bless,

Beryl

[Taylor]

Wow Beryl I wish I could be a mouse in the corner and watch you lead souls to Christ. That was a beautiful testimony and well written! Thank you!

[Jeannieb43]

Beryl, you think like a minister and you talk like a minister. It's obvious that the preceding discourse on women in ministry just flowed from your computer like honey -- because you've spoken and written on that topic many times before this!!

I appreciate all your Biblical examples of the difference in customs in the various historical periods. It's true: God meets us where we are!

Thank you for your ministry! [it's still continuing, even here on Club Adventist!]

[Tom Wetmore]

Unless we are prepared to condone all the actions of the Judges, I maintain that it was a time when confusion reigned among God's people. It sounds like you agree...

Actually Gerry, that would be another example of you reading into something what you want to believe to be true rather than reading it for what it actually says. Saying that it sounds like I agree with you is just about as meaningful and accurate as in your last post where you said you understood what I was saying. Reading and comparing what I have posted and what you have posted demonstrate that neither of your conclusions of understanding or agreement to be true or accurate. And it seems to me that you treat Scripture in similar fashion by finding that you understand it so well because you read it to agree with you and your ideas.

Quote:

Deborah (like Ellen G. White) was a prophet. Miriam was a prophet, as were both of her brothers...she was never a priest.

(Who said she was a priest, that such an argument would even need to be knocked down...) Interesting that the brothers Moses and Aaron both were recognized for all their other roles, Moses the leader of Israel and Aaron the High Priest, but you seem to overlook, or at least greatly minimize Deborah's role and function in addition to being a prophet. She was also a judge as Judges 4:4 clearly states. Perhaps you do not understand what it meant in those days to be a judge over Israel. At least one translation captures it by translating the Hebrew word shaphat as leading.

The word shaphat means more than simply being a referee of disputes. It means "to judge, govern, vindicate, punish; 1) to act as law-giver or judge or governor (of God, man), a) to rule, govern, judge; 2) to decide controversy (of God, man); 3) to execute judgment." Notice the words to rule and to govern. The expanded lexicon further elaborates that "judging was the province of kings and chief magistrates...used by the leaders and magistrates of the Israelites...who then governed them in peace as Supreme Magistrates (Jud. 4:5)..." And notice that is in direct and specific reference to Judges 4:5 that specifically describes the role of Deborah.

Quote:

The authority of a few women as prophets should not be confused with exercising headship authority in the home (as husbands) and in the church (as elder or pastors). We can do so only by resorting to questionable reinterpretations of Biblical teaching.

Nobody on this side of the discussion is confusing the role of women with headship in the church. That confusion seems to be your exclusive province. And to sustain that idea you must ignore and/or reinterpret clear Biblical teaching - namely that Christ and Christ alone is the head of the church. (See my previous post.)

Quote:

To claim, as some people do, that the priesthood of all believers eliminates gender role distinctions requires a substantial leap of logic. It is not validated in the Old Testament or the New Testament...

Understanding the meaning of the concept of the priesthood of all believers requires no leap of logic at all. To think that it was only referring to male believers really does require far more than a substantial leap of logic. And the validation of that idea is indeed in the New Testament - 1 Peter 2.

Quote:

As to the foundation of the New Jerusalem,I ask forgiveness if I confused you...

The confusion is not on this side of the discussion. And as I said before about confusion... :R This strikes me as a rather silly straw-man argument.

Tom

[Woody]

Thank you SO much Beryl. We are blessed to have you here. Thank you for your testimony.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Beryl,

Quote:

Marriage

God's original plan was -- one husband = one wife. However, long before we get to the end of Genesis we find the plural and multiple wives were common -- and I have not noticed any complaints from God! Does that mean that He decided He had been wrong in the first instance? No, but He gave directions as to how these wives were to be treated. He even gave Leah a helping hand, enabling her to produce many sons for Jacob in the hope of winning his heart.

Patriarchs and Prophets (1890), page 145, paragraph 1

Chapter Title: The Test of Faith

Abraham had accepted without question the promise of a son, but he did not wait for God to fulfill His word in His own time and way. A delay was permitted, to test his faith in the power of God; but he failed to endure the trial. Thinking it impossible that a child should be given her in her old age, Sarah suggested, as a plan by which the divine purpose might be fulfilled, that one of her handmaidens should be taken by Abraham as a secondary wife. Polygamy had become so widespread that it had ceased to be regarded as a sin, but it was no less a violation of the law of God, and was fatal to the sacredness and peace of the family relation. Abraham's marriage with Hagar resulted in evil, not only to his own household, but to future generations.

Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Quote:

He had to deal with the situation of either a husband or a wife becoming a Christian, and the partner not -- how should be believer relate to the unbeliever in that culture. These members had come to Christ direct from idol worship -- and the question of prostitution had to be dealt with. In those days the sign of a prostitute was to not wear a head covering. New Christians were expressing their freedom in Christ by doing away with the traditional head covering -- Paul told them not to do so, but to still keep their head covering. For the advancement of the early Christian church, it was essential that the "norms of society" be adhered to, so as not to bring disrepute upon the church.

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. Not culture!

Also you said:

Quote:

In those days the sign of a prostitute was to not wear a head covering. New Christians were expressing their freedom in Christ by doing away with the traditional head covering -- Paul told them not to do so, but to still keep their head covering. For the advancement of the early Christian church, it was essential that the "norms of society" be adhered to, so as not to bring disrepute upon the church

This is not correct. REad this verse and tell me how does it apply to culture and explain it. I will not tell you the meaning of this because it's something you need to go to God with and have an experience with. 1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Unless you can properly explain what it means for women to have power or cover their heads because of the angels you should refrain for saying it is a cultural issue.

Quote:

Please, read your Bible in the context of its cultural settings.

Please understand what the Bible is saying in a spiritual context.

There will always be order in God's family and it is neccessary. Not to restrict anyone but to free up everyone. I know you don't understand what I just wrote (otherwise you would never have written what you just did) so I will give you an example.

1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

We have here Christ, the Son of God, equal with God subjecting Himself to the Father. Why? What ever for? Jesus can do all thing the Father can, why is He voluntarily subjecting Himself? Do you see it? Look at Pauls answer: that God may be all in all

Do you have any idea of what is being said here and can you not see the reason for women not being the head but rather be in subjection? This is not a cultural issue at all! Much more: and listen to the words of Peter: 1Pe 3:6 Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. (Why does Peter write that?)

Testimonies For The Church Volume One (1855-1868), page 452, paragraph 1

Chapter Title: The Minister's Wife

If a minister's wife accompanies her husband in his travels, she should not go for her own special enjoyment, to visit, and to be waited upon, but to labor with him. She should have a united interest with him to do good. She should be willing to accompany her husband, if home cares do not hinder, and she should aid him in his efforts to save souls. With meekness and humility, yet with a noble self-reliance, she should have a leading influence upon minds around her, and should act her part and bear her cross and burden in meeting, and around the family altar, and in conversation at the fireside. The people expect this, and they have a right to expect it. If these expectations are not realized, the husband's influence is more than half destroyed. The wife of a minister can do much if she will. If she possesses the spirit of self-sacrifice and has a love for souls, she can with him do almost an equal amount of good.

There is more that I can post on this matter but will do so later I must go. Please remember that I am not for women being ordained as pastors. I am not saying they cannot work in the Lord's vineyard.

Norman

[Woody]

It's Cultural

And the best solution is just to not ordain anyone. We could let God do the ordaining. This ordaining of man is really not needed anyway unless we could go back to the Historical Adventist way of having women ordained ministers. Back in Ellen Whites day ... women were able to be ordained ministers. Somehow we have gone away from what Ellen blessed for women.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Quote:

It's Cultural

You have no idea what you are saying. You completely miss the reason for this and therefore cannot understand Paul when he says Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 1Co 14:34

On this one point (increased font size words)there is an important principle, truth and law that you don't understand. What you should be looking at is, why Paul says it is the law and why. Don't tell me it's cultural when Paul states that this is a law. Also another scripture states the women ought to have power or cover their heads because of the angels.

You are clueless as to what that means otherwise you would never say what you have said. Back in EGW days you say there were ordained women ministers; so what. In the Bible men had more than one wife and it was still wrong. If there was Biblical commands or instructions for women ministers, I would shut my fingers down and agree with you. But it's not there, no matter how many women you want to hold up as a reason for this.

I'm not denying that culture has something to do with this as well. But that was a secondary reason. Don't you even want to study the truth about this? Don't you want to know what Paul means when he says because of the angels? Don't you think there's something more important than culture when he also states that it is written in the law for women to keep silence in church? Have you no regard for truth or do you simply want to hold on divisive carnal beliefs? Don't you love truth?

I do and that's what I want. I don't care about who did what as evidence for truth. Though hand join in hand the wicked shall not be unpunished. I'm not interested in joining the hands of those who hold things holy that are common or common that are holy.

Norman

[Woody]

Quote:

Don't you love truth?

I appreciate that you have your truth. And I would encourage you to believe in your truth. I would not wish to change your mind.

But I will state that for me personally ... I love God first and foremost. "Truth" is relative. "Truth" is secondary. God is first. Love trumps Truth any day. So, do I love what you personally believe is truth? Probably not. But I respect that it is important to you. And this is good. Because many will not have any convictions. So, it is better to believe as you do than to not believe at all.

Our church is big enough for different views. If one side has to compromise as the liberals have to in this situation. That is fine. I still will be an SDA. But I just hope that when your view is in the minority ... that you also will be loyal. These issues are not salvational. They do impact our church strongly. But in the scheme of things ... they are just "truth" and so we can go about sharing Christian Love instead.