The Authority of the General Conference in Session

[Pickle]

If you will take the time to read the TOSC materials, I think you will find that it really is not a doctrinal issue from the perspective of either side of the debate.  That fact is a major factor in the proposed action that will be before the Session this summer.  Read it carefully. Not a matter of doctrine, a matter of policy and practice.  Big difference.

Tom, could you explain that some? My understanding is that position #1 is that the Bible does not allow women to fill the roles under discussion. How would what the Bible does and does not allow be a matter of policy and practice rather than of doctrine?

Secondly, C. Raymond Holmes long ago stated that the acceptance of women serving in these roles involves a change in hermeneutical principles, and the NAD TOSC majority report proposed that we change our hermeneutical principles in order to justify WO. How do we equate the method we use to interpret the Bible with policy rather than doctrine?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

very difficult to comment on what someone else deems "inappropriate" in a sermon... context is important, but isn't included very often in discussions by the sermon gestapo...

[lazarus]

Men are on very shaky ground when one of the arguments they use against WO is inappropriate or "wrong" sermons by women. Men are very good at delivering those kind of sermons.

[CoAspen]

I would also say that it is the worst type of slander that can be voiced when persons 'report' inappropriate sermons with out context and when they are used to disparage someone.....seems NT has some thoughts about that type of talk.

[Pickle]

Huh? In what way would context change anything in the three points I cited?

• Abraham was justified when he partly obeyed God, because he disobeyed God when he took Lot with him when he left Haran.
• Circumcision was an act of faith because what if the knife slipped.
• The sermon began with a clip from a Hollywood movie that included profanity.

What would context change? Would context make it theologically correct to say that Abraham disobeyed God, and was then justified? Would context make it appropriate to say the second item in mixed company, during the worship service? Would context somehow sanctify clips from Hollywood movies being shown during the worship service, with profanity? We don't go to theaters, and we don't watch movies at home, and yet we got to see it at church.

CoAspen, you refer to slander and disparaging people, though I mentioned no names. Above you can see how rudywoofs referred to me as part of "the sermon gestapo" (unless she was referring only to B/W Photodude), and yet you uttered no rebuke. You don't think likening me to Hitler's secret police is disparaging?

In support of WO, Tom explicitly referred to experiencing the ministry of a woman pastor, and I was simply responding to his point with my own experience. WO proponents won't gain points if they try to shut down the conversation instead of discussing the issues in an objective manner.

lazarus, I can cite examples of male pastors giving poor sermons as well, but I don't think we can use the failure of men to justify WO.

[Gregory Matthews]

Bob, I will respond to your question as to doctrine vs. policy.

In responding, I will say that "Doctrine" is something that   is taught clearly enough in the Bible that one can say that it is a clear teaching.   It may or may not be essential to salvation. But,   it was important enough for the Biblical record to be definitive enough for one to say that the Bible does teach it, even if there are some Biblical passages that do not seem to fit the Biblical norm.

This is in contrast to some Biblical passages that area very limited in scope and for which there are not a plethora of passages in the Bible that provide additional support.  An example of such a passage, in my opinion and only hat, is Job 1:6-7.  I have a personal opinion on that passage, but I would never elevate it to the point where I called my opinion a Biblical doctrine.

There are people on both sides of the WO debate who believe that the Bible is abundantly clear in supporting their position and  therefore, they call  it a Biblical doctrine. 

There are others who acknowledge that each group has some Biblical support.  I belong to this group.  They consider people on both sides to be sincere and wanting to follow what the Bible teaches.   Because they believe that the Bible does not clearly support one and only one position they are more likely to say that this is not a doctrinal issue bout is only a policy issue.  Again, this is where I am.

Bob, I am not in any way attempting to convince you of the correctness of my personal position.  I am simply attempting to respond to a question that you asked of  Tom, who can better speak for himself.  I am only speaking for myself.

By the way, I appreciate the attempts you have made to engage in civil discussion.  Discussion can bed civil and s till frank.   That is O.K. with me.  I Do not consider it to be my God-given mission to change you, and probably will not engage in challenging you very often.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B/W Photodude]

Men are on very shaky ground when one of the arguments they use against WO is inappropriate or "wrong" sermons by women. Men are very good at delivering those kind of sermons.

​I am quite sure that a similar inappropriate sermon by a man would have met with some discussion by the conference leaders.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

 

CoAspen, you refer to slander and disparaging people, though I mentioned no names. Above you can see how rudywoofs referred to me as part of "the sermon gestapo" (unless she was referring only to B/W Photodude), and yet you uttered no rebuke. You don't think likening me to Hitler's secret police is disparaging?

​oh.  come.  on.   

Dredging up isolated instances of inappropriate sermon comments and antics without the context is not good form.  Of course, there might be cases where the preacher was totally out-of-line.  But to present isolated examples without context is equally irresponsible.

 

[brotherly love]

Men are on very shaky ground when one of the arguments they use against WO is inappropriate or "wrong" sermons by women. Men are very good at delivering those kind of sermons.

​I agree, anyone can speak a bad or good sermon. It is not about ability,or inability it is about roles, and how we function as a whole, not a cult of personality.

[lazarus]

​I agree, anyone can speak a bad or good sermon. It is not about ability,or inability it is about roles, and how we function as a whole, not a cult of personality.

Speaking of roles, the church has already permitted women to speak in church, women to have authority, women to teach men. If fact the human being with the greatest authority in the church is a woman. A dead woman at that. We have already allowed women to assume all the key roles in the church from Pastor to custodian. We already ordained the female pastors but we just called it commissioning!  

[brotherly love]

Speaking of roles, the church has already permitted women to speak in church, women to have authority, women to teach men. If fact the human being with the greatest authority in the church is a woman. A dead woman at that. We have already allowed women to assume all the key roles in the church from Pastor to custodian. We already ordained the female pastors but we just called it commissioning!  

​Women would be allowed to speak, 1 Corinthians 11 does specify women praying and prophesying. Prophesying is not divination and future telling, it is fore telling and encouragement. If Paul commands a women not to speak, then he contradicts himself very quickly.

We dont have to go to polar opposites on the issue-that is not wisdom. The issue is taking authority and control in the church. To a Godly and modest woman this would not be an issue. In our short window of time it has become an central issue. You cant address women being ordained without addressing the root causes of desiring this.

[Gregory Matthews]

It sounds like you are telling us that a woman who wants to pastor a congregation is neither godly nor modest.

 

Is that what you wanted to tell us?

 

[Tom Wetmore]

​Women would be allowed to speak, 1 Corinthians 11 does specify women praying and prophesying. Prophesying is not divination and future telling, it is fore telling and encouragement. If Paul commands a women not to speak, then he contradicts himself very quickly.

We dont have to go to polar opposites on the issue-that is not wisdom. The issue is taking authority and control in the church. To a Godly and modest woman this would not be an issue. In our short window of time it has become an central issue. You cant address women being ordained without addressing the root causes of desiring this.

But the issue is not about "authority" and "control".  Consider carefully the meaning of the words "minister" and "pastor".  It seems that many of those opposed to WO  make this error.  Perhaps it is because they themselves wish or seek to make the role of a pastor or minister all about power, control and authority.  

[Tom Wetmore]

Those of you who site one example of a woman making what you see as a bad sermon reference as your only response to the questions I ask  really seem to be avoiding answering my questions.  I suspect that it is not so much about some isolated negative experience of hearing a bad sermon as it is a confirmation of the point I am making.  If you have not worked with women pastors over the long hall, have never been a part of a congregation with a woman pastor for the duration of more than one passing bad sermon, then you do not have much of a basis to judge whether or not a woman can do the job of pastoring.  You have not allowed yourself the chance to witness whether or not a women can demonstrate the fruit of the calling to ministry just as effectively, and very often, more so, as any one of her male colleagues that get ordained after a few baptisms to their credit.   

just answer the questions, honestly and truthfully.  I have told you repeatedly that my own experience for the past 40 years is affirmative to all of those questions.  

To follow your dismissive answer of a bad sermon example, I would have dropped out of the Church long ago and sworn off the validity of males as minister, based on the substantial number of truly bad sermons and exceedingly cringe-worthy comments, stories or whatever delivered by male pastors. Not a very convincing argument, I would say.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Tom Wetmore

[brotherly love]

But the issue is not about "authority" and "control".  Consider carefully the meaning of the words "minister" and "pastor".  It seems that many of those opposed to WO  make this error.  Perhaps it is because they themselves wish or seek to make the role of a pastor or minister all about power, control and authority.  

​absolutely, a pastor is to be a servant, but also to be an example and govern the church.

Edited June 4, 2015 by brotherly love

[Tom Wetmore]

The paradox of the servant leader.  Read Romans 16:1-2.  To me that describes very clearly a person appointed by Paul as a servant leader of the church.  In this instance he specifically uses the same Greek word in reference to that person as he does for himself and others - diakonos.  That word literally means "servant" is translated as "minister"most frequently in the NT. We of course derive the English word deacon from it, although the modern meaning and role of deacon is not the same as it was in the NT church. The other key Greek word is  prostatis.  It's literal meaning is  pro - before or in front of, statis - stand or standing or "stand before". That Greek word distinctly means one who stands before others, one who governs or rules.  Its verb form means to rule or govern.  And notice the context of of how Paul uses those words in relationship to the church or body of believers at Rome to whom he is writing.  He commends that person to the with the directive to them to help or do whatever that person asks of them clearly something one would say to a group about someone sent to lead them.  Phoebe, the servant leader commissioned by Paul to lead the believers in Rome.  A woman.  

And this resolves the idea often trumpeted by WO opposers that husband of one wife applied to qualifications for specific roles of those in the church, such as bishop/elder means it can only be a man. The Greek phrase in question us also use to describe the qualification of a diakonos, the very same word applied to Phoebe, a woman.  The meaning of that Greek idiom is monogamy, applicable to both parties to the relationship.  

[Pickle]

But the issue is not about "authority" and "control".  Consider carefully the meaning of the words "minister" and "pastor".  It seems that many of those opposed to WO  make this error.  Perhaps it is because they themselves wish or seek to make the role of a pastor or minister all about power, control and authority.  

​OK, let's consider the meaning of the words "minister" and "pastor," as used by Ellen White. The ministers, two by two, were the ones who largely were to spend their time raising up new churches, while the laity kept the services going in the existing churches. A 1927 book and a 1940 book about various denominations both described the Adventist church operating that way. The 1940 book said that in the case of large congregations, particularly in cities, ministers were sometimes assigned as pastors.

It seems to me that we have been diverting the sacred tithe to pay people to do the work of local elders. And I think that if we went back to operating the way the Spirit of Prophecy says to operate, this whole WO debate would become somewhat irrelevant.

[Pickle]

​The 1940 book said that in the case of large congregations, particularly in cities, ministers were sometimes assigned as pastors.

​The 1940 book said that "in the case of large congregations, particularly in cities, ordained ministers are sometimes appointed as pastors."

I tried to see if the quote contained the word ordained, and discovered that what I read in the 1940 His Many Mansions was actually taken from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, a statement appearing in its publications in at least 1910, 1919, and 1941. The 1941 publication added the words "by the conference" after the word "appointed."

And this resolves the idea often trumpeted by WO opposers that husband of one wife applied to qualifications for specific roles of those in the church, such as bishop/elder means it can only be a man. The Greek phrase in question us also use to describe the qualification of a diakonos, the very same word applied to Phoebe, a woman.  The meaning of that Greek idiom is monogamy, applicable to both parties to the relationship.  

​1. Where do you see in Rom. 16:1 or elsewhere a commission by Paul for Phoebe to lead the believers in Rome?

2. "Husbands of one wife" is aner (man, husband) of one gune (woman, wife). Can you provide any other Bible example where both a woman is called a man, and a man is called a woman?

3. Did you not mean that this resolves the idea promoted by both WO opposers and WO supporters that husband of one wife applied to qualifications for specific roles of those in the church, since TOSC's position #3, which was for allowing WO, said that being a male was a requirement for these roles, based on these verses?

Edited June 4, 2015 by Pickle

[Gregory Matthews]

Bob said:

OK, let's consider the meaning of the words "minister" and "pastor," as used by Ellen White. The ministers, two by two, were the ones who largely were to spend their time raising up new churches, while the laity kept the services going in the existing churches. . . .

It seems to me that we have been diverting the sacred tithe to pay people to do the work of local elders.

I have lived in countries where Elders did run the  operations of the congregations as the ordained clergy supervised a dozen congregations.  In those places, the clergy did devote time to evangelism.  However, they also had to spend a lot of time serving the spiritual needs of their assigned congregations that could not be provided by local Elders.    It was also of interest to me that in that country it was common for the individual congregations to be caught up in beliefs and practices that were outside of SDA belief and practice due to the fact that the local elders were simply not prepared to understand and deal with them.

IN a discussion of the early history of the SDA Church and Ellen white it is important to understand the change that has taken place in SDA Congregations from those early days to that of today.  Our early members were often committed Christians who accepted the Bible and the claims of Christ.  They needed education on some elements of their Christianity that became a part of SDA belief.  But, they were substantially Christian.  In this context, Elders could supervise the congregations while the clergy worked to evangelize those where not Christian and/or needed to transition in their spiritual development as outlined in the so-called 3-angels messages of Revelation 14.  

Today we are in a different era that has been called by some the post-Christian era.  The congregation that I attend typically has people attending who are not SDA and/or may not be a member of any Christian group.  It has people who may be SDA members, but are at an early stage of their Christian development.  IOW it has people who need evangelism as much as people who do not attend.  What I am saying is that in the context of today our clergy who pastor congregations may be deeply involved in evangelism within the congregation as much as our clergy who in the past worked outside of the congregations. 

Folks, the context of the time in which we live has changed from the context in the time of Ellen White.    

[Pickle]

So let's consider the context of Ellen White's counsel. She wrote such instruction late in her ministry, in 1901 and 1902 to the brethren and sisters of the Iowa Conference, telling them that as a general rule (the wording thus allows some exceptions) the conference laborers should go out from the churches into new fields, and that there were other places in Iowa that needed to be worked. In 1901 and 1902 there were more than twice as many congregations as there are today, unless there has been some dramatic growth since I checked. Thus, times have indeed changed, and that counsel is now more than twice as applicable as it was when she gave it.

I don't think we can limit her counsel to just the "early history of the SDA Church," given the date that she wrote this, and given that our mission work had greatly expanded by then. I think, rather, that we have here an example of where she was fighting a tendency within the church to diverge from our mission, and that after she died we started doing what we had wanted to do anyway.

The countries where the ministers have so many churches under their supervision are countries where the work is growing more rapidly than in North America. That should tell us something. Additionally, the Sabbath before the sermon that said that Abraham was justified when he partly obeyed God, and that circumcision was an act of faith, we heard a sermon in a different church by a male pastor who said that the wicked were going to be resurrected in order to judge God, but that God wasn't going to judge them, and that they were all going to be dead before the fire falls. Thus, it appears to me that merely assigning ministers to hover over churches contrary to the counsel that we have is no certain safeguard against the congregation imbibing "beliefs and practices that [are] outside of SDA belief and practice."

[Kevin H]

As to Raymond C. Holmes' book: In the 1800s as evolution became popular people looked for evolution in everything, including the Bible. A view called "Modernism" formed. The Modernists believed that the Bible was not historical but a collection of myths that has some good advice but it's just a human book and not authoritative. In a radical reaction to Modernism a view called Fundamentalism was formed among Christians who continued to believe the Bible and believe that it was inspired, but they had a view of inspiration that the Bible and Mrs. White do not hold up to.

While the shut door theory was wrong, it came at a good time to protect us from falling into one of these two camps, although, despite the White's trying to fight it, fundamentalism while not entrenched did get a foothold among us.

Anyway, at the time of Dr. Holmes book the churches that were ordaining women were only the modernists churches. Since we were either liberal fundamentalists to anti-fundamentalists but still Bible believing (and he tended to lean more fundamentalists). He saw that if we were to have accepted the Modernist's reasons for accepting women that he feared that we would no longer be a Bible believing church but just become another Modernist church. Now if this was the ONLY argument I'd be in full agreement and opposing women's ordination as well. In fact I do oppose those arguments for women's ordination.

However, around the time of his writing of the book, archaeologists, linguists and historians were learning more about the Biblical passages. Scholars were beginning to realize that we were interpreting Paul via the church-synagogue split of around 135 AD, St. Augustine and the reformers, especially Luther. While we have been reading Paul's words, they have been filtered through all those other ideas (the Desmond Ford issue was because of this.) And scholars have been trying to re-read Paul without those filters and starting to read him in his culture and time in history. They came to the conclusion that church tradition has been wrong on Paul's view towards the law and towards women. They are coming to see Paul as a faithful Jew and faithful Sabbathkeeper and eating kosher, but also supporting women's leadership. There were discoveries that showed that the texts used against women's ordination were addressing specific problems that we find in the specific churches that Paul wrote them to. That these verses were not his attitude towards women or women's leadership, but that they were dealing with specific problems and that we are wrong when we try to read more into his words than what he was dealing with. And that there were other texts that shows a different attitude towards women and women leaders. We have been taking the texts about specific problems and setting them as the standard and we read over his practices that contradict those verses and make them submissive to our proof texts. But now realizing that these proof texts were not saying what we thought they were saying, then these other verses thus become the proof texts of Paul's view of women and leadership and they are pro-women leadership.

Discoveries were being made as to the meaning of the tassel with the blue thread that Moses commanded the Hebrews to wear. Discoveries were being made in women leadership and rabbis in Judaism and the movement to stop having the women leadership. That movement finally won out but not without a struggle. We had been reading the view that won out back into the Bible. Now that we know about the struggle and arguments, we find that Jesus quite blatantly told which side of the issue he was on.

So when Elder Holmes wrote his book we only had the arguments for women's ordination from the unbelieving modernists churches and his fear that if we were to ordain women we'd give up faith in the Bible and become just another modernist church. But since that time there have been vast discoveries in conservative, Bible believing reasons why we should ordain women. This is a whole new field of evidence that Elder Holmes did not have when he wrote his book and which I don't even know how aware he is of this evidence. (Just like how this evidence really changes the issues in the Desmond Ford debate but don't know how much Ford even knows about these new discoveries.)  The anti-ordination people tend to come from a branch of our church which is much more fundamentalist than Holmes, so his fear of us becoming just another Modernist church is magnified several times more for them than it was for him. Even though I am an anti-fundamentalist, I am also anti-modernist so I too share Elder Holmes' concern. But once again the problem with his thesis is that we no longer have only the Modernist's reasons for women's ordination. But we now have a whole bunch of conservative Bible believing reasons that was not available when Holmes first wrote his book and developed his views.

[Kevin H]

Off topic but interesting comments on what Pickle pointed out in his last post: In covenants in Abraham's day one sign would be a physical mark on the body. Abraham would have expected it. Shall we cut off an ear lobe or the tip of a finger etc.

Most (not all) of the Canaanites practiced circumcision and living in Canaan increased the chances that Abraham's family would practice it. So since Abraham expected something, but this was private and part of their culture, God turned that into the physical sign that Abraham expected.

No the wicked are NOT dead when the fire falls; The fire is the beauty and glory and love that shines forth from seeing God visibly and in person. I've written about hell fire on other posts here. But that minister has missed the point of what (or rather WHO) hell fire is. The lost are very much alive. They are destroyed over their indecision by being overwhelmingly attracted to Jesus and wanting to come, but being slaves to their feelings of contempt and external control psychology and fear that God is going to get them for their sins. Thus it is the fire that kills them.

[brotherly love]

It sounds like you are telling us that a woman who wants to pastor a congregation is neither godly nor modest.

 

Is that what you wanted to tell us?

 

​Yes, according to the Bible. Not evil intentions, but misplaced intentions. There are always exceptions, but a generalization-Yes, it is immodest and ungodly because it i in opposition to the plain meaning and wisdom of scripture.

Edited June 4, 2015 by brotherly love

[Gregory Matthews]

O.K.  But pretty judgmental.  I will suggest that it is not your place to judge whether or not a person is godly.

 

 

[Tom Wetmore]

 

​1. Where do you see in Rom. 16:1 or elsewhere a commission by Paul for Phoebe to lead the believers in Rome?

2. "Husbands of one wife" is aner (man, husband) of one gune (woman, wife). Can you provide any other Bible example where both a woman is called a man, and a man is called a woman?

3. Did you not mean that this resolves the idea promoted by both WO opposers and WO supporters that husband of one wife applied to qualifications for specific roles of those in the church, since TOSC's position #3, which was for allowing WO, said that being a male was a requirement for these roles, based on these verses?

Did you even read what I posted and actually spend any time studying carefully what both verses in total says about Phoebe!?!?! You missed the point entirely.

It is really quite simple if you read carefully, understanding the meaning of the original Greek.  The language of introduction and commendation of Phoebe to the believers, the instruction to them to do whatever she asked of them and the two key terms Paul, chose to identify her roles speak volumes of what is happening.  Tradition also holds that Paul,entrusted the letter to Phoebe to deliver to them.  That was not a simple letter carrier delivery like a mail carrier.  The person delivering a letter of this sort in those days was to read it to them (many likely illiterate and there was only one copy) and to teach and explain it to them.

As for the husband of one woman idiom ( literally "one woman man") the point is that Paul calls Phoebe a diakonos of a church. In another letter Paul includes that phrase to describe qualification for being a diakonos of the church.  If it is a man only qualification, how can Paul say here that Phoebe, a woman is a diakonos of the church? It is because it is not a phrase that is gender specific only to men but is a Greek idiom that simply means monogamy which covers both the man and woman.  The number "one" applies to both the man and the woman, just one of each.

Read this - https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/04/phoebe-was-she-an-early-church-leader