Women in Ministry

[John317]

John ... this world-wide church has voted to not discriminate against women in the positions of the church. It has specifically voted to allow women pastors and elders world-wide.

I think we need to be sure exactly what the position of the General Conference is on this issue, because I have seen documentation that is contrary to the way you have stated it here. I understand the request by North American conferences to have women ordained to the ministry was twice defeated in General Conference. I understand the vote both times was something like 1200 against approval of the request to 400 for approval. Didn't the GC also reject a request to have different, local conferences make their own decisions whether women would be ordained as pastors and elders?

For instance, this from a Wikipedia article:

"The Seventh-day Adventist Church officially does not ordain women. Recent votes at the worldwide General Conference Sessions turned down a proposal to allow ordination of women. There was a strong polarization between nations, with Western countries generally voting in support and other countries generally voting against. A further proposal to allow local choice was also turned down. In practice, there are numerous women working as ministers and in leadership positions. The most influential co-founder of the church, Ellen G. White, was a woman."

Do you understand this to be an accurate description of where the church is on this question?

Of course it should go without saying that everyone is welcome to express his views on this issue as well as on any number of others. I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone not talk or express themselves. On the contrary I am hoping everyone will talk about it. Let's get more people involved in seriously studying the Bible on the issue and expressing what they believe the Bible is saying about it.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Quote:

This text is lifted from a study that I wrote in 2003. I was asked to make a presentation to the church as Men's Ministry leader. There is a lot more to the study.

Perhaps you should add to your study the words of Galatians 3:28,29, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

But this verse does not mean men and women must occupy the same positions and do the same things in the church. This is shown by the fact that the same person who wrote Gal. 3: 28, 29 also wrote 1 Cor. 14. Paul means that everyone has equal access to God and to salvation, not that everyone must do the same things in the NT church. Let's not forget that Paul also wrote, "The head of the wife is the husband," and, "I allow no woman to teach or exercise authority over a man." The fact that Paul wrote both things shows that Paul did not understand Gal. 3: 28, 29 to signify that there is to be no distinction between men and women in regards to their position and work in the church. The context of the verses shows that Paul is talking about access to God and salvation, not the structure or officers of the church. (See vvs. 26, 27.)

To understand what the NT teaches about church structure and officers, one must study the verses dealing directly with those matters. This is why I have posted, and continue to post, all the NT verses that mention the church officers.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Quote:

Unlike pastors and bishops, prophets are appointed by God.

I would suggest to you that there any many Pastors who would disagree with this statement.

I'm talking about what the Bible teaches, not about how someone might feel. The reason for ordination by church leaders is to let people know that a certain person is authorized by the church to do certain things. A prophet needs no such ordination. A genuine prophet is a prophet even if the church rejects them. But if a church rejects a pastor or minister or elder, they are no longer a pastor or elder. They may be a Christian, but they aren't a pastor or elder. They no longer occupy their office. Not so a true prophet of God. For instance, Elijah would have been a prophet even if every single Israelite had rejected him. In the same way, even if every single SDA today were to reject Ellen White as a prophet, it would not alter the fact that she was a genuine prophet of God. Why? Because unlike a pastor or elder, the church's say-so does not determine her office.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Quote:

From what I have read on EGW on being ordained, I am not convinced or believe that she was ordained biblically by laying on of hands by men. She indicated in 1909 that she had never been ordained. Yes, she was indeed ordained by God to do the work for Him, and was given a special work to do. She never exercised the special functions of an ordained minister, such as performing marriages, baptizing, and organizing local churches.

Denise is correct that EGW was never ordained, in a public ceremony, by males laying hands on her.

A review of the denominational records tells us that the "bretheren" considered that the evidence was clear that God had ordained her. Therefore, the beleived it would be anticlimatic, and disrespectful to God to indicate that humans had to validate what God had already demonstrated. Her credentials were issues in view of the belief that God had ordained her, and demonstrated such.

In the same way, pastors and elders are ordained by the laying on of hands BECAUSE it's already believed that there is evidence that the pastor or elder has been called by God to do their work. In that case, it is necessary for the church to show that it authorizes them to perform their responsibilities. The fact is that they didn't ordain Ellen White by the laying on of hands because the church was not calling her to her prophetic ministry. They recognized that God had already called her and that their ordination had nothing whatsoever to do with her position as a prophet. On the other hand, if Ellen White had been called to be a pastor or minister or elder in a local church-- that is, to serve in some official office-- then an ordination by the laying on of hands would have been considered necessary.

An important question to ask and answer is why Ellen White, as Denise pointed out, "never exercised the special functions of an ordained minister, such as performing marriages, baptizing, and organizing local churches."

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Quote:

Unlike pastors and bishops, prophets are appointed by God.

I would suggest to you that there any many Pastors who would disagree with this statement.

I'm talking about what the Bible teaches, not about how someone might feel.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

Well John317 ... to say that a Pastor today is not appointed by God is just ridiculous in my mind. And like I said ... I think that most Pastors would agree. If HE didn't appoint them then WHY did they go into the ministry? I do know of at least ONE Pastor who was clearly appointed by God. She would be the first to admit this.

I really don't find how you can make such statements.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

John ... this world-wide church has voted to not discriminate against women in the positions of the church. It has specifically voted to allow women pastors and elders world-wide.

I think we need to be sure exactly what the position of the General Conference is on this issue, because I have seen documentation that is contrary to the way you have stated it here. I understand the request by North American conferences to have women ordained to the ministry was twice defeated in General Conference. I understand the vote both times was something like 1200 against approval of the request to 400 for approval. Didn't the GC also reject a request to have different, local conferences make their own decisions whether women would be ordained as pastors and elders?

For instance, this from a Wikipedia article:

"The Seventh-day Adventist Church officially does not ordain women. Recent votes at the worldwide General Conference Sessions turned down a proposal to allow ordination of women. There was a strong polarization between nations, with Western countries generally voting in support and other countries generally voting against. A further proposal to allow local choice was also turned down. In practice, there are numerous women working as ministers and in leadership positions. The most influential co-founder of the church, Ellen G. White, was a woman."

Do you understand this to be an accurate description of where the church is on this question?

Of course it should go without saying that everyone is welcome to express his views on this issue as well as on any number of others. I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone not talk or express themselves. On the contrary I am hoping everyone will talk about it. Let's get more people involved in seriously studying the Bible on the issue and expressing what they believe the Bible is saying about it.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

This is REALLY getting OLD John317. You keep using the same old tactics. You ignore the evidence and then switch the subject. This is the first time in the past few weeks that you have mentioned anything about "ordination". I thought the topic was the vote of approval by the world-wide church on women being elders and Pastors. Now you switch to talking about them being ordained. You have done this so many times. It just brings confusion because you can't stick to one topic. As soon as the evidence comes ... you switch the topic.

Have you way ....

Confusion

[Robert]

1 Cor 11:3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Comment?

[John317]

... I thought the topic was the vote of approval by the world-wide church on women being elders and Pastors...

As far as I'm concerned the topic has been what the Bible teaches regarding women's role in the church, specifically whether the NT church had female elders, pastors and overseers. At least that is what I've been writing about on this thread.

When did the world wide church in General Conference approve women being elders and pastors?

Here, below, is part of an interview given by Dr. Samuel Koranteng-Pepim in 2000. Has the GC in session voted for women to be made elders since that time?

"The world church—the General Conference in session—has never voted for women [to be ordained as] elders. That decision was at an Annual Council meeting. Annual Council is when the Church leaders from the various divisions and Union presidents and Conference presidents meet to decide on some issues. At the Spring 1975 Annual Council (not the General Conference in session), church leaders (dominated by those from North America) voted to ordain women as local elders in the North American Division if 'the greatest discretion and caution' were exercised. Then again at the fall 1984 Annual Council's (not GC session) meeting, church leaders reaffirmed and expanded the 1975 decision. They voted to advise each division that it is free to make provisions as it may deem necessary for the election and ordination of women as local elders. Thus, the biblically questionable practice of ordaining women as elders started out in North America or areas where they want women elders, and then it was expanded to other regions.

It has never come to the General Conference Session. The highest authority of the Church is the GC in session. No General Conference session has ever voted for women elders. What came up at recent GC sessions were issues regarding women pastors. And the world church on two separate occasions said, ‘It is not biblical.' And generally, we all know that the Bible makes no distinction between an elder or a pastor. So they know that if they bring this women elder thing, it will not fly. The Church will not accept it."

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Taylor]

Again...it is the ordination issue coming up...not women as pastors. They ARE seperate issues.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted By: Taylor

No one is ignoring the Bible John. Some of us see a beautiful coheisive support for women in ministry not only in the Bible but there are even EGW quotes to back that up. But then again, one can have their own understanding and that is ok, provided your are following the Lord's leading fully in your life. But please don't assume that the church or members of the church are ignoring Biblical counsel. I think that is God's job to decide. I don't dislike you John, but just be careful of such blanket statements.

What was this in response to? I went to the post it was supposed to be responding to, but I don't see anywhere where I said the SDA church is ignoring the Bible.

Perhaps you misunderstood the following statement:

"It is interesting that nowhere in Paul's instructions in either 1 Cor. or 1 Timothy does Paul point to culture or the world's practices as the reason he says what he does. Instead he points to 'the law' and to the Bible, specifically stating that they are 'the commandments of the Lord' (1 Cor. 14: 37). Perhaps someone would like to discuss this point and show how it means the church today ought to ignore Paul's instructions in verses 33 and 34."

If so, I am not saying the SDA world church is presently ignoring the 33rd and 34th verses. But I am saying that if our church eventually teaches and practices contrary to Paul's instructions here, then it would be essentially saying that those verses can be ignored. In other words, we would then be saying that they don't apply to the modern church and that we don't need to follow those instructions.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

There are cultural issues to be considered. No Jesus never watered down truth but some things aren't salvation issues like women in ministry, women wearing head coverings, men having to grow beards, and many many other such things. That doesn't mean that the consel regarding those issues are being ignored today. It means we clearly understand the cultural relevance to those types of things. There were even ceremonial laws that had nothing to do with "Jesus as the messiah" which we do not follow today to the T either...and that doesn't mean we are ignoring them. It means we understand the principle of the matter.

[John317]

Again...it is the ordination issue coming up...not women as pastors. They ARE seperate issues.

If the GC in session believed that the Bible supports women as pastors and elders, etc., it would have no objection to ordaining them to those church offices. Don't you agree?

Has the GC in session voted for women to be made elders since the year 2000?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Beryl]

Quote:

No Jesus never watered down truth but some things aren't salvation issues like women in ministry, women wearing head coverings, men having to grow beards, and many many other such things. That doesn't mean that the consel regarding those issues are being ignored today.

So true! This is what I have been saying all along. These things were cultural things -- all spoken of by Paul in the same context -- and yet the only one that is being pulled out of here and held up as something that applies today is the one about women not being able to teach, or women being quiet in church. The same people agree that women no longer need to wear head coverings. Why? That is stated in the same context. And men having to have beards -- well, do they? Only to the same extent that women cannot teach. These things stand or fall together!

Beryl

[Taylor]

Originally Posted By: Taylor

Again...it is the ordination issue coming up...not women as pastors. They ARE seperate issues.

If the GC in session believed that the Bible supports women as pastors and elders, etc., it would have no objection to ordaining them to those church offices. Don't you agree?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

That would be nice if that were true, but unfortunately it isn't. Women pastors are supported, ordination is not. I am glad you can see that it is inconsistent becuase it is. But again, there is no need, in my opinion, for women or men to have a chip on their shoulder about this. In God's timing he will work it out and if not, the lack of ordination doesn't stop a woman from ministry as a pastor, any more than it stops a male from ministry as a pastor.

[Taylor]

Quote:

No Jesus never watered down truth but some things aren't salvation issues like women in ministry, women wearing head coverings, men having to grow beards, and many many other such things. That doesn't mean that the consel regarding those issues are being ignored today.

So true! This is what I have been saying all along. These things were cultural things -- all spoken of by Paul in the same context -- and yet the only one that is being pulled out of here and held up as something that applies today is the one about women not being able to teach, or women being quiet in church. The same people agree that women no longer need to wear head coverings. Why? That is stated in the same context. And men having to have beards -- well, do they? Only to the same extent that women cannot teach. These things stand or fall together!

Beryl

Exactly.

[Woody]

Quote:

Has the GC in session voted for women to be made elders since the year 2000?

The clear answer is YES.

Each year the GC session is held they reaffirm the Annual Council of 1975. Of course ... we could just discontinue the Annual Council. But no. It is the voice of the church. So, why should the issue come up? Again the answer is clear. The voice of the church through the Annual Councel has been clear and it is supported by the World-Wide church.

If not and they had an out of control Annual Council ... don't you think the GC in session would do something about this action of the approval of ordaining women elders and having women Pastors? Why allow women Pastors around the world for 32 years and ordaining elders world wide if it is NOT the will of the chruch? Just look at this evil growing. Why would the GC in session not stop it?

I for one an not going to elevate an extremist like Dr. Samuel Koranteng-Pepim to the position of a mouth piece for the church. Interesting that you would pick such an extremist that has been so outspoken against women. And has even written an entire book of his extremist views on the issue. I have the book and it is just a joke of anti-women views. It would take us back to the dark ages.

[John317]

...And men having to have beards -- well, do they?... Beryl

But where does it say, or signify, that men have to have beards?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

Quote:

1984, October: Annual Council.

Women elders’ ordination policy reaffirmed.

Annual Council reaffirms 1975 Spring Meeting decision that women may be ordained as local elders. Votes to "advise each division that it is free to make provisions as it may deem necessary for the election and ordination of women as local church elders." Thus the provision is extended from NAD to the world field.

[Woody]

Quote:

And the world church on two separate occasions said, ‘It is not biblical.'

Can you give the wording of the world body with this quote of yours? I've never heard this. In fact I have heard quite the opposite. What I heard was that it was cultural from both the GC in session and from our current President. I can provide the quote again if needed.

[John317]

Quote:

No Jesus never watered down truth but some things aren't salvation issues like women in ministry, women wearing head coverings, men having to grow beards, and many many other such things. That doesn't mean that the consel regarding those issues are being ignored today.

So true! This is what I have been saying all along. These things were cultural things -- all spoken of by Paul in the same context -- and yet the only one that is being pulled out of here and held up as something that applies today is the one about women not being able to teach, or women being quiet in church. The same people agree that women no longer need to wear head coverings. Why? That is stated in the same context. And men having to have beards -- well, do they? Only to the same extent that women cannot teach. These things stand or fall together!

Beryl

It's quite true that there are parts of I Cor. 11 which are cultural in nature. But there are also important parts that are permanent truths, such as verses 3, 7b-9.

The permanent truths are:

1) Christ is the head of every man (v. 3).

2) The head of a woman is her husband (v. 3).

3) The head of Christ is God [the Father] (v. 3).

4) The man is the image and glory of God (v. 7)

5) Woman is man's glory (v. 7).

6) Man was not created from woman but woman was created from man (v. 8).

7) Man was not created for the benefit of (or to be a helper of) woman but woman on account of and for the benefit of (or to be a helper of) man (v. 9).

The application of these principles is found in verses 4-7A and 10-15. Verses 5 & 10 say that the woman's wearing of "a covering on her head" shows reverence and submission to man's authority.

Do you agree with this analysis so far?

In verse 3, what is meant by "head"? Does it refer to "authority" or "source"?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Quote:

Has the GC in session voted for women to be made elders since the year 2000?

The clear answer is YES.

Each year the GC session is held they reaffirm the Annual Council of 1975.

What exactly was the decision of the AC in 1975 about this issue? And what has been the wording of the decisions by the GC in session on the AC of 1975?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

It has been shown here many times even on this thread. I am not sure why you ignore it when it is posted and then later act as if you never saw it. OH well. If you are interested ... I would encourge you to look it up. It is readily available.

[John317]

These two paragraphs were taken from the following site and were written by Ardis Stenbakken:

http://www.adventistwomenscenter.org/article.php?id=52

Quote:

We find character/qualification/job description in 1 Tim. 3:2-4:

Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect…..”

The New Revised Standard Edition states this verse in this way: “Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, and apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way….” That is probably a more accurate translation—married only once, rather than saying it has to be a man with a wife.

But does 1 Tim. 3: 2-7 indicate whether bishops or elders are to be men? At v. 2, the original language says, literally, that the overseer must be the husband of one wife. The word for husband may also be translated as "man," and "wife" may also be translated as "woman."

I like the NRSV, but it is a well-known fact that one of the purposes of the NRSV was to eliminate all gender-exclusive language. In other words, where the Greek has "brothers," the NRSV has "brothers and sisters," and where it has "men," the NRSV may have "people," etc. Therefore, at 1 Tim. 3: 2, it definitely means a man who has only one wife, and it does not mean either a man or a woman who has been married only once. The NRSV here gives us a paraphrase, not the literal rendering.

Here is the Robert Young's Literal translation:

"it behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be blameless, of one wife a husband..."

Darby's literal translation:

"The overseer then must be irreproachable, husband of one wife..."

New American Standard Bible:

"An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife..."

In addition, if you check out verses 4 through 7 in the NRSV, you will notice that it contains all masculine pronouns, as, for instance: "He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive... his own household, how can he... He must not be... or he may... Moreover he ... so that he ..."

I use the NRSV often and it is generally one of the most reliable translations, but when it comes to language referring to gender, it's best to return to the RSV or NASB or KJV to find out what the original Greek signifies. Here the RSV, like the NASB, reads, "the husband of one wife." Without question, that is the most accurate translation.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

I think that many will give you that since it seems important to you. Not sure what the point is. But I do believe in the Bible and find no fault with it saying that. It is quite understandable.

[John317]

Quote:

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?

Good questions John317. I don't honestly know. I doubt it. I really don't think the church was ready for it due to the cultural and political issues of the time. Remember ... EGW actually encouraged women even not to vote. It was not that voting was wrong. It was just that it was not the right time.

I don't think it was the right time for more women to be ordained. But she did make her own quiet statement. It was a start. And the church does not move quickly on many issues of this political and cultural significance.

In the context of Ellen White's credential, it's significant that Ellen White never did those things that are associated with pastoral ministry, such as baptizing, marrying couples, organizing churches, doing the work of an elder, etc. And no one ever called her Pastor or Elder White, nor did she ever think of her work in that way.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

I've heard that before I think. I will give you that she was seen as a prophet and probably didn't have time to pastor a church.