Flawed arguements for and against female ordination.

[Gregory Matthews]

Mueller, Ekkehardt. “Some Wrong and Right Reasons in the Women’s Ordination Debate,” in REFLECTIONS: The BRI Newsletter. # 43, July 2013.

In this article Dr. Mueller does not take a position as to whether or not women should be ordained. Rather, he lists eight (8) reasons promoted by those in favor that he considers to be deeply flawed. They he lists eight (8) reasons promoted by those against that he considers to be deeply flawed.

I will suggest that his comments are worthy of consideration. Whether accepted or rejected, they include arguments made on this forum.

[CoAspen]

Can you provide a link to article? Have searched the website but can't find.

[Naomi]

Gregory,

However, you are a brave man to comment on this topic in any manner

[Planey]

Try this

Graeme

[Gregory Matthews]

I have not been able to get a link that worked. If I can, I will post.

[CoAspen]

Planey has the link. Interesting reading, no disagreement. Flawed arguments just don't cut it...for either side.

[Tom Wetmore]

I think we have seen many of those flawed arguments used at one time or another here. Although, I think that there are a few of the flawed arguments he lists in favor that I haven't seen used here or elsewhere. Not sure that some are all that common.

[CoAspen]

My thoughts also.

[debbym]

found it, this is excellent.

[phkrause]

Interesting article, thanks for the link Planey

[Green Cochoa]

Here are some of the flawed arguments which I compiled before seeing the other list. I've heard many of them used. A few are similar to what the BRI article listed.

FLAWED ARGUMENTS

1. "So-and-so interprets it this way, so it must be true."
2. "People will laugh at us if we believe this."
3. "Society will think we are crazy if we continue in the old ways."
4. "The Bible was not written with our culture in mind."
5. "The Bible was only applicable to the culture of its day."
6. "There is no solid support for either side in the Bible."
7. "God changed the entire system in the New Testament order."
8. "Ordination is not part of 'Gospel Order.'"
9. "Truth is determined by popularity or by vote--or by committee."
10. "If a prophet did not address it or deny it, it must be true."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[olger]

Excellent list Cocha. I have encountered each of them at various times.

#6 is the default position of the ethically lazy.

[D.A. Wintsmith]

Here are a few more arguments which in my opinion are flawed, although some will consider them valid arguments.

11. The model of the church as it was at the beginning of the Christian movement in Paul's time is the only valid model for the church's organization today.

12. The model of the church as it was adjusted by fledgling Catholicism is the only valid model for the church's organization today.

13. What Jesus said or didn't say before there was an organized Christian religion is the only valid model for the church's organization today.

14. The status of women in Israel (which must not have been too visible since they were written out of most of the narratives including genealogy) is the only correct model for the roles of men and women in all time periods since then.

15. The fiasco at the Tree of K of G&E established the only valid model for male and female roles. The man and the women committed the same sin, but the woman sinned first which means that she was leading. Thus women are not qualified to lead and men are not qualified to follow.

[Green Cochoa]

Here are a few more arguments which in my opinion are flawed, although some will consider them valid arguments.

11. The model of the church as it was at the beginning of the Christian movement in Paul's time is the only valid model for the church's organization today.

12. The model of the church as it was adjusted by fledgling Catholicism is the only valid model for the church's organization today.

13. What Jesus said or didn't say before there was an organized Christian religion is the only valid model for the church's organization today.

14. The status of women in Israel (which must not have been too visible since they were written out of most of the narratives including genealogy) is the only correct model for the roles of men and women in all time periods since then.

15. The fiasco at the Tree of K of G&E established the only valid model for male and female roles. The man and the women committed the same sin, but the woman sinned first which means that she was leading. Thus women are not qualified to lead and men are not qualified to follow.

Interesting additions you would make there, D.A. You must be an even-keeled sort of guy. (Or should that be "even-handed?") In any case, it's the odd numbers there, namely 11, 13, and 15 which appear to undermine God's Word.

#11 undermines the authority of Paul's writings in a subdued sort-of way.

#13 casts shadows upon Jesus' own words.

#15 ignores God's own declarations following Adam's and Eve's fall.

At least, that is how those questions come across to my mind.

I don't believe we have a right to assume that what Paul, Jesus or God said should have some sort of human-opinion-determined "expiration date." If God chooses to make adjustments to His own plan for gospel order, I firmly believe we can count on Him to let us know of them. And we won't need to rely upon mere opinion or feeling or popular persuasion to determine His will. God likes clarity. If there is confusion, we are told God is not its author. So when confusion arises, we should know from whence it comes, should we not?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Tom Wetmore]

Green, since you raised the confusion idea, it has been my observation that within the context of the various perspectives both pro and con on this issue of women's roles in the church, women in pastoral ministry, and WO, there seems to be far less consistency and harmony of positions from those among the anti-WO/female pastors/ female elders/ women speaking in church/women teaching men/ women in leadership. That adds up to confusion to me. Of the many flawed arguments I have seen so far, it is from that same side of the fence that I most often hear these arguments.

Regarding the declarations of God about the fall, a couple simple questions draw out an important perspective. Were those statements descriptive or proscriptive? Was the promise given by God at the end to be taken as changing those consequences of sin, or in other words, did the promised redeemer fix anything? Was the curse of sin as described by God, not overcome by Jesus?

Remember that God also declared that their sin would result in death. If you believe Him to be uttering a proscription, shouldn't we embrace death as God's will, His ideal, for us and conduct ourselves to facilitate death rather than prolong life? Would not any life saving efforts, or even healthful living, be contrary to His will as proscriptively declared in the curse of sin?

But part of the inconsistent confusion on the anti-WO perspective on the curse, as with many other arguments, is the selectivity that simply overlooks/avoids inconvenient truths to the contrary. What is avoided/overlooked is that God had much more to say than the point of the subjugation of women by men pronounced in the curse. He also said men would have earn their bread by the sweat of their brow and deal with thorns and weeds. Men who don't do so and earn their living by other "easier" work and farmers using herbicides would be violating the terms of God's pronouncement just as surely as those of us who see women as our equals. And then there is the pain of childbirth declaration. If that is an expression of God's post sin ideal or will, using any means to ease that pain should be forbidden, don't you think?

[Green Cochoa]

Green, since you raised the confusion idea, it has been my observation that within the context of the various perspectives both pro and con on this issue of women's roles in the church, women in pastoral ministry, and WO, there seems to be far less consistency and harmony of positions from those among the anti-WO/female pastors/ female elders/ women speaking in church/women teaching men/ women in leadership. That adds up to confusion to me. Of the many flawed arguments I drifted so far, it from that same side of the fence that I most often hear these arguments.

Regarding the declarations of God about the fall, a couple simple questions draw out an important perspective. Were those statements descriptive or proscriptive? Was the promise given by God at the end to be taken as changing those consequences of sin, or in other words, did the promised redeemer fix anything? Was the curse of sin as described by God, not overcome by Jesus?

[olger]

Mmm-hmmmm.

[Tom Wetmore]

Do you not see the irony of quoting EGW as authoritative to support women keeping silent in church, not having authority over or teaching men?!?! Do you realize she was a woman that did all of those things? And don't give me the nonsense that she was different because she was a prophet. Paul never made that distinction. She was still a woman that spoke in church, taught men and still does long after her death. According to the White Estate she preached more than 10,000 sermons during her life! And her words are still authoritative over men.

Have you read all the statements she makes about women in ministry? And do you realize that the very Scripture you quote was used against her and the significant number of women ministers of the early Adventist Church to keep them out of the pulpit? Didn't work. The leadership addressed it and refuted it and allowed her and other women to preach. And during her lifetime there was a higher percentage of ministers that were women than there are now! And in that regard do you know that EGW said there should have been 20 women were there was only one? And she said if there were 20 times the women working in the gospel ministry that the results would be amazing!

Quote:

If the curse had been merely "descriptive," how would God have permitted its enforcement and continuance in His church? Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Paul was writing only for his culture and for his day--would not Mrs. White have given us an update? a new order of things? Would not God desire for His church to be free of this "curse" if it were merely descriptive?

Yes, I do believe that God does want us to get past and be free of the curse of sin. Do you seek to live up to the level of the curse, in all its aspects and details? Or do you seek to live up to the level of the promise? I do not believe the curse is proscriptive of God's desire or ideal. That is as EGW described it as how God created Adam and Eve as equals. Christ died to restore that ideal, not to perpetuate the curse of sin forever.

[Green Cochoa]

Tom,

Part of the curse was that men would have to work for food. Do you believe men should not have to work? The U.S. is becoming a welfare state more and more all the time. Evidently the government is working against the curse. But the Bible says if you do not work you should not eat.

You see, you and I look at the curses differently. I see them as blessings. God can never speak anything but what it doesn't work for good. God can never truly do evil. Even when God punishes the wicked, the result is good. The blessings (or "curses" as they are called) are for our own good and happiness. Yes, happiness.

We would not, in our sinful state, be truly happy if we did not need to keep occupied with work. I do not know exactly what the pain in childbirth accomplishes, but perhaps it helps to check the tide of evil in some way. God knows what wisdom He had in mind far, far better than any of us.

The distinction in roles between men and women was also given to preserve harmony. This, then, is clearly for our benefit. How can we presume to say otherwise?

I think understanding the curses is a matter of trusting God. A wise parent will discipline his children. The discipline is not for their hurt, but for their instruction and benefit--albeit at the time, no one enjoys being disciplined. The same is true with God. He disciplines us for our benefit--because we need it.

I believe we still need the curses today, because we are still sinners today. When we become perfect, then the curse can be banished forever.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Tom Wetmore]

Since we will not likely ever see eye to eye on this, this is something we will simply have to agree to disagree about. I have thought about and read extensively on these issues. I do believe that any effort to use reason or logic or any recognized authoritative source will simply be ignored or minimized. I really do not see any point in continuing to engage in this talking past one another. I do not sense any real serious effort to comprehend what I have been talking about. And nothing you have said presents anything that we have not heard many times before already. I have not been persuaded by their endless repetition before, so reading them again is not likely to change my mind, or anyone else's for that matter.

[CoAspen]

TW, perhaps you need to give a short course on comprehension........or at the least responses to asked reasoning/questions....

[M. T. Cross]

Tom,

Part of the curse was that men would have to work for food. Do you believe men should not have to work? The U.S. is becoming a welfare state more and more all the time. Evidently the government is working against the curse. But the Bible says if you do not work you should not eat.

You see, you and I look at the curses differently. I see them as blessings. God can never speak anything but what it doesn't work for good. God can never truly do evil. Even when God punishes the wicked, the result is good. The blessings (or "curses" as they are called) are for our own good and happiness. Yes, happiness.

We would not, in our sinful state, be truly happy if we did not need to keep occupied with work. I do not know exactly what the pain in childbirth accomplishes, but perhaps it helps to check the tide of evil in some way. God knows what wisdom He had in mind far, far better than any of us.

The distinction in roles between men and women was also given to preserve harmony. This, then, is clearly for our benefit. How can we presume to say otherwise?

I think understanding the curses is a matter of trusting God. A wise parent will discipline his children. The discipline is not for their hurt, but for their instruction and benefit--albeit at the time, no one enjoys being disciplined. The same is true with God. He disciplines us for our benefit--because we need it.

I believe we still need the curses today, because we are still sinners today. When we become perfect, then the curse can be banished forever.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That is one of the most Chiroptera Guano crazy things I think I have ever read.

[Planey]

Lucky I don't speak Latin...

Graeme

[Johann]

That is one of the most Chiroptera Guano crazy things I think I have ever read.

How would you react if you found yourself caught in your own net?

[Johann]

Tom,

. . . I do not know exactly what the pain in childbirth accomplishes, but perhaps it helps to check the tide of evil in some way.

Cathy, a young child physician, gave her first public lecture touching on that subject back in 1924, which is still sending shock waves around.

The mother's pain is not limited to childbirth. Even today every third day a husband kills his wife in a Roman Catholic area, according to official news I heard on TV a couple of days ago.

This needs further investigation.