Womens ordination

[Stan]

RE womens ordination

I was in ABC work for 20 years. I always carried both positions on this and had them side by side.

As I read the ones against WO it became clear they took the biblical position on this.

As I read the ones for WO it became clear they took the biblical position on this.

God is going to have to send his Church a Prophet with a clear message. Until then, if there is a change to be made, the GC Session in Session is as close as we get to a Prophet.

Just my Opinion

[bevin]

Several years ago at New England Camp Meeting one of the speakers said "every doctrine of the church can be found to have its origins in the Garden of Eden" and asked the audience to call out instances of doctrines and he would show this to be the case.

I contributed "women can not be ordained pastors".

He said "well, that is not really a doctrine, but the Garden of Eden clearly shows men and women are equal".

The status-quo is not a valid reason for a rule. If the SDA church can not provide a convincing reason for the rule, it should stop imposing the rule.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

I saw an interesting discussion on this issue that basically broke it down to a debate between literalism and its alternatives. Strict Biblical literalism tends to lead to a position against the ordination of women. So in some ways debating WO is beside the point, the discussion needs to go a level deeper if it's to be productive. Mind you, we've seen illustrated here how productive, or otherwise, literalism discussions can be.

Sadly, I suspect it will be a matter of politics rather than doctrine for the foreseeable future, with a flood of new delegates from more conservative developing countries in the southern hemisphere changing the concerns and voting patterns of the GC.

[Gregory Matthews]

I have stated this before: My position is that EGW was an ordained minister of the SDA Chruch.

I can substantiate historically.

However, the historical facts are subject to intrepretation, and there may be some validity in the positions of those who disagree with me. But, I have rejected their arguements.

The historical facts show the following:

1) Over a period of several years, EGW was issued the credentials of an ordained minister, and issued those credenetials several times.

2) Those who say that the phrase "ordained minister" in those credentials were crossed out fail to provide any historiacl documentation that EGW crossed it our. Further, that happened on only one known certificate of ordination that was granted her. The EGW Estate has two such in its files, and in the second certificate the phrase is not crossed out.

3) EGW was not ordained in a public ceremony. The published reasons for not doing so were related to the fact that the "bretheren" felt that God had publicly demonstrated His callling of EGW.

4) For a number of years, EGW was listed in church records as an ordained SDA minister.

Folks, the above can all be demonstrated historically. As to the intrepretation of the above, that is for all to decide.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Stan,

Just have a minute, women should not be ordaned as minsters. Ministers have a big reponsiblity and as you know have more to do than just preach. (Sometime when this questions is asked, people think you're asking should women preach?)

There comes a time when a minister must be with people one a one to one basis and having a woman do that with a man can be a problem. We men are funny creatures and sometimes perceive caring and nurturing in the wrong way.

Also some women do not like to be told what to do by other women. Sorry ladies, but they can be very vindictive at times, worse then men.

Woman was made for the glory of man and man was made for the glory of Christ. Christ is the head of the church as man is the head of the wife. This should not be reversed as it could cause confusion.

Being a messenger of the Lord or Prophetess is not the same as being a minister. These are twwo different offices and have two separate funtions with one common goal.

When the Bible says there is neither greek nnor jew, bond nor free male nor female, that is referring to salvation that we are all on equal ground. Other wise what would be the point in having different gifts of the Spirit?

That's all for now I must run.

In Christ,

Norman

[Ron Lambert]

But Norman, does the Holy Spirit limit the spiritual gifts of ministry only to men? The church is obligated to acknowledge God's manifest calling to anyone, male or female, to any role the Holy Spirit chooses. This is what ordination is supposed to reflect--that the church witnesses that God has given evidence that this person has been called to this role and equipped with these necessary spiritual gifts. To refuse for the sake of long standing traditions, false theories about how to apply certain Bible texts that were written to apply to specific cultural situations now past, or for any other reason, is rebellion against the authority of God.

But how can anyone even consider whether there is evidence a woman has been called by God and equipped by God to perform the work of ministry, if we will not even consider the possibility?

I do not believe that it is logical to limit Galatians 3:28 to salvation only. Salvation is everything. It is life. You cannot exclude any part of life from life. We are condemned by God if we are "respecters of persons," esteeeming some more than others merely because of gender, race, or socio-economic class.

We use Galatians 3:28 to justify the end of slavary, and to forbid being respecters of persons in the social life of the church. So how can we say this text does not warrant the end of discrimination against women?

I maintain that since Galatians 3:28 is a clear and explicit, general theological formulation, it must trump all other so-called proof texts that are commonly cited by those trying to defend the human tradition of discriminating against women. And make no mistake, all pretense at Biblical argument aside, there is only ONE reason for refusing ordination of women, and that is a desire to defend human tradition.

Those who pretend that certain Bible passages warrant denying ordination to women, are inconsistent, because the same passages that say women should not teach, and should not be leaders, also say women should be quiet in church and cover their heads. This is usually ignored.

Paul obviously was speaking to the situation common in Jewish synagogues in his time, where women were relegated to a separate section, kept away behind a lattice or other barrier. But this practice was never authorized by God. The practice evidently did not begin until the Babylonian captivity, as if this may have been a custom learned in Babylon. So when Paul refers to a rabbinical reasoning for women not being allowed to teach, he cites the argument that Eve was deceived, but Adam wasn't--which actually sounds like a good reason why women SHOULD be preferred over men. Would you hire someone who committed a crime because they were deceived, or someone who knowingly and deliberately committed a crime? Which one is likely to be the more dangerous?

But again, to me the bottom line is Galatians 3:28:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

[aldona]

I am reminded of something I read in one of Tony Campolo's books. When he was asked by a member of his church "So, what are your views on the ordination of women to the gospel ministry?"

...his answer was, "I believe we are ALL ordained to the gospel ministry. Men, women and children!"

aldona

[Ron Lambert]

Good thinking, Aldona. And even going further, notice these texts:

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light." (1 Peter 2:9)

"And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." (Revelation 1:6)

Both these passages speak of the entire church, women included. They say that all church members are made by God to be kings and priests, a royal priesthood. So if by these plain declarations God has made women to be kings and priests, then why are they unworthy to be ordained if the Lord gives evidence that they are called to minister?

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hey Ron, thanks for the reply. You've made some good points. You didn't address the points I made as being false. Well, just that you didn't agree with my thoughts on Gal 3:28. When read in context Gal 3:28 is specifically referring to everyone being spiritually equal when it comes to salvation.

The context there is: Paul is telling them that they don't have to keep the law as a means of salvation. He then tells them that those who are baptized have put on Christ. Which means they (male, female, Greek, Jew, bond or free) are all one in Christ (Abrahams seed) and that salvation is no longer for the Jews only (who were trying to get them to be circumcised) and the keeping of their laws. No, now it is available to all and all are equal in that circumcision gives you no advantage when it comes to receiving the promise or salvation. He is most certainly not saying that all is open to anyone. It's just not there. Read the book, not just the verse. It's as plain as day.

I don't believe it is a human tradtion either. Why? Is it still a shame for a man to have long hair? For the world no but for God's distinct and peculiar people yes.

The feminist have changed the way God has set the pattern.

Ron, think about what you said,

Quote:

---

So when Paul refers to a rabbinical reasoning for women not being allowed to teach, he cites the argument that Eve was deceived, but Adam wasn't--which actually sounds like a good reason why women SHOULD be preferred over men. Would you hire someone who committed a crime because they were deceived, or someone who knowingly and deliberately committed a crime? Which one is likely to be the more dangerous?

---

Don't you know that we all inherited our first parents traits? Women are hurt everyday because they are deceived by men. This does not happen so much the other way around. Men are head strong and will walk straight ahead into sin knowing it with both eyes opened.

What does that have to do with not ordaining women? Good ministers must be emotionally strong and a lot of women due to their nature and the change of life would not be well suited to this type ministry. This is just fact that has to be considered here. We are talking about people's (the flock) eternal life.

If they can believe things that are not true in the natural world how can they then be sure about things in the spiritual world?

And why would you want to change the order that Christ is the head and the church is the body to the other way around?

Marriage is an example of how Christ is the head and gives all to all. The church does not give to Christ in this sense. That is so plain to see as well. This is not a man's tradition because if it were, Jesus would have ordained Mary if He wanted women to be guides of men. But he said nothing about this.

1 Peter 3:5 "For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement."

How can Peter say this under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and then we come along and say make women pastors? If a woman understands these verses, they will not choose to be a pastor.

Paul states.

1 Timothy 2:9 "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." (If a woman understands these verses, they will not choose to be a pastor.)

Immediately after that in chapter 3 (remember there were no chapters when this was written) he goes on to discribe the offices of elders and deacons as males having one wife. There is no mention of females in leadership position. There is no scriptural basis for it, only human reasoning.

Ron, to me it is clear and if you see it differently, that's where you are in your walk. There's nothing that will change my mind on this subject, it is just too clear.

In speaking of wisdom hear the words of Solomon: Ecclisiates 7:27 "Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account: 28Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found."

Why put someone into leadership like this? Find a wise man and let him be a pastor. There are other verses that I can share but this is enough for me, for this subject. It can go on and on and I don't want to do that my friend.

PS

Again read the whole book: 1 Peter 2 9 & 10 in context, he is talking to men, the head. Then in chapter 3 he addresses women and only in that place are they addressed. Men and women are one and the one addressed is always the man who passes on the info to their wives. Read the 1st 2 chapters and the chapters after he addresses the women and you will clearly see that he is talking to men except possibly Chapter 1:10. Men are continually being referred to. It's right there you can't miss it.

God bless,

In Christ,

Norman

[darlene]

Personally, I don't really care about women's ordination. I suppose I am in a position which could involve ordiantion but, I have no wish to be one or the other. My position is that I will do what God asks me to do. I don't need man to put their stamp of approval on what God asks me to do.

[lazarus]

I think the church is now in a very foolish position as regards womens ordination. All of my female colleagues can baptise, marry, perform burials, ordain elders and deacons. The only things that they cannot do is ordain pastors and organize churches. This is generally done by conference officials in any case!

We are making the whole notion of ordination irrelevant because so many women pastors perform the functions of ordained ministers. Ordination is really a recognition of Gods calling. By allowing these women to perform all these functions we are recognising their calling!

The controversy is really about power. If it were about God's will those who oppose womens ordination would see the

meaningless of their efforts.

The horse has bolted!

In fact God has moved on!

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

the GC Session in Session is as close as we get to a Prophet.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

<img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

[Dr. Shane]

I think a big issue, and Brother Matthews should know more, is that when an Adventist minister is ordained he can baptize, perform weddings, funerals etc. in any conference in any division. Women pastors that are not ordained are limited to the conference and sometimes the congregation where they are working.

I have no issue with women's ordination. I think women should be ordained. There are some very powerful female pastors in other denominations that do a great job. However I think what our denomination needs most is family and marriage counselors. I think we have far too few.

[lazarus]

Are we saying that anything and everything that comes from the GC is as if God is speaking to us? hmmmm!

[lazarus]

Shane said:

Quote:

---

Women pastors that are not ordained are limited to the conference and sometimes the congregation where they are working.

---

That is true but it does not really affect their ability to pastor. If you are going to be called to another conference it will be to a conference that accepts women in pastoral ministry. A conference that does not accept the ministry of women in that way will not call you.

Women who feel the call to ministry will generally move to where they can minister. The fact that I can minister anywhere in te world is really only a minor advantage.

[Dr. Shane]

We belong to a "WE" organization - not an "I" organization. God speaks through "US" as a church - not through "ME" as a church. Part of humility is accepting decisions made by the church that we may disagree with. We submit to the church, even though we may not entirely agree with it in every tiny doctrine. That concept of humility is lost on many because of pride. There is a reason why pride is the first of the seven deadly sins.

Not my way but our way. Only that attitude will enable one to work with others they may not agree with on every doctrine.

[lazarus]

I don't disagree with what u said Shane but my question still remains.

Are we saying that anything and everything that comes from the GC is as if God is speaking to us?

[Dr. Shane]

I think we claim that GC's voice is the closest to God's on this Earth. I do not believe we claim it is equal to God's voice.

That said, if the GC fundamentally departs from the Bible (i.e. abandons the Sabbath or righteousness by faith) we ought to abandon the church just as Luther did.

[CyberGuy]

Quote:

---

Sadly, I suspect it will be a matter of politics rather than doctrine for the foreseeable future, with a flood of new delegates from more conservative developing countries in the southern hemisphere changing the concerns and voting patterns of the GC.

---

The fastest growing segment of the church is in South American and Africa. Sadly it is the area where women are second class citizens as well. This view of women in those countries also gets into the view of the view of the local church and this comes to the GC session where they outvote the rest of the church.

Now the power struggle begins. The North American division gives 80 percent of the tithes and offerings of the church yet it has only about six percent of the world church membership. Many NAD members are voting with their pocketbooks. Sending money only to specific projects rather than to the general fund now. They do not like where the world church is dictating how their money is to be spent.

[lazarus]

CyberGuy said:

Quote:

---

They do not like where the world church is dictating how their money is to be spent.

---

Borrowing Shane's point, "its not their money, its our money"

[bevin]

Quote:

---

The fastest growing segment of the church is in South American and Africa

---

Yes - the SDA church (and some others also) grows fastest in a climate of poor education and inordinate respect for men and authority...

Sad, isn't it.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Post deleted by Bravus with Shane's agreement

[Stan]

When is said GC, it meant the GC in session, not the General Conference Building..

[Stan]

I really have to bite my tongue on this one...

[Amelia]

Lets all be civil and watch our tongues please.