Womens ordination

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

we ought to abandon the church just as Luther did.

---

Jesus did not abandon the church (the chosen) organization until Steven was publicly stoned to death by the recognized leadership of the church, ie: the person giving the Word to an erring leadership was stoned to death. I find no evidence of that occurring in the leadership of the Seventh Day Adventist church at this time. Nor is there any written evidence of that occurring in the future of the Laodician church of which I am aware.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Norman said:

there is neither geek nor jew (misquote LHC)

In Christ,

Norman

---

Maybe in the present day North American society, the counsel above would have been more appropriate.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Norman said:

There's nothing that will change my mind on this subject

---

According to the statement above, these thoughts may be talking to a stone, but taking the advice found in 1 Cor 13,

[:"red"] "Love...is ever ready to believe the best of every person.." [/] AMP, I would like to suggest some wiggleroom in your very plausible logic, Norm. And this might be more thoroughly brought out in another thread.

It has long been a source of contention among some Christian

believers, to define from the male gender, the duties for the female. As also, with good reason perhaps, the female of the species being tired of authoritarian attitudes of the male chauvinists, make effort to take their rightful place in the body of Christ according to the Lord's prayer, ie: [:"red"] "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" [/], concluding they have the right to make their own minds up about what God means when He's speaking expressly to the women.

We know that when man was created there was an equality of authority because of the purity of heart, that allowed both man and woman to share equal benefits and responsibility, without hindrance of misguided efforts or thoughts. It seems implausible to believe that condition will not be restored upon re-entrance to the kingdom of heaven, especially since male and female among humans will no longer exist after our change. And if that be true it would seem that the ideal on this earth at present is voiced as in the Lord's prayer quoted above.

However, that condition may never come to pass to any large extent, before our change [:"blue"] (1 Cor 15:51,52) [/], for the most part because of the pride of sinful man and his desire to be uppermost, although some are only needing to be convinced that God is just as able to create new creatures today as He was in the first days of the creation of Adam and Eve.

[:"red"] "You must display a new nature because you are a new person, created in God's likeness--righteous, holy, and true." [/] Eph 4:24 NLT

[:"red"] " Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." [/] 2 Cor 5:17 NKJV

[:"red"] " There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female. For you are all Christians--you are one in Christ Jesus. " [/] Gal 3:28 NLT

Jesus often rewards according to our potential, as opposed to what we are, the best example given being King Saul. Sad to say many miss their potential as a result of not emulating their Savior and thus dooming themselves per Galations 6:7 KJV [:"red"] "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." [/]

Go in peace!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

darlene said:

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.

---

I'm of the same opinion because of the Word,

[:"red"] "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

" [/] Romans 2:29 KJV

OTOH, I get a definate impression your answer has a lot of attitude in it and it's doubtful God will put you in a position where the temptation that responds to attitude would be allowed to harm others to any great extent, something that has kept me from being more dangrous than I am..

[:"red"] "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. " [/] 1 Corinthians 10:13 NASB

Keep the faith!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

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

---

It depends upon how you look at it. Jesus came to deliver the disenfranchised to a higher level of potential. Do you think those coming into the church from voodooism and spiritualism, who have denigrated women under the auspices

of the prince of darkness for centuries, are better off staying in their past experience of hopelessness. Or is it better for them to enter a body of believers who are at least making effort to rise above their carnal nature, despite their obvious lack of spiritual maturity.

At least those who have stayed within the confines of the body of believers have not cut their avenues of endeavor off because of dissatisfaction, having stayed the course within the laws of decency and order, to give their God-given gifts time to affect mending, instead of standing on the outside cutting and slashing at will.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Stan Jensen said:

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

---

Perhaps you've set a better example for me, Stan.

Keep the faith!

is the answer!

[Gregory Matthews]

Post deleted by Bravus

[Dr. Shane]

Post deleted by Shane

[Dr. Shane]

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

bevin said:

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

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

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

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

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

It seems like what is being said here is that those in Africa and South America are poorly educated. This is a common racial sterotype that many blacks and hispanics must deal with on a regular basis. Many Americans tend to believe that hispanics and blacks from Africa or the Carrebien are either stupid or (if educated in their native countries) poorly educated.

This simply isn't true. America has some of the best univeristies in the world but one doesn't need to come to America to get a good education. And it has nothing to do with why our African and Hispanic brothers and sisters do not agree with us on women's ordination.

I hope we will not promote such negetive sterotypes of those of other races and cultures.

[darlene]

LifeHiscost. My intention for saying "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," was not intended to have 'attitude' in it. I just don't see a need for ordination. Yes, it is intended to be an indication that one is called of God but, can't people tell that by our lifestyle? God calls some people to be plumbers or carpenters. Do they need to be ordained so people know God called them to be plumbers or carpenters?

[bevin]

Quote:

---

It seems like what is being said here is that those in Africa and South America are poorly educated. This is a common racial sterotype that many blacks and hispanics must deal with on a regular basis.

---

In all parts of the world, and amongst all cultures, there is a wide range of education and intelligence. However we are talking about the growth of a denomination in a society, not about specific individuals.

Jared Diamond, in his wonderful "Guns, Germs, and Steel", sums the issue up nicely in the beginning of the prologue, where he describes a conversation with a 1972 New Guinea politician as they walked together on a dirt road in that country.

Jared writes

Quote:

---

He and I knew perfectly well that the New Guineans are on the average at least as smart as Europeans. ... He asked me "Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo (material wealth - Bevin) and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?"

---

African's themselves understand and are addressing the educational problems on that continent...

http://www.aau.org/

http://213.225.140.43/english/report/introduction.html

Part 2: 1 Overview: The Case for Action

Quote:

---

We argued in Part 1 that African poverty and stagnation is the greatest tragedy of our time. The continent has lost much of the past three decades, as conflict, corruption, and economic stagnation have replaced the hope, idealism and economic progress of the immediate post-colonial period. Poverty is rising, life expectancy is falling and millions of children still do not attend school.

---

Expenditure on education as a % of GDP is shown here, and remember that some of the GDP's/person in South America and Africa are low compared to the USA etc...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_pub_spe_per_stu_pri_lev

It is not negative stereotyping to use true statistics. It only becomes stereotyping when one fails to recognise the diversity around the average.

The original issue is real. Why is the SDA church (and other denominations) so growing so rapidly in such societies compared to in more affluent and educated ones?

After all, the basic issues for people - the need for social and spiritual life - are the same...

Education and culture is certainly a possible reason why NAD/NZ/Australia/Europe has such a different view of the women's ordination issue than much of the rest of the world. It could also be the reason why the creationism issue is specific to some areas of the SDA church.

/Bevin

[Ron Lambert]

Why do we wish to believe that the General Conference in Session speaks with the voice of God? Has the example of the Papacy taught us nothing about the results of indulging such hubris in the church?

The General Conference in Session makes its decisions by majority vote--and that is often orchestrated and manipulated by those officials in charge of the agenda. Since when did majority rule ever consistently result in righteous judgments on this earth? Are the majority righteous, even in the church?

Had it not been for the official voice of the General Conference in Session in 1888, we would be in heaven now. Vox populi VEX Dei!

[Dr. Shane]

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

It is not negative stereotyping to use true statistics. It only becomes stereotyping when one fails to recognise the diversity around the average.

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

Using this reasoning, Bill Bennet was right to say if we aborted all black babies the crime rate would fall. While what he said may be true, it was wrong of him to say it because it reinforces a racial sterotype.

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

The original issue is real. Why is the SDA church (and other denominations) so growing so rapidly in such societies compared to in more affluent and educated ones?

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

Adventists in these cultures, on average, spend much more time reading the Bible and studying it with others than those of us in western culture. Our African and Latin brothers and sisters are much more educated in the Word than many of us are.

The prevailing belief is that the poor feel their need for Christ more than the rich do. That is why the gospel is accepted more in areas that are poor. We find this is true even in developed nations. The poor tend to be more religious.

Many of the problems in third world countries are due to corruption and economic policy (the two are related). Many nations, including the US, have prospered during time of war. They have acceptable schools but corruption and economic policy prevent access to them by everyone.

In my opinion the reason Latins and Africans do not favor women's ordination is not becuase they are uneducated. In spiritual matters, most of them know more than most of us. I believe it is the same reason so many of them drink coffee. It is culture. Women's rights have not progressed as much in these areas. Very much like many westerners that justify going to "PG" and "R" rated movies, they are influenced by their culture. That doesn't make them stupid or uneducated. It simply makes them influenced more by their culture than the Word of God.

[Dr. Shane]

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

The General Conference in Session makes its decisions by majority vote--and that is often orchestrated and manipulated by those officials in charge of the agenda.

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

From what I have heard, the vote is not orchestrated or manipulated by officials in charge of the agenda. It is controlled by "block" voting. That means the representatives from a given area (Aftrica, eastern Europe, etc.) all vote the same as a "block". From what I understand, this is done because the divisions with the most members tend to have the fewest dollars so it is the only way they can have a voice. And they do have a voice.

We do not have a direct line to God. So our individual churches elect representatives, and then our conferences, unions and divisions until we have a group of representatives from each division in the world. We believe that God guiedes this process. Issues are brought before these elected representatives in the GC Session. Their voice is the closest to God's that we have in this world. It is not equal as the pope claims his voice is. It is the closest.

[lazarus]

Shane said:

Quote:

---

In my opinion the reason Latins and Africans do not favor women's ordination is not becuase they are uneducated. In spiritual matters, most of them know more than most of us. I believe it is the same reason so many of them drink coffee. It is culture. Women's rights have not progressed as much in these areas. Very much like many westerners that justify going to "PG" and "R" rated movies, they are influenced by their culture. That doesn't make them stupid or uneducated. It simply makes them influenced more by their culture than the Word of God.

---

Thas a tru word right there!

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

---

Norman said:

Immediately after that in chapter 3...he goes on to describe 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.

...There's nothing that will change my mind on this subject, it is just too clear....

---

At the risk of an exercise in futility, given your adamant declaration of having closed your mind to anything further on the matter, please allow me to shine some light on the topic and thus render the perceived clarity as though seeing through a glass, darkly...

As a matter of Greek syntax, I think the literal Greek idiomatic phrase upon which you rely from chapter 3, "one woman man", most clearly expresses the rule of monogamy that obviously cuts both ways since I seriously doubt that Paul would have considered polyandry as permissible for deacons or elders either. BUT since he apparently doesn't expressly say that, at least as translated into English, maybe it's OK...

But more importantly, I am compelled to correct the common error you expressed and which I have highlighted. Following the logic of the notion that Paul was not speaking of females totally ignores the reality of Greek syntax and grammar, as well as that of English and many other languages, that the expression in masculine form is inclusive of both genders, if not gender neutral, and that if expressed in the feminine form it is expressive of women to the exclusion of men. Otherwise, in order to be consistent, the numerous NT references to salvation for man would have to be understood to exclude women from being saved.

And finally, if you seek primarily to stake the exclusion of women from leadership on that one misunderstood phrase in chapter 3, indeed you might justifiably conclude that there is "no mention of females in leadership". But that would require you to totally ignore a whole lot of other very convincing evidence that is quite to the contrary in the NT, even directly from the pen of Paul himself. Do you know that he specifically refers to women elders in one of his letters? That he entrusted his most important letter to the care and delivery (which as a practical matter would have included reading it aloud to the assembly to which it was addressed) to a female minister and leader over others of the NT church who should be listened to and obeyed? That Paul also praises several other female co-laborers (understand that a woman would have been a leader to some degree to even bear mention especially ahead of her own husband, as Paul specifically does...) in his gospel ministry including one which he regards as an outstanding apostle? That Luke specifically mentions a female disciple by name? That Jesus himself specifically and plainly affirmed a woman that bravely took the posture of a disciple by sitting at his feet to learn? (Rabbinical wisdom would have forbade that, saying it better to burn the Torah than to teach it to a woman.) If none of these are familiar, then I would suggest you start carefully studying the NT.

But you did say that there is nothing that will change your mind on this subject...

Tom

[Tom Wetmore]

Was that a conversation stopper or what!!!!

[Gregory Matthews]

Tom, no one would want to stop a conversation with you.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Tom, I just got to look at your post. Please don't take this wrong, I'm just being blunt and to the point

First, out of all that you have written on 1 Timothy 3, I could take a ten your old and show him the verses in that chapter and he'd know that it is talking about men in leadership.

Second, when I said that chapter 3 doesn't talk about women in leadership I was talking about that chapter only. The leadership I was referring to, was the leadership Paul is talking about. My overall point was: not to have women as ministers/pastors and this chapter talks about men in leadership not women. I didn't mean that they should not have leadership positions at all. After reading my post could you not see that? I made it clear by stating (If a women understands these verses they will not choose to be a pastor)

Third, When I was talking about the "MAN" being men I was responding to someone's quoting of 1 Peter 2:9. They were saying that this is including women and I said no this is talking about men the head. Meaning the represetative of the two but that it was specifically talking about men. Men are the priests of the family not women. (5000 men were fed not counting women and children.) In 1 Peter he does the same thing as Paul, he starts to address the women in chapter 3. I am aware that man means mankind in many cases but I don't see it being so when gender is identified.

So now you can understand that if you tell me that Paul had a woman deliver a message for him, that is not the topic of my post and doesn't address my comments.

Tom, I want to be honest with you. Here's what I mean and am trying to get everyone to understand. I have seen this model in families and it works well. It works because it's God's way for the family. Just as described in Ephesians 5.

It is however, up to us men to love our wives as Christ loves the church and then we will see change and then our wives will find it an honor to be in subjection to us. Then we can be the true priests of the family. There can't be two heads getting different messages from God. That won't work. I see it as a departure of that model if women are pastors. Then there are a host of biblical reasons and verses besides that as well. And what of the women who have no husband? Christ is her husband and her head.

I know that some of things I've wrote sound like I hate women and treat them like second class people. But that's far from the truth. I believe in the order of things that God has set. I'm only talking about dedicated Spirit lead Christians. As for the world they can do as they please.

There is a lot in this world that tries to change that model and as time goes, I'm telling you the truth, God's order of things will be joyfully followed by His people. Time will tell.

Sincerely,

In Christ,

Norman

[Tom Wetmore]

Norman,

You are not even considering the whole of what I said, just as you are ignoring the whole of what Paul said and the rest of what the NT says.

Quote:

---

...I could take a ten your old and show him the verses in that chapter and he'd know that it is talking about men in leadership.

---

I am not ten years old and neither are you. When we were children we spoke and thought as children, but now we are adults and hopefully our reasoning, logic and understanding of Scripture has matured to grasp things on an adult level. I was referring to the original Greek. If your ten year old was a first century Greek he would understand the operative Greek phrase as describing a monogamous "one man/one woman" relationship as contrasted with the fairly common polygamy in the cultures of that time and region.

Quote:

---

...Second, when I said that chapter 3 doesn't talk about women in leadership I was talking about that chapter only. The leadership I was referring to, was the leadership Paul is talking about...

---

No, that is not what you said. You said "there is no scriptural basis for it[female leadership]" What I have pointed out to you is that indeed there is repeated scriptural basis for women in spiritual leadership, including the role of pastor/minister. 1 Timothy 3:12 uses the Greek word diakonos, there translated as "deacon" but most commonly throughout the rest of the NT it is translated as "minister". In Romans 16 Paul himself refers to Phoebe as a diakonos of the church and further reinforces her status and role by describing her as an important and influential woman deserving of respect. Most English translations, undoubtedly influenced by church tradition from the Dark Ages that subjugated women, greatly minimize the terms Paul uses by translating a female diakonos as merely a "servant" and the Greek word prostatis as "succourer" or "helper". The word prostatis actually means "a woman set over others". So indeed, by my reference to Paul sending his letter to the Romans in the capable hands of a female pastor/leader, I was directly addressing your earlier comments.

As for the rest of you post above about the man being the priest of the family and the headship of men, etc. I would simply respond by saying that the NT clearly teaches the "priesthood" of ALL believers and that in terms of the church, the body of Christ, there is only one head, Christ and Christ alone. To go down the priestly headship path is a very Catholic concept.

Those passages about male headship are specifically about the marital relationship and not about spiritual male/female role distinctions in the church. And the core concept is really about oneness as between a husband and a wife. That inseparable unity of marriage is aptly illustrated with the head/body metaphor. One cannot exist, function or survive without the other.

Tom

[Tom Wetmore]

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Tom,

I am not being hostile in my comments I'm about to share. I say this because it can be easy to misinterpret what someome is saying when reading these types of responses. Also, I didn't see your reponse so I could not respond. You need to have patience my friend.

I read what you said and I think you're missing what I said and what issue I was responding to. I didn't specifically reply to your comments but was trying to clarify and expand on what my response was.

Now I will tell "you" what I am saying.

I don't believe that women should be Pastors/Ministers because of the clear instruction in the Bible. Some of which I don't want to mention due to the nature of this topic. If you email me I will share it with you.

Reading these verses (1 Timothy 3) it is clear that Paul is referring to men. I am not interested in what the Greek says because that is subject to interpretation as well and I don't know where your getting this "Greek" from. What manuscript are you getting this from, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus or Received? I'm going to take a wild guess, you are not using the Recieved are you? The one that was in existance 100 year or so before the other two manuscripts of the which all of today's new tranlations come from. Of course that would exclude paraphrases and the OT.

If you read the following verses in plain english you cannot come away with this as applying to women. The leadership I was talking about was the leadership in this text and further on in this chapter. If you think I was stating otherwise go back a read what I wrote in context. Maybe I wasn't clear enough but I will tell you now, “that is what I meant.” I did make a mention of some verses 1 Peter and said that the names attributed to Peters audience (chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people) was referring to men and then it went on to address women. Men are the priests, if you don't believe that that is your choice. Just because, as you say, it's a "Catholics concept," that doesn't make it false.

1 Timothy 3: 1. This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."

(How in the world can anyone read these plain words and say that that Paul us saying that women should be in leadership; in the positions he's discussing here)

If there was no description of gender by Paul then I could agree with you. But he makes a contrast stating that these men should have one wife etc. For you or anyone else to turn that around and say it means women as well, seeing that a wife should have only one husband is beside the point. You can't use that logic to change a clear sentence.

1 Timothy 2: 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Now these verses are not dealing with women in authority, but that Paul does not let a women usurp authority over man, meaning: Paul is teaching and a woman comes in and starts taking over and making a spectacle of herself he would not put up with it. Now the key is why? Because man was made 1st and the woman was deceived. Meaning she believed the lies about God but Adam sinned because he loved her. Adam did not attribute that picture of God that Satan deceived Eve with. The verdict? Gen 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." If the 1st part of that verse is true then the last part has to be true as well.

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 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: 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. 7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered." this fall in line with the above quote from Gen 3.

Tom, this can go on and on and I have said pretty much all that I have to except for one thing which I will not post only send to you in an email if you so choose. You can reply and I'd like you to but I think it will be done for me. Since "Nothing will change my mind"

Norman