a ... crisis??

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I just received an email from AmazingFacts.org encouraging me to purchase a book about the "crisis" of women's ordination.

a crisis ???   

When emotion-laden words, e.g., "crisis," are used in topics, I always wonder to myself, "why the hysteria?"  All it does is stoke paranoia...

 

[Tom Wetmore]

Sadly it reveals what apparently they recognize as their most effective tool in their limited arsenal to assert and maintain control - FEAR!!!

It seems an act of pathetic desperation to resort to fear-mongering.  But it is just part and parcel of the whole headship heresy that is a the very root of their arguments against WO.  It is born of an authoritarian ideology that seeks to gain and maintain power and control.  Fear is frequently the means by which that is achieved.  And fear has long been the worst obstacle to progress or change or any sort. 

One of the most frequently repeated phrases in Scripture when encountering heavenly beings was "Fear Not".  

[brotherly love]

Sadly it reveals what apparently they recognize as their most effective tool in their limited arsenal to assert and maintain control - FEAR!!!

It seems an act of pathetic desperation to resort to fear-mongering.  But it is just part and parcel of the whole headship heresy that is a the very root of their arguments against WO.  It is born of an authoritarian ideology that seeks to gain and maintain power and control.  Fear is frequently the means by which that is achieved.  And fear has long been the worst obstacle to progress or change or any sort. 

One of the most frequently repeated phrases in Scripture when encountering heavenly beings was "Fear Not".  

​In all honesty, in your reply, you have applied the same tactics you are being critical of. Your description is very emotionally based, designed to produce an emotional response. This is fear mongering.

You even use the word heresy to describe a side you oppose,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

Heresy is any provocative belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs. A heretic is a proponent of such claims or beliefs.^[1] Heresy is distinct from both apostasy, which is the explicit renunciation of one's religion, principles or cause,^[2] and blasphemy, which is irreverence toward religion

The topic of women being an ordained paid pastor is a new controversial subject on established church practice and belief-so if anything, the ordained female priest would be heretical by the standards of established church belief, practice and biblical interpretation.

 

Edited May 29, 2015 by brotherly love

[Gregory Matthews]

The topic of women being an ordained paid pastor is a new controversial subject on established church practice and belief-so if anything, the ordained female priest would be heretical by the standards of established church belief, practice and biblical interpretation.

Not according to the history of the SDA Church.  It is not a new subject.

[Tom Wetmore]

​In all honesty, in your reply, you have applied the same tactics you are being critical of. Your description is very emotionally based, designed to produce an emotional response. This is fear mongering...

​Oh really?!?   The message of "Fear Not" was lost on you? The emotion we are reaching for here not fear - "Fear Not".  Get it?  By your logic the WWII British motto of "Keep Calm and Carry On" was fear mongering.  To warn someone away from a source of fear or a fear inducing idea is quite to opposite of fear-mongering.  You really do have a strange propensity for twisting the meaning of things.

[Tom Wetmore]

* * *

You even use the word heresy to describe a side you oppose,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

Heresy is any provocative belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs. A heretic is a proponent of such claims or beliefs.^[1] Heresy is distinct from both apostasy, which is the explicit renunciation of one's religion, principles or cause,^[2] and blasphemy, which is irreverence toward religion

The topic of women being an ordained paid pastor is a new controversial subject on established church practice and belief-so if anything, the ordained female priest would be heretical by the standards of established church belief, practice and biblical interpretation.

 

​Yes, I have identified the whole headship ideology as a heresy.  Because it is.  A number of respected Adventist theologians have used the same word to describe it.  Your definition explains why.  The whole headship idea is a very recently introduced notion in Adventism, within the last decade or so.  It comes out of Calvinist theology which although a part of the Reformation was deeply rooted in Catholic theology on the whole headship ideology.  There has been recent resurgence in the evangelical world in the headship ideas. But this is most certainly not an established belief or custom in Adventism.  There have been a number of qualified Adventist theologians that have established that fact.  It is also antithetical to our historical roots as it is currently being used against women in ministry and leadership.

And that is another point on which you are quite wrong as Gregory has already pointed out.  The idea of women as pastors/ministers and leaders and paid as pastors is far from a new subject.  Icon examines our early history it was controversial, perhaps.  But in EGW's lifetime it was really faced head on and dealt with.  She was quite clear in saying that women and well as men engaged in the gospel ministry should be paid from tithe on the same basis.  Women (even EGW herself) speaking from the pulpit was addressed and resolved.  They were permitted to do so.  In fact some of our best evangelists in those days were women.  Ellen White herself preached more than 10,000 sermons in her lifetime.  There were proportionally more women in ministry and leadership in  the Church in the 19th Century and up until EGW died than there are now.  And while ordination of women was not as much the concern in those days, it was in fact debated and addressed by the GC as early as 1881 with a resolution affirming that women could be ordained to the ministry. And then there was the the fact that EGW herself was recognized by the General Conference as an ordained minister of the Church for over 30 years!  

No it is not new.  Far from it.

[Tom Wetmore]

If we are looking for the historical Adventist roots of this movement of including women in ministry and leadership, it will take us to before the Adventist Church was actually formed.  Consider this from the one who became its first president - 

James White: “Some have excluded females from a share in this work, because it says, ‘your young men shall see visions.’ They seem to forget that ‘man’ and ‘men’ in the Scriptures generally means both male and female." (Review and Herald, Jan. 7, 1858, pp. 68-69).

[Guest Tillie]

The central issue in the women's ordination discussion is the primacy of Scripture. Is Scripture trusted to interpret itself, or has God failed to provide for females, or for cultural conditions we face here at the end of time, so that we need to either reinterpret Scripture, or else forge ahead ourselves in an extra-canon "trajectory," deciding among ourselves what to do concerning women's pastors, since Scripture is silent on the matter? Or do we acknowledge that Scripture is NOT silent on the matter, and that church leaders--including the ones Jesus selected as apostles--were all male. Is that not our example? And why would a woman feel deprived, as she can do so many things: be a Bible worker, an evangelist, teacher, etc., or start her own ministry, or serve in office. "Gospel ministry" is not closed to women or even children; all may serve the Lord in any way He calls them. But just as Adam and Eve were forbidden the fruit of one tree, so women are barred from only two positions, though they may well influence those that serve in those positions by serving on boards, serving as counselors to those in office, etc. This is the third time, at least, and this time, no claim is made for Scriptural basis. Shall culture drive our understanding of the Bible, or shall the Bible guide our culture? The former breeds more division; the latter can lead to unity. Right now, this issue is truly dividing our church because it strikes at the Bible. I would wish those involved would withdraw their request for ordination of women, so that our denomination will heal and get on with their work. So much time and energy has gone into this snare of Satan. The Holy Spirit through Ellen White tells us, "Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message. The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other. The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women...."  1T 421.

[brotherly love]

​Oh really?!?   The message of "Fear Not" was lost on you? The emotion we are reaching for here not fear - "Fear Not".  Get it?  By your logic the WWII British motto of "Keep Calm and Carry On" was fear mongering.  To warn someone away from a source of fear or a fear inducing idea is quite to opposite of fear-mongering.  You really do have a strange propensity for twisting the meaning of things.

​Lets use your own words in your own post "It seems an act of pathetic desperation to resort to fear-mongering.  But it is just part and parcel of the whole headship heresy that is a the very root of their arguments against WO.  It is born of an authoritarian ideology that seeks to gain and maintain power and control.  Fear is frequently the means by which that is achieved.  And fear has long been the worst obstacle to progress or change or any sort. 

There is a big difference of  "keep calm and carry on" and the words you supplied. A logical outcome of your words would be how emotionally charged they are, and if they are countered with the same emotional words, the result may be a split in the church. This would be a crisis.

There is another fear that is healthy, and that is the fear of the Lord. Those who are leaders should approach their keyboards with a sense of fear and trembling. (Moderator's note- The edited part is off-topic and belongs in its own thread) 

Yet in the same forum in which you are a leader, you use sharp and unloving words in reference to your brothers and sisters in Christ who are not in favor of ordaining a woman pastor.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2015 by Gail

[teresaq]

The topic of women being an ordained paid pastor is a new controversial subject on established church practice and belief-so if anything, the ordained female priest would be heretical by the standards of established church belief, practice and biblical interpretation.

 

​Female priest? Are you Roman Catholic, or some other denomination which has "priests"?  If so, this deals with the situation in the SDA movement, with outside opinions not really relevant here.

[Tom Wetmore]

Attempting to stay on topic... http://equalordination.com/opportunity-not-crisis/ 

[brotherly love]

​Female priest? Are you Roman Catholic, or some other denomination which has "priests"?  If so, this deals with the situation in the SDA movement, with outside opinions not really relevant here.

​No, I am not Roman Catholic. I belong to an Adventist Church. Did you also not read the word Pastor in the same sentence, just a generalzation

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

On this forum, a practicing homosexual is permitted to promote his agenda, and the reason and counter argument for this to take place is continuously repeated that we need to be loving and accepting of him-even if this is not in the context of the discussion.

way off topic... if you wish to start a thread addressing the above, please do so in a different venue..

[brotherly love]

​Yes, I have identified the whole headship ideology as a heresy.  Because it is.  A number of respected Adventist theologians have used the same word to describe it.  Your definition explains why.  The whole headship idea is a very recently introduced notion in Adventism, within the last decade or so.  It comes out of Calvinist theology which although a part of the Reformation was deeply rooted in Catholic theology on the whole headship ideology.  There has been recent resurgence in the evangelical world in the headship ideas. But this is most certainly not an established belief or custom in Adventism.  There have been a number of qualified Adventist theologians that have established that fact.  It is also antithetical to our historical roots as it is currently being used against women in ministry and leadership.

​It is a heresy because you or some others say it is? Some theologians in the church believe that Paul was not really a valid apostle and trash any book that is identified with him as a test not to follow the Law-does this make it a fact?

This does not make it a fact.

If headship is to blame for not having woman ordained pastors, and it is only a recent development in Adventism for the last decade or so, then not allowing women pastors has also only been practiced in the last decade or so?

If ordaining women as pastors is linked to Calvinism, which you say was linked to Catholicism-then why did non-Calvinists also not ordain women. Luther did not allow ordaining women as pastors-it was crystal clear to him from scripture. Was he just a Catholic puppet?

The fact is that this is a new cultural imposition that has not been a practice of the church pre Catholic, Catholic, Orthodox or reformation. It has only been an issue since the sexual revolution

 

 

Edited May 30, 2015 by brotherly love

[brotherly love]

Attempting to stay on topic... http://equalordination.com/opportunity-not-crisis/ 

​Very interesting, the slogan of this website is "committed to Biblical equality and unity in Christ the head"

They should be more concerned with being committed to biblical fidelity instead of cultural fidelity. Part of their slogan is "Christ the head" and fail to quote the rest of scripture^.........But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband^[a] is the head of his wife,^[b] and God is the head of Christ.

This mentioned site goes against the message in the Bible and the 1 corinthians 11

 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head(Jesus Christ) covered( being under the authority of a woman/wife) dishonors his head(Jesus Christ).

But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head( man/husband) uncovered (her authority over man/husband)dishonors her head(man husband)

 A man ought not to cover(let woman/wife have authority over him) his head, (Jesus Christ)since he is the image and glory of God; but 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.

Very simple passage when read in light of itself and the opening statements. If a man prays or prophesies under the authority of his wife/woman, then he dishonors the authority of Jesus. If a woman/wife prays of prophesies trying to take authority over her husband/man, then she dishonors her husband/man.

This is repeated in Ephesians 5:23

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

Colossians 1:8

And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
 

 

[brotherly love]

If some here want to follow/be influenced by the wisdom of the world, that is their choice and freewill to do so. The Bible contains the wisdom of God, and gives us the path to follow in relation to the fall and the animosity of the sexes that resulted from this. Paul repeats the non cultural the design of God contained in Genesis 1 and 2 to counter the fall in Genesis 3.

It is not about capability, it is about being in harmony with our roles and love for each other. The Bible does not promote a cult of personality-the world does

[Gregory Matthews]

I happen to believe that people on both sides of this issue are sincere and deeply desires to follow the Bible.  I am not willing to say that they are influenced by the "wisdom of the world."

I wonder lf Brotherly Love believes that Angell Rodriguez is influenced by the wisdom of the world.  I will suggest that rather than making statements that people are influenced by the wisdom of the world, one should address the issues.

To start, I will suggest that BL take a look at the following document prepared by Angel and tell us where he agrees and where he disagrees.

 

http://equalordination.com/papers/Rodriguez_AntiWO-Arguments.pdf

 

 

[brotherly love]

bibleI happen to believe that people on both sides of this issue are sincere and deeply desires to follow the Bible.  I am not willing to say that they are influenced by the "wisdom of the world."

I wonder lf Brotherly Love believes that Angell Rodriguez is influenced by the wisdom of the world.  I will suggest that rather than making statements that people are influenced by the wisdom of the world, one should address the issues.

To start, I will suggest that BL take a look at the following document prepared by Angel and tell us where he agrees and where he disagrees.

 

http://equalordination.com/papers/Rodriguez_AntiWO-Arguments.pdf

 

 

​Asking me to do a study on a 70+ page paper is not realistic in a forum. The author is arguing on historical context, and in some cases this is the case to gain meaning, but with the main and the plain context is not a factor.

 

Edited May 30, 2015 by brotherly love

[CoAspen]

 cop out!!!!!

[teresaq]

 

brotherly love noted:

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband^[a] is the head of his wife,^[b] and God is the head of Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:

⁸ For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;

 

⁹ neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

This is repeated in Ephesians 5:23

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

Colossians 1:8

And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Yes, that is so true that God is the Head of Christ, and as such He felt everything Christ felt while on this earth, and by extension, everything we feel as humans,  since the head feels what happens to the body.

Christ is then the Head of man (humans) as His body and feels everything we feel.

Then the husband, as head of his wife,  should feel everything the his wife feels, as she is part of his body, as stated in Ephesians.

 

"“In all their affliction He was afflicted.” Isaiah 63:9. So in Matthew 25:35-40 we learn that Christ suffers or experiences relief whenever His disciples suffer or are relieved. HE IS THE HEAD OF THE BODY. Now if when one member suffers all the members suffer with it (1 Corinthians 12:26), how much more must that be true of the Head!

PTUK December 13, 1894, p. 787.46 (The Present Truth, vol. 10)

 

As we see, it all depends on how we choose to divide the word of God. I think I'll stay in line with this SDA position of 1894.

No, I am not Roman Catholic. I belong to an Adventist Church. Did you also not read the word Pastor in the same sentence, just a generalzation

Are you saying you equate the position  of priests and pastors as the same since you mentioned "ordained female priests"?

Edited May 30, 2015 by teresaq(sda)

[whbae]

To  Tillie or anyone,

There was no female disciple in Jesus days?  Read Acts 9:36.(NKJV) It states that "At Joppa there was certain disciple named Tabitha which is translated Dorcas."

In your opinion Is Dorcas a male?!

[CoAspen]

Answered many times on other threads. Do a search, someone can help you with that if you don't know how.

 

[brotherly love]

 

Yes, that is so true that God is the Head of Christ, and as such He felt everything Christ felt while on this earth, and by extension, everything we feel as humans,  since the head feels what happens to the body.

Christ is then the Head of man (humans) as His body and feels everything we feel.

Then the husband, as head of his wife,  should feel everything the his wife feels, as she is part of his body, as stated in Ephesians.

 

"“In all their affliction He was afflicted.” Isaiah 63:9. So in Matthew 25:35-40 we learn that Christ suffers or experiences relief whenever His disciples suffer or are relieved. HE IS THE HEAD OF THE BODY. Now if when one member suffers all the members suffer with it (1 Corinthians 12:26), how much more must that be true of the Head!

PTUK December 13, 1894, p. 787.46 (The Present Truth, vol. 10)

 

As we see, it all depends on how we choose to divide the word of God. I think I'll stay in line with this SDA position of 1894.

Are you saying you equate the position  of priests and pastors as the same since you mentioned "ordained female priests"?

​You are right, our relationship to each other is supposed to emulate from the relationship of God the Father and Jesus the Son in the Trinity. Jesus is not inferior to God, I will stick with the wisdom of God which spans all cultures and social experimentation under mans wisdom.

I was just making a generalization, some call their leaders Priests, some call them Pastors, some call them reverend

[brotherly love]

To  Tillie or anyone,

There was no female disciple in Jesus days?  Read Acts 9:36.(NKJV) It states that "At Joppa there was certain disciple named Tabitha which is translated Dorcas."

In your opinion Is Dorcas a male?!

​This took place after the first advent in Lydda.around AD 36-37 Dorcas was a female, one that cared for the widows making garments. She was a disciple in the sense of being a believer, just how Acts 9 calls other believers. Today we talk about disciples making disciples, women are believers, and are disciples

[brotherly love]

Answered many times on other threads. Do a search, someone can help you with that if you don't know how.

 

​Sounds like a cop out for such a simple question on an easy topic, but you expect me to answer a 70 page essay in a post