a ... crisis??

[CoAspen]

I don't like repeating previous material. A search is much simpler!!!!

[Tom Wetmore]

​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

​No.  Just read it.  Then if you have disagreements with what is said in it bring them up here for discussion. This is a frequent problem here.  People come here to argue.  When they are pointed to the resources available to answer their objections an arguments they won't take the time to become informed on things that have been hashed and rehashed here and elsewhere many times already.  Folk understandably get weary of repeating themselves.  If you are sincerely wanting to learn - read and study the resources we point you to.  

[brotherly love]

​No.  Just read it.  Then if you have disagreements with what is said in it bring them up here for discussion. This is a frequent problem here.  People come here to argue.  When they are pointed to the resources available to answer their objections an arguments they won't take the time to become informed on things that have been hashed and rehashed here and elsewhere many times already.  Folk understandably get weary of repeating themselves.  If you are sincerely wanting to learn - read and study the resources we point you to.  

​First of all you assume that I have not read the article. I have read it and I am very familiar with Mr. Rodriguez. My issue is commenting on a 70+ page essay on a post. It could take a 70 page response. Even a 5 page response is to lengthy on a forum.

It is a very unrealistic expectation.

I don' think you are reading my words and want to argue, if you were reading my words, then you would have answered my concerns about length of response instead of coming to your own conclusions about reading the link

My general response to the link is that Mr. Rodriguez has many times addressed new ideas and slants propped up by new ways to interpret, yet he accomplishes his end result by using many new ways to interpret.

Secondly, the people here should be functionally literate enough in the Bible to hold a conversation without endlessly quoting sources outside of scripture. I can discuss Calvinism with a Calvinist without ever receiving a quote or reference to John Calvin or a church that holds to Calvinism. It sticks to the pages of the Bible.

On the other hand, when I discuss Biblical topics with a Catholic, it ends up with quotes from the Catechism, church doctrine, church quotes, teaching of Popes,church fathers and the Bible. The goalposts keep moving between these references.

I find hard core Adventists employing the same methodology as Catholics, they will reference Adventist Church Fathers, Ellen White, church publications, the Bible and even use the Catholic Church with a conspiracy theory to prop up any position.. The goalpost keeps moving between these references.

All these beliefs need to be read in light of the Bible, the bible should not be interpreted in light of outside sources-or we have created just another Pope

[Kevin H]

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?

​Tillie: you said "the ones Jesus selected as apostles-were all male." has two big flaws. First it is circular reasoning and second it does not measure up to the evidence. You assume that women's ordination is wrong. Jesus would not do anything wrong, therefore he would have only chosen males.

However, we know about Rabbis in the time of Jesus. Now some were more popular than others, but they tended to have two groups of ordained disciples. The 12 and the 70. Now there were NOT always 12 or 70 in this group, but the numbers were approximates and symbolic of the 12 tribes and the 70 elders. The big difference was when traveling the 12 would all camp out with their teacher, while the 70 could not necessary sleep in the same room and they miss out on the late night discussions as they were drifting off to sleep. Because of these sleeping arrangements the 12 were always the same sex as the Rabbi as it was inappropriate for a woman to sleep in the same room with men outside of her immediate family.   200 years before Jesus it was common place and taken for granted that women could be priests and rabbis. 200 years before Jesus there was a Rabbi Jesus Ben Sirach who wanted to put a stop to this practice and wanted only male priests and only male rabbis. Moses had commanded all the Hebrews, men and women to wear on their clothes tassels with a blue thread. We now know that in the ancient world only ordained priests would wear tassels with a blue thread. Since Jesus Ben Sirach did not want women to dress as priests or to be ordained priests he changed the law of God to a tradition of man by saying that only men should have the tassel with the blue thread and women were not to wear them.  He was very popular in the more liberal rabbinical schools such as the school of Hillel. However the more conservative schools such as the school of Shammai continued to ordain women rabbis. While the male Rabbis would have only males in the 12, the school of Shammai would ordain women in the 70. So when Jesus was alive there was a big argument over the ordination of women. It was a hot topic like it is for us today.

We only have only the names of a few of the disciples beyond the 12 who had to be male due to the sleeping arrangements and has no say on the issue of the ordination of women. For you to say that Jesus only choose males you have to at least show 82 names being all male. To add even more to this to be an apostle needed 3 issues: First to have seen Jesus in person during his ministry and having heard things about him and able to have memories of him that you can share. Second to have seen him after his resurrection, and third to have been sent out to share your memories and testimony of what you have heard and seen including the resurrected Christ. Paul tells us that there were over 500 who have met this requirement. So you may have to come up with over 500 names and show that they were all male.

We find that Dorcas was a disciple. We have female leaders who could have well have been among the 70 or over 500. For two stronger arguments: The two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Only one is named. We now know that in the culture when it talks about 2 people and names one, that they are assumed to be man and wife. So it appears to be that 2 of the disciples were Mr. and Mrs. Cleopas. and we read that there was a Mary wife of Clopas, which is a variant spelling of Cleopas. They were not part of the 12, but of the 70 ordained disciples.

Then we have the story of Mary and Martha: In that culture when a Rabbi sat down to teach, such as in Synagogue on Sabbath the 12 and the 70 ordained disciples and others who were ordained rabbis or rabbinical students would sit at the rabbi's feet. Laymembers would stand. If the rabbi was influenced by Jesus Ben Sirach then only laymen could stand. The women were required to do all sorts of hospitality tasks when the rabbi sat and taught.  We find Martha doing what the school of Hilliel and other schools influenced by Jesus Ben Sirach said that a woman should do when the rabbi sat and taught. But we find Mary NOT standing, but coming and sitting at his feet among the ORDAINED, doing what only the ORDAINED were allowed to do. Martha gave the typical rabbinical tradition opposition to women's ordination argument. Women's ordination was a hot topic in his day. Even if Jesus did not want women to do the hospitality tasks when he sat and taught, if he was against women's ordination he could have invited Mary to STAND with the unordained laymen. Mary and Martha grew up going to synagogue where they saw their father standing and mother doing the hospitality tasks, or maybe if it was a school of Shammai rabbi they could STAND and listen. They have been doing this every week of their lives, at least on Sabbath at synagogue but even during the week when a rabbi sat and taught. They knew the protocol and what the different things meant. If Jesus was against women's ordination he would have had Mary stand. But he said that he would not take ordination away from her. She choose to be an ordained rabbi, a disciple of this rabbi and he said that she made the best choice.

So again, to say that Jesus choose only males you will need to either give a list of at least 82 (the 12 plus the 70) and show that there were only males on the list (and maybe even over 500). Or you have to show strong evidence that even though we don't have all 82 or 500 names that the evidence suggests that they were all male. You need to prove that Jesus never let a woman sit at his feet in the position of the ordained. If you don't have this proof or at least evidence for this you cannot say that Jesus choose to ordain only males. And I'm sorry but Mary wife of Clopas was one of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus and we find Mary, Martha's sister, sitting among the 70 doing what only the ordained were allowed to do and the indication of Jesus was that he was inviting Martha to give up her anti-women's ordination position and to come and be ordained. So yes Jesus did ordain women and he is our example. Are we going to follow his example or are we going to substitute the traditions of Jesus Ben Sirach. Which Jesus are we going to follow?

[Tom Wetmore]

​First of all you assume that I have not read the article. I have read it and I am very familiar with Mr. Rodriguez. My issue is commenting on a 70+ page essay on a post. It could take a 70 page response. Even a 5 page response is to lengthy on a forum.

It is a very unrealistic expectation.

* * *

 

Just give us the highlights of your reading of Angel's paper.  Just a list.  Bullet points of which of his points you have concerns about, differ with, or whatever.  Or maybe it would be easier for you to list the points he makes with which you actually agree.   Choose which category is the shorter list. Or maybe do a top ten list from either direction. Or just maybe pick the the single best or single worst point he makes.   Or just take them one at a time. You really don't have to do an exhaustive point by point analysis of all 70 pages.  

 

Edited May 31, 2015 by Tom Wetmore

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

BL, are you a member of the Seventh-day Adventist church?  You earlier stated only that you were a member of an "Adventist church"... it helps to know where someone is coming from when trying to dialogue with that person..

[brotherly love]

​Tillie: you said "the ones Jesus selected as apostles-were all male." has two big flaws. First it is circular reasoning and second it does not measure up to the evidence. You assume that women's ordination is wrong. Jesus would not do anything wrong, therefore he would have only chosen males.

However, we know about Rabbis in the time of Jesus. Now some were more popular than others, but they tended to have two groups of ordained disciples. The 12 and the 70. Now there were NOT always 12 or 70 in this group, but the numbers were approximates and symbolic of the 12 tribes and the 70 elders. The big difference was when traveling the 12 would all camp out with their teacher, while the 70 could not necessary sleep in the same room and they miss out on the late night discussions as they were drifting off to sleep. Because of these sleeping arrangements the 12 were always the same sex as the Rabbi as it was inappropriate for a woman to sleep in the same room with men outside of her immediate family.   200 years before Jesus it was common place and taken for granted that women could be priests and rabbis. 200 years before Jesus there was a Rabbi Jesus Ben Sirach who wanted to put a stop to this practice and wanted only male priests and only male rabbis. Moses had commanded all the Hebrews, men and women to wear on their clothes tassels with a blue thread. We now know that in the ancient world only ordained priests would wear tassels with a blue thread. Since Jesus Ben Sirach did not want women to dress as priests or to be ordained priests he changed the law of God to a tradition of man by saying that only men should have the tassel with the blue thread and women were not to wear them.  He was very popular in the more liberal rabbinical schools such as the school of Hillel. However the more conservative schools such as the school of Shammai continued to ordain women rabbis. While the male Rabbis would have only males in the 12, the school of Shammai would ordain women in the 70. So when Jesus was alive there was a big argument over the ordination of women. It was a hot topic like it is for us today.

We only have only the names of a few of the disciples beyond the 12 who had to be male due to the sleeping arrangements and has no say on the issue of the ordination of women. For you to say that Jesus only choose males you have to at least show 82 names being all male. To add even more to this to be an apostle needed 3 issues: First to have seen Jesus in person during his ministry and having heard things about him and able to have memories of him that you can share. Second to have seen him after his resurrection, and third to have been sent out to share your memories and testimony of what you have heard and seen including the resurrected Christ. Paul tells us that there were over 500 who have met this requirement. So you may have to come up with over 500 names and show that they were all male.

We find that Dorcas was a disciple. We have female leaders who could have well have been among the 70 or over 500. For two stronger arguments: The two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Only one is named. We now know that in the culture when it talks about 2 people and names one, that they are assumed to be man and wife. So it appears to be that 2 of the disciples were Mr. and Mrs. Cleopas. and we read that there was a Mary wife of Clopas, which is a variant spelling of Cleopas. They were not part of the 12, but of the 70 ordained disciples.

Then we have the story of Mary and Martha: In that culture when a Rabbi sat down to teach, such as in Synagogue on Sabbath the 12 and the 70 ordained disciples and others who were ordained rabbis or rabbinical students would sit at the rabbi's feet. Laymembers would stand. If the rabbi was influenced by Jesus Ben Sirach then only laymen could stand. The women were required to do all sorts of hospitality tasks when the rabbi sat and taught.  We find Martha doing what the school of Hilliel and other schools influenced by Jesus Ben Sirach said that a woman should do when the rabbi sat and taught. But we find Mary NOT standing, but coming and sitting at his feet among the ORDAINED, doing what only the ORDAINED were allowed to do. Martha gave the typical rabbinical tradition opposition to women's ordination argument. Women's ordination was a hot topic in his day. Even if Jesus did not want women to do the hospitality tasks when he sat and taught, if he was against women's ordination he could have invited Mary to STAND with the unordained laymen. Mary and Martha grew up going to synagogue where they saw their father standing and mother doing the hospitality tasks, or maybe if it was a school of Shammai rabbi they could STAND and listen. They have been doing this every week of their lives, at least on Sabbath at synagogue but even during the week when a rabbi sat and taught. They knew the protocol and what the different things meant. If Jesus was against women's ordination he would have had Mary stand. But he said that he would not take ordination away from her. She choose to be an ordained rabbi, a disciple of this rabbi and he said that she made the best choice.

So again, to say that Jesus choose only males you will need to either give a list of at least 82 (the 12 plus the 70) and show that there were only males on the list (and maybe even over 500). Or you have to show strong evidence that even though we don't have all 82 or 500 names that the evidence suggests that they were all male. You need to prove that Jesus never let a woman sit at his feet in the position of the ordained. If you don't have this proof or at least evidence for this you cannot say that Jesus choose to ordain only males. And I'm sorry but Mary wife of Clopas was one of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus and we find Mary, Martha's sister, sitting among the 70 doing what only the ordained were allowed to do and the indication of Jesus was that he was inviting Martha to give up her anti-women's ordination position and to come and be ordained. So yes Jesus did ordain women and he is our example. Are we going to follow his example or are we going to substitute the traditions of Jesus Ben Sirach. Which Jesus are we going to follow?

​It is not accurate to state that it was commonplace in post exilic Israel for a women to be a priest, even if it were true, it would be against the Law of Moses. Priests were only allowed to come from men who were part of the tribe of Levi.Then it became Aaron and his sons. Then King David, in order to unite the Kingdom, chose two families to be the priesthood. Then because of the split between David and his son, the priesthood went to the Zodak priesthood. This lasted until Antiochus Epiphanese murdered Onias III. Then the Hasmoneans took over the preisthood. This evolved into the Saducees

There may have been opposing Rabinnical factions, but they were not in charge of the priesthood, the Saduceees were.

There are many Jewish things we can learn, but Jesus was not tied to any sect of Rabbinical Judaism, or the Saducees for that matter, Jesus was above them all and countered them time after time.

Jesus was anointed by a sinful woman at Simon the lepers house, in the old testament only a prophet could anoint a king or Priest, and it had to be a specific oil. Jesus followed none of the norms, and had a sinful women anoint Him, and this would be unto His death in victory to take the throne.

The Bible has to be key, and we need to know context in order to understand lots of messages, but what you have done is cannoized the context, and made the Bible subserviant to the context

[Kevin H]

Except for hearing that some of the Psalms indicate female priests, I have yet to hear the arguments for female priests in the Old Testament so I won't that point here except that there are a list of arguments that neither of us yet know that supports female priests in the Old Testament.

However, there is nothing about the (probably 2) women anointing Jesus being that they were anointing him as king. Apparently this was a custom, but usually by the host not someone who just came in and the large expense of what they used  to anoint Jesus is what was outstanding. And at least with the first woman, that a Rabbi would allow someone with her reputation to do this to him was the big issue.

However, as for the issue of Mary and Martha. Martha knew about the rabbinic anti-women's ordination rhetoric. Are you trying to say that Jesus was stupidly not knowing what he was doing? Or are you saying, well yes, Jesus did this, but he really did not mean it and the Bible writer did not mean for it to be understood as what it looked like and thus allow me to correct the Bible writer nor not making it clear that Jesus was really not doing what he was described as doing.  Hey, if an animal looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck... With women's ordination being a hot topic with the Jews, and the protocol for when a rabbi sat and taught, either Jesus knew what he was doing and was making it clear which side of the issue he was on, or else he was doing something very stupid.

[brotherly love]

Except for hearing that some of the Psalms indicate female priests, I have yet to hear the arguments for female priests in the Old Testament so I won't that point here except that there are a list of arguments that neither of us yet know that supports female priests in the Old Testament.

However, there is nothing about the (probably 2) women anointing Jesus being that they were anointing him as king. Apparently this was a custom, but usually by the host not someone who just came in and the large expense of what they used  to anoint Jesus is what was outstanding. And at least with the first woman, that a Rabbi would allow someone with her reputation to do this to him was the big issue.

However, as for the issue of Mary and Martha. Martha knew about the rabbinic anti-women's ordination rhetoric. Are you trying to say that Jesus was stupidly not knowing what he was doing? Or are you saying, well yes, Jesus did this, but he really did not mean it and the Bible writer did not mean for it to be understood as what it looked like and thus allow me to correct the Bible writer nor not making it clear that Jesus was really not doing what he was described as doing.  Hey, if an animal looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck... With women's ordination being a hot topic with the Jews, and the protocol for when a rabbi sat and taught, either Jesus knew what he was doing and was making it clear which side of the issue he was on, or else he was doing something very stupid.

​I agree that the main point of the anointing of Jesus was that others did not give the normal courtesy of washing the feet of Jesus, or anointing his head. The woman washed His dirty feet with her tears, and dried it with her hair. My comment was due to the majority tie this to the anointed one of Daniel 9.

I believe you have gone to great lengths to connect sitting at Jesus's feet with ordained priest, this is making the reference walk on all fours.

A popular teacher, Rabbi Eliezer, from around the time of Jesus is famous for saying:

• "Instructing a woman in the Law is like teaching her blasphemy"
• "Let the Law be burned rather than entrusted to a woman"
• "A woman's wisdom is limited to the handling of the distaff"

The cultural norm re-interpreted the Torah to mean that women were ontologically different and inferior to men-Jesus corrected this. Moses wrote that all Israel was to be instructed in the Torah. The text says that Mary sat at Jesus's feet while he taught her, not ordained her. Was Mary ordained while Martha was not?

I am not sure of a Rabinnical sect in the post exillic Israel ordaining women priests-sounds far fetched to me. Lets say you are correct though. You have set up a choice from sources outside of the Bible. You are assuming that one of them is correct, and Jesus chose a side. This is faulty reasoning

If one group ordains women, and the other thinks they are sub human, biblical fidelity tells me to run away from both camps.

In your own words "Hey, if an animal looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck..."

 ³ But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,^[a] and the head of Christ is God.

Hey, thank you very much for a good discussion!! We may not agree, but we dont have to divide.

Edited June 1, 2015 by brotherly love

[Kevin H]

Yes indeed and your quote from Rabbi Eliezer was the popular view in Jesus' day, but it was still a debate. Often we see the side of the group that won out and read those views as having always been instead of the battles for one view to have won out. But when it comes to the ordination question; Jesus did have a middle ground. While he could have stopped both Mary and Martha from doing the hospitality tasks that the one set of rabbis required women to do when the rabbi sat to teach; the non-ordained laymenbers were to stand and learn and be taught. It was only the ordained rabbis and rabbinical students who would sit and learn. Jesus could have had Mary and Martha both join the non-ordained laymen in standing while listening and being taught. For example, I have no at this time been ordained. If I could go back in history with someone who is ordained, and I'll use for an example  Doug Bachelor because of his Jewish background. Lets say that he and his wife and I to the Old Testament times. We could go and watch the temple services. Then we decide to go up to Jesus time. We are there and hear a Rabbi. If it was say a Rabbi from the school of Hillel, Doug, being ordained could sit as his feet and listen. Mrs. Bachelor and myself would stand and listen and learn. If someone like Rabbi Eliezer was teaching, again Doug being ordained could sit at his feet. I would stand with the laymen and Mrs. Bachelor would have to do hospitality tasks. Jesus could have just stopped the hospitality tasks and let the women stand with us laymen. But that is not what happened with Mary and Martha. They still could have been taught and learned without being in the position that was only for ordained rabbis and ordained rabbinical students.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Kevin H

[brotherly love]

Yes indeed and your quote from Rabbi Eliezer was the popular view in Jesus' day, but it was still a debate. Often we see the side of the group that won out and read those views as having always been instead of the battles for one view to have won out. But when it comes to the ordination question; Jesus did have a middle ground. While he could have stopped both Mary and Martha from doing the hospitality tasks that the one set of rabbis required women to do when the rabbi sat to teach; the non-ordained laymenbers were to stand and learn and be taught. It was only the ordained rabbis and rabbinical students who would sit and learn. Jesus could have had Mary and Martha both join the non-ordained laymen in standing while listening and being taught. For example, I have no at this time been ordained. If I could go back in history with someone who is ordained, and I'll use for an example  Doug Bachelor because of his Jewish background. Lets say that he and his wife and I to the Old Testament times. We could go and watch the temple services. Then we decide to go up to Jesus time. We are there and hear a Rabbi. If it was say a Rabbi from the school of Hillel, Doug, being ordained could sit as his feet and listen. Mrs. Bachelor and myself would stand and listen and learn. If someone like Rabbi Eliezer was teaching, again Doug being ordained could sit at his feet. I would stand with the laymen and Mrs. Bachelor would have to do hospitality tasks. Jesus could have just stopped the hospitality tasks and let the women stand with us laymen. But that is not what happened with Mary and Martha. They still could have been taught and learned without being in the position that was only for ordained rabbis and ordained rabbinical students.

​I believe that you are reading ordained into a teacher-disciple relationship. In the Tanakh, the prophets had disciples. These disciples would hear the words, memorize them and write down the words later, sometimes much later in an oral epic of time. A prophets words could not be memorized, recited and protected later without their disciples. Of course they wrote their own material, but writing was time consuming, scarce and inefficient back then. In any case, without the disciples, it would be like writing a letter or speaking to your self.

There is just nothing to be ordained into under a teacher in the Tanakh..

 

 

 

[Pickle]

 

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

Dave Gemmel claimed in his article in the March 2015 issue of Adventist World that soon after 1879 and before the Great Depression there was 1 female pastor for every 5000 members, a ratio, he said, that has never been reached since. He based his assertion on comments by "historian Stan Hickerson."

I therefore asked Stan if we could identify any churches that women were assigned to as pastors between the 1870's and the Great Depression, and he informed me that there weren't any.

I therefore wrote Gemmel about this factual problem in his article. The problem is that we weren't assigning ministers as pastors of local churches in those days, which is in part why J.H. Waggoner could argue in the Signs of the Times in 1878 that there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits women from preaching, but they are prohibited from being pastors or ruling elders.

Gemmel responded that he hadn't wanted to get into the fine points of what "pastor" meant back then compared to now. Thus, I was left to conclude that he knew that what he was writing was not accurate.

[Pickle]

​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.

​If this is true, why did J.H. Waggoner write the following?

And this appears yet more evident from the explanatory declaration in his words to Timothy, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Tim. 2:2. The divine arrangement, even from the beginning, is this, that the man is the head of the woman. Every relation is disregarded or abused in this lawless age. But the Scriptures always maintain this order in the family relation. "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church." Eph. 5:23. Man is entitled to certain privileges which are not given to woman; and he is subjected to some duties, and burdens from which the woman is exempt. A woman may pray, prophesy, exhort, and comfort the church, but she cannot occupy the position of a pastor or a ruling elder. This would be looked upon as usurping authority over the man, which is here prohibited.

...

Neither do the words of Paul confine the labors of women to the act of prophesying alone. He refers to prayers, and also speaks of certain women who "labored in the Lord," an expression which could only refer to the work of the gospel. He also, in remarking on the work of the prophets, speaks of edification, exhortation, and comfort. This "labor in the Lord," with prayer, comprises all the duties of public worship. Not all the duties of business meetings, which were probably conducted by men, or all the duties of ruling elders, and pastors, compare 1 Tim. 5:17, with 2:12, but all that pertain to exercises purely religious. We sincerely believe that, according to the Scriptures, women, as a right may, and as a duty ought to, engage in these exercises. (ST 12-19-1878)

One of the biggest problems I have with WO is the amount of misinformation the pro-WO side supports their position with. It is crystal clear to me from the above quote that "headship theology" is nothing new within Adventism. Am I missing something?

Uriah Smith in 1875:

2. The antithesis of the command, "Let your women keep silence in the churches," is expressed in these words: "But they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. This shows that the speaking which is prohibited is of that kind which would show that they were not under obedience. But what is meant by being under obedience? The Scriptures represent that a subordinate position, in a certain sense, is assigned to the woman for the reasons that she was formed from the man, and at a subsequent time, and was first in transgression. 1 Cor. 11 :8; 1 Tim. 2 :13, 14.

The leadership and authority is vested in the man. "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Gen. 3:16. This order is not to be reversed, and the woman take the position which has been assigned to the man; and every action on her part which shows that she is usurping this authority, is disorderly, and not to be allowed. Hence Paul says plainly to Timothy, 1 Tim. 2:12, "But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." There is no doubt but it was the very same point, the usurping of authority over the man, that the same apostle had in view in 1 Cor. 14:34. (ST 8-26-1875)

 

​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.

Then you might want to question the conclusions of those theologians, since a perusal of Adventist periodicals shows that in our earlier years it was 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.

I haven't heard anyone using it to say that women shouldn't be engaged in ministry. A recent Adventist World pointed out that one of the reasons why the membership in Zambia has grown so much is because the women there are engaged in ministry, in a very vibrant Dorcas ministry, a type of ministry Ellen White explicitly called for women to engage in. No one is using "headship theology" to prohibit women from engaging in Dorcas ministry. And that's just one example.

​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!  

​You seem to be making the same mistake as Gemmel, confusing the terms "minister" and "pastor" as understood by our people back in that era. If our people approved of a lady minister back in the 1880's, that means that they approved of her being an evangelist, not a pastor. Our pioneers understood that Paul was not prohibiting women from preaching, but was saying that they couldn't have authority over men in the church.

Interestingly, Uriah Smith, who I quoted above as advocating headship theology in 1875, was on the 1881 three-member committee on resolutions that proposed the resolution that women be ordained as ministers. He was also a member of the three-person GC Committee that that resolution was referred to. Either Smith was opposed to the resolution, or he saw no contradiction with his "headship" theology. (Or he found this topic easier to change his mind about than the ten horns or the law in Galatians).

But the fact remains that the Review makes no mention of that resolution being adopted or voted.

Your last sentence seems like a misrepresentation, since the General Conference never recognized Ellen White as being a pastor ordained by man.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Pickle

[Pickle]

I would say that "crisis" is an accurate word for three reasons:

1. The NAD study committee proposed that we use a different method of interpreting the Bible than we have used heretofore.

2. As just one example, we have an individual who has served as a conference president for many years publicly encouraging open rebellion against GC Session votes on WO, when Ellen White said that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and when the same individual admitted that there was no Bible mandate to ordain women to the gospel ministry, and thus no biblical justification for disregarding the same GC Session votes.

3. Ten days ago I received an email from AToday that contained a headline and blog post snippet that likened those who want to clarify our fundamental belief on creation to Moslem fundamentalists. Last Friday ADvindicate reported that the NAD declined to approve GC Session booth space for ADvindicate and OrdinationTruth, but has approved booth space for AToday and Spectrum. If the report is accurate, then the oddity of giving booth space to entities that routinely attack Adventist beliefs while denying space to entities supportive of Adventist beliefs demonstrates that there really is a crisis going on.

[CoAspen]

What SDA 'beliefs' does ADvindicate support?? Their version, official GC position, members version, etc, etc? What ever is written or published by them, from what I have read on many occasions, is a constant attacking of the church. They would seem to have their own version of what 'real' truths, based on their interpretation of scripture and EGW, as to what the 'beliefs' are. No different then all the rest of us.

Please read the thread about who can or can't have a booth, well explained. There is no conspiracy of silence, as ADvin would like people to believe.

Ordination by man is more important than being ordained by God? Not recognizing Gods ordination is okay?

We are simply rehashing the same arguments over and over, wondering in the wilderness. These WO threads are plentiful and all the info one could want is posted.

[Pickle]

What SDA 'beliefs' does ADvindicate support?? Their version, official GC position, members version, etc, etc? What ever is written or published by them, from what I have read on many occasions, is a constant attacking of the church. They would seem to have their own version of what 'real' truths, based on their interpretation of scripture and EGW, as to what the 'beliefs' are. No different then all the rest of us.

Please read the thread about who can or can't have a booth, well explained. There is no conspiracy of silence, as ADvin would like people to believe.

Ordination by man is more important than being ordained by God? Not recognizing Gods ordination is okay?

​CoAspen, I can't tell that you really addressed my 3rd point.

It is really indisputable that the Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, the official beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and the beliefs of the vast majority of Seventh-day Adventist members is that God created the world in 6 days. AToday allows itself to be used as a vehicle to insult those beliefs and those members and church leaders who hold them, and yet AToday is allowed to have booth space. Fine. Then on what basis is ADvindicate not allowed to have a booth despite its defense of those beliefs, and despite the fact that it has had booths at ASI and GYC? It makes no sense, and that was my point. This gross inconsistency illustrates that we indeed have a crisis in the NAD over WO.

Certainly you wouldn't take the position that AToday and Spectrum never attack the Adventist church, its leaders, and its beliefs?

God ordained Ellen White to be a prophet, just like He did Huldah, Deborah, Anna, and Philipp's four daughters. That by no means justifies men ordaining a woman to pastor a church when God in the Bible tells us that men are supposed to fill that sort of role. And not everyone who claims to be ordained by God really has been.

[brotherly love]

 

 

2. As just one example, we have an individual who has served as a conference president for many years publicly encouraging open rebellion against GC Session votes on WO, when Ellen White said that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and when the same individual admitted that there was no Bible mandate to ordain women to the gospel ministry, and thus no biblical justification for disregarding the same GC Session votes.

 

​This statement contains a huge problem and a contradiction, this is just an equal and opposite form of Catholicism. The Catholic church also believes the magisterium is the highest authority on earth under God-declared to be true by a Pope.

This is why discussing the Bible with both camps is difficult

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

In Catholicism, the magisterium is the authority that lays down what is the authentic teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church, that authority is vested uniquely in the pope and the bishops who are in communion with him.

Edited June 1, 2015 by brotherly love

[Pickle]

brotherly love,

I think you're misunderstanding Ellen White's meaning when she wrote that. She didn't say that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth equal to God. She said it was under God. And since she was an ardent Protestant, she viewed Scripture as being the Word of God that trumps all other authority. Therefore, I don't think she ever intended her words to mean that a GC Session was above the Bible.

There is therefore no similarity between her position on the authority of a GC Session and the Catholic Church's position on the authority of the Magisterium. And since I hold that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice as our baptismal vows require, you should have no problem discussing the Bible with me.

In perusing Adventist periodicals regarding how the key texts are interpreted, it does appear to me that there was a change in approach to those texts at some point in the 20th century.

[brotherly love]

brotherly love,

I think you're misunderstanding Ellen White's meaning when she wrote that. She didn't say that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth equal to God. She said it was under God. And since she was an ardent Protestant, she viewed Scripture as being the Word of God that trumps all other authority. Therefore, I don't think she ever intended her words to mean that a GC Session was above the Bible.

There is therefore no similarity between her position on the authority of a GC Session and the Catholic Church's position on the authority of the Magisterium. And since I hold that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice as our baptismal vows require, you should have no problem discussing the Bible with me.

In perusing Adventist periodicals regarding how the key texts are interpreted, it does appear to me that there was a change in approach to those texts at some point in the 20th century.

To isolate specifically that the General conference is the highest authority on earth under God is making an exclusive claim-just as the
catholics do. Catholics do not believe the Pope or the magesterium is equal with God. vicar means representative of God. I am not here to defend Catholic practice though, as I am not Catholic, but I am in search of truth.

Then lets put this to practice and start a bible discussion, all I have encountered is magazine articles, church writings, church history and most everything outside of scripture. Scripture seems to fall flat here.

It is nice to meet you, and it would be a breath of fresh air to discuss scripture with you

Edited June 1, 2015 by brotherly love

[Pickle]

I used to be Roman Catholic, and Catholic writings have multiple times put the pope or the church on a level with God, and even above God. A case in point might be where the official teaching is that violating the 6 precepts of the church is always a grievous matter (will send you to hell) while violating the 10 Commandments is sometimes a grievous matter and sometimes a light matter (will send you to the hospital now, or purgatory later, but not to hell).

If we're not talking about history, and only talking about the meaning of Scripture, citing only the Bible might work.

[CoAspen]

Their version, official GC position, members version, etc, etc? What ever is written or published by them, from what I have read on many occasions, is a constant attacking of the church. They would seem to have their own version of what 'real' truths, based on their interpretation of scripture and EGW, as to what the 'beliefs' are.

 It seems we are going in circles, a pickle so to speak.......no answer about this statement What SDA 'beliefs' does ADvindicate support??

Ordination by man is more important than being ordained by God? Not recognizing Gods ordination is okay?

Silence is deafening.......could here a pin drop.

About Us-Spectrum Magazine

 

Our goal is to foster community through conversation. This website is the online companion to Spectrum, a journal established to encourage Seventh-day Adventist participation in the discussion of contemporary issues from a Christian viewpoint, to look without prejudice at all sides of a subject, to evaluate the merits of diverse views, and to foster intellectual and cultural growth.

Atoday has no 'about' statement nor does ADvindiacte...so one simply has to read their productions. As previously stated, ADvin, is all about partial info, cut and paste articles, no dialogue and would not pass peer review.

[brotherly love]

I used to be Roman Catholic, and Catholic writings have multiple times put the pope or the church on a level with God, and even above God. A case in point might be where the official teaching is that violating the 6 precepts of the church is always a grievous matter (will send you to hell) while violating the 10 Commandments is sometimes a grievous matter and sometimes a light matter (will send you to the hospital now, or purgatory later, but not to hell).

If we're not talking about history, and only talking about the meaning of Scripture, citing only the Bible might work.

​I have spent some time with a Catholic theologian and Cardinal sorting through their beliefs, there is just too much misinformation out there to have a healthy understanding. He was very clear that they dont put the church or Pope above or equal with God, but are servants and representatives of God. We dont like it when people take quotes of Ellen White out of context, so to do the same is not rational. We need to have a discussion on what they do embrace, or we are breaking one of the 10 commandments of slander bearing false witness

My point is that there is some common ground when we claim a higher authority on earth based on an exclusive church membership.

You brought up some good points in reference to church history and writings, but church history was based on the meaning of scripture. We have to go back to the standard or we will go of course.

Ten years ago i would have been in the camp of those who would ordain a female minister and other issues. I would have had a need to defend the mindset and worldview i found myself born into and a part of. This is very normal and is called ethnocentrism. Here is a neutral example: You see Jesus depicted as a skinny white guy in many western paintings. Why? Because skinny white guys painted Him. Yet it is shocking when a black person does the same thing. I have e-mailed a scholar from Australia for a few years, i always imagined him with a north American accent, when i finally contacted him it did not seem like the same guy-he had an accent!

That being said, we are in the midst of huge social change that has taken place over the last 70 years in the west. This is the world we were born into and the world we experience. A good example of ethnocentrism is to re-interpret the scriptures based on our culture and experiences. This holds true with morality when a culture drifts away from biblical morality and teachings. We find ourselves in the middle of social and moral change, and that becomes the moral datum point. The bible seems foriegn and outdated, so it must be re-interpreted. Instead, our culture needs to be interpreted by the Bible. The Bible contains God's wisdom and guidance in how to deal with our fallen nature. This is where the message lies, and the right questions need to be asked of the text

[Tom Wetmore]

There seems to be a growing disregard to the pinned Moderator Note at the topic of the topic menu about staying on topic.  This thread in particular.  It has been locked to remove the off topic posts.