Ty Gibson on Women's Ordination

[Tom Wetmore]

http://www.lightbearers.org/a-closer-look-at-womens-ordination/
 

[Gail]

Not only that one but the one after:

http://www.lightbearers.org/shall-angels-or-demons-guide-us/

[LifeHiscost]

Not only that one but the one after:

http://www.lightbearers.org/shall-angels-or-demons-guide-us/

​One of the most profound comments following the 1st article.

 

Janet Lui • 2 days ago

The most simple but profound words that I have heard, on this WO subject, were spoken at the NAD Year end meetings. "The world is starving for lack of bread, we have the bread, and we are arguing about who will serve it"

[Lauralea]

His article is well researched and insightful Unfortunately at this stage I am not sure how many people will thoughtfully consider his line of reasoning. Liked the James White quotes on "man" obviously generally meaning male and female in the Bible. 

[Tom Wetmore]

Another article in Ty Gibson's series on WO - http://www.lightbearers.org/womens-ordination-is-the-church-free-to-act/ 

[Lauralea]

I appreciate his parallel between the early church recognizing the ceremonial law was no longer binding and WO today.

[brotherly love]

The problem with this line of reasoning the ceremonial law nor the ressurrection was designed to overthrow Gods design at creation. While we dont have to practice the ceremonial law, not the Mosaic covenant-we need to understand it. it was given until our hearts were circumsized, and the message would still be in effect because we live in a fallen world, and the message is how to deal with our fallen nature in a fallen world.

There is obviously an agenda being promoted by the leaders on this site, and however well intentioned it is based on the wisdom of man and not the wisdom of God contained in the Bible. It will run its course and will fall flat on its face.

Edited June 22, 2015 by brotherly love

[Gail]

Although Ty Gibson is not a leader on this site.

[brotherly love]

I did not make any claim of him being a leader on this site

[Tom Wetmore]

There is obviously an agenda being promoted by the leaders on this site, and however well intentioned it is based on the wisdom of man and not the wisdom of God contained in the Bible. It will run its course and will fall flat on its face.

Accusing one of having an agenda is often ironically born of an agenda itself.    It would seem that you have yet to offer anything along the lines of what you have been accusing others of lacking in terms of Scriptural authority for your agenda.

[brotherly love]

Accusing one of having an agenda is often ironically born of an agenda itself.    It would seem that you have yet to offer anything along the lines of what you have been accusing others of lacking in terms of Scriptural authority for your agenda.

Then turn to the bible and we can have a discussion.

Edited June 23, 2015 by brotherly love

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

BL, why do you come to a forum, join as a member, then petulantly demand that everyone abide by *your* set of rules?  

[brotherly love]

BL, why do you come to a forum, join as a member, then petulantly demand that everyone abide by *your* set of rules?  

In your opinion, a discussion using the Bible on any certain topic is my own "set of rules"?  Using links by people who support a certain view is just a google search and has little merit to the rules of finding truth on a given subject

[CoAspen]

Nothing wrong with using the Bible, it is a correct thing to do. The problem lies when persons demand that it can only be interpreted one way, ignoring time, place and intent  saying context is not important.

The 'truth is out there'...in the hands of the HS.

[brotherly love]

Nothing wrong with using the Bible, it is a correct thing to do. The problem lies when persons demand that it can only be interpreted one way, ignoring time, place and intent  saying context is not important.

The 'truth is out there'...in the hands of the HS.

Oh ya, could you back up your words?

[GayatfootofCross]

praise JESUS!

Ty gets it!

EGW gets it!

So much to say on that but don't care to right now.

I am afraid I will bore myself.

And maybe others.

 

 

[Lauralea]

Ours is a large church with many viewpoints. Assuming that all who support WO are very liberal and do not use the Bible or SOP for support is inaccurate. I was much surprised to hear Mark Finley speak at GC in 2010 about in Christ there is no male or female. He repeated it 3 times and it was his central premise. We cannot just use Paul for this issue as he also told Onesimus to return to his slaveholder owner, which was obviously cultural. EGW says in creation Eve was taken from Adam's side signifying equality. Ty Gibson also leans conservative and I believe his line of reasoning is Bible centered. 

[brotherly love]

Ours is a large church with many viewpoints. Assuming that all who support WO are very liberal and do not use the Bible or SOP for support is inaccurate. I was much surprised to hear Mark Finley speak at GC in 2010 about in Christ there is no male or female. He repeated it 3 times and it was his central premise. We cannot just use Paul for this issue as he also told Onesimus to return to his slaveholder owner, which was obviously cultural. EGW says in creation Eve was taken from Adam's side signifying equality. Ty Gibson also leans conservative and I believe his line of reasoning is Bible centered. 

Good observation, the context of Paul stating that there is no male or female, slave or free is usually taken out of context on many subjects. Again, equality does not mean that we need to have equal roles.

Lets take a look at one verse on the subject

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.

If we are to apply that somehow this creates a scenario of  women being inferior to men, then we would have to apply the same logic towards God the Father, and Jesus the Son.

This would be an illogical conclusion, but many make this connection with men/women, and ignore it with the God head

 

[Lauralea]

Good observation, the context of Paul stating that there is no male or female, slave or free is usually taken out of context on many subjects. Again, equality does not mean that we need to have equal roles.

Lets take a look at one verse on the subject

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.

If we are to apply that somehow this creates a scenario of  women being inferior to men, then we would have to apply the same logic towards God the Father, and Jesus the Son.

This would be an illogical conclusion, but many make this connection with men/women, and ignore it with the God head

 

I apologize for combining two thoughts but I meant also his other writings for example head coverings in the church are not necessarily universal. We cannot use Paul alone to support a male only hierarchy in the church because if we do we also need to look at his statements regarding slavery. I assume virtually all Adventist Christians today believe those to be cultural, but we cannot arbitrarily draw the line.

We also need to remember Ellen White talked about a woman's role in the home, and a man being the head of the home.

She did not say women could not be leaders in the church. S M I Henry was an early woman leader and church treasurer and EGW wrote of her with approbation. So to say that we should define not usurping authority over man as not holding a church leadership position seems to not hold water. If we say it is only ordination women should not have, she said ordination was overrated. Also, conference treasurers did not have to be ordained at that time, but after her death this became a requirement. It would appear to be safe to remove this requirement which was added by man without the word of the Lord.

 I was present at GC and heard Mark Finley speak and it certainly appeared to me he was speaking in favor of women's ordination, (nor was I particularly espousing it ) and I view him as a Bible scholar, nor would he be considered liberal.

[brotherly love]

I apologize for combining two thoughts but I meant also his other writings for example head coverings in the church are not necessarily universal. We cannot use Paul alone to support a male only hierarchy in the church because if we do we also need to look at his statements regarding slavery. I assume virtually all Adventist Christians today believe those to be cultural, but we cannot arbitrarily draw the line.

We also need to remember Ellen White talked about a woman's role in the home, and a man being the head of the home.

She did not say women could not be leaders in the church. S M I Henry was an early woman leader and church treasurer and EGW wrote of her with approbation. So to say that we should define not usurping authority over man as not holding a church leadership position seems to not hold water. If we say it is only ordination women should not have, she said ordination was overrated. Also, conference treasurers did not have to be ordained at that time, but after her death this became a requirement. It would appear to be safe to remove this requirement which was added by man without the word of the Lord.

 I was present at GC and heard Mark Finley speak and it certainly appeared to me he was speaking in favor of women's ordination, (nor was I particularly espousing it ) and I view him as a Bible scholar, nor would he be considered liberal.

No need to apologize. it is always a breath of fresh air discussing these topics with yourself! We may or may not agree on every topic, but we can discuss them with love and grace!

Paul uses references from culture and nature to communicate spiritual truths and realities. In the case of Corinthians 11 and the headcoverings/ long and shaved hair, he uses both.

The reality he is trying to communicate using cultural means is found in his statement in the beginning of the lesson

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.

Far from trying to enforce a custom or culture, Paul is using a cultural reference to communicate who our authority is.  Paul also uses a non cultural reference to Genesis to press his point.

 A man ought not to cover his head,^[b] 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.

Christ being the head of the church/body is not used in isolation, and is used in terms of authority

Ephesians 1:22  ²² And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,

Ephesians 5:23 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 1:18 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 2:10 ¹⁰ and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.

Ephesians 4:15 ¹⁵ Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.

Colossians 2:19 ¹⁹ They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

None of these references are cultural, but Paul uses culture to communicate non cultural realities from time to time. If we are to confuse slavery or a cultural piece of cloth with spiritual realities not tied to culture or any epic of time, then we can apply the same principle to Christ being the head of the church as we do with husbands and wives, and men and women of faith.

 

[B/W Photodude]

EGW says in creation Eve was taken from Adam's side signifying equality. Ty Gibson also leans conservative and I believe his line of reasoning is Bible centered. 

There is a slight difference in equality and responsibilities that are divided up based on gender. Equality is not sameness. A number of speakers have talked at length regarding how leadership by men was something in existence before sin and before the fall of the race. The evidence is in the Bible and has been discussed here at C/A before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09g5yZJlhL4

[Tom Wetmore]

I don't see anyone here confusing equality with sameness.  That is really just a strawman argument.  The Creation story in Genesis is clear in describing that God created both man and woman and gave them dominion over all creation.  Dominion is rulership/authority/leadership, being in charge over all things on earth.  Notice that it does not make a distinction between the man and the woman regarding this role God gave them before sin entered and messed with all that.  The inequality was caused by sin.  If you believe we are to be overcomes of sin, you should understand it to mean a restoration to the way things were before sin entered the picture, back to equality of man and woman.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Tom Wetmore
typo correction and clarification of wording...

[Lauralea]

Yes I agree with Tom man and woman were created to have dominion. I agree  also that equality is not sameness with B/W. I personally am somewhat neutral with respect to WO but I do believe that if the many conversions and baptisms we see in China are at the behest of the Holy Spirit, it may be time to recognize this as Peter recognized the Holy Spirit working with the Gentiles in Acts.

Brotherly Love thank you and I agree Paul spoke of general principles of male leadership. I believe some he applied within his culture, such as head coverings, not that he caved to his culture, just that he tried to apply the general principles within the culture.

We need to remember that there were exceptions and modulating texts with regard to to the strictest interpretation of the texts in question, both in the Pauline epistles and in the Hebrew priesthood. Deborah was a judge in Israel, the highest role then present outside of the priesthood. Women were allowed into an outer court of the temple, but Gentiles were never allowed inside. If in Christ there is no Jew or Greek and no male or female, to assume one prohibition is done away and one never will have any exceptions is certainly open to discussion, especially because the roles of public speaking and exhortation of a pastor were filled for many years by Ellen White.

We are told to anticipate the priesthood of all believers, that in the last days your sons and daughters shall prophesy, and in Christ there is no male or female.  Paul also in I Corinthians 12 lists spiritual gifts in order, first apostles then prophets then pastors and teachers. If God has used women as prophets, it does not seem to be unscriptural that he could at some time choose to use them in the lesser role of pastor. Ellen White also says women should work as pastors, and (in a separate place) that ordination is overemphasized.

I agree with Tom that some of this may be setting up a straw man. I am not here to defend women;s ordination per se but to say that there are sufficient Scriptural and evidentiary reasons to give it earnest consideration and not dismiss all who after thoughtful consideration believe it to be Biblical as extreme or not students of the Bible. 

 

 

[brotherly love]

 

Brotherly Love thank you and I agree Paul spoke of general principles of male leadership. I believe some he applied within his culture, such as head coverings, not that he caved to his culture, just that he tried to apply the general principles within the culture.

We need to remember that there were exceptions and modulating texts with regard to to the strictest interpretation of the texts in question, both in the Pauline epistles and in the Hebrew priesthood. Deborah was a judge in Israel, the highest role then present outside of the priesthood. Women were allowed into an outer court of the temple, but Gentiles were never allowed inside. If in Christ there is no Jew or Greek and no male or female, to assume one prohibition is done away and one never will have any exceptions is certainly open to discussion, especially because the roles of public speaking and exhortation of a pastor were filled for many years by Ellen White.

We are told to anticipate the priesthood of all believers, that in the last days your sons and daughters shall prophesy, and in Christ there is no male or female.  Paul also in I Corinthians 12 lists spiritual gifts in order, first apostles then prophets then pastors and teachers. If God has used women as prophets, it does not seem to be unscriptural that he could at some time choose to use them in the lesser role of pastor. Ellen White also says women should work as pastors, and (in a separate place) that ordination is overemphasized.

 

 

 

The Priesthood of the church of the old Testament was a mediator between God and believers. The Presence of God was tied to the Temple and Priesthood. Now there is no mediator between God and believers. This has nothing to do with how God created men and women. Torah is a guide for us us how to minimize our impact with each other in our fallen natures, in a fallen world. It teaches how to minimize the animosity of the sexes. Deborah was no different and she was a stellar example of a woman of modesty. A woman is ontologically equal to man, and Deborah was able to lead. The message of the text is that she knew that it was not her role to do so. She stepped up in a time where "every person did what was right in their own eyes". and "they did evil in the eyes of the Lord" It was a time where the men would not lead, and she had to push Barak to lead the people into victory.

 Barak said to her, “If you go with me, I will go; but if you don’t go with me, I won’t go.”

⁹ “Certainly I will go with you,” said Deborah. “But because of the course you are taking, the honor will not be yours, for the Lord will deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman.” So Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh.

The text is very unflattering towards Barak, the defeat of the enemy Sisera would be given to the women Jael.

Deborah did not hold a regular court at the city gates, or in the city, she held it outside of the city where people came to her.

The song of Deborah opens with these lines

On that day Deborah and Barak son of Abinoam sang this song:

² “When the princes in Israel take the lead,
    when the people willingly offer themselves—
    praise the Lord!

The message of judges 4 is very clear, that men were to lead-men gave this up when in times of evil

Isaiah highlights this lack of leadership again

Isaiah 3:12

Youths oppress my people,
    women rule over them.
My people, your guides lead you astray;
    they turn you from the path.

Catholics make the same mistake by insisting that their priests have to be celibate men or be defrocked. This may seem like light years apart with the WO issue, but the mistake is spun with the same thread as womens ordination

 

Edited June 25, 2015 by brotherly love

[Lauralea]

 

Brotherly love, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I think Mark Finley and Ty Gibson would disagree that the celibacy of Catholic priests and women's ordination are related, and I believe their theology to be sound. Further, this sounds close to saying that these men have apostatized, and they both are ordained ministers of the Gospel. If you believe this to be the case, you should go to them, and not accuse them behind their back. And I do not believe it for a moment.

In relation to Deborah, while we do know that God asked 2 men to lead before Ellen White, nevertheless He chose her and ordained her to be a prophet in spiritual Israel. Pastoring is a lessor gift than prophecy