Washington Conference Grants Females ______

[phkrause]

2 hours ago, Rossw said:

But this was not the way it was supposed to be. Barak was supposed to have confidence in the Lord and not just look at Deborah as a charm. Idealy Barak was himself was supposed to lead, not Deborah.

But that didn't happen did it!!

[Green Cochoa]

On June 21, 2016 at 0:44 PM, Kevin H said:

However the 2 sources that I know is that the language surrounding the story of Jael and Sisera apparently places Jael as a female Priest and that Sisera went there appealing for "Sanctuary" but that since she was a priest of Yahweh, instead of giving him Sanctuary, she destroyed Yahweh's enemy.

Mrs. White wrote about that story of Jael.  Have you read it?  Perhaps you would not agree with her version of the story, for she makes no mention at all of Jael being a priestess.  In fact, the word "priestess" doesn't seem to be in the Bible (I checked KJV, NKJV, RSV, NLT, NASB, ESV, ASV, and NIV).

On June 21, 2016 at 0:44 PM, Kevin H said:

Of course we still have the fact that Jesus ordained women apostles, . . . 

Please provide a clear "thus saith the LORD" for this (false?) assertion.

On June 21, 2016 at 0:44 PM, Kevin H said:

Soon after this Mrs. White wrote articles about women in ministry. The critics of women's ordination read through them like a lawyer grabbing every loophole they can find.

Indeed she did.  Most women who desire leadership would not much like to read what Mrs. White wrote on this score.  I will post an excerpt below of something she wrote on the topic, in which the sharper points she quoted from another source in support of her position.  (NOTE: The editors at the White Estate put her quotation in capitals to indicate it was not from her own pen, but, as that is perceived online to be shouting, I have converted those to normal case for readability.  However, the intro is hers, following which she quoted, then signed her initials at the end.)  This passage is long, but when I looked for places to clip out of it for brevity, I simply could not find a good place to do so without losing the context for the part which followed.  However, for those with less time, the most salient paragraph (to my mind) I bolded. Read it.

Quote

     The rich have greater temptations to neglect the cultivation of the very things which are essential to their health and happiness in this life than their less wealthy neighbors. The wealthy are frequently led to encourage indolence and self-indulgence, and they fail to educate their children to develop valuable characters; such as God estimates, and which will give them moral worth fit for the society of the heavenly angels.  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 7}  
     I clip from an exchange the following on  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 8} 
 
                              "EVERY-DAY RELIGION. 

     "We must come back to our point, which is not to urge you all to give yourselves to mission work, but to serve God more in connection with your daily calling. I have heard that a woman who has a mission makes a poor wife or a bad mother; this is very possible, and at the same time very lamentable; but the mission I urge, is not at all of this sort. Dirty rooms, slatternly gowns, children with unwashed faces are swift witnesses against the sincerity of those who keep other vineyards and neglect their own. I have no faith in that woman who talks of grace and glory abroad, and uses no soap and water at home. Let the buttons be on the shirts, let the children's socks be mended, let the house be as neat as a new pin, and the home be as happy as home can be. Serve God by doing common actions in a heavenly spirit, and then, if your daily calling only leaves you cracks and crevices of time, fill them up with holy service. --Spurgeon."  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 9}  
     I am delighted to find the following in that invaluable work entitled "the young lady's counselor," by Rev. Daniel Wise, A. M.; it can be obtained at any Methodist book rooms:--  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 10}  
     "Permit me, by way of illustrating another feature of this question, to lead you into the sitting-room of a respectable and pious lady. She is neatly but plainly attired, and is busy, with the aid of a servant, dusting and cleaning the room. The door-bell rings, and the girl hastens to see who is the visitor. She finds the lady's pastor at the door, and, without ceremony, ushers him into the sitting-room. The lady's face is suffused with blushes, as she confusedly lays aside her dusting-brush and offers her hand to the minister, saying, 'Sir, I am ashamed you should find me thus.'  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 11}  
     "'Let Christ, when he cometh, find me so doing,' replies her pastor.  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 12}  
     "'What! Sir; do you wish to be found in this employment?' earnestly inquired the astonished lady.  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 13}  
     "'Yes, madam, I wish to be found faithfully performing the duties of my mission, as I have found you fulfilling yours.'  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 14}  
     "And was not the minister right? He recognized a great, but a despised, truth. He saw as high a moral importance in the humble task of the lady as in the missions of Gabriel to the ancient prophets; for both did the will of God in their respective spheres, and diversity of sphere does not necessarily involve real inferiority in the employment. The lady in her home could exhibit an affection as true, and an obedience as sincere, as the angel in his sphere. It would be difficult to show wherein her employment was morally and necessarily inferior to his, inasmuch as the character of an act derives all its moral greatness, not from the sphere of the actor, but from its conformity to the will of God.  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 15}  
     "Do you perceive the bearing of my illustration upon the question of woman's sphere? It shows you that your sex is not necessarily inferior to the other, because it is called, by God and nature, to act in a different sphere. Your exclusion from the stage of public life does not imply your inferiority--only the diversity of your powers, functions and duties. Indeed, it would defy the loftiest powers to show wherein the work, the mission of the sphere of woman, is a whit beneath that of her more bustling and prominent companion, man.  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 16}  
     "What is the sphere of woman? Home, the social circle. What is her mission? To mold character, to fashion herself and others after the model character of Christ. What are her chief instruments for the accomplishment of her great work? The affections. Love is the wand by which she is to work moral transformations within her fairy circle. Gentleness, sweetness, loveliness and purity are the elements of her power. Her place is not on life's great battle fields. Man belongs there. It is for him to go forth armed for its conflicts and struggles, to do fierce battle with the hosts of evil that throng our earth and trample upon its blessings. But woman must abide in the peaceful sanctuaries of home, and walk in the noiseless vales of private life. There she must dwell, beside the secret springs of public virtue. There she must smile upon the father, the brother, the husband, when, returning like warriors from the fight, exhausted and covered with the dust of strife, they need to be refreshed by sweet waters drawn 'from affection's spring,' and cheered to renewed struggles by the music of her voice. There she must rear the Christian patriot and statesman, the self-denying philanthropist and the obedient citizen. There, in a word, she must form the character of the world, and determine the destiny of her race. How awful is her mission! What dread responsibility attaches to her work! Surely, she is not degraded by filling such a sphere. Nor would she be elevated, if, forsaking it, she should go forth into the highways of society and jostle with her brothers for the offices and honors of public life. Fame she might occasionally gain, but it would be at the price of her womanly influence.  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 17}  
     "Fancy yourself far out at sea, in a noble ship, contending with a furious storm. 

      'Beneath is one wild whirl of foaming surges; 
       Above, the array of lightnings, like the swords 
       Of cherubim, wide brandished, to repel 
       Aggression from heaven's gates.' 

Behold, amidst this scene of grandeur, the stormy petrel gliding up the face of a huge wave, darting above the foam of a breaker, or sweeping along the watery valleys as composedly and as naturally as it ever swept over the same sea in an hour of calm. Behold, too, another bird, whirling and darting above the spray with a cry of seeming despair; now flying before a monster sea, and anon struggling to keep its wet and weary wings from folding into helpless inaction.  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 18}  
     "Tell me, lady, why this little trembler is in so pitiful a plight, while the stormy petrel gambols freely among the waves. You cannot answer. Then listen. The petrel is in its appropriate sphere. The little trembler is a land-bird, tempted, at first, by sunny weather, to wander among the islands, and driven, at last, by a strong wind to sea. He is out of his sphere; and hence his quiet has fled, his song is silenced and his life endangered. God made him for the land. The grove is his home, and his sphere is among the flowers.  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 19}  
     "It is thus with the entire creation. Everything has its appointed sphere, within which alone it can flourish. Men and women have theirs. They are not exceptions to this truth, but examples of it. To be happy and prosperous, they must abide in them. Man is fitted for the storms of public life, and, like the petrel, can be happy amid their rudest surges. Woman is formed for the calm of home. She may venture, like the land bird, to invade the sphere of man, but she will encounter storms which she is utterly unfitted to meet; happiness will forsake her breast, her own sex will despise her, men will be unable to love her, and when she dies she will fill an unhonored grave.  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 20}  
     "That great patriot, John Adams, paid a high compliment to the power of your sex, when, in an hour of deep political gloom, he wrote the following lines to his wife. Alluding to the attack of the British on the city of Philadelphia, he says: 'I believe the two Howes have not very great women for their wives; if they had, we should suffer more from their exertions than we do. A smart wife would have put Howe in possession of Philadelphia a long time ago.'  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 21}  
     "This remark of the statesman, playfully as it is expressed, was, nevertheless, the offspring of an opinion which he seriously maintained concerning the influence of women. He contended that much of the merit of the great men whose names are on the roll of fame, belonged to their sisters, wives and mothers. Hence he attributed the faults of Howe to the lack of high merit in his wife.  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 22}  
     "John Quincy Adams, the 'old man eloquent,' once paid the following precious tribute to his mother: 'It is due to gratitude and nature that I should acknowledge and avow that such as I have been, whatever it was, such as I am, whatever it is, and such as I hope to be in all futurity, must be ascribed, under Providence, to the precepts and example of my mother.'  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 23}  
     "Very similar is the confession of the celebrated German philosopher, Kant, who says, 'i shall never forget that it was my mother who caused the good which is in my soul to fructify.'  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 24}  
     "Nor are the pleasures of success less delightful in a woman's breast because she attains it through another. If a rich tide of joy flows through the breast of an applauded hero, a triumphant statesman, or a useful philanthropist, there is another equally delightful in the bosom of the woman who is conscious that, but for her, the great man would never have mounted the pedestal of his greatness.  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 25}  
     "Away, then, from your heart, young lady, with all the vagaries of these pseudo reformers! Treat their crude opinions with the contempt they deserve. Glory in the true greatness and real sublimity of the sphere you are called to fill. Labor to qualify yourself to fulfill your mission with distinguished success. Obtain, by persevering self-culture, those high qualities which lift one mind above another. For you must not fail to remember that you cannot communicate high qualities and noble sentiments to other minds unless they first exist in your own. Cultivate, therefore, the loftiest virtues, the highest elements of great character.  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 26}  
     "Such being your sphere, with its weighty responsibility, you require the aids of religion to fill it with propriety and effect. High qualities are not the offspring of an ungracious nature. There is too much of the moral weakness of depravity in the human soul to permit its harmonious and useful development without the restraints and aids of grace. Where the spirit of revealed religion does not reign, there will be moral deformity. Selfishness with its forbidding aspect, pride, envy, hate, discontent, fretfulness, ill-temper, and troops of kindred vices, will wound and sear your character, diminish your influence, and disturb your peace. But, by surrendering yourself to the claims and influences of the saviour, your life will be as a fruitful branch in a beautiful vine. The fruits of the Spirit will adorn it. Clusters of graces, such as love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness and meekness, will give it attractiveness. Its beauty will impress the minds about you, and act as a mighty restraint from sin upon them as they wander over the earth. Your image will stand before a brother, a husband or a father, as a good genius in his hour of temptation, and forbid the triumph of the tempter.  {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 27}  
     "To impress such an image of yourself upon some loved mind within your circle is worth a lifetime of effort. And you have no effectual means of accomplishing so noble a task but by communing deeply with the spirit of Jesus. Resolve, therefore, to live at his footstool, and he will inspire you with every high and holy quality necessary to enable you to fulfill your earthly mission."          E. G. W.    {HR, July 1, 1873 par. 28}  

 

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

On June 21, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Tom Wetmore said:

Christ's death on the the cross ended the OT priestly role.  Recall the NT statement regarding the "priesthood of ALL believers" ?  The role of pastors/ministers is one of servant leadership and not as priestly intercessors.

This erroneous interpretation, with its obviously flawed logic, continues to make the rounds.  First, recall that the NT statement of the priesthood of all believers was actually a restatement of an OT concept that God Himself had spoken regarding Israel--BEFORE the priestly system was established with Moses.  Secondly, one cannot both say that the priestly role ended and that everyone is in a priesthood.  It's one or the other.  

On June 21, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Stan said:

So is this statement true?

We still have the priest hood in place from the OT?

That is not my understanding, we have One High Priest, and that is Christ.

Christ was always the Priest of His people, even in the OT.  Remember Melchizedek.  The priesthood of all believers obvious includes more than just Christ.  In the OT, the priesthood officiated in type, pointing forward to Christ, as the work of their office.  That work ended at the Cross.  This does not mean that, with neither priest nor king, we now have a leaderless, "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" system for the church today.  We still have a true gospel order.  Christ is still the ultimate Priest, Shepherd, and Leader; but under-shepherds (e.g. church elders and pastors) are appointed by Him "to exercise a watchful diligence over the Lord's flock" (Ellen White).

[Green Cochoa]

On June 24, 2016 at 0:27 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

Some folks who quote this verse from Genesis, assume this circumstance is the way God WANTED things to be.  That it was His "will". 

Ugmmmm.  That was the "curse" which Satan brought into human man/woman relationships - the result of one trying to "rule over" or manipulate the other. 

Paul wrote that the husband is head of the wife.  He did not say that the pastor is "head" over every woman in his congregation. 

It would be a bigger assumption, in my mind, to assume, just forty verses after everything God said was pronounced "good" or "very good," that suddenly He would say something "bad."

Paul may not have used the wording which you are looking for, but Ellen White comes closer to it.

[LadyRachelLynn]

2 hours ago, phkrause said:

But that didn't happen did it!!

It seems to me that the biggest issue here is NOT whether the SDA church here is willing to Ordain Females, but rather some people are refusing to believe that G-d can, has, and WILL use anyone who will work for him.  And those who are called by him and respond might be female.  We have seen over and over and over in history that G-d will use anyone who is willing, many times in history it has been recorded as male individuals, but sometimes he uses females.  We need to stop closing our minds and hearts to WHO G-d is using, and start opening our hearts and minds to the fact that He will use any method it takes to reach someone.

[Green Cochoa]

4 hours ago, LadyRachelLynn said:

It seems to me that the biggest issue here is NOT whether the SDA church here is willing to Ordain Females, but rather some people are refusing to believe that G-d can, has, and WILL use anyone who will work for him.  And those who are called by him and respond might be female.  We have seen over and over and over in history that G-d will use anyone who is willing, many times in history it has been recorded as male individuals, but sometimes he uses females.  We need to stop closing our minds and hearts to WHO G-d is using, and start opening our hearts and minds to the fact that He will use any method it takes to reach someone.

God sees fit to teach us through the examples He has given in His Word.  Based on those examples, God has informed us of His particularity in choosing certain ones for certain duties.  Not just anyone can do any duty, no.  In Bible times, one who attempted to do the church work of another did so on pain of death….yes, death!  Every time the Bible puts the "ultimate price" on doing something, it holds deep significance for us, and God intends for us to pay attention.  Unfortunately, many are not paying attention in our church today.  Wake up, people!  Time is short!  The devil walks about, seeking whom he may devour!  He doesn't eat us literally, but rather via deceptions and lies.  Let us not be among that number who are taken in by them.  Let us, then, base our views on a plain "thus saith the LORD."  It is our only safety in these times.

 

 

[Kevin H]

11 hours ago, Rossw said:

Kevin, I'll look into and am interested in your last very long post but a co-worker/friend was killed last night so it's hard to concentrate on something long and in depth.

I am so sorry. My condolences and prayers.

[Gregory Matthews]

As I have said, many times.  The Biblical issue is not that of ordination.  Much of our practice or ordination is not strictly Biblical and stems from culture and other such.  Rather it is the role that women should have in spiritual nurture and development.  Once we have decided on the role that men and women may have is spiritual nurture and development, we may set them apart by a public ceremony of the laying on of hands, which is typically called ordination. 

Green has said that God leads by example.  Well, in Biblical times, women were given the role of a prophet, which Biblically is that of speaking in human terms the message that God wants to give to humanity.

In recent times the SDA denomination has issued the credentials of an ordained minister to a woman.  That woman was Ellen White.  She carried such credentials for   a number of years and they were re-issued a number of times as they expired. Yes, it is true that the SDA denomination never had a public ceremony in which denominational leaders laid hands upon EGW and set her apparat to be a prophet.  The reason was simply that it was believed that God alone had the authority to do such.  The credentials that she was issued constituted the denominations recognition that God had set her apart in that  role.

Denominational history clearly shows EGW as scolding denominational leaders when they failed to do what God wanted.  From this standpoint, one cannot imagine that EGW would ever accept the credentials of an ordained minister, if it would violate the will of God for women to be ordained.

Non-SDA clergy understand the issue being that of spiritual role.  They are literally dumbfounded by a denomination that was co-founded by a woman having any issue of female ordination.

What we as a denomination do to get around the issue of female ordination simple does not make a bit of sense to a logical person.

1)  We give women ministerial licenses, as has just been done by the Panama Conference and has been done in the early 1900s.

2) We "commission" women to ministry in a public ceremony that includes the laying on of hands.

3) We place a female in the position of a General Conference Vice-President, but tell women that they cannot be elected as a local Conference President.

All in all, much of our actual practice as it related to women in ministry constitutes legalistic nit-picking that does not make a bit of sense.

NOTE:  On another issue, Musicman has shared his view that SDA clergy cannot remain employed and disagree in the smallest way with denomination what is set in stone (my words) as SDA belief.  What I have said here I have said publicly to a greater or lessor degree for more than 30 years and I have never be questioned on it.  

 

 

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

34 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Green has said that God leads by example.  Well, in Biblical times, women were given the role of a prophet, which Biblically is that of speaking in human terms the message that God wants to give to humanity.

In recent times the SDA denomination has issued the credentials of an ordained minister to a woman.  That woman was Ellen White.  She carried such credentials for   a number of years and they were re-issued a number of times as they expired. Yes, it is true that the SDA denomination never had a public ceremony in which denominational leaders laid hands upon EGW and set her apparat to be a prophet.  The reason was simply that it was believed that God alone had the authority to do such.  The credentials that she was issued constituted the denominations recognition that God had set her apart in that  role.

Ellen White followed Jesus' example in accepting those ordination credentials.  Jesus illustrated this "peace-keeping" principle, even when the classification into which He (and she) were put did not match their true identities, when He paid the temple tax.  In His case, He did this by a miracle, sending Peter to catch a fish with a coin in its mouth.  But no record exists of Peter telling the priests who received that coin of its origination.  Jesus just quietly acquiesced to the payment of the tax so as to prevent harmful misunderstandings.  This is just what Ellen White did in accepting her pay via the "ordained" classification, as no pay schedule for prophets had ever been established.

Isn't it amazing that God left us, yet again, a proper example in His Word by which to guide our understanding on such a sensitive thing as Ellen White's credentials nearly two thousand years later?

[Gregory Matthews]

As I look at the ministry of EGW, I do not see her muting her voice and keeping silent when denominational leadership failed to follow the will of God.  And you tell us that she did this in the name of peace.  I cannot buy this.

[Rossw]

10 hours ago, LadyRachelLynn said:

It seems to me that the biggest issue here is NOT whether the SDA church here is willing to Ordain Females, but rather some people are refusing to believe that G-d can, has, and WILL use anyone who will work for him.  And those who are called by him and respond might be female.  We have seen over and over and over in history that G-d will use anyone who is willing, many times in history it has been recorded as male individuals, but sometimes he uses females.  We need to stop closing our minds and hearts to WHO G-d is using, and start opening our hearts and minds to the fact that He will use any method it takes to reach someone.

There is a difference between being used by God for his purposes in communicating the gospel message and being called to lead an organization or church.1 Timothy 3 gives us the qualifications to lead a church.

[Green Cochoa]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

As I look at the ministry of EGW, I do not see her muting her voice and keeping silent when denominational leadership failed to follow the will of God.  And you tell us that she did this in the name of peace.  I cannot buy this.

Why didn't Jesus just tell the leaders that He should not pay the tax, then?  Can you "buy" that?  Whether or not you choose to "buy" it, it's true that He chose not to make a big deal out of it.  Ellen White, also, chose such a course at times, as should we at times.  Knowing when to speak and when to remain silent takes a lot of wisdom.  Understanding why others may at times choose to speak or remain silent may also require wisdom.

Blessings.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green: I will suggest that according to your thinking, those who do not believe in the ordination of women should remain silent, for the sake of peace, as you say EGW did and simply accept the fact that we will ordain women.

Note: Please do not propose the argument that she did it due to salary. That would suggest that one should refrain from raising an issue if doing so might affect one pay in a negative manner.

For the Biblical passage, see Matthew 17:24-26.

You ask a question as to why Christ paid the tribute, and did not challenge it. ASs I understand you, you accept the ministry of EGW. If so, she has commented on this very question. You will find her answer to your question on pages 432 - 434. Study her answer closely. You will find that none of the reasons that EGW gave apply to the issue of her credentials as an ordained minister. A refusal on her part would not and resulted in any of what EGW says would have happened if Christ had pad the money to the Temple.

Green, you generally do better than this.

[Gregory Matthews]

By the way Green, I had begun to wonder what had happened to you and if you had left. Glad you still hang around.

[Rossw]

16 hours ago, phkrause said:

But that didn't happen did it!!

Are we to use Barak and Deborah as our example for women's ordination when it was the failure of one man's lack of faith which led him to use a woman as a charm? Does not make logical sense to use a situation of failure as the example. Not all men are failures in leadership needing the woman to take over. Deborah still did not take over the dominant leadership role. She was only taken along as the charm but Barak was still the leader of his army.

The ideal was for Barak, the man, to lead his army by faith.

[Rossw]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Green: I will suggest that according to your thinking, those who do not believe in the ordination of women should remain silent, for the sake of peace, as you say EGW did and simply accept the fact that we will ordain women.

We could flip that around. It is established GC policy to not ordain women. Those opposing are the ones to hold their tongues. The side backed by policy would not need to hold their tongue. But if it is proven fact the Bible does not support women's ordination i would hope you would suppress your desire to continue to ordain women. I believe Scripture does provide enough evidence for male only ordination to leadership.

[Rossw]

10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

As I have said, many times.  The Biblical issue is snot that of ordination.  Much of our practice or ordination is not strictly Biblical and stems from culture and other such.  Rather it is the role that women should have in spiritual nurture and development.  Once we have decided on the role that men and women may have is spiritual nurture and development, we may set them apart by a public ceremony of the laying on of hands, which is typically called ordination. 

Green has said that God leads by example.  Well, in Biblical times, women were given the role of a prophet, which Biblically is that of speaking in human terms the message that God wants to give to humanity.

In recent times the SDA denomination has issued the credentials of an ordained minister to a woman.  That woman was Ellen White.  She carried such credentials for   a number of years and they were re-issued a number of times as they expired. Yes, it is true that the SDA denomination never had a public ceremony in which denominational leaders laid hands upon EGW and set her apparat to be a prophet.  The reason was simply that it was believed that God alone had the authority to do such.  The credentials that she was issued constituted the denominations recognition that God had set her apart in that  role.

Denominational history clearly shows EGW as scolding denominational leaders when they failed to do what God wanted.  From this standpoint, one cannot imagine that EGW would ever accept the credentials of an ordained minister, if it would violate the will of God for women to be ordained.

Non-SDA clergy understand the issue being that of spiritual role.  They are literally dumbfounded by a denomination that was co-founded by a woman having any issue of female ordination.

What we as a denomination do to get around the issue of female ordination simple does not make a bit of sense to a logical person.

1)  We give women ministerial licenses, as has just been done by the Panama Conference and has been done in the early 1900s.

2) We "commission" women to ministry in a public ceremony that includes the laying on of hands.

3) We place a female in the position of a General Conference Vice-President, but tell women that they cannot be elected as a local Conference President.

All in all, much of our actual practice as it related to women in ministry constitutes legalistic nit-picking that does not make a bit of sense.

NOTE:  On another issue, Musicman has shared his view that SDA clergy cannot remain employed and disagree in the smallest way with denomination what is set in stone (my words) as SDA belief.  What I have said here I have said publicly to a greater or lessor degree for more than 30 years and I have never be questioned on it.  

 

 

 

 

I agree with the letter of your post but not your intent. I've always thought the church is incredibly hypocritical on this matter. Is the church above their own hypocrisy and mistakes? No, they've just made mistakes. We don't need to uphold their hypocrisy as good as they continue them. We can correct our mistakes. If the people are offended by the church correcting their hypocrisy and booting all females from leadership then we should not be afraid of members leaving the church. The church is not run as a popularity contest. We already know there will be a shaking.

[Rossw]

Greg, was EGW ever ordained with the laying of hands?

[Rossw]

11 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

NOTE:  On another issue, Musicman has shared his view that SDA clergy cannot remain employed and disagree in the smallest way with denomination what is set in stone (my words) as SDA belief.  What I have said here I have said publicly to a greater or lessor degree for more than 30 years and I have never be questioned on it.  

That shouldn't exactly be the case because the church is not inerrant. We know this because of their hypocrisy of allowing the divisions to continue to ordain woman defiantly. We know the hypocrisy exists when homosexuality is promoted in a college's week of prayer. It's easy to toe the line when the line isn't straight. Could you toe the line if consistency was established and women's ordination was taken away and if the church took a stand against homosexuality?

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw:  I have publicly answered your question to include recently.  You and I both know the answer to that question.

 

1) There is no record that would support the idea that EGW was ordained in a public ceremony by the laying on of hands. by any human

2)  There is a record of the SDA denomination giving EGW the credentials of an ordained minister and doing  that several times over a period of years.

 3) There is a record of EGW being listed in official denominational publications as an Ordained SDA minister.

4) There is a record that SDA leaders did not feel a need to ordain EGW in a public ceremony due to the fact that they believed that God had already set her apart and humans did not need to further set her apart.

 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

21 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

God explicitly tells us that women are not to have authority over men.  How, then, can we presume to change His order?

Where does GOD "explicitly" tell us this?

[Rossw]

12 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Rossw:  I have publicly answered your question to include recently.  You and I both know the answer to that question.

 

1) There is no record that would support the idea that EGW was ordained in a public ceremony by the laying on of hands. by any human

2)  There is a record of the SDA denomination giving EGW the credentials of an ordained minister and doing  that several times over a period of years.

 3) There is a record of EGW being listed in official denominational publications as an Ordained SDA minister.

4) There is a record that SDA leaders did not feel a need to ordain EGW in a public ceremony due to the fact that they believed that God had already set her apart and humans did not need to further set her apart.

 

 

 

There's a lot of personal beliefs by the EGW contemporaries applied here that may not represent Biblical truth. We already know the church is hypocritical on some issues as we've already established.

[8thdaypriest]

I absolutely feel that the Spirit was poured on ALL flesh. 

Spiritual "gifts" were given (for the edification of the church).

Of the gifts: wisdom, knowledge, faith, healings, miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, tongues, interpretation of tongues

Which of these are exclusively MALE?  My opinion.  NONE.

That said, there is the aspect of administrations - of oversight, of decision making for divisions within the church.  This is where the argument seems to arise for MALE only - in those roles. 

1 Corinthians 12:28 "And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. (NKJ)

The first 12 apostles were MALE.  Beyond that we just don't know.  There ARE NO MORE.  The first person witnesses are all dead.  But look at "second".  Second is "prophets".  That would put a prophet before a teacher.  Before an administrator. 

What actions or role would be prohibited to women - within the Church of Jesus Christ on earth?  Baptizing?  Voting to end a tie - at the church board meeting?  Pre-marriage counseling?  Counseling female congregational members?  Visiting those in prison, or in the hospital? 

If a woman can be an accountant, a nuclear scientist, or an architect, or a Supreme Court Judge [intellect is not lacking], why is it - when a woman steps over the threshold of a church - she suddenly must accept a narrowly defined role as secretary, children's teacher, flower arranger, cook, piano player, or other such? 

I am definitely of the opinion that children come FIRST.  I do NOT believe that absent career mothers have been good for small children. 

Only within the last 90 years have women had access to means of birth control - to limit the # of children, and to time their conception.  The Bible was written well before such means were available.  The Adventist church was founded well before such means were available. 

I DO believe that time is short.  I believe we are living within 20-25 years of our LORD's return.  I do NOT personally CARE whether women are officially ordained as "ministers" - for the few years we have left to minister.  What I DO CARE ABOUT, is how women are regarded.  If female opinion continues to be treated as somehow "less valuable" than male opinion, then the church will miss out on what those women could have shared.  

 

[Rossw]

10 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

 If female opinion continues to be treated as somehow "less valuable" than male opinion, then the church will miss out on what those women could have shared.  

 

that is never the crux or emphasis of my argument. Women are supportive of the headship male. The man may have the headship but the man cannot stand in his headship without the support of the female. This seems to be represented in Barak and Deborah or even EGW and the SDA church. Barak had headship and Deborah supported him. The early SDA church had male headship but EGW fulfilled a needed supporting role for the infant church.

 

[LadyRachelLynn]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I absolutely feel that the Spirit was poured on ALL flesh. 

Spiritual "gifts" were given (for the edification of the church).

Of the gifts: wisdom, knowledge, faith, healings, miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, tongues, interpretation of tongues

Which of these are exclusively MALE?  My opinion.  NONE.

That said, there is the aspect of administrations - of oversight, of decision making for divisions within the church.  This is where the argument seems to arise for MALE only - in those roles. 

1 Corinthians 12:28 "And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. (NKJ)

The first 12 apostles were MALE.  Beyond that we just don't know.  There ARE NO MORE.  The first person witnesses are all dead.  But look at "second".  Second is "prophets".  That would put a prophet before a teacher.  Before an administrator. 

What actions or role would be prohibited to women - within the Church of Jesus Christ on earth?  Baptizing?  Voting to end a tie - at the church board meeting?  Pre-marriage counseling?  Counseling female congregational members?  Visiting those in prison, or in the hospital? 

If a woman can be an accountant, a nuclear scientist, or an architect, or a Supreme Court Judge [intellect is not lacking], why is it - when a woman steps over the threshold of a church - she suddenly must accept a narrowly defined role as secretary, children's teacher, flower arranger, cook, piano player, or other such? 

I am definitely of the opinion that children come FIRST.  I do NOT believe that absent career mothers have been good for small children. 

Only within the last 90 years have women had access to means of birth control - to limit the # of children, and to time their conception.  The Bible was written well before such means were available.  The Adventist church was founded well before such means were available. 

I DO believe that time is short.  I believe we are living within 20-25 years of our LORD's return.  I do NOT personally CARE whether women are officially ordained as "ministers" - for the few years we have left to minister.  What I DO CARE ABOUT, is how women are regarded.  If female opinion continues to be treated as somehow "less valuable" than male opinion, then the church will miss out on what those women could have shared.  

 

You know, when I introduced myself as a Messianic Jew someone mentioned this verse..... Galations 3:26-29.    I mentioned that while I agree we should all come together we can still recognize where each other came from.  However, I believe we can use this text in this issue as well.

"26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.