Washington Conference Grants Females ______

[Rossw]

Her writings are not written at a low level either. 

[Rossw]

3 hours ago, LadyRachelLynn said:

I deal with non-sda public A LOT and I cannot tell you how hypocritical we seem to our public on this issue.  SEVERAL people I have met are shocked that SDA's do NOT ordain women since they believe "our church was started by a woman."  I do not believe we can say that EGW was a special case.  I believe if we do that we will be acting as hypocritical as ever.  How can we say, well, a woman here or there in history can work for G-d as a leader/pastor/prophet, but we won't allow the common woman to do this job".  Its not like EVERY woman in this conference is begging for it.  But there ARE women being called by G-d, and yet we deny deny deny them the ability to do the work they are called for out of HYPOCRISY, saying that a "lowly woman cannot do this, even though ELLEN WHITE, the lowest of them all (uneducated, farm girl, etc) was elevated to such a high place in our church, but that was just a fluke, we won't ever recognize it again."

 

First off your using the misconception of EGW starting the church to show the hypocrisy. Try not to use a misconception as evidence.

EGW is a special case in that God spoke directly through her to communicate to the church. EGW cannot be likened to every woman so she is a special case. 

It is not a hypocrisy if the church did not make it a practice then, nor makes it a practice today to ordain women.

I am not denigrating women when I say women are for different roles. I fully agree with what EGW said in the quote by Green about the role of the headship in the family and continuing to the headship in the church. Let's not lose sight of the forest from the trees. 1 Timothy 3 is conclusive and if we take the Bible as God's word there is no discussion. We look at the church giving her credentials but but did she herself write on the matter?

On 6/25/2016 at 7:35 PM, Green Cochoa said:

That is a good statement from Mrs. White regarding the story of Genesis 3.  However, regarding women's role in the home as compared to their husbands, there are some plainer statements.  Mrs. White was balanced, and certainly I do not see her condoning a dictatorial role for the husband, but she does establish the husband as the head of the home in very firm tones.  Some will say, "but how does this apply to the church?"  This is a fair question, and, fortunately, Ellen White also helps us to understand the position of the church as having its origination in the home.  The "corporate" body starts with the home family.  Below are two statements that help us understand these things.

"The husband is the head of the family, as Christ is the head of the church; and any course which the wife may pursue to lessen his influence and lead him to come down from that dignified, responsible position is displeasing to God. It is the duty of the wife to yield her wishes and will to her husband. Both should be yielding, but the word of God gives preference to the judgment of the husband. And it will not detract from the dignity of the wife to yield to him whom she has chosen to be her counselor, adviser, and protector. The husband should maintain his position in his family with all meekness, yet with decision." {1T 307.1}

"Every Christian family is a church in itself. The members of the family are to be Christlike in every action. The father is to sustain so close a relation to God that he realizes his duty to make provision for the members of his family to receive an education and training that will fit them for the future, immortal life. His children are to be taught the principles of heaven. He is the priest of the household, accountable to God for the influence that he exerts over every member of his family. He is to place his family under the most favorable circumstances possible, so that they shall not be tempted to conform to the habits and customs, the evil practices and lax principles, that they would find in the world."  {1NL 77.2} 

If the father is the head and priest of the home, and if the home is a church in itself, it is clear that the same principles of home order apply to the church.

 

[Kevin H]

4 hours ago, Rossw said:

In EGW's day how many other women received credentials? Was there a laying of hands ceremony at that time? Did women at that time ever participate in the ceremony?

They were planning to. Mrs. White did not do anything to prevent this and debatably might have done something to encourage it.

General Conference President A. G. Daniels asked them to WAIT just a little bit, because there were some people who thought that the Bible does not support the ordination of women. He wanted these members to be educated to know that ordination of women was indeed Biblical.

[Kevin H]

1 hour ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

just as a matter of record, Ellen White was not the "lowest" of women... she had *some* education before she was injured, and her education was continued at home by her mother.  The small Harmon farm was in Cumberland County, Maine, and in 1842 when Ellen was 12, the population of that county was over 70,000.  The farm was not the family's primary means of living — they ran a hatmaking business, in which Ellen was involved.  They lived in Gorham, less than 13 miles from Portland, Maine, which was the 25th largest city in the US in 1840.  I really don't think she was educationally and socially backwards or lacking in opportunities.

Indeed. In the 1800s most people had only little formal education and then was self educated if they wanted an education. This was Mrs. White. She became a speed reader and was widely read. During her life time her education was not an issue. What happened was in the 20th century fundamentalists thought it would be impressive and look like an amazing miracle if all this was to have been done by an uneducated girl. The silly idea of "She couldn't have done it, just like those simple ignorant shepherds could not have done the Old Testament and those simple ignorant fishermen couldn't have done the New Testament, God did it!" grew and became a "proof text" as to her inspiration.

[Kevin H]

13 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

If you remember your history, no "Seventh-day Adventists" existed when James White became an elder, so you're asking the wrong question.  "[James Springer] White was baptized at age 16 and in 1843 was ordained as a minister." When the Adventist church officially formed decades later, it had no need of ordaining Elder White, for he had already been ordained as an elder and had been serving in that capacity as the church was forming.

Thank you for catching my point. They recognized that he was an elder and just accepted it. They recognized that God ordained Mrs. White and just accepted it.

[Green Cochoa]

9 minutes ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

just as a matter of record, Ellen White was not the "lowest" of women... she had *some* education before she was injured, and her education was continued at home by her mother.  The small Harmon farm was in Cumberland County, Maine, and in 1842 when Ellen was 12, the population of that county was over 70,000.  The farm was not the family's primary means of living — they ran a hatmaking business, in which Ellen was involved.  They lived in Gorham, less than 13 miles from Portland, Maine, which was the 25th largest city in the US in 1840.  I really don't think she was educationally and socially backwards or lacking in opportunities.

Just as a matter of record, Ellen White used a vocabulary set in all of her books of over 37,000 words, or roughly triple the vocabulary to be found in the King James Version Bible, a book with about 40 different penmen, and about double the vocabulary of the average modern native-English speaker.  

 

For some perspective, that happens to be a larger vocabulary set than the entire language of the country in which I presently reside.  The largest dictionary I have found for this country, containing many highly-academic words that many locals do not know, claims to have about 30,000 words.  When transcribed and compiled, they appear fewer than this number.  (Note that this language is a more analytical language--doesn't use inflectional morphemes--and therefore has fewer word forms.)  Many Americans may have a vocabulary of around 20,000 words, or roughly half as many as Mrs. White who was only nine years old at the time of her accident, and could not study afterward due to weakness from the accident, despite her efforts to do so.  

23 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

She became a speed reader and was widely read.

I've never heard anyone say she was a speed reader before, and I find such a statement dubious.  God could certainly have given her such an ability, but upon what basis does one make such a claim?

As an additional matter of record, James White, Ellen's husband, had dyslexia (or eye problems of some sort) until well-past the ordinary school age, at which point God seems to have miraculously enabled him to read, removing the dyslexia.  He also suffered seizures and other health problems as a child, so his background did not differ as much as one might assume from that of his wife.

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw asked below:

We have ordained men who have never done such.  I am thinking right now of a person whom I personally know who was so ordained.

Going back to the time of EGW, what record do we have of her grandson ever doing such.  Yet, we ordained him.

We certainly did it in the 1940s.  We have a long history of doing such.

 

Did EGW perform baptisms, marriages, etc?

 

 

[Rossw]

4 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Thank you for catching my point. They recognized that he was an elder and just accepted it. They recognized that God ordained Mrs. White and just accepted it.

Interesting..."God ordained EGW". I agree. But, we'd have to concede this was a special case. I don't know if God has ordained anyone, man or woman, the same way since. Many people have been ordained since then, of course, but it's hard to say who was ordained by God. I know a few who have been ordained but are not following God. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw:

 

Yes, we agree on this point.  That was  the issue with EGW.  The denomination  recognized that she had been ordained by God.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The point is:  When EGW was  issued the credentials of an ordained minister, she became an ordained minister of the SDA church regardless of whether or not she had ever had a public ceremony with the laying on of hands.

Green:  Would you be willing for women today to be issued the credentials of an ordained minister, of the SDA church, if there was no public ceremony with the laying on of hands?

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The point is:  When EGW was  issued the credentials of an ordained minister, she became an ordained minister of the SDA church regardless of whether or not she had ever had a public ceremony with the laying on of hands.

Green:  Would you be willing for women today to be issued the credentials of an ordained minister, of the SDA church, if there was no public ceremony with the laying on of hands?

The church continues to apostatize, Gregory, on this point.  If the Bible were to be believed and followed, we would not be ordaining women as ministers of the gospel, i.e. church elders.

Note: My opinion means nothing.  God's opinion on the matter is everything.  If the Sabbath were changed to Sunday, it matters not how many people commit to the change--it matters only that God Himself authorizes it.  Such is the case here: God, to authorize women elders, must change His Word, and to do so requires ample notification of same.  Simply rising on Sunday did not effect a change in the Sabbath, and simply making Ellen White a prophetess did not effect a change in allowing eldresses in the church.  Consider that prophetesses have existed in the past without elevating them to church leadership (priest/Levite): Deborah, Huldah, Miriam, Anna, etc.  Even had the church issued them "credentials," did such papers change any whit of God's order?  Is the church elevated to a popish position now and can seek to change God's order by virtue of signing a paper?  As we all know, on one of those papers for Mrs. White, the word "ordained" was crossed out.  No proof exists for whom it may have been to cross it out--but it is quite possible that Ellen White did this herself.  The paper was a formality in order to receive wages for her work--it was not truly intended at that time to be an equivalent to the ordination of an elder.  People today, seeking desperately for hooks upon which to hang their rebellious arguments, abuse that certificate to force women's ordination upon the church at large.  Yes, I say "rebellious."  We are told to call sin by its right name.  That is the right name here.  I may get banned from here for such talk, but how can I ignore the truth?  I am certainly not the only one to see it--going back to Mrs. White's own day.  Would any like to see what some wrote of the women's movement back then?  Here is an excerpt:

At the Women's National Council, recently held in Washington, Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton made a speech in which she made known the animus of the so-called woman's rights movement in the following words:- {June 8, 1888 EJW, SITI 358.16}

"The time is not far distant when, if men do not do justice to women, the women will strike hands with labor, with Socialists, with Anarchists, and you will have the scenes of the revolution of France acted over again in this republic." {June 8, 1888 EJW, SITI 358.17}

Like most of the Anarchists, Mrs. Stanton is a rampant infidel of the Ingersoll stamp, and it doesn't augur well for the welfare of the country when the movement which she champions shall succeed, that none of the Christian women who are associated with her, disavow the sentiments which she uttered. We make no further comment than to say that such language from one who was actually suffering a grievous wrong, would show its user to be thoroughly unfit to take any active part in a free Government. {June 8, 1888 EJW, SITI 358.18}

In an article in Our Day, on "Woman as Preacher," Miss Willard says:- {June 8, 1888 EJW, SITI 358.19}

"We stand once more at the parting of the roads; shall the bold, resolute men among our clergy win the day, and give ordination to women, or shall women take this matter into their own hands? Fondly do women hope, and earnestly do women pray, that the churches they love may not drive them to this extremity." {June 8, 1888 EJW, SITI 358.20}

Professor Townsend, of New York, a prominent Methodist clergyman, advises women to knock only once more at the doors of the General Conference, and, if their signals are against disregarded, never to knock again, but to take the matter into their own hands. The New York Christian Advocate says concerning this thing:- {June 8, 1888 EJW, SITI 358.21}

"Professor Townsend uses bold words. The church will be amazed at them. Our Methodist readers will naturally begin to inquire, 'Whereunto will the thing grow?'" {June 8, 1888 EJW, SITI 358.22}

And well they may make such inquiry. {June 8, 1888 EJW, SITI 358.23}

When the matter of keeping Sunday is under discussion we hear a great deal about apostolic example. Not that the apostles ever kept a Sunday, but it pleases the people to imagine that they did because if they did then there is strong presumptive evidence that we ought to keep Sunday too. But the following statements by the Christ Union, with which in the main very few people will disagree, shows that apostolic example has actually no weight whatever with the people who say so much about it:- {June 8, 1888 EJW, SITI 358.24}

. . .

 

[Green Cochoa]

And here is Ellen White herself on the topic of how her example would be used…that day has most certainly come.

False Messages Will Be Charged Upon Ellen White.--Every conceivable message is coming to counterfeit the work of God, and always bearing the inscription of truth upon its banner. And those who are prepared for anything new and sensational, will handle these things in such a manner that our enemies will charge all that is inconsistent and overdone upon Mrs. E. G. White, the prophetess. . . . {3SM 404.3}

There will be counterfeit messages coming from persons in all directions. One after another will rise up, appearing to be inspired, when they have not the inspiration of heaven, but are under the deception of the enemy. All who receive their messages will be led astray. Then let us walk carefully, and not open wide the door for the enemy to enter through impressions, dreams, and visions. God help us to look in faith to Jesus, and be guided by the words He has spoken.--Letter 66, 1894. {3SM 404.4}

 

 

[Rossw]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

 Would you be willing for women today to be issued the credentials of an ordained minister, of the SDA church, if there was no public ceremony with the laying on of hands?

 

 

In any form wouldn't that be in violation of Scripture? 

Let's compare what 1 Timothy 3 says and see if there is any provision for female leadership?

3 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of [a]overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,temperate, prudent, respectable,hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine [c]or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not becomeconceited and fall into thecondemnation [d]incurred by the devil.7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

-----------

Does not look like Scripturally there is any provision for female church leadership.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green Said, below:

At this point in time, you will not be banned due to anything that I have said.  I have not heard of any group of people who want you banned.

Occasionally you get a bit intemperate, as you did in a post above.  But, you often raise arguments that should be considered, even if rejected.  In addition, you are sometimes correct.

I, like many of the others here prefer that the Holy Spirit be allowed to convince people as to the truth (or lack of it) in what you post.  Most of the time you stay within what I consider to be the boundaries of acceptable posting.   So, I welcome you to continue. But, that does not mean that one should never take you to task.

So, Green, I suggest that you spend less time in thinking that people may ban you.   None of us are out to "get you."  None of us are looking for justification to ban you.  This is a private forum.  If anyone wanted to do so, that person would not need a reason.  It could just be done.

    

Quote

 I may get banned from here for such talk,. . .

[LadyRachelLynn]

9 hours ago, Rossw said:

Her writings are not written at a low level either. 

Exactly my point.  I wasn't trying to say she was stupid or whatever, just that she wasn't what many would have considered to be the "perfect" person to carry any message from G-d.  I do not believe she was the lowest of women, it was just a point to say she didn't have a ph.d, 3 degrees, come from a family with loads of money or stature in society, etc.  At least NOT when she was called by G-d.  

She wasn't completely uneducated, but again, she didn't have the qualifications MOST assume is needed for the work she ended up doing.  Whether she was homeschooled or self taught, or what have you, when she was called is what I was referring to.

[Green Cochoa]

14 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

So, Green, I suggest that you spend less time in thinking that people may ban you.   None of us are out to "get you."  None of us are looking for justification to ban you.  This is a private forum.  If anyone wanted to do so, that person would not need a reason.  It could just be done.

The point is, Gregory, some truths seem unacceptable here if they do not agree with the moderation team's views.  This is the image the forum has gotten with its handling of individuals like kevin(wrx).  Some of the rest of us are made to understand that at a moment's notice, "It could just be done."  That is the point.  We never can feel free to speak the truth on certain points.  Even though I may be respectful, my understanding of this forum is that certain views, respectful or not, are simply not tolerated here.  I post here with the understanding that at any time I may end up crossing that line and find myself banned without notice or warning.  That is simply what I have witnessed with some others.  It just takes one post from you, and a few posts later, without much further ado, I could be summarily dismissed.  Is this not so?  Therefore, if the admin team of this private forum prefer the "pro-women's ordination" persuasion, anyone posting against it will be walking on thin ice--or, at least, may feel they are, as I do.

[Green Cochoa]

6 minutes ago, LadyRachelLynn said:

Exactly my point.  I wasn't trying to say she was stupid or whatever, just that she wasn't what many would have considered to be the "perfect" person to carry any message from G-d.  I do not believe she was the lowest of women, it was just a point to say she didn't have a ph.d, 3 degrees, come from a family with loads of money or stature in society, etc.  At least NOT when she was called by G-d.  

She wasn't completely uneducated, but again, she didn't have the qualifications MOST assume is needed for the work she ended up doing.  Whether she was homeschooled or self taught, or what have you, when she was called is what I was referring to.

Interestingly, those with a Ph.D. are said to have about 30,000 word vocabularies in English.  Ellen White had a superior lexicon to most doctors.

[CoAspen]

Quote

Therefore, if the admin team of this private forum prefer the "pro-women's ordination" persuasion, anyone posting against it will be walking on thin ice--or, at least, may feel they are, as I do.

Did you read or search through all the WO thread for its postings? Both sides  had their say, the issue is that each side still believes the way they did before. Maybe that upsets some people. What you say above is not true. Those that tell you that are not accurately presenting what they believe has happened. Just because you or anyone else, can't change peoples minds does not mean you or they is walking on thin ice. You might sense some peoples frustration with the topic, as all of this has been hashed over and over on many occasions. I think you might find many of the answers to your questions by looking at the old topics and discussions.

[Kevin H]

2 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

The point is, Gregory, some truths seem unacceptable here if they do not agree with the moderation team's views.  This is the image the forum has gotten with its handling of individuals like kevin(wrx).  Some of the rest of us are made to understand that at a moment's notice, "It could just be done."  That is the point.  We never can feel free to speak the truth on certain points.  Even though I may be respectful, my understanding of this forum is that certain views, respectful or not, are simply not tolerated here.  I post here with the understanding that at any time I may end up crossing that line and find myself banned without notice or warning.  That is simply what I have witnessed with some others.  It just takes one post from you, and a few posts later, without much further ado, I could be summarily dismissed.  Is this not so?  Therefore, if the admin team of this private forum prefer the "pro-women's ordination" persuasion, anyone posting against it will be walking on thin ice--or, at least, may feel they are, as I do.

It's not what they say but how they say it that either makes them welcome or get into trouble.

[Kevin H]

10 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

  

I've never heard anyone say she was a speed reader before, and I find such a statement dubious.  God could certainly have given her such an ability, but upon what basis does one make such a claim?

 

The Review belonged to an alliance of 999 other journals where they would give the others in the alliance a free subscription to their paper. This was to allow the writers of the journals to copy and use their articles in their own writings. Mrs. White had the first choice and they would bring these journals to her where she was described as using her hands in what today we know as speed reading. In a short time went through the journals cutting out the articles she wanted to use then sending the rest on to the other writers to pick from.

[Green Cochoa]

1 minute ago, Kevin H said:

The Review belonged to an alliance of 999 other journals where they would give the others in the alliance a free subscription to their paper. This was to allow the writers of the journals to copy and use their articles in their own writings. Mrs. White had the first choice and they would bring these journals to her where she was described as using her hands in what today we know as speed reading. In a short time went through the journals cutting out the articles she wanted to use then sending the rest on to the other writers to pick from.

I'm a speed reader myself.  Speed reading is not done for pleasure--it's a lot of work.  I prefer scanning, and usually scan rather than speed read.  Perhaps many who have never mastered speed reading would mistake scanning for speed reading.  They are not the same.  Scanning is very efficient at looking for main ideas.  Speed reading absorbs the entire message.  Speed reading involves two major skills/hurdles.  First, the eyes cease stopping on every word as in ordinary reading.  This step is fairly easy for most people to learn.  Scanners do this as well.  The second step is what I call "breaking the sound barrier."  It involves ceasing to pronounce the words to oneself, either aloud or mentally, such that the words transfer directly to thoughts without being "said."  For example, if one sees the word "tree," he or she does not pronounce this word, even in the mind, but simply sees a picture of a tree mentally.  This is a tremendous hurdle, and some can never master it.  After doing so, I got up to a rather slow speed-reading speed of 1,500 WPM.  Without passing the sound barrier, a reader can likely never exceed 600 WPM.  Some speed readers exceed 10,000 WPM.  When I speed read, my eyes jog back and forth so quickly that half of what I am reading is actually read in a backwards sweep.  Scanning generally does not involve, for me, at least, reading backwards.  

Certainly, God could have given Mrs. White any ability that she needed to have.  I just have never seen any evidence for what you claim.  Sources?

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said, below:

I am, frankly, dumbfounded by your statement to the effect that you have personally witnessed people being banned without notice or warning.  What is it that makes you think that you could ever personally witness someone being banned without notice or warning?

To set the record:  The decision to ban a person is made by three, or less people.  All three of these people believe that such notice and warnings should not be made publicly.  They also believe that such bannings should not take place prior to notice and/or warning that are privately delivered.

There are rare exceptions to this.  I am aware of and will list two types of exceptions that may occur:   People who post porrn and/or scams may be immediately banned without prior notice and/or warning.  All of the above has happened here in CA.  Would you have it any different?   Would you want people who post what is clearly porn and/or an attmpt to obtain either money or personal information that could be clearly used to defraud them, to remain posting here without being immediately banned.

Further, people may be given chances that you may not be aware of.  I once reported a post as a possible attempt to obtain money.  The "powers that be" immediately informed me that I was wrong.  My independent investigation, which I generally do, determined that I was substantially wrong, even though I was partially correct.  The post remained. 

Also, as an exception, I have on occasion made a public statement that was a warning.  But, most of the time, I do not make such a public statement.

Green I could give you names and facts to support what I am saying here.  But, I do not think it appropriate to make such public knowledge.

 

Quote

 I post here with the understanding that at any time I may end up crossing that line and find myself banned without notice or warning.  That is simply what I have witnessed with some others.  

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, I happen to believe that there may be times when it is appropriate for a public discussion in a manner that some others disagree with.  From this perspective I am going to further publicly comment on a previous post of yours and  my public statement to the effect that it was intemperate.  I will quote brief excerpts of your longer post below and I will identify parts of it by inserting numbers in my quote.  Also, people will need to read your entire quote to get the context.

1) Green, in fairness to you and the accepted meaning of the word "apostatize" I will withdraw my objection to your use of this word.  You could have stated it differently.  But, that choice was yours.   However, I do not agree with you on this point. 

2) I have substantial agreement with you on this point and I have publicly stated in many times.  The issue is not that of ordination.  It is that of the role that women should have in spiritual nurture.  If it is wrong for them to be pastors, it is also wrong for them to be elders.  Personally, I happen to believe that women may be both Elders and Pastors.

3)  Green, you come across as suggesting that your stated opinion is clearly God's opinion.  I am not attempting to be unfair to you and put words in your mouth, which you have not said.  But, that is how you come across.  What you could have done is used words to the effect that you believe that Bible teaches X.  Doing so would have come across as more humble.  Your statement almost sounds like a Roman Catholic position on the Pope.  The only problem with that is that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is human and most of the time does not act as the voice of God. 

4) Rebellion involves a judgement that the individual knows what is right and has made a personal decision to go against a known conviction of the Holy Spirit.  That is not appropriate.  You do not have the knowledge to   make such a decision.  What you could have done would be to  clearly state, as you often do, that people are in violation of  Biblical teaching.   

Quote

1) The church continues to apostatize, Gregory, on this point. 

2) If the Bible were to be believed and followed, we would not be ordaining women as ministers of the gospel, i.e. church elders.

3) Note: My opinion means nothing.  God's opinion on the matter is everything.  

4) People today, seeking desperately for hooks upon which to hang their rebellious arguments, abuse that certificate to force women's ordination upon the church at large.  Yes, I say "rebellious."  We are told to call sin by its right name.  That is the right name here.

[Rossw]

Greg, why do you believe women should be ordained?

[CoAspen]

God calls whom ever he chooses. If we ordain men who have been 'called', why would we not ordain women who are 'called'?

Of course, some will say, God would not 'call' for a women to be a leader, pastor, etc. My question comes back to, who on this earth has the ability to say what God can and can't do. 

Are we going to put God in a 'box' made by human thinking?