CJC EMPLOYS ITS FIRST FEMALE PASTOR

[news]

For the first time in its 66 years of operation, the Central Jamaica Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (CJC) has voted to employ a female Pastor.

View the full article

[Green Cochoa]

It's disappointing to see the church slowly but surely departing from the Biblical counsels God has entrusted to us in making decisions patterned after the world like this.  May God have mercy on His people, both in teaching them His will and in pardoning their ignorance.

[Gregory Matthews]

Actually   it is the opponents of female ordination who  have helped to open the door for the denomination to have women as pastors.

The Biblical teaching on this issue is focused on the role that women should have in spiritual nurture.  But, the Bible does not have a central focus on ordination.  Because the opponents have diverted  people from considering that role, and have  focused on ordination, the door has been opened for women to become pastors, as  long as they are not ordained. 

As a side point, I have long stated that in the future, when SDA historians look back to these times they will likely say that President Ted did more to bring women into pastoral ministry and to eventually lead to their ordination than probably any other person could have done.  It just may be that in the future, women will be thankful that President Ted was elected GC President.

 

[Stan]

the day needs to come  when ordination happens because of accomplishments not because they have a Masters and a Penis.

[CoAspen]

What!Admins have a sense of humor !!!!

(..or is it sarcasm.....)

[Gregory Matthews]

I do think that it is appropriate for the  denomination to    establish educational standards.  I do not believe t hat such need to be the same in every part of the world.  And, I am willing to allow for exceptions to a policy.  But, I do not believe that such exceptions should become the norm.

 

 

[Gerr]

3 hours ago, news said:

For the first time in its 66 years of operation, the Central Jamaica Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (CJC) has voted to employ a female Pastor.

View the full article

Monkey see, monkey do.  Those unions and conferences who have rebelled against what the world body voted in have emboldened others to do the same.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gerry, did you read that actual article in order to see what had actually happened?  I suspect that you did not as the link given in the OP did NOT take you to any article related to the title of this thread.

If you want to read the article, here it is:

http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2017/03/01/central-jamaica-conference-employs-first-female-pastor

In view of your comment in the post above, what is it in this instance that is rebellion against the vote of the world body?

As President Ted has stated, the vote of the world body did not change anything.  According to a previous vote women may be ordained as local elders and that continues to be true.  In line with a previous vote, women may serve as local congregational pastors, which is what occurred in this story.   But, they are to be "Commissioned" rather than "ordained." 

The article referenced by the URL that I have provided does not state that this woman was going to be ordained.  Do you have any private information, outside of  that official statement, that suggests that she would be ordained?

Gerry, in short, please tell us how it is that you have come to believe that the reported action was in violation of any vote of the world body. 

[Green Cochoa]

6 hours ago, Stan said:

the day needs to come  when ordination happens because of accomplishments not because they have a Masters and a Penis.

 31:1    The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him.  
 31:2    What, my son? and what, the son of my womb? and what, the son of my vows?  
 31:3    Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.  
 

In the above:

"Lemuel" means "devoted to God" and probably refers to Solomon himself, not some other obscure king.  The dialogue which follows may have been Solomon's own words framed as motherly advice, in poetry.  Verse 3 appears to have two distinct meanings possible. 

The Hebrew word here translated as "strength" was also used for forces like armies (e.g. Pharaoh's army that was drowned in the Red Sea), for abilities, for wealth, and for power.  It may refer to one's internal strength, alluding to morality.  But it strongly suggests the maintenance of authority and not conferring that upon women.  The word "power" may actually have been the more appropriate translation.  In 2 Samuel 22:33 the word is translated as "power" in the phrase "God is my strength and power."  It would have been silly to have said "God is my strength and strength," especially when each of those subject complements comes from a different Hebrew word.  The word is translated as "might" in Zechariah 4:6 for "Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit saith the LORD of  hosts."  Again, the words "power" and "might" are of two separate Hebrew words, but the context helps us understand the word meaning better.

חַיִל chayil, khah'-yil; from H2342; probably a force, whether of men, means or other resources; an army, wealth, virtue, valor, strength:—able, activity, ( ) army, band of men (soldiers), company, (great) forces, goods, host, might, power, riches, strength, strong, substance, train, ( ) valiant(-ly), valour, virtuous(-ly), war, worthy(-ily).

Can women be pastors?  The answer depends on one's definitions of the word "pastor."  According to the Bible, women are not to be in authority over men.  However, if one considers pastoring as nurturing, then certainly women can and should take up this work.  This is likely the reason Ellen White sometimes speaks of woman as pastors, but never once speaks of them as ministers.

Quote

The Lord designs that the school [Avondale] should also be a place where a training may be gained in women's work--cooking, housework, dressmaking, bookkeeping, correct reading, and pronunciation. They are to be qualified to take any post that may be offered--superintendents, Sabbath school teachers, Bible workers. They must be prepared to teach day schools for children.--Ev 475 (1898).

Saying "any post that may be offered" implies there are posts which will not (or should not) be offered.  Mrs. White does not name any ministerial post here requiring ordination.  According to the Bible, there are still some positions reserved for men.  It is a delusion of Satan, foisted upon a politically-correct world, that attempts to make men and women equal in all things, when God created them to be distinct from each other.

[Gregory Matthews]

Just in case there is confusion as to the exact source of the Green's Biblical reference, it is Proverbs 31:1-3.  Also, Green has accurately quoted the KJV version of those verses although it has been slightly changed in the NKJV version..  But, those changes are minor and not of interest here.

In context, I do believe that both Green and I would agree that this passage, in context, is advice from the mother of Solomon to her son, King Solomon.

It should be noted that the Hebrew word translated as "women" in verse 3, is in the plural form.  IOW, the advice it not to give his strength to multiple women.  To me this suggests  Solomon's mother telling her son that he should not have multiple wives and mistresses.

The Hebrew word translated as "strength" carries the connotation of virility, vitality and energy.  This falls in line with my thought above of a mother telling her son not to waste his virility and vitality on multiple women, as we know Solomon did.  

One might even say that she was telling Solomon that such actions on his part would reduce his wealth, vigor, energy and ability to rule the kingdom.

Green's idea that his verse supports his idea in regard to the role of women in spiritual life is totally absent from the context of  this chapter, Proverbs 31.  Context is important.  That idea is simply not in this chapter.  Rather it seems to come more from Green's desire to place women is a specific role than  it does form the Bible as recorded here.

Green, thanks for challenging me to think and to study this for myself.

 

   

 

[Green Cochoa]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Just in case there is confusion as to the exact source of the Green's Biblical reference, it is Proverbs 31:1-3.  Also, Green has accurately quoted the KJV version of those verses although it has been slightly changed in the NKJV version..  But, those changes are minor and not of interest here.

In context, I do believe that both Green and I would agree that this passage, in context, is advice from the mother of Solomon to her son, King Solomon.

It should be noted that the Hebrew word translated as "women" in verse 3, is in the plural form.  IOW, the advice it not to give his strength to multiple women.  To me this suggests  Solomon's mother telling her son that he should not have multiple wives and mistresses.

The Hebrew word translated as "strength" carries the connotation of virility, vitality and energy.  This falls in line with my thought above of a mother telling her son not to waste his virility and vitality on multiple women, as we know Solomon did.  

One might even say that she was telling Solomon that such actions on his part would reduce his wealth, vigor, energy and ability to rule the kingdom.

Green's idea that his verse supports his idea in regard to the role of women in spiritual life is totally absent from the context of  this chapter, Proverbs 31.  Context is important.  That idea is simply not in this chapter.  Rather it seems to come more from Green's desire to place women is a specific role than  it does form the Bible as recorded here.

Green, thanks for challenging me to think and to study this for myself.

Gregory, I would only be happy for having challenged you to study and think for yourself if you had come up with something legitimate and valid.  The word "virility" is absolutely absent from any application of the Hebrew word used for "strength" in the verse I quoted.  I will grant that such a concept may be a secondary application, and one that most people have felt is the only one.  However, this meaning does not come from the Hebrew word itself, it can only come from a between-the-lines look at context.  The Hebrew word has many uses, but virility is not one of them.  I would invite you to see the translation of the word and its possible meanings, including usages throughout the Bible, here: http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2428&t=KJV&sstr=0

Of course, this is hardly the only text that tells men not to allow women to have authority over them.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Timothy 2:12)

Ignoring these plain Biblical directives, we are bringing prophecy to pass in our church today.  Consider:

As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.   (Isaiah 3:12)

It was not a commendable thing here, obviously, to have women ruling and leading the people to err.  Never once in the Bible did God place a woman in a position of leadership over His people.  All of the queen rulers like Jezebel and Athaliah had placed themselves there and were evil.  There was never a woman priest in the Old Testament church.  No woman was ordained as a disciple or elder of the New Testament church. 

Are we safe to follow the Bible? or is it unsafe to follow because it does not jive with popular culture?

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, thank you for your extensive response to my post.

1)  Virility:  It is true that the underlying Hebrew word has not been translated into the English word "virility" in the English Bible.  My statement as to that being a meaning stems from that actual meaning of the underlying Hebrew word as used in the tome of the Old Testament.  I am correct in my statement.

As I have said before:  A concordance, such as Strong's or Young's, tell us how a Biblical word has been translated in the English KJV.  It does not tell us the definition of the Biblical word.

  2)  You are correct as to your transliteration of the underlying Hebrew word used in Proverbs 31.3.  As you correctly stated that Hebrew word can be transliterated as "chayil."    The Strong's number for this word is: 2428.

3) However, you were wrong in your implication that the same word is used in 2 Samuel 22:33.  The word used there is NOT the same word that is used in Proverbs 31:3.  the word used in 2 Samuel 22:33 can be transliterated as "maoz.'  This is a different word from the word in Proverbs 31:3.  The Strong's number for this word is 4581.

4) You are also wrong in suggesting that the word used in Zechariah 4:6 is the same word as that used in Proverbs 31:3.  The word in Zechariah 4:6 may be transliterated as "gebarah."  this is a different word.  The Strong's number for this word is 556 & 553.

Green, be assured that your lack of accuracy in your use of Strong's is not something that I consider to be intentional on you part.   So, I would never call you a liar, as you have called others with whom you have disagreed.  You have simply demonstrated that people who reference a concordance may not understand how they should be used. 

I do not want to draw this out, but I stand by exactly what I posted.

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

21 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Green, thank you for your extensive response to my post.

1)  Virility:  It is true that the underlying Hebrew word has not been translated into the English word "virility" in the English Bible.  My statement as to that being a meaning stems from that actual meaning of the underlying Hebrew word as used in the tome of the Old Testament.  I am correct in my statement.

As I have said before:  A concordance, such as Strong's or Young's, tell us how a Biblical word has been translated in the English KJV.  It does not tell us the definition of the Biblical word.

  2)  You are correct as to your transliteration of the underlying Hebrew word used in Proverbs 31.3.  As you correctly stated that Hebrew word can be transliterated as "chayil."    The Strong's number for this word is: 2428.

3) However, you were wrong in your implication that the same word is used in 2 Samuel 22:33.  The word used there is NOT the same word that is used in Proverbs 31:3.  the word used in 2 Samuel 22:33 can be transliterated as "maoz.'  This is a different word from the word in Proverbs 31:3.  The Strong's number for this word is 4581.

4) You are also wrong in suggesting that the word used in Zechariah 4:6 is the same word as that used in Proverbs 31:3.  The word in Zechariah 4:6 may be transliterated as "gebarah."  this is a different word.  The Strong's number for this word is 556 & 553.

Green, be assured that your lack of accuracy in your use of Strong's is not something that I consider to be intentional on you part.   So, I would never call you a liar, as you have called others with whom you have disagreed.  You have simply demonstrated that people who reference a concordance may not understand how they should be used. 

I do not want to draw this out, but I stand by exactly what I posted.

Gregory,

Be careful whom you accuse of a "lack of accuracy."  You have criticized me for your own error.  There was no error in what I posted.  You looked at the wrong ENGLISH word and found it to point to a different Hebrew word than I had specified.  You then assumed I was in error.

2 Samuel 22:33   God ^H410is my strength ^H4581and power: ^H2428 and he maketh ^H5425 my way ^H1870 perfect. ^H8549

The word "strength" in that text is indeed the word you said it was.  But the word I was looking at was the English word "power" in that verse.  Had you read my comment carefully, I think you would have seen that I mentioned both and made note of the need to translate "power" differently than "strength" there, lest we see God being our "strength and strength" (meaningless redundancy, especially when two different Hebrew words are employed). 

Zechariah 4:6 is a similar case.  There are two separate words under consideration in it as well.  In fact, I knew this when I posted, because the parallelism between different words helps us more closely define and understand the meaning of the specific word in question.

ZecThen he answered ^H6030 and spake ^H559 unto me, saying, ^H559 This is the word ^H1697 of the LORD ^H3068 unto Zerubbabel, ^H2216 saying, ^H559 Not by might, ^H2428 nor by power, ^H3581 but by my spirit, ^H7307 saith ^H559 the LORD ^H3068 of hosts. ^H6635

In this case, it is the word "might" we are looking at as the same word translated as "strength" in Proverbs 31.

IF I am wrong, it is not me whom you would be accusing, it would be BlueLetterBible.org.  It's good that you would not want to call me a liar.  You would be incorrect to do so.

I would suggest you take some time to become familiar with resources like BlueLetterBible, and consult them before accusing Bible scholars of their non-existent errors.  BlueLetterBible is an incredible resource, one which I use considerably in the course of my translation work.  I also have at my fingertips Hebrew-English and Greek-English interlinear Bibles, as well as other reference materials.  These are a blessing when properly used.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, I have never claimed perfection.  If I misunderstood you, I thank you for pointing it out.   But, if I misunderstood you it simply points out that you could be  misunderstood and by others.

In any case, this  is one reason why we have a dialogue here--to better understand each other.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

It might be well to discuss what a concordance does. The two best are Young' which is called an analytical concordance and Strong's exhaustive concordance.

An analytical concordance, such as Young's is most easily used to determine the actual Biblical word used in the various passages.  As an example, Young's tells us that there are some 35 different Biblical words that have been translated into English as "strength."  Young's can be used to discover the various places where English word "strength" has been so used.  But that takes more work and attention to detail.

Strong's is most easily used to discover the various places in the KJV Bible where the English word "strength" has been used.  Strong's can be used to determine the actual Biblical words that have been so translated.  But, that takes more work and attention to detail.

Regardless of the above, my  major point is that one should not attempt to use a concordance to determine the meaning of a Biblical word.  A concordance is used to tell us how a Biblical word has been translated.  To determine it's meaning one should used another lexicon.

 

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

Gregory,

You may have whatever thoughts you wish about how a concordance should or should not be used.  The fact remains that you falsely accused me.  I will assume you did so unintentionally.  But the fact that you accused me specifically of a "lack of accuracy" makes your own "lack of accuracy" the more salient; for I had made fully accurate statements, whereas your statements had not correctly represented mine, going so far as to (incorrectly) claim I was wrong, and virtually call me a liar.  Had you not come out so strongly in your post, I would not hold your feet to the fire over it.  An apology would be more in order than a spiel about how to use a concordance.  Truth be told, you are the one who did not properly utilize the concordance in this instance.

[Outta Here]

What are the accomplishments a man must make to be considered for pastoral ordination?

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, I have no problem with you holding my feet to the fire, if that is what you wish to do. 

As to virtually calling you a liar:  That may fit your understanding.  But, if you  have read and understood where  I am on that, you  would know that such is simply false.  To call someone a liar is to judge their motive as to call one a liar is to intend to deceive.   I do not judge a person's motive.  I did not judge yours.  As to you, I have stated both publicly and privately that's I believe you are sincere and often a good scholar, even when I disagree with you, but occasionally sloppy.  That is how I see you and such a perception of you rules out any implication of being a liar.    

As to my post on Young's & Strong's Concordance:  That was not directed toward you.  It was a generalized statement that I thought some people might think it helpful.  I had not thought as to whether or not you would think it helpful.  Green, you can be assured that I often post comments here in which I have not given your position any thought at all.   Believe it as you will, you are not the central focus of my posts. 

As to apologizing to you and everyone reading here:   You have clarified what you wrote.  I have accepted that.  I have stated that I am neither perfect nor without error. I am wrong at times.  But, I do not see any reason for apologizing for misunderstanding what you wrote.  In that post of yours,  there were several instances in which I was not totally certain as to what you meant to say.    I chose to not address those.  So, I missed one and I was wrong.  Could I have done better?  Probably.  Could you have stated your positions in some respect more clearly?  Yes, I do believe you have those skills.  But, this is why we dialogue.  Thank your for participating in this dialogue with me.  But, I owe you nothing more than I  have already given you.

[Gregory Matthews]

Aubrey asked in the post below:

Generally there two:  The number of baptisms and the ability to engage with a congregation in a positive manner.

Baptisms become problematic in that young pastors are often not placed in situations where there are likely to be a large number of people who convert.

Back in our ancient history we ordained people who were medical missionaries overseas.  Such neither pastored congregations nor were they personally converting people.

I am aware of a somewhat recent situation in which the man stated that he would never pastor a congregation.  His primary function was to lead a group of High school students in selling, door to door, SDA publications.  He was ordained as SDA clergy.  At a later time when his position with the students was taken away from him, he refused an offer to pastor a congregation.

We have ordained people simply because we wanted to place them in an elected, or appointed, position where some would expect them to be ordained.

Stan's denominational positon is such that it has often been held by an ordained person, but not always.

Auburey the bottom line is that we have not been consistent. And, we have not treated everyone the same.   In some respects I agree with this as I believe that we should leave it possible for God to lead us.  But, in other ways I do not believe that God has had much to do with our decisions.

NOTE:  In my response, I have focused on the NAD.  I have not spoken to situations in other countries.

 

 

Quote

What are the accomplishments a man must make to be considered for pastoral ordination?

[Gregory Matthews]

Green:  Happy Sabbath.  May you be blessed by the day that has  just begun where I live, even if it is near ending where you are.