History of Women Elders and Pastors

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I propose that we have a rational discussion of the New Testament evidence on the issue of women's role in the church. Let's look at every text having to do with the government of the church, especially as it relates to diakonos, diakonia, diakoneo, sunergon, episkopon, antilempheis, presbuteros, etc.

I believe that the issue is theological and not cultural. It can only be settled by a study of Scripture.

What does the Bible teach?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

I propose that as a start that you could go back and read what I posted on these very points regarding those very same NT Greek words...

Been there, done that, already...

Tom

I know you have, Tom, and I thank you for what you have written there. I intend to go back and look carefully at what has already been posted. I remember seeing much of it before, but I was unable to reply because I was getting ready to leave on a trip.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

....As to Roman Catholicism.

To identify Bible-believing Adventists as “Catholic” based upon the participation of a single doctrine, fails to recognize that truth pre-existed the Papal Era. The Advent Message, and its forefather—the Reformation, look to the Apostolic era for our normative expression of Christian doctrine.

I found it interesting that you chose Catholics in lieu of Southern Baptists or Anabaptists to stigmatize those who hold to the Biblical view of male leadership.

Food for Thought... (2002-02-20 17:14:50) The recent comparison by some of our church folk that the Adventist church follows the Roman leader in their decision to not ordain women is faulty.

Although it does seem to provide a helpful parallel to those who resent the World church's decision, a careful study reveals two widely different motivations between Adventists and Catholics.

The Catholic church follows a historic precedent to use the "authority" of tradition over the Word. This was demonstrated throughout the Middle ages, but soundly declared in the formal setting of Vatican II.

Adventists on the other hand, follow the forerunning battlecry of the Reformation by demanding that Scripture is the final arbiter of faith.

Now, it's true that in the issue of WO there is a similar conclusion by both churches. But, however Biblical the RC attempt to sound in their rejection of WO, their singular motivation is again - tradition.

Adventists who oppose WO, are generally united in their appeal to Sola Scriptura, not tradition as some may suggest. As I read the book "Prove All Things" I am impressed again by the commitment that these authors have for the Word of God...

I don't believe we should be looking to church tradition or to society to resolve the issue of Women Ordination, but primarily to the Bible. As you pointed out, the RC doesn't do this, but rather it points almost exclusively to the church actions of the past. It seems to me that if we begin emphasizing the actions of the church in the recent past as a way of showing that women ought to be ordained, then we are basing our decisions on similar grounds as the RC.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Taylor]

Tom, thanks for the sound logic...What would we do without your sound logic ?

Amen and not just logic but conclusive, deep, sincere study of the subject.

[Taylor]

[color:#3366FF]

Adventists who oppose WO, are generally united in their appeal to Sola Scriptura, not tradition as some may suggest. As I read the book "Prove All Things" I am impressed again by the commitment that these authors have for the Word of God.

I don't doubt this to be true for many of them. What is equally true is that there are people, a good many, I might add, who just as strongly unite in their appeal to the Bible and EGW's writings and with all sincerity(no hidden agendas, no women's right's movement, no power trips, no wanting to water down God's word, not wanting to minimize EGW's writings, not wanting to "liberalize the church") have come to the exact opposite conclusion.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted By: John317

For me the bottom line is what the Bible teaches about the subject; and since I believe Ellen White was a true prophet of God, I also have a great interest in what she wrote on the subject...

As it is for me and many others who strongly support women in ministry and women's ordination! One of the most detestable practices of anyone on either side of this whole debate is to suggest that the other side is somehow less than Biblically based, either directly or by comparative implication.

Amen!

[olger]

Originally Posted By: olger

[color:#3366FF]

Adventists who oppose WO, are generally united in their appeal to Sola Scriptura, not tradition as some may suggest. As I read the book "Prove All Things" I am impressed again by the commitment that these authors have for the Word of God.

I don't doubt this to be true for many of them. What is equally true is that there are people, a good many, I might add, who just as strongly unite in their appeal to the Bible and EGW's writings and with all sincerity(no hidden agendas, no women's right's movement, no power trips, no wanting to water down God's word, not wanting to minimize EGW's writings, not wanting to "liberalize the church") have come to the exact opposite conclusion.

I am friends with some of these people, and appreciate them as individuals. Dick & Jo-Ann are good friends of mine. Roy Gane is a friend - albeit long distance.

Dhoukan's torturous attempt to claim that God's clothing Adam & Eve with animal skins makes them both priests is one of the weakest expostulations I have heard in five years. Such polemics reveal desperation to prove a point that doesn't exist.

But I still consider him a brother in the Advent Movement, and would spend an afternoon with him anytime. We would both enjoy it.

oG

But

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

For me the bottom line is what the Bible teaches about the subject; and since I believe Ellen White was a true prophet of God, I also have a great interest in what she wrote on the subject...

As it is for me and many others who strongly support women in ministry and women's ordination! One of the most detestable practices of anyone on either side of this whole debate is to suggest that the other side is somehow less than Biblically based, either directly or by comparative implication.

As I've read material on it, I see the WO side speaking less to the Biblical evidence and more to the evidence of church tradition or recent church practices and decisions. That is OK but at the end of the day, the decision must be based on whether the Bible supports it. I'm glad you agree with that.

One reason I've made the above comment is that I've noticed that when I talk about the importance of basing our decision on this issue on the Bible, some of those who support WO question why that must be the case. Have you noticed that people who oppose WO never question the importance of the use of the Bible to resolve the issue?

So, while it may appear to you as "detestable" to make a suggestion about this, it still needs to be pointed out in order to help bring about a change. When I originally made my statement about what I believe is essential-- i.e., Bible evidence-- I was not intending to point this out, but was merely describing the importance that Bible evidence has for me personally, yet now that I see your response to it, and have had time to reflect further and read more posts on the subject, I can see that there is a definite difference in emphasis on one side as opposed to another.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Fritz Guy on Women's Ordination:

The Moral Imperative to Ordain Women in Ministry

by Fritz Guy

For Seventh-day Adventists, ordaining women in ministry is a moral imperative that arises from the gospel of Christ, the overall teaching of Scripture, and our own Statement of Fundamental Beliefs: "We are all equal in Christ, who by one Spirit has bonded us into one fellowship with Him and with one another; we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation" (paragraph 13).

Fritz Guy's argument is without Biblical foundation because it is based on the fallacious argument that since we are all equal, etc., both men and women must have the same roles in the church, i.e., women must be made ordained pastors. Yet the Bible is clear that is not so. I'm sure Paul would agree with the above statement of Fundamental Beliefs, yet he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that men and women have different functions in the church. In short, Fritz Guy's argument here contradicts 1 Tim. 2: 11-14. Let it be pointed out that the same Spirit that inspired Paul to write 1 Tim 2: 11-14 inspired him also to write Gal. 3: 28. These obviously do not contract each other.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Give it up Tom! There are still flat earthers today, still those that believe landing on the moon was staged, some even believe sign post's can talk, and even...etc...etc. We will always try to make the Bible say what we believe, literal here but not there, history here but not there and on and on. However much those statements may be true....others will see it as false!! I believe it is always best to let a made up mind go on its merry way and I will take mine the other way.

I would like to invite you to respond to the evidence on the subject. For instance, check out Doug Batchelor' statement posted above and make a Bible-based response to his arguments. Or perhaps explain how we should understand and apply 1 Tim. 2: 11-14. What does that text say? What does it mean?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Fritz Guy on Women's Ordination:

The Moral Imperative to Ordain Women in Ministry

by Fritz Guy

.... Even with the recent General Conference vote in Utrecht, we must proceed to ordain women in ministry on the same basis we ordain men: their spiritual experience, their knowledge of Scripture, their competence for the tasks of ministry, and the fruitfulness of their ministry.[1] We must publicly affirm and fully authorize their ministry in and for the church. It is the right thing to do, and we must do it without delay. We have waited long enough.

Prof. Guy here encourages the members of the SDA church to ignore the decisions of the world church in General Conference. As far as I know, the vote was not even close-- something like 1100 to 400. Fritz Guy's statement is tantamount to thumbing one's nose at "the highest authority" in the church. The only time anyone is right to do this is if the GC makes a decision that is in opposition to a clear teaching or command in the Bible. Otherwise we have anarchy instead of unity.

Why is it the "right thing to do"? Is it because the Bible supports WO or is it because "we have waited long enough" for it? Who is the "we"?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[olger]

Exactly John. The most troubling thing about the WO fervor is that some are determined to press ahead with their issue despite the formal expression of will of the world church. To defy the world church and institute what seems like oncoming congregationalism is indeed a bold, and ominous new step.

Pride is all over this issue, especially since WO is mostly a sociological conceit of the western world. The brother from South America summed it up well in 1990. "Our wives and daughters are by our side as we take the gospel to a dying world. How are you spending your time, America?"

Wow. And he said this with kindness in his voice..

oG

[Tom Wetmore]

Exactly John. The most troubling thing about the WO fervor is that some are determined to press ahead with their issue despite the formal expression of will of the world church. To defy the world church and institute what seems like oncoming congregationalism is indeed a bold, and ominous new step.

And your observation is blindly one-sided. As Redwood pointed out, there is ample evidence and repeated official action of the Church regarding ordaining women as elders, electing them as leaders and fully authorizing female pastors to ministry. But I hear you and many others here on CA, and elsewhere, opposed to WO also strongly speaking out, and acting against these already officially approved roles for women. And that is just as much rebellion against the clearly expressed will of the Church and an "ominous" step of defiance backwards. And John317, isn't that just as much "thumbing one's nose" at the authority of the Church?

Quote:

Pride is all over this issue...

It is almost impossible to see the pride glowing in ones own eyes. You must know that neither side has an exclusive lock on this sin and neither side is more vulnerable than the other. As you seem to see it looking in the direction of WO, I can see it just as plainly looking in the direction of anti-WO.

Quote:

The brother from South America summed it up well in 1990. "Our wives and daughters are by our side as we take the gospel to a dying world. How are you spending your time, America?"

Yes it is most ironic that in Central and South America and all across Africa women in very significant numbers are directly active in ministry and their efforts are clearly blessed by God, by many souls won to Christ. But in those areas of the world where this clearest and pervasive proof of the Divine calling of women to ministry, you also find the strongest opposition and resistance to simply recognizing it for what it really is.

Quote:

Wow. And he said this with kindness in his voice..

And just as frequent that is the tone set by those advocating WO. While I have seen and heard unkind tones from those promoting WO, I have personally experienced unkind tones and words from those in the anti-WO camp. The fact that you apparently felt a need to point this out strongly implies that you see more virtue used on that side of the debate and less on the other. That is just as detestable as claiming that one side is less Biblically based in their views.

Tom

[Tom Wetmore]

...Fritz Guy's argument is without Biblical foundation...

Just because his interpretation of Scripture differs from yours does not make it "without Biblical foundation." He clearly bases his arguments on Biblical evidence, citing in this short paper on one aspect of the whole topic, no less than 15 distinct and specific Biblical passages. (If one is is measuring the weight and strength of the Biblical foundation, he uses more than 5 times as much Scripture as you did to respond to his paper.)

I might observe that Guy's paper you have posted is one man's perspective on but one part of the whole topic. There are a substantial number of very scholarly and very much Biblically based treatments of the topic done by Adventist theologians from the Seminary, most of which are quite conservative. The majority have come to the conclusion of supporting women in ministry and women's ordination.

Tom

[olger]

Hi Tom:

Ted Wilson said that allowing some women elders was based on several abstract examples in China where the men languished in prison for their faith. Just as soon as that happened, WO zealots began to use it as an opening wedge to force open the door for women pastors. The church raised it's collective hand twice in GC Session, saying "no you don't. This wasn't our intention.."

I realize that the woman elder situation allowed the camel partially into the tent (as Al McClure claimed), and the question is "Shall we invite the beast in, or do we escort it outside where it belongs?" The Southern Baptists did the right thing in leading the camel outside outside where it belongs. We must do the same. There are numerous ministries that we need our dear sisters in, and some positions where we can't (if we will remain true to the Word).

In the church of my fathers, men & women gratefully accept their roles and there is no friction among them. But as the church drinks from the cups of the world, we will find inordinate (good word) entrance demanded at every Citadel by restless Eves.

The solution is not to increase the role of women, but to strengthen the role of men, some of whom have become Ahabs. For twenty-five years women were walking around feeling feminist power but they weren't feeling loved. They weren't feeling fulfilled as a woman. This blurring of the lines between genders doesn't work, in fact it leads to more vulnerabilty in homosexual temptations. How do I know? I've seen it firsthand as a Biblical Counselor, and so have dozens of my colleagues.

It's a wonderful thing when Christ brings peace to a heart that was driven by the wrong things. Mine was too, years ago. I was a passive husband instead of a spiritual leader for 5-10 years. This is wrong.

Jesus is in the business of bringing freedom to His people. Judgement is confronting each one of us.

Nice talking with you,

the other Gerry

Jer. 29:11-13

[Tom Wetmore]

...We need to do a careful, detailed study of this issue, looking at all the denominations that have accepted women as clergy and of those who have firmly rejected the practice. There are severe problems right now related to these matters in the Episcopalian church, so that whole congregations are electing to join the Anglican church. Let's look at those situations...

Regarding this false linkage between the role of women in the church and homosexual clergy, here is the more specific information that I posted previously on another forum:

Quote:

08-04) 14:16 PDT (AP) --

Most U.S. religious bodies follow ancient Jewish and Christian tradition and bar actively homosexual clergy, though they usually accept those committed to celibacy.

That includes Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Southern Baptist Convention and other evangelical Protestant groups and Orthodox Judaism. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Mormon") has no ordained clergy but also opposes same-sex behavior.

Five denominations in particular have debated the issue:

* The Episcopal Church set a 1991 policy that sex is "appropriate" only within heterosexual marriage. But a 1996 church tribunal acquitted a bishop who ordained an openly gay priest, leaving others free to do likewise. Now the issue is gay bishops.

* The Presbyterian Church (USA) added a provision in church law in 1997 that requires all clergy and lay officers to observe fidelity in heterosexual marriage or "chastity in singleness." Liberals have since lost two nationwide referendums to repeal that law, which they continue to resist.

* The United Methodist Church passed a similar law in 1984 that was strongly upheld at the General Conference in 2000. The latest repeal bid has been referred to next year's conference.

* The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted in 2001 to have a study committee re-examine its policy against same-sex activity. The report is due in 2005.

* Conservative Judaism decided in March that an authoritative committee of rabbis will study whether opposition to homosexual activity remains valid. That work could take years.

Denominations with open policies:

* Reform Judaism has allowed openly homosexual rabbis since 1990.

* The Unitarian Universalist Association's 1980 convention advocated "full assistance" to job placement for "openly gay, lesbian and bisexual" clergy.

* The United Church of Christ's 1991 national synod urged subunits to "facilitate the ordination and placement of qualified lesbian, gay and bisexual" clergy with no restrictions on same-sex activity.

* The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, founded in 1968 to serve a largely homosexual membership, also follows a liberal ordination policy.

and my conclusions:

Quote:

Various churches and denominations started ordaining women as clergy in the early 1800's and many more have joined in this affirmation of women in ministry to the point now that there are dozens of denominations ordaining women to the ministry. Of those many denominations only 4 denominations (Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ and Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches) actually endorse ordaining homosexuals. And of those, the UFMCC was formed to minister specifically to homosexuals. In recent years 5 major faith groups have officially considered it or currently have it under consideration. Of those five, only one now appears to permit (The official position is far from clear) actively homosexual clergy - the Episcopal Church. The rest did not change their position or appear quite unlikely to do so any time soon. The bottom line is that the vast majority of denominations and independent churches remain firmly opposed to ordaining anyone openly homosexual, including denominations that have been ordaining women for 150+ years, such as the Salvation Army. And it should not be overlooked that the one denomination that remains the most adamantly opposed to ordaining women, the Roman Catholic Church, is considered to have, even by some very conservative estimates, the highest number and percentage of homosexual clergy of any denomination.

Tom

[olger]

I think that you greatly underestimate the Lutheran compromise in this area Tom. Greatly.

My friend Mike went to Buffalo to witness the baby dedication of a nephew in a Lutheran church. The woman "priest" was a lesbian and she talked about the environment and other new age nonsense in her "sermon."

I have also worked on some Lutheran church roofs. Not all of the pastors are gay types, but they are universally supportive/tolerant of it in my brief conversations with them.

oG

[there buster]

Quote:

I would like to invite you to respond to the evidence on the subject. For instance, check out Doug Batchelor' statement posted above and make a Bible-based response to his arguments.

Fine. Unfortunately, Batchelor's arguments are not Bible-base. They are a loose association of ideas which his text does not support.

Batchelor's first text is:

"Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." Luke 17:28-30.

Noticeably absent are any references to 'woman,' 'women,' 'ordination,' 'priesthood,' 'church,' --- or any other relevant concept.

Nevertheless, he soldiers on, next saying

Quote:

The very survival of our society and church leans heavily upon the family unit

An interesting point, which I agree with, except it is nowhere mentioned in the text.

Already totally unattached to the beginning text, he now goes further afield:

Quote:

These differences should be evident, maintained, and yes, even emphasized in everything from the way we walk and talk to the way we work and dress.

God tells us how He feels when gender lines are ignored. "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." Deuteronomy 22:5.

If this text is related to the first, we are not told how. There is no mention in the first text of gender confusion, or the family, yet somehow we find ourselves discussing those topics. Precisely how this relates to church I cannot fathom, except perhaps he objects to men and women wearing identical choir robes? Baptismal robes?

If so, I am not aware that he has called for reform in these areas, which he purports to be a central concern here.

We've had two unrelated texts to this point, neither of which mention the issue of women's ordination.

Batchelor then proceeds to discuss feminism, lesbians, and other matters.

Then he apparently recognizes the deficits in his presentation so far by giving this disclaimer.

Quote:

This short article is not designed to be an exhaustive study on the subject of women's ordination; neither will it deal with every single argument and rationalization regarding the ordination of women as pastors or elders. Rather, it is a simple presentation of "thus saith the Lord" which should always be our guide in determining the truth on any issue.

He says he won't deal with every "rationalization regarding the ordination of women." That's a relief, since he's already given us several rationalizations against it, none of which he has supported with scripture.

He quotes three scriptures from Genesis, on the creation of woman, none of which say anything about ordination.

He observes:

Quote:

It has also been said, "We can't take these Scriptures regarding male leadership seriously because they were based on eastern traditions and don't apply today. After all, there were laws regarding slavery and polygamy in Bible times." True, but God never commanded people to have slaves or multiple wives. Rather, as Jesus said, it was because of "the hardness of your heart he [Moses] wrote you this precept." Mark 10:5.

He then proceeds to go right to the area where regulations given "because of the hardness of their hearts" to make a point:

"Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void." Numbers 30:13.

Either the situation in Numbers applies today or it does not. If the vow issue is live, then so should the other issues. If not, he should give a reason why we should still give this one authority, and not all the others. But he does not address the issue at all.

I'm hesitant to spend any more time on this, because the foundation is so badly flawed.

Batchelor uses the reference to Sodom in Luke 17 as a launching point to explore a whole series of issues he believes are associated with Sodom. Had he quoted the context, it would have been seen that Jesus was NOT talking about women's ordination, gender confusion, or any of those issues in that passage.

Here it is:

26"Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

28"It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

30"It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed.

Jesus made clear what he was talking about by repetition and parallel construction.

Days of Noah vv. 26-27

eating

drinking

marrying

being given in marriage

Days of Lot v. 28

eating

drinking

buying

selling

planting

building

What stands out is the ordinaryness of the activities, and the message in the larger passage is clear: they were going about their everyday lives when unexpected destruction came.

Nothing here about women's ordination; nothing about gender-bending;

Like any building, Batchelor's argument collapses because the foundation collapses. His argument is notional, not scriptural.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

...Fritz Guy's argument is without Biblical foundation...

Just because his interpretation of Scripture differs from yours does not make it "without Biblical foundation."

Guy's argument is that since men and women are equal, women must be made pastors in the church. That argument is not supported by the Bible. The NT does not say that women must do the same thing as men in the church since both are equal. The NT has both equal but having different functions and roles both in the church and in the home. Do you agree with this?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Quote:

I would like to invite you to respond to the evidence on the subject. For instance, check out Doug Batchelor' statement posted above and make a Bible-based response to his arguments.

Fine. Unfortunately, Batchelor's arguments are not Bible-base. They are a loose association of ideas which his text does not support.

Batchelor's first text is:

"Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." Luke 17:28-30.

Noticeably absent are any references to 'woman,' 'women,' 'ordination,' 'priesthood,' 'church,' --- or any other relevant concept.

What is Batchelor's reason for citing Luke 17: 28-30?

Read below:

Jesus said that before His return, conditions in the world at large would resemble conditions in Sodom. "Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." Luke 17:28-30.

The very survival of our society and church leans heavily upon the family unit, where a basic truth must be clear-that men are fathers and women are mothers. Men and women are equal as humans but entirely unique as creatures. They are not only distinct genders sexually, but almost every aspect of their natures is different. Men should never try to be women, and women should never try to be men. These differences should be evident, maintained, and yes, even emphasized in everything from the way we walk and talk to the way we work and dress.

Regards.

"John 3:17"

[Tom Wetmore]

I think that you greatly underestimate the Lutheran compromise in this area Tom...

I was surveying official positions of those denominations, based on actions taken by their governing bodies, not anecdotal evidence of tolerated or ignored individual homosexual clergy within those denominations. I think it fair to say that based on that sort of loose criteria, there are likely few, if any, denominations with absolutely no homosexual clergy.

Of course, Gerry, I am sure you could get any number of stalawarts to deny the facts similar to the very recently assertion made by an Adventist leader from South America that there were no homosexuals in the Adventist Church in South America.

Tom

[John317]

Quote:

I would like to invite you to respond to the evidence on the subject. For instance, check out Doug Batchelor' statement posted above and make a Bible-based response to his arguments.

Quote:

The very survival of our society and church leans heavily upon the family unit

An interesting point, which I agree with, except it is nowhere mentioned in the text.

It's certainly implied in the text concerning Sodom, considering what happened there. Jesus said that when He returns, it will be like Sodom. We know what happened in Sodom. For one thing, people were ignoring the gender lines. Doug's point is that this is what's happening now.

"The very survival of our society and church leans heavily upon the family unit, where a basic truth must be clear-that men are fathers and women are mothers. Men and women are equal as humans but entirely unique as creatures. They are not only distinct genders sexually, but almost every aspect of their natures is different. Men should never try to be women, and women should never try to be men. These differences should be evident, maintained, and yes, even emphasized in everything from the way we walk and talk to the way we work and dress.

God tells us how He feels when gender lines are ignored. 'The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.' Deuteronomy 22:5."

In the above text, God shows that He wants people to keep the gender lines clear.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

... I think it fair to say that based on that sort of loose criteria, there are likely few, if any, denominations with absolutely no homosexual clergy.

Of course, Gerry, I am sure you could get any number of stalawarts to deny the facts similar to the very recently assertion made by an Adventist leader from South America that there were no homosexuals in the Adventist Church in South America.

Tom

The SDA church at this time has no clergy or church leaders who have let it be known that they are practicing homosexuals. We do have clergy who USED to be practicing homosexuals, but they are repentant and have stopped practicing by God's grace and power. Some churches have clergy, both males and females, who are living with a homosexual partner, and these clergy make no claim to want to change but are determined to continue in their gay lifestyle. This the SDA church does not have-- at least up to the present.

Are you personally opposed to the SDA church having practicing gay clergy? I am.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Quote:

I would like to invite you to respond to the evidence on the subject. For instance, check out Doug Batchelor' statement posted above and make a Bible-based response to his arguments.

Quote:

God tells us how He feels when gender lines are ignored. "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." Deuteronomy 22:5.

If this text is related to the first, we are not told how. There is no mention in the first text of gender confusion, or the family, yet somehow we find ourselves discussing those topics. Precisely how this relates to church I cannot fathom, except perhaps he objects to men and women wearing identical choir robes? Baptismal robes?

I'll be glad to show you, my friend.

Deut. 22: 5 is related to Luke 17: 28-30 in terms of the gender lines being confused. Luke 17 says that just before Christ returns, it will be like it was in Sodom, where, you will remember, men were raping men. Deut. 22: 5 says that God wants us to keep the gender lines clear.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Quote:

I would like to invite you to respond to the evidence on the subject. For instance, check out Doug Batchelor' statement posted above and make a Bible-based response to his arguments.

I'm hesitant to spend any more time on this, because the foundation is so badly flawed....Like any building, Batchelor's argument collapses because the foundation collapses. His argument is notional, not scriptural.

You stopped your analysis prematurely. You only dealt with the first few paragraphs of his essay and did not say anything at all about the primary sections of it where Doug discussed 1 Tim 2: 12 and others. Why? Please go ahead and deal with the following, which you completely ignored for some reason:

The fact that men and women have equal rights to salvation does not mean there is no submission to leadership in the home or in church. Jesus and the Father are equal, yet Jesus chose to submit to the authority of the Father in this world. "The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." 1 Corinthians 11:3.

In America, "equal rights" does not negate the authority or leadership of the mayor, governor, or police. Likewise, equality in salvation does not negate the God-established patriarchal system of male leadership in the home and church. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right." Ephesians 6:1. "If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" 1 Timothy 3:5.

I also hear some say that because there are more women in the church than men, leadership roles should be evenly divided according to percentages. Using this line of reasoning, it would follow that in a family with three children, the children would be entitled to the largest share of leadership since they outnumber the mother and father! On the contrary, fathers do not receive their authority by popular vote, but rather from the Word of God.

God tells us that women should not rule over men. "I suffer [permit] not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man." 1 Timothy 2:12. The only times when women ruled over God's people were when men were too fearful and weak to lead (as in the case of Deborah and Barak) or in times of apostasy (Jezebel and Athaliah). "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.

God's Word equates the authority of man over woman with the authority of Christ over man. "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." 1 Corinthians 11:3.

Christian wives should willingly acknowledge the headship of their husbands. "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." Ephesians 5:23, 24. "Teach the young women to be … discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." Titus 2:4, 5. "Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement." 1 Peter 3:6.

Marriage is not a dictatorship, but a partnership where the husband fills the role as a senior partner. Husbands are to be servant-leaders in the home in the same way Jesus came to love, serve, and lead His church. "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it." Ephesians 5:25.

It is very important to note that God's plan for male leadership is in no way an open license for tyranny. Unfortunately, there have been some sick men who have used these clear passages regarding the authority of husbands as an excuse for abuse. God does not expect a wife to remain in a house with a man who is physically abusing her or the children. Neither is a wife ever obligated to submit to a cruel husband's oppression. God will judge those cowardly men as He did Nabal (1 Samuel 25:38).

Elders were to be husbands (men). "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife…." 1 Timothy 3:2. "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife…." Titus 1:6. (Note: The terms for bishops and elders were interchangeable.) A recent magazine article points out the fact that the bible gives a long list of requirements for an ordained elder. "[Paul] did not say that just any man could be a bishop, even as in the Old Testament not just any son of Aaron could be a priest. The office has always been limited. The Christian leader Paul spoke of must be 'blameless' and married, 'vigilant, sober, of good behavior,' etc. There is a long list of requirements that eventually eliminates almost all men and leaves only a very few eligible."3 Women aren't the only ones who are ineligible; so are most of the men.

Every Christian is called to minister in some capacity, but not in every capacity. "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." Ephesians 4:11, 12.

Even though the Lord has chosen many women to serve as prophets through the ages, He never once hinted that a woman should be ordained as a pastor or priest. Women can minister as prophets, teachers, or even evangelists, but not as priests. Pastors and elders are the closest New Testament equivalent to the Old Testament priests. They lead in Holy Communion, which is the New Testament equivalent of offering a sacrifice. This was a role that was consistently performed by a man. While many priests were prophets, no women prophets were priests.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

This is true. My grandmother was a licensed Bible worker and worked right alongside of my grandfather who was an ordained SDA pastor and evangelist. She had no desire or ambition to be an ordained pastor because she recognized the Bible's teachings on that issue and she was happy doing what she believed God had called her to do.