Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: This is related to the discussion, because it has to do with what Paul says in 1 Tim. 2: 11-14.

(1) Woman is not to have authority over the male (Gk "andros"); (2) BECAUSE Adam was created first; (3) And BECAUSE Adam was not deceived but the woman was.

Question: doesn't this show that there's a relationship between Paul's instructions about women's role in the church and what happened in Eden? What's the connection?

JOHN3:17: Why not tell here what you believe our pioneers' arguments and understanding was about this topic, and give some evidence for what you say?

Quote:

teresaq(sda): i started posting what our pioneers biblical understanding on this for those who wish to read it... there is more that as i have time i will post.

Please post all you can on what our pioneers believed as to what the Bible teaches on 1 Tim. 2: 11-14; 1 Cor. 11: 1-16 and 14: 34-40; and other related verses, such as 1 Tim. 3: 1-13 and Titus 1: 5-9 and 2: 1-7. If you can, show quotes and give references. Do you have anything, for instance, by James White, Joseph Bates, Loughborough, John Andrews, Haskell, Prescott, Uriah Smith, William L. Sims, A.G. Daniells, M.L. Andreasen, etc., on any of these verses?

[karl]

The WO proponents' view that the lack of Biblical precedence for women in spiritual leadership (as priests in the Old Testament, and as apostles and elders in the New Testament) and the presence of Biblical prohibitions against women serving in those roles, is due to the nature of the Bible as "culturally conditioned" (that is to say the Bible is the product and a reflection of its unenlightened or patriarchal culture) strikes directly at the heart of Christianity.

If God's Word is so faulty as this, what exactly IS the rudder of Christianity? Political correctness?

Ultimately, this male headship issue boils down to whether Christians will accept the Bible's instruction and its theological foundation (the order established by God Himself in the garden) as worthy of trust.

In the Bible, headship is a representative and spiritual leadership role that was assigned to males. Thus, in the Old Testament headship was first assigned to firstborn males in the home as part of the birthright. The home was the earliest church, and spiritual leadership for the home church was assigned to firstborn males. The divine priority of having Adam "formed first, then Eve" had an important theological significance. The sequence established Adam as the "firstborn" in the human family, a position that gave him the special responsibility of leadership in the family — whether home or church.

Later, as God constituted the nation of Israel as His "church in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38), this headship role was given to males of the tribe of Levi who alone could serve as priests. During the New Testament times, the spiritual leadership role was given to apostles and elders of the church.

[John317]

Quote:

karl:

The WO proponents' view that the lack of Biblical precedence for women in spiritual leadership (as priests in the Old Testament, and as apostles and elders in the New Testament) and the presence of Biblical prohibitions against women serving in those roles, is due to the nature of the Bible as "culturally conditioned" (that is to say the Bible is the product and a reflection of its unenlightened or patriarchal culture) strikes directly at the heart of Christianity.

If God's Word is so faulty as this, what exactly IS the rudder of Christianity? Political correctness?

Ultimately, this male headship issue boils down to whether Christians will accept the Bible's instruction and its theological foundation (the order established by God Himself in the garden) as worthy of trust.

I agree. You've expressed really well here exactly what I've also been thinking.

Do we really believe it to be the Word of God and to be the ground of our teachings and practice? Or do we as a church go with what seems right in our own eyes, irrespective of whether the position can be clearly supported from the Bible.

I would really like to see our church deal straightforwardly with the Bible evidence on this issue rather than focussing on church tradition, i.e., on what some have done in the past. I'm interested in the history of our church, but it would be wrong to base our decisions about this matter fundamentally on the policies and practices of our pioneers, much as I admire them. It needs to be solidly based on Scripture.

I was hoping that people who take the position that the Bible supports women's ordination would show the Scriptural evidence for their viewpoint, and I'm disappointed to see that they're not doing it. They mostly point to the practices of the SDA church in the last 100 years, but they seldom discuss in depth what the Bible teaches.

And so

[Tom Wetmore]

...Ultimately, this male headship issue boils down to whether Christians will accept the Bible's instruction and its theological foundation (the order established by God Himself in the garden) as worthy of trust.

In the Bible, headship is a representative and spiritual leadership role that was assigned to males...

And the exceedingly clear instruction from the Bible, namely the NT, is that the Church has but one head Christ and Christ alone.

Do you, karl, accept that?

To impose a human head on the Church is to usurp the designated position of Christ, as in the vicar of Christ in Rome. And to state that our clergy are in a headship position according to God's patriarchal mandate, would make it perfectly permissible to call them "Father" as is done in the Catholic Church. The resulting multiple human heads of the Church make it a multi-headed impostor as spoken of in Revelation.

Tom

[John317]

Quote:

John317: ...I'm also a strong advocate for women in ministry...

I certainly encourage women to be involved in all kinds of ministries. Here are ministries women can work in without violating the instructions in the NT:

Evangelism, Bible instructors, counseling to women, music ministry, canvassing, children's ministries, deaconess, Sabbath School work, prophetess (when called by God, of course), cooking ministry, various health ministries, prayer ministries, welfare ministries, etc...

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: What part of that is not within the concept of pastoral ministry? Or what part of pastoral ministry is different from or not covered by any or all of those?

They're not governing or ruling in the church-- nor determining or judging doctrinal truth-- which is the the responsibility of bishops, pastors and elders.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: If, as EGW suggested and done in her day, consecrated women should be ordained to these functions, is there opposition to women being so ordained? If a women can be ordained to any or all of these ministries what is it about ordination that makes it gender specific?

Ellen White never suggested that women be ordained as pastors and elders of local congregations. There were women who were Bible instructors and canvassers and who worked alongside their husbands, but as far as I know she never called upon women to take over the work that men do, i.e., governing and managing the local churches.

There are women in China who are doing great work as pastors and doubtless as elders. But that doesn't mean it should be done on a world-wide basis. There were women whom God called to be judges in the OT, but they were exceptions because of exceptional times and circumstances; and it seems to me that is the case in China as well. Even during the times of the Judges when God called females to do that work, the Bible shows that they didn't do the work in the same way that men did it. For instance, God didn't have the women lead the men in battle, nor did they have authority over men. None of the ministries I named above would put women in charge of men or have them tell men what they should believe doctrinally.

Ellen White certainly did tell men and women what they should believe doctrinally, but she was called directly by Jesus Christ to be a prophet, or His messenger. That is quite different from a church electing or appoining a woman to exercise authority over a man. A prophet speaks for God; a church officer such as a pastor or elder speaks for the church. Paul's statement about this is not prohibiting God from calling a woman to be His mouthpiece. He is free to call anyone He wants, of course. Yet God's calling a woman in that way does not give humans the right to go outside the instructions God has given to us through the apostles and prophets.

I grew up in Loma Linda where the LLU church made Margaret Hemp the first female pastor with a credential in the SDA church in the Southeastern Ca. Conference-- at least in modern times. (I believe this info is correct but I haven't researched it in order to verify the history.) She was actually an associate pastor, and her work originally was working in women's ministries. She occasionally preached and of course she often prayed in the church service. That was while William Loveless was senior pastor. Since then the LLU church has made several other women pastors.

Then there is the Loma Linda Hill Church which I attended for many years. Its pastor for about the last 10 years was a woman who just recently went to Andrews University as a instructor or professor.

I know many women who are opposed to women being ordained to pastor or serve as elders. I think some people get the idea that it's only men who oppose it, but that's not true at all.

[John317]

[quote name="karl: ...Ultimately, this male headship issue boils down to whether Christians will accept the Bible's instruction and its theological foundation (the order established by God Himself in the garden) as worthy of trust.

In the Bible, headship is a representative and spiritual leadership role that was assigned to males... [/quote"]

Tom Wetmore: And the exceedingly clear instruction from the Bible, namely the NT, is that the Church has but one head Christ and Christ alone.

That is not in dispute. Of course the head of man is Christ and the head of woman is man. In the same way the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor. 11: 3. See vs. 1-12. Paul was inspired to write, "We urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you" (1 Thess. 5: 12). This is talking about pastors and elders who exercise authority over the church, both women and men, "in the Lord."

Notice that Christ is equal with the Father, yet they have different roles-- much like the man and the woman in both the church and in the home. Christ doesn't try to take over God's role, and the Father doesn't try to take over Christ's work.

Do you accept the statement by Ellen White that the husband and the father is the head of the houshold and of the family? She says, too, "All members of the family center in the father. He is the lawmaker, illustrating in his own manlybearing the sterner virtues.... The father is in one sense the priest of the household, laying upon the alter of God the morning and evening sacrifice... The father represents the divine Lawgiver in his family. He is a laboreer together with God, carrying out the gracious designs of God and establishing in his children upright principles... The father must not betray his sacred trust. He must not, on any point, yield up his parental authority." AH 215, 211, 212.

I've grown to really love the book Adventist Home. It's been a great blessing to my wife and me and our family.

[olger]

Very good post, olger. It contains a lot of great points. I've posted above the parts that made the greatest impression on me or that I thought were especially important concepts.

While reading it, something you said suddently made me realize one additional reason the practice of homosexuality is wrong. I'd thought of it previously, but in this post, the idea was expressed more clearly than I'd seen it before, so it occurred to me almost as if it was a new thought. The practice of homosexuality perverts God's intentions because in gay male relationships, the male is submitting himself to another male in a way that God never intended for a male to do. The male does what God only intends for the female to do in relationship to males. In those relationships-- and I do not mean only or even primarily sexually-- males are attempting to dominate other males and the males submit themselves in the relationship as if they are females. I used to enjoy being a part of that, but my eyes are open now to what I was doing. I was making a mockery of God's creation and His plan for humans. I know Satan loves to see people distort and pervert God's designs in humanity.

There's also a connection between what goes on in the home and what happens in the church that a lot people are missing. If Satan can get Christians to be confused about the different roles of the sexes in the church, he knows that the same kind of role reversals will happen more and more in the home. The man will abandoned his God-given responsibilities and give up his leadership position to the woman because he sees it happening in the church and so he comes to believe that it's what God wants. But the question arises, if God wants it to happen in the church, then why is it so important for the man to be the leader in the home spiritually or in any other way? My point is that there a direct relationship between what happens in the church and what we can expect to happen in the home.

I'd like to see Tom Wetmore's thoughts about what you posted.

Thanks John. You make a very good point about the confusion that results from the homosexual lifestyle. For years I have seen a ever-increasing link between homosexuality and feminism - both branches of the same unproductive tree.

blessings,

olger

[Woody]

. I doubt that Uriah Smith would put his signature on this and lie about her being "Ordained". Nor would our prophet sign it if it wasn't true.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

...Ultimately, this male headship issue boils down to whether Christians will accept the Bible's instruction and its theological foundation (the order established by God Himself in the garden) as worthy of trust.

In the Bible, headship is a representative and spiritual leadership role that was assigned to males...

And the exceedingly clear instruction from the Bible, namely the NT, is that the Church has but one head Christ and Christ alone.

Do you, karl, accept that?

To impose a human head on the Church is to usurp the designated position of Christ, as in the vicar of Christ in Rome.

This is not helpful, Tom. The church has one supreme head, Jesus Christ, but we're not discussing that, are we? The Bible is clear that first there were twelve apostles (male) and subsequently seven male deacons were appointed to oversee (headship) the work of the early church. The Bible talks about the qualification for the office of bishop - no mention of women in that position.

You continue to ignore the elephant which is all through the Bible while searching for mice.

If we note that leap year has a day added to the 365 day calendar every four years in order to keep the seasons aligned with the dates, we are noting the rule. If we note further that this leap year rule has been fine-tuned since its inception by eliminating the addition of the extra day once each turn-of-the-century, we are noting the exception to the rule.

Which will keep things running more smoothly, the rule or the exception to the rule?

I'm OK with women, under extraordinary circumstances, doing things that are the exception to the rule. I'm not OK with our changing the rule to make this extraordinary service of women into the ordinary.

That is what is being attempted by the NAD WO acolytes. They have dug up obscure references to women's service in the early church and in Adventism and have distorted what is being described therein to suit their agenda.

[Woody]

I hardly think we need widespread and sweeping condemnation of a group of people who happen to fully believe in a different direction than you.

Surely we are all God's people who want to abide by HIS word. But some may differ in their interpretation of that. Let's not condemn them when in good faith they disagree with the opinions of men. ::)

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: karl

...Ultimately, this male headship issue boils down to whether Christians will accept the Bible's instruction and its theological foundation (the order established by God Himself in the garden) as worthy of trust.

In the Bible, headship is a representative and spiritual leadership role that was assigned to males...

And the exceedingly clear instruction from the Bible, namely the NT, is that the Church has but one head Christ and Christ alone.

Do you, karl, accept that?

To impose a human head on the Church is to usurp the designated position of Christ, as in the vicar of Christ in Rome. And to state that our clergy are in a headship position according to God's patriarchal mandate, would make it perfectly permissible to call them "Father" as is done in the Catholic Church. The resulting multiple human heads of the Church make it a multi-headed impostor as spoken of in Revelation.

Tom

yes, this thinking causes alarm in me also....

Eph 5:23 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.

1Co 11:3 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.

Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

the man, according to the bible, is only head of his wife, should he be married...

but it appears these verses as others are being disregarded for another tradition. :(

[karl]

[

the man, according to the bible, is only head of his wife, should he be married...

but it appears these verses as others are being disregarded for another tradition.

Your assertion is simply not true, teresaq. You are wanting the Bible to say things it does not say regarding the role of women in the body of Christ, and you are blatantly disregarding what it does say.

If Jesus had established women in positions of authority or had He been critical of the Jews for NOT having women in positions of authority, there would be some substance to your claims.

Paul gives a theological explanation of the will of God regarding male headship in the church. You either have to throw his epistles out of the canon or accept what he is saying as from God. He does not develop his teaching from the customs of the day. He goes all the way back to creation.

God expressed His intended arrangement for the family relationship by creating Adam first, then Eve. Therefore, Paul writes, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve" (1 Tim 2:12-13). As the wider context of the book of Genesis suggests, the divine priority of having Adam "formed first, then Eve" had an important theological significance. The sequence established Adam as the "firstborn" in the human family, a position that gave him the special responsibility of leadership. This was not given to Eve.

God gave to Adam the directions for the first pair regarding custody of the garden and the dangers of the forbidden tree (Gen 2:16-17). This charge to Adam called him to spiritual leadership. When Satan addressed Eve rather than Adam regarding the forbidden tree, the tempter's object was to undermine the divine arrangement by deceiving Eve into assuming primary headship responsibility (see 1 Tim 2:14).

Events after the fall (but before God pronounced judgment) confirm that Adam's headship was already in place. Although Eve first disobeyed, it was only after Adam had joined in the rebellion that the eyes of both of them were opened (Gen 3:4-7). More significantly, after the fall God first addressed Adam, holding him accountable for eating the forbidden fruit: "Where art thou? . . . Hast thou eaten of the tree . . . ?" (Gen 3:9-12; cf. 3:17: "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree. . ."). It appears inexplicable for God, who in His omniscience already knew what had happened, to act in this way if Adam had not been given headship in the Eden relationship. Consequently, despite the fact that the woman initiated the rebellion, it is Adam (not Eve, nor even both of them) who is blamed for our fall (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-22), which suggests that as the spiritual head in the partnership of their equal relationship, Adam was the representative of the family.

[John317]

. I doubt that Uriah Smith would put his signature on this and lie about her being "Ordained". Nor would our prophet sign it if it wasn't true.

Thanks for posting this about Ellen White. I don't think I'd ever seen a picture of the the actual document. Of course it is true. I doubt if anyone is saying it wasn't true-- at least the historical fact that she signed the document. After her husband's death she needed some legal document stating that she was an official representative of the SDA church, although she had given many sermons long before James died. They didn't have a document showing she was a messanger of God; all they had was the one they gave to pastors and ministers. But she was never a minister in the sense of having jurisdiction over a local congregation. She was more like a missionary, or apostle. That's why she said herself that God called her to a work that included the work of a prophet but which also was more than the name prophet signifies.

I don't believe it has anything to do with the question of whether women ought to be pastors and elders of local congregations. Could you explain why it should be viewed that way?

Ellen White was called of God to be a prophet and her position didn't depend in the least on the people in the church. If every single SDA had rejected her-- or rejected her today-- it wouldn't affect her position as the mouthpiece for God. She was not elected by the church as pastors and elders are to represent the church. She spoke for God, not for the church. It's like the prophets of Israel didn't speak for Israel but for God to Israel.

[karl]

I hardly think we need widespread and sweeping condemnation of a group of people who happen to fully believe in a different direction than you.

Surely we are all God's people who want to abide by HIS word. But some may differ in their interpretation of that. Let's not condemn them when in good faith they disagree with the opinions of men. :

Give me any single reference (or up to three of them - I don't want to invest a lot of time) which you believe solidly supports WO and I will show you how people are reading their own prejudices into what is being said. I will give you additional context on each one which will show it to not be what the WO people say it is.

[Woody]

I could do the same for the anti-women side.

Until I actually posted the original document of Ellen White's credentials ... many were saying it just wasn't so. And even with this evidence ... I expect them to continue to say so. Proof doesn't change the mind of a mind that is made up. :)

[karl]

I could do the same for the anti-women side.

Until I actually posted the original document of Ellen White's credentials ... many were saying it just wasn't so. And even with this evidence ... I expect them to continue to say so. Proof doesn't change the mind of a mind that is made up.

If you are going to tell me that Paul didn't mean what he wrote about women in church, I'm waiting for your expostulation.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am very familiar with the fact that EGW and other women in Adventist history have had official documents allowing them to legally preach in public.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Hen, no.

[John317]

Quote:

Woody: ...Until I actually posted the original document of Ellen White's credentials ... many were saying it just wasn't so. And even with this evidence ... I expect them to continue to say so. Proof doesn't change the mind of a mind that is made up.

I wish you would say who was among the many saying it and who you expect will continue saying it.

Aside from proving that Ellen White was granted a credential, what do you believe her credential shows or proves?

[Woody]

just what the paper she signed states.

(nothing more ... nothing less)

[John317]

Why not discuss or present the Bible evidence or other reasons for your position if you have any?

There are lots of points made, and texts, in the discussion, that no one has responded to so far.

If all someone can do is come on the threads and post those kinds of comments, they are merely showing they either don't know the evidence or they don't have any. If that's the case, they are better off going to discussions where they can help advance the conversation.

Do you have any comment to make that is relevent to the topic?

If so, it will be welcome, but comments that merely attempt to ridicule people who have posted are not helpful and aren't welcome.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: "The Lord has given Christ to the world for ministry. Merely to preach the Word is not ministry. The Lord desires His ministering servants to occupy a place worthy of the highest consideration. In the mind of God, the ministry of men and women existed before the world was created." - Ellen White, Diary entry March 12, 1891, Ms 23-1891, emphasis added.

In this quote, Ellen White is using the word "ministry" in the same way the NT uses it. It has a very broad meaning there, so that when we say "women in ministry," or "men in ministry," we're really talking about whatever people do to advance the cause of Christ and His kingdom. This comes out in any word studies of diakonos, diakonia, & diakoneo.

I remember on another discussion about a year ago or more, I posted every verse in the NT that used those words and gave a brief analysis of how it affects the discussion about women's work in the church.

[John317]

I could do the same for the anti-women side.

Woody, you made this post to Karl earlier:

Quote:

I hardly think we need widespread and sweeping condemnation of a group of people who happen to fully believe in a different direction than you.

Surely we are all God's people who want to abide by HIS word. But some may differ in their interpretation of that. Let's not condemn them when in good faith they disagree with the opinions of men.

People are not "anti-women" because they understand the NT to teach that women are not to rule or managage local congregations. When you refer to "the anti-woman side," you are making a widespread and sweeping condemantion of a group of people who happen to fully believe in a different direction than you.

That "side" consists of a great many women as well as men all over the world.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore:

I believe Phoebe was, as Paul identifies her, the minister of the church at Cenchrea. The way Paul describes her leadership it suggests a wider reach.

OK, sure, she was definitely a diakonos of the church at Cenchrea, about 6 miles from Corinth. But remember that Paul does not say she is "the minister," but rather as "a minister." Why did you make this change in Paul's expression, Tom? You know that in the Greek, there is a big difference between "thn diakonon" and "diakonon." One refers to a single and particular minister and the other refers to any kind of minister. We know from our study of the NT that "minister [diakonon]" has a very broad meaning, so that when Paul refers to her as "a minister," he might very well have meant a deaconess or any other kind of "servant, or minister" in the church. In fact, as you know, the vast majority of Bible scholars believe this is exactly what Paul was referring to, a woman who was a great help and friend of the church and of Paul. It actually makes much better sense and has better evidence in its support than that she was "the minister of the church."

I'm open to the idea that Phoebe was "the minister" of the church, but I have to see good, valid evidence, and I don't see that your argument to this point is very persuasive. And for the following reasons:

1) First, as pointed out above, Paul refers to her as "a minsiter" rather than "the minister," which is hard to explain if she was indeed "the minister" of that church.

2) Second, as I've said before, if Phoebe were the pastor at Cenchrea, it would mean Paul wrote the letter of first Corinthians to a church near Cenchrea and told the people there that in all the churches, he does not allow women to teach in the church or to exercise authority over men-- yet, all the while, the men reading that letter are being taught and led and ruled by a woman. This appears highly unlikely, to say the least. Don't you agree? If not, why not?

3) Third, there's no internal evidence, or evidence elsewhere in the NT, showing that Phoebe was a minister or pastor of that church or of any other church. There's not a single mention of her apart from Ro. 16: 1,2 in the book of Acts or in the letters of Paul.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: The fact that he entrusted this letter to her further reinforces her standing as more than local to Cenchrea. That was a bit of a journey for her to make to deliver his letter and one must assume she didn't travel alone as that would not have been customary even for a man. Most likely others, including men, were with her. That Paul appointed her to deliver, (that would include reading it to the Roman believers since many would have been illiterate) also meant she was likely an educated women, also unusual. She was chosen by Paul over other capable men for this mission.

But even if we grant you everything you say in the above paragraph, there's no reason to believe she had to be "the minsiter" of the church in order to perform those duties.

Actually much of what you say above is conjecture, there being no evidence for it.

Most Bible scholars do believe that she was a woman of some wealth (probably a businss woman), and that she doubtless was educated.

But again, none of this gives us any assurance that she was the pastor of the church, especially in light of the fact that Paul wrote as he did in paragraph #2.

[John317]

Quote:

aldona: So do we, as a denomination, really believe what we preach about the "priesthood of all believers"?

Considering all that the Bible says about women in both the Old and New Testaments, why do you believe the "priesthood of all believers" means that women should be made pastors and elders of local congregations?

[Tom Wetmore]

Give me any single reference (or up to three of them - I don't want to invest a lot of time)...

This very telling... And it is the problem.

It reinforces my point and Kevin's point made previously that few really have full knowledge and even fewer are willing to take the time necessary to be fully informed of all the evidence. (Just like reading all the material in the At Issue link I have repeatedly posted... I sincerely doubt you read it all in the hour and a half it took you to respond to my post suggesting you had done so ... there are two complete books and more than twenty articles/essays posted there. And there are references to more than 30 more sources listed at the end without the full text being uploaded there. Can you honestly say you have read all of that?)

This strategy would be quite like me suggesting to the judge and jury in a murder trial, "Just focus on the autopsy evidence, don't worry about the evidence of the investigating police office or the eye witnesses. We are too busy to take the time to consider that. We just need a quick acquittal here so we can all get back to our lives."