Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors

[John317]

Quote:

John 317:

Deborah didn't prophecy in public. Instead, her prophetic role seems to be limited to private and indiviudal instruction.

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: What! And waht is your source for that?

Judges 4: 4, 5; 5: 7. Compare those verses with what we're told about Huldah: 2 Kings 22: 14-20. Also Anna (Luke 2: 36-37).

Do we see evidence of a public ministry there?

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: How do you claim to know that she did not?

If we say she did, wouldn't we be speculating? Is there any Bible evidence that she prophesied in public?

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: Do you believe that the Bible records every aspect of her ministry? I do not.

All we know is what the Bible says about it. I think we can assume that the Bible has told us the essence of her ministry, although of course there are many unknown things that it does not say. But we can't build our knowledge about her ministry on what the Bible does not say. We don't know a whole lot about her, that's for sure.

But my point is that the Bible shows a clear distinction between the female prophets and the male prophets.

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: Rather, it simply selects one part that becomes important for the story. This is essentially what the Bible does with men. It does not record every aspect of their ministry. It is selective for both men and women.

Yes, I agree that the Bible doesn't tell us everything about the people.

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: It is without foundation to claim that she did not have a public ministry.

Would you agree that we can say she and the other female prophets of the Bible evidently did not have public ministries? Or at the very least we don't know that they did, but we know that the men prophets did? There seems to be a pattern there, just as there is a clear pattern of male leadership throughout the Bible.

What we can say, then, it seems to me, is that the Bible doesn't give us any reason to believe that the women prophets had public ministries, whereas the Bible shows plainly that the men prophets did have public ministries.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: The period of the Judges was clearly an exception to the rule.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: What rule? How was it the exception? I always understood the period of the judges to be closer to God's ideal for Israel. They drifted away from that when they clamored for a king.

So you believe the period of the judges was closer to God's ideal for Israel? What chapters do you have in mind?

It was actually one of the worst and most depressing and darkest periods in Isreal's history, Tom.

Here are two key verses that sum up the book and that period of time in Israel's history:

1) Judges 2: 10, 11: "When all that generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation arose after them who did not know the Lord nor the work hwich he had done for Israel. Then the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served the Baals..."

Please read the rest of that chapter.

2) Then this very significant verse occurs several times in the book of Judges:

"In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes."

See Judges 17: 6; 18: 1; 19: 1; 21: 25.

Of course, what it means when it says everyone did what was right in his own eyes is that practically everyone was doing evil. It was almost complete chaos. A GOOD MAN WAS HARD TO FIND IN THOSE DAYS, EVEN FOR THE LORD. One of the best men he found was a fellow by the name of Samson. Oh yeah, and then there was Japhthah, the one who made a vow to God and evidently ended up believing God would be pleased if he sacrificed his daughter. These kinds of things may have something to do with why God chose women as leaders in those days.

If you still aren't persuaded, Tom, check out Judges 19 to 21.

After you've read it, please tell if you still believe "the period of the judges [was] closer to God's ideal for Israel"? When was it? You got a particular chapter and verse in mind? That "ideal" time-period in Judges must have gone by lightning-quick.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore:

Let's look at this the other way. Show us the "clear evidence" from Scripture against women as pastors and elders and against WO.

Tom, can you please exegete 1 Cor. 14: 33b to 40 and 1 Tim. 2: 8-15? I've discussed these verses many times before, but I have yet to see exactly how you understand them. Could you show what those verses say and what they mean-- how the church of today should understand them?

[John317]

Quote:

John317: The church is faced, then, with 3 primary questions in regard to this issue:

1) Does the Bible support women being pastors and elders, and if it does, where do we find it in Scripture? (Notice that the question is not what has the church done in the past. While it's an interesting and even important question, we can't find the answer to the question by searching history because it's the same as looking to church tradition.)

Quote:

Neil D: But you are ignoring that the "mouthpiece of God" who was a contemporary was also giving advise that she felt important to WO. You have discounted/ignored a contemporary prophet. This is unacceptable in my book. It was a very widely discuss problem and many were looking to EGW for a decision regarding that issue.

What did this contemporary prophet say that you believe I'm ignoring?

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D: Most persons who are trained to run are called a special name...If we say that women are dainty people, 'the weaker sex', and if we have a number of them who normally outruns most males, even in competition, are not called "Athletes", but only "runners"...are we being fair? If they fulfill the office of runner, and athlete, why are we so scared of saying so?

Quote:

JOHN3:17: I don't think it's a matter of what people are called but of whether the church is going to follow the Bible. Actually, it would be possible to invent new names or call them anything we want, and it wouldn't make any real difference as far as the name is concerned. The only important thing is whether the church is going to follow what God has revealed through the Bible.

Quote:

Neil D: ...you're missing the point rather awful here. The point is NOT it doesn't matter what to call them...The point IS to call them the obvious term for what they are....IOWs, if the women are doing the work of an ordained minister, then let's call them "Ordained Ministers". Let's treat them [reimburse them/pay them] according to what they really are.

I understand that and agree with you, but we first have to decide as a world church if women should be doing the work of an ordained minister, i.e., church pastor/elder, in all divisions of the world.

I think the world church in General Conference Session needs to decide on the basis of Bible study whether women should be doing the work of an ordained minister or elder.

My whole point, then, can be boiled down to two main questions: Does the Bible teach that women should work as church pastors and elders? And shouldn't the whole SDA church move together on this?

[karl]

Quote:

Neil D: Most persons who are trained to run are called a special name...If we say that women are dainty people, 'the weaker sex', and if we have a number of them who normally outruns most males, even in competition, are not called "Athletes", but only "runners"...are we being fair? If they fulfill the office of runner, and athlete, why are we so scared of saying so?

Can we assume you're just being hypothetical above, Neil?

The reason there are separate contests/games/leagues for men and women is that women cannot compete in the men's leagues. We're all hopeful that the woman NASCAR driver (Dannica?) will do well, but so far she's not pulled off a win.

There may be some sports that women can compete with men at the elite level, but they would not be sports which require strength or stamina. They would be sports like billiards.

[Woody]

Quote:

"My whole point, then, can be boiled down to two main questions: Does the Bible teach that women should work as church pastors and elders? And shouldn't the whole SDA church move together on this?"

First of all I want to thank all of you for your interesting information. I am enjoying soaking all this in. But, personally I'm just trying to hold my tongue.

I would though like to take a stab at this question.

Should we move together on this? My thought would be NO. I would not want to impost this on the world. I think we have to consider culture. And in some parts of the world this would not be a good idea.

My belief is that the church is doing this in the correct way to allow each region to do as they deem best. Each region should study and pray and use the methods best suited for their particular area of the world. In this situation ... the world church should not dictate to any region how best to accomplish the mission.

Just because the Bible and SOP clearly approve of this ... does not mean it should be imposed.

[John317]

Quote:

"My whole point, then, can be boiled down to two main questions: Does the Bible teach that women should work as church pastors and elders? And shouldn't the whole SDA church move together on this?"

It's true it shouldn't be imposed.

I agree with the President of the General Conference, that the whole church needs to move together. That means bringing the whole church along when the General Conference session believes it's the right thing to do according to the Bible. Paulsen said, "Moving together until we have agreed to give room to differ on specific issues is the price we pay for unity."

Pastor Paulsen said,

"My regret is that the SECC could not, out of deference to the larger international family of Seventh-day Adventists, have held in check their exercise of `freedom,' knowing that the church makes her decisions sometimes frustratingly slowly, but in a very deliberate manner with an eye to many issues."

If the Bible and SOP clearly approve of women being church pastors and elders, please show the evidence. Why not quote the verses and the SOP passages? Is Romans 16: 1,2 two such verses?

What demonstrates that it is not clearly approved in those sources is that the church has studied the question for over 120 years and yet has still not published a clear support from the Bible for it and that the GC Session has not approved it. By far the largest portion of Seventh-day Adventists throughout the world church still do not believe it's the right thing to do. These people need to be shown from Scripture that the Bible does indeed support women as the pastors and the elders of local congregations.

[Tom Wetmore]

...Then, after that request was rejected, the NAD chose to go with plan "C" which called for unions to use the policy on Commissioning and issue commissioned minister’s licenses and/or credentials to these women.

Do you think this is very far off the mark from what happened? I'm not saying NAD had it planned out that way, but from looking at what has happened, it certainly seems that's the way it turned out.

Yes, it is off the mark, considerably so. You do not seem to be comprehending what I have said repeatedly.

The commissioned minister credential was issued to the women long before the GC Session of 1990. That specific credential existed since 1980 and was the only credential issued to female pastors.

Originally Posted By: John317

Strange, isn't it, that Seventh-day Adventists didn't see that evidence in over 130 years of diligent and prayerful Bible study of the topic?

No. How quickly we (and you it seems at this point...) forget!

The real history is that after EGW died, the trend of women in ministry slowly faded until the 1970's when there was a renewed interest. And it was as if we were starting all over again and had never before considered the issue. But the historical record is clear that from the very earliest days of the Advent movement, women were involved in all aspects of full ministry along side of their male counterparts. The founders of our denomination had a full and robust dialog and Biblical study of the matter and concluded that there was no reason to limit women in ministry. Please read what I posted before - http://auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=1092&journal=1&type=pdf

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore:

Let's look at this the other way. Show us the "clear evidence" from Scripture against women as pastors and elders and against WO.

Tom, can you please exegete 1 Cor. 14: 33b to 40 and 1 Tim. 2: 8-15? I've discussed these verses many times before, but I have yet to see exactly how you understand them. Could you show what those verses say and what they mean-- how the church of today should understand them?

Well, I believe I have spoken directly about those texts on more than one occasion in the past permutations of this whole topic.

Again may I suggest you read the material I just linked to you that speaks directly to how the founders of our denomination read and understood those specific passages, and more. Also, my reading of those passages is consistent with the hermeneutic outlined by John Brunt in his September, 1988 Ministry article. Here is a link to that issue - http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN19880901-V61-09__B.pdf#view=fit

[John317]

Thanks for the reference. I'll copy that article today when I go to Loma Linda U. I'll respond after I've studied it.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Strange, isn't it, that Seventh-day Adventists didn't see that evidence in over 130 years of diligent and prayerful Bible study of the topic?

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: No. How quickly we (and you it seems at this point...) forget!

The real history is that after EGW died, the trend of women in ministry slowly faded until the 1970's when there was a renewed interest. And it was as if we were starting all over again and had never before considered the issue.

You misunderstood my question, Tom. Here is the sentence that immediately preceded the quote at the top of this post:

"What new Bible evidence have they turned up-- that Phoebe was actually an overseer in the church, Paul's superior, and the first bishop of Rome?"

I'm saying it's strange that during the 130 years of diligent and prayerful Bible study, Seventh-day Adventists did not see the evidence in Rom. 16: 1, 2 showing that Phoebe was an overseer or bishop.

Every generation of SDAs must look at the Bible evidence and decide if their practices and doctrines are based on the Bible. This includes all of our doctrines. We can't afford to believe and do something simply because previous generations held certain beliefs or did certain things. Ellen White herself says that everyone must individually study the teachings and the Bible and know the ground of their beliefs.

In light of this, I would suggest that simply because the church had certain practices related to women's role in the church doesn't mean the church must continue those practices or not re-examine the Bible evidence supporting them. I think that's important. I myself am involved right now in a re-examination of the Investigative Judgment. I've already looked carefully at all of the Bible evidence regarding the Sabbath and the state of the dead. Why not also re-examine the Bible evidence with respect to the role of men and women in the church? Why should we as a church base our practices on our tradition? That's what we'd be doing if we didn't study to see if the Bible really supports women as ordained church pastors and elders.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: 2) If the Bible doesn't support women being pastors and elders, will the church decide to abide by the Bible or will the church ignore the Bible and go ahead and appoint women as pastors and elders anyway?

Quote:

Neil D: There are a number of things that the bible is silent on, and yet we use these things constantly. For example, TV as an evangelistic tool...Radio also...different mediums but valued tools in communication of the Gospel to mankind. Why not women setting up churches, and supporting and building up churches?

But wouldn't you agree that we shouldn't use those things, such as TV and Radio, in ways that contradict the Bible? That's what I'm saying: that we shouldn't do things that contradict what the Bible teaches we should do. At this point, I'm frankly not absolutely certain that the Bible teaches against women being pastors and elders in today's church, but I want to know if it does or not.

It seems like you're conceding that the Bible is silent on women being church pastors and elders.

I'm just saying the Bible is the standard for the organization of the church as well as for doctrine, faith, and Christian character. If as a church we throw over the Bible as our standard, and follow after our own ideas or those of society, we cease to be the church of God, and become a merely human organization.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: The founders of our denomination had a full and robust dialog and Biblical study of the matter and concluded that there was no reason to limit women in ministry. Please read what I posted before - http://auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=1092&journal=1&type=pdf

OK, if the discussion and study of the topic was as full and robust as you say-- and I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your obviously unbiased and objective word for it (just kidding, Tom :-)-- there should be a few good articles from a different or opposing viewpoint. Do you know of any-- or have you read any of those?

Here's the article you posted. I think we need to examine it carefully. Truth is often brought out best in dialectic.

Andyews Universiry Seminary Studies, Vol. 43, No. 1,41-58.

Copyright 0 2005 Andrews University Press.

"YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY" :

JAMES WHITE, URIAH SMITH, AND

THE "TRIUMPHANT VINDICATION

OF THE RIGHT OF THE

SISTERS" TO PREACH'

BEVERLBYE EM GINGERH ANKHS ARWOOD

Walla Walla College La Sierra University

College Place, Washington La Sierra, California

In 1861, the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald2 featured an article written

by J. A. Mowatt, 'Women as Preachers and ~ecturers,"re~p rinted from the

Portadown Nms. The Review carried the piece with an introduction written

by the editor, Uriah Smith, that indicated the enthusiastic support of the

official organ of the Sabbatarian Adventist believers for Mowatt's thesis that

'neither Paul nor any other apostle forbade women preaching, or lecturing."

Mowatt had contended that "such a command is nowhere in the Bible, and

I shall proceed to prove it; and, besides, I will prove that Paul taught the

very opposite." Uriah Smith, a respected Bible scholar and church leader,

had this to say in his introduction of the piece:

w e consider the following a triumphant vindication of the right of the

sisters to take part in the public worship of God. The writer applies the

prophecy of Joel-"Your daughters shall prophesy," &c., to female

preaching; but while it must embrace public speaking of some kind, this we

think is but half of its meaning. We have nothing to say upon what the

writer claims to have been done by certain females. That to which the

attention of the reader is especially called is the argument by which he

shows that they have a right to do this, or any amount besides in the same

direction.-U. S.]

The topic of women's spiritual leadership in the church had been,

periodically, a subject in the Review ever since James White first formally

'The authors wish to acknowledge with thanks the generosity and support of the

Faculty Grants Committee of Walla Walla College, College Place, Washington.

'This journal circulated among the scattered bands of believers who continued to hope

for the imminent return of Christ, even after the Great Disappointment of 1844, and who

embraced the seventhday Sabbath. The full name of the journal reflects these two key

elements, the Sabbath and the Second Advent, which identified them as a group, though in

popular usage it was frequently shortened to The Revieze, and Herald or simply the Review.

'J. A. Mowatt, "Women as Preachers and Lecturers," R e v h a n d Herald, July 30,1861,

65-66.

Extracted from the Portadown News, Ireland, of March 2, 1861.

addressed the topic in September of 1857: In the period between the

beginning of the Review in 1850 and the formal organization of the Seventhday

Adventist Church in 1863, movement leadership took a strong stand on

the inclusive nature of spiritual gifts and the Christian obligation to exercise

them in public assemblies and religious meetings. This was not a rhetorical

discussion: women were involved in the preaching ministry of the church.

Women traveled to evangelize; spoke in the churches and gatherings of

believers; wrote theological, devotional, and scriptural articles; exhorted the

believers; and exercised spiritual leadership. In addition to the records of Ellen

White's constant public addresses, references to individuals such as Sister

Lindsey and her evangelism in New York State and Sister S. F. Shimper, who

traveled with Brother W. Morse in Vermont teaching "the third angel's

message," provide evidence of the

In the Sabbatarian Adventist Movement, the smallest of the Millerite

siblings on its way to becoming a recognized entity in its own right, the

expectations for women believers did not end with modest examples of pious

and commendable lives and the support of the cause with financial resources

and presence in meetings. Church leaders consistently exhorted women to

exercise the full range of spiritual gifts. Elder Merritt Cornell, for example,

noted that all members of the church were "licensed exh~rters,"a~n

established leadership position involving a commentary on and application

of the sermon provided during the worship service after the sermon

concluded. This expectation that women would address religious assemblies

ran counter to traditional assumptions concerning the prescribed place of

women in society and church settings, silent and subordinated. It naturally

encountered resistance and opposition from individuals indoctrinated into

entrenched cultural attitudes.

A careful screening of the pages of the Review yields a number of

articles that address the question of women's public spiritual leadership in

the church. Eight articles devoted specifically to the topic, all of them

unambiguously supportive of women's preaching, prophesying, and

exhorting, appeared during this thirteen-year period.7 No articles, letters

4James White, "Paul Says So," R& and Herald, September 10,1857,152. James White

was one of the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the earliest editor of the

R&.

5Brian E. Strayer, "Sarah A. H. Lindsay: Advent Preacher on the Southern Tier,"

Adventist Hen'tage (Fall 1986): 16-20, cited by Josephine Benton, Called by God (Smithsburg,

MD: Blackberry Hill Publications, 1990), 161-162.

6M. E. Cornell and R. J. Lawrence, "Tent Meetings in Lapeer, Mich. Closed," Review

and Herald, September 9,1857, 133.

'White, 1857; Hewitt, 1857; White, 1858; Robbins, 1859; anon., 1858; Robbins, 1860;

Welcome, 1860; Mowatt, 1861.

to the editor, opinion pieces, or theological expositions during this period

endeavor to restrict women's preaching or speaking ministry. Additional

pieces endorse women's public-speaking roles indirectly or by inference,

such as Joseph Clarke's appeal that all find and use their voices in

"conference, or social meeting, or in the Review," which he characterizes

as "a weekly conference of all the remnant."' Writing for the Review

during this time was to address the largest and most public gathering of

the Sabbatarian Adventists, and women as well as men were regularly

exhorted to speak through its pages.

"Let Your Women Keep Silence"

The eight Review articles focused on women's speaking ministry tackled

the arguments given to exclude women from the preaching, speaking, and

prophetic ministries in the church. The most ubiquitous objection focused

on Paul's injunction found in 1 Cor 14:34: "Let your women keep silence

in the churches." For a people who based their practice upon Scripture,

this verse could not be ignored. A formal articulation of the group's

understanding of the scriptural warrant for such a departure from

conventional religious practice was needed.

Any meaningful response had to respect scriptural inspiration and

textual integrity. The Review articles addressed the topic with a

characteristic Adventist hermeneutic: Scripture was compared with

Scripture, the meaning of each verse nuanced by the general argument in

which it is situated, viewed in the context of the cultural realities in which

it was given, compared with other statements by the same author, and,

finally, understood in light of all the scriptural information on the subject,

a step mandated by their insistence upon the harmony of revelation. This

was the careful hermeneutic that the movement demanded on all doctrinal

issues and which served them well in a period when the prime objective

of the group was to replace tradition, creed, and convention with a

biblically based practice and understanding. This hermeneutic provided

the foundation for their response to those who asserted that Scripture

reserved spiritual leadership for men.

An examination of the eight articles-with attention given to the

author's purpose, arguments employed to develop the positions presented,

and the selection and hermeneutic of Scripture-demonstrates the serious

intention of early church leaders to provide the movement with a wellarticulated

statement concerning the inclusive nature of spiritual gifts and

the Christian obligation to exercise them publicly. It also served as a solid

8J. Clarke, "Why," Review and Herald, December 8,1859,22.

defense to offer those who claimed a scriptural basis for the exclusion of

women from the speaking ministry (i.e., preaching, prophesying, public

praying, or exhorting).

James White: "Paul Says So"

James White offers the first formal attempt to address the topic of women

preaching.9 White's comfort with the role of women in spiritual leadership

may be tied to his original affiliation with the ~hristianC onnexion, a

group unusual in its acceptance of women preachers and exhorters,1° as

well as his experience in the Millerite movement, where certain women

were hailed as some of the most effective of the public evangelists." White

tackles the objections to women's speaking and preaching in the brief

article "Paul Says So" with the intention of answering those who would

silence women in the church arena by quoting Paul. White's general tone

is one of frustration and exasperation that some followers of God allowed

isolated, uncontextualized verses to override the obvious scriptural and

practical evidence that God calls women into the ministry of the Word.

His no-nonsense attitude displays no empathy for those who "do not like

to hear the Marys preach." He responds to those who believe they have

solved the whole issue by saying "Paul says so," with a question. "Says

what?" he asks. "Let your women keep silence in the churches" is the

definitive answer that comes back. Again, White answers with his own

question, "But what does this prove?" He continues the dialog: "'It proves'

say some, 'that women should not rise in social meeting and speak.'"

White's argument is that it is necessary to take a position on this text

"which will harmonize with both revelation and reason," and that when

Paul asked that women be silent and learn at home from their husbands

he could not have meant to include all parts of church life. He suggests

that Paul was probably referring to church business meetings, which, he

asserts, the men would handle. He reasons that if the injunction applied

to religious meetings, there would be no reason for the women to attend,

as they should be learning what they needed to know from their

husbands. Arguing from common sense, he says: "It is evident that if Paul

meant that women should not speak in religious meetings, his words

prove also that the sisters should not attend religious meetings."

White's offer to harmonize Paul's teachings for those "who do not

White, 152.

''George R. Knight, Millennia1 Fever and the End of the World (Boise, ID: Pacific Press,

1993), 119.

"Ibid., 189-121.

like to hear the Mary preach a risen or coming Saviour'' confers on

preaching women the status of disciple and evangelist, as the Mary of the

Gospels was authorized by Jesus to take the good news of the resurrection

to the male disciples. This reference to the biblical precedent undermines

the assertion that women could not speak with spiritual authority or have

a divine charge to instruct the church. It infers that individuals objecting

to women's preaching did so in opposition to biblical precedent and

example. This also suggests that the problem with women preaching was

located not in the gender of the "messengers," but in the unwillingness of

some to accept the Word of God when it was delivered to them.

While being neither a careful exegesis of the passage nor an exhaustive

exploration of the objections, both the tone and the content of this initial

essay on the subject provide the reader with an unambiguous understanding

of the movement's official position on women's preaching. White's first

excursion into this area reveals the basic hermeneutic that will be developed

more fully in future articles.

David Hewitt: "Let Your Women Keep

Silence in the Churches"

The next effort to address the same issue appears a month later in David

Hewitt's article, "Let Your Women Keep Silence in the Churches."'* In a

more systematic treatment of the subject and the principles of

hermeneutics to be used when addressing Bible topics, Hewitt marshals

Scripture to establish that women have a legitimate place in the speaking

ministry of the church. Acknowledging that "many sincere and honest

souls have been very much perplexed respecting this declaration of the

apostle Paul," he asserts that there are "other declarations of the same

apostle that must be brought to harmonize with this in order to get a clear

understanding of the Apostle's meaning in 1 Cor. xiv."

Hewitt proceeds by reminding Bible students that "no one should

found a theory on one single isolated passage," and that "it is a custom

with all Bible students to find all the important texts that bear on any one

subject, and compare them together until they come to a satisfactory

understanding of what the inspired penman means." He then turns the

reader's attention to the Corinthian verses that instruct women to have

their heads covered when praying or prophesying and concludes that these

texts demonstrate that "a woman can pray or prophesy in the church."

Hewitt walks the reader through Paul's general discussion on

prophecy (a gift for the edification and comfort of the church, with rules

12D. Hewitt, "Let Your Women Keep Silence in the Churches," Review and Herald,

October 18, 1857, 190.

as to how it is to be exercised), as well as the specific verses in 1 Cor 14:34

and 35 ("Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not

permitted unto them to speak") and 1 Tim 2: 12 ("But I suffer not a woman

to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silencen) that

are cited as determinative of women's role in the church. He examines 1

Cor 14:34-35 in the context of its time and place and determines that the

counsel "appears to be a check on the women that were too forward in

meeting in asking questions, &c.," restricting the admonition to a local

application. In response to the Timothy citation, Hewitt states that Paul

"says that he suffers not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over

the man, but to be in silence. Hence we discover that simply praying, or

singing, or speaking in meeting would not be usurping authority over the

man, but edifying the man, and pleasing the Lord."

Finally, Hewitt reminds the reader of two additional scriptural evidences

that must be considered before conclusions on the matter are reached: "Philip

the evangelist, had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy; [Acts xxi: 8,9]

and if they were forbidden to exercise their gift in meeting, their prophecies

must have been circumscribed and very limited." As a final argument, he

turns the reader's attention to Acts 2:17, 18, where the Spirit of God is

~roxnisedto be poured out upon all flesh in the last days-the very "last days"

these faithful believed they were witnessing. As he notes: "These tern teach

that daughters and hand-maidens shall prophesy. Please read on to the 21st

verse, and you will ascertain that the point of chronology is just before the

great and notable day of the Lord comes."

In the course of the treatise, Hewitt compares Scripture with Scripture

to dispute the claim that Paul's instructions in Corinthians or Timothy

disqualify women from exercising their spiritual gifts publicly. In addition,

he ties the acceptance of women's speaking to true belief that the world was

experiencing the end times. The preaching and prophesying of women in

their midst was evidence that the "day of the Lord" was at hand and that their

community qualified as the remnant people. Hewitt's use of Acts 2, which

applies the prophecy of Joel to the end times, becomes an important model

for subsequent discussions. The promise and experience of the gift of the

Holy Spirit to both sons and daughters becomes the controlling metaphor for

the group, and all other passages must be harmonized with it.

James White: "Unity and Gifts of

the Church, No. 4"

In "Unity and Gifts of the Church, No 4," which may be seen as a further

development of Hewitt's argument concerning the gifts of the Holy Spirit,

James White focuses specifically on the gift of prophecy, poured out upon

women, as well as men.') The gift is a "glorious promise to the waiting,

trusting people of God," people who must neither despise nor quench the

Spirit. Introducing the topic with the scriptural example of Anna the

prophetess's role in the story of Jesus, he offers a number of examples of the

prophetic gift exercised within the NT. He is clear from his first example of

prophetic gifts in the apostolic age that "we find both men and women

having the spirit of prophecy."

White examines the source, nature, and purpose of prophecy, using as a

model Paul's testimony before King Agrippa in Acts 26. Paul tells the story

of his conversion on the road to Damascus when Jesus says to him: "'I have

appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness

both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which

I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the

Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them

from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God.'" Using this

passage as a foundation, White defies prophecy as the personal and direct

communication of God to an individual for the purpose of making that

person "a minister and a witness" to what has been seen for the purpose of

redeeming the lost.

White is clear that prophecy is one gift among many, quoting Eph 4: 11

that Christ "gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists,"

and the Corinthian admonition that God has given the church apostles,

prophets, teachers, miracles, healers, and other types of gifts. White uses

Paul's writings to demonstrate the validity of the prophetic gift within the

church. In an important move to establish the connection between Paul's

writings about spiritual gifts and the church of the last days, White cites Thess

4: 13-18 and 5: 1-8 as having "direct reference to the Christians of the last days,

who are looking for the Lord."

White emphasizes that the gift of prophecy needs to be valued and

examined closely by "those who are watching for the day of the Lord." He

maintains that prophecy is a gift of the Spirit, and if the Spirit is grieved

and not cherished, the gift will be withdrawn. He directs the reader's

attention to Paul's trifold admonition in 1 Thess 5: 19-21: "quench not the

Spirit;" "despise not prophesyings;" and "prove all things; hold fast that

which is good." At this point in his argument, he reasserts the inclusive

nature of the gift, citing Joel 2:28: "I will pour out my Spirit, and your

sons and your daughters shall prophesy." He notes that those who "reject

all that comes in the name of prophesyings" slight an important means of

salvation provided by God for their benefit. White acknowledges the

"~ames White, "Unity and Gifts of the Church, No. 4," Review and Herald, January

7, 1858,68-69.

presence of false prophets and deceptions, such as spiritualism, but answers

that Scripture provides rules whereby prophetic claims may be tested.

After reviewing the biblical principles given to test prophets, White

turns the discussion once more to Joel 2:28-32 in order to consider it

carefully. He quotes it completely and notes that "the Spirit is to be

poured out" and that "under the influence of the Holy Spirit both sons

and daughters will prophesy." He stops to comment that "some have

excluded females from a share in this work, because it says, 'your young

men shall see visions.' They seem to forget that 'man' and 'men' in the

Scriptures generally means both male and female. The infidel Paine would

have been ashamed of a quibble involving such ignorance."

White ends the discussion with the assertion that while the Spirit has

always been given to God's people, there is a promised abundance to be

experienced by the remnant. He warns that prophecy is to be an expected

part of the latterday experience and is indeed a sign of the remnant people.

Further, the prophetic gift is given as an aid to salvation and should not be

despised. Finally, he addresses the issue that creates the most discomfort for

many: the prophetic gifts exercised by women. He is clear throughout the

article that women as well as men have been granted the gift of the Holy

Spirit and have throughout scriptural history been selected by God to exercise

the prophetic function for their communities. Women are given messages

from God for the churches, and these messages need to be accepted and

embraced. Prophecy is not only a matter of revealing the future, but of

relating messages to the community that God has impressed upon an

individual for the edification and sanctification of the community. Clearly,

women may be ministers to the church, and their ministry is rejected only at

the risk of "grieving the Spirit" and its potential withdrawal.

Continued

[John317]

Continued from previous post:

B. F. Robbins: "To the Female Disciples

in the Third Angel's Message"

Robbins's 1859 essay is directed specifically to the "female disciples in the

third angel's message," and applies the lesson from White's "Gifts" article to

women's religious participation.14 The piece does not examine the Pauline

texts, but instead focuses on the positive promises of Christ to the believer

and the true disciple's expected response. Brother Robbins suggests that

women's reluctance to exercise spiritual leadership is a sign that they have not

fully consecrated themselves to God:

You will pardon my special address to you when I say it is because I have

my fears that many of you who I believe are sincerely endeavoring to keep

I4B. F. Robbins, "To the Female Disciples in the Third Angel's Message," Review and

Herald, December 8, 1859, 2 1-22.

"YOURD AUGHTERSSH ALLP ROPHESY" 49

the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, are lacking in that entire

heart consecration to God and his cause which he requires of us all; and a

want of the experience of the promise of the Father to his sons and

daughters of the gift of his Spirit, the endowment of power from on high

in order to their usefulness.

According to Robbins, the woman fully submitted to God will accept

the spiritual gifts given and employ them for the edification of the church

and the glory of God despite potential negative reactions. He asserts that

God's promise of the Holy Spirit and the gift of prophecy was given "as

much to the female as male disciples of Jesus."

Robbins recognizes that the cultural mores and religious training of the

period discouraged women's leadership functions, and he addresses the issue

directly. After emphasizing that "here in the precious promise there is neither

male nor female," he turns his attention to the prevailing sentiment against

women's public ministry. "I know," he admits, "that the most of us have

been gathered into the message of the third angel from the sectarian churches

where we received our religious training, which we now, in the clear light of

God's truth see was defective, both in doctrine and practice."

The defects of these earlier associations included their teaching

concerning the role of women in the religious arena. He then asserts that

"in some of them the prejudice against woman's efforts and labors in the

church, have crushed out her usefulness. This kind of training has in many

of you caused timidity, and discouragement, and the neglect of the use of

gifts designed to edify the church and glorify God." Robbins stresses that

the female disciple must overcome "the embarrassing influence of our

former associations" and "conformity to the worldn and fully exercise her

spiritual gifts.

He expands his argument for the obligation of women's spiritual gifts

as callings with an invitation to "go with me in imagination to the

gathering of the few disciples of Jesus on the day of Pentecost. There with

their brethren in humble expectation sat the faithful Marys." Using this

scene as a backdrop, he sketches the Marys' faithfulness as disciples, and

then draws attention to the Pentecost moment. He asks: "And did not the

tongue of fire descend alike upon them as upon their brethren? Assuredly

it did. And think you that their Spirit-baptized lips were closed in silence

in that solemn assembly? No: the servants and the handmaidens

prophesied there as the Spirit gave them utterance."

Robbins follows his discourse on the obligation of all believers to use

spiritual gifts given for the edification of the church with a personal

experience where a woman's testimony "in a public assembly" increased

his faith. He adds that he mourned the fact "that in our social religious

interviews she is so prone to inactivity and silence, in prayer and

exhortation, when by divine grace she may be so abundantly qualified to

edify and encourage." He encourages women to put away their reluctance

to participate vocally in public worship services and "seek unweariedly the

endowment of the promise of the Father, the power from on high, which

is alike the privilege of both the servants and handmaidens of God."

Exercising their spiritual gifts simultaneously strengthens the church and

wins "the commendation of the Master, 'She hath done what she could.'"

Throughout the article, Robbins utilizes Scripture to encourage women

to identify with the female disciples of Christ who were empowered to

assume the gospel charge and participate publicly in the redemption of

humanity through the gifts of the Spirit. A woman may be a "most efficient

fellow-laborer in the gospel," as she exercises the power for edification given

to her by God. Robbins's article offers an antidote to "the embarrassing

influence of our former associations" that taught the public silence of women:

the promise of the Father to give power and gifu to "both the servants and

handmaidens of God." And according to Robbins, only those who accepted

the call and responsibility of discipleship could expect to "'receive the glad

word, / Well and faithfully done! / Enter into my joy, and sit down on my

throne.'"

"On Keeping Silence: Ought Women

to Keep Silence in the Churches?"

In the December 16, 1858, issue of the Review, the editors inserted a short

column clipped from an exchange under the heading "On Keeping Silence."15

The article, "Ought Women to Keep Silence in the Churches?" is identified

as a query submitted by the wife of a Congregational minister and stands

without the polemical commentary that the editors offered when they ran an

article for the sake of drawing the reader's attention to what they considered

heterodox teaching or evidence of "end times."

Since it is written as a query, the reader is expected to answer the

burning question of whether a woman should keep silence in the church,

thereby eschewing spiritual leadership. The author leads the reader

through a series of rhetorical questions concerning the authority of

women mentioned in both the OT and NT, women who wielded several

different kinds of leadership positions. She calls attention to Miriam the

prophetess, Deborah the judge, Huldah the theologian, Anna the

prophetess who preached of Christ in the temple, Paul's colaborer Phoebe,

and others, asking questions concerning who called and empowered them

'5Anonymous, "On Keeping Silence: Ought Women to Keep Silence in the Churches?"

Review and Herald, December 16,1858,27.

(obviously God), and whether they were considered "out of their place"

when they exercised their leadership functions (obviously not).

In an allusion to Joel, the writer inquires: "Whose spirit was prophesied

and poured out upon the sons and the daughters, the servants, and the

handmaidens, that they might all prophesy?" (emphasis original). She

continues by querying, "And what did they do when they prophesied?"

(emphasis original). The reader, supplying the answers to these questions, is

led to her next series of questions concerning what various NT women did

in their recorded church functions as cited by Paul. They are compelled to

acknowledge women's active role in "primitive Christianity," the original

church. Further, the reader cannot refute the implicit argument that the roles

women played were a direct result of God's intention and will. Finally, the

author leaves the reader with the query that ties directly into the primary

argument used to silence women in the church: "Did Paul forbid women to

pray and prophesy in public, and then give them directions as to how they

should appear to honor the gospel when they did pray and prophesy in

public?"

Throughout this piece, scriptural evidence is marshaled to

demonstrate God's calling of women into public ministry and leadership

in all its various forms. The net impact of the rhetorical questions is to

demonstrate the ridiculousness of the argument that women should be

excluded from spiritual leadership because "Paul says so."

B. F. Robbins: "The Promise of the

Father, Luke xxivA9"

B. F. Robbins provides further reflection on women's role in the church

based on the model found in Acts 2 that cites the promise of the Holy

Spirit to both sons and daughters.16 In this piece, he focuses on the NT

directive to repent and receive the Holy Spirit in order to be prepared for

"usefulness." This essay echoes his earlier one," both in the language and

the appeal for "entire sanctification," and so the concerns and objectives

of this piece may be more fully understood in light of the first article. His

primary intention here is to demonstrate that Jesus' promise to the

disciples that the Holy Spirit would come to them in power was not

restricted to first-century Christians, but applies to present times as well.

He asserts that the accepted practice of denying the applicability of the

promise is the cause of current religious worldliness and formality and

I6B. F. Robbins, "The Promise of the Father, Luke xxiv, 49," Rev& and Hwald,

January 5, 1860,53.

"Robbins, "To the Female Disciples in the Third Angel's Message."

must be renounced so that the baptism of the Spirit may ensue with its

"endowment of usefulness and success."

Robbins makes a point to ask who received the Pentecostal

empowerment, so that he might answer: "The disciples, male and female,

mentioned in the 13th and 14th verses of the fim chapter [of Acts]." He cites

the verses that note that cloven tongues like fire appeared and "sat upon each

of them," and "they were all fdled with the Holy Ghost." He notes that the

effect of the outpouring was to give the power "which was to qualify them

for the work to which they were called." He adds that Peter's sermon given

at that time 'was a simple application of the prophecy of Joel . . . [,I a

demonstration of his [Christ's] exaltation to the right hand of God by the

fulfillment of the promise of the Father in the pouring out of his Spirit upon

his servants and handmaidens."

At this point in the article, Robbins returns to the question of the

current applicability of the promise. He answers that it extends to the end,

to "embrace all the servants and handmaidens of God whom he shall call

until the end, so that his called ones now are included in the prediction

and promise." He reiterates the nature of the promise, "the promise of the

Father in the prophecy of Joel, the pouring out of his Spirit upon his

servants and handmaidens as many as the Lord shall call." Thus Robbins

underscores God's ongoing empowerment of women as well as men.

Robbins concludes his essay with remarks upon the requirements for

receiving the promise. He notes that such individuals must desire the

blessing and consecrate themselves entirely to the service of God, as

"holiness, usefulness and happiness are inseparably connected." He warns

that there is a price associated with the promised gift; "possessions, friends,

reputation, life" must be set upon the altar. Only then "in the confidence

of faith we may look with certainty for the 'promise of the Father,' the

baptism of the Holy Spirit, as an endowment of power from on high to

qualify us for usefulness."

Overall, Robbins's treatise is a call to all the faithful to examine their

experience and ascertain whether or not they have received the promised gift

of the Spirit and if they are willing to pay the attached cost. He repeatedly

uses the phrases "sons and daughters" and "servants and handmaidens" to

stress that women as well as men are the recipients of both the promise and

the ensuing obligation to participate in public evangelism. This appeal has

direct implications for the understanding of women's religious leadership.

The church as a whole must be willing to acknowledge the inclusive nature

of spiritual gifts. Both men and women must be willing to sacrifice their pride

and receive e&Lcaion and bless& Lorn women, wMe women must be

willing to sacrifice their reputations to exercise socially forbidden gifts. The

common challenge is to surrender all concerns outside that of discipleship. It

is that sacrifice that allows God to make "his sons and daughters" useful and

empowered witnesses to the world. For servants and handmaidens alike,

complete happiness and holiness depend upon willingness to accept and

exercise their spiritual gifts.

S. C. Welcome: "Shall the Women

Keep Silence in the Churches?"

S. C. Welcome's essay on 1 Cor 14:34-35 was featured in the Review one

month after Sister Hallock (later Sister S. H. Lindsey, the evangelist) sent

in a request that the sentiments of Robbins's December 8,1859, article on

the leadership obligations of "female disciples" be harmonized with 1 Cor

14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2: 11, the two texts most frequently cited to exclude

women from a public role.'* This lengthy article inspects these verses,

along with the Timothy passage so frequently 'construed as an objection

to women's speaking in public," despite "the great amount of evidence

which can be brought to prove that all who are made partakers of such

love have a right to speak forth his praises."19

Welcome intends to demonstrate that the silence enforced upon women

is a result of the "false construction put upon these passages," and that this

silence has a negative effect upon the spiritual life of women and the church.

He compares the situation of the woman forbidden to speak the message God

has given her for the church to bondage ("she was an unwilling slave to the

laws of the church"), compelling imagery at a time when slavery was a

reprehensible reality. Welcome examines the passages used to defend women's

oppression in their cultural context. He then refers the reader to familiar

scriptural examples of women's public roles in the spiritual life of the OT, in

Jesus' lifetime, and in the early church. He then makes his final appeal,

bringing reason and revelation together. He concludes that the enforced

silence of women grieves the Holy Spirit and must be halted.

In his initial efforts to deal with the Corinthian passage, Welcome points

to evidence throughout the Pauline corpus that the first preaching of the

gospel excited all sorts of astonishment and disputations. Concerning the

command for silence, he understands it "to mean a troublesome asking of

questions, which could be better answered at home than in their religious

meetings." To buttress his point, he draws from Paul's instructions to

Timothy and Titus to avoid and disallow "foolish and unlearned questions,"

"Sarah A. Hallock, "A Query.-Bro. Smith," Review and Herald, January 12,1860,64.

19S. C. Welcome, "Shall the Women Keep Silence in the Churches?" ReviewandHerald,

February 23,1860,109-1 10.

asked primarily to engender strife and endless debates. He concludes that

given the evidence, it is apparent that the asking of argumentative questions

had become disruptive to their religious meetings, and that "it is at least a fair

inference that he designed to put a stop to this, but had no allusion to the

exercise of a gift in the ministry or in exhortation."

Welcome alerts the reader that the instruction to ask questions at

home could not be applied to the issue of speaking or exhorting in public.

"What question," he inquires, "could a pious female ask at home, that

would relieve her mind from the burden of a message she had received to

deliver in the church?" The logical conclusion is that the passage "had no

relation to the exercise of a gift which God had given them to use for the

advancement of his cause." He further instructs the reader that verses that

forbid women's usurpation of authority over men are not applicable, as

"preaching, prophesying, exhorting or praying in public, is not usurping

authority and has nothing to do with it."

After a brief reminder that Paul "gave directions how the women

should behave in the exercise of their gifts," which "he certainly would not

have done had it been prohibited," and that Paul "mentions, with peculiar

regard, certain women that had labored with him in the gospel," Welcome

shifts the argument to a review of the scriptural passages that detail

women's public role and evangelistic efforts in both the OT (e.g., Miriam,

Deborah, Huldah) and the NT (e.g., Philip's daughters, Anna, Elizabeth,

the Samaritan woman, and the daughters at Pentecost). He makes a special

point to comment that "it was a woman that first announced the glorious

tidings of the resurrection of our blessed Lord; and let it be remembered

that these 'glad tidings' were preached to the apostles themselves." This

section ends with the pithy reflection that

seeing that females were admitted to the high office of prophecy under the

old dispensation, and in the promise of the more general effusion of this

gift, the daughters and handmaidens were equally included with the other

sex, that they were among the first messengers of the gospel, and after the

churches were formed and settled received particular instruction how to

conduct themselves in the church in the exercise of their gifts, it is strange

that the privilege should have ever been called in question.

The essay concludes with a reference to oneness in Christ, the

breaking down of distinctions between male and female, as well as those

between Gentile and Jew, and an invitation to the readers to use their

reason along with revelation. Welcome asks the readers to examine the

evidence that women possess the natural qualifications for speaking God's

good news in public, just as do men. His final sentence is an appeal: "Then

let no stumbling-block be thrown in their way, but let them fill the place

that God calls them to fill, let them not be bound down to silence by

church rules, but let their tongues speak forth the praises of God, and let

them point sinners to the Lamb of God, and grieve not the Holy Spirit by

silence in the congregation."

J. A. Mowatt: "Women as Preachers and Lecturers"

The next article to address the issue of women's right to preach, the final

one before the organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,

emerged a little more than a year later in 1861." This article by J. A.

Mowatt, which Uriah Smith, the editor of the Review, introduced as "a

triumphant vindication of the right of the sisters," was written as a

response to a previous letter (signed "An Admirer of Woman in Her

Proper Place," and printed in the Portadom News) that argued that

Scripture forbids women to be public speakers.

As mentioned above, Mowatt's response to "An Admirer" is that

"neither Paul nor any other apostle forbade women preaching, or

lecturing," and that "I affirm such a command is nowhere in the Bible, and

I shall proceed to prove it; and, besides, I will prove that Paul taught the

very opposite." The bulk of the piece is devoted to considering the familiar

Pauline "women" passages in the larger context of Paul's writings,

demanding that all be harmonized. He makes a case, as well, on the basis of Paul's commendation of Phoebe as a church official and his directive to

the men in Rome to respond to her directions. He then lists various

biblical women and the positions of spiritual leadership entrusted to them

by God. The paper continually engages the "Admirer" in dialog,

challenging his view of women as a subordinated and silenced gender, and

concludes that the case he presents is vastly ill informed and an insufficient

basis for women to be "justified in ceasing to labor in his cause."

The work begins with the observation "that if a woman can effect

good in a world like ours, where so much is yet to be done for its

reformation, I would think twice before I would discourage her or throw

any obstacle in her way." For Mowatt, "each individual in this world is

morally bound to do as much good to others as he or she can." Mowatt

reviews the work of several outstanding women of the day, including

abolitionist Harriet Beecher Stowe, Methodist holiness teacher Mrs.

Phoebe Palmer, the English preacher Miss Buck, Salvation Army leader

Catherine Booth, and the noted temperance speaker Mrs. Theobald, as

examples of women effecting great work for God that should not be

stopped. He asks if such women are not to use their powers for the

salvation of the perishing, and why the "Admirer" would "silence such an

advocate?" He argues that since no one "would object to a woman rescuing

his friend from temporal death," it is unreasonable to object "to a woman

rescuing men from eternal death." The "Admirer" is left to answer a

difficult question: "Why object to woman going to seek and to save those

that are pining in the dungeons of sin and iniquity?"

After this appeal to the argument of Christian moral obligation to effect

good in the world, Mowatt turns his attention to the "Admirer's" elevation

of 1 Cor 14:34-35 to determine women's "place." Mowatt responds with an

appeal to logic: "Surely the fourteenth chapter does not contradict the

eleventh, which was necessarily written before it." He notes that in 1 Cor 11,

Paul makes the statement that "'every woman that prayeth or prophesieth

with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head.'" Mowatt contends that, far

from forbidding women to perform church functions, Paul is instructing

women on appropriate attire when they "conduct public worship-for that

is what praying and prophesying mean." He goes on to say that "whatever

every man was to do in the church in praying and prophesying, woman was

to do the same; and, instead of Paul forbidding the woman, he merely tells

herself and the man how they are to dress-one with the head uncovered, the

other with it covered." He buttresses his exegesis by citing the recognized

Bible authority Dr. Adam Clarke. Clarke, he notes, is "entirely in favor of

female preaching, and contends that the verses quoted by 'An Admirer' bear

no such meaning as that attached to them by those who oppose female

preaching." Further, Clarke contends that the prediction of Joel 2:28 "would

not be fulfilled unless women prophesied, preached or taught." He also puts

Paul's counsel in its cultural context when he notes that for women of Paul's

day, the uncovered head was associated with prostitution, "and this portion

of his directions does not apply at all to our fashions."

Proceeding from the proposition that if Paul authorized women's

preaching in chapter 11, he cannot be forbidding it in chapter 14, Mowatt

turns to the meaning of chapter 14. He concludes from the information

concerning instructions of how the men were to speak, by twos, and in

turn. They were also to "let the others judge" that what is being described

is not a regular religious meeting or service, but a church court. He sees

the women as excluded from these sessions in order to "prevent much

discussion." Women were to keep silence in the court proceedings and ask

their husbands at home about issues they did not understand.

Once he has dealt with the Corinthians' passage, Mowatt turns to 1 Tim

2:12-14, where Paul says that he does not allow a woman to teach or usurp

authority. He argues that this injunction is not against public speaking, but

the usurping of authority. Paul, he insists, has nothing against modest women

adorning themselves with good works, including those of bringing the gospel

to the perishing. He directs the reader to back up and read the previous verse:

"The woman is to learn in silence with all subjection." He asks: "Subjection

to whom?" At this point, he refers the reader to another Pauline passage, Col

3:18: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the

Lord." He states that "this is the subjection spoken of in Timothy, as is clearly

shown by Adam and Eve-husband and wife-representatives of all our race

of husbands and wives-being brought in by way of illustrating his subject,

and the object which he had in view. A woman is not to teach, nor to usurp

authority over the man, that is, a wife is not to an so toward her husband."

Mowatt reiterates his point so none could miss it: 'The passage has nothing

whatsoever to do with regard to Total Abstinence lecturers, or gospel

preachers. On the contrary, a woman is to pray and prophesy [i Corinthians

xi:5] just as the man, and with equal power and authority; and this is

according to the prediction of the Holy Ghost. Joel ii, 28; Acts ii, 17."

Once he has cited the case of Phoebe, commended to Rome by Paul,

Mowatt reviews the way in which God appointed OT women as spiritual

leaders in Israel, citing the cases of Huldah, Miriam, and others, asking the

"Admirer" how he would have responded to the leadership of those

women. He also reminds the reader of the women referred to in Rom

16:12, who "labored much in the Lord," as further example of the active

public ministry of NT women. He notes that Clarke contends that these

women prophesied and, therefore, they preached.

Before closing, Mowatt pauses to refute the "Admirer's" proposition

that women are denied spiritual authority because Eve sinned first. His

response is to remind all that "if, through Eve, sin first entered into this

world-and that too, with the hearty concurrence of Adam-then let it

not be forgotten that by woman, without the concurrence of man, a

Saviour came to bring deliverance." Developing the logic, he asks, since

redemption came by a woman, "why should not women preach that

redemption also?" It is no surprise that Mowatt closes with the final

reflection that "judging by the results which have followed the labors" of

notable women, "I rather think the Lord of the vineyard will require some

more satisfactory excuse for even female timidity and backwardness in his

service than the one given by 'An Admirer,' before they will be justified

in ceasing to labor in his cause."

It is little wonder that church leaders regarded this piece as a

"triumphant vindication of the right of the sisters to take part in the public

worship of God." From first to last, Mowatt demands that the Scriptures used

to disqualify and disenfranchise women be reappraised with an eye toward

the integrity of the biblical author's intention, the scriptural record of God's

appointment of women to a wide array of spiritual leadership positions, and

the precious promise of spiritual gifts to God's sons and daughters. Mowatt

has skillfully and lucidly articulated the Sabbatarian movement's position on

the issue of women's public role in the work of human redemption, using a

recognizable and sound Adventist hermeneutic.

Conclusion

The Review addressed the issue of women's public ministry in eight major

articles during the formative period from 1850 to 1863, when the Seventhday

Adventist Church was organized. All of these articles, beginning with

James White's challenge to "Paul Says So" and closing with Uriah Smith's

"triumphant vindication," supported the participation of women in the

preaching ministry, often seeing it as a distinguishing mark of the Adventist

movement and setting it apart from the established churches which denied

women an active role in preaching and teaching. Their conviction of the

right of the sisters to publicly proclaim the Word was based on their

understanding of spiritual gifts as given to men and women equally

according to the will of the Spirit. Their defense of women's preaching,

particularly against those who would cite the Pauline injunction that women

should keep silent in the church, was based on their interpretation of the

Bible and modeled the principles of Adventist hermeneutics used to establish

the doctrines and practices of the church. Most specifically in this discussion,

the principles of biblical interpretation used in this study of women's role

included comparing Scripture with Scripture, understanding the context of

a biblical text, and examining the functions that women filled in biblical

history. These principles led the early Adventist Church to defend

vigorously the right of the sisters to engage in public ministry against those

who "do not like to hear the Marys preach a risen or coming Saviour."

End

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

John317: Strange, isn't it, that Seventh-day Adventists didn't see that evidence in over 130 years of diligent and prayerful Bible study of the topic?

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: No. How quickly we (and you it seems at this point...) forget!

The real history is that after EGW died, the trend of women in ministry slowly faded until the 1970's when there was a renewed interest. And it was as if we were starting all over again and had never before considered the issue.

You misunderstood my question, Tom. Here is the sentence that immediately preceded the quote at the top of this post:

"What new Bible evidence have they turned up-- that Phoebe was actually an overseer in the church, Paul's superior, and the first bishop of Rome?"

I'm saying it's strange that during the 130 years of diligent and prayerful Bible study, Seventh-day Adventists did not see the evidence in Rom. 16: 1, 2 showing that Phoebe was an overseer or bishop...

I did not misunderstand anything. But your response reinforces my observation of how quickly you seem to forget. Uriah Smith and James White apparently saw the evidence in Romans 16:1,2 about Phoebe way back in 1861! Have you forgotten already the multiple references posted by several of us to that article published in the July 30, 1861 issue of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald?!?!

By no coincidence I am convinced, I reached the same conclusion in my own independent research and study of those two verses well before I ever learned of that article. Imagine your own reaction if you got confirmation of something you discovered in your Bible study and realized it had been written/published over 130 years earlier by the founders of our faith. I am compelled to take such things seriously.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: "What new Bible evidence have they turned up-- that Phoebe was actually an overseer in the church, Paul's superior, and the first bishop of Rome?"

I'm saying it's strange that during the 130 years of diligent and prayerful Bible study, Seventh-day Adventists did not see the evidence in Rom. 16: 1, 2 showing that Phoebe was an overseer or bishop...

Quote:

I did not misunderstand anything. But your response reinforces my observation of how quickly you seem to forget. Uriah Smith and James White apparently saw the evidence in Romans 16:1,2 about Phoebe way back in 1861! Have you forgotten already the multiple references posted by several of us to that article published in the July 30, 1861 issue of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald?!?!

I can't forget something I didn't know or see to begin with. I have just posted the article you speak of, and I will study it and respond.

Meantime, please post a summary of what you believe Smith and White "apparently saw" in Romans 16: 1,2. Can you also give a brief description of their evidence and reasoning to arrive at their conclusion?

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Strange, isn't it, that Seventh-day Adventists didn't see that evidence in over 130 years of diligent and prayerful Bible study of the topic?

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: No. How quickly we (and you it seems at this point...) forget!

The real history is that after EGW died, the trend of women in ministry slowly faded until the 1970's when there was a renewed interest. And it was as if we were starting all over again and had never before considered the issue.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: You misunderstood my question, Tom. Here is the sentence that immediately preceded the quote at the top of this post:

"What new Bible evidence have they turned up-- that Phoebe was actually an overseer in the church, Paul's superior, and the first bishop of Rome?"

I'm saying it's strange that during the 130 years of diligent and prayerful Bible study, Seventh-day Adventists did not see the evidence in Rom. 16: 1, 2 showing that Phoebe was an overseer or bishop...

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: I did not misunderstand anything...

Since you clearly understood my question, why didn't you reply directly to the question instead of saying "The real history is that after EGW died, the trend of women in ministry slowly faded until the 1970's when there was a renewed interest. And it was as if we were starting all over again and had never before considered the issue"?

I didn't think that sentence was a reply to my question.

You seem to be telling me that Seventh-day Adventists discovered back in 1861 that Phoebe was an overseer in the church and that she was over Paul. Is that right?

But if it's true that SDAs-- such as Uriah Smith and James White-- have understood this to be a fact, why isn't this fact mentioned in the SDA Bible Commentary? And is it mentioned anywhere else in SDA publications?

I have to leave for Loma Linda in a few minutes but when I get back I'll study the article in the 1861 RH as well as the article by John Brunt you referred me to.

By the way, can you point me to an article that gives the Bible evidence for this topic in a way that you believe is expressed as well as any can be? Is there an article that you believe if SDAs read and studied, they would agree that the Bible supports WO?

[Beryl]

I know that I have not been on line for quite a while, but I have "peaked" into some of the postings as time has allowed, and I cannot by-pass this one.

According to the latest that I have heard, Doug no longer really believes in the Holy Spirit or the Trinity. God the Father -- yes. God the Son -- yes. But the Holy Spirit, no!

Jesus promised (John 14:26) that the Holy Spirit would be sent by the Father, and He would "teach you all things" and "bring all things to your remembrance." Did Jesus lie? NO!

We see the work of the Holy Spirit touching so many lives today.

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of Me." John 15:26.

"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place, and suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting...and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts 2:1-4.

A group from one of our country churches flew up to New Guinea and held a series of meetings with wonderful success. They had prayed for the presence of the Holy Spirit, and He was truly there. God had kept back the rain every evening (it poured rain during the days, but cleared in time for the outdoor meetings). On the last night a man brought in his daughter who was truly being torchured by a devil. After a series of prayers after the meeting the devil, with one last struggle, left her. The Holy Spirit is with us today just as He was with the disciples at and after Pentecost.

We need Him in our lives daily.

God bless,

Beryl

[karl]

Doug's most recent book is entitled, "Trinity."

Here is the blurb about it from the Amazing Facts website:

"The doctrine of the triune Godhead is under attack from all corners of Christianity. Understand the history behind this dangerous assault and know the biblical support for this great mystery found in both Testaments. You will see the nature of the Godhead and each being in a new, fascinating light, and you will find peace with a fundamental truth important to all believers. Doug Batchelor?s newest book is a convincing defense of the faith!"

[Woody]

After reading about Doug and the anti-women stance of those here on this forum ... I've determined that the arguments against female ordination are cultural not biblical.

I think it is important that we believe in the Bible as a whole and not isolated 'proof' texts taken out of context. We have no right to declare the gifts of the Spirit as gender specific.

Just me 2 cents worth. :)

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Then we should view the whole Bible as a cultural document..

[John317]

Quote:

Beryl: I know that I have not been on line for quite a while, but I have "peaked" into some of the postings as time has allowed, and I cannot by-pass this one.

I hope you post a lot on this discussion, Beryl. Anyone's ideas on the topic are welcome.

Quote:

Beryl: According to the latest that I have heard, Doug no longer really believes in the Holy Spirit or the Trinity. God the Father -- yes. God the Son -- yes. But the Holy Spirit, no!

Wow! I had no idea of this about Doug, although I know there's a move within our church among some people to return to the old beliefs of our pioneers, who had all kinds of differing views of the Godhead. I would want to talk personally with Doug to get his views directly from him. Do you know if he's published his "new" views on the Trinity?

I read a booklet on the Trinity that he wrote fairly recently, and he obviously believed in the Trinity at the time of writing. Perhaps he's undergone some change of mind over the last year. I'd like to find out for sure.

Added later: rudywoof just posted this very important statement: "I just talked to Bonnie, Doug Batchelors' private secretary on the phone. Doug Batchelor has NOT rescinded his beliefs about the Holy Spirit. And they would appreciate that we stop his character assassination."

[Gail]

I don't know about Doug Batchelor but I was just told yesterday about some members who are embracing that kind of belief about the Holy Spirit and the Godhead. Apparently it IS out there.

[John317]

Quote:

Woody: After reading about Doug and the anti-women stance of those here on this forum ... I've determined that the arguments against female ordination are cultural not biblical.

Can you show us why you believe the arguments against female ordination are cultural and not biblical? In other words, please show us your reasoning and what your evidence is for your conclusion.

It's unfair and inaccurate to refer to people opposed to WO as "anti-woman" because there are actually many women who are also against WO.

Quote:

Woody: I think it is important that we believe in the Bible as a whole and not isolated 'proof' texts taken out of context.

I agree with you. We need to take the whole Bible and not just one or two texts. I think it's the same with any Bible subject.

Quote:

Woody: We have no right to declare the gifts of the Spirit as gender specific.

The gifts themselves are not gender specific. God gives the gift of the Holy Spirit to all believers irresepctive of gender, race, nationality, or any other difference among people.