Dr. Denis Fortin comments on early SDA attitudes toward women in milni

[Gregory Matthews]

What Did Early Adventist Pioneers Think About Women in Ministry?

Recently, a leading Adventist pastor in California spoke in opposition to women in pastoral ministry. Such a position is not new in Adventism, particularly in the last three decades or so. But this position is not the long-standing traditional Adventist position regarding the contributions women can make to all aspects of ministry.

Early Adventists understood Paul's prophetic words in Galatians 3:28 that there is "neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ" (NKJV) as the seed of many reforms that led to the abolition of social evils like slavery, class distinctions based on birth rights, and gender exclusion in society and church. Early Adventists were thus abolitionists, social democrats and republicans in government.

Ellen White's Ministry Challenged

Let me illustrate my thought with one anecdote from Ellen White’s ministry. In a letter to her husband, James White, written on April 1st, 1880, Ellen White recounted some of the activities she and other colleagues had been involved in recently near Oakland, California. Among many things, she told James the following.

Elder Haskell talked in the afternoon and his labors were well received. I had in the evening, it was stated, the largest congregation that had ever assembled at Arbuckle. The house was full. Many came from five to ten and twelve miles. The Lord gave me special power in speaking. The congregation listened as if spell-bound. Not one left the house although I talked above one hour. Before I commenced talking, Elder Haskell had a bit [piece] of paper that was handed (him) in quoting [a] certain text prohibiting women speaking in public. He took up the matter in a brief manner and very clearly expressed the meaning of the apostles words. I understand it was a Cambelite [sic] who wrote the objection and it had been well circulated [among the audience] before it reached the desk; but Elder Haskell made it all plain before the people.

(Ellen G. White to James White, April 1 [Letter 17a], 1880; Manuscript Releases Vol. Ten, 70)

Ellen White referred to a note from a “Cambelite,” that is a member from the Church of Christ of the Stone-Campbell movement, who had written a note quoting a certain text of scripture about women being prohibited from speaking in public. This text was either 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 or 1 Timothy 2:12. Ellen White also mentioned to James that Elder Haskell responded briefly to this objection he received and very clearly expressed the meaning of the apostles words. And it is obvious from the context that Ellen White concurred with this explanation.

After reading this anecdotal event, I found myself curious to know what Stephen Haskell had said to this audience in response to this note he had received. What was his belief on this subject of women speaking in church or in public, of women doing ministry? What was his explanation that Ellen White agreed with? A little research in the articles published Review and Herald and Signs of the Times during the few years before this event uncovers some interesting things.

Four Articles On Women In Ministry

Through the 1860s and 1870s, a number of articles appeared in our church publications on this topic of women speaking in church. Having a woman prophet in the church who spoke regularly in church assemblies and in public meetings was bound to raise some questions in regards to these two key texts in the New Testament. Four articles on this subject were published in the two years leading to this anecdote in Ellen White’s ministry.

In December 1878, as resident editor of the Signs of the Times, Joseph H. Waggoner wrote a short response to a question he had received. To the question “Is it right for women to speak in meeting?” he responded by doing an analysis of the context of "certain texts … quoted to prove the negative". Waggoner explained that Paul gave these instructions in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 regarding women not speaking in church because he cared about proper decorum in the church and that all words spoken in assemblies ought to be done without creating confusion. Furthermore, he referred to many women who held important roles in the New Testament to indicate that for Paul the labors of women were not confined only to some activities. Paul “refers to prayers, and also speaks of certain women who ‘labored in the Lord,’ [Philippians 4:3] an expression which could only refer to the work of the gospel.” Waggoner concluded his comments by affirming women in ministry. "We sincerely believe that, according to the Scriptures, women, as a right may, and as a duty ought to, engage in these exercises."

A few days later, in January 1879, J. N. Andrews also published a short article on women speaking in church in the Review and Herald. In this article, Andrews seeks to explain the two main texts used to prohibit women from speaking in church. His purpose is to show that a careful study of these texts cannot support this conclusion.

In reference to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, he explained that Paul’s intent was to avoid confusion in the church and to urge women to stop chatting between themselves during the worship service. Hence, “what the apostle says to women in such a church as this, and in such a state of things, is not to be taken as directions to all Christian women in other churches and in other times, when and where such disorders do not exist.” In regards to 1 Timothy 2:12, Andrews understands “this text to give Paul’s general rule with regard to women as public teachers. But there are some exceptions to this general rule to be drawn even from Paul’s writings, and from other scriptures.” In fact, the evidence Andrews goes on to give indicates that this general rule is rather the exception and that women are free to labor in ministry.

A few months later that same year, Andrews again published a small article on this subject, this time in Signs of the Times. In response to an article he had read in another paper which stated that women were not allowed to speak in the early Christian church, he explained that such a position did not concur with the testimony of the New Testament.

The number of women of whom honorable mention is made for their labors in the gospel is not small. Now, in view of these facts, how can any man in this age of Bibles say that the Bible does not notice women, or give them a place in the work of God? The Lord chooses his own workers, and he does not judge as man judges. Man looks at the appearance; God judges the heart, and he never makes mistakes.

(J. N. Andrews, “Women in the Bible,” Signs of the Times, October 30, 1879, p. 324)

One last article I found published shortly before Ellen White’s anecdotal event in California, is an article published by her husband in the Review and Herald. While explaining the text in 1 Corinthians 14, James White conceded that Paul may have referred to women participating in church business meetings but he took the firm position that this text did not refer to a prohibition for women to participate in worship services. Rather “Paul … places men and women side by side in the position and work of teaching and praying in the church of Christ.” As we have seen in other articles published by his colleagues, White also gave numerous examples of women who ministered for God in the Old and New Testaments to show that there is no such prohibition for women to labor for the gospel or to speak in church assemblies.

Pioneers: Paul Referred to Particular Situations

Most of the articles published in that period took the position that what Paul referred to in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 had to do with particular situations in the local churches of his time. Paul's counsel regarding these situations was not applicable to all church congregations. Our pioneers understood that what Paul was prohibiting had nothing to do with a general and universal ban on women in ministry.

Most of these articles also referred to many of Paul's female co-workers to state the obvious conclusion that Paul was therefore not speaking against women in ministry. Furthermore, none of these articles used the argument that a woman prophet (i.e. Ellen White) has a special dispensation from God to speak in church—an argument that is repeatedly used today to circumvent the misunderstood prohibition and to argue that women without a prophetic call from God should not be in the pulpit.

Somehow the history of our interpretation of these passages has been forgotten. Many seem to have forgotten also that one of our church founders was a woman, that she spoke extensively in congregations, and that she invited other women to join her in all aspects of ministry to win souls for Christ. If this was the position taken by our church founders 130 years ago in an era when women did not have social equality, I believe they would certainly favor women in ministry today and would see no reason to not include women in pastoral and parish ministry.

__________

Denis Fortin is dean and professor of theology at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary. Prior to coming to Andrews, Fortin served as a pastor in the Quebec Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. He earned a doctorate in theology from the Université Laval, Quebec, in 1995. His dissertation was titled: "Adventism in the Eastern Townships of Quebec: Implantation and Institutionalization in the 19th Century."

[John317]

Thanks very much, Gregory, for posting this. It's always interesting to read such articles about our pioneers and their views and practices.

Although I agree with most of it, I don't agree with some of the interpretations put on the texts. However, it seems to me the article completely overlooks the primary question of women being made the minister and the elder(s) of the local congregations. That's the issue, not whether women ought to be in ministry per se. Doug Batchelor isn't saying that women ought not to talk in church under any and all circumstances. Nor is he saying women have no important work to do in spreading the gospel. He certainly is not objecting to Ellen White's talking in church, or to other women talking in church.

The interpretations of the texts which would make them deal only with local problems is plainly contradicted by Paul's statement that he's talking about "all the churches of the saints." 1 Cor 12: 33b. This is shown also by his references to the reason being that Adam was created first and that Eve was deceived and Adam was not. 1 Tim 2: 12-14.

If the situation was as some of our pioneers said, Paul would not have given the reasons he did for his (and the Holy Spirit's) directions. There's no evidence at all that Paul is talking about women in business meetings. But even if he were, why would Paul tell women not to exercise authority over men in business meetings but that women can exercise authority over men in every other part of church organization? Would this account for Paul's reference to the law and to the commandments of the Lord? 1 Cor. 14: 34, 37. And why would Paul write to people who objected to his directions if all Paul was doing was telling women not to make a disturbance by shouting to their husbands during the sermon? (This is Mike Tucker's explanation) Why wouldn't he also tell the men to be quiet, since they must have been answering their wives by shouting? Why would any have objections to Paul's telling women not to make distrubances? Read 1 Cor. 14: 33b-40.

I think we still need a closer look at, and further discussion of, these verses.

The main point I would like to make here is that those who oppose women's ordination don't oppose women speaking or even preaching in church, nor do they oppose women's ministries of the kind that Ellen White supported during her lifetime. Anyone interested in the subject is referred to the Ellen White Estate's statement written by William Fagal, "Ellen White and the Role of Women in the Church." (It is WDF 212, Loma Linda EG White Estate Branch Office.)

The fact that our pioneers had a certain interpretation of those verses cannot reasonably be made the basis of our continuing their interpretation simply because they had those views. As with any other views, we must look at them carefully and decide whether they are supported by solid principles of biblical interpretation. Haskell and James White were right to defend Ellen White's ability to speak, even if their reasons were in error. Ellen White was not exercising authority over men in the sense that Paul meant "authority." Ellen White was careful not to "ursurp authority over men." She never exercised the authority of the minister and elder, nor did she ever want to. Although she was prominent in the church as the messenger of God, delivering messages for Christ to His church, Ellen White never considered herself a leader or officer in the church. The only authority she exercised was that which Christ personally called her to do, not what the church appointed her to do.

There's an obvious distinction between a woman who is called directly by Christ to be a prophet when 17 years old, and a woman who is appointed by men to be the pastor or elder of a church. See Eph. 4: 11. She didn't put himself in a leardership role any more than Paul did. Both were put in their positions by God Himself. Ellen White spoke for God to the churches, whereas pastors and elders speak for the church to the congregations.

[SivartM]

"Those who oppose women's ordination don't oppose women speaking or even preaching in church"... unless she wants to be a pastor.

I'm sort of scared when people oppose women's ordination because that implies that they would prefer women to speak in church who are not ordained by God.

Again... if a woman shouldn't be called a pastor, don't let her preach (that would be exerting theological authority over men). How is Ellen White any different from any other woman who is ordained by God? Because she had visions? I suppose we shouldn't let men be pastors unless they have visions either?

[John317]

Quote:

SivartM: "Those who oppose women's ordination don't oppose women speaking or even preaching in church"... unless she wants to be a pastor.

Anyone who feels called by God to do ministry may be a pastor. The terms "pastoring" and "pastor" have a broad meaning in Ellen White's writings, just as the term "minister" has a broad meaning in the NT. But no one should be appointed "the pastor" or "the minister" of a church simply because they want to be.

Should anyone say, "I want to be the pastor no matter whether the world church wants it or is ready for it"? Should they say, "I want to be the pastor even if it causes divison and causes problems"? That is a selfish attitude. It's putting one's individual wishes over the wishes of the church as a whole.

Ellen White NEVER would have supported such a thing.

Whatever happens in this regard, the church must act and decide together. That requires persuasion and reasoning and study, not merely pushing through rules by a few unions or conferences. That's why I totally support the president of the GC in his decision not to bring the issue to a vote at this current GC session.

Ellen White would have been in favor of his decision as well. She proved it by what she did in 1881. At that time the church rejected a resolution calling for females to be ordained to the work of the Christian ministry. Ellen White was completely silent about that decision, and we can be sure she wouldn't have been silent if she thought that it was unfair or not the right decision.

Quote:

SivartM: I'm sort of scared when people oppose women's ordination because that implies that they would prefer women to speak in church who are not ordained by God.

Does a woman or a man need to be "ordained by men's hands" in order to preach? Being ordained by God is very important for both men and women, but that doesn't require being ordained by people. One can preach and even pastor without holding a church office.

Quote:

SivartM: Again... if a woman shouldn't be called a pastor, don't let her preach (that would be exerting theological authority over men).

Preaching and pastoring are really two different gifts and two different functins. Pastors do more than preach. Not all good preachers are pastors, and not all good pastors are preachers. Preaching is not what the NT means by exercising authority over men. See 1 Cor. 11 and 14, especially 11: 5. When people preach, others are free to accept or reject the message. Also, Paul allowed women to preach and pray in public. So that was not the issue.

The issue has to do with ruling or governing or managing and teaching. Those are the primary functions and work of the pastor/ bishop and elder.

Quote:

SivartM: How is Ellen White any different from any other woman who is ordained by God? Because she had visions? I suppose we shouldn't let men be pastors unless they have visions either?

Prophets are called directly by God Himself, just as Isaiah and Jeremiah were called by God, not by any humans. Their authority did not rely on men but on God alone. Ellen White was not called by men or by the church, nor was she ordained by any man's hands. If all humanity had rejected Ellen White, she would be God's prophet nonetheless. If a church rejects a pastor or elder, he is no longer a pastor or elder.

Pastors and elders can be called by God to do their work, but that postion must be verified and voted on by men before the pastor or elder can occupy his postion and do his work. That's not the case with Ellen White. Her work and her authority didn't depend on any vote or on any church organization.

The spiritual gifts of prophet and pastor are completely different. Pastors don't typically receive visions or dreams. Ellen White's spiritual gifts were a combination of prophet, pastor, evanglist, and teacher. That's why she referred to her gift as "more than a prophet." She said it included that of prophet but it was much more. (I use the term "pastor" to include "feeding the flock of God," which is the way Ellen White used it. One need not be "the minister" in order to feed the flock.)

[SivartM]

Anyone who feels called by God to do ministry may be a pastor. The terms "pastoring" and "pastor" have a broad meaning in Ellen White's writings, just as the term "minister" has a broad meaning in the NT. But no one should be appointed "the pastor" or "the minister" of a church simply because they want to be.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Anyone who feels called by God to do ministry may be a pastor. The terms "pastoring" and "pastor" have a broad meaning in Ellen White's writings, just as the term "minister" has a broad meaning in the NT. But no one should be appointed "the pastor" or "the minister" of a church simply because they want to be.

Quote:

SivartM: No, not just anyone can be a pastor. Women can't be pastors. If you call a woman a pastor then you will make people angry no matter what you mean.

I'm talking about pastors and pastoring in the sense that Ellen White used those terms. A pastor, man or woman, is one who feeds the flock of God. See 6 T 322. Sometimes the minister of a church is also a good pastor; sometimes they're not. Of course, it's the custom in the SDA church to refer to all church ministers as pastors, and to all pastors as ministers, so we're not using those words in the same way that the Bible and Ellen White used them. (See "Ellen White and the Role of Women in the Church," Willam Fagal, pp. 6-9.)

Some people get mad if you call women pastors and some others get mad if you don't. It's not a question that makes me mad at all. I have gone to churches in Loma Linda since the 1970s where women are pastors of churches. Margeret Hemp was the first woman minister in Southeastern Ca. Conference, and she was one of the associate pastors under Senior pastor, William Loveless. I enjoyed being a member there. Until fairly recently, I also sometimes enjoyed attending the church I grew up in, the Loma Linda Hill Church, where the senior pastor for the last 10 years was a woman, who was also a powerful preacher. She was recently hired as faculty at Andrews University.

I'm sorry it sometimes makes people on both sides of the issue upset. It shouldn't be an emotional issue.

I think it would also be helpful if we would all keep in mind that many, many thousands of women in the SDA church-- as well as other churches-- oppose "Women's Ordination." In fact, I believe in the world church there's as many women-- if not more-- opposed to it as there are men opposed to it.

Quote:

SivartM: I agree that nobody should be a pastor of a church just because they want to be. Of course, men can be pastors just because they want to be.

Lots of men have wanted to be a pastor who didn't become one. People, of course, don't become the pastor of a church just by walking in and saying they're the pastor. It requires the conference and the congregations to vote or appoint one to that work, after the candidate shows that he qualifies and deserves to be. See 1 Tim. 3: 1-7; 5: 17-25; Titus 1: 5-9.

[SivartM]

So you're fine with women being ordained as pastors, you just don't want women to be ordained as pastors?

Huh?

And lots of men who have become pastors didn't have the gift. While women who have the gift are not able to become pastors.

[John317]

Quote:

SivartM: So you're fine with women being ordained as pastors, you just don't want women to be ordained as pastors?

Huh?

Could you please explain what you mean? I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I'm talking about what I believe the Bible teaches, not about my personal feelings or my thoughts about women. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings about women or men.

Women who oppose WO do not oppose it on the basis of their feelings or thoughts about women, but because of what they believe the Bible teaches. That's the same with me. It's not a personal issue, nor is it a question of history; it's a Bible and a theological issue.

[SivartM]

You just gave glowing testimonies of how you love churches pastored by women, but you don't think that women should be pastors. Shouldn't you be at least slightly upset by these "unbiblical" churches?

Women who oppose WO probably do so because the men they interact with convinced them of it. This is a personal issue for women who want to serve as pastors but are discouraged from doing so by anti-WO people. There are no theological abstractions. If it's not personal then why should anyone care? You may as well say that slavery isn't personal, it's theological (and Paul was no abolitionist).

[John317]

Quote:

SivartM: You just gave glowing testimonies of how you love churches pastored by women, but you don't think that women should be pastors.

I'm simply pointing out to you that I don't have anything personal against women or even against women being pastors or ministers or elders. It is not a personal matter. By that, I mean that it is based on what I have found in Scripture, not on my personal feelings about women. It is the same with homosexuality. I oppose it becasue of the Bible, not because I personally dislike homosexuals or even because I find homosexual activity personally revolting. I like homosexuals personally, but I am very much opposed to the practice of homosexuality simply and only on the basis of what I believe the word of God teaches. I think that's got to be the primary drive behind our lives.

The church I regularly attend has a man as the pastor, but I did not choose it because it has a man as the pastor. I chose it because it is only a few blocks away, and the Loma Linda churches are 30 minutes away. That's the ONLY reason.

When I attend churches where women are pastors, I do not bring up anything about what I believe the Bible teaches about women pastors. I would if they asked but that has never been the subject of a conversation. Except for this Forum, and my discussions with my oldest sister, I have never talked to anyone about it.

Quote:

SivartM: Shouldn't you be at least slightly upset by these "unbiblical" churches?

If I didn't get upset when I used to take my wife to a Catholic church so she could light candles, pray to saints, and go to mass, why I would I get upset at something like what we're talking about? What good does it do to "get upset"?

I did not say those churches with women pastors are "unbiblical." That is your term. I don't view them in that light.

I love people and treat them thoughtfully and respectfully, and even admire them, and yet may disagree with them over important questions of doctrine. We don't help each other or help bring about unity by getting upset and calling names or making accusations, etc.

Quote:

SivartM: Women who oppose WO probably do so because the men they interact with convinced them of it.

I can almost not believe you said that. Can you see how that statement could be viewed as reflecting a patronizing and sterotypical attitude about women? Do you think that women can't think independently and make their own mind up apart from the influence of the men in their life and based on the Bible? Your explanation assumes that they either don't or can't. I'm glad you at least said your explanation was "probable." I think a lot of women would take exception to your explanation. Would you believe there are unmarried women without fathers or boy friends who still oppose WO?

I don't doubt that there are hundreds of thousands of Adventist women who would strongly object to your idea of women. Can you see that if women are indeed the way you describe them, unable to make up their mind apart from men's influence-- which I don't for a minute believe is true-- it could easily be used as an argument against WO?

[SivartM]

Well, I'm glad that you think that women are capable of thinking for themselves. I do. But some might not if they are surrounded by men who think they're naturally smarter.

Wow, doesn't that remind me of Doug Batchelor's sermon...

[SivartM]

Sorry, I've been rude. I'm just mad about this comment which you didn't make:

http://www.adventistonline.com/forum/topics/these-adventist-theologians?commentId=1451550%3AComment%3A1020374

"I know you are not going to like what I am about to say but nevertheless it is the truth of God. It is going against the will of God for a woman to teach a man in spiritual matters."

This is the kind of anti-thinking-women ideology I'm talking about. If you disagree with a woman, just tell her that God says you're smarter and she should keep her mouth shut!

[John317]

OK, I'm glad to see your assurance that you believe women are capable of thinking are their own. Your previous post did not appear to be expressing that viewpoint.

Would you say that if you are surrounded by women saying you're not as smart as they are, you would believe it and act on it?

Women's and men's brains are definitely different. That's what accounts for their differences in the way they think and feel and their reactions.

God made us different and we should not be trying to make it appear that men and women are the same.

Personally I disagree with that part of Doug Batchlor's sermon and I think he made a mistake in saying it. I think women are smarter than men in many ways, and I know of quite a few couples where the woman is more intelligent. I'm sure lots of people would agree with that. It simply is not true that women are less intelligent. That's not the difference that I believe the Bible is focusing on when it calls for men to be the leaders in the church and in the home.

[SivartM]

I probably would believe them.

Men and women are not the same, but they are equal and should have equal treatment, right?

Why do you think that the Bible does not call women to be leaders in the church and the home?

[John317]

Quote:

SivartM: (quoting Doug Batchelor):

"I know you are not going to like what I am about to say but nevertheless it is the truth of God. It is going against the will of God for a woman to teach a man in spiritual matters."

This is the kind of anti-thinking-women ideology I'm talking about. If you disagree with a woman, just tell her that God says you're smarter and she should keep her mouth shut!

OK, sure, but I don't believe Doug Batchelor meant what you think he did: that women should never teach a man a spiritual truth under any circumstances. Why? Because we have an example in the NT of a woman teaching a man in spiritual matters. Doug Batchelor can also read 1 Cor. 11: 5 where we see women praying and preaching in public in church. So you can be absolutely certain that Pastor Batchelor is not saying a woman should not teach a man in spiritual matters in any way at all. I know that Doug is well aware of Acts 18: 26, in which it's recorded that Aquila and Priscilla explained to Apollos the way of God more accurately. Priscilla was a Bible instructor and evangelist. No doubt she was also a pastor in the sense that Ellen White used that term.

So, then, what was Doug Batchelor's meaning? What do you think?

[SivartM]

I'm not quoting Doug Batchelor. Read the link that I posted and you can read the whole post. It was pretty clear what the poster meant.

[John317]

Quote:

SivartM: Men and women are not the same, but they are equal and should have equal treatment, right?

Sure. All the closest people in my life are females, my daughters and my wife and sisters. I want them treated the same as anyone else, of course.

But that doesn't mean that men and women have the same roles and have the same responsibilies and work to do. They don't. Men and women are definitely equal before God and equal in terms of salvation. That is what Paul is saying in Gal. 3: 28. Some people misinterpret that verse to mean that there is no longer to be any distinction between men and women, but of course that is absurd and false on its face.

The great apostle is obviously saying that those difference are irrelevent when it comes to access to God and salvation. He also says that there is neither slave nor free, and neither Greek nor Jew, yet he never meant that on this earth there were no longer to be any distinctions or that those differences no longer exist.

Elsewhere in his epistles, Paul tells slaves to work hard for their masters because they are really working for God. Col 3: 22-24. And it's the very same Paul who says women are not to exercise authority over a male. 1 Tim. 2: 12 Notice in Philemon that Paul sent the slave Onesimus back to his master, Philemon. Paul did not encourage the slave to either escape from his master or harm or hate him. Philemon 8-16. My point, then, is simply that Gal. 3: 28 is not doing away with all differences in roles that people have in this life. As long as we live in this sinful world, there will be differecnes in the responsiblities and the work God has assigned us to do.

[SivartM]

I'm glad to know that I can just get slaves and make them do my homework.

[John317]

Nope.

But speaking of slavery:

I heard an astonishing fact the other day. There are more slaves in the world today than at any time in history, even though it's illegal.

I had an aunt who began to doubt Ellen White's prophetic gift becasue she read in EW where Ellen White says there will be slaves at the time of Christ's return. My aunt thought that this was proof Ellen White was a false prophet, even though her own father was an SDA evangelist and had known Ellen White personally.

It turns out Ellen White was absolutely right: there is no doubt slaves will still be held captive when Christ returns. All slavery was not abolished by Lincon, after all--at least not the kind of slavery that exists in the world today.

[SivartM]

I know. I think slavery is awful. Unfortunately, slave-holders of old (and probably at least a few today) used the Bible verses about slaves being submissive to their masters to "prove" that slavery was ethical. All the while treating "their" slaves unfairly.

Speaking of something... where does the Bible say for men to have authority over women?

[John317]

Quote:

SivartM:

Speaking of something... where does the Bible say for men to have authority over women?

I don't think of it as "authority," but as the man being the leader in the home and in the church. When sin came into the world, God had to pick one of the two as the leader, and God chose the man. That is found in Gen 3: 16; 1 Cor. 11; 1 Cor. 14: 34; 1 Tim. 2: 11-14. It also shown all theough the Old Testament. There's a pattern of male leadership all through the Bible, including the New Testament.

This is supported clearly by Ellen White in Adventist Home and other writings. She speaks of the husband as the head of the home, the high priest of the home, etc.

By the way, this doesn't give any man permission to mistreat or dominate his wife. The Bible calls for men to love their wives as they do their own bodies and as Christ loves the church. James White was definitely the head of his household and his wife didn't tell him what to do spiritually. But at the same time Ellen White didn't allow James White to dictate to her conscience about what she should believe or teach. She sometimes did feel he was becoming too domineers, and James sometimes felt the same way about Ellen, so they both decided it was best if they lived separately for a while. They still loved each other very much, and they also wrote to each other, and worked together for the church, but they both needed their freedom and time away. They were both very strong-willed people.

[SivartM]

Genesis 3:16: "he will rule over you"... but he won't really "rule" over you?

And the rest of those verses are telling women to shut up in church. Yeah, real equal.

[John317]

Quote:

SivartM:

... the rest of those verses are telling women to shut up in church. Yeah, real equal.

Check out Adventist Home, pp. 211-219. Remember that the writer was a woman who had great sympathy for abused and dominated women. Also read if you can what she said in Patriarchs and Prophets about Gen. 3: 16. She said it was a plan of God that if put into the practice with love would be a benefit to the whole family, but unfortunately it's either abused or ignored.

She wrote, "It is no evidence of manliness in the husabnd for him to dwell constantly upon his position as head of the family. It does not increase respect for him to hear him quoting Scripture to sustain his claim to authority."

I think she had some very wise and wonderful things to say about the marriage relationship, and Adventists and non-Adveents would be helped a lot if they would put her counsel into practice. I love AH, and just wish that I had studied and practiced it about 30 years ago. My life today would be much different if I had.

Speaking of AH, I just gave a copy of it to my newly married daughter. Pray she'll study it.

:-)

[SivartM]

Cool. I'm going to read that book whenever I get married. And I like the quote.

I still don't get why Paul tells women not to talk. He sounds really sexist sometimes. "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. "

[John317]

Hey, keep writing-- and tonight I'll be back to write some more myself. I have to be gone for a while. :-)