‘Variance’ for North American, Trans-European Division Fails

[John317]

Remember Paul's instructions in 1 Cor. 14: 30-39 and 1 Timothy 2: 8-15 show that Paul intended in "all the churches of the saints" that "your women [would] keep silent in the churches."

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

That last quote can also read, "your wives keep silent in the churches"....Why is that translated your way when this way is just as valid?

The Greek word translated "women" in 1 Cor. 14: 34 is gyne (Strongs #1135). It is most commonly translated "woman."

It is used in Matt. 5: 28, for instance:

But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman [Gk gyne] with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

NOTE: In the above, it obviously does not refer to a wife but to women in general.

In 1 Tim. 3: 12, the same word means "wife"--

Let deacons each be the husband of one wife [Gk gyne], managing their children and their own households well.

NOTE: While it would make good sense if the word gyne here were translated woman, it makes even better sense to translate it as "wife."

Let's look carefully at the way the word gyne is translated in 1 Tim. 2: 9-14:

1 Tim. 2:9-14

likewise also that women [Gk gyne] should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, [10] but with what is proper for women [Gk gyne] who profess godliness—with good works. [11] Let a woman [Gk gyne] learn quietly with all submissiveness. [12] I do not permit a woman [Gk gyne] to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. [13] For Adam was formed first, then Eve; [14] and Adam was not deceived, but the woman [gk gyne] was deceived and became a transgressor.

Do you believe any of those should be translated "wife" or "wives"?

Now let's look at 1 Tim. 3: 8, 11--

1 Tim. 3:8-11

Deacons [Gk diakonous] likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. .... [11] Their wives [Gk gyne] likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.

NOTE: It would be OK if it said "their women" but it is even better to say "their wives."

[John317]

...Or we are "socially blackmailed" into accepting this feminist agenda.

Usually with statement like:

"You are trying to keep women in their place with male bigotry" etc...

I react the same way to this language as I do when people say "if you disagee with me, you are a racist."

I'm unafraid of any of those names. I see it as a matter of people trying to use political correctness for the purpose of maniplulation.

Someday the world will tell SDAs, "You are enemies of humanity."

If we are accustomed to changing our views because of such tactics, we will change our views when people say those things, too.

Come to think of it, weren't the early Christians called all sorts of names as well? What was their response?

I think we have to come to the point where what God thinks of us is the only really important thing to us.

[John317]

Remember Paul's instructions in 1 Cor. 14: 30-39 and 1 Timothy 2: 8-15 show that Paul intended in "all the churches of the saints" that "your women [would] keep silent in the churches."

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

What is the history in why this is translated this way? To what is Paul refuting when he wrote these principles?

You'll have to explain what you mean. What "history" do you mean? History of the words used? Or history regarding translation?

What do you believe Paul is "refuting"?

Perhaps you mean "referring"?

Maybe you are asking why Paul says what he does in these passages.

If so, that's an excellent question. What do you think the answer is?

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

...Or we are "socially blackmailed" into accepting this feminist agenda.

Usually with statement like:

"You are trying to keep women in their place with male bigotry" etc...

I react the same way to this language as I do when people say "if you disagee with me, you are a racist."

I'm unafraid of any of those names. I see it as a matter of people trying to use political correctness for the purpose of maniplulation.

Someday the world will tell SDAs, "You are enemies of humanity."

If we are accustomed to changing our views because of such tactics, we will change our views when people say those things, too.

Come to think of it, weren't the early Christians called all sorts of names as well? What was their response?

I think we have to come to the point where what God thinks of us is the only really important thing to us.

As I told my Pastor recently:

"The only person you have to please is God."

[John317]

"Minister" and "servant" do not usually refer to the pastor of a church. Greek-English lexicons and many translations give "deacon" or "deaconess" as the translation of "diakonon" at Romans 16: 1.

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

Oh, on the contrary...I have mentioned that Strongs has translated this word 22 times as Deacon...in the NT alone. It is the same word translated when Paul states that he was made a minister of the gospel....Why does the translators give a lessor probable translation when it is obvious that the regular translation will do....?

It's perfectly obvious that Paul is not saying that he was made a deacon of the gospel.

Don't you agree?

The regular translation of the word diakonos is "servant."

Remember that "minister" and "servant" often have the same meaning. One can "minister" to other people's needs without being a "minister/pastor of the gospel."

That is actually the meaning of Paul when he speaks of God making him a minister of the gospel. Paul is saying God made him a servant.

Look at 1 Tim. 4: 6:

ESV-- If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant [Gk diakonos] of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed.

KJV--

If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister [Gk diakonos] of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

NOTE: Both of the above are acceptable translations.

But would it be acceptable to translate it as "you will be a good deacon"? Obviously not, right?

[John317]

Amen! Let's be glad that's the case, too.

In some churches, the pastor has to please the wealthy members. If he displeases them, they just withhold the money, and he loses everything because the local congregation pays the pastor. I'm glad our church isn't organized that way.

[Stan]

Am seeing some apples and oranges.

The question is...

Is our Church structure at all similar now to the early early Church?

[Twilight II]

Am seeing some apples and oranges.

The question is...

Is our Church structure at all similar now to the early early Church?

Wrong question.

Is our church following the biblical order established by the Apostolic Church?

[John317]

The question is...

Is our Church structure at all similar now to the early early Church?

God didn't inspire the prophets or apostles to make specific rules of how the church must be structured or organized.

So the answer to your question is that our church is structured differently than the early church.

What kinds of instructions did God give with regard to the church's structure? I don't see any instructions from God that the church is violating by having local conferences, union conferences, and a General Conference.

On the other hand, what kinds of instruction did God give-- both through the Bible and through the Spirit of prophecy-- about the different responsibilites and the roles of men and women in the home and in the church?

If our church were to ordain women to be the pastors, could we sincerely maintain that we are obeying the instructions that God gave about the work of men and women in the church?

We must have a biblically sound reason which shows a good understanding of the Scriptures and a determination to obey them.

[Guest arnie]

John 3:17, Everything on women's ordination evidently was not covered in depth since some are still flapping away on the keyboard. The point you are making is that Paul made a point that women are in subjection to male leadership of the church and I'm writing that Ellen had direct communion with God. She reprimanded some of the male leadership in the church. In lieu of your argument that women from Eve on down to the present should not be messing with leadership, then why did God compel her to do this? God spoke to her, not them. He trusted her, not them. He chose her, not them.

This whole written conversation is ludicrous. Either Ellen was a prophet and therefore, a leader in this denomination, or she wasn't. It's just that simple. She was given a script of ministerialship. If the GC wanted otherwise, they could have made up a special certificate stating that she was a prophet, bible worker, etc., but they didn't. In my mind, God is no respecter of gender or persons. He choses who He will to get the job done. From what I've been told, two men were approached before her to do the job and refused. It's the same in church leadership. I grew up in a SDA Church of women leadership, because the men refused to even get up and offer a simple prayer. Refused! Those women save the church.

[Twilight II]

John 3:17, Everything on women's ordination evidently was not covered in depth since some are still flapping away on the keyboard. The point you are making is that Paul made a point that women are in subjection to male leadership of the church and I'm writing that Ellen had direct communion with God. She reprimanded some of the male leadership in the church. In lieu of your argument that women from Eve on down to the present should not be messing with leadership, then why did God compel her to do this? God spoke to her, not them. He trusted her, not them. He chose her, not them.

This whole written conversation is ludicrous. Either Ellen was a prophet and therefore, a leader in this denomination, or she wasn't. It's just that simple. She was given a script of ministerialship. If the GC wanted otherwise, they could have made up a special certificate stating that she was a prophet, bible worker, etc., but they didn't. In my mind, God is no respecter of gender or persons. He choses who He will to get the job done. From what I've been told, two men were approached before her to do the job and refused. It's the same in church leadership. I grew up in a SDA Church of women leadership, because the men refused to even get up and offer a simple prayer. Refused! Those women save the church.

This point has been covered already several times by John317.

Ellen White was never the President of the General Conference.

Her power came directly from God and she was used to guide the church.

She did not "run" the church.

In fact many times she was opposed in the church and her counsel was not heeded.

I think you are confused about her role.

[lazarus]

If our church were to ordain women to be the pastors, could we sincerely maintain that we are obeying the instructions that God gave about the work of men and women in the church?

The Seventh-day Adventist church does ordain women to be pastors! Commissioning is ordination by a different name. Commissioning is a political fudge that dishonors God and the integrity of the church. It's only a matter of time before the natural forces of demographics and culture ensure that more and more of our divisions ordain women.

[John317]

If our church were to ordain women to be the pastors, could we sincerely maintain that we are obeying the instructions that God gave about the work of men and women in the church?

Originally Posted By: lazarus

The Seventh-day Adventist church does ordain women to be pastors! Commissioning is ordination by a different name. Commissioning is a political fudge that dishonors God and the integrity of the church. It's only a matter of time before the natural forces of demographics and culture ensure that more and more of our divisions ordain women.

Yes, I'm aware that some of the conferences do ordain women to be pastors. But I'm speaking to the issue of the world church in General Conference passing rules allowing all the conferences to ordain women as pastors and elders of local congregations.

What do you believe the answer is to the question that is asked at the top of this post?

If you were asked to write the answer for the world church, explaining the biblical basis for the decision, what would you say? How would you approach 1 Cor. 11 & 14 and 1 Timothy 2?

[John317]

John 3:17, Everything on women's ordination evidently was not covered in depth since some are still flapping away on the keyboard.

That is not because the topic was covered only superficially on the other discussion. It's because people either haven't read it or they forgot what was said.

[John317]

The point you are making is that Paul made a point that women are in subjection to male leadership of the church and I'm writing that Ellen had direct communion with God. She reprimanded some of the male leadership in the church.

Ellen White was called directly by Jesus Christ, who is able to call anyone to a prophetic office. That is an entirely different gift and has no bearing on how the church chooses its leaders and officers.

She reprimmanded some of the male leadership because God commanded her to. She didn't do it as a member of the church or as a woman. She did it as a prophet of God.

As for being in subjection to male leadership, Ellen White let it be known that as a female member of the church, she was in subjection to male leadership.

However, she wasn't in subjection to male leadership as a prophet of God. For instance, no man had control of what Ellen White could write or teach on the basis of God's direct communications with her. Yet when they asked her to go to Australia, she went-- even though she didn't feel sure that it was what God wanted her to do. She went because she recognized the authority of the General Conference.

[lazarus]

Yes, I'm aware that some of the conferences do ordain women to be pastors. But I'm speaking to the issue of the world church in General Conference passing rules allowing all the conferences to ordain women as pastors and elders of local congregations.

If we accept that the SDA church ordains women we must therefore additionally accept that this question is no longer a theological one or a spiritual one. It is now political and cultural. The reasons why certain divisions do not ordain women is not because the church has a theological objection. That questions has been settled whether we like it or not.

Even though there is still argument about the theology it is a mute point from the world church perspective becasue we have already made a decision. Women are being ordained. Obviously, the political approach has been to let the divisions who want to ordain women do so. All divisions are clearly not ready to accept women's ordination. To me that's ok. The world leaders are simply tring to keep the church together as it transitions. What else can they do. A split would be devastating.

Quote:

What do you believe the answer is to the question that is asked at the top of this post?

It's simply a political move to stop women from being conference presidents. Women ALREADY are leading men in many areas. Ella Simmons is a VP!!!!! Come on! To say that women cannot hold top admin positions is not about theology it's about church politricks! The horse as bolted.

Quote:

If you were asked to write the answer for the world church, explaining the biblical basis for the decision, what would you say? How would you approach 1 Cor. 11 & 14 and 1 Timothy 2?

The SDA church particularity has a challenge with texts since one of key leaders was a woman.

She was not submissive.

She did not simply ask her husband at home.

She was not quiet.

She taught men.

She rebuked men.

She spoke forcefully in church

She gave leadership to men. Leading men traveled to see her to receive counsel.

She did not always cover her head. She did not always cover her head when she spoke publicly

The most influential figure in the SDA church was a woman.

She is still teaching, leading and rebuking men in the SDA church through her writings. If any female religious figure is history has challenged Paul's counsel, it is EGW.

EGW's life's work clearly contradicts Paul's counsel unless we understand that Paul's counsel was based on his cultural circumstances and is not strictly applicable to all ages (time) and cultural circumstances.

[doug yowell]

Am seeing some apples and oranges.

The question is...

Is our Church structure at all similar now to the early early Church?

If the issue of women in "headship" roles were not part of the variance agenda structure would focus strictly on the structure. I, for one, think we still do have similarities which we often tweak so that they, while using the same terms, are altered to include aspects that the early church never would have thought of. This includes, among other things, the basis for choosing pastors, elders, deacons and so on.We retain the title while employing a different criterion for determining the qualification.

[lazarus]

Ellen White was called directly by Jesus Christ, who is able to call anyone to a prophetic office. That is an entirely different gift and has no bearing on how the church chooses its leaders and officers.

What you are suggesting here seems at odds with scripture.

Eph 4:11, 11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;

The NT makes no distinction about the position of the prophetic gift in relation to the church. All gifts operate within the church and for the benefit of the church. EGW's had to be recognized by the church and received by the church. If she was not recognized and received she would not have had the role she had. There is a strong and firm relationship. All of those with gifts are first and foremost called by Christ.

Quote:

She didn't do it as a member of the church or as a woman.

Many people who exercise their gifts in the church do not do it simply becasue they are members or one or the other gender, it is becasue they are called by God primarily.

Quote:

However, she wasn't in subjection to male leadership as a prophet of God.

?

So we have a problem here. The above is a contradiction of your whole argument. So God adjusts his directive on male headship to suit the circumstances and the calling. Perhaps that is what those in favor of women's ordination are arguing.

[John317]

From what I've been told, two men were approached before her to do the job and refused.

One of the men was Hazen Foss and the other was William Foy. Foss refused to tell his visions before the public, but William Foy did not.

Quote:

It's the same in church leadership. I grew up in a SDA Church of women leadership, because the men refused to even get up and offer a simple prayer. Refused! Those women save the church.

And for the same reason, God sometimes-- tho' rarely-- chose women, such as Deborah and Hulda, as leaders in the Old Testament.

But does the fact that some men refused to fuflill their role in the church mean that God wants women to do the work He has called men to do?

There are times when women may have to step in and do what men are supposed to do, but that is no argument that it is God's plan for women to do it.

We have a situation similar to that in the church in China.

[doug yowell]

If we accept that the SDA church ordains women we must therefore additionally accept that this question is no longer a theological one or a spiritual one. It is now political and cultural. The reasons why certain divisions do not ordain women is not because the church has a theological objection. That questions has been settled whether we like it or not.

Your comments are typical of those who simply and intentionally attempt to ignore the theological reasons that most of your opponents base their objections on. It is dishonest to claim on one hand that those who interpret various Bible texts (many women also believe this)don't really believe that those texts are God's contemporary directives for the church, while openly basing your own views on the changing cultural climate in the West. You continue to ignore the fact that the majority of the world church has voted this "new light" down for the past 20+ years. You also ignore the fact that this "cultural" policy has been rejected by the majority of the Christian churches that still live in that culture and they all do it on Scriptural grounds.So if the culture of the church says no then why should the minority of those whose culture is different have the right to divide the church of God on an issue that is not a Biblical one(your own admission)? Why divide the world church over a mere cultural preference? The issue has never been put forward to a popular vote in the SDA US community but has been one that has been pushed by a few more influential conferences and forced on those who may not agree with it. Here in LL the local University Church which is one of the most vocal activists of WO has a black list that excludes any speakers who oppose that policy from speaking in any of it's facilities. This includes people as mainstream as Doug Batchelor. Does that sound like the voice of God's Spirit speaking? If it's not a moral issue then why the imperative to change culture?

[lazarus]

Doug, are you denying that the SDA church ordains women?

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

No, it's about maintaining a cultural standard of conduct and male/female relationships from another time and place.

God meets people where they are and the Holy Spirit speaks to and through people within their particular cultural paradigm.

But don't you believe that the Holy Spirit will always agree with what He has inspired God's prophets and apostles to write and say before?

Explain Moses rules about maintaining slaves, Paul's upholding that cultural institution of slavery and the prophet Ellen White speaking forcefully against slavery.

Did the Holy Spirit give contradictory inspiration on slavery?

Moses said to stone sexual sinners. Jesus let one go. And Paul just said to shun them.

Consistent?

Those are just two examples.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: arnie

John 3:17, Everything on women's ordination evidently was not covered in depth since some are still flapping away on the keyboard. The point you are making is that Paul made a point that women are in subjection to male leadership of the church and I'm writing that Ellen had direct communion with God. She reprimanded some of the male leadership in the church. In lieu of your argument that women from Eve on down to the present should not be messing with leadership, then why did God compel her to do this? God spoke to her, not them. He trusted her, not them. He chose her, not them.

This whole written conversation is ludicrous. Either Ellen was a prophet and therefore, a leader in this denomination, or she wasn't. It's just that simple. She was given a script of ministerialship. If the GC wanted otherwise, they could have made up a special certificate stating that she was a prophet, bible worker, etc., but they didn't. In my mind, God is no respecter of gender or persons. He choses who He will to get the job done. From what I've been told, two men were approached before her to do the job and refused. It's the same in church leadership. I grew up in a SDA Church of women leadership, because the men refused to even get up and offer a simple prayer. Refused! Those women save the church.

This point has been covered already several times by John317.

Ellen White was never the President of the General Conference.

Her power came directly from God and she was used to guide the church.

She did not "run" the church.

In fact many times she was opposed in the church and her counsel was not heeded.

I think you are confused about her role.

The silliness of this constant refrain is that apparently you don't see that it undermines the whole idea that God would not permit a women to be a minister. It is obviously not God standing in the way. God cut out the middle man of getting man's permission and he selected a woman. End of discussion. It is a good thing that he didn't have to ask our permission on who we wanted as a prophet! EGW wouldn't have made the cut.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

This point has been covered already several times by John317.

Ellen White was never the President of the General Conference.

Her power came directly from God and she was used to guide the church.

She did not "run" the church.

In fact many times she was opposed in the church and her counsel was not heeded.

I think you are confused about her role.

The silliness of this constant refrain is that apparently you don't see that it undermines the whole idea that God would not permit a women to be a minister. It is obviously not God standing in the way. God cut out the middle man of getting man's permission and he selected a woman. End of discussion. It is a good thing that he didn't have to ask our permission on who we wanted as a prophet! EGW wouldn't have made the cut.

You are missing a simple point here Tom.

This is not about God granting women permission to rule over men.

This is about secular reasoning granting permission because it has infiltrated the church and many have adopted secular ideology on this matter.

This group are claiming that they have the right to express that permission despite the fact that God has never withdrawn that edict from Eden.

This secularisation agenda being promoted is not supported by scripture or God.

You might want to rethink your position on this one, because if I am correct, and you are indeed opposing Gods order of things, then you have taken a position that will bare strong consequences and may even affect your salvation if you continue to promote this agenda.

[olger]

God called Ellen to do the work of messenger. That was a specific function in harmony with the Word of God. God called Samuel to be a messenger too. That did not mean that Samuel could take over Eli's position. No his job was to deliver the message, and he did. Likewise, God did not call Ellen to be a husband or a conference president. She was called to deliver the message and she did.

Through her, God reminded us of these two principles which effectively block modern attempts to use her for their feminist agenda. They are:

1) "Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message. The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other. The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women."

2) The World's Greatest Need.--The greatest want of the world is the want of men,--men who will not be bought or sold; men who in their inmost souls are true and honest; men who do not fear to call sin by its right name; men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole; men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall.--Education, p. 57. (1903) {CM 54.4}

Rejoice always my friends,

g