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

[Twilight II]

I believe that the bible is letting us in on 1/2 of a conversation that was well understood between two parties....and it is nearly a 2000 year old mystery that was talked about....And I have given very good evidence that it is a local issue, not a universal one....

And I have to admit that there are some very distinct problems with your logic and your precepts when you insist that there is a universal precept from a local incident...

The foundation for this argument is not Pauls Letters.

The foundation for this argument is what happened in the Garden of Eden.

It is extremely illogical to take Pauls Letters and argue that it was a cultural thing, without understanding what Paul himself was using as his source.

Feminism needs to take Paul, bind him up with a cultural chord, and dismiss his writings on the subject so it can get its way.

But Pauls letters are APPLICATIONS of the principle given in Eden.

They are not the principles themselves!

So you need to go back and reconsider the original Edict in Eden, then argue forward from there.

Not start at Paul and ignore Eden.

If anyone does that with an open and willing mind and spirit, they will be protected from secular ideologies that are a direct attack on Gods authority and His order of things.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: John317

A subject that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write for as much as he did is certainly sacred.

Don't you believe the ministry and work of God is sacred?

Notice in verses 36 and 37 below that Paul says the command he gives in regard to women is the command of the Lord, and he says that anyone who does not recognize what he says should not be recognized.

Doesn't sound like a topic Paul was taking lightly.

Oh, I never take Paul lightly....And Peter has always said that Paul says some hard things....and the letter to the Corinthians is has several texts that are hard to understand....Including chapter 14... in which Paul talks about prophecy as a spiritual gift. The historical setting is that there was, not far from Corinth, a world famous temple in the city of Delphi. There, people could come and learn of their future from "The Oracle"... As you know, The Oracle of Delphi existed for twelve centuries and was very famous in the ancient world. The congregation in Corinth was well aware of it and many probably witnessed the "oracle" in person. The unconverted mates of church members might still have been involved in similar pagan worship, as Delphi was only about forty miles north of Corinth across what is known today as the Gulf of Corinth.

And if you want to know about I Corinth. 14, you need to understand the historical context of the your passage...

Originally Posted By: John317

1 Cor. 14:34-40

the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. [35] If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

[36] Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? [37] If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. [38] If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. [39] So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. [40] But all things should be done decently and in order.

To understand Paul's comments in chapter 14 about women "keeping silent" there is one critical KEY passage that comes first! Many have overlooked it and read right past it-- but once it is understood the entire passage begins to fall into place.

We start in 1 Corinthians, chapter 12

1 Cor. 12:1-3

1 Now concerning spiritual {gifts,} brethren, I do not want you to be unaware.

2 You know that when you were pagans, {you were} led astray to the dumb idols, however you were led.

We realize that some that attend the Corinth church are still involved with pagan idols. He points out that the members were once led astray themselves. Paul leads his readers towards compassion and reconciliation towards those that are still unconverted "pagans" in their midst.

3 Therefore I make known to you, that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

Why is Paul making such an obvious statement? Doesn't everyone already KNOW that anyone saying, "Jesus is accursed" is not speaking by the spirit of God? Paul goes on to explain and defend spiritual gifts, talk about love, and finally reprimand women or wives causing disturbances in chapter 14. The only way the words "Jesus is accursed" fits into the rebuke that follows is if Paul is reacting to a specific incident reported to him that he needs to deal with. In these statements he is first bringing up the subject of what has happened in the Corinthian church! Misguided persons--still considered pagans-- have disrupted services with a false prophecy of "Jesus is accursed!" and opposing true prophets have countered with, "Jesus is Lord!" in reply!

On the southern slope of Mt. Parnassus, female priestesses presided over a stone temple and delivered answers for those seeking guidance from the "god" Apollo on everything from romance to whether to wage war. A prophetess about fifty-five years old would receive a question written on a lead tablet and would descend to the basement of the temple where she breathed fumes of ethelyne, a sweet-smelling gas that produces feelings of euphoria. The gas drifted up from a fault line under the temple. Modern researchers have verified the presence of this gas and it can still be detected today. The priestess would utter "prophecies" while she was in a trance-like state, and these would pour out in a garbled state. Male priests "interpreted" these sounds. Interpretations were usually vague and ambiguous-- increasing their chances of being perceived as accurate.

Paul writes, "For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;" 1 Cor 14:31. Notice he doesn't say that all MEN may prophesy, but that ALL can prophesy if it is done "one by one". In verse 32 he adds that "the spirits of the prophets are subject to prophets"; meaning that true prophets are not out of control or in some gas-induced trance, as were the priestesses of Delphi. Prophets of God have control over their spirits and their speaking.

1 Cor. 12:7

7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

Women are given spiritual gifts by God to use for the common good of the people of God. Paul did not take away the right of women to use these spiritual gifts in services-- a woman with a gift of encouragement must be allowed to encourage. A woman with a gift of faith must be allowed to offer a prayer of faith. A woman with a word of wisdom must be allowed to publicly share her wisdom with the congregation. A woman with a musical gift must be allowed to lead joyful songs of praise. A woman with a gift of teaching must be allowed to teach truth. (See "Paul and Woman Teachers" for an explanation of the very misunderstood 1 Tim 2:12.) God does NOT limit His women. God sees women as equal to serve Him with whatever gifts He has given them to use for the common good.

If women are unable to participate during church services, then many are unable to contribute the gift God has given to them. Each spiritual gift is given for the benefit of the church as a whole-- the inability to participate in church services is like God giving a woman a beautifully wrapped, expensive gift--a present that would help her entire church-- and then telling her that she cannot open it! Would God do such a thing? No, He does not. Neither must men. To quote the words of Craig S. Keener, "...it is a dangerous thing to turn people from their call, or to oppose their call if it is genuinely from God.

Again you are arguing from Paul and ignoring Eden.

[John317]

This is true both in her public life and in her private life.

[Neil D]

The foundation for this argument is not Pauls Letters.

The foundation for this argument is what happened in the Garden of Eden.

It is extremely illogical to take Pauls Letters and argue that it was a cultural thing, without understanding what Paul himself was using as his source.

And what of Jesus....?

All incidences of Jesus's interations with women are favorable to thier having authority, and ablilty to teach men, and to preach...contrary to the Pauline Complimentarian view...

Christian Egalitarians [contrary to the Complimentarian view] believe that full partnership is the most biblical view. As persons, husband and wife, [men and women] are of equal value. There is no priority of one spouse [gender] over the other. In truth, they are one. Bible scholar Frank Stagg and Classicist Evelyn Stagg write that husband-wife equality produces the most intimate, wholesome and mutually fulfilling marriages. They conclude that the Apostle Paul's statement sometimes called the "Magna Carta of Humanity" and recorded in Galatians 3:28 applies to all Christian relationships, including Christian marriage [among other social status]: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

The foundation for this argument is not Pauls Letters.

The foundation for this argument is what happened in the Garden of Eden.

It is extremely illogical to take Pauls Letters and argue that it was a cultural thing, without understanding what Paul himself was using as his source.

And what of Jesus....?

All incidences of Jesus's interations with women are favorable to thier having authority, and ablilty to teach men, and to preach...contrary to the Pauline Complimentarian view...

Christian Egalitarians [contrary to the Complimentarian view] believe that full partnership is the most biblical view. As persons, husband and wife, [men and women] are of equal value. There is no priority of one spouse [gender] over the other. In truth, they are one. Bible scholar Frank Stagg and Classicist Evelyn Stagg write that husband-wife equality produces the most intimate, wholesome and mutually fulfilling marriages. They conclude that the Apostle Paul's statement sometimes called the "Magna Carta of Humanity" and recorded in Galatians 3:28 applies to all Christian relationships, including Christian marriage [among other social status]: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

You have not responded to the point.

Who was it do you think that delivered the Edict in the Garden of Eden?

It would have been Jesus Himself.

Your subsequent argument then ran away from the Garden of Eden and quoted some "authorities" instead...

[Neil D]

and you ignore that Jesus came to set things right, to provide and example on how to live....He would have emphasis on how a woman is to be treated, what thier role is, and thier place in the Gospel commission to preach....Your emphasis on the Eden premise just add to the confusion..

I choose Jesus.....

[Twilight II]

and you ignore that Jesus came to set things right, to provide and example on how to live....He would have emphasis on how a woman is to be treated, what thier role is, and thier place in the Gospel commission to preach....Your emphasis on the Eden premise just add to the confusion..

I choose Jesus.....

No...

You are ignoring Jesus and adopting a secular ideology and trying to read that into the Bible.

If you were listening to Jesus, you would be listening to what He had to say in the Garden of Eden.

And you wouldn't be looking to invalidate that so that you can follow a secular ideology.

It is always important to track an issue back to its foundations.

You are unwilling to do that here, as evidenced in your "confusion" comment, which indicates you are not willing to move from your position, no matter what is presented.

And therefore cannot come to the truth on this matter.

You are not following basic logical premises.

Jesus when talking about divorce highlighted this principle.

Pointing those that wanted to challenge Him on the subject of divorce back to the original order of things as outlined by Him in Eden.

It is a most basic priniciple of establishing truth.

Which you do not seem to understand at this point.

You start at the beginning and follow the subject through the Bible.

[Twilight II]

With that in mind.

Gods edict was established in Eden.

Confirmed throughout the Patriarchal Age.

Confirmed in Christ's Ministry.

Re-inforced during the Apostolic Age.

And is only now being challenged in "extra-biblical" times by secularised ideologies...

Which wants to ignore Gods original edict so that Gods order of things can be changed.

And this is the sum of the arguments opposing Gods order of things.

The Edict in Eden has to be dismissed in one way or another.

And the argument seems to be the same as used to get rid of the Sabbath...

"It was nailed to the Cross and is no longer valid."

Or the other argument seems to be:

"It only applies to Farmers."

[Parade Orange]

confirmed in CHRISTS TIME?

i see the women elevated in CHRISTS time

which the disciples ignored

and still is ignored

[Twilight II]

confirmed in CHRISTS TIME?

i see the women elevated in CHRISTS time

which the disciples ignored

and still is ignored

Where?

[Parade Orange]

are u asking cause u at a lost?

or just to see if i know what im talking about?

either way

i dont have that kind of patience

where?

maybe someone here will step in

[doug yowell]

You apparently don't remember from the past go-rounds on this topic the multitude of EGW quotes and historic references to woman ministers and the Church's own actions affirming women in ministry, including EGW's ordination credential. Either you refuse to accept them or paid insufficient attention to them that you forgot them. If the latter, that simply confirms a dismissive attitude of unwillingness to seriously consider anything that differs with your preconceived point of view.

As one can see through all the heat waves generated by this topic, there is no evidence, large or small, favoring a positive view of women in ministry and leadership that will not be met with scorn, ridicule, dismissiveness and all manner of argument to distinguish and minimize it.

I remember it very well but don't attempt to mix the issue of ordination (the permissive ceremony)with the issue of male headship upon which the church's "headship" functions were patterned. The argument of ordination, one which EGW even supported, for certain types of "non-headship" positions,I might fully support depending on the details. Similar pay for similar work,ect... Scrambling into the argument the meaning of ordination I consider to be separate question.Your open rejection of EGW's "headship" explanation of Gen.3 seems to make it impossible to you to recognize any positive view of women's importance in ministry unless it includes the destruction of the high priestly role of the man of the family. The fact that most opposed to the obliteration of that role within the church still consider the woman's role to be critical to the success of the gospel seems to have no value in your eyes.It's all or nothing.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, you are making the "farmer" argument Tom.

But you are broadening it to manual labour.

You are in effect saying that if one engages in a sedentary lifestyle, that the edict in Eden does not count.

So all Adam had to do to escape Gods edict was to become a computer programmer...

This is essentially the argument you are making.

But God was not being a literal as you demand, otherwise the edict could be avoided by a visit to the local careers centre...

Your argument is absurd.

No, your twisted misrepresentation of what I said is absurd! It is time you stop twisting what I say and stop putting your words in my mouth.

I am saying that those who engage in a sedentary lifestyle are acting contrary to the curse. If there is universal and continuous application of the "edict" (as you seem to think it is) as it applies to all women to be subservient to all men, then all men are sentenced to a life of toil, sweat and thorns ripping their flesh. If any man seeks to minimize or change this paradigm of his fate he is just as "guilty" of subverting God's "edict" as a women and a man relating to each other as equals. And it is just the same for a woman who subverts the curse of painful childbirth by taking some form of pain relief intervention.

The point repeatedly is that those of you who proclaim this subservience of women as a universal and everlasting edict of God consistently fail to worry about all the other subversions of the curse, picking and choosing what fits your thinking and ignoring the rest.

And now you throw anther convenient "qualifier" into the mix to justify your absurdity by saying God was not being literal as I demand?!?!

I am echoing your demand of literal adherence to the subservient women part. But I am just insisting on consistency of interpretation and application of the whole curse. If it is all to be taken as not literal, why are we even arguing about it as if it is?!?!

But if you say it's not supposed to be literal, why do you take the subservient women part as being literal?

I am done arguing with you. It seems you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Read Titus 3:9-11.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

This was consistent with the earlier action taken by the General Conference expressing the position that they did not see any reason not to ordain women. Some have said that nothing every came of that action and there was no action to implement it. However, the fact that after that action was taken, they issued EGW the ordained minister credential certainly seems a follow up.

Best to check out the paper by the EGW Estate about this question. It disagrees with your conclusion.

But you're right that nothing at all ever came from that action, and for good reason. There was not much support for it.

However, you can be sure that if Ellen White believed it should have been implemented and thought it was unfair that it wasn't, she would have said something. The fact that she didn't shows that she supported the non-action. She had no problem opposing actions taken by the church if she was shown that she should. So we can conclude that Ellen White didn't believe God wanted her to oppose it. Otherwise she certainly would have.

And she surely would not have supported the issue if she had seen the division that it would cause throughout the world church for more than 2 decades.

[doug yowell]

At the core of this is what we stand on as a church:

1. Gods revealed will in the Bible?

2. Or secular ideology?

What amazes me is that we can look around at the churches that have adopted secular ideology and how it eventually removes their influence in the world, yet we think we can make it work for us...

Incredible...

Yes, sadly we see the Evangelical world defending this biblical concept while attempting to rally men to start acting like godly men. Conversely the SDa church's concern for the unique calling that God has given them is all but forgotten in those areas where this new order is being promoted.Acceptance of this NAD request will doubtlessly result in alienating SDA's even further from reaping any rewards from the "Bible only" true hearted members. Will it help us connect with the Muslim seeker? Will it make the NAD more unified? Will NAD promoters be satisfied when the rest of the world church doesn't recognize the "calling" that they had verified? Will we eventually become Son of United Methodists? PCA Jr.?

[doug yowell]

[All incidences of Jesus's interations with women are favorable to thier having authority, and ablilty to teach men, and to preach...contrary to the Pauline Complimentarian view...

Christian Egalitarians [contrary to the Complimentarian view] believe that full partnership is the most biblical view. As persons, husband and wife, [men and women] are of equal value. There is no priority of one spouse [gender] over the other. In truth, they are one. Bible scholar Frank Stagg and Classicist Evelyn Stagg write that husband-wife equality produces the most intimate, wholesome and mutually fulfilling marriages. They conclude that the Apostle Paul's statement sometimes called the "Magna Carta of Humanity" and recorded in Galatians 3:28 applies to all Christian relationships, including Christian marriage [among other social status]: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Where are you pasting these things from? Whose book are you basing your arguments on?

[Stan]

SO..... has anyone moved an inch? or a fraction of an inch on their stance?

[Parade Orange]

yes

i see GOD working in our church more and more

GOD is moving in our world a deeper understanding that GOD is using any and everyone to move the events to climax in HIS COMING!

[John317]

Too many people talking past one another. Questions are asked and never answered.

[lazarus]

SO..... has anyone moved an inch? or a fraction of an inch on their stance?

Yes. I'm even more firmly convinced that it's God plan that women are used in Pastoral ministry. I have worked in churches with a couple of ordained female Pastors and I have been blessed to hear them speak, teach me and lead worship services.

[Stan]

there is nothing in the motion about Pastor Ministry.

[lazarus]

there is nothing in the motion about Pastor Ministry.

Yeah, but the discussion hasn't been confined to the motion.

[doug yowell]

there is nothing in the motion about Pastor Ministry.

But if the motion called for a simple ministerial credential in order to serve as GC or conference,ect...president, wouldn't that be the defacto conclusion?

[Guest arnie]

Twightlight: On the Judgemental remark. Am I, really? The answer is "Nope". Just an observation from all your posts. You obviously believe in sex discrimination within the Church and it's been my experience that men who practice this can relate best to women that don't threaten there opinions.

Ordination would make women elligable to executive positions in the Church. Management positions could be where they serve best, and could it be this may be their spiritual calling? Whether we agree or not, this is the work place. Career employees of the Church receive social security, retirement pay and medical benefits. Every employee, regardless of gender should be considered for any position that is available if they have the qualifications and should not be chastised because they are women. This is morally wrong. As far as the judgemental thing, maybe some should take a good look in the mirror.

[Stan]

Doug....

Lets take this example, a person, starts working for the demonination when he is 22 or so, fresh out of one of our colleges. He has a business degree, becomes president of some SDA organization, not conference, picks up a law degree, makes a signification contribution to leadership etc etc etc.

He can not become President of a Conference, even with his proven leadership skills, and people skills, apparently God can not call him to lead out in as a Conference. Yet over the years, I have seen ordained Pastors that I felt should not be a President. I am not talking about the Conference that I am working in.