TED on Women in Leadership

[miz3]

Quote:

It really is quite amusing.

Please define 'it'

Please define 'is'

(I have no problems with the other words - just it and is.

Miz3 laughs out loud and startles everyone nearby. Still chuckling as I write.

[miz3]

miz3, your posts in response to the Bible texts I presented show that you don't understand them. We've discussed those texts dozens of time on this Forum, yet you apparently haven't read those previous discussions. Your objections have been answered many, many times before.

For instance, you claim that the texts prohibit women from doing any talking at all in the church. This is false. 1 Cor. 11 shows that women were able to talk in the church.

You also claim that the texts prohibit all woman from doing any teaching. No, they don't.

The primary issue is that women are not to have authority over a man. Notice that Paul's reason is what happened in Eden. He says nothing that suggests the reason has to do with what's happening in the local churches. In fact, 1 Cor. 14: 33b, 34 shows that Paul's instructions were for "all the churches of the saints." 1 Tim. 2 tells us why.

I actually hate to disagree with you but your post actually shows quite the opposite. It shows that you are the one who does not understand.

You apparently cannot read the Scripture for what it actually says. You have to put in all your preconceived biases and assumptions into your interpretation of Scripture. I see this all the time. It is a common problem.

Just because you have already discussed them dozens of times does not mean that you have understood what the texts actually mean. It is clear that you don't understand the texts.

The "primary issue" is not a "general principle" that women are not to have authority over a man. The issues are as I have stated in my previous posts on those texts.

Second if we assume your position that it is about authority (between male and female), then tell me when a "boy" under his mother's authority no longer is "under that authority" because he is now a "man"? The female Sabbath School teacher, the female School Teacher all hold authority over males, when then do such males no longer have to be under these "female authorities"?

You should see how foolish not to mention impractical your argumentation is. I await your response.

[Twilight II]

Hold it, before you go to the "all male priests argument" let us finish with the "Edict in Eden" discussion. The all male priests in the Old Testament actually has nothing to do with the Edict in Eden. It has to do with something else entirely.

By going to the "all male priests" argument are you conceding that I am correct about the "Edict in Eden"? If your answer is no then please give me Scripture for why the "Edict in Eden" applies to the church.

When we are settled about the Edict in Eden I will be only too happy to tell you why ALL THE PRIESTS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT were male and there were no female priests.

What is it about the edict in Eden that you want to discuss Miz3?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Hold it, before you go to the "all male priests argument" let us finish with the "Edict in Eden" discussion. The all male priests in the Old Testament actually has nothing to do with the Edict in Eden. It has to do with something else entirely.

By going to the "all male priests" argument are you conceding that I am correct about the "Edict in Eden"? If your answer is no then please give me Scripture for why the "Edict in Eden" applies to the church.

When we are settled about the Edict in Eden I will be only too happy to tell you why ALL THE PRIESTS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT were male and there were no female priests.

What is it about the edict in Eden that you want to discuss Miz3?

Where in this Edict in Eden does it cover the Church? I see nothing in Genesis chapter three that includes the Church.

[Neil D]

Her Ministers License issued before 1885 did not have the word ordained crossed out. But the 1885 document DOES have the word crossed out. They didn't have a "Prophets License" so a Ministers license was used.

Was she "demoted" in 1885?

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

What is it about the edict in Eden that you want to discuss Miz3?

Where in this Edict in Eden does it cover the Church? I see nothing in Genesis chapter three that includes the Church.

Where does it say in this edict that women are exempt of this when they are in church?

Why would God place an edict over man and woman, that stops at the doors of a house of worship and not mention that here?

If the is such an "exclusion" to this edict, I do not find it.

Surely if God intended the order of men and women to change when it came to spiritual duties, He would have mentioned it here?

I could argue the edict was in place, except on Tuesdays, but surely you would object without any specific statement in the text upon which I would make such a claim...?

[Twilight II]

I would say, that without any expressed exceptions, that the edict was "inclusive" of all activities.

If you do not think so, you would have to show from scripture why you think such exceptions were in place but not mentioned miz3.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

What is it about the edict in Eden that you want to discuss Miz3?

Where in this Edict in Eden does it cover the Church? I see nothing in Genesis chapter three that includes the Church.

[ClubV12]

Hamilton, I don't think you realize that there are three Ministers license documents the church has. The one BEFORE 1885 does not have ordained crossed out. The one FROM 1885 does. Then the 1900's one does not.

What these documents show is "uncertainty" over the issue. You have no case using these documents to prove anything because they are inconsistent. Do we have any other documents that might shed light on the issue? Yes, documents where she denied being ordained!

There is no verbal or written record of her being physically ordained. We have no solid proof either way.

[Twilight II]

Here is the text because it appears that you have forgotten what it actually says.

1. Increase pain in child bearing (home rule).

2. Desire to be for your husband (husband only not other males). Again Home only.

3. He (only the husband in the home) will rule over you.

There is nothing there about the Church, the work place, etc. There is nothing about a woman's relationship to other males. It is only to the husband as husband (BAND OF THE HOUSE)which means only in the home. Get it now.

The text does NOT say "inclusive of all things". If it is does not say "inclusive of all things" then your question of "exemption" is moot, nada, zero, done. It is clear from the text that there are inherent limitations/boundaries.

The text does not include ALL MEN it only applies to the husband as in doing his husband duty (home).

Twilight you cannot stretch the text just because you want too.

So you think the edict means a women has to be subservient to her husband, but she is permitted to rule over every other man in the world?

[Twilight II]

A woman truly submitted to the Christ Led Spiritual leadership of her husband will not seek to rule over other men, as she has no place there.

----------------

But the core point here is this miz3.

Deep within women is a sin, a sin they inherited from Eve.

That sin is to strive to take control.

To strive to be independent.

The sin to be independent of God.

So God has decreed subservience for the woman.

To her husband and to God.

She is not to seek to rule and take away the authority that God has given.

It is this sin that God is seeking to enable women to overcome, this is what this edict deals with.

-------------

Mans sin is something else, but we are dealing with the role of women here, so I will not go into that.

[Neil D]

Many women in Ellen Whites time ALSO RECEIVED a Ministers license. NOT ONE WOMAN was ordained by the church who received this license!

Ellen Whites position, as a prophet, was unique. Her status had no bearing on the issue as it concerned other women. It had no bearing THEN, it has no bearing NOW.

Here is where your lack of Adventist history is lacking....

Women were encouraged in the 1870s to enter into the ministerial field. Many were well qualified to be ministers and were paid minister wages from the tithe. For example, the churches in Hornellsville, Gas Springs, Wallace, Silver Creek, Geneva, Angola, Gorham, Fredonia, Avoca, Rushville, Canandaigua, and Pen Yan in New York State owed thier establishment to a woman minister named Lulu Wight. The churches of Avon, Lakeville, Hemlock, South Livonia, and Bath were established when MR. Wightman joined his wife as a licensed minister. Women were paid from the tithe. And some women, ie Lulu, were paid the higher waged of an ordained minister, until the husband became one. And then Lulu was forced to reduce her wage, much to the complaints of the husband. He didn't mind her recieving a higher wage...Why should anyone else? Was that fair? I don't think so....

In 1885, EGW wrote-

Women who are willing to consecrate some of thier time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the [local] church officers or the [conference] minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor. Not a hand should be bound, not a soul discourage, not a voice should be hushed; let every individual labor, privately or publicly, to help forward this grand work.

Soon after this was penned specifically in the 1890s, 3 women were ordained in the Australia. Mention of this is found here.

[ClubV12]

Here is where your Adventist history is lacking Hamilton Beach. Mrs. Wightman, Lulu was her first name, was never ordained. Which was a real pain in the bum for Mr. Wightman, he fought with the GC long and hard over it. Do you know what became of the Wightmans? They had a dispute with Sister White over Civil Rights issues and declared Sister White to be a false prophet. They BOTH left the Adventist church. Mr. Wightman WAS ordained and he felt very strongly that his wife, doing equal work, should be paid the same wage. His concern was not about ordination, it was about her SALARY.

What you have confused here is that people could then and do now receive a license, but that does not mean they are ordained, then or now.

Elders, Deacons and even women can be ordained within the local church. Their authority ends at the door of that church. Whereas an ordained Minister is a representative of the Adventist church through out the world. He carries with him the authority of a world wide church, not a local church.

[Neil D]

Hamilton, I don't think you realize that there are three Ministers license documents the church has. The one BEFORE 1885 does not have ordained crossed out. The one FROM 1885 does. Then the 1900's one does not.

What these documents show is "uncertainty" over the issue. You have no case using these documents to prove anything because they are inconsistent. Do we have any other documents that might shed light on the issue? Yes, documents where she denied being ordained!

There is no verbal or written record of her being physically ordained. We have no solid proof either way.

Not true...

What you don't understand is that the church went forth in it's work to evangelize the world. The spirit of the church was what James White said when the question of biblical authority for having the name "Seventh day Adventist" or having plain texts of scripture for holding church property legally. He replied that while "the bible does not furnish any text, neither does it say that we should have a weekly paper, a steam printing press, that we should publish books, build places of worship and send out tents. Jesus says to let your light so shine before men" ect.; but he does not give all the particulars how this shall be done. The church is left to move forward in the great work, praying for divine guideance, acting upon the most efficent plans for it's accomplishment. We believe it safe to be governed by the folloiwng

RULE

All means which, according to sound judgment, will advance the cause of truth, and are not forbidden by plain scripture declarations, should be employed."

Therefore, women, who show that they are called of God should be ordained. Just as those 3 Austrailian women in 1890 should....

[ClubV12]

James White never called for women to be ordained Ministers, it's as simple as that.

The church, James, Sister White, many of the brethren called for consecrated women to work in and with the church. But there is no specific call by ANY pioneer for them to be ordained as Ministers.

It should be noted that Hamiltons referrence to ordination of women as Ministers in Australia, is NOT TRUE. This issue is complicated enough without bringing into it rumors and gossip presented as fact.

[M. T. Cross]

A woman truly submitted to the Christ Led Spiritual leadership of her husband will not seek to rule over other men, as she has no place there.

----------------

But the core point here is this miz3.

Deep within women is a sin, a sin they inherited from Eve.

That sin is to strive to take control.

To strive to be independent.

The sin to be independent of God.

So God has decreed subservience for the woman.

To her husband and to God.

She is not to seek to rule and take away the authority that God has given.

It is this sin that God is seeking to enable women to overcome, this is what this edict deals with.

-------------

Mans sin is something else, but we are dealing with the role of women here, so I will not go into that.

Really?

You are joking right?

Twighlight? Do you have a wife or girlfriend?

[Tom Wetmore]

A woman truly submitted to the Christ Led Spiritual leadership of her husband will not seek to rule over other men, as she has no place there.

----------------

But the core point here is this miz3.

Deep within women is a sin, a sin they inherited from Eve.

That sin is to strive to take control.

To strive to be independent.

The sin to be independent of God.

So God has decreed subservience for the woman.

To her husband and to God.

She is not to seek to rule and take away the authority that God has given.

It is this sin that God is seeking to enable women to overcome, this is what this edict deals with.

-------------

Mans sin is something else, but we are dealing with the role of women here, so I will not go into that.

I feel like I have read this before. It sounds very much like Tertullian and a number of the other early church fathers that held rather misogynistic views. See here - http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/tertul.asp

[Bravus]

The fundamental flaw in that thinking is that *someone* has to rule over the other. It's simply not true: my beloved and I are a partnership, both on the same side against the world, and it doesn't even make any sense to talk about who 'rules'.

[M. T. Cross]

Its an attitude put forth by guys so insecure in their own masculinity that they must "control". Men that fear the fact that they are weak willed when it comes to the beauty of the feminine nature. But the flaw lies not in the feminine nature - it lies in the masculine.

[Tom Wetmore]

As it should be. Jesus affirmed that as God intent at creation - and the two shall be one. Oneness is equality. Oneness is a partnership. Oneness is body, mind and soul in harmony.

[miz3]

I would say, that without any expressed exceptions, that the edict was "inclusive" of all activities.

If you do not think so, you would have to show from scripture why you think such exceptions were in place but not mentioned miz3.

You would be wrong.

[Tom Wetmore]

The problem is the wrong direction the characterization of the curse pronounced as being an edict.

The notion of the curse being characterized as an "edict" is simply a perverse manifestation of the curse that man will lord it over woman. It is no longer the consequences of sin, but binding law never to be changed.

If it is an edict, one would have to conclude it to be the unchangeable law of God that will govern throughout eternity. And it would suggest it as God's ideal. The Genesis account of creation says no it was not. And Jesus confirmed that.

It was not the law, but the pronouncement of the sentence for having sinned. Not only would they die, but life would be hard.

What happened to the concept of Eden restored?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Here is the text because it appears that you have forgotten what it actually says.

1. Increase pain in child bearing (home rule).

2. Desire to be for your husband (husband only not other males). Again Home only.

3. He (only the husband in the home) will rule over you.

There is nothing there about the Church, the work place, etc. There is nothing about a woman's relationship to other males. It is only to the husband as husband (BAND OF THE HOUSE)which means only in the home. Get it now.

The text does NOT say "inclusive of all things". If it is does not say "inclusive of all things" then your question of "exemption" is moot, nada, zero, done. It is clear from the text that there are inherent limitations/boundaries.

The text does not include ALL MEN it only applies to the husband as in doing his husband duty (home).

Twilight you cannot stretch the text just because you want too.

So you think the edict means a women has to be subservient to her husband, but she is permitted to rule over every other man in the world?

Not subservient. The husband is to be the leader in the home only. Outside the home women have just as much chance to lead as do men.

There is a difference between one who leads and one who makes others subservient. In fact there is a big difference.

You language with the use of the word "subservient" is very telling as to where you are on the issue. I find it very troubling that you would use such a word.

God never intended women either in the "sinless state" and/or in the "sinful state" to slaves to men. Thus, using the word subservient is very troubling on your part.

[miz3]

A woman truly submitted to the Christ Led Spiritual leadership of her husband will not seek to rule over other men, as she has no place there.

----------------

But the core point here is this miz3.

Deep within women is a sin, a sin they inherited from Eve.

That sin is to strive to take control.

To strive to be independent.

The sin to be independent of God.

So God has decreed subservience for the woman.

To her husband and to God.

She is not to seek to rule and take away the authority that God has given.

It is this sin that God is seeking to enable women to overcome, this is what this edict deals with.

-------------

Mans sin is something else, but we are dealing with the role of women here, so I will not go into that.

This is some of most horrid garbage I have ever heard. This is not Biblical. This nothing but the ranting of male ego.

The Book of Romans tells us the "sinful nature" of all humans. It does single women out as more sinful than men. All humans seek to be independent of God. It is not just women. Yet you by your fiat say that women are more sinful than men and thus need to have men rule over them. How can you say such despicable things, which are not anywhere in the Bible, and then say that you follow Scripture. This tirade does not qualify you to say anything concerning Scripture. This is just pagan poppycock or as I am won't to say, GIBBERISH.

I hope all the ladies hearing this on this forum take note that this what those who oppose Woman's Ordination actually think. They try and hide behind Scripture but really it seems that behind it is this despicable nonsense.

There are just no words in the human language to express the hateful and hurtful nature of such horrid words. Such expressions are totally devoid of any scintilla of love.

Twilight, in my opinion you have no more credibility left.

[Neil D]

James White never called for women to be ordained Ministers, it's as simple as that.