Women's Ordination

[Tom Wetmore]

...The real purpose of WO is not to affirm the person but rather to affirm the role.

I wouldn't say that is exactly correct. It is to affirm the calling of that person to the role. So in a way it does both. Ordination is simply human recognition that God has called the person to any particular role. There is nothing magical about ordination, nor does it confer on the person any special authority or power. We ordain deacons (male and female) recognizing that each person is called to serve in that capacity. We ordain elders, male and female, again recognizing and affirming each person as being called by God to serve. Women are called to serve as pastors, yet many are unwilling to affirm or recognize it.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Tom and miz are a very committed advocates of WO and freely admit that it is the spiritual headship role of men that is unBiblical and needs to be abandoned.

Again not accurately representing what has been said. It is the interpretation of headship that is an unBiblical Catholic heresy. The Catholic heresy that headship is about position and authority and male only. And as some have already indicated the practice and theology of ordination as we currently practice likewise has its roots firmly in Catholic tradition and is not consistent with the practice of the NT Church. The Catholic heresy is what needs to be abandoned. Also, implied in the above is an "either or" false dichotomy of spiritual leadership in the home or in the the church. What is Biblical and affirmed by EGW is that Adam and Eve were created equal by God. Man and woman were created to work together as partners in harmony with one another. Oneness is what Jesus sought to restore in all mankind. Salvation is about restoration to the way God originally created things to be.

Headship as Paul describes it is about source and is inherently a metaphor of unity and equal codependence between mind and body. Neither can live without the other. And they work together as a single living soul.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

The WO proponents usually argue out of both sides of their mouths by saying on one hand that it is a cultural issue (which their opponents reject) and on the other that it is a moral thing.Moral principles are Biblical principles.Ordination of gender is irrelevant,ordination of role is not....

While again this is a misrepresentation and distortion of the position of WO proponents I have to agree that ordination of gender is irrelevant. But it seems to me that it is those opposed to women in ministry are the ones elevating gender as very relevant. If indeed as suggested it is irrelevant, we simply would not be having this whole discussion. We would ordain whoever, completely without regard to gender, to whatever it is evident that they have been called to do.

And the cultural/moral distinction - again this is a misrepresentation as if it is an "either or" alternative. There is a mix of both moral and cultural on both sides. It is correct that those opposed to WO reject that. But that in large part stems from cultural blinders. Each side takes a moral view of this. But I would say that those in support of WO recognize that the issue has both moral and cultural aspects. But I don't think we will make any progress toward resolution until those opposed recognize and acknowledge that. Those in favor of WO fundamentally respect the cultural sensitivities that those cultures that are not ready for WO. All we ask for is mutual respect for our cultural sensibilities that see women as equal to men. Allow us to conduct ourselves within our own cultural context without imposing alien cultural values and mores on us. This reduction of practice and values to the least common denominator does not advance the kingdom of God. Quite the opposite...

[Woody]

What do you think of this Tom?

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post533670

[Tom Wetmore]

Interesting...

[Woody]

Interesting...

Nice quick solution huh.

[Dr. Rich]

Really, men don't have anything to do with who is ordained, God only ordains and sends forth His Teachers. Men can only have a recognition service that that one is ordained of God. Who ordained EGW? God did, He sent her forth, some rejected her and it will always be the case. Many a truly ordained of Him are rejected, the testimony don't suit what they want to hear etc.

For me, I must sort out if the one I'm hearing is ordained. they must speak and teach,

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

Great post Gibs. You are ordained when you become a servant of Jesus Christ because you are not your own at that time. No man can ordain anyone.

Just as marriage has become a LEGAL thing of the state, so too has becoming ordained by man. It' all nonsense, as only God can truly put a man and a woman together in marriage and do the ordaining.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

...The real purpose of WO is not to affirm the person but rather to affirm the role.

I wouldn't say that is exactly correct. It is to affirm the calling of that person to the role. So in a way it does both. Ordination is simply human recognition that God has called the person to any particular role. There is nothing magical about ordination, nor does it confer on the person any special authority or power. We ordain deacons (male and female) recognizing that each person is called to serve in that capacity. We ordain elders, male and female, again recognizing and affirming each person as being called by God to serve. Women are called to serve as pastors, yet many are unwilling to affirm or recognize it.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Tom and miz are a very committed advocates of WO and freely admit that it is the spiritual headship role of men that is unBiblical and needs to be abandoned.

Again not accurately representing what has been said. It is the interpretation of headship that is an unBiblical Catholic heresy. The Catholic heresy that headship is about position and authority and male only. And as some have already indicated the practice and theology of ordination as we currently practice likewise has its roots firmly in Catholic tradition and is not consistent with the practice of the NT Church. The Catholic heresy is what needs to be abandoned. Also, implied in the above is an "either or" false dichotomy of spiritual leadership in the home or in the the church. What is Biblical and affirmed by EGW is that Adam and Eve were created equal by God. Man and woman were created to work together as partners in harmony with one another. Oneness is what Jesus sought to restore in all mankind. Salvation is about restoration to the way God originally created things to be.

Headship as Paul describes it is about source and is inherently a metaphor of unity and equal codependence between mind and body. Neither can live without the other. And they work together as a single living soul.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

The WO proponents usually argue out of both sides of their mouths by saying on one hand that it is a cultural issue (which their opponents reject) and on the other that it is a moral thing.Moral principles are Biblical principles.Ordination of gender is irrelevant,ordination of role is not....

While again this is a misrepresentation and distortion of the position of WO proponents I have to agree that ordination of gender is irrelevant. But it seems to me that it is those opposed to women in ministry are the ones elevating gender as very relevant. If indeed as suggested it is irrelevant, we simply would not be having this whole discussion. We would ordain whoever, completely without regard to gender, to whatever it is evident that they have been called to do.

And the cultural/moral distinction - again this is a misrepresentation as if it is an "either or" alternative. There is a mix of both moral and cultural on both sides. It is correct that those opposed to WO reject that. But that in large part stems from cultural blinders. Each side takes a moral view of this. But I would say that those in support of WO recognize that the issue has both moral and cultural aspects. But I don't think we will make any progress toward resolution until those opposed recognize and acknowledge that. Those in favor of WO fundamentally respect the cultural sensitivities that those cultures that are not ready for WO. All we ask for is mutual respect for our cultural sensibilities that see women as equal to men. Allow us to conduct ourselves within our own cultural context without imposing alien cultural values and mores on us. This reduction of practice and values to the least common denominator does not advance the kingdom of God. Quite the opposite...

Superbly done Tom.

[miz3]

What do you think of this Tom?

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post533670

The "train" has left the station and is not going back. This action will spread.

[Woody]

Quote:

Just as marriage has become a LEGAL thing of the state, so too has becoming ordained by man. It' all nonsense, as only God can truly put a man and a woman together in marriage and do the ordaining.

R U sayin' that Adam and Eve were not legally married?

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

What do you think of this Tom?

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post533670

The "train" has left the station and is not going back. This action will spread.

Yes, Praise God. I do believe you are right.

[miz3]

Adam and Eve were never ever "legally" married but they were married in the eyes of God.

Human recognition never ever trumps God's recognition.

That is why Deborah and Huldah were ordained by God to Lead/Rule all of God's People.

For example in the time of King Saul the "state" would never ever recognize the "kingship anointing" of David. However, God had anointed David even before Samuel's service and nothing that any human did could stop it.

The same is true when God ordains women like Deborah and Huldah. Fortunately for Judah/Israel they accepted (except for Barak who lost his opportunity) the Authority/Rule of these women. (I know Huldah lived in the time of Josiah but in that time Israel/Judah did in general accept the Authority/Rulership of Huldah as God's Anointed).

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Naomi

Not responding to any one post:

I read and reread the post on this thread and can't quite decide what bothers me about it. FWIW I have known female Adventist Pastors who did a good, effective job. I am sure have been a source of encouragement and a blessing to many. I don't know that being ordained would make a difference in their commitment to their calling.

Again, most opponents of WO would agree with this. The real purpose of WO is not to affirm the person but rather to affirm the role. Tom and miz are a very committed advocates of WO and freely admit that it is the spiritual headship role of men that is unBiblical and needs to be abandoned.

Doug; Naomi made the best post in this topic so far. It is level-headed, it is Biblical, it doesn't take sides.

If indeed, proponents of WO do believe that this "spiritual headship" role of the man needs to be dispensed with; then I would say they do not have a clue as to what this "headship" is about, and just how equal it actually is. All this hub-bub about not being "equal" is just over the top. Being ordained, is not about being "equal;" it is unfair to paint it that way.

I have a good friend or two posting in this topic, and I know that they will likely disagree with me on this, but atleast they won't resort to calling our church a derogatory name; and they won't try to make it a win/lose situation.

Actually; in all the many churches I have been to, I have never seen this fighting over WO, I have only seen it on this forum. Makes one wonder just how accurately the whole thing is being presented.

Anyways; way to go Naomi, that was a great post.

[Dr. Rich]

Thanks Miz3 for this insight. The word "legal" means man made law as in legislative. Adam and Eve were LAWFULLY married, meaning that God was involved because it is His Common Law that trumps all other man made legal statutory law.

[Woody]

Ordination makes no difference with a man.

Ordination makes no difference with a woman.

We might as well dispense with both of them or do as the Southeastern Calif. Conference is doing.

The only ordination that matters is to be ordained by God.

Some men are.

Some women are.

[miz3]

Ordination makes no difference with a man.

Ordination makes no difference with a woman.

We might as well dispense with both of them or do as the Southeastern Calif. Conference is doing.

The only ordination that matters is to be ordained by God.

Some men are.

Some women are.

The problem is that some "men in power" and elsewhere don't want to recognize that God ordains both women/men. They want everyone to accept that God only "ordains men (males)".

The Bible is most clear that both women/men are ordained by God and given all the authority such an ordination by God entails. It is a sin for any human to stand in the way of God's ordination and call just as Saul did with David's ordination to be king.

Like I said before Israel/Judah were fortunate that they recognized the ordination of Deborah and Huldah by God as having authority over all Israel/Judah. As such they were blessed by God in that time of these women's ministry.

Barak obeyed the orders of Deborah and Josiah obeyed the counsel of Huldah. Both men recognized the Authority of these women as being ordained by God and humbly submitted to it.

Today the SDA Church .org should do the same. It is not wise to follow in the footsteps of Saul and try and derail any longer God's ordination of the women He calls to Lead/Administer/Minister to the SDA Church .org.

The sin of Saul must stop now.

[Woody]

And it is starting miz3. Give it just a little more time.

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2012/03...es-ordain-women

[Woody]

And it is starting miz3. Give it just a little more time.

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2012/03...es-ordain-women

And spreading like wildfire.

[miz3]

And it is starting miz3. Give it just a little more time.

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2012/03...es-ordain-women

I love it.

[Naomi]

Quote:

Anyways; way to go Naomi, that was a great post.

Thank you OA. Many times I read stuff which is so one-sided or not balanced that it is difficult to keep quiet ... yet knowing that a response will be blasted. But, at times it is most difficult to keep quiet.

Using emotions do not usually led to logical and fair conclusions.

If all sides of an issue are not examined how can there ever be a fair outcome?

Also, as long as I am out on a limb with a chain saw, why should some unknown group which is called SDA.org be a consideration in a discussion concerning Adventist issues?

Quote:

Actually; in all the many churches I have been to, I have never seen this fighting over WO, I have only seen it on this forum. Makes one wonder just how accurately the whole thing is being presented.

I also must agree with not hearing this issue in the churches I have attended ... and for well over 20 years I was in hundreds of churches so it has been a pretty good cross section.

BTW, I have never said I am for or against this issue. However, I believe there are many, many more far reaching results than the surface which we are examining.

I don't personally care for it being called WO .. as that sounds to me as it doesn't deserve to be called what it is about ... Women

[Woody]

Quote:

I also must agree with not hearing this issue in the churches I have attended

Praise God for that. It would only serve to divide. And it's not good to have divisive discussions with those you have to live and work with. ON the internet - it's another thing. Best to just agree to disagree with those whom you are closest.

Quote:

If all sides of an issue are not examined how can there ever be a fair outcome?

There will never be unity on this issue. Both sides have their way of viewing scripture.

My concern is that we are banning a service for God based upon something that we don't have unity on - nor scriptural support in my humble estimation.

WO to Women.

[Naomi]

It would appear that it really won't make any difference if we agree or disagree. We will wait and see

[Woody]

It would appear that it really won't make any difference if we agree or disagree. We will wait and see

[Woody]

It would appear that it really won't make any difference if we agree or disagree. We will wait and see

However - While our independent thoughts on this issue - will not matter .... I am pleased to see our church headed in the right direction and feel it my obligation to voice support in the efforts of my church. I think my encouragement will help support them.

[Raphael]

May I ask for correction whether I'm mistaken that is, besides the recorded Biblical number of women leadership at an extremely minimum amount, this women leaders were often explained as due to the refusal of the God's designated man.

I remember the story of Uriah Smith's reluctance that gave rise to EGW's role, then that Bible story in where a woman played a chief role of killing the enemy commander with a nail & a hammer also due to the male's involuntariness and others that Bible masters PLEASE help out.

So:

Number 1: The number of women leadership in Biblical records are at a very minimum.

Number 2: This already very minimum proportion is 'explained away' due to the disobedience of a man appointed by God.

Now, the question of how to apply this Biblical recorded practice in modern times: That is a question that needs an answer that best preserves the Biblical record of gender leadership practice else further explanation for such deviations will be needed.

NB: http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/539283.html#Post539283.. I wanted to move this to a more appropriate thread on women leadership but could not, so I copy pasted it here. Apologies, if I seem to be intentional posting the same thing in two threads.

[phkrause]

Did you watch Pastor Doug Batchelor's program on this? If not here's a link:

http://www.3angelstube.com/video/780/women-pastors-a-biblical-perspective

[miz3]

Did you watch Pastor Doug Batchelor's program on this? If not here's a link:

http://www.3angelstube.com/video/780/women-pastors-a-biblical-perspective

The Bible supports "women's ordination" to the Gospel Ministry/Administration/Leadership/etc. etc. the same as it does the male person.

Pastor Doug is entitled to his opinion but it is just his opinion and is not supported by the Bible. He ignores so much.

The SECC has already agreed to ordain women the same way that it ordains the male pastors. This is a great first step. More steps will be coming despite the opposition from those who want to keep it an "all male club of power".