Unity is important, but should it preempt justice?

[Overaged]

I've noticed this with the opposition.

[olger]

You are correct, but reading of the many comments comes very close to saying the same thing. If a women role is just different but excluded from WO, where is that not saying the male is better or superior in carrying out the duties of that 'ordination'? It may not be called 'absolute authority'...but what do you call it? 'Different' does not describe it!!!

I think domination is the word you are looking for and I think people are confusing headship with domination.

rejoice always,

G

[Naomi]

I think domination is the word you are looking for and I think people are confusing headship with domination.

rejoice always,

G

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

You are correct, but reading of the many comments comes very close to saying the same thing. If a women role is just different but excluded from WO, where is that not saying the male is better or superior in carrying out the duties of that 'ordination'? It may not be called 'absolute authority'...but what do you call it? 'Different' does not describe it!!!

I think domination is the word you are looking for and I think people are confusing headship with domination.

rejoice always,

G

I think people are confusing pastoral ministry with headship...

Claiming the headship of the clergy is very much a product of Catholic theology. And it is not Biblical.

[olger]

I know you don't care for it, Tom. That's your choice.

But the Bible has a number of things to say about gender roles, and teaching, wouldn't you agree?

* The Scriptures forbid a woman to didasko a man (1 Timothy 2:12).

* The same Scriptures call for women to didasko younger women (Titus 2). My wife does this well.

* Paul calls on Timothy to commit the gospel truths to other men so that they might didasko others (2 Timothy 2:2).

* The church of Thyatira is signally rebuked for allowing a “woman Jezebel” to didasko and seduce God’s servants (Revelation 2:20).

* A bishop or elder must be the husband of one wife and able to didasko (1 Timothy 3:2).

* Peter and the apostles continually didasko’d in the temple and in every home (Acts 5:42).

Men and women each have a unique sphere of ministry that compliments each other. One of the greatest wants of our world is Godly men who will lead as Jesus did. Yet there is a growing number of passive men in our world, and this harms women by thrusting them into roles they weren’t designed for. When men fulfill their roles as spiritual leader in the home‎, women are encouraged and blessed. The same goes for the church.

What can cause some of the role reversals that we see in modern culture?

* Passive men, for one.

* An aggressive advertising campaign to make men look stupid (hollywood, pop culture, marketing, entertainment etc...).

* Pre-marital immorality (this is a big one). After premarital sex there is a transition - the woman becomes aggressive and the man becomes more passive. When we have premarital sex we give up our leadership as men and the woman becomes angry from pain and becomes more aggressive. Role reversal. The woman isn't protected and tries to protect herself. This is part of the reason that God says "Don't do that."

Go and do as He commands,

G

[doug yowell]

Claiming the headship of the clergy is very much a product of Catholic theology. And it is not Biblical.

Yet, very understandable when one reads in I Tim. 3:1-5."...for if a man does not know how to rule his own house,how will he take care of the church of God?" And combines that passage with Eph.5:22-27 which designates the husband as head of the wife "as also Christ is head of the church".And conclude by reading Paul's unbiblical instructions in Heb.13:17, "Obey those who rule over you and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls,as those who must give account." But then, you don't believe that headship of the husband in the home is Biblical either, do you?

[CoAspen]

Debate over Headship...a very interesting paper dealing with both sides of the issue by a Bible scholar.

Headship

[doug yowell]

Debate over Headship...a very interesting paper dealing with both sides of the issue by a Bible scholar.

Headship

An interesting contrast between the "scholar" and the "prophet": "We women must remember that God has placed us subject to the husband. He is the head and our judgment and views and reasonings must agree with his if possible. If not, the preference of God's Word is given to the husband where it is not a matter of conscience.We must yield to the head." (Letter 5,1861)

[lazarus]

Some very interesting hermeneutic slight of hand here. Well.... maybe not so slight.

Quote:

* The Scriptures forbid a woman to didasko a man (1 Timothy 2:12).

Your assertion poses particular problems for SDA's, particularly the ones who typically devote at 50% of their discourses to the writings of EGW. They use EGW to teach but yet she could not have taught them what they are now teaching. Quite simply either EGW is a false prophet or by the miracle of God's providence she avoided teaching the men of SDA church anything as a result of her ministry.

Quote:

The same Scriptures call for women to didasko younger women (Titus 2).

As we have heard before a text without the context is pretext. Here's the text.

1. But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: 2. That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.

3. The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4.That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

The text is not about women only teaching women. It about teaching sound doctrine so that men and women can live Godly lives. Of course its good to have a woman to teach a woman how to be a good woman but are going further than the text by your main assertion.

Quote:

Paul calls on Timothy to commit the gospel truths to other men so that they might didasko others (2 Timothy 2:2).

You seem to be implying that Paul is saying that the truths should be given to only men. Again you are going beyond the text to make your point.

If we apply your method of interpretation we could take 1 Timothy 2:5. (For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;) and suggest that Jesus mediates only on behalf of men. Perhaps husbands and fathers mediate on behalf of their wives and daughters. There are probably a few text out there that could support that.

Quote:

The church of Thyatira is signally rebuked for allowing a “woman Jezebel” to didasko and seduce God’s servants (Revelation 2:20).

Are you saying that John is objecting because she was a woman and claiming to be a prophetess. Surely you are not saying that John objected to her calling herself a prophetess. It was not the fact that she was teaching or that she claimed to be a prophetess but what she was teaching as the text clearly illustrates.

..... By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

Perhaps this lady sent letters, preached and counseled. Sounds familiar doesn't it.

Quote:

A bishop or elder must be the husband of one wife and able to didasko (1 Timothy 3:2).

You have rightly quoted the text but neglected to correctly interpret the text.

...You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife can be taken to be prohibiting just men from coveting spouses. Women are free to covet since it does not mention women. If we understand that both Timothy and Exodus are using idioms we will arrive at the right interpretation.

Quote:

Peter and the apostles continually didasko’d in the temple and in every home (Acts 5:42).

Its a good text. I can make a sermon out of that but it falls short of being a solid prof text for the role of men as being THE teachers in the Christian community. It is prescriptive rather than descriptive.

Quote:

Men and women each have a unique sphere of ministry that compliments each other. One of the greatest wants of our world is Godly men who will lead as Jesus did.

One of the distinctive features of Jesus' ministry was his inclusion of women in his ministry. Groundbreaking.

I can see where you are going are what you are trying to say but we owe our church community solid and clear scriptural evidence for any position we hold. The word should rightly divided whatever side of the fence we sit.

[lazarus]

Most of the officers of the General Conference, appointed staff and support staff are members of those churches in the Columbia Union. To disband the Columbia Union would mean that they would be effectively voting themselves out of the denomination. Being a Seventh-day Adventist is a requirement to hold those positions. They would no longer be qualified to hold their positions and would need to be replaced by people who are members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Oh my, I feel sorry for brother Ted.

Forget the theology the politics is exciting.

[lazarus]

So I don't see the problem.

Just out of curiosity..... those of us who oppose WO....what would you do as GC president?

[olger]

You probably wouldn't like it.

blessings brother!

G

[CoAspen]

You probably wouldn't like it.

blessings brother!

G

....come on man, that's a cop out.....

[Tom Wetmore]

...Men and women each have a unique sphere of ministry that compliments each other. ...

And as I have said before:

It is not about ignoring that men and women are different. It is about recognizing those attributes and gifts possessed by both men and women that are the same, while whole-heartedly celebrating and recognizing that their differences also have equal standing before God.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

It is about recognizing those attributes and gifts possessed by both men and women that are the same,......

That's a really good thought!!

[doug yowell]

And as I have said before:

It is not about ignoring that men and women are different. It is about recognizing those attributes and gifts possessed by both men and women that are the same, while whole-heartedly celebrating and recognizing that their differences also have equal standing before God.

Great generalization but how bout a couple of illustrative examples. What gifts and attributes do they share?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

Debate over Headship...a very interesting paper dealing with both sides of the issue by a Bible scholar.

Headship

An interesting contrast between the "scholar" and the "prophet": "We women must remember that God has placed us subject to the husband. He is the head and our judgment and views and reasonings must agree with his if possible. If not, the preference of God's Word is given to the husband where it is not a matter of conscience.We must yield to the head." (Letter 5,1861)

Now that is a very pertinent statement that I have never read before.

Thank you for sharing.

sky

[skyblue888]

But the Bible has a number of things to say about gender roles, and teaching, wouldn't you agree?

* The Scriptures forbid a woman to didasko a man (1 Timothy 2:12).

* The same Scriptures call for women to didasko younger women (Titus 2). My wife does this well.

* Paul calls on Timothy to commit the gospel truths to other men so that they might didasko others (2 Timothy 2:2).

* The church of Thyatira is signally rebuked for allowing a “woman Jezebel” to didasko and seduce God’s servants (Revelation 2:20).

* A bishop or elder must be the husband of one wife and able to didasko (1 Timothy 3:2).

* Peter and the apostles continually didasko’d in the temple and in every home (Acts 5:42).

Men and women each have a unique sphere of ministry that compliments each other. One of the greatest wants of our world is Godly men who will lead as Jesus did. Yet there is a growing number of passive men in our world, and this harms women by thrusting them into roles they weren’t designed for. When men fulfill their roles as spiritual leader in the home, women are encouraged and blessed. The same goes for the church.

Olger

______________

Well done Olger.

sky

[doug yowell]

You probably wouldn't like it.

blessings brother!

G

Would it involve a shovel?

[skyblue888]

shovel!!!!

[lazarus]

Originally Posted By: olger

You probably wouldn't like it.

blessings brother!

G

Would it involve a shovel?

I'm a genuinely interested in what those who oppose WO think the President should do. This is a tough situation. Any thoughts Overaged, Doug, Pk? I'm surprised folks are not more forthcoming.

The arguments for and against have been well rehearsed. Two unions are poised to start ordaining if they are not stopped. There are names of female pastors sitting on the table. One a good friend of mine. What should be done?

[doug yowell]

I'm a genuinely interested in what those who oppose WO think the President should do. This is a tough situation. Any thoughts Overaged, Doug, Pk? I'm surprised folks are not more forthcoming.

Contrary to popular belief, the GC president does not have the power to enforce his will on the church. He does,however, have a pulpit that is uniquely influential. If the question is what should the GC president do if he opposes WO then my answer would be simple:1) preach openly against it and try to convince other GC leaders to take his position.2) Use his position to alert the world church of what is happening thru the use of official church publications(after all, that's what WO advocates have been using to promote their position).3) Promote more Biblically grounded inclusion of women in other types of ministries particularly women teaching women 4)Promote and encourage more men to take up their God required roles and encourage women to demand that their men start stepping up. 5) Call for the creation of more official men's ministries, one's that teach men to be godly men and leaders(does the church even have a men's ministries dept.?).

But the GC president must have these convictions otherwise he is consigned to either trying to institute the impending changes without causing world division by keeping silent and letting the chips fall where they may,or by attempting to convince the WO movement to slow down and let the rest of the world get used to the idea.Or by becoming actively involved in swaying world opinion to the inclusion of WO. If the GC president is serious about revival and reformation he'll have to model the call by abandoning the traditional Rodney King (RIP)approach to the situation.Someone needs to be revived and repent.Either the WO advocates or the WO opponents.

[skyblue888]

If you don't mind me weighing in on this, I would like to say that while these things are going on, while men in the church are planning and devising, the Lord will have humble instruments to give the last message of mercy to the church. This last work will be accomplished in a manner very much out of the common order of things and in a way that will be contrary to any human planning or devising. (T.M.300)

The bearers of the last message of mercy to the church will not even address this issue of WO or any of the many issues confronting the church today. Why? Because those of us who shall accept God's last message of mercy to Laodicea, which message is the invitation to make it our life business to look to Jesus and to accept His merits which it is our privilege to claim that we might be clothed with His robe of righteousness, (T.M.93,92) will then be joined to the Head and become co-laborers with Him (F.W.27) in the finishing of the work in the church and then in the world. It is written that the work will be a complete success for the righteousness of Christ will accomplish everything. (F.W.27,65,66)

During His ministry Jesus did not sit down with those who composed the Sanhedrin (General Conference of that day or the local conference or church board) to plan and devise with them. There were many issues that Jesus could have addressed, methods and plans that had no place in the work of God, but He did not interpose. He simply went about preaching the truth for His time and doing good. He did all this independently of the religious authorities of His day. He offered to all the cup of blessing. He was no respecter of persons.

This is how I believe the Lord will finish the work in these last days. Again we have come to the fullness of the time in the church and in the world.

Only the proclamation of the living message of righteousness and its acceptance can bring a revival and a reformation within our own individual lives.

Mrs. White, in a few words, summarized this message for us:

"You want to be like little children, hanging upon the merits of a crucified and risen Saviour, and THEN you will be FORTIFIED. How? The angels of God will be around you as a wall of fire; the righteousness of Christ, which you claim, goes before you, and the glory of God is your rearward. God sanctify our tongues, our thoughts, our minds, that we may dwell upon heavenly themes, and that we may impart that knowledge to others." Ms 9,1891.

What knowledge? That if we shall come to God just as we are, sinful, helpless, dependent, like little children, hanging upon the merits of the world's Redeemer, we shall be fortified to do the works of God. The soul then united to His divine nature becomes His fortress which He holds in a revolted world and He intends that no authority shall be known in it but His own. (D.A.324) Thus kept by the heavenly agencies (holy angels, the Father, Christ, and Holy Spirit) we shall become impregnable to the assaults of Satan and the Lord will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness.

sky

[M. T. Cross]

* The Scriptures forbid a woman to didasko a man (1 Timothy 2:12).

[doug yowell]

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet.

Yet that is exactly what your EGW did......

First,the issue above is one of the authority of a wife over her husband, forbidden by Scripture. This,Ellen White never did over her husband, particularly in public.Second,even if she did (which she didn't)it wouldn't give Biblical proof for the application of justice in the institution of WO.Arguing that EGW did it so that proves it's right is exactly the kind of extrabiblical authority that SDA and EGW critics complain about. So they use the non-biblical authority to repudiate the Bible truths they disagree with and then appeal to the same authority to establish the non-Biblical truths they agree with without enforcing the hypocrisy rule. Catch 22, heads I win...How can this foster unity when operating under two conflicting principles? "Can two walk together unless they be agreed?"