WO

[Woody]

Thanks Pam. But since I can't copy and paste .... quoting a volumous  amount of quotes which no one would read .... is not possible. Like I said ... these were under Words of the Adventist Pioneers . All the info you included was not there. And I didn't purport them to be from Ellen White. The author was not readily apparent. They came from one of our pioneers is all I know.

 

While it was written in the Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald .... I do not know the author.

[debbym]

It is strange to me that those who oppose women in leadership based on the Bible principle have nothing to say about women being leaders in other field beside ministry.

There are a lot of women school principals under whom there are a lot of male teachers. Do you suppose these male teachers would not obey their bosse's order because it is coming from a female? There are a lot of department heads yet, no one complains about it.

According Paul women should not teach in church, yet there are many SS teachers including superintendent position. Nowadays, I do not see women covering their heads in church yet no one complains about it.

If one argues about order of creation, thus men are above women, consider what was created before Adam. These are ridiculous ideas to rationalize their own thinking. My mother said once Bible is like this, if you want to make an ear ring out of the Bible verses you can do it. If you want make a nose ring out of the same verse you also can do it.

If you read "Daughters of God" by E.G. White she states that women should cultivate God given talent without restrain. Think about this statement.

She did not say there is some restriction such as no leadership talent.

Wbae

 

 

it makes me wonder if the subjugation of women was the result of sin, and this is Adam's blaming just going on and on reechoed.

 

Yes no one minds women serving in position of leadership in all kinds of fields today.  This was not so over a hundred years ago.  The struggle for women who wanted to vote, or to become scientists, and doctors, and lawyers is a part of our history.  Nurses and teacher's were some of the accepted positions for women.  And this was not because that was the only gifts and talents they had.

 

The positive changes in society as in outlawing slavery, and outlawing child labor, and permitting women leadership positions are not against the will or law of God.  Why do we make ado over women Spiritual laborers in positions of leadership in the church?  It does puzzle me.

[The Searcher]

First of all, I could care less about what is extra-biblical.  What I care about is the Scriptures position on wo.  I have read both sides of the issue, and I find too much humanism in the discussions from both sides.  In point of fact, I grow sick of the passions which are driving both sides, and it is the passions which are muddying the water.  Neither side is willing to humble themselves in order to allow the Spirit to lead.  What concerns me is the push by unions and conferences to proceed without consensus; this is rebellion, and it is not good for arriving at God's truth.  It puts a sword over the neck of the church.  When we have such diverse opinions, then it is not good to go forward.  We need to all draw back and catch our breath. 

 

All this talk of unity is bladder-dash; there is no unity when one-side threatens to go forward because it sees its position as the only way and decides to move forward regardless of the other.  This was not the case in Jerusalem.  They all came together in agreement.  We do not have agreement.  I would recommend that both sides stop, cool off, and spend some time in prayer, asking God for forgiveness for their hard-hardedness.  As I look upon what is happening, I do not see an attempt to truly derive truth, rather, I see both sides manipulating. 

 

One side speaks of context, then purports to give a context which is totally theoretical and favors its position.  Further, I really don't care what the Catholics and the other denominations have decided.  If they were truly guided by the Holy Spirit, then they would be SDA's.  There is a reason there are so many denominations, it is called the hard-hardedness of men and women.  The other side uses its exegesis as a sledge hammer.  Neither side is truly listening to the other, and neither side is allowing the Holy Spirit to guide them.  Words may not be inspired, but it was those words which the author used to communicate his understanding of God's will.  So that is what we must work with.  And context is important, but let us be careful to understand that we are not mind-readers of the author's intent.  We only have his words and the immediate context; let us not go outside of those constraints.  I do not know what was happening politically in Ephesis or Corinth at the time of the writing, we can guess, but we cannot know for sure.  So leave the guessing behind.  As I read Timothy, I see them as letters written by a spiritual father to his spiritual son knowing that his life was coming to an end.  Thus, he is passing the ministry to the next generation.  I really don't think he was too worried about the political climate as he was to pass to his son sound advice for the advancement of the church. 

 

Christ declares that the comforter, the spirit of truth, will guide or lead to all truth.  That there is still contention tells me that the Holy Spirit has not been able to get through the thick skulls on either side.  Those who are in favor of wo must consider that they may be wrong; the same is true for those against wo.  Instead of coming to the table with their pre-conceived constructs of truth; they need to empty themselves, say, "We need to start over, and we need to allow the Spirit to lead." 

 

What I see now are two sides who both believe their vision of truth is the only correct position and an unwillingness to wipe the slate clean and start afresh by understanding that they might be wrong.  I would say that the church needs to put this topic aside until they have come together in prayer and through that prayer come to a unity of spirit and brotherly love, until they are willing to let the Spirit lead putting aside their sincerely held beliefs understanding that they might be wrong.

 

And to the conferences and unions who would forge ahead of the world church while there is still such contention,  I would say that you are in rebellion against God's will.  Christ is the head that means he is the one who directs the body, his church.  Christ, and God, and the Holy Spirit are not authors of confusion, rather they are one in purpose and goals.  The body needs to come into subjection to the working of the Spirit.  You cannot tell me that the Spirit is guiding unions and conferences in order to fracture the world church, that is the work of the devil.  I would suggest those who would push for such separation are clearly indicating to me that Satan is the author of their passion; this is not the work of Christ.  EGW declared that just prior to the final events of world it would appear that the SDA Church would fall.  I would suggest that such moves, as taken by the unions and conferences, will split and not unite and are precursive to such a state as EGW saw at the end of time for our Church.  We need to all bow before God and ask for his forgiveness because we are all liable for the sin of disunity.  We need to humble ourselves before God because we have all sinned in that we have allowed our passions to drive our search for truth, instead, of letting Christ, the head of the body, to lead us.

 

Sincerely,

The Searcher.

[Gregory Matthews]

Searcher, here is an issue that you may not understand:

 

The Unions believe that they have the right to determine who in their territory should be ordained.  They believe that this right was given to them when they were organized and that the General Conference does not have the right to tell lthem who they can, or cannot, ordain.

 

If this is correct, it is not the Unions that are in rebellion.  Rather, it is the General Conference that is in rebellion in assumning a role that it has not been given.

 

Now, you may disagree with this.  That is your right.

 

In any case, this is a disagreement.  It must and will eventually be settled.  The procedure to settle it is complicated and not an easy process.  But, until that settlement comes about, it is the choice of the individual Unions to either wait for the settlement, or to proceed until a settlement tells them differently.

 

In the meantime, while the process is taking place, it might be the better part of valor for each side to not accuse the other of being in rebellion.  But, if names are going to be called, there is mud that can be thrown by each side at the other.

[Woody]

There are many things that this church does not need unity in.

WO is one of them.

This issue is not one that our salvation is based upon.

So - let each union do as they please.

Do not. I repeat - Do not force one culture or group of people to conform to another's interpretation on this issue.

Let each decide for themselves.

[Kevin H]

Searcher, here is an issue that you may not understand:

 

The Unions believe that they have the right to determine who in their territory should be ordained.  They believe that this right was given to them when they were organized and that the General Conference does not have the right to tell lthem who they can, or cannot, ordain.

 

If this is correct, it is not the Unions that are in rebellion.  Rather, it is the General Conference that is in rebellion in assumning a role that it has not been given.

 

Now, you may disagree with this.  That is your right.

 

In any case, this is a disagreement.  It must and will eventually be settled.  The procedure to settle it is complicated and not an easy process.  But, until that settlement comes about, it is the choice of the individual Unions to either wait for the settlement, or to proceed until a settlement tells them differently.

 

In the meantime, while the process is taking place, it might be the better part of valor for each side to not accuse the other of being in rebellion.  But, if names are going to be called, there is mud that can be thrown by each side at the other.

A little piece of Adventist history with this point. In the early 1900s there was a very successful woman pastor in upstate New York. the New York Conference and Atlantic Union agreed to ordain her and started the process. She would have been ordained had not General Conference President A. G. Daniel's not been visiting.

 

Now Elder Daniels did NOT forbid them from ordaining this woman. However he did say that there are people who would not understand it and that it would cause controversy in the church and asked for them to WAIT before ordaining her for the church to become educated in knowing that there is no reason not to ordain women.

 

He went back to Washington DC and while Mrs. White had a tendency to set Elder Daniel's right when he was doing something wrong, she did NOT decide to nip the idea of women's ordination in the bud as she had a chance to do at this time. Instead she sure enough started writing articles about women in ministry.

 

No something did happen with the lady and she left the ministry so they did not get a chance to ordain her and the idea fell by the wayside. But it is sad that 100 years ago the General Conference President agreed with women's ordination but wanted Mrs. White to educate the church and that we have been ignoring her what she was trying to do.

[Woody]

and we have been waiting ever since.

[The Searcher]

Dear Gregory,

 

And you are right, but as AG Daniels pointed out, it was not the time.  And as I see it, it is not the GC which is balking, it is the world-wide church.  I think we confuse the GC with the world wide church.  The world wide church is all of its members.  The GC is just a representative of the church.  Until the world church is ready, then the unions and conferences need to hold off. It is the world church which is the final arbiter.  And it is not ready. 

 

And what the conferences and unions believe is their privilege does not mitigate what I said.  There is too much self on both sides and not enough of the spirit of Christ.  Both sides have come to the table with their pre-determined opinions, neither side is willing to just let Scripture speak. 

 

And what was done in the past does not justify our present opinions.  There were things that were done or believed by our pioneers including EGW which we now know were wrong.  What was done in the past does not matter.  What Scriptures declare is what matters.  I really don't care that EGW had a ministerial license.  It does not mean that she was correct or incorrect; it was the state of things at a time when the church was struggling with the most foundamental of concepts such as righteousness by trust or the true nature of inspiration.  God deals with the church where it is not where he would like it to be.  So all the arguments regarding past practices have no meaning because we had a church and founders who were in their infancy and there was still so much to learn.  The problem is that I don't believe that we have grown much beyond our pioneers. 

 

I have seen some things which have been done in the name of truth and compassion at the world-wide general conference which smacked of politics and the unions and conferences were guilty of subborning the world wide church when they did so.  I would suggest that the present move by certain conferences and union falls under the same category and that is rebellion.  Until the whole church, the whole world wide church, is ready, it is not the time to do it.  And it is not the work of groups to do political sleights of hand in order to obtain the results they desire.  God wants everything done with order and with integrity and with honesty.  Those who use political tricks to obtain the beliefs which govern our church are doing a disservice to the witness of the church.  We believe that it is the church, as a whole, which is to determine our set of beliefs.  And a few should not operate to subborn the vote of the majority of the church.  I am sorry, but I am not in sympathy with the unions and conferences in this matter.  I have seen too much trickery used in order to counter the voice of the world wide church, and it angers me.  In my work, I travel the world, and I have had the privilege of meeting members in all parts of the globe.  And I am here to tell you that they do not need to be bullied into accepting what some believe to be truth and compassion.  They are just as diligent in exploring the requirements of God, and they have a mission to a world many of us do not understand.  We do not need to use tricks to silence their input.  Rather, we need to listen.     

 

I have talked to people on both sides of the issue, and I find that most, not all, are driven more by secular humanism in their passion and their understanding of equality and fairness than by a spirit of God.  Christ is the head of the church and the Holy Spirit is the vicar of Christ upon the earth, and it is the work of the Holy Spirit to guide us to all truth.  Notice the usage of guide, we have the choice to follow or to go our own way.  Our church has a history of choosing its own way; we are no better than were the Israelites as they moved across the Sinai peninsula.  We do not come humbly before God beseeching to know his will.  Instead, we build a mental construct of what God and his will is like, then we try to force him to fit that construct.  When we do so, we have violated the second commandment which declares we are not create an image from anything into which God is to conform.  And that is what I am seeing when I observe the abuses used to put forward either positions in regard to wo. 

 

WO is not a decision for any one conference or union since it will affect other conferences and unions.  This must be a decision by the world church after diligent, honest research has been done.  So please don't offer as justification that conferences and union have a privilege to ordain whom they please.  No, this impacts the whole church not just a conference or a union.  And any conference or union who thinks otherwise has no sense of what it means to be a world wide movement, and they show their arrogance and thumb their noses at the world wide church which is not in agreement with them.  As Paul declares, let us consider each man better than ourselves.  Let us not use our liberty to cause others to stumble.  Let us not dictate to the world church, but let us come together with the world church in love and let us both work towards the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

 

Sincerely,

The searcher.

[Gregory Matthews]

NOTE:  Ellen White had the credentials of an ordained minister.   Do not  confuse that with a ministerial license.

[LifeHiscost]

NOTE:  Ellen White had the credentials of an ordained minister.   Do not  confuse that with a ministerial license.

Through Humble Instruments—As the time comes for it [the message of the third angel] to be given with greatest power, the Lord will work through humble instruments, leading the minds of those who consecrate themselves to His service. The laborers will be qualified rather by the unction of His Spirit than by the training of literary institutions. Men of faith and prayer will be constrained to go forth with holy zeal, declaring the words which God gives them. The sins of Babylon will be laid open. The fearful results of enforcing the observances of the church by civil authority, the inroads of Spiritualism, the stealthy but rapid progress of the papal power,—all will be unmasked. By these solemn warnings the people will be stirred. Thousands upon thousands will listen who have never heard words like these.—The Great Controversy, 606 (1888). {Ev 699.5}

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[Woody]

One might need a lawyer to determine it .... but WO is indeed a decision for the unions. And should remain so.

[Kevin H]

The Searcher: A. G. Daniels and Mrs. White were expecting it to just take a short time so that they could ordain that specific woman. She has now been long dead. It's been about 100 years and in the last few decades we have had archaeological discoveries that shows that the Bible supports Women's Ordination. When does it move from giving a little bit of time to teach the church because it's not ready and when the church is just dragging it's feet?

[Neil D]

There is other biblical evidence that supports women's ordination in principle....We all know that

1]the ground at the cross is level, and

2]that there is neither slave or freeman, male or female......
3]and then there is the female apostle who was "outstanding in her field among apostles"....Her name is Juno....and in the early translations, she was considered a female...Then the catholic translators and scholars and priests, fearing for thier jobs, recieved a command from the Pope saying the Preistly jobs were for males only, just as birthing was ordained to women only....or something to that effect...So early bibles said that Junia was a female, later the scholars documented that she was a he...and scholarly writings promoted the gender transferr...until today's scholars check the name both within sacred writing but especially secular writing/definitions...The greek name for  this apostle is Junia, and there is no evidence in the secular writing of the name being male....There is RARE instance of the name being male and translated as Juno...I wonder where those ancient greek medivall scholars got thier inspiration.....
 

4]And if you think that we have only been discussing this subject for the last 400 years, think again....there is a little known apocrypal story between Paul and a woman discussing among other women's issues ordination of the bible.....Of course, Paul argued that the priestly ministry was for men only....The woman argued quite forcefully and sucessfully that woman could also be a priest.....apocryphal story "Acts of Paul and Thecla"? It was written around 190+ ad....PBS had a newstory on what was considered "inspired" writings.. Now how much of this is true and what kept this story out of the New Testement I don't remember....But I do think it is telling that women were upset about thier position then as much as now.....And it  is true that men, as they become more "enlightened" in favor of women's issues become better men....and less controlers, power mongers, rapests......and thier lives with the women that they are with become better because they behave better....so all you guys who are doing learning about women's issues [including WO] and are defending them due to your sincere beliefs can pat yourselfs on the back ....and MAYBE be allowed to say TO YOURSELF  "I am glad I am not like that man, a sinner" [just joking here]......

[Gregory Matthews]

For more on The Acts of Paul & Thecia see:

 

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actspaul.html

 

NOTE:  The above is long and you have to page down a bit to get to where you are going.

 

Brief:  The story of Thecia being tkhrown into a den of lions and bears is interesting and reminds one of Daniel.

[hch]

There are many things that this church does not need unity in.

WO is one of them.

This issue is not one that our salvation is based upon.

So - let each union do as they please.

Do not. I repeat - Do not force one culture or group of people to conform to another's interpretation on this issue.

Let each decide for themselves.

 

Where there is not unity, there is confusion.

WO is an issue that is clearly established in the Bible.

And it behooves us to set aside our preferences and yield to the authority of God's word.

 

Failure to rightly divide the word, is a salvation issue.

There is no division in Christ.

 

There will be no cultural divisions in Heaven.

The word of God is sharper than a two edged sword

and is able to define cultural norms and correct errors

 

I noted some biblical points on another thread that settles it from a biblical stand point

and I don't want to be accused of spamming by repeating myself here

 

But if you missed it

the 144,000 will be kings and PRIESTS - so how can there be women in that number?

in light of Matthew saying what we allow on earth will be allowed in heaven.

If we don't allow WO here, it won't be allowed in Heaven.

 

And all that is in spite of the fact that Christ prayed:

"Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven"

 

If God is going to allow women to be priests in the 144,000, how can we not allow it on earth?

[Tom Wetmore]

The language of Revelation is symbolic in meaning. If you are going to take a literal meaning approach , you also have to apply it to the number itself as well. Consider the current number of Chrisitans worldwide or even just Adventists. As a percentage, 144,000 represents a very small possible percentage of those now professing to be a part of the possible saved. Your chances and mine are not much better than winning the lottery. Apply the percentage to members of this forum and we are all pretty much excluded.

And then there is the characteristic of the 144,000 that they are all virgins. Care to consider that as a literal requirement?

[hch]

The language of Revelation is symbolic in meaning. If you are going to take a literal meaning approach , you also have to apply it to the number itself as well. Consider the current number of Christians worldwide or even just Adventists. As a percentage, 144,000 represents a very small possible percentage of those now professing to be a part of the possible saved. Your chances and mine are not much better than winning the lottery. Apply the percentage to members of this forum and we are all pretty much excluded.

And then there is the characteristic of the 144,000 that they are all virgins. Care to consider that as a literal requirement?

 

It is difficult to know what is symbolic in Revelation and what is literal.

 

Are the beasts literal?

Is the earthquake symbolic?

Then there is Christ's coming (literal or symbolic)?

 

My favorite author said not 1 in 100 SDA's are as they ought to be.

 

When we had 14,000,000 members, 1:100 would make about 140,000

Of course if we have less than 1 in a hundred, we might have difficulty coming up with 144,000

even with our 17,000,000 member count.

 

Explaining away truth with straw men arguments might make a good debate tactic,

but it won't help to promote an understanding worthy of consideration

[CoAspen]

 

Explaining away truth with straw men arguments might make a good debate tactic,

but it won't help to promote an understanding worthy of consideration

It is downright refreshing when some one is willing to critique them self!!!

[Woody]

Last I checked .... WO or not WO  is not one of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs yet.

[phkrause]

Lets not tempt them, or they might just go for it!!

[Johann]

It would probably require a Male Headship doctrine to be added to the fundamental beiefs. There is too much opposition for that to happen.

[Johann]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152814548356354&set=gm.10152892694264884&type=1