Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => Womens Ordination & Related Issues => Topic started by: Dedication on September 03, 2012, 09:41:18 PM
-
How is it that two opposing sides can both believe they are correct?
Could it be that both of them have found truths that APPEAR to be opposing each other and then "add" to their truths until they both come to a wrong conclusion?
As I said previously, I didn't come here to defend women ordination as my mind was not made up on the issue.
Yet, strangely I find myself defending it because I just can't agree with the anti-WO arguments.
It wasn't until I began to discuss some of the issues with my favorite pastor that suddenly it began to come together.
This problem now facing the church came about because of A GREAT MISTAKE !
That mistake was made back in the early 1900's and established as the years rolled by and now we are reaping the whirl wind, so to speak.
On the one hand, we have the "headship" issue (which is the only argument that makes any sense on the anti-ordination side)
On the other hand, we had strong clear counsel from EGW that --
--women were to be encouraged to enter into a type of ministry (more than mere deacon work)
--Women were to be ordained (by the laying on of hands)
--women were to be paid in equal proportion for their work as ministers.
--women were to be trained for this work.
(I can give you quotes to support all of those points)
In other words, God wanted women to be ordained in a ministry that they would be trained in, was recognized, paid, fully authorized, and respected as much as the minister in his work.
There was a feeble attempt to impliment such a ministry.
It was called "Bible Worker".
It's still a "position" around in some areas but it has never received the respect, and support that would have made it what it should be.
The big mistake was the half hearted (or worse) way this ministry was treated.
--like an unnecessay expense
--no ordination or even special formal recognition
--no real authorization
--a secondary thing
--it never received the respect given to ministers
--often regarded as just some way to pacify over ambitious women
--very few "calls" for those who wanted to enter this ministry
What if the church would have --
- established a policy that every district (or x number of churches) should have a Bible Worker
- the conferences called Bible workers to serve in these districts just like they called pastors
- after serving a couple years, these Bible workers were officially ordained publicly like a minister
- the Bible Workers received salary, like a minister
- the conferences had "workers meetings" like they have "pastors meetings" to encourage, offer further education, etc.
- the work was recognized and esteemed in the same light as the work of the pastor
But, the leadership has always said, "We can't afford that".
Stop and think -- the work that EGW outlined for women to do, would have brought in members --
Nothing brings in new members as readily as the work of the Bible Worker. More members would have brought in more tithe. The work would have blossomed!
But since women really had no way (other than being unpaid lay members) to answer the call they felt God was giving them to work full time for Him, they turned to the ONE recognized position the church offers (the ministry usually reserved for men).
So now, instead of having men and women each in fully recognized, authorized and ordained and essential ministry working for the Lord, we have this battle.
-
Some Conferences employ Bible Workers. Some of those are males and some of those are females. But, they have little recognition.
While on vacation on July 28, I attended Sabbath services in a SDA Church in another State. I asked one of the persons in the Sabbath School class what he did for a living and he (Yes, he was a male.) informed me that he was a Conference Bible Worker.
I had a female relative, now dead, who had a book published by the Church,on giving Bible studies, who was employed by a Conference as a Bible Worker.
-
And so, is the problem that we have WAY TOO MANY "useless and tenured sabbath morning preachers" and way too few "Bible Workers" and "Colporteurs"?
I am surprised at the growing number of SDA's that are now directing tithe to "private" ministries and will not attend the local SDA church. And I do not blame them a bit.
Far too many Seventh-day Adventist churches are "pastored" by "overworked" preachers that simply cannot manage to visit the sick, the infirmed, the elderly or even follow up on the many bible study requests from various supporting ministries because they are consumed by board meetings, ministerial gatherings, pursuit of higher education and of the 40 hours it purportedly takes to prepare the pathetic pablum they spit out every Sabbath morning, usually as original as the baked beans and brown-bread for "fellowship dinner" with desert almost certainly "preacher and cream".
I recently watched with DISDAIN when a new pastor of an SDA church simply sent letters to members who were former attendees asking them if they wished to transfer membership elsewhere or be dropped from the books. It was no surprise to me as every single one simply responded that "membership" was not essential to their salvation and asked to be dropped and were summarily dropped from the books. NOT A SINGLE VISIT BY PASTOR, ELDERS OR OTHER MEMBERS WAS EVEN ATTEMPTED OR PROPOSED!!! The clerk just removed the names!!!
I firmly believe we could "eliminate" 80% of "sabbath morning preachers" and "pastors" in the NAD and transfer most of those salaries to Bible Workers and Colporteurs Benefits and be substantially further ahead. And I believe the church would grow instead of stagnate while the pews battle "women's in-ordination", "righteousness by the faithless", the "agelessness of the earth", "the inspirationless Spirit of Prophecy" and even the "un-timely and culturally challenged inspiration of the Holy Scriptures".
The one great advantage the Atlantic Union now has is that it no longer has to battle with local academia over the tenets of Faith we have adopted and taught for nearly 180 years here in New England. The demise of Atlantic Union College has in fact proven a blessing as we have to get back to biblical basics and not strain over "academic gnats". No longer are the AUC Flames sabbath afternoon informal basketball practice an issue; No longer is the position of the biology professors' position on evolution the central topic of discussion and
the deficit spending into the apostasy infested academic black hole has ended.
It actually has a chance at fulfilling it's inspired destiny of having the work "return to the East with power".
We now has a chance to return to the Bible as the more sure word, to have the Bible and the Bible only as our "source" of education, inspiration and enlightenment. We actually have a chance to redeem ourselves and step back from the steep cliff of academic pariah's bent upon their own thesis and self inspiration. Yes, I do believe that "EDUCATION" has it's limits of usefullness when done outside the inspiration of Biblical Accord. In fact, I will argue that outside of Biblical inspiration it is simply apostate!!!
And so, we are over "pastored" by over-educated, un-inspired and over-tenured "sabbath morning preachers" who many years ago lost their way in academia to the chagrin of the stockholders in the pews!!!
May the mission of the church be re-visited and restructured to prevail in it's true purpose.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Our great mistake is in disobeying the counsel we have in the SoP.
For one thing, we are flat out told that our ministers are supposed to be out there two by two. Do we do that? No. So we ought to double the size of the districts and team the ministers up.
By more than doubling the size of the districts, there would be enough funding to hire Bible workers. And they should be given as much recognition and encouragement as LE's used to get and should still get.
-
We need to pay diligent local elders from the tithe, this is what the Bible states should be done.
-
We need to pay diligent local elders from the tithe, this is what the Bible states should be done.
They should at least give the local elders a stipend when they travel to preach in other churches in their district, or even when asked to preach beyond their district, as well as to visit members who are scattered in communities well beyond the location of their local church.
-
We need to pay diligent local elders from the tithe, this is what the Bible states should be done.
They should at least give the local elders a stipend when they travel to preach in other churches in their district, or even when asked to preach beyond their district, as well as to visit members who are scattered in communities well beyond the location of their local church.
Daryl,
What you suggest is fine but the basis of the text is that local elders doing local work should be supported financially.
-
We need to pay diligent local elders from the tithe, this is what the Bible states should be done.
They should at least give the local elders a stipend when they travel to preach in other churches in their district, or even when asked to preach beyond their district, as well as to visit members who are scattered in communities well beyond the location of their local church.
Daryl,
What you suggest is fine but the basis of the text is that local elders doing local work should be supported financially.
If you are referring to financially from the Local Conference, then I agree, but not if it is expected to come from the Local Church itself.
-
The Spirit of Prophecy makes it clear that the ministers are to be training the churches for evangelism and to be doing evangelistic "efforts". And the biblical record makes it clear the seventy were sent out in pairs. And the early christian church was organized into "churches" not districts.
The problem with "organized" work in North America is the premise they need a pastor to watch the flock. usually the pastor is the problem in the flock. It is the elders that are to watch over the flock and nurture the membership. The pastors are evangelists and are to be working for new souls "perpetually".
Now, just how many "pastors" would you trust with evangelism today? In fact, if the pastor is not "watching the flock" and is evangelizing and bringing in new members into the faith, he will likely no longer be a pastor, particularly if he does not attend enough meetings and pat enough backs in the conference and union offices.
In Southern New England it has not been evangelism but Immigration that has grown the membership. We have more than 30 Brazilian Portugese churches and companies, We have several Haitian churches, some Ghanese churches and several Hispanic Churches. Even seen a Somali church or two. If it were not for immigration, it is likely we would have had to merge Northern and Southern New England into a single conference, much to the chagrin of the Northern New England Conference. They quite literally have been spared the indignity by Immigration.
However, there is anything BUT UNITY OF THE FAITH. We now have six separate camp meetings in New England and five of them you best bring your interpreter. Ironically, the English camp meeting is fast becoming the SMALLEST.
Also noteworthy, we now have Zero Medical Facilities and our college is closed shut and facing taxation as so much of it is rented to non-students or for profit business. With the pressure of taxation, just a matter of time before vision-less leadership elects to sell off the property and contribute more to the education pension fund to beef up the second pension.
They tried that maneuver at New England Memorial as it was collapsing but the bankruptcy judge disgorged the $3MM dollar contribution from the Hospital workers fund, clearly impacting the Union and SNEC Conference leaderships ability to tap that second pension source. And not to be alarmed as key personnel simply were moved to other hospitals to beef up their pensions. Ironically, conference and medical workers came out healthy, wealthy and the wiser, but the laymen members of the board are now penniless paupers wiped out by the uninsured error and omission claims against the directors by the creditors committee.
A somber warning to officers and directors to make sure they are covered as the corporate church will not protect you or represent you!!! One for all and all for none!!!
As for those "sabbath morning preachers" trade them in for bible workers and colporteurs and you will be FAR BETTER OFF!!! And, you won't have to listen to conference sponsored "strange fire" from the pulpit!!!
Let me think up some more benefits and get back to you!!! Have to get a house bought back from the bank!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
I am personally aware of cases where lay people are paid a stipend for the work that they do in local churches.
-
We need to pay diligent local elders from the tithe, this is what the Bible states should be done.
They should at least give the local elders a stipend when they travel to preach in other churches in their district, or even when asked to preach beyond their district, as well as to visit members who are scattered in communities well beyond the location of their local church.
Daryl,
What you suggest is fine but the basis of the text is that local elders doing local work should be supported financially.
If you are referring to financially from the Local Conference, then I agree, but not if it is expected to come from the Local Church itself.
Why not?
-
We need to pay diligent local elders from the tithe, this is what the Bible states should be done.
They should at least give the local elders a stipend when they travel to preach in other churches in their district, or even when asked to preach beyond their district, as well as to visit members who are scattered in communities well beyond the location of their local church.
Daryl,
What you suggest is fine but the basis of the text is that local elders doing local work should be supported financially.
If you are referring to financially from the Local Conference, then I agree, but not if it is expected to come from the Local Church itself.
Why not?
Because not all local churches can afford to meet their own expenses without adding that to those expenses.
-
Let me just briefly state what has been my experience in different conferences and in different countries where I have worked.
Most of the conferences where I have worked issue a monthly preaching list for all of the churches within the conference. All preaching arrangements are listed there, which means that even local arrangements with lay preachers, as well as visiting pastors are "approved" by the conference. Each preacher is then entitled to submit a mileage report to the conference and gets paid the official mileage. In many cases pastors get the mileage approved for workers, while the lay preacher gets a lower mileage. The lower mileage applies to retired pastors as well unless they have been "hired" to take care of a church. Such retired pastors could have an agreement with their conference that it pays them the difference between their retirement pay and the regular salary of an ordained minister. Not all conferences are willing to make such agreements. Depends on their needs.
What I have stated here has applied in Europe and Africa, but differs from arrangements in USA, where the conferences I have known have fixed monthly mileage agreements with the pastors.
-
Let me just briefly state what has been my experience in different conferences and in different countries where I have worked.
Most of the conferences where I have worked issue a monthly preaching list for all of the churches within the conference. All preaching arrangements are listed there, which means that even local arrangements with lay preachers, as well as visiting pastors are "approved" by the conference. Each preacher is then entitled to submit a mileage report to the conference and gets paid the official mileage. In many cases pastors get the mileage approved for workers, while the lay preacher gets a lower mileage. The lower mileage applies to retired pastors as well unless they have been "hired" to take care of a church. Such retired pastors could have an agreement with their conference that it pays them the difference between their retirement pay and the regular salary of an ordained minister. Not all conferences are willing to make such agreements. Depends on their needs.
What I have stated here has applied in Europe and Africa, but differs from arrangements in USA, where the conferences I have known have fixed monthly mileage agreements with the pastors.
Johann,
Not sure what you meant by an "approved" speaker list. Yikes! Sounds rather papal to me. It's the local church that controls the pulpit and tells the Conf. who will be preaching, not the other way around.
Regarding elders... The practice of paying mileage is fine but it misses the whole point of giving financial sustenance to elders, not just covering their travel expenses.
-
I was addressing the issue of
a paid full time ministry.
People who feel called of God to give their full time to the ministry should have a fully recognized ministry to commit themselves too.
If everyone holding an office in the local church is paid it would defeat the purpose.
For example -- every year I put in a huge amont of time putting on a VBS program. But I've never even thought of getting paid for it. I'm just happy that the church has a budget to pay for most of the expenses for the program.
Same with the Sabbath School work. It never ever occured to me to ask for pay.
I have a job outside of the church to earn money, as do most of the church members that aren't retired, and we don't fulfill our church offices for money, we do our church office work for free. Though I think the treasurer gets a small stipend.
Now I suppose, if a church has no pastor and the elder is doing the work of the pastor there may very well be a case where payment is due.
Yet, I was thinking more of women who feel God calling them to ministry to have a recognized vocation available, just as men who feel called to full time ministry have a recognized vocation available.
-
I was addressing the issue of
a paid full time ministry.
People who feel called of God to give their full time to the ministry should have a fully recognized ministry to commit themselves too.
If everyone holding an office in the local church is paid it would defeat the purpose.
For example -- every year I put in a huge amont of time putting on a VBS program. But I've never even thought of getting paid for it. I'm just happy that the church has a budget to pay for most of the expenses for the program.
Same with the Sabbath School work. It never ever occured to me to ask for pay.
I have a job outside of the church to earn money, as do most of the church members that aren't retired, and we don't fulfill our church offices for money, we do our church office work for free. Though I think the treasurer gets a small stipend.
Now I suppose, if a church has no pastor and the elder is doing the work of the pastor there may very well be a case where payment is due.
Yet, I was thinking more of women who feel God calling them to ministry to have a recognized vocation available, just as men who feel called to full time ministry have a recognized vocation available.
Nor do I think everyone should be paid.
And yet Paul says that certain elders should be remunerated in some form. Are you familiar with this text?
I think you are getting closer to the idea when there are churches without pastors and elders lead out. Of course, this is the way it should be. Pastors aren't meant to stay in a church after it is raised up and self sufficient.
-
Or rather, the local elders should generally be the ones who are serving as the pastors, and the ministers who we commonly call "pastors" should be out evangelizing, pastoring the interests and new members, preparing them to stand on their own.
-
Or rather, the local elders should generally be the ones who are serving as the pastors, and the ministers who we commonly call "pastors" should be out evangelizing, pastoring the interests and new members, preparing them to stand on their own.
Exactly.
-
Back to trying to make sense of all the arguments.
Bishop -- epískopos, "overseer",
1 Tim. 3:1-2, 4:22, Titus 1:7, 3:15
is not really the same as
presbýteros --
among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies or individual churches
In the Jewish system there were the "presbyteros" and the "chief priests". The "chief priests" being of more authority than the "presbyteros". (Mark 8:31, 14:53 etc)
A bishop seems to claim authority dating back to the apostles-- an overseer of the churches.
Whereas the "presbyteros" is regarded more as the "pastor" of the assembly or local church.
A bishop is the one ordained deacon, then pastor and then bishop who is understood to hold the fullness of the (ministerial) or apostalic authority, given Biblical responsibility to govern, teach and sanctify the Body of Christ. Pastors, deacons, and lay ministers (what we now term "elders") cooperate with the bishop who oversees all the assemblies under his authority.
The Adventist church doesn't use the term "Bishop".
It really doesn't acknowledge anyone as having the "apostle" position
From the writings dating from the first centuries of Christian Church all the chief centres of Christianity recognized and had the office of bishop, which was distinct from the local "pastors who took care of the churches.
-
What is the difference between episkopos and presbuteros, especially in regard to their roles, and what is their relationship to the diakonos? There are three places in scripture we need to consult for the answers to these questions.
The first passage is Acts 20:17–28. In that passage, the Apostle Paul is nearing the end of his ministry, when he gives a final word of exhortation to the church in Ephesus. He begins in verse 17 by addressing the presbuteros (elders) of the church, yet a few verses later in the passage, Paul refers to these same men in verse 28 as episkopos, or overseers. By describing the same group one time as presbuteros and a second time as episkopos, Paul seems to consider the two words to be synonyms for church leaders.
The second passage of scripture to consider is Titus 1. In verse 5, Paul reminds TItus that he left him in Crete with instructions to appoint presbuteros (i.e., elders) over every city. In this context, an elder is clearly a position of leadership over a church, yet just a few verses later Paul begins to describes the qualifications for an elder using the word episkopos (i.e., overseer) to describe this same group. Once again, Paul seems to use these two words for leader interchangeably.
It seems fair to conclude from these two passages that scripture makes no clear distinction between a prebuteros (elder) and an episkopos (overseer) in terms of their role in leadership. Therefore, we should consider these two terms to refer generally to leaders over a church, whether they serve as a pastor, an elder or both.
-
What is the difference between episkopos and presbuteros, especially in regard to their roles, and what is their relationship to the diakonos? There are three places in scripture we need to consult for the answers to these questions.
The first passage is Acts 20:17–28. In that passage, the Apostle Paul is nearing the end of his ministry, when he gives a final word of exhortation to the church in Ephesus. He begins in verse 17 by addressing the presbuteros (elders) of the church, yet a few verses later in the passage, Paul refers to these same men in verse 28 as episkopos, or overseers. By describing the same group one time as presbuteros and a second time as episkopos, Paul seems to consider the two words to be synonyms for church leaders.
The second passage of scripture to consider is Titus 1. In verse 5, Paul reminds TItus that he left him in Crete with instructions to appoint presbuteros (i.e., elders) over every city. In this context, an elder is clearly a position of leadership over a church, yet just a few verses later Paul begins to describes the qualifications for an elder using the word episkopos (i.e., overseer) to describe this same group. Once again, Paul seems to use these two words for leader interchangeably.
It seems fair to conclude from these two passages that scripture makes no clear distinction between a prebuteros (elder) and an episkopos (overseer) in terms of their role in leadership. Therefore, we should consider these two terms to refer generally to leaders over a church, whether they serve as a pastor, an elder or both.
Are you sure Paul is refering to the same group each time.
We know that both Titus and Timothy were called " episkopos "
Anyone studying early Church history realizes that the Bishops were over the local "pastors". These "pastors" became known as "priests" later in the Catholic system. However, there was a clear distinction early on in the Christian church.
The Bishops from the different regions would come to the ecomenical councils where important decisions were to be made.
They seemed to operate more like regional "presidents". In fact they were all on the same level as the bishop of Rome for the first couple centuries.
-
This might be worth considering:
Dr. Carrie Miles: On Phoebe.
The Greek word here (Greek is the language in which Paul wrote), usually translated as “servant” to refer to Phoebe, is deacon (diaconis), plain and simple – the same word that is translated as “deacon” throughout I Timothy and elsewhere. Moreover, Phoebe is described as a ruler, overseer, or patron (prostatis) over many – not a helper as it is often translated. For the same word, see I Tim 5:17 (also I Tim 3:4, 5, also in reference to elders/overseers). Therefore Phoebe, a woman, was a deacon and an “overseer” of her congregation. And rather than criticizing Phoebe for stealing men’s authority, Paul praised her and asked the Romans to help in her current mission to Rome.
-
Romans 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant (diakonos) of the church which is at Cenchrea:
16:2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becomes saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she has need of you: for she has been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
Studying the word "diakonos" is very interesting.
In Paul's writings (in the KJV) the word is translated:
"diakonos"
minister 17 times
Rom. 13:4; 15:8; 1Cor 3:5; 2Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Gal. 2:17; 3:7; 6:21; Col 1:7,23,25; 4:7; 1 Thes 3:2; 1Tim. 4:6
deacon 3 times
Phil 1:1; 1Tim 3:8,12
and servant 2 times (both in connection with Phebe)
Rom 16:1,27
Let the deacons (diakonos) be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 1 Tim 3:12
-
Romans 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant (diakonos) of the church which is at Cenchrea:
16:2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becomes saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she has need of you: for she has been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
Studying the word "diakonos" is very interesting.
In Paul's writings (in the KJV) the word is translated:
"diakonos"
minister 17 times
Rom. 13:4; 15:8; 1Cor 3:5; 2Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Gal. 2:17; 3:7; 6:21; Col 1:7,23,25; 4:7; 1 Thes 3:2; 1Tim. 4:6
deacon 3 times
Phil 1:1; 1Tim 3:8,12
and servant 2 times (both in connection with Phebe)
Rom 16:1,27
Let the deacons (diakonos) be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 1 Tim 3:12
This means that if translators were consistent the text could read:
1 Timothy 3:10-13
10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as ministers.
11 In the same way, the female ministers(women) are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
12 A male or female minister must be faithful to the spouse and must manage the children and the household well. 13 Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.
It is not the Greek words, but tradition, which dictates the "usual" translation.
-
10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as ministers.
11 In the same way, the female ministers(women) are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
12 A male or female minister must be faithful to the spouse and must manage the children and the household well.
13 Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.
3:8 Likewise [must] the deacons [be] grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being [found] blameless.
3:11 Even so [must their] wives [be] grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
3:8 Ministrants -- in like manner grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not given to filthy lucre,
3:9 having the secret of the faith in a pure conscience,
3:10 and let these also first be proved, then let them minister, being unblameable.
3:11 Women -- in like manner grave, not false accusers, vigilant, faithful in all things.
3:12 Ministrants -- let them be of one wife husbands; the children leading well, and their own houses,
3:13 for those who did minister well a good step to themselves do acquire, and much boldness in faith that [is] in Christ Jesus.
In 3:11 the word "gyn?" is the word for "women" or "woman", though it is translated as "wife" in scripture quite a few times as well.
But notice the "their" is added -- the possessive is missing in the original. It's just talking about "women" not "their wives".
Interesting.