Advent Talk
General Category => General Discussions => Topic started by: Johann on July 19, 2012, 01:01:18 PM
-
Proving more than intended
MINISTRY 1996 » March
Written by George R. Knight
Surprising as it may seem, we sometimes prove more than we set out to if we extend our methodology to its logical conclusions
The case of the ordination of women
Another illustration of an argument that proves more than intended has to do with the ordination of women. The Seventh-day Adventist Church (along with several other denominations) has seen a great deal of argumentation on both sides of the topic for the past few years.
One speaker recently based his argument against women's ordination on the fact that the Adventist Church is a church of the Bible and thus "God's Word must be our focus." Given that solid foundation, he quite appropriately quoted Isaiah 8:20: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not ac cording to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
He next guided his hearers to the "timeless message" of 1 Timothy 2, emphasizing especially verse 12: "I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man" (paraphrased). That was followed by a threefold argument favoring male leadership.
This speaker was quite certain that Paul's advice had nothing to do with culture. To the contrary, the counsel was set forth as a universal moral imperative, and transgressing it means nothing less than "the derailment of a mission-driven church."
The real issue, he asserted, was that we trust the Bible writers. At that point the argument became even more intense and certainly more interesting from a hermeneutical perspective. "Now, the question is," he said to his audience, "How do we interpret the Bible?" His reply was that the Bible doesn 't need interpretation. Or, as he put it: "The Word of God is infallible; accept it as it reads. We have plenty of counsel about the danger of modifying God's instructions. . . . What we need as Seventh-day Adventists, friends, is submission to the Word of God, not reinterpretation" (italics supplied).
Subsequently, he cited Ellen White as saying that "God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms." He concluded his study in part by claiming that he was against the ordination of women to ministry because "it violates the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures by not accepting Scripture as it plainly reads" (italics supplied).
What was really proved?
There is no doubt that he was speaking the honest convictions of his heart. Yet I sat dumbfounded as I read and contemplated his forceful presentation. For one thing, 1 Timothy 2:12 says absolutely nothing about ordination. Then again, I could hardly believe the presentation came from a Seventh-day Adventist; maybe a conservative Calvinist, but not an Adventist. After all, Adventists have the phenomenon of Ellen White. I was struck full in the face with the fact that if one accepted his presuppositions, what had actually been demonstrated was that Ellen White is a false prophet.
Roger Coon illustrates my point well when he relates his experience with an itinerant evangelist who came to Napa, California, and placed a large advertisement in the local newspaper promising to destroy the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in a presentation on Thursday evening and demolish their prophet the following week. Coon attended both sessions. In the second the evangelist "proved" the Seventh-day Adventist Church was a false church because one of its primary founders was a woman who defied the teachings of the apostle Paul forbidding women to speak in Christian churches.
Adventists, for obvious reasons, have always resisted that interpretation. The church has traditionally justified Ellen White's public ministry by noting that the counsel given about women being silent in church in 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 was rooted in the custom of time and place and was not to be woodenly applied now that conditions had changed. Thus, as The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary puts it: "Because of the general lack of private and public rights then accorded women, Paul felt it to be expedient to give this counsel to the church. Any severe breach of accepted social custom brings reproach upon the church.... In the days of Paul, custom required that women be very much in the background."2
Let's return to our Adventist speaker and examine a bit more carefully his use of 1 Timothy 2. The first thing to note is that he read only that portion of the passage that suited his purpose. The words immediately preceding the partial verse he quoted were: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission" (1 Tim. 2:11, NIV). And the words immediately following the "timeless message" he read merely reinforce that sentiment. His paraphrase also left out the words "to teach or" since his only focus was on the restriction dealing with "authority." Let me quote verse 12 in full: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent" (NIV).
Now it is obvious that if one is testing everything in the strictest sense by the words of the law and the testimony, and if one is not "modifying" God's instructions (or reinterpreting them), but simply accepting Scripture as it "plainly reads," then it is a necessary conclusion that Ellen G. White must be a false prophet of the most serious type.
To put it mildly, she seldom remained silent in church. In fact, she taught authoritatively to men and women everywhere she went. She was the ultimate transgressor if in fact 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 is expressing a "timeless message" that doesn't need interpretation.
Let's face it: after one examines all the arguments on headship and/or the significance of Eve's sinning before Adam and after one is exposed to all the fine points of argument coming from the biblical Greek and Hebrew and the scholarly German and French the plain fact is that the Bible says in unmistakable English that women are not to teach, that they are to be silent.
Of course, if one's hermeneutic allows for the consideration of the time and place in which Scripture was written, then the problem isn't nearly as serious. But our friend allowed himself no such out. Thus he is stuck with the fact that when tested by a "plain reading" of the Bible, Ellen White is a false prophet. He had proved more than he intended.
On the other hand, if one concedes that the part about silence needs to be "modified" a bit (should I be bold enough to say "interpreted" or "contextualized" to time and place?), then one must also grant that such license must be extended to the whole verse. But that, of course, would lead to an undermining of the entire argument. While that might seem frightful to some, the only alternative is to be stuck with a false prophet.
The fine points of my argument seem to have been missed by two recently published books that follow the same general line of argument as discussed above. Both see 1 Timothy 2:11-14, along with the somewhat parallel passage in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35, as being crucial texts in the case against ordination (even though neither passage mentions the topic), both see the issue as being one of biblical authority, and both take the position that the Bible can be faithfully read only as it is.
Having said that, however, they immediately begin to modify and interpret the part about women being silent in church. As one of the volumes points out, "the issue here is not muzzling women into silence." The other book claims that the 1 Corinthians passage certainly doesn 't really mean that women have to be silent in church, since that "would contradict other Pauline teaching." "The conclusion is that the restriction" on women speaking in church "must be in reference to authoritative teaching that is a part of the pastoral office, the position of leadership and spiritual authority over a congregation."
Now, that is an interesting interpretation, but it doesn't get Ellen White off the false prophet hook. After all, she spoke quite authoritatively even to the leading ministers both in the church and out. In fact, she found herself often enough in public conflict with male ministers, and managed to argue quite authoritatively in spite of Paul's injunction.
It is an interesting point that for some years Ellen White held ministerial credentials and her credentials were those of an ordained minister, even though she was never technically ordained by the laying on of human hands. She was (and is) the most "authoritative" minister the Seventh-day Adventist Church has ever had. If anyone in Adventism---male or female---has ever spoken with authority, it has been Ellen White.
When the second volume comes to explaining the significance of the statement about women being silent in 1 Timothy 2:11-14, it arrives at the apex of modification and adapted interpretation. "What is prohibited to women," our author tells us, "is teaching in the worship services as a part of the ecclesiastical office of pastor, which involves the exercise of spiritual authority. Women who are asked to participate in worship services, whether by praying or exhorting, do so on the basis of the authority delegated by the male pastor who holds the ecclesiastical office and whose spiritual authority is derived from Christ" (italics in original).
So much for not interpreting, and for reading just the plain words of the Bible.
Even that massive reconstruction of the text doesn't get Ellen White off the hook. She exercised spiritual authority in public and in private, and her hearers were both male and female. Of course, people can continue to finesse their definitions so as to make Paul come out with their conclusions, but doing that is hardly a reading of the "plain words" of the Bible. And such a procedure most certainly fails to follow its own hermeneutical method to its logical conclusions.
Some final thoughts
Before moving away from the stimulating topic of women's ordination, perhaps I should share one more argument that proves more than intended. One day in my pastoral formation class one of my students came up with the "airtight answer" to the issue of women's ordination. "Read the Old Testament," said he. "Every ordained priest was a male."
"True," I replied, "but you have proved too much if you stick to your argument. If you follow your logic, you will have to conclude that very few, including you, are biblically eligible for ordination, because the Old Testament approved only the ordination of male Orientals. And even at that, not just any Oriental would do. They had to be Hebrew, and then only of the Aaronic line of the Levitical family."
"Well," say some who want to extend the argument, "look at Jesus. He appointed only male disciples." True, but it can just as truly be argued that He appointed only non-Diaspora Jewish disciples. Let's be faithful to the logic of our own arguments.
"But," says another, "Paul was a male from the Diaspora who was 'kind of a disciple, even though not one of the twelve." Yes, but some of the original non-Diaspora male disciples might point out that Paul is where all the trouble began. After all, look at the problems he raised when he began to apply the gospel to the context of first-century Gentiles. He nearly split the New Testament church. "But," yet another suggests, "that's why Paul's experience is in the Bible. With him all justifiable contextualization must cease. After all, you can't go to extremes on this business of applying the Bible to new times and places."
And the arguments can go on and on. And they will.
In closing I want to say again that the topic of my article is not jewelry, sex, work, or the ordination of women. Rather, it is a caution to examine the full consequences of our theological method lest we prove more than we intend; it is a plea to be faithful to our own logic and to the totality of the texts selected to demonstrate our point. Thus jewelry and ordination merely provide contemporary illustrations that prompt a call for the sound use of Scripture. After all, there is a major difference between using the Bible to prove a point and developing a sound biblical argument. A "high view" of the Bible demands a wholesome hermeneutic.
1. Gordon J. Werham, The Book of Leviticus, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1979), p. 237.
2. Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Ellen G. White Comments (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1957, 1980), vol. 7, pp. 295, 296.
-
He seems to be fully in line with Ellen G. White's own interpretation of 1 Tim 2
-
Excellent, excellent, excellent!!!
Thanks for sharing this, Johann. I can't say more, for fear of being edited...
But it was worth coming out of the doghouse just to say thanks!! :puppykisses:
:dogwag:
-
From a retired General Conference Officer on the ordination of females:
http://www.atoday.org/article/1297/news/analysis-of-what-is-happening-with-the-ordination-of-women-pastors
-
From a retired General Conference Officer on the ordination of females:
http://www.atoday.org/article/1297/news/analysis-of-what-is-happening-with-the-ordination-of-women-pastors
Here is what Dr. Gery Patterson has to say on who decides:
The Permission Issue
Ordination is, by General Conference policy, the purview of the union level of governance. This being the case, the General Conference has overstepped its bounds in seeking to tell the unions that they may or may not ordain women to the gospel ministry. It is not within the authority of the General Conference to take such action, just the same as if the taking of such action regarding individual membership, the election of personnel for church offices, or in the sisterhood of churches issues is not the purview of the General Conference Session. These actions belong to the constituent level to which they are assigned by policy and may not be determined or overruled by higher levels of the church structure.
An additional example of this overreach occurs in the General Conference action granting permission for churches to ordain women to the position of local church elder. There was no existing action prohibiting such election or ordination of elders or any other church office on the basis of gender. Therefore, there was no cause for granting such permission from the General Conference. Church officer election is under the authority of the local church constituency and by policy, higher organizations are not allowed to interfere in this process.
The General Conference, union or conference may not, for example, tell the local church whether it can elect women as treasurer or clerk of the church. Likewise they have no authority either to deny or give permission for women to be elected and ordained as elders. They may give advice on such matters, but it is not in their purview to dictate who may or may not be elected. With no action forbidding such gender choices, the church does not need permission to do as it sees fit.
-
Johann, your position is unbiblical.
-
Johann, your position is unbiblical.
And I see that we now have a complete liberal progressive agenda here on our site being promoted by Johann, Gregory and Snoopy. (Although Snoopy shouldn't count, not being an SDA.)
-
Johann, you should stop flogging the dead horse, because this forum is not going to convert itself into your liberal agenda.
-
Johann, your position is unbiblical.
And I see that we now have a complete liberal progressive agenda here on our site being promoted by Johann, Gregory and Snoopy. (Although Snoopy shouldn't count, not being an SDA.)
So, according to Artiste, one has to be SDA to have an opinion. Artiste, I am more SDA than anything else. Just because I disagree with the way the miserable way the brethren operate does not mean I do not have an opinion. Besides...I thought you were Jewish...??
-
Johann, your position is unbiblical.
Well, there you have it. The great dictator Artiste has spoken!! Pastor Johann, do you not know your Bible??
-
Too bad "Pastor Johann", retired SDA minister and missionary, has thrown his weight and influence over to the liberal, progressive and unbliblical side of Adventism.
-
Too bad "Pastor Johann", retired SDA minister and missionary, has thrown his weight and influence over to the liberal, progressive and unbliblical side of Adventism.
Just your opinion - everybody's got one!!!
-
He seems to be fully in line with Ellen G. White's own interpretation of 1 Tim 2
Johann, I will ask again, what is the reason for ordination of women? Already, for years women have taught Sabbath School, worked as deaconesses, Preached sermons etc... There has never in my 50 plus years of church membership been an exclusion of women. Now for years women were more confined to the biblical outline as it comes to church function and the regulated understood position of men. I would hope you are not trying to imply that God does not have an ideal position for men and women in the home and in the church. God is the one that put the distinction between women and men, it is not just an invention of men. Why do you think that women give birth and have breast? And yes that is a revelant question because obviously God designed women for a different function than men. And you know what Johann, I have never ever wanted to be called the mother of my family. Why would you try an insist that women should be the man of the church? In a way it is an assault on the family structure too. And by the way it will not stop with women ordination it will be gays next? Your battle is not really with the church it is with God.
-
He seems to be fully in line with Ellen G. White's own interpretation of 1 Tim 2
Johann, I will ask again, what is the reason for ordination of women? Already, for years women have taught Sabbath School, worked as deaconesses, Preached sermons etc... There has never in my 50 plus years of church membership been an exclusion of women. Now for years women were more confined to the biblical outline as it comes to church function and the regulated understood position of men. I would hope you are not trying to imply that God does not have an ideal position for men and women in the home and in the church. God is the one that put the distinction between women and men, it is not just an invention of men. Why do you think that women give birth and have breast? And yes that is a revelant question because obviously God designed women for a different function than men. And you know what Johann, I have never ever wanted to be called the mother of my family. Why would you try an insist that women should be the man of the church? In a way it is an assault on the family structure too. And by the way it will not stop with women ordination it will be gays next? Your battle is not really with the church it is with God.
That's like comparing apples and rabbit turds, dude. And who are you to comment on someone else's walk (ie, battle) with God??
-
The Seventh-day Adventist Church (along with several other denominations) has seen a great deal of argumentation on both sides of the topic for the past few years.[/size]
This is true, Johann.
However, your comments and point of view would be more appropriate over on Spectrum or Atoday.
-
And the arguments can go on and on. And they will.
Yes, they will go on and on for a while at least.
I'm sorry you're on the wrong side of the issue, Johann.
-
He seems to be fully in line with Ellen G. White's own interpretation of 1 Tim 2
Johann, I will ask again, what is the reason for ordination of women? Already, for years women have taught Sabbath School, worked as deaconesses, Preached sermons etc... There has never in my 50 plus years of church membership been an exclusion of women. Now for years women were more confined to the biblical outline as it comes to church function and the regulated understood position of men. I would hope you are not trying to imply that God does not have an ideal position for men and women in the home and in the church. God is the one that put the distinction between women and men, it is not just an invention of men. Why do you think that women give birth and have breast? And yes that is a revelant question because obviously God designed women for a different function than men. And you know what Johann, I have never ever wanted to be called the mother of my family. Why would you try an insist that women should be the man of the church? In a way it is an assault on the family structure too. And by the way it will not stop with women ordination it will be gays next? Your battle is not really with the church it is with God.
That's like comparing apples and rabbit turds, dude. And who are you to comment on someone else's walk (ie, battle) with God??
Not at all the church is a part of the family structure and often the bible links the two.
-
Even that massive reconstruction of the text doesn't get Ellen White off the hook. She exercised spiritual authority in public and in private, and her hearers were both male and female. Of course, people can continue to finesse their definitions so as to make Paul come out with their conclusions, but doing that is hardly a reading of the "plain words" of the Bible. And such a procedure most certainly fails to follow its own hermeneutical method to its logical conclusions.
Clever arguments here, Johann. I am aware that progressives try to make black into white and vice versus.
-
Johann, your position is unbiblical.
You chock me, Artiste, by making such a silly statement. To say the least you completely contradict yourself, as you are completely throwing Ellen G. White and Scripture overboard. I am fully in harmony with how Ellen White interprets the section of Scripture we are dealing with:
Writing in Signs of the Times, June 24, 1889, Ellen White shared an intimate moment from her early years:
“When in my youth God opened the Scriptures to my mind, giving me light upon the truths of his word, I went forth to proclaim to others the precious news of salvation. My brother wrote to me, and said, 'I beg of you not to disgrace the family. I will do anything for you if you will not go out as a preacher.’
"’Disgrace the family!’ I replied, ’Can it disgrace the family for me to preach Christ and Him crucified! If you would give me all the gold your house could hold, I would not cease giving my testimony for God. I have respect unto the recompense of the reward. I will not keep silent, for when God imparts his light to me, he means that I shall diffuse it to others, according to my ability.’
“Did not the priests and rulers come to the disciples, and command them to cease preaching in the name of Christ? They shut the faithful men in prison, but the angel of the Lord released them that they might speak the words of life to the people. This is our work.”
Ellen’s brother was not the last to object to her preaching. After speaking in a tiny Northern California town in 1880, she shared in a letter to her husband, James, some backstage information:
“Elder Haskell talked in the afternoon and his labors were well received. I had in the evening, it was stated, the largest congregation that had ever assembled at Arbuckle. The house was full. Many came from five to ten and twelve miles. The Lord gave me special power in speaking. The congregation listened as if spell-bound. Not one left the house although I talked above one hour. Before I commenced talking, Elder Haskell had a bit [piece] of paper that was handed [him] in quoting [a] certain text prohibiting women speaking in public. He took up the matter in a brief manner and very clearly expressed the meaning of the apostles words. I understand it was a Cambelite [sic] who wrote the objection and it had been well circulated [among the audience] before it reached the desk; but Elder Haskell made it all plain before the people" (Letter 17a, April 1, 1880; Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, p. 70).
You are just hiding your head in the sand, unwilling to face reality.
-
Even that massive reconstruction of the text doesn't get Ellen White off the hook. She exercised spiritual authority in public and in private, and her hearers were both male and female. Of course, people can continue to finesse their definitions so as to make Paul come out with their conclusions, but doing that is hardly a reading of the "plain words" of the Bible. And such a procedure most certainly fails to follow its own hermeneutical method to its logical conclusions.
Clever arguments here, Johann. I am aware that progressives try to make black into white and vice versus.
These are not my arguments, Artiste. They are written by one of our denomination's greatest present writers, a professor emeritus of church history, and one of the greatest defenders we have of Ellen G. White.
-
And the arguments can go on and on. And they will.
Yes, they will go on and on for a while at least.
I'm sorry you're on the wrong side of the issue, Johann.
I am on the side where I want to meet my Lord. If you call that the wrong side, Artiste, then I feel sorry for you. I want to stand for truth till the heavens fall, if you do not want to be there, that is your choice.
-
He seems to be fully in line with Ellen G. White's own interpretation of 1 Tim 2
Johann, I will ask again, what is the reason for ordination of women? Already, for years women have taught Sabbath School, worked as deaconesses, Preached sermons etc... There has never in my 50 plus years of church membership been an exclusion of women. Now for years women were more confined to the biblical outline as it comes to church function and the regulated understood position of men. I would hope you are not trying to imply that God does not have an ideal position for men and women in the home and in the church. God is the one that put the distinction between women and men, it is not just an invention of men. Why do you think that women give birth and have breast? And yes that is a revelant question because obviously God designed women for a different function than men. And you know what Johann, I have never ever wanted to be called the mother of my family. Why would you try an insist that women should be the man of the church? In a way it is an assault on the family structure too. And by the way it will not stop with women ordination it will be gays next? Your battle is not really with the church it is with God.
What is your excuse for not wanting to be in line with Ellen White? You do want to follow her on jewelry, theater, and other things. But if she says something that goes against your preconceived notions then you throw her overboard. Is that what it means to you to be a Seventh-day Adventist?
Ellen White states clearly that certain women are to be ordained. That was not my invention. Neither is it the invention of any women of today. I believe in everything she says, not only what pleases me.
-
You do want to follow her on jewelry, theater, and other things
You speak out of ignorance, Johann. You've never even met me.
-
Johann, you should stop flogging the dead horse, because this forum is not going to convert itself into your liberal agenda.
May I remind you that it was a liberal General Conference President, Jan Paulsen, who made it possible for you to maintain your heresies. He was too liberal to do what former presidents had done. Several previous General Conference presidents fought certain of what you wrongly think are conservative ideas.
-
You do want to follow her on jewelry, theater, and other things
You speak out of ignorance, Johann. You've never even met me.
It doesn't matter if he has met you in person or not. If you claim to be a staunch supporter of the SDA church including doctrine and legalisms, as you appear to do, he can be reasonably sure of his statement. Thus, he does NOT "speak out of ignorance".
I know, I know... "Your opinion, Snoopy." Yup - everybody's got one!!!
-
You do want to follow her on jewelry, theater, and other things
You speak out of ignorance, Johann. You've never even met me.
Why do you answer when I wasn't addressing you? Do you need new glasses to see?
-
However, your comments and point of view would be more appropriate over on Spectrum or Atoday.
Strange you should say this, Artiste. I guess you haven't noticed that several of the authors featured in these magazines are among the conservative leaders in our church.
-
From a retired General Conference Officer on the ordination of females:
http://www.atoday.org/article/1297/news/analysis-of-what-is-happening-with-the-ordination-of-women-pastors
From a retired General Conference Officer on the ordination of females:
http://www.atoday.org/article/1297/news/analysis-of-what-is-happening-with-the-ordination-of-women-pastors
Here is what Dr. Gery Patterson has to say on who decides:
The Permission Issue
Ordination is, by General Conference policy, the purview of the union level of governance. This being the case, the General Conference has overstepped its bounds in seeking to tell the unions that they may or may not ordain women to the gospel ministry. It is not within the authority of the General Conference to take such action, just the same as if the taking of such action regarding individual membership, the election of personnel for church offices, or in the sisterhood of churches issues is not the purview of the General Conference Session. These actions belong to the constituent level to which they are assigned by policy and may not be determined or overruled by higher levels of the church structure.
An additional example of this overreach occurs in the General Conference action granting permission for churches to ordain women to the position of local church elder. There was no existing action prohibiting such election or ordination of elders or any other church office on the basis of gender. Therefore, there was no cause for granting such permission from the General Conference. Church officer election is under the authority of the local church constituency and by policy, higher organizations are not allowed to interfere in this process.
The General Conference, union or conference may not, for example, tell the local church whether it can elect women as treasurer or clerk of the church. Likewise they have no authority either to deny or give permission for women to be elected and ordained as elders. They may give advice on such matters, but it is not in their purview to dictate who may or may not be elected. With no action forbidding such gender choices, the church does not need permission to do as it sees fit.
It does no good to support the cause of women's ordination with misinformation, as Gary Patterson has done. Patterson states:
"Authority for ordination is assigned to the union level of church governance as indicated by General Conference Working Policy L 45 05. It states, “After favorable consideration the local conference committee will submit the name of the candidate with its findings and convictions to the union for counsel and approval.” There is no gender reference in this policy whatsoever."
Yet L 45 10 in the 2005-2006 GC Working Policy refers to "the examination of the candidate, with his wife." No reference to gender in the policy? And L 50 when discussing the examination of the candidate explicitly says "a man." No reference to gender?
And then there is the whole issue of incorporation. The Working Policy explicitly states that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God. Therefore, the votes of those sessions are pretty much incorporated into the Working Policy by reference. Both the 1990 and the 1995 GC Sessions voted down women's ordination.
One has to ask, if Patterson quoted from L 45 05, why did he not notice the obvious reference to gender in L 45 10? And why did he not notice the word "man" in L 50? Why did he not notice these obvious references to gender?
When I was a student at Southern in 1982/83, there was a student there who went around and collected recordings of conversations with various individuals about the sanctuary, 1844, etc., and turned them over to church leadership. My recollection is that Patterson as president of a conference was one of those who was recorded. Therefore I would like to ask whether Patterson believes that there is a sanctuary in heaven with furniture, and that Jesus began His high priestly ministry in 1844 when He moved from the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place at the end of the 2300 day prophecy of Dan. 8:14.
Johann, do you know the answer to this question?
-
Patterson also states,
"The matter continued to be under discussion for the following five years and was again placed on the agenda of the 1995 General Conference session in Utrecht at the request of the North American Division. At this meeting it was officially recognized that there was no biblical or theological to support a position of forbidding such ordination, and the vote there again did not forbid it, but rather stated that to avoid division in the world church, the request was denied “at this time.”"
Gregory or Johann,
Could you please locate for me an action at or quotation from the 1995 GC Session that so states?
Mere quotations won't really suffice. We really need an action rather than a quotation. You have folks in 1995 stating that women's ordination is unbiblical, and that it isn't unbiblical. When two sides are taking contrary positions, that is anything but official recognition of one of the views.
"... the vote there again did not forbid it ..."
How so?
"... the request was denied “at this time.”"
That sounds almost like 1990, but in 1990 it was officially recognized that some thought that the Bible forbade the practice, and some thought that it did not. And I can't find the words "at this time" in the voted action.
-
From a retired General Conference Officer on the ordination of females:
http://www.atoday.org/article/1297/news/analysis-of-what-is-happening-with-the-ordination-of-women-pastors
From a retired General Conference Officer on the ordination of females:
http://www.atoday.org/article/1297/news/analysis-of-what-is-happening-with-the-ordination-of-women-pastors
Here is what Dr. Gery Patterson has to say on who decides:
The Permission Issue
Ordination is, by General Conference policy, the purview of the union level of governance. This being the case, the General Conference has overstepped its bounds in seeking to tell the unions that they may or may not ordain women to the gospel ministry. It is not within the authority of the General Conference to take such action, just the same as if the taking of such action regarding individual membership, the election of personnel for church offices, or in the sisterhood of churches issues is not the purview of the General Conference Session. These actions belong to the constituent level to which they are assigned by policy and may not be determined or overruled by higher levels of the church structure.
An additional example of this overreach occurs in the General Conference action granting permission for churches to ordain women to the position of local church elder. There was no existing action prohibiting such election or ordination of elders or any other church office on the basis of gender. Therefore, there was no cause for granting such permission from the General Conference. Church officer election is under the authority of the local church constituency and by policy, higher organizations are not allowed to interfere in this process.
The General Conference, union or conference may not, for example, tell the local church whether it can elect women as treasurer or clerk of the church. Likewise they have no authority either to deny or give permission for women to be elected and ordained as elders. They may give advice on such matters, but it is not in their purview to dictate who may or may not be elected. With no action forbidding such gender choices, the church does not need permission to do as it sees fit.
It does no good to support the cause of women's ordination with misinformation, as Gary Patterson has done. Patterson states:
"Authority for ordination is assigned to the union level of church governance as indicated by General Conference Working Policy L 45 05. It states, “After favorable consideration the local conference committee will submit the name of the candidate with its findings and convictions to the union for counsel and approval.” There is no gender reference in this policy whatsoever."
Yet L 45 10 in the 2005-2006 GC Working Policy refers to "the examination of the candidate, with his wife." No reference to gender in the policy? And L 50 when discussing the examination of the candidate explicitly says "a man." No reference to gender?
And then there is the whole issue of incorporation. The Working Policy explicitly states that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God. Therefore, the votes of those sessions are pretty much incorporated into the Working Policy by reference. Both the 1990 and the 1995 GC Sessions voted down women's ordination.
One has to ask, if Patterson quoted from L 45 05, why did he not notice the obvious reference to gender in L 45 10? And why did he not notice the word "man" in L 50? Why did he not notice these obvious references to gender?
When I was a student at Southern in 1982/83, there was a student there who went around and collected recordings of conversations with various individuals about the sanctuary, 1844, etc., and turned them over to church leadership. My recollection is that Patterson as president of a conference was one of those who was recorded. Therefore I would like to ask whether Patterson believes that there is a sanctuary in heaven with furniture, and that Jesus began His high priestly ministry in 1844 when He moved from the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place at the end of the 2300 day prophecy of Dan. 8:14.
Johann, do you know the answer to this question?
1. I see Patterson giving full answers to your questions in his article. Why don't you?
He finds no reference to gender in L 45 10, and neither do you.
2. Both Patterson and you find a reference to gender in other parts of the policy. Patterson states these are in conflict with other sections of the policy, which call that a discrimination.
3. You seem uncertain of Patterson's views on the Sanctuary question. You expect me to answer that question as if I had universal knowledge of each person who has worked for the denomination. No, I am not able to answer that question. I recall we had some theology students discussing of what material the Sanctuary in Heaven is made of, canvas, or bricks, or something else? Or of some heavenly material unknown to man? Was this the kind of questions your friend was asking? What authority did he have to turn his findings over to the church leaders? Were those tricky, misleading questions to confuse the issue?
4. Patterson refers to the GC session as the highest authority, but his opinion is that the GC still does not have the authority to grant itself greater authority than what has already been granted the unions. If you have given your daughter the right to decide herself which college she should attend within certain limits,what kind of father would you be if you then suddenly told her she could not attend the college of her choice?
-
Johann, your position is unbiblical.
And I see that we now have a complete liberal progressive agenda here on our site being promoted by Johann, Gregory and Snoopy. (Although Snoopy shouldn't count, not being an SDA.)
You got the exact drift Artiste and I believe with no doubt. In fact the drastic pull out of his character of NK and the 2300 days is an exact pattern that you see now and speak out against the same as I. what I discovered long ago with the those mentioned are really no different in pattern then that of the ridiculous pattern and horrific, time wasted reading of the worst Satanic challenge against Bible and SP by Nk. His self "book" if anyone took the time to read such junk of "self exaltation" was so far out, but at least I got to bottom of it so no one else wastes their time just in my point of view compared to Scripture and just plain statements of facts..
I've watched the pattern for some time of whats happening on here and your right. I've been around the organizations or groups that do this very thing. There is no stopping them, reasoning, or showing proof. They just do not get it any way but their own way, and their agenda is to destroy. I now wonder why 3abn got or fired whom they did when they did. Not sticking up for the 3abn facts but in some things I think it was not tolerated for more reasons then one. They are not even worth arguing with as I think only "Get behind Satan in the name of Jesus. They found an outlet on here. One thing with one of them is that is the worst straddling coming out of anyone that I've ever read or heard. The very first thing you know is wrong when not just one topic is justified but many. I can tell instantly who is right on here because they are instantly observed in knowing exactly what SP says and state it correctly, as you see it as I see it and yes I think Christian sees it too. I do not think I ever tho ran into anything as bad as the 2300 day episode and that horrible acknowledgement of how one can be so twisted. and believe me I discovered that same twisting on here too--as you mentioned. Also did not see any objections to such posts above again!! :dunno:
-
Proving more than intended
MINISTRY 1996 » March
Written by George R. Knight
Surprising as it may seem, we sometimes prove more than we set out to if we extend our methodology to its logical conclusions
The case of the ordination of women
Another illustration of an argument that proves more than intended has to do with the ordination of women. The Seventh-day Adventist Church (along with several other denominations) has seen a great deal of argumentation on both sides of the topic for the past few years.
One speaker recently based his argument against women's ordination on the fact that the Adventist Church is a church of the Bible and thus "God's Word must be our focus." Given that solid foundation, he quite appropriately quoted Isaiah 8:20: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not ac cording to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
He next guided his hearers to the "timeless message" of 1 Timothy 2, emphasizing especially verse 12: "I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man" (paraphrased). That was followed by a threefold argument favoring male leadership.
This speaker was quite certain that Paul's advice had nothing to do with culture. To the contrary, the counsel was set forth as a universal moral imperative, and transgressing it means nothing less than "the derailment of a mission-driven church."
The real issue, he asserted, was that we trust the Bible writers. At that point the argument became even more intense and certainly more interesting from a hermeneutical perspective. "Now, the question is," he said to his audience, "How do we interpret the Bible?" His reply was that the Bible doesn 't need interpretation. Or, as he put it: "The Word of God is infallible; accept it as it reads. We have plenty of counsel about the danger of modifying God's instructions. . . . What we need as Seventh-day Adventists, friends, is submission to the Word of God, not reinterpretation" (italics supplied).
Subsequently, he cited Ellen White as saying that "God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms." He concluded his study in part by claiming that he was against the ordination of women to ministry because "it violates the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures by not accepting Scripture as it plainly reads" (italics supplied).
What was really proved?
There is no doubt that he was speaking the honest convictions of his heart. Yet I sat dumbfounded as I read and contemplated his forceful presentation. For one thing, 1 Timothy 2:12 says absolutely nothing about ordination. Then again, I could hardly believe the presentation came from a Seventh-day Adventist; maybe a conservative Calvinist, but not an Adventist. After all, Adventists have the phenomenon of Ellen White. I was struck full in the face with the fact that if one accepted his presuppositions, what had actually been demonstrated was that Ellen White is a false prophet.
Roger Coon illustrates my point well when he relates his experience with an itinerant evangelist who came to Napa, California, and placed a large advertisement in the local newspaper promising to destroy the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in a presentation on Thursday evening and demolish their prophet the following week. Coon attended both sessions. In the second the evangelist "proved" the Seventh-day Adventist Church was a false church because one of its primary founders was a woman who defied the teachings of the apostle Paul forbidding women to speak in Christian churches.
Adventists, for obvious reasons, have always resisted that interpretation. The church has traditionally justified Ellen White's public ministry by noting that the counsel given about women being silent in church in 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 was rooted in the custom of time and place and was not to be woodenly applied now that conditions had changed. Thus, as The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary puts it: "Because of the general lack of private and public rights then accorded women, Paul felt it to be expedient to give this counsel to the church. Any severe breach of accepted social custom brings reproach upon the church.... In the days of Paul, custom required that women be very much in the background."2
Let's return to our Adventist speaker and examine a bit more carefully his use of 1 Timothy 2. The first thing to note is that he read only that portion of the passage that suited his purpose. The words immediately preceding the partial verse he quoted were: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission" (1 Tim. 2:11, NIV). And the words immediately following the "timeless message" he read merely reinforce that sentiment. His paraphrase also left out the words "to teach or" since his only focus was on the restriction dealing with "authority." Let me quote verse 12 in full: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent" (NIV).
Now it is obvious that if one is testing everything in the strictest sense by the words of the law and the testimony, and if one is not "modifying" God's instructions (or reinterpreting them), but simply accepting Scripture as it "plainly reads," then it is a necessary conclusion that Ellen G. White must be a false prophet of the most serious type.
To put it mildly, she seldom remained silent in church. In fact, she taught authoritatively to men and women everywhere she went. She was the ultimate transgressor if in fact 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 is expressing a "timeless message" that doesn't need interpretation.
Let's face it: after one examines all the arguments on headship and/or the significance of Eve's sinning before Adam and after one is exposed to all the fine points of argument coming from the biblical Greek and Hebrew and the scholarly German and French the plain fact is that the Bible says in unmistakable English that women are not to teach, that they are to be silent.
Of course, if one's hermeneutic allows for the consideration of the time and place in which Scripture was written, then the problem isn't nearly as serious. But our friend allowed himself no such out. Thus he is stuck with the fact that when tested by a "plain reading" of the Bible, Ellen White is a false prophet. He had proved more than he intended.
On the other hand, if one concedes that the part about silence needs to be "modified" a bit (should I be bold enough to say "interpreted" or "contextualized" to time and place?), then one must also grant that such license must be extended to the whole verse. But that, of course, would lead to an undermining of the entire argument. While that might seem frightful to some, the only alternative is to be stuck with a false prophet.
The fine points of my argument seem to have been missed by two recently published books that follow the same general line of argument as discussed above. Both see 1 Timothy 2:11-14, along with the somewhat parallel passage in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35, as being crucial texts in the case against ordination (even though neither passage mentions the topic), both see the issue as being one of biblical authority, and both take the position that the Bible can be faithfully read only as it is.
Having said that, however, they immediately begin to modify and interpret the part about women being silent in church. As one of the volumes points out, "the issue here is not muzzling women into silence." The other book claims that the 1 Corinthians passage certainly doesn 't really mean that women have to be silent in church, since that "would contradict other Pauline teaching." "The conclusion is that the restriction" on women speaking in church "must be in reference to authoritative teaching that is a part of the pastoral office, the position of leadership and spiritual authority over a congregation."
Now, that is an interesting interpretation, but it doesn't get Ellen White off the false prophet hook. After all, she spoke quite authoritatively even to the leading ministers both in the church and out. In fact, she found herself often enough in public conflict with male ministers, and managed to argue quite authoritatively in spite of Paul's injunction.
It is an interesting point that for some years Ellen White held ministerial credentials and her credentials were those of an ordained minister, even though she was never technically ordained by the laying on of human hands. She was (and is) the most "authoritative" minister the Seventh-day Adventist Church has ever had. If anyone in Adventism---male or female---has ever spoken with authority, it has been Ellen White.
When the second volume comes to explaining the significance of the statement about women being silent in 1 Timothy 2:11-14, it arrives at the apex of modification and adapted interpretation. "What is prohibited to women," our author tells us, "is teaching in the worship services as a part of the ecclesiastical office of pastor, which involves the exercise of spiritual authority. Women who are asked to participate in worship services, whether by praying or exhorting, do so on the basis of the authority delegated by the male pastor who holds the ecclesiastical office and whose spiritual authority is derived from Christ" (italics in original).
So much for not interpreting, and for reading just the plain words of the Bible.
Even that massive reconstruction of the text doesn't get Ellen White off the hook. She exercised spiritual authority in public and in private, and her hearers were both male and female. Of course, people can continue to finesse their definitions so as to make Paul come out with their conclusions, but doing that is hardly a reading of the "plain words" of the Bible. And such a procedure most certainly fails to follow its own hermeneutical method to its logical conclusions.
Some final thoughts
Before moving away from the stimulating topic of women's ordination, perhaps I should share one more argument that proves more than intended. One day in my pastoral formation class one of my students came up with the "airtight answer" to the issue of women's ordination. "Read the Old Testament," said he. "Every ordained priest was a male."
"True," I replied, "but you have proved too much if you stick to your argument. If you follow your logic, you will have to conclude that very few, including you, are biblically eligible for ordination, because the Old Testament approved only the ordination of male Orientals. And even at that, not just any Oriental would do. They had to be Hebrew, and then only of the Aaronic line of the Levitical family."
"Well," say some who want to extend the argument, "look at Jesus. He appointed only male disciples." True, but it can just as truly be argued that He appointed only non-Diaspora Jewish disciples. Let's be faithful to the logic of our own arguments.
"But," says another, "Paul was a male from the Diaspora who was 'kind of a disciple, even though not one of the twelve." Yes, but some of the original non-Diaspora male disciples might point out that Paul is where all the trouble began. After all, look at the problems he raised when he began to apply the gospel to the context of first-century Gentiles. He nearly split the New Testament church. "But," yet another suggests, "that's why Paul's experience is in the Bible. With him all justifiable contextualization must cease. After all, you can't go to extremes on this business of applying the Bible to new times and places."
And the arguments can go on and on. And they will.
In closing I want to say again that the topic of my article is not jewelry, sex, work, or the ordination of women. Rather, it is a caution to examine the full consequences of our theological method lest we prove more than we intend; it is a plea to be faithful to our own logic and to the totality of the texts selected to demonstrate our point. Thus jewelry and ordination merely provide contemporary illustrations that prompt a call for the sound use of Scripture. After all, there is a major difference between using the Bible to prove a point and developing a sound biblical argument. A "high view" of the Bible demands a wholesome hermeneutic.
1. Gordon J. Werham, The Book of Leviticus, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1979), p. 237.
2. Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Ellen G. White Comments (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1957, 1980), vol. 7, pp. 295, 296.
Some of you did not realize that this article is from the official MINISTRY magazine published by the Ministerial Association of the General Conference and sent to all SDA ministers in the whole world, and every other issue it posted to a great number of pastors in other denominations - as an official missionary project of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. We have heard that this outreach has brought fruitful results.
By publishing this article in this official magazine our church is indicating that the subject was still regarded as valid in 1996, several years after the GC votes that some have thought changed the official attitude of the church. For this reason this is worth considering.
-
Ariste said:
And I see that we now have a complete liberal progressive agenda here on our site being promoted by Johann, Gregory and Snoopy. (Although Snoopy shouldn't count, not being an SDA.)
1) I do not know whether or not Snoopy is an SDA. Regardless, she is a human being who is on a spiritual journey and as such is as loved by the Lord as are you. In any case, her opinion, right or wrong [I have often differed with her. :) ] is as worthy of consideration and discussion here as is yours.
2) Johann & I: The liberal progressive agenda is multi-faceted. Both Johann and I have never commented on the majority of that agenda. You do not know where he and I are on that agenda. Therefore, you have born false-witness with you statement which has not been substantiated.
-
Snoopy only likes to hear what her own agenda is. She says what she wants and erases what she does not want when her conversation and accusations surpasses others.
Now is that little scenario that Gregory wrote of a girl that went to camp meeting apply here? :ROFL: No I can state that Snoopy is not an Adventist by faith! Too rebellious against it.
-
Snoopy only likes to hear what her own agenda is. She says what she wants and erases what she does not want when her conversation and accusations surpasses others.
Now is that little scenario that Gregory wrote of a girl that went to camp meeting apply here? :ROFL: No I can state that Snoopy is not an Adventist by faith! Too rebellious against it.
Well, thank you, tinka...for that exceptionally intriguing insight into my life. Just how and when exactly did you manage to crawl into my brain?? Maybe you are a "sacred" spy sent to preach silliness at people and when they disagree you are programmed to try to insult and bully them into your belief system!! I think you'd make a great Scientologist, tinka!! Just for your information, if you are supposed to be an example of an SDA Christian, I would run from that church as fast as possible. Chew on that for a while, Ms. Goody Two Shoes!!
-
tinka...
I have a great afternoon sermon for you to listen to on the topic of women in ministry...
http://www.pmchurch.tv/article/56/archives-dvd-s/the-last-days
I dare you to listen to the entire sermon under "Part 2 - The Last Days: Of Perfume and Tears and Grumpy Old Men" from January 21, 2012 and then contact Dr. Dwight Nelson with your thoughts on rebellion! You can reach him at the Pioneer Memorial Church in Berrien Springs, Michigan on the campus of Andrews University, and I'm certain he would be very interested in your close-minded perspective on the church and ministry!! I feel sorry for you, but that's not keeping me from placing you on my "ignore" list!!
-
Snoopy only likes to hear what her own agenda is. She says what she wants and erases what she does not want when her conversation and accusations surpasses others.
Now is that little scenario that Gregory wrote of a girl that went to camp meeting apply here? :ROFL: No I can state that Snoopy is not an Adventist by faith! Too rebellious against it.
You know what, tinka? This is none of your business, but since you seem to be so interested in my spiritual life I guess you might be interested in this, too!! I was raised SDA and attended SDA schools through academy. By the time I finished the 8th grade, I was so deathly afraid of the God I'd been taught about IN SDA SCHOOLS that I wanted nothing to do with Him. I have since learned about the God of Love on my own. So if I don't live up to your expectations, that is too bad and you'll just have to get over it!! Thankfully, YOU are not the one I have to answer to!! And thankfully, I have an "ignore" list here and you are on it, my friend!!
-
I dare you to listen to the entire sermon under "Part 2 - The Last Days: Of Perfume and Tears and Grumpy Old Men" from January 21, 2012
The Dwight Nelson "Grumpy Old Men" sermon has been showcased by some of the conservative Bible-believing segment of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as an example of how the progressives are pushing women's ordination which is considered by conservatives to be non-Biblical,
-
I dare you to listen to the entire sermon under "Part 2 - The Last Days: Of Perfume and Tears and Grumpy Old Men" from January 21, 2012
The Dwight Nelson "Grumpy Old Men" sermon has been showcased by some of the conservative Bible-believing segment of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as an example of how the progressives are pushing women's ordination which is considered by conservatives to be non-Biblical,
Give them some glasses so they can see well enough to start reading their Bibles again. They must have forgotten what was in there.