Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => Womens Ordination & Related Issues => Topic started by: Daryl Fawcett on September 04, 2012, 05:26:35 PM
-
Has anybody here read both of the "Women in Ministry" book and the "Prove All Things" book regarding the Ordination of Women?
If so, can you summarize and rate both books?
-
"Women in Ministry" is a book prepared by a committee from the theological center in Andrews University, presented in favor of women being ordained into the ministry.
While "Prove All Things" is a compilation of quite a number of articles from "Adventists Affirm" against women's ordination. Its articles are authored by writers like Samuel Pipim, Samuele Bacchoicchi, Gerard Damsteegt, Raymond Holmes and quite a few others.
-
"Women in Ministry" is a book prepared by a committee from the theological center in Andrews University, presented in favor of women being ordained into the ministry.
Do you have any idea who decided that only pro-WO viewpoints would appear in that book? I understand why Prove All Things contains only anti-WO viewpoints, but I don't understand how the decision was made that Women in Ministry would only contain pro-WO viewpoints.
-
I would assume its much the same as when two groups discuss
1 cor. 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak;
One group would take it to mean women are not lead out in any activity where men and women are gathered for worship.
The other group would say -- but that can't be the right interpretation, look at this verse over here, and this idea over there.
The first group would say, that's critical interpretation, making assumptions that aren't supported by the words themselves, we need to read the Bible as it reads. Can you show any place where women were actually called upon to read from the scriptures or lead out in a mixed congregational worship service.
The second group would point to Miriam
The first would quickly point out that she was leading the women, and this wasn't in a "church" service.
And so on and on .. each fully convinced in their own minds that their Biblical understanding is correct.
Then the second group writes a book explaining that women aren't required to absolute silence in church, Paul meant something else when he wrote that.
The first group writes another book affirming that women are not to present any type of teaching or leading activity in the church where men and women are gathered for worship, but are to be silent.
And they can't understand how anyone could make the decision to write a book contrary to their stand.
-
WOMEN IN MINISTRY
Contents
Prologue
PART ONE: MINISTRY IN THE BIBLE
“The Priesthood of All Believers” (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/wim/wim01ded.htm)by Raoul Dederen
“Women Priests in Israel: A Case for Their Absence”
by Jacques B. Doukhan
“Shapes of Ministry in the New Testament and Early Church”
by Robert M. Johnston
“Laying on of Hands in Ordination: A Biblical Study”
by Keith Mattingly
PART TWO: ORDINATION IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY AND ADVENTISM
“Clerical Authority and Ordination in the Early Christian Church”
by Daniel A. Augsburger
“Early Seventh-day Adventists and Ordination, 1844-1863”
by George R. Knight
“Ordination in the Writings of Ellen G. White”
by J. H. Denis Fortin
“A Theological Understanding of Ordination”
by Russell L. Staples
PART THREE: WOMEN IN MINISTRY AND LEADERSHIP
“Women in Scripture: A Survey and Evaluation”
by Jo Ann Davidson
“‘A Power That Exceeds That of Men’: Ellen G. White on Women in Ministry” (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/wim/wim10moon.htm)
by Jerry Moon
“Nineteenth-Century Women in Adventist Ministry Against the Backdrop of Their Times”
by Michael Bernoi
“SDA Women in Ministry, 1970-1998”
by Randal R. Wisbey
PART FOUR: PERCEIVED IMPEDIMENTS TO WOMEN IN MINISTRY
“Headship, Submission, and Equality in Scripture”
by Richard M. Davidson (http://universitypress.andrews.edu/content/Women%20in%20Ministry%20Excerpt.pdf)
“Equality, Headship, and Submission in the Writings of Ellen G. White”
by Peter M. van Bemmelen
“How Does a Woman Prophesy and Keep Silence at the Same Time? (1 Corinthians 11 and 14)”
by W. Larry Richards
“Proper Church Behavior in 1 Timothy 2:8-15”
by Nancy Jean Vyhmeister
“Ellen White and Women’s Rights”
by Alicia A. Worley
PART FIVE: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
“The Distance and the Difference: Reflections on Issues of Slavery and Women’s Ordination in Adventism”
by Walter B. T. Douglas
“The Ordination of Women in Light of the Character of God”
by Roger L. Dudley
“Culture and Biblical Understanding in a World Church”
by Jon L. Dybdahl
Epilogue (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/wim/wimepi.htm)
-
Here is a short section from the book on the role of women as seen by Ellen White:
"Seventh-day Adventists are not in any way to belittle woman's work," she affirmed. "If a woman puts her housework in the hands of a faithful, prudent helper, and leaves her children in good care, while she engages in the work, the conference should have wisdom to understand the justice of her receiving wages."(34)
Finally, Ellen White asserted the legitimacy of paying women ministers from the tithe, which she elsewhere maintained is to be sacredly reserved for the support of the gospel ministry.(35) "The tithe should go to those who labor in word and doctrine, be they men or women,"(36) she wrote.
Many of the pertinent quotations mention "wives" of ministers.(37) Other references, however, apply the same concept to women not specified as minister's wives, and to widowed women, showing that Ellen White saw some form of ministry as an appropriate career choice for women.
Some women are now teaching young women to work successfully as visitors and Bible readers.(38) Women who work in the cause of God should be given wages proportionate to the time they give to the work. . . . As the devoted minister and his wife engage in the work, they should be paid wages proportionate to the wages of two distinct workers, that they may have means to use as they shall see fit in the cause of God. The Lord has put His spirit upon them both. If the husband should die, and leave his wife, she is fitted to continue her work in the cause of God, and receive wages for the labor she performs [emphasis added].(39)
Seven elements in Ellen White's call for women in ministry have been noted: (1) "There are women who should labor in the gospel minis-try;" (2) women's work is "essential," and without it the cause will "suffer great loss;"(40) (3) women in ministry should receive just wages; (4) these wages may appropriately come from the tithe; (5) the call to ministry can in some cases take priority over housework and child care;(41) (6) some women should make ministry a lifelong vocation in which they earn their livelihood; and (7) conferences should not "discourage" women from "qualifying themselves" for ministerial work.(42) All these factors in her appeal justify the conclusion that she considered the call to promote and encourage the participation of women in ministry, not merely as an option, but as a divine mandate, the neglect of which results in dimin-ished ministerial efficiency, fewer converts, and "great loss" to the cause, compared with the fruitfulness of the combined gifts of men and women in ministry. Next we will consider what roles Ellen White envisioned for women in ministry.
Role Descriptions for Women in Ministry
The purpose of this section is to examine the evidence regarding the scope of Ellen White's call to women in ministry. What specific roles did she envision? What place did she see for women in relation to men in ministry?
The most frequently mentioned vocations in which Ellen White called women to minister are those of house-to-house ministry to families,(43) giving Bible studies,(44) in either evangelistic or pastoral contexts,(45) teaching in various capacities,(46) and "canvassing."(47) Also mentioned are medicine (specifically obstetrics and gynecology),(48) chaplaincy for medical and other institutions,(49) personal counseling with women,(50) and temperance leadership (particularly in connection with the Women's Christian Temperance Union).(51)
Supporting Roles in Team Ministry
Many of Ellen White's statements regarding women in ministry are set in the context of a team ministry in which women employ their gifts largely but not exclusively in teaching, visiting, and counseling private individuals and small groups, especially families. She specifically says that women will be more successful in this area of ministry than will men.
The Lord has a work for women, as well as for men. They may take their places in His work . . . and He will work through them. If they are imbued with a sense of their duty, and labor under the influence of the Holy Spirit, they will have just the self-possession required for this time. The Saviour will reflect upon these self-sacrificing women the light of His countenance, and will give them a power that exceeds that of men. They can do in families a work that men cannot do, a work that reaches the inner life. They can come close to the hearts of those whom men cannot reach. Their labor is needed [emphasis added].(52)
These women are called "self-sacrificing" specifically in the sense that they most often carry supporting rather than leading responsibilities in their respective ministerial teams. Yet despite their relatively lesser public recognition (because they spend more of their time in private and small-group teaching, counseling, and visitation), it is precisely in this supporting role that they are promised "a power that exceeds that of men," to "do in families a work that men cannot do," and "come close to the hearts of those whom men cannot reach."(53)
Ellen White's references to women as teachers were not, however, limited to the private teaching of individuals, families, and small groups. She also mentioned Sabbath school teachers and superintendents, teachers of camp meeting Bible classes, and elementary school teachers, as well as those who teach from the pulpit.(54) During her ministry in Australia, she spoke approvingly of two Bible instructors, Sister R[obinson] and Sister W[ilson] who were "doing just as efficient work as the ministers." She reported that at "some meetings when the ministers are all called away, Sister W[ilson] takes the Bible and addresses the congregation."(55)
Women as Teachers
One of the objections sometimes raised against Ellen White's own ministry was that women were not to "teach" men (1 Tim 2:12). This her colleagues refuted by arguing that this "general rule with regard to women as public teachers" did not constitute a rigid or universal prohibition.(56) J. N. Andrews argued that "there are some exceptions to this general rule to be drawn even from Paul's writings," as well as "from other Scriptures." Then he cited Paul's women co-workers (Phil 4:3); Phoebe's position as deaconess (Rom 16:1); Priscilla's association with Paul (Rom 16:3) and her participation in "instructing Apollos" (Acts 18:26); Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis (Rom 16:12); Philip's daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:8-9); and others to prove that women were not absolutely excluded from teaching roles. He concluded that Rom 10:10, which requires public confession of the faith as integral to salvation, "must apply to women equally with men."(57)
Ellen White seldom spoke in her own defense on this point. She generally allowed her male colleagues to formulate such responses. For example, note her account of a meeting in Arbuckle, California, at which S. N. Haskell was called on to explain this issue. " Before I commenced in talking," Ellen White recalled,
Elder Haskell had a bit of paper that was handed in[,] quoting certain texts prohibiting women speaking in public. He took the matter in a brief manner and very clearly expressed the meaning of the apostle's words. I understand that it was a Campbellite who wrote the objection and it had been well circulated before it reached the desk; but Elder Haskell made it plain before all the people.(58)
While Ellen White did not often refer to the Pauline passages on women as teachers, she did cite the work of Aquila and Priscilla in teaching Apollos as an example of "a thorough scholar and brilliant orator" being taught by two laypersons, one of whom was a woman.
The educated orator received instruction from them with grateful surprise and joy. Through their teachings he obtained a clearer knowledge of the Scriptures. . . . Thus a thorough scholar and brilliant orator learned the way of the Lord more perfectly from the teachings of a Christian man and woman whose humble employment was that of tent making [emphasis added].(59)
Thus she implicitly rejected the traditional interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12. On the contrary, she urged A. G. Daniells, then General Conference president, to employ in public evangelism "many men and women who have ability to preach and teach the Word." She continued,
Select women who will act an earnest part. The Lord will use intelligent women in the work of teaching. And let none feel that these women, who understand the Word and who have ability to teach, should not receive remuneration for their labors. They should be paid as verily as are their husbands. There is a great work for women to do in the cause of present truth. Through the exercise of womanly tact and a wise use of their knowledge of Bible truth, they can remove difficulties that our brethren cannot meet. We need women workers to labor in connection with their husbands, and should encourage those who wish to engage in this line of missionary work.(60)
While Ellen White specifically commended women who served in supporting ministerial roles, she also encouraged women with greater gifts for public leadership to fully exercise those gifts. When Mrs. S.M.I. Henry, national evangelist for the Women's Christian Temperance Union, became a Seventh-day Adventist,(61) Ellen White encouraged her to continue her public ministry.
We believe fully in church organization, but in nothing that is to prescribe the precise way in which we must work; for all minds are not reached by the same methods. . . . Each person has his own lamp to keep burning. . . . You have many ways opened before you. Address the crowd whenever you can; hold every jot of influence you can by any association that can be made the means of introducing the leaven to the meal [emphasis added].(62)
Notice the emphasis on the freedom and responsibility of each individual under God to find the ministry in which her gifts can be most fruitful, and Ellen White's belief that no one should "prescribe the precise way in which" another Christian "must work." It should also be noted, however, that her counsel to S.M.I. Henry does not primarily concern participation in the organized church, but in a parachurch women's organization.
"Women Who Should Be Engaged in the Ministry"
Three further statements deserve more detailed examination. They refer respectively to ministry, to pastoring, and to women as administrative leaders in the local church. The first of these, published in 1903, is ambiguous regarding the specific roles of women in ministry.
The Lord calls upon those connected with our sanitariums, publishing houses, and schools to teach the youth to do evangelistic work. Our time and energy must not be so largely employed in establishing sanitariums, food stores, and restaurants that other lines of work will be neglected. Young men and young women who should be engaged in the ministry, in Bible work, and in the canvassing work should not be bound down to mechanical employment.
The youth should be encouraged to attend our training schools for Christian workers, which should become more and more like the schools of the prophets. These institutions have been established by the Lord, and if they are conducted in harmony with His purpose, the youth sent to them will quickly be prepared to engage in various lines of missionary work. Some will be trained to enter the field as missionary nurses, some as canvassers, and some as gospel ministers.(63)
The ambiguity occurs in the final sentence of the first paragraph. "Young men and young women who should be engaged in the ministry, in Bible work, and in the canvassing work should not be bound down to mechanical employment." The reason for the ambiguity is that both "Bible work" and "canvassing" are referred to elsewhere as aspects of "ministry."(64) The fact that she enumerates them individually would seem to imply that she is distinguishing them as different vocations, hence the usage "the ministry" most likely refers here to the pulpit preaching and administrative office of ministry in contrast to the more individual and family-oriented ministry of the Bible worker and the literature-distributive ministry of the canvasser. Of Ellen White's many references to women "in ministry," the majority refer specifically to the ministry of evangelistic and pastoral visiting, giving Bible instruction and spiritual guidance in families—the calling here spoken of as "Bible work."(65)
Women as Pastors
At least two statements from Ellen White mention women in pastoral roles.(66) The central question, of course, is what did she mean by "pastoral"? Ellen White sometimes used pastoral terminology to denote the personal visitation aspects of a minister's work, as contrasted with public pulpit ministry.(67) In this vein she denounced ministers who "only preach," or worse yet, merely "sermonize," but "neglect personal labor" because they lack the "watchful, tender compassion of a shepherd. The flock of God have a right to expect to be visited by their pastor, to be instructed, advised, counseled, in their own homes."(68) Again, she says, "The pastor should visit from house to house among his flock, teaching, conversing, and praying with each family," as well as seeing that prospective members are "thoroughly instructed in the truth."(69) This is precisely the work Ellen White elsewhere recommends for women in team ministry--"visiting from family to family, opening the Scriptures to them."(70) It is in this pastoral work that they are promised "a power that exceeds that of men."(71)
"Women to Do Pastoral Labor"
The foregoing provides the necessary background for a consideration of two statements which indicate that the spiritual gift of pastoring is given to women as well as men.
The first of these occurs in Testimonies, 4:390.
If there is one work more important than another, it is that of getting our publications before the public, thus leading them to search the Scriptures. Missionary work—introducing our publications into families, conversing, and praying with and for them—is a good work and one which will educate men and women to do pastoral labor.(72)
According to this paragraph, door-to-door "missionary work" literature evangelism has two particular benefits: (1) "It is good work" in itself; and (2) it is a useful preparation for larger responsibilities. It "will educate men and women to do pastoral labor." The same two themes also permeate the context of another mention of women as "pastors."
"Pastors to the Flock of God"
The themes that (1) literature evangelism is itself a form of pastoral ministry, and (2) that it also gives preparation for pastoral ministry within a congregation, are clearly evident in a citation from Testimonies, 6:322. The sentences are numbered for ease of reference.
[1] All who desire an opportunity for true ministry, and who will give themselves unreservedly to God, will find in the canvassing work opportunities to speak upon many things pertaining to the future, immortal life. [2] The experience thus gained will be of the greatest value to those who are fitting themselves for the ministry. [3] It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.(73)
Sentence 1 indicates that "the canvassing work" is "true ministry." Sentence 2 recommends this work to "those who are fitting themselves for the ministry," i.e., ministerial leadership of a church. Sentence 3 affirms that the Holy Spirit "prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God." The deduction seems clear that the clause "prepares . . . to become pastors" in the third sentence stands in parallelism to "fitting . . . for the ministry" in the previous sentence.
This theme of preparation recurs several times in the immediate context. The chapter in which the quoted passage occurs bears the title, "The Canvasser a Gospel Worker," and opens with the declaration that "The intelligent, God-fearing, truth-loving canvasser should be respected; for he occupies a position equal to that of the gospel minister."(74) That is theme one: literature evangelism is ministry. One concern of this chapter is to elevate the importance of the work of the canvasser or colporteur(75) to an equality with other forms of ministry. However, the next sentence shows that Ellen White was not just promoting the canvassing work, she was promoting it specifically to "young ministers and those who are fitting for the ministry." That is theme two: literature evangelism as preparation for "the" regular ministry.
Many of our young ministers and those who are fitting for the ministry would, if truly converted, do much good by working in the canvassing field. And by meeting the people and presenting to them our publications they would gain an experience which they cannot gain by simply preaching. As they went from house to house they could converse with the people, carrying with them the fragrance of Christ's life. In thus endeavoring to bless others they would themselves be blessed; they would obtain an experience in faith; their knowledge of the Scriptures would greatly increase; and they would be constantly learning how to win souls for Christ [emphasis added].
Three paragraphs later occurs the passage under consideration.
The experience thus gained will be of the greatest value to those who are fitting themselves for the ministry. It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God [emphasis added].(76)
The theme of preparation and growth in evangelistic effectiveness continues in the rest of the paragraph. Canvassers who are "fitting themselves for the ministry" will "learn," "be educated," "practice," "be purified," "develop," and "be gifted" with spiritual power.(77)
On the next page occurs another explanatory connection with the main sentence under consideration. "The preaching of the word is a means by which the Lord has ordained that His warning message shall be given to the world. In the Scriptures the faithful teacher is represented as a shepherd of the flock of God. He is to be respected and his work appreciated. . . . [T]he canvassing work is to be a part both of the medical missionary work and of the ministry" (emphasis added).(78)
Ellen White repeatedly applies to the literature ministry terms commonly associated with the ministry of preaching, to show that the true literature evangelist is a preacher. Similarly, she uses terms associated with teaching to reinforce her concept of the canvasser as a teacher. Thus the paragraph that groups the terms "preaching," "teacher," and "shepherd of the flock of God" constitutes a statement that not only the regular minister, but the canvasser also preaches and teaches, hence also deserves to be "respected" and "appreciated" as a "shepherd to the flock of God."
Finally, "shepherd of the flock of God" stands in direct parallel to the expression "pastors to the flock of God" on the previous page, showing that by "pastors," Ellen White includes all who teach and preach the gospel, including literature evangelists. Comparing these parallel statements suggests that the Holy Spirit "prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors," i.e., "shepherds to the flock of God," but this shepherding role may take a variety of vocational forms.
On one hand, literature evangelists who truly minister to the individuals they visit are, through their literature and their presence, giving immediate pastoral care. On the other hand, the experience gained prepares the faithful canvasser to give pastoral care in other contexts as well.
Finally, the references to the "Holy Spirit," "gifts," "pastor," "teacher," and "shepherd," as well as the focal sentence "the Holy Spirit . . . prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God,"(79) imply that the spiritual gift of pastor-teacher (Eph 4:11) is given to both men and women.
"Adapted to the Successful Management of a Church"
That Ellen White saw both women and men as potentially qualified for church leadership is shown by her statement that "it is not always men who are best adapted to the successful management of a church." The context is a scathing rebuke to a Brother Johnson who had "a disposition to dictate and control matters" in a certain local church, and who had only "sneers" for the work of women in the same church. "Jesus is ashamed of you," she wrote, and on the next page continued,
You are not in sympathy with the great Head of the church. . . . This contemptible picking, faultfinding, seeking spot and stain, ridiculing, gainsaying, that you with some others have indulged in, has grieved the Spirit of God and separated you from God.
It is not always men who are best adapted to the successful management of a church. If faithful women have more deep piety and true devotion than men, they could indeed by their prayers and their labors do more than men who are unconsecrated in heart and life [emphasis added].(80)
The words "It is not always men" point to the addressees' assumption that in any situation, the best leader for a church would always be a man. Ellen White asserts that there are times when the person best qualified to lead a church is a woman. The words "best adapted" point to personal talents and spiritual gifts, which, along with "deep piety and true devotion," constitute the qualifications for spiritual leadership. The primary determinant of fitness for church leadership is not gender, but character.(81)
Set Apart by Prayer and Laying on of Hands
One further citation remains to be carefully examined in its historical context. It comes from the decade that Ellen White spent pioneering in Australia, and appeared in the Review and Herald, 9 July 1895. It is the one statement where she explicitly recommends an ordination service for women.
The burden of the article in which this statement occurs is the noninvolvement of the majority of church members in the work of the church. "A few persons have been selected as spiritual burden-bearers, and the talent of other members has remained undeveloped." To remedy this, she urges ministers to involve the congregation both in "planning" and in "executing the plans that they have had a part in forming." She further urges "every individual who is considered a worthy member of the church" be given a definite part in the work of the church. Then occurs the paragraph about women.
Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor. Not a hand should be bound, not a soul discouraged, not a voice should be hushed; let every individual labor, privately or publicly, to help forward this grand work [emphasis supplied].(82)
A few observations may be made at this point. These are laywomen, who are "willing to consecrate some of their time," not their full time, to church work. Thus it is clear that this is not a career choice by which they will earn their livelihood, but a part-time volunteer ministry.(83) Regarding the terms "appointed" and "set apart . . . by prayer and laying on of hands," there can be no doubt that these were Ellen White's characteristic expressions for a ceremony of ordination.(84)
No extensive research has been done to discover the extent of the church's response to this appeal. Three instances are known, however. On 10 August 1895, about a month after Ellen White's article was published in the Review (but possibly in response to an earlier local circulation of the prepublication manuscript), the Ashfield Church in Sydney, not far from where Ellen White was then working, held an ordination service for newly elected church officers. "Pastors Corliss and McCullagh of the Australian conference set apart the elder, deacons, [and] deaconesses by prayer and the laying on of hands."(85) Notice that identical ordination terminology is used for all three offices. Another record from the same church five years later (6 January 1900) again reports the ordination of two elders, one deacon, and two deaconesses. The officiating minister was W. C. White, whose diary of the same date corroborates the records of the Ashfield Church clerk.(86) A third example comes from February or March, 1916, when E. E. Andross, then president of the Pacific Union Conference, officiated at a women's ordination service and cited Ellen White's 1895 Review and Herald article as his authority.(87)
Both the internal evidence of Ellen White's 1895 article and the responses of those close to her at the time--the Ashfield Church; her son W. C. White; and E. E. Andross, who was a church administrator in California during Ellen White's Elmshaven years(88)--seem to confirm that Ellen White approved the formal ordination of laywomen to a role then associated with the office of deaconess in the local church. The work of a deaconess was not confined to ritual functions at the Lord's Supper and footwashing, but was rather seen as a work of practical ministry to persons in need. This is the apparent significance of Ellen White's job description, "to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor."
This evidence shows, first, that Ellen White did not view ordination, as such, to be a gender-specific ordinance, but a ceremony of consecration that may rightly be conducted for both men and women. It includes "designation to an appointed office," "recognition of one's authority in that office," and a request for "God to bestow His blessing" upon the one ordained.(89)
Second, the association of ordination with the office of deaconess suggests a line for further investigation. In current usage, both the office of deacon and its feminine equivalent, deaconess, have become stereo-typed as largely ceremonial offices, expanded slightly to include (for the men) physical upkeep of the church building and grounds, and (for the women) cooking and cleaning and serving at social functions. However, the New Testament word transliterated as deaconess is rightly translated "minister" (see Eph 3:7, where Paul uses the same root word for his own ministry), and there were women who filled this ministerial office (see Rom 16:1).(90)
Finally, note also that of the original seven who were elected to "serve tables" in Acts 6:2, two of them far superseded the terms of their ordination, becoming highly successful public speakers and evangelists. In view of Ellen White's endorsement of ordaining women as deaconesses, perhaps the significance of the New Testament precedent needs to be more fully explored, remembering that Ellen White's motivation for recommending this ritual was to stimulate the involvement and mobilization of the rank and file of church members by vividly impressing on them their divine calling to exercise outwardly the priest-hood of every believer bestowed on them at their baptism.(91) If the church would even now act on the instruction given a century ago that women "should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands"—a ritual that connotes the delegation of church authority and a request for the bestowal of divine blessing(92)—the church should not be surprised if some of those "set apart" to minister to the "sick," the "young," and the "poor" would go on to evangelizing and planting churches in which the sick, the young, and the poor would become healthy, mature, and prosperous, and continue the expansion of the Kingdom.
Conclusions
Regarding Ellen White's concept of the ministerial responsibilities that might appropriately be exercised by women, five points may be noted.
1. The combined talents of both men and women are essential for the highest success in the work of the ministry. Therefore the ideal is team ministry, especially by husband-and-wife ministerial teams.
2. The list of roles open to women in gospel ministry embraces a wide range of job descriptions and vocational options, including preaching, teaching, pastoral care, evangelistic work, literature evangelism, Sabbath School leadership, chaplaincy, counseling, and church administration.
3. She believed that the spiritual gifts of pastoring and teaching (Eph 4:11) are given by the Holy Spirit to both men and women, and some women possess gifts and abilities for the "successful management" of churches.
4. Ellen White's most strongly worded recommendation regarding women in ministry was that self-sacrificing wives who join their husbands in team ministry should receive wages proportionate to the time they devote to ministry. The issue of fair pay for every ministerial wife who chooses to devote herself to ministry rather than to some other profession was certainly a higher priority with Ellen White than ordination; yet her strong denunciations of paying only the male half of the ministerial team are still, with a few isolated exceptions, largely disregarded.(93)
5. Ellen White recommended the ordination of laywomen to a local ministry that would meet the needs of "the sick," "the young," and "the poor." Thus she showed her understanding that ordination is an ordinance of appointment and consecration that may rightly be conducted for both men and women. Her contemporaries understood this as a call for ordaining deaconesses on the same basis as deacons, but the practice was never widely accepted in the church.
Since she believed ordination is important for laywomen in a ministry to physical and emotional needs, would she also see some form of ordination as important for women who are laborers "in word and doctrine"? In any case, woman's place in ministry is secure. Even if "the hands of ordination have not been laid upon her, she is accomplishing a work that is in the line of ministry."(94)
-
Do you have any idea who decided that only pro-WO viewpoints would appear in that book? I understand why Prove All Things contains only anti-WO viewpoints, but I don't understand how the decision was made that Women in Ministry would only contain pro-WO viewpoints.
Two views exist. Give each side a forum to state their case. Publish a seperate statement on each.
-
Special Committee, SDA Theological Seminary - Nancy Vyhmeister, editor
EPILOGUE
So, what did we, the members of the Ad hoc Committee on Hermeneutics and Ordination, learn from our two-year study? Much, in every way! Short reflections on each of the five parts of this book condense our findings.
Our Findings
Ministry in the Bible
After the Fall, worship was directed by the patriarchs, the leaders of families. At the Exodus, God declared that his covenant-keeping people should be a "kingdom of priests" (Exodus 19:5-6). He also designated religious leaders for the nation church: physically perfect, male priests, descendants of Aaron. In the New Testament, the Levitical priesthood disappears and Jesus is portrayed as the heavenly High Priest, with all Christians forming part of the royal priesthood of believers. Ministry is no longer in the hands of the few, but there are leaders. The gifts of the Spirit enable those who receive them--regardless of their race, gender, or age--to minister to the church and carry the glad tidings of salvation to the whole world.
Ordination
The word is not used in the Bible, yet ceremonies of installation existed. Hands were laid upon apostles, elders, and deacons by the faithful in preparation for their specific ministries. Within three centuries the pattern changed to the ordination of church leaders by those in higher positions within the church hierarchy; this doctrine in time became known as "apostolic succession." In the mid-nineteenth century, pragmatic Adventism took over to a great extent the ordination patterns of the churches from which its leaders had come. Ellen White viewed ordination as a ceremony by which the church recognized the gifting of the Holy Spirit but which did not add "new grace." She proposed ordination for different types of ministers, both clergy and lay, including women who would spend time in home visitation. A biblical and Adventist view of ordination regards the ceremony as a recognition by the church and a setting apart for ministry, a doorway to service and spiritual leadership rather than to position and prestige.
Women in Ministry and Leadership
Even in the Old Testament, women occupied leadership positions. Sarah, Deborah, Hannah, and Huldah--to mention a few--could hardly be classified as submissive females. Jesus had women disciples; the first proclaimer of the resurrection was a woman. Paul mentions women among his coworkers, and goes so far as to call one an apostle and another a deacon. In Adventism, women have been active in preaching, teaching, healing, and leadership roles from the earliest times, in spite of nineteenth-century prejudices against such activities. Ellen White strongly supported women in ministry, even suggesting that they be paid from the tithe. In the late-nineteenth century, women were active in church leadership and ministry. After 1915 the number in leadership decreased dramatically. The last quarter of this century has seen an increase in the number of women in ministry and leadership; acceptance of these women has not been unanimous, leading at times to debate, centered especially on whether or not these women should receive ordination.
Perceived Impediments to Women in Pastoral Leadership
Arguments often used against ordination are considered and answered. "Headship" belongs to the husband-wife relationship, not to any male preponderance over all females; it is part of God's plan for fallen human beings rather than an original mandate for the sinless world. A study of the whole of Paul's writings, together with a careful exegesis of the specific passages often quoted as prohibiting women in leadership roles, shows that his passages requiring silence in church refer to specific situations and are not to be used as a blanket regulation for all times. However, the principles of order and appropriateness underlying his words do apply. Finally, the use of an Ellen White quotation to affirm that those who support women's ordination might as well abandon the three angels' messages is analyzed and found to refer to the use of the "American costume" and not at all to the question of ordination.
Other Considerations
While these three chapters might appear to be irrelevant to the main argument of this study, the Ad hoc Committee felt they were important and needed to be included. First, a study of the biblical hermeneutics and arguments of nineteenth-century American slaveholders in favor of the permanence and desirability of slavery showed a curious twisting of the Bible. Parallels with the argumentation of those who oppose the ordination of women to pastoral leadership were striking. Especially in the West, non-ordination of women who are performing the same tasks as men who are ordained is seen as injustice. And because God is the epitome of justice, this attitude would misrepresent the character of God. Finally, much as we cherish unity in the church, we are constrained to admit that there is diversity in the way we see life, the way we understand Scripture, the way we perceive God. Communication among members of this diverse yet united community demands listening to each other and to the Holy Spirit.
Our Conclusions
Because of Calvary, men and women share equally in a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). While living in the world, they are not of the world (John 17:14). In mutual submission (Eph 5:21) and loving preference of others (Phil 2:3), the old distinctions--Black and White, rich and poor, Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female--no longer count (Gal 3:28). The one Head of the church is Christ the Lord.
In this new community, each member of the body is gifted in a special way (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:4-11). Paul pointed out that among these gifts were prophets, apostles, and teacher- pastors. Their function was--and is--to equip the saints and build up the body (Eph 4:11, 12), to minister reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18, 19) to those who are far from God, that they may become "citizens" of the kingdom (Eph 2:17-19).
In this body of the redeemed on earth, men and women together are called to exercise their gifts. While there are innate differences between men and women, a woman called and qualified by God to perform pastoral duties, whose labor builds the body, should be recognized as a full-fledged minister. There is no biblical impediment for a woman to minister in any capacity for which she is called and equipped. Neither is there biblical reason for ordination to be withheld because of her gender.
However, the church in all lands may not benefit from having women as pastors. "All things should be done decently and in order" (1 Cor 14:40), with consideration for the opinions of "outsiders" (Col 4:5; 1 Thess 4:12). Above all, care must be taken that tradition not speak louder than the Bible.
Change, although difficult, is possible. What happened at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) is instructive. At that time the believers debated vigorously and at length whether it was proper for Gentiles to become Christians without first being circumcised, as had been required for participation in the Old Testament covenant (Gen 17:9-14). God himself had given this sign and failure to circumcise his young son nearly cost Moses his life (Exodus 4:24), yet the Jerusalem Council decided to not require circumcision of those who came to faith (Acts 15:19). This change of opinion came after Paul and Barnabas rehearsed the wonders God had performed among the Gentiles. The phrase "it seemed good" appears in vv. 22, 25, and 28 to describe the agreement of apostles, elders, and believers, together with the Holy Spirit, on the new instructions. If circumcision, based on divine mandate, could be changed, how much more could patterns of ministry, which lack a clear "Thus says the Lord," be modified to suit the needs of a growing church?
The Seminary Ad Hoc Committee on Hermeneutics and Ordination has attempted to be faithful to Scripture, allowing the Spirit to lead us and work in us. Our conclusion is that ordination and women can go together, that "women in pastoral leadership" is not an oxymoron, but a manifestation of God's grace in the church. We view our work as a contribution to an ongoing dialog. We trust it will be accepted as such.
-
While "Prove All Things" is a compilation of quite a number of articles from "Adventists Affirm" against women's ordination. Its articles are authored by writers like Samuel Pipim, Samuele Bacchoicchi,
Samuel Pipim was the author or a number of articles where I found him advocate a Biblical interpretation quite different from what I had been taught by Ellen G White. To me this seemed essential to "prove" his animosity against the ordination of women. Today Samuel Pipim is not a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and he has forfeited his own ordination. How many will follow his line out of the SDA church will be seen in the future.
Samuelle Bacchiocchi's main fame when he was a student at Newbold College was that he was a better salesman than anything else. In one summer he could make three scholarships: for himself, his sister, and his girlfriend. A close source tells me he would work in Catholic areas, introduce himself as Samuelle Bacchiocchi from Rome, and give the impression he was a solid Roman Catholic.
I have his doctoral thesis, for which he got a golden medal from the pope himself as he gave the pope the credit for changing the Sabbath to Sunday worship. I was impressed with him, so when he visited Denmark I took him for an interview with one of the best journalists of the Copenhagen Christian Daily, with whom I had arranged quite a number of excellent interviews previously.
It seemed a great disappointment to Bacchiocchi to discover that this journalist was a female, and he lost no time before showing his disdain. He refused to answer any of her questions, and just kept on following his own agenda, no matter what I did to get him to pay attention to the questions she was asking him.
A newspaper photographer took his picture, but neither picture nor interview was ever published. The news-writer called me and thanked me for all the people I had previously brought her for interviews. This one was the exception. But he was still the great salesman. He sold lots of his books through his Sabbath morning sermon, and his books, also against the ordination of women, were available immediately after the service - on Sabbath. His Sabbath sermon sales pitch was so intensive that I noticed some people buying whole boxloads of his important books. Great salesman and great at refusing to answer questions. Faithful and grateful to his friend, the pope, which he showed by promoting an important papal doctrine within the Seventh-day Adventist church: No ordination for women!
-
Finding fault with the different authors doesn't go as well with me as does refuting what they wrote in either side of the WO issue.
-
Samuel Pipim was the author of a number of articles where I found him advocate a Biblical interpretation quite different from what I had been taught by Ellen G White. To me this seemed essential to "prove" his animosity against the ordination of women.
I could just as well have said: I do not think his Biblical interpretation is in harmony with Ellen G White, and therefore I disagree with him!
-
Samuel Pipim was the author of a number of articles where I found him advocate a Biblical interpretation quite different from what I had been taught by Ellen G White. To me this seemed essential to "prove" his animosity against the ordination of women.
I could just as well have said: I do not think his Biblical interpretation is in harmony with Ellen G White, and therefore I disagree with him!
As blanket statements like this do not really tell me anything, I would in turn ask to show us where, how, and why his Biblical interpretation is not in harmony with EGW.
-
Samuel Pipim was the author of a number of articles where I found him advocate a Biblical interpretation quite different from what I had been taught by Ellen G White. To me this seemed essential to "prove" his animosity against the ordination of women.
I could just as well have said: I do not think his Biblical interpretation is in harmony with Ellen G White, and therefore I disagree with him!
As blanket statements like this do not really tell me anything, I would in turn ask to show us where, how, and why his Biblical interpretation is not in harmony with EGW.
I have made many futile attempts to do that on this forum in the past.
Public actions often make a much greater impact than mere words.
Here I also wanted to show that refusing to answer certain questions is not unique with Gregory.
-
Samuel Pipim was the author of a number of articles where I found him advocate a Biblical interpretation quite different from what I had been taught by Ellen G White. To me this seemed essential to "prove" his animosity against the ordination of women.
I could just as well have said: I do not think his Biblical interpretation is in harmony with Ellen G White, and therefore I disagree with him!
As blanket statements like this do not really tell me anything, I would in turn ask to show us where, how, and why his Biblical interpretation is not in harmony with EGW.
I have made many futile attempts to do that on this forum in the past.
Public actions often make a much greater impact than mere words.
Here I also wanted to show that refusing to answer certain questions is not unique with Gregory.
Lol! I have seen so many requests for an answer in a blurb. I have also seen many instances, including this, where people with a scholarly background refuse to do so. Over the last couple of weeks I have asked several, most who are not a part of this forum, why they have refused to give answers in a blurb on interpretation in matters of theology. Two words that have come up describing blurb usage in these circumstances are "irresponsible" and "dishonest."
-
Samuelle Bacchiocchi's way of peddling his ideas, a method which Pipim later adopted, is for me a reason why some teachers at Andrews felt it imperative to publish the book, Women in Ministry, to show that Bacchiocchi and Pipim had no Scriptural basis for their ideas, even though their books had a great influence on so many honest people in the church.
Some sections of Women in Ministry have now been posted here, just to answer some of your questions.
How the history of ideas can often be just as important as the ideas themselves is clearly seen in a book called the Great Controversy, which I encourage you to read. In that book you also find some important information on how to understand the Bible.
-
Then the second group writes a book explaining that women aren't required to absolute silence in church, Paul meant something else when he wrote that.
The first group writes another book affirming that women are not to present any type of teaching or leading activity in the church where men and women are gathered for worship, but are to be silent.
And they can't understand how anyone could make the decision to write a book contrary to their stand.
That isn't quite the situation we have here, if I understand correctly.
Generally speaking, the pro-WO side believes that Paul was commanding women to be silent in church, but then say that we don't have to follow his instruction today. The anti-WO side, generally speaking, instead takes the position that Paul was not prohibiting women from any sort of teaching.
Regarding the makeup of Women in Ministry, I would think that if a book is represented as coming from scholars at our seminary, it would fairly represent the views of those at the seminary, and not be orchestrated in such a way that only one view is represented.
-
Special Committee, SDA Theological Seminary - Nancy Vyhmeister, editor
EPILOGUE
So, what did we, the members of the Ad hoc Committee on Hermeneutics and Ordination, learn from our two-year study? Much, in every way! Short reflections on each of the five parts of this book condense our findings.
This is my question: Who put the committee together, and how were the members chosen? Was the process intended to fairly represent both views?
I asked this same question of J. David Newman regarding CUC's ad hoc committee, and never got an answer. If CUC put together a committee intentionally stacked to ensure that the outcome was pro-WO, that would be wrong.
-
It seemed a great disappointment to Bacchiocchi to discover that this journalist was a female, and he lost no time before showing his disdain. He refused to answer any of her questions, and just kept on following his own agenda, no matter what I did to get him to pay attention to the questions she was asking him.
Bacchiocchi knew how to be rude to men too. I can document that.
-
Regarding the makeup of Women in Ministry, I would think that if a book is represented as coming from scholars at our seminary, it would fairly represent the views of those at the seminary, and not be orchestrated in such a way that only one view is represented.
It seems to me that the other side had already presented their view as if that was the only truth, and therefore that view was not regarded as needing another possibility of prsenting their view.
-
Regarding the makeup of Women in Ministry, I would think that if a book is represented as coming from scholars at our seminary, it would fairly represent the views of those at the seminary, and not be orchestrated in such a way that only one view is represented.
It seems to me that the other side had already presented their view as if that was the only truth, and therefore that view was not regarded as needing another possibility of prsenting their view.
I don't think that is the case, as the "Prove All Things" book is the response to the one-sided "Women in Ministry" book.
-
Regarding the makeup of Women in Ministry, I would think that if a book is represented as coming from scholars at our seminary, it would fairly represent the views of those at the seminary, and not be orchestrated in such a way that only one view is represented.
It seems to me that the other side had already presented their view as if that was the only truth, and therefore that view was not regarded as needing another possibility of prsenting their view.
I don't think that is the case, as the "Prove All Things" book is the response to the one-sided "Women in Ministry" book.
So basically they are both one-sided?
-
Regarding the makeup of Women in Ministry, I would think that if a book is represented as coming from scholars at our seminary, it would fairly represent the views of those at the seminary, and not be orchestrated in such a way that only one view is represented.
It seems to me that the other side had already presented their view as if that was the only truth, and therefore that view was not regarded as needing another possibility of prsenting their view.
I don't think that is the case, as the "Prove All Things" book is the response to the one-sided "Women in Ministry" book.
Do I have to line it up? According to my memory:
1. Samuelle Bacchiocchi wrote a one-sided book against the ordination of women.
2. Pipim and others followed with more one-sided writings against the ordination of women. While Ellen White teaches that inspiration means God inspires the writer, but that the writer uses his own vocabulary (See the Introduction to the Great Controversy) Pipim already in his early books comes very close to claiming verbal inspiration, and thereby lays the groundwork for an interpretation of Scripture which SDA do not accept.
This is the conclusion I have reached from years of reading all the material I have been able to get hold of from both sides of this question.
3. "Women in Ministry" was a response to what the authors thought were the false claims in the previous one-sided publications against OW.
4. "Prove All Things" was again a one-sided presentation as a reaction against "Women in Ministry". Part of this material had already been published before in magazine articles, ets.
-
One good thing coming from all of this is a study that will take an unbiased look at the whole concept of ordination to be ready for the 2014 GC Fall Council. I expect it will eventually be available for us all to read.
In the meantime, we have these one-sided books and whatever else is out there to look at.
-
That isn't quite the situation we have here, if I understand correctly.
Generally speaking, the pro-WO side believes that Paul was commanding women to be silent in church, but then say that we don't have to follow his instruction today. The anti-WO side, generally speaking, instead takes the position that Paul was not prohibiting women from any sort of teaching.
Then we have three groups!
1. Those who take Paul's words literal and apply them today (Some very conservative Baptists, Hutterites, Mennonites )
2. Those who take Paul's words literal and say it was for cultural reasons.
3. Those who say Paul didn't mean it the way it reads and find another interpretation and apply that.
My point is that any person in any one of those groups could easily write a book explaining why they believe the way they do while the those in a different group would insist that it was wrong.
Regarding the makeup of Women in Ministry, I would think that if a book is represented as coming from scholars at our seminary, it would fairly represent the views of those at the seminary, and not be orchestrated in such a way that only one view is represented.
Have you read the book?
Anti-WO material was piling up and some people saw a need to counter balance the growing entrenchment.
These anti-WO were NOT fairly representing the views of the seminary, they were VERY one sided, very much orchestrated in such a way to make it seem only one view could possibly be considered as correct.
The whole purpose of the "Women in Ministry" was to explore the other side and give a good explanation from scripture and history as to why they believed differently. It was exactly an effort to help people understand that the seminary had OTHER views as well.
-
One good thing coming from all of this is a study that will take an unbiased look at the whole concept of ordination to be ready for the 2014 GC Fall Council. I expect it will eventually be available for us all to read.
In the meantime, we have these one-sided books and whatever else is out there to look at.
It may seem that way. The "problem" is that quite a number of Division, Union, and Conference presidents have already read all of these books, and prayerfully decided that only Women in Ministry follows the Biblical interpretation of Ellen G White, and therefore in harmony with the accepted teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They want to be true to their heritage and believe in all of the doctrines of our church. I know a number of these people. They are firm in their faith and are determined to be loyal and faithful, no matter what happens, so they will remain on board the ship until Jesus comes.
That is why most of them will not force this through until the GC counsel or session will either see the light as they do, or at least permit them to follow what they believe is the truth and essential in their part of the world.
I have greater fear for those who have already abandoned the Biblical interpretation of Ellen G White and thereby are opening the gates to reject it all.
Yes, we must pray for unity, and unity on the basis of TRUTH, which means Jesus.
-
Have you read the book?
Anti-WO material was piling up and some people saw a need to counter balance the growing entrenchment.
These anti-WO were NOT fairly representing the views of the seminary, they were VERY one sided, very much orchestrated in such a way to make it seem only one view could possibly be considered as correct.
The whole purpose of the "Women in Ministry" was to explore the other side and give a good explanation from scripture and history as to why they believed differently. It was exactly an effort to help people understand that the seminary had OTHER views as well.
That was the reason it was essential to publish Women in Ministry - the result of a two year study program at the Seminary.
-
I know a Conference President who read both books and feels that the Women in Ministry book lacked substance, lacked teeth, whereas the Prove All Things book had substance, had teeth in it. His present stance is that WO is not biblical.
I also know a lady who was ordained as an elder and was a Head Elder of her church at one time. She since studied this out for herself and now doesn't even recognize her ordination for the reason that she believes her ordination wasn't biblical.
-
The division on this issue is firmly fixed. Both sides beleive that they are in accord with Biblical teacheing. Both sides have sincere people who honestly want to do what the Bible teaches.
Daryl, I do not doubt that you know of peole as you have stated. Just about anyone who has been involved in the development of this issue in the SDA Church would be able to say the same thing.
Regardless of which side is correct, I, along with others, beleive that President Wilson has done more (and is doing more) to bring this issue to the forefrornt than possibly any other person could have done. If in the end, those who believe that females shoud be ordained achieve their purpose, I believe that President Wilson will be able to take much of the credit for that. On the other hand, if in the end the opposite happens, I believe that he will be able to take much of the credit.
NOTE: I have previously posted here on that issue.
-
That isn't quite the situation we have here, if I understand correctly.
Generally speaking, the pro-WO side believes that Paul was commanding women to be silent in church, but then say that we don't have to follow his instruction today. The anti-WO side, generally speaking, instead takes the position that Paul was not prohibiting women from any sort of teaching.
Then we have three groups!
1. Those who take Paul's words literal and apply them today (Some very conservative Baptists, Hutterites, Mennonites )
2. Those who take Paul's words literal and say it was for cultural reasons.
3. Those who say Paul didn't mean it the way it reads and find another interpretation and apply that.
I think those who hold what you label as #3 would object to the idea that they aren't taking the Bible literally.
-
Regarding the makeup of Women in Ministry, I would think that if a book is represented as coming from scholars at our seminary, it would fairly represent the views of those at the seminary, and not be orchestrated in such a way that only one view is represented.
Have you read the book?
Anti-WO material was piling up and some people saw a need to counter balance the growing entrenchment.
These anti-WO were NOT fairly representing the views of the seminary, they were VERY one sided, very much orchestrated in such a way to make it seem only one view could possibly be considered as correct.
The whole purpose of the "Women in Ministry" was to explore the other side and give a good explanation from scripture and history as to why they believed differently. It was exactly an effort to help people understand that the seminary had OTHER views as well.
Take a look at http://www.andrews.edu/universitypress/catalog.php?key=147. Do you see any hint that the book was intended to show that there was more than one view at the seminary on the matter? It is described as coming from "the Seventh-day Adventist Seminary," as if this is the view at the seminary.
I realize that Adventist Affirm has already published a book on the question. But Adventist Affirm does not profess to speak on behalf of the seminary, or the Michigan Conference, or the world church. If a book is going to be put out by the seminary, and if different views are held at the seminary, then the book should contain essays written by those holding both views, or else the book should be clearly marketed as only presenting one view of two or more held at that institution.
In dealing with these questions, we need to avoid politics, because political maneuvering is a very poor way to decide theology. If those who obtain and read Women in Ministry do not know that more than one view is held by those at the seminary, and thus believe that our scholars are more or less united on the topic, then that seems to me to be akin to political maneuvering.
-
That isn't quite the situation we have here, if I understand correctly.
Generally speaking, the pro-WO side believes that Paul was commanding women to be silent in church, but then say that we don't have to follow his instruction today. The anti-WO side, generally speaking, instead takes the position that Paul was not prohibiting women from any sort of teaching.
Then we have three groups!
1. Those who take Paul's words literal and apply them today (Some very conservative Baptists, Hutterites, Mennonites )
2. Those who take Paul's words literal and say it was for cultural reasons.
3. Those who say Paul didn't mean it the way it reads and find another interpretation and apply that.
I think those who hold what you label as #3 would object to the idea that they aren't taking the Bible literally.
True
However they do have to engage in considerable explaining to present how they interprete the text.
Also,
they claim others don't take the Bible as authoritive if they don't follow their reasoning, and most would object to that idea as well.
-
True
However they do have to engage in considerable explaining to present how they interprete the text.
Quoting 1 Cor. 11 doesn't seem like "considerable explaining" to me. Of course, if they pile it on, it could come across that way. But a short explanation citing 1 Cor. 11 could easily suffice: If Paul permits women to pray or prophesy in church in 1 Cor. 11, he can't be prohibiting all speaking in church in 1 Cor. 14.
Also,
they claim others don't take the Bible as authoritive if they don't follow their reasoning, and most would object to that idea as well.
If the one side uses a Bible passage to show that Paul can't be prohibiting all speaking in church in 1 Cor. 14, and the other side uses an argument that can't even be found in the Bible to show that we can disregard what they say 1 Cor. 14 says, there does appear to be a marked difference between how the two sides view Scripture.
-
Well, we've covered that before -- (I realize you believe "churches" means authoritive meetings, though I don't really see it)
Paul says women are to keep silent IN CHURCHES 1 Cor. 14:34
But there is no mention of prophecying IN CHURCHES in 1 Cor. 11
1 Cor. 11 It's all about covering the head.
Men are not to cover their heads, while women are to cover their heads.
That is preplexing too -- for in the Jewish culture men always covered their heads (prayer shawl) when they prayed or read scripture in the synogogue.
Also -- what have we done to the literal translation of "covering the head" in today's society?
-
Bob said:
Do you see any hint that the book was intended to show that there was more than one view at the seminary on the matter? It is described as coming from "the Seventh-day Adventist Seminary," as if this is the view at the seminary.
Bob, you are wrong. You may believe your statement that the book is published as if it is the view of the Seminary. But, that position is not accurate.
This is how the Andrews University Press describes the book:
An ad hoc committee on hermeneutics and ordination from the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary provides thoughtful answers to good questions:
Acaeemic institutions typically publishe works simply because they present a statement on an academic issue that is of academic interest. That is true whether the book is written by one person or by several. E.g. Take the example of Dr. B. The Pontifical Gregorian University published his work on the Sabbath. Yet no one with a correct understanding of what are published by an academic press could say that such publication was a statement that either the University or the Roman Catholic Church agreed with it.
The Andrews University Press publishes a lot. Such cannot be taken as a statement that the published works represnt the official view of either the University of of the SDA Denomination.
The same is true for works published at LOma LInda.
Examine the statment by the publishers as I have cited it above: It clearly states that it was written by an "ad hoc" committee. Do you underestand what those Latin words mean? Check any responsible dictionary. Those Latin words mean in simple language that the book was written with a specific agenda in mind. Yes, that agenda was to present a specific view on female ordination. That is what an academic press does. It presents a specific view. Bob, read peer reviewed articles in any respectable scientific journal. The published articles always present a specific view. They are not intended to argue all sides of a question. The arguements for other positions come in articles that rebut them.
-
And the "Prove All Things" book was written to rebut the "Women in Ministry" book.
Compare the two and tell me which one contains substance and which one lacks substance in the Scrpitural and SOP reference sense.
-
PROVE ALL THINGS is now online and may be read at:
http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/proveallthings.html
It has been suggested that WOMEN IN MINISTRY represents the view of the Seminary. I have posted previously to state that such is false. In addition there is an interesting statement made on page 19 of PROVE ALL THINGS:
Second, the twenty auathors of the book (WOMEN IN MINISTRY) have invited those who disagree with the volume's findings to engage them in a dialogue: "This volume represents the understanding of the Seminary Ad Hoc Committee on Hermeneutics and Ordination. We do not claim to speak for others, either at the Seminary or in church adminnistration. Some may disagree with our findings. That is their privilege. We welcome their responses and invite them to dialogue."
The above should be pretty clear that the authors of WOMEN IN MINISTRY did not suggest that this book represented the view of the Seminary.
It should also be noted that on the same page of PROVE ALL THINSG, it is suggested that the book WOMEN IN MINISTRY was developed following a request to the Seminary by several NAD leaders to provide a response to issues that were being raised regarding female ordination.
IOW, those faculty members did not initiate this task on thier own.
-
I know a Conference President who read both books and feels that the Women in Ministry book lacked substance, lacked teeth, whereas the Prove All Things book had substance, had teeth in it. His present stance is that WO is not biblical.
I also know a lady who was ordained as an elder and was a Head Elder of her church at one time. She since studied this out for herself and now doesn't even recognize her ordination for the reason that she believes her ordination wasn't biblical.
Some of us have heard that kind of arguments before. I recall some "theologians" claiming there was no teeth nor substance in the Seventh-day Adventist doctrines because of our disregard for the "Biblical" teaching of eternal hellfire. They claimed it was impossible to preach the gospel to people without this threat if they would not accept!
It may be true that there is more hell fire in some of the proclamations of the agents against the ordination of women, if that is what you want. To some this seems to be a sign of sanctification.
-
When I was at the GC session in 2005 I visited the independent stand of Adventist Affirm which to me is a strong indication this is a separate association, separate from Andrews University, General Conference, or the Ministerial Association. They clearly have their own agenda. At least one of those at the stand was an old friend, and we talked for a while.
-
Were you also at the GC Session in 2000 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada?
My wife and I were at that one.
-
Were you also at the GC Session in 2000 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada?
My wife and I were at that one.
No, I have only been to the following:
1958 Cleveland
1966 Detroit
1975 Vienna
1995 Utrecht
2005 St. Louis - 47 years after the first one. It has really been interesting following the development of the Seventh-day Adventist church through all of those years. At my age I do not expect attending any more sessions, also hoping there will not be many more.
-
Bob said:
Do you see any hint that the book was intended to show that there was more than one view at the seminary on the matter? It is described as coming from "the Seventh-day Adventist Seminary," as if this is the view at the seminary.
Bob, you are wrong. You may believe your statement that the book is published as if it is the view of the Seminary. But, that position is not accurate.
If you take a poll, you will likely find that many people believe that that book presents the view or the predominant view of the Seminary.
-
It should also be noted that on the same page of PROVE ALL THINSG, it is suggested that the book WOMEN IN MINISTRY was developed following a request to the Seminary by several NAD leaders to provide a response to issues that were being raised regarding female ordination.
IOW, those faculty members did not initiate this task on thier own.
What NAD leaders made that request? On what basis did the ad hoc committee represent only one view? Did the NAD leaders intend for it to be that way?
-
The book I ordered, namely "Women in Ministry", arrived in the mail yesterday.
I now have both books, "Women in Ministry" and "Prove All Things", with a lot of reading and comparing to do.
-
What NAD leaders made that request? On what basis did the ad hoc committee represent only one view? Did the NAD leaders intend for it to be that way?
That book, Prove All Things, is an interesting document. Even on the front page it claims to be a response to Women In Ministry. And it answers your questions right from the beginning. Since I can't copy from the book on the net I have to do it by memory.
It states that several Union Presidents from North America, who were dissatisfied with the GC votes, requested some of their friends at Andrews University to make a thorough study of how to present their views on the basis of Scripture, the SoP, and on the history of our church. It took them two and a half years to produce the book.
Now we know that it was the North American Division which requested a permission to ordain women within their area, even if other parts of the world were not prepared to do that. Does anyone imagine the NAD would make such a request unless they were fully convinced that they were doing this on solid Scriptural grounds?
If nothing else, they had all been delegates at the GC session where they heard Dr. Damsteegt's presentation, and they had most probably also read both his and other's arguments against their own, which they did not find his based on solid Scripture, and therefore they made their request to the GC, which was voted down.
Since they were already convinced in spite of hearing the arguments against it, would you think they should go to Dr. Damsteegt and his associates, requesting them to write down the arguments against their own views? So they asked those who agreed with them to write down their views to counteract what they considered a false presentation.
Dr. Damsteegt makes it clear that the basic "problem" is their different ways of interpreting Scripture, so he makes a comparison of the two methods used by the two views. Before commenting on that I'd like to mention what difference I have noticed in the writings of one of the authors, Samuel Koranteng Pipim. Already around 1920 the Seventh-day Adventist Church rejected the Biblical interpretation of the Christian Fundamentalists because it was not in agreement with EGW. I feel that Pipim is more liberal towards EGW and turns more back towards the fundamentalists which SDA rejected. I am way too much of a conservative to follow that line.
I did not notice Damsteegt going far into the Pipim line. He says he agrees with the basic EGW interpretation of Scripture, and he even goes partly along with WiM in following James White, but here appears the difference which becomes so dramatically basic for Dr. Dam. He claims that another dimension must be inserted into the James White understanding. That, he claims, is the headship doctrine.
Now I have not been able to detect that headship doctrine anywhere within the SDA 28 fundamentals, so to me that doctrine seems to be borrowed from other religions or churches. I find that its adherents try to find texts to prove their points, but quite a few serious Bible students are not convinced.
Somehow that headship doctrine seems more in harmony with the teachings of some of the male Church leaders already in the 4th century who firmly believed that females were but second rate citizens.
-
I can't remember if already stated it here or not, but I am aware of one Conference President who read both books and said the "Women in Ministry" one lacked substance, whereas the "Prove All Things" one had substance. He was looking into the WO issue at that time and hadn't yet come to a conclusion back then.
He has since come to a conclusion by saying that he believes that the ordination of women, even as a local elder, isn't biblical, although in his experience two of his best elders while pastoring churches were women.
-
I can't remember if already stated it here or not, but I am aware of one Conference President who read both books and said the "Women in Ministry" one lacked substance, whereas the "Prove All Things" one had substance. He was looking into the WO issue at that time and hadn't yet come to a conclusion back then.
He has since come to a conclusion by saying that he believes that the ordination of women, even as a local elder, isn't biblical, although in his experience two of his best elders while pastoring churches were women.
That post of yours is here on the same page where you also used the term "bite". The reply that was given then is that this is an argument we have heard before from people who use that argument against SDA because there is no "bite" in their preaching. That is because SDA do not threaten the sinner with eternal hell fire unless he repents.
Some claim that all the wild arguments used against the ordination of women is convincing more and more church member that they are using such arguments with bite in them to cover up their lack of solid arguments.
Elsewhere here you find the account of a Union President who was firmly against the ordination of women, until he retired and started reading his Bible. That convinced him he had been mistaken.
-
I found it.
I guess I have a short memory. :)
-
I found it.
Deuteronomy 4:29
"But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul."
-
What NAD leaders made that request? On what basis did the ad hoc committee represent only one view? Did the NAD leaders intend for it to be that way?
That book, Prove All Things, is an interesting document. Even on the front page it claims to be a response to Women In Ministry. And it answers your questions right from the beginning. Since I can't copy from the book on the net I have to do it by memory.
It states that several Union Presidents from North America, who were dissatisfied with the GC votes, requested some of their friends at Andrews University to make a thorough study of how to present their views on the basis of Scripture, the SoP, and on the history of our church. It took them two and a half years to produce the book.
Now we know that it was the North American Division which requested a permission to ordain women within their area, even if other parts of the world were not prepared to do that. Does anyone imagine the NAD would make such a request unless they were fully convinced that they were doing this on solid Scriptural grounds?
If nothing else, they had all been delegates at the GC session where they heard Dr. Damsteegt's presentation, and they had most probably also read both his and other's arguments against their own, which they did not find his based on solid Scripture, and therefore they made their request to the GC, which was voted down.
Since they were already convinced in spite of hearing the arguments against it, would you think they should go to Dr. Damsteegt and his associates, requesting them to write down the arguments against their own views? So they asked those who agreed with them to write down their views to counteract what they considered a false presentation.
Dr. Damsteegt makes it clear that the basic "problem" is their different ways of interpreting Scripture, so he makes a comparison of the two methods used by the two views. Before commenting on that I'd like to mention what difference I have noticed in the writings of one of the authors, Samuel Koranteng Pipim. Already around 1920 the Seventh-day Adventist Church rejected the Biblical interpretation of the Christian Fundamentalists because it was not in agreement with EGW. I feel that Pipim is more liberal towards EGW and turns more back towards the fundamentalists which SDA rejected. I am way too much of a conservative to follow that line.
I did not notice Damsteegt going far into the Pipim line. He says he agrees with the basic EGW interpretation of Scripture, and he even goes partly along with WiM in following James White, but here appears the difference which becomes so dramatically basic for Dr. Dam. He claims that another dimension must be inserted into the James White understanding. That, he claims, is the headship doctrine.
Now I have not been able to detect that headship doctrine anywhere within the SDA 28 fundamentals, so to me that doctrine seems to be borrowed from other religions or churches. I find that its adherents try to find texts to prove their points, but quite a few serious Bible students are not convinced.
Somehow that headship doctrine seems more in harmony with the teachings of some of the male Church leaders already in the 4th century who firmly believed that females were but second rate citizens.
Which union presidents made the request?
After the 1995 vote, I believe, I heard a union president take credit for Al McClure's rapid reassurance that the issue would not die. (At the time I really thought it strange for McClure to make the statements he did, as if I really wanted to see women ordained and was disappointed with the vote.) But I'm not sure that that union president had a reputation for a high view of Scripture and Adventist doctrines.
And that's part of the problem. Over and over again it has been liberals who have a low view of Scripture, who don't care about the three angels' messages and the SoP, who are perceived as pushing for women's ordination. Of course there are exceptions, I'm sure. But you refer to certain unnamed union presidents, which leads me to recall that conversation with a union president who may be one of the ones you are referring to, which in turn leads me back to the same perception that this is all part of some liberal agenda.
-
Battle Creek,
I would recommend that rather than merely asserting that James White (or other early Adventists) never taught "headship," that you instead document from early Adventist publications that he never taught such.
If you read through some of the earlier threads, I posted quite a few early articles. Some of these most definitely taught "headship."
One might then ask, Why have so many North American Adventists stopped teaching what our pioneers and early Adventists taught, despite those pioneers and early Adventists supporting their beliefs with clearly stated Scripture? The best answer I can see is that they have been influenced by popular cultural practices.
-
Another book is now being used in this area. The Norwegian Union voted last week to have the book Priestly Ministry in the Old and the New Testament: Should Women be Ordained? (2012) by John Lorencin translated into Norwegian and sent to all members in this country.
The purpose is to let all Adventist in Norway know that ordaining women for the ministry is fully in accordance with Scripture, and be prepared to grant a full ordination to their female pastors latest by the end of 2015.
The Union also voted that in the meantime male ordained pastors can request of the union secretary that their status be changed to commissioned ministers - to show their solidarity with the female pastors. This way there will be no difference between men and women serving in the ministry even now.
John Lorencin served as a Union President of Yugoslavia when he was fully convinced that women should not be ordained in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. At his retirement he decided to study the question in his Bible, and then he came to the conclusion that his former conviction was shaped by the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox, and the Muslims, the three dominant religious bodies in his country, and had nothing to do with Scripture.
-
Amazing. So the union has voted to invite male ministers to surrender their ordination? That's something usually reserved for apostasy or church discipline.
For example, once a local elder is ordained, he is always ordained, unless he is disciplined or apostatizes.
-
Commissioned ministers are also ordained, and their ordination permits them to do all that a regular minister does, as long as they are within their own conference - with the exception of organizing churches and serving as presidents. The ministers in Norway are not encouraged to reject their ordination, just to change their status as long as females are not permitted to have the status as regular ministers. There is no GC vote to prevent this.
The commissioned minister is a provision that has been voted by the GC in session, and applies to both men and women.
The ordination of an ordained elder is not valid unless he has been elected as a local elder. His ordination is valid as a deacon, if he is chosen as a deacon. In the same way the ordination as a minister is still valid if the person goes a step down to serve as a commissioned minister.
-
I think it is foolish to do anything prior to the work of the study committee that has been formed and wait until their report has been presented to the 2014 Annual Council and then to the decision of the 2015 GC Session.
All that these Unions have done or are doing is a distraction that promotes disunity and rebellion over the process that has been set in motion by the GC.
-
A agree with Darryl.
Commissioned ministers are also ordained, and their ordination permits them to do all that a regular minister does, as long as they are within their own conference - with the exception of organizing churches and serving as presidents.
Could you provide a reference to something that says that commissioned ministers are in reality ordained ministers, i.e., ministers that have been ordained?
-
I think it is foolish to do anything prior to the work of the study committee that has been formed and wait until their report has been presented to the 2014 Annual Council and then to the decision of the 2015 GC Session.
All that these Unions have done or are doing is a distraction that promotes disunity and rebellion over the process that has been set in motion by the GC.
I cannot see that the Norwegian Union has done anything that is not permitted by the present rules of the General Conference. They voted to wait until after the approval of ordination of women will take place at the General Conference in 2015 and also dealt with at the Annual Session following the GC session.
-
A agree with Darryl.
Commissioned ministers are also ordained, and their ordination permits them to do all that a regular minister does, as long as they are within their own conference - with the exception of organizing churches and serving as presidents.
Could you provide a reference to something that says that commissioned ministers are in reality ordained ministers, i.e., ministers that have been ordained?
I cannot answer your question because this is not what I said. Read again what I did say. Then voice your question accordingly.
-
A agree with Darryl.
Commissioned ministers are also ordained, and their ordination permits them to do all that a regular minister does, as long as they are within their own conference - with the exception of organizing churches and serving as presidents.
Could you provide a reference to something that says that commissioned ministers are in reality ordained ministers, i.e., ministers that have been ordained?
I cannot answer your question because this is not what I said. Read again what I did say. Then voice your question accordingly.
Were you referring to a commissioned minister being ordained as a local church elder?
-
This isn't the case in all of those Unions though.
I think it is foolish to do anything prior to the work of the study committee that has been formed and wait until their report has been presented to the 2014 Annual Council and then to the decision of the 2015 GC Session.
All that these Unions have done or are doing is a distraction that promotes disunity and rebellion over the process that has been set in motion by the GC.
I cannot see that the Norwegian Union has done anything that is not permitted by the present rules of the General Conference. They voted to wait until after the approval of ordination of women will take place at the General Conference in 2015 and also dealt with at the Annual Session following the GC session.
-
A agree with Darryl.
Commissioned ministers are also ordained, and their ordination permits them to do all that a regular minister does, as long as they are within their own conference - with the exception of organizing churches and serving as presidents.
Could you provide a reference to something that says that commissioned ministers are in reality ordained ministers, i.e., ministers that have been ordained?
I cannot answer your question because this is not what I said. Read again what I did say. Then voice your question accordingly.
Were you referring to a commissioned minister being ordained as a local church elder?
Here is what is claimed comes from the Church Manual voted at the 2010 GC session:
Ordained Pastors and Commissioned Pastors Compared
Posted by Warren Trenchard
Some have asked about the differences in duties, responsibilities, and rights between ordained pastors and commissioned pastors. The following summary is derived from the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 18th edition (2010). For perspective we have included a comparison to the ordained local elder for the related areas of responsibility.
Ordained pastors (limited to males)
May conduct all rites and ceremonies
May conduct communion
May conduct baptism
May administer marriage vows/declarations
May preside at business meetings involving member discipline
May ordain elders, deacons, and deaconesses
May organize or unite churches
May serve as conference presidents
Commissioned pastors (may include females)
May conduct communion
May administer marriage vows/declarations, if they are local elders
[May serve as conference presidents (only in the North American and Trans-European Divisions by recent actions)]
Local elders (males and females)
May conduct communion
May conduct baptism, with permission of conference president
May preside at business meetings involving member discipline, with permission of conference president
-
I'm not sure that that is accurate. Can a commissioned minister conduct communion if they are not currently elected as a local elder?
Can a commissioned minister serve as a conference president in North America? I thought that ever since last January it has been recognized that they can't. Wasn't that what Dan Jackson's January 2012 letter all about?
You had stated that commissioned ministers were also ordained. Did you mean by that that they were probably ordained as local elders?
-
A female commissioned minister told me that five women were ordained in England at the same time by their union president. There seem to be more that a hundred female commissioned ministers in the United States. Have they not been ordained as such? I know that a number of commissioned ministers serve also as local elders whose conference presidents have granted them permission to baptize, etc., and serve as local pastors with no other pastor for the same church or district.
-
If they were really ordained in that service, I would think they were ordained as local elders. Otherwise, I would think they were commissioned, not ordained. I would not think that a commissioning service and an ordination service are one and the same.
I would also think that if they had already served as licensed ministers, that the service you refer to was a commissioning service. Otherwise, if they were just starting out, I would think they were ordained as local elders, and were not being commissioned, and were then going to be licensed ministers, not commissioned ministers.
But I'm unfamiliar with the circumstances you are referring to.
-
But I'm unfamiliar with the circumstances you are referring to.
Seems good since familiarity breeds contempt :dogwag: :oops:
-
If they were really ordained in that service, I would think they were ordained as local elders. Otherwise, I would think they were commissioned, not ordained. I would not think that a commissioning service and an ordination service are one and the same.
I would also think that if they had already served as licensed ministers, that the service you refer to was a commissioning service. Otherwise, if they were just starting out, I would think they were ordained as local elders, and were not being commissioned, and were then going to be licensed ministers, not commissioned ministers.
But I'm unfamiliar with the circumstances you are referring to.
The Church Manual, as amended by the latest GC session explains the relationship between the functions of pastor, commissioned pastor, licensed minister, and elder, in the following terms:
“If the pastor is a licensed minister, the church or churches served should elect the pastor as an elder…
“Communion services must always be conducted by an ordained/commissioned pastor or local elder. . .
“Baptismal Service. . . An elder should not officiate in the service without first obtaining permission from the conference president. . .
“In a marriage ceremony the charge, vows, and declaration of marriage are given only by an ordained pastor except in such areas where division committees have approved that selected licensed or commissioned pastors who have been ordained as local elders may perform the ceremony. “ Pp. 73-74
“There are circumstances, however, where it is necessary for the conference committee to appoint a licensed minister to carry responsibility as a pastor or assistant pastor of a church or group of churches. In order to open the way for a licensed minister to carry certain pastoral functions, the church or group of churches must elect the pastor as a local elder. Then, since the right to extend the right of a licensed minister’s authority rests first with the division executive committee, it must approve the extension by specifically and clearly defining the additional functions that that licensed minister may perform… After the division committee has acted, the conference committee may act.” P. 34
This wording, which was approved by the General Conference in session in 2010, seems to give each division committee an almost unlimited mandate to direct the authority of commissioned or licensed ministers within the church or churches the conference has assigned to them.
Therefore the main distinction between a commissioned and a generally ordained minister seems primarily to be that the generally ordained minister can function universally, while the commissioned minister is limited in their function to the local church where the conference committee has placed them. This means that the commissioned minister cannot organize new churches or serve as conference president - unless that assignment has been approved by the division committee. Some may feel that the election as a conference president by the general assembly, which is the highest governing authority in the local conference, equals being assigned as a pastor to all the churches in that particular conference.
-
The current Church Manual also prescribes that deaconesses can only be ordained by an ordained minister in the conference. Once ordained, a deaconess does not have to be ordained again if she serves again later as a deaconess, either in the same or another church.
-
I don't think a division committee can legitimately vote to permit a licensed or commissioned minister to organize churches or serve as a conference president. Jackson's letter of last January seems to make that fairly clear.
-
Take another look at the wording in the CHURCH MANUAL. The accusers of Dan Jackson might not have read that.
-
The author of this small booklet fought against the ordination of women at General Conference Sessions while serving as a union president.
Now he offers his views in a booklet free to all:
http://www.priestlyministry.com/uploads/Priestly_Ministry_FINAL.pdf
It also deals with the Sanctuary Service and salvation
-
I skimmed through and then did a word search on the name "husband" in the pdf file and noticed that it didn't even quote or comment on the following verse:
1Timothy 3:2 KJV A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
I wondered why he didn't quote and comment on that verse, seeing it is one that it widely used by pro WO people?
The author of this small booklet fought against the ordination of women at General Conference Sessions while serving as a union president.
Now he offers his views in a booklet free to all:
http://www.priestlyministry.com/uploads/Priestly_Ministry_FINAL.pdf
It also deals with the Sanctuary Service and salvation
-
I skimmed through and then did a word search on the name "husband" in the pdf file and noticed that it didn't even quote or comment on the following verse:
1Timothy 3:2 KJV A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
I wondered why he didn't quote and comment on that verse, seeing it is one that it widely used by pro WO people?
I think you are mistaken. That verse seems to be used frequently by the people who oppose the ordination of women in their futile attempts to prove what is not there. Does your whole definition of Jesus Christ as our High Priest depend on that on that one verse? Most Bible scholars discover the whole picture throughout the Scriptures. This is a unique perspective. A person gets hold of a book, skims through it just to discover how the author deals with a single sentence in the whole Bible. If that does not fit into your preconceived notion, then it is worthless in your eyes?
This is not directed at you personally, Daryl, but it seems quite typical in these discussions.
The author of this small booklet fought against the ordination of women at General Conference Sessions while serving as a union president.
Now he offers his views in a booklet free to all:
http://www.priestlyministry.com/uploads/Priestly_Ministry_FINAL.pdf
It also deals with the Sanctuary Service and salvation
-
I was wondering why he didn't explain what that verse mean't, knowing that it was extensively used by pro WOers.
-
I was wondering why he didn't explain what that verse mean't, knowing that it was extensively used by pro WOers.
I am still having a hard time seeing any reason why he should, since everything is so clearly defined and presented.
-
What about it being clear to others?
I was wondering why he didn't explain what that verse mean't, knowing that it was extensively used by pro WOers.
I am still having a hard time seeing any reason why he should, since everything is so clearly defined and presented.
-
It takes slightly more than skimming and a word search. It also takes an understanding of the Sanctuary Service.
What about it being clear to others?
I was wondering why he didn't explain what that verse mean't, knowing that it was extensively used by pro WOers.
I am still having a hard time seeing any reason why he should, since everything is so clearly defined and presented.