What of Women's Ordination

bob_2 · 04-30-10 2:46 pm

ORDINATION OF WOMEN:
A HERMENEUTICAL QUESTION
By: John Brunt
Vice-President for Academic Administration
Walla Walla College

http://www.aaw.cc/PDF_files/Brunts%20Or … 0Women.pdf

In reading this article I have thought of how humans have mixed up Civil Rights Issues about Slavery with Homosexual Marriage and gotten a result that is confusing and anti-Biblical.

This issue may be a little more perplexing where Paul states under the Gospel there is neither "male nor female". What of that?

bob_2 · 04-30-10 10:12 pm

But what of this quote from Paul:

1 Timothy 2:11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

bob_2 · 05-04-10 3:41 am

I introduce this study on the above subject:

http://bible.org/seriespage/male-female … enesis-1-3

I felt it was even handed, even giving a cautionary note about male headship, versus male domination. Woman was created as a "helper to man, and named the "species" "MAN". Significant, read the piece.

Last edited by bob_2 (05-04-10 3:43 am)

bob_2 · 05-04-10 6:47 pm

Excerpt from the above study, distinguishing male headship/leadership from male domination:

My purpose in this essay is to demonstrate from Genesis 1-3 that both male-female equality and male headship, properly defined, were instituted by God at creation and remain permanent, beneficent aspects of human existence. Let me define male-female equality:
Man and woman are equal in the sense that they bear God’s image equally.
Let me also define male headship:
In the partnership of two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman, the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction.
The model of headship is our Lord, the Head of the church, who gave Himself for us.1 The antithesis to male headship is male domination. By male domination I mean the assertion of the man’s will over the woman’s will, heedless of her spiritual equality, her rights, and her value. My essay will be completely misunderstood if the distinction between male headship and male domination is not kept in mind throughout.
Evangelical feminism argues that God created man and woman as equals in a sense that excludes male headship. Male headship/domination (feminism acknowledges no distinction) was imposed upon Eve as a penalty for her part in the fall. It follows, in this view, that a woman’s redemption in Christ releases her from the punishment of male headship.2
What, then, did God intend for our manhood and womanhood at the creation? And what did God decree as our punishment at the fall? The first two chapters of Genesis answer the first question and the third chapter answers the second.

Read the whole study, and bring your observations and questions.

elaine · 05-06-10 8:11 pm

Which position should we apply to the male-female relationships today? The ideal before sin, or that which was imposed by and after sin?

Did God create them in his image before sin? Did that imply anything but equality? If, after sin the female was to be subordinate to man, should we follow the ideal (before sin) or continue with the curse of sin?

bob_2 · 05-07-10 5:00 pm

Elaine, if man was given a helper by God after not finding an adequate on in the rest of the animals, and God created woman from Adam's rib, wouldn't the pre Fall headship and the Post Fall headship still be the same, woman subordinate to man? You read the article, right? He goes into this.

Last edited by bob_2 (05-07-10 5:04 pm)

elaine · 05-07-10 11:06 pm

No, I got my information from the Bible. In the story told in the first chapter of Genesis God created both, at the same time, as it is written.

In the second creation story in Gen. 2, Adam was created before anything, entirely different than the 6-day creation story when man was the last creative act. How can they both be harmonius with such disparity? Pick and choose the one that you like best?

tom_norris · 05-08-10 7:14 pm

John Brunt wrote: Whenever Seventh-day Adventists discuss the ordination of women to gospel ministry, they inevitably quote certain New Testament passages. Adventists are committed to Scripture. It is our norm for faith and practice, and we turn to it for guidance on this issue. But how shall we understand Scripture aright? That is the hermeneutical question.

http://www.aaw.cc/PDF_files/Brunts%20Or … 0Women.pdf

Tom Norris said: Every doctrine in the church must be based on sound, Protestant hermeneutics. But the SDA’s are no longer honest with the Bible or even church history. THIS IS THE PROBLEM. This Women’s controversy is just a symptom of a much larger problem.

Brunt is correct to point out how dishonest the SDA’s are when they are trying to defend their doctrine about Women’s Ordination. Good for him to point out such facts.

The SDA’s have developed proof texts for everything they teach. Thus they pretend to have an honest biblical position, when they have no such thing. By use of their twisted, incompetent, and dishonest hermeneutic, they think they can prove the IJ and 1844 as well as tithe and a hierarchy, and even that wine in the Bible is grape juice. So no one should be surprised to find them forcing the NT to agree with their views about Women’s Ordination.

In short, the SDA’s make the Bible say whatever they want it to say, even as they do the same for Ellen White. So there is no such thing as an honest or credible SDA hermeneutic. Their definition of hermeneutics should really be called propaganda, spin, and double-talk, because that is all it is. Most everything they teach has no support from the NT, including this view that women cannot be ordained, and that they are spiritually inferior to men.

The SDA’s have most every doctrine wrong, including the SABBATH, so it should come as no surprise that their present view about women’s ordination is also against the NT. The Denomination is so corrupt and blind, that they have no idea that there is a NC Sabbath for the church or that tithing and an all male controlled hierarchy has been banished from the NC.

The reason why the SDA’s refuse to ordain women is because they are following the Old Covenant. They have modeled their organization on the OT, which is why they embrace tithing, and a male only group of priests, (ordained pastors), and a male high priest at the top. They are acting like the Judaizers, even as they try and promote the OC schoolmaster Sabbath from Battle Creek. This is all wrong.

The NT teaches that all in the church are Priests, including ALL the females. This theological fact settles the issue once and for all. The NC is a very different paradigm from the OC, and the SDA’s had better learn the difference before its too late. (Had they not exiled those that understood the Protestant Hermeneutic and the Gospel, (Dr. Ford), they would not be so totally lost, blind, and confused right now.)

There can be no tithing in the church, much less a male dominated organization with a male high priest at the top. This is the error that the RCC committed. They embraced the OC model, with the Pope as the High Priest. Thus they have an all male priesthood, while all others, the vast majority, are NOT priests. And no females can ever become priests. It is forbidden.

This is all wrong, even as it is very close to what the SDA’s have developed. They call their priests, pastors, but they have the very same hierarchical model as the RCC. Shame on the SDA’s. They are not Protestant in doctrine, behavior, or structure. They have followed Rome and embraced the OC. THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

The NC features the Priesthood of all Believers. So there can be no male only priesthood (or Pastors) in the church and no doctrine of tithe or a tithe based hierarchy, with a male high priest. There is only one high priest for the church, and that is Jesus. He is the head of the church. Period.

All in the church are subordinate to Jesus authority, both men and women. This is the correct doctrine about “headship.” Forget this other nonsense that is floating around Laodicea. It is meant to promote an OC mindset that controls and devalues women.

The NT teaches that Women in the church are the spiritual equals of any man (except Jesus). They are fully priests of Christ 100%. Moreover, they have no limits or restrictions to the gifts of the Spirit. Who dares say otherwise?

Those that fight to keep women from being ordained are doing so in violation of the fundamental doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers. They are following an OC model that has been abolished. This is a serious error that will be fatal for all that refuse to repent and embrace the NC Gospel correctly.

Tom Norris for Gospel Reform in the Church

bob_2 · 05-10-10 12:54 pm

Why the hyperbole when it comes to the SDA church. They like a lot of churches believe they have the truth, no reform needed. Don't call them:

Women' Controversy
SDA’s are no longer honest with the Bible or even church history.
pretend to have an honest biblical position
their twisted, incompetent, and dishonest hermeneutic,
and finally, Tom,
the SDA’s make the Bible say whatever they want it to say, even as they do the same for Ellen White.

Is this last "flaw" not yours as well. Why not tone it down a bit and we might get some more posting members.

Last edited by bob_2 (05-10-10 1:06 pm)

bob_2 · 05-10-10 1:15 pm

I choose both stories. God was looking for a help mate for Adam and paraded the animals in front of him. At the end of the day, week, however long the naming process took, he could not find a "helper" so God made one for him. How does that go against the first story if God created female but after male for a helper?

elaine · 05-10-10 5:02 pm

It is not in the first story (Gen. 1) that Adam named the animals and then after that, God created Eve.

That is in the second account and there is a distinct difference: In the beginning, God created man, and then later the plants (days are not mentioned) and finally, after Adam had seen all the animals and named them, he could not find a suitable mate and THEN, and only then, did God create Eve from Adam's rib.

To claim that they are the same story defies imagination. They are NOT alike in nearly every detail.

But, if the details are unimportant, we can simply ignore it and say it is a fable told of how man came to be.

bob_2 · 05-11-10 3:38 am

Elaine, read Chap 2, verses 7 and 8. Sounds like God had been planting a Garden before or while he was making man, in this version. I see no problem with Chap 2 being detail about Chap 1. It makes no since for man to be on the earth before vegetation to eat. Verses 7 and 8 certainly can be interpreted that it was made before God created man. The Gen 1 story doesn't give the detail of woman's creation and Genesis 2 supplies that. What is the problem with all you that see a problem with these two chapters???

elaine · 05-11-10 8:27 pm

Neither in the Gen. 1 creation story does it make sense to create the "lights" in heaven: one fto govern the day, the smaller to rule the night.

Maybe a botanist can explain how plants (created before the sun can survive without the sun. It only makes sense to read either story as literal in every detail. Since no humans were there to observe, they had to write from what they observed much later. Unless, of course, one believes that God himself wrote it.

bob_2 · 05-12-10 2:41 am

Elaine, first clarify:

1. Do you want woman as "helper" solved

or

2. Light on the first day explained from the Sun to rule the day and the Moon to rule the night.

I don't see a problem with either but maybe I'm not paying attention.

elaine · 05-12-10 8:30 pm

Some translations read "helper" and others "help mate."

This does not translate to her having a subordinate position. They were both essential to obey the command "be fruitful and multiply." Who helped in that arrangement? Takes two to tango.

bob_2 · 05-13-10 9:46 am

Definition of helpmate:

help·mate [help-meyt] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a companion and helper.
2.
a wife or husband.
3.
anything that aids or assists, esp. regularly: This calculator is my constant helpmate.

or

help·er [hel-per] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a person or thing that helps or gives assistance, support, etc.
2.
an extra locomotive attached to a train at the front, middle, or rear, esp. to provide extra power for climbing a steep grade. Compare doubleheader, pusher (def. 5).

Without submission by the female in the sex act it is rape.

elaine · 05-13-10 8:52 pm

And rape is the ultimare form of domination. Why do armies rape females in the conquered enemy? Even in the Bible taking virgins were common and by God's blessing. Females had no rights, and not until the last century did they begin receiving some.

bob_2 · 05-13-10 11:27 pm

Do you want to talk about women' right now or stay on the original topic. Because there are evil men, we should ordain women? What kind of logic is that. Because there are irresponsible mothers like the one in the movie I saw tonight, babies should be taken from them given to the most responsible of the relatives, male or female. Come on Elaine. your critical thinking is slipping.

elaine · 05-14-10 7:36 pm

There is no end for the excuses for not ordaining women, and plenty to choose from. They all stem from the early Christian fathers who had nothing but contempt for women.

It is impossible to read the Hebrew Bible and not see how women were second class citizens then. They had no inheritance rights (Moses had to intervene in a dispute because of that), their husbands were chosen for them, their only function was to produce progeny and to that end there were usually more than one wife to "up" the production rate.

Thank God that in the late 20th century women began to work toward changes and women began to progress, so much so that now they make up the larger percentage of college graduates, and a very large percentage in graduate schools. Only a century before, such study was thought to be damaging to the small female brain and they couldn't withstand such serious study. All current evidence proves how wrong they were. Only a few churches still hold to the priestly male-ordered clergy, overlooking the fact that we are all priests, and only in the RCC are there priests; and we have seen the results of their very ridiculous rule of celibacy, although celibacy ordinarily is not as much a "cross to bear" for women as for men.

bob_2 · 05-15-10 2:17 am

Elaine, sacerdotalism and has nothing to do with women' rights to be a pastor. We all can come directly before Christ who represents us before God. In that sense men and women are equal before God. But read this:

"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression," (1 Tim. 2:12-14 -- all quotes from the Bible are from the NASB). This passage has several interesting areas of discussion, but for our purpose we will focus on authority. At the very least, there is an authority structure set up by God. The woman is not to have authority over the man in the church context. But this does not extend to the political/economic world. In the Old Testament Deborah was a judge in Israel over men. Also, in the New Testament, Phoebe played an important role in the church at Cenchrea (Romans 16). There is no doubt that women supported Paul in many areas and were great helpers in the church (Act 2:17; 18:24; 21:8). But what Paul is speaking of in 1 Tim. 2 is the relationship between men and women in the church structure, not in a social or political context.

http://www.carm.org/should-women-be-pastors-and-elders

In the social/political structure, I have no problem, but you can't use that in terms of what God has ordained in the church, even if this may now be a minority position. Presbyterian/PCA, RCC and Seventh day Adventist, to name a few still believe, for the most part that women not being pastors or ordained is the way God ordered it, for His reasons

Last edited by bob_2 (05-15-10 2:17 am)

elaine · 05-15-10 9:43 pm

Bob, do you believe that women should be silent in church? That means no reading of scripture, no asking a question in Bible class, IOW, complete silence. That's what is written in Timothy. It can't be selective; either it's all or nothing.

elaine · 05-15-10 9:44 pm

Bob, if you believe that women should never speak in church or Bible class, this is what is taught in Timothy. It's either all or nothing.

bob_2 · 05-15-10 10:23 pm

Elaine, Titus 2: 3-5 has a role for women in the church, but God place the authority position with man, whether he assumes it or not, it the question. There are many more roles for Women in Ministries that are similar to Titus 2: 3-5 that can be assumed by women. If you read all, you will see it is not the type of "all or nothing" situation you paint.

don · 05-16-10 4:28 pm

Consider this account given by W. H. Branson way back in 1922.

QUOTE

A Woman Preacher

On another occasion, a woman went away from the Somabula Mission station, over into a district we had not been permitted to enter. We were anxious to send evangelists and teachers in there, but the government authorities had not given us permission. It is an unheard-of thing in Central Africa for a woman to preach. But this woman, after getting back to her home, and seeing the heathenism all about her, and finding that our men could not get in there to work, felt she was called of God to preach this message to her people; so she went out into a village, called the people together, took her Bible, and began preaching the gospel to them.

That woman went from village to village, and God's Spirit was with her. She created a great stir in those villages. Two hundred people definitely decided that this message was true; and they went to the authorities and to the chiefs, and demanded that our missionaries be allowed to enter. They won the day; so now we have schools in those villages, and two hundred believers who have accepted the truth as the result of that woman's work. I met her at the camp meeting, and I assure you that she is an interesting character,—a very earnest woman.

W. H. Branson, General Conference Bulletin, 1922-04, p. 21

END QUOTE

I knew another activist woman who asserted, "I don't need any man to lay hands on me."

don · 05-16-10 5:01 pm

"But what Paul is speaking of in 1 Tim. 2 is the relationship between men and women in the church structure, not in a social or political context.But what Paul is speaking of in 1 Tim. 2 is the relationship between men and women in the church structure, not in a social or political context."

http://www.carm.org/should-women-be-pastors-and-elders

This is an interpretation, of course. None of us have adequate knowledge regarding women in the early church. There seems little doubt how Paul directed things. Recall, that Paul is not writing to problems in the twenty-first century. He is addressing real concerns in a real church in his day. The principles can be applied today; the specific regulations probably cannot, should not, be applied. Even Paul's appeal to Adam and Eve can be seen as a logical support for what he sees is necessary to solve a real problem in the church in his day.

Even today, Orthodox Jews separate the sexes in the synagogue.

For a picture of a modern synagogue and how the women are separated, see:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2favc2x

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 04-30-10 2:46 pm

What of Women's Ordination

#2 04-30-10 10:12 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#3 05-04-10 3:41 am

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#4 05-04-10 6:47 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#5 05-06-10 8:11 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#6 05-07-10 5:00 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#7 05-07-10 11:06 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#8 05-08-10 7:14 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#9 05-10-10 12:54 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#10 05-10-10 1:15 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#11 05-10-10 5:02 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#12 05-11-10 3:38 am

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#13 05-11-10 8:27 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#14 05-12-10 2:41 am

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#15 05-12-10 8:30 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#16 05-13-10 9:46 am

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#17 05-13-10 8:52 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#18 05-13-10 11:27 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#19 05-14-10 7:36 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#20 05-15-10 2:17 am

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#21 05-15-10 9:43 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#22 05-15-10 9:44 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#23 05-15-10 10:23 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#24 05-16-10 4:28 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

#25 05-16-10 5:01 pm

Re: What of Women's Ordination

Board footer