Women's Ordination Poll here at Maritime to compare with the one done by 3ABN.

QUESTION 1: Do you believe that the Scriptures teach only men should be ordained as pastors? single choice
	Yes
	No
Votes accepted starting: 08/22/14 01:08 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

QUESTION 2: Do you believe that the Scriptures teach women should be ordained elders? single choice
	Yes
	No
Votes accepted starting: 08/22/14 01:09 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

QUESTION 3: Do you believe the Adventist Church needs to create more paid ministry opportunities for women aside from the ordination question? single choice
	Yes
	No
Votes accepted starting: 08/22/14 01:09 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

QUESTION 4: Do you believe if women’s ordination is approved it will make it easier for same-sex marriage advocates to agitate for acceptance within the church? single choice
	Yes
	No
Votes accepted starting: 08/22/14 01:10 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

QUESTION 5: Do you believe the women’s ordination issue should be conclusively settled at the next General Conference meeting and whatever is voted should be unitedly followed by the world church? single choice
	Yes
	No
Votes accepted starting: 08/22/14 01:11 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

QUESTION 6: Do you believe each SDA world division or conference should be allowed to determine the women’s ordination issue independently? single choice
	Yes
	No
Votes accepted starting: 08/22/14 01:12 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

QUESTION 7: Do you believe the women’s ordination issue may lead to a division within the Adventist Church? single choice
	Yes
	No
Votes accepted starting: 08/22/14 01:13 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

QUESTION 8: Are you a denominational employee? single choice
	Yes
	No
Votes accepted starting: 08/22/14 01:14 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

QUESTION 9: Do you reside in the North American Division? single choice
	Yes
	No
Votes accepted starting: 08/22/14 01:14 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

QUESTION 10: Are you male or female? single choice
	Male
	Female
Votes accepted starting: 08/22/14 01:15 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

QUESTION 11: What is your age range? single choice
	18 to 30
	30 to 55
	55 and up
Votes accepted starting: 08/22/14 01:18 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

I voted and noticed a few have voted so far.

Hoping more of you will cast your vote.

Isn't a third option missing? "Not sure"

I only copied the questions here from the one done by 3ABN.

Looking for more votes.

From the voting so far, this may need to be moved to a more public area.

Perhaps a less rigid poll, fewer questions.

But here are more relevant questions, in light of changing church practices:

1) - If Woman's Ordination (women in spiritual leadership positions such as church pastors) is given the green light, will you still support the church?

2) - Will you still support the church no matter what changes are implemented, such as ordaining homosexuals to ministry, or worshiping on Saturday & Sunday, or merging with another denomination?
________________________________________

Why ask church members to opine
upon changes already in effect, unstoppable.
________________________________________

Thought I should say that all the votes are private in that we don't have any idea who has voted.

Just moved it here to see if this will result in more voting.

After more have voted, the results so far are most interesting, therefore, I hope more of you reading this, if you haven;t yet voted, will cast your vote.

Christ will probably come before they settle this matter. Do you suppose having former Catholics on the committee might be affecting the deliberations?

Bumping this to see if there will be any more voting, especially as the time of the GC Session approaches.

I think some of the questions are skewed nor do they allow for an unsure, a qualification, or not a qualification.

For example:
QUESTION 4: Do you believe if women’s ordination is approved it will make it easier for same-sex marriage advocates to agitate for acceptance within the church?

Acceptance? One could view sinners are accepted into the church. But what does acceptance mean? Does the question mean, celebrated, promoted, considered that nothing is wrong and sinful about it? "Acceptance" seems misleading and part of the homosexual propaganda for deriding.

Same-sex? Seems more like a political correct thing to say. Homosexual marriage would be more to the point. But what really is implied with same-sex is the feigned "equality" issue, and allowing future interpretation of bi, trans, multi, etc.

So yes, I believe women's ordination has to do with homosexuals infiltrating the church. For if one says that men should only be elders really means according to the culture of the day then it would follow that any prohibition against homosexuals really means according to that culture and today's culture is different.

A majority of the people who have expresssed their opinion to me in private against the ordination of women are either former Roman Catholics or come from areas where Roman Catholicism dominates.

But among those who have fully abbandoned their Roman Catholic traditions I find some of the most ardent supporters of the ordination of women.

This is just a view from my corner. Yours might be different.

Just a note to say that I have moved two other WO threads to the area of Maritime set up to discuss these type of topics with the exception of this one.

Bumping this to see if there are any others who would now like to cast their vote in this POLL.

Question #6 seems to be hard to answer. In the 1902 restructuring ordination was given to the unions. To push it up to the Division is a danger. In the early 1900s when some conferences submitted some women to the union for ordination, General Conference President A. G. Daniels recognized the union having the right. Now he made a suggestion to them to give just a little bit of time so that our members could get educated into knowing that it was indeed Biblical to ordain women, but the unions were free to accept or reject his suggestion. In the mean time the church had set up two different license paper, one with the word "Ordained" the other without the word, however, both were paid the same, both had most of the same responsibilities, both had the spouse receive the same compensation. It was basically ordaining women without the word, and again, according to A. G. Daniels, this was only supposed to be temporary until our members were educated into knowing that women's ordination was indeed Biblical; and that the union was free to accept the suggestion or not.

As for question #4, there may also be an underlying issue but still easy to answer. For both topics; women's ordination, and the same sex marriage; in the liberal churches where they don't really care much about what the Bible teaches, neither is a big deal. For we Seventh-day Adventists. our question for both issues is "Is this Biblical?" I understand the Bible to support women's ordination, and that it is Roman Catholic Tradition that has caused us to read things into the text that is not necessarily there, forget historical and cultural implications that support women's ordination. As we learn more and more about the Bible, it comes stronger for women's ordination. To us, each and every topic has the same question, are we being fair to the Bible or are we stuck in superstition and tradition at the expense of the Bible.

Evidence please. I never accept assertions without it.

How do you see the votes that have been cast?

Yes and No question are always hard to answer because one can't qualify their answer.

What if we don't agree with the ordination set up as it stands today?
What does it mean to be "ordained"?

In the church today, it seems ordination is a status of authority, not of spiritual leadership and work.

Therefore, the text "a woman should not usurp authority over a man" is interpreted as "a woman should not be ordained."

But we ignore that it is not good for a man to mentor and be a private counselor to a woman. The very fact that a man, with concern in his eyes, and sympathy in his voice is comforting a woman (albeit with Bible verses) is a snare, especially if her husband is a bit of a non communicating type.
A church here is still reeling from a male pastor who specialized in empowering young people, and took intimate interest in young girls.
Then there are a lot of women who don't want to "open up their thoughts" to a man, is also a problem.

There is a real need for God-fearing women in trained, spiritual leadership roles. Female shepherds for the women in the church.

Male leaders for the men, and boys. This is important! Young people- especially young males, need a strong spiritual male influence.


While women are not to take over, as in taking away from the men, the leadership roles,
women should be co-leaders. With the same respect and authority of a male leader.

For example -- I'm uncomfortable with the woman head pastor in college church. There is just something missing. However, having associate women pastors, in college churches is great!

What you're advocating is a logical fallacy. Women can go to other women for spiritual advice whether the other woman is ordained or not. I know of pastors who I would never approach for any kind of advice as I do not trust them. The same goes for some elders in the church.

I have more respect for some women's spiritual acumen than I have for a lot of men's but that doesn't override the plain reading of scripture.

What is ordination?
It's only "logical fallacy" because ordination has been made the sign of authority.
Where does the bible say ordination is the sign of authority?

Why is it no longer a sign of being called for a spiritual service for the Lord.

I see. I disagree that ordination of women has been made a sign of authority by mankind.



The word bishop comes from a Greek word meaning an overseer of a church or a group of churches. In other words a pastor.

I'll stick with scripture. You can do as you please.

By casting your own vote first.

First I didn't say women's ordination has been made a sign of authority.
I said ordination [itself] has been made a sign of authority, no longer a sign of setting apart and blessing people to do spiritual work for the Lord.

I think I explained that the "OVERSEER" being a man is the better plan.
But the "overseer" was not really the same as a pastor or "shepherd".
In the early church each region had a "bishop". Whenever the church councils met, these bishops would meet and discuss the matters of the church as a whole. Their job was to mentor and guide the leaders (men and women) in the churches under their care.

The text you quote does not say only bishops can be ordained (set aside and blessed to preform a spiritual work or ministry) It's not speaking of ordination at all.

The way things are now set up, I'm afraid the answer is yes.

Since ordination has been turned into a sign of authority and is no longer a sign that church is setting apart and blessing men and women for various different spiritual leadership positions, many women see this as a belittling of their roles in church leadership and thus have started to fight for equal treatment.
It is now no longer so much a desire to obtain the blessing of the church, but a fight for equality.

It's the nature of things when there is a fight for equality, the focus will always find some more "fights" to wage under the banner of equality, it doesn't stop.
I think we have accepted the Catholic definition for "ordination" and now find ourselves in a fight for "equal right" .
The Catholic definition sets the "ordained" up on a pedestal in a different class from the regular members.

If the church had given the same honor and blessings to other spiritual leaders who dedicated their lives to a specific mission and ordained in the Biblical sense, and not made the "ordained minister" the only one blessed and "set apart" and honored. We may have avoided this "equality" fight, and given other roles the blessings they deserved.

The answer, in my opinion is not to make women presidents and top leaders in the church but to re-evaluate the meaning of ordination.

Didn't you just say this in your next post?



I'm afraid you're being dishonest with me again.

No, I am not being dishonest I am stating a very honest opinion.
Either you are not reading the whole thought, or you totally misunderstand.


The issue of Women's ordination hasn't made ordination a sign of authority.
Ordination has been made a sign of authority long before the women's ordination issue was agitated.
The catholic meaning for ordination has been accepted, the biblical meaning of ordination rejected.

But because ordination was turned into a sign of authority it has now however, become a "fight for equality" which is a different issue.

What does BIBLICAL ORDINATION mean?
Why quote the qualifications for a bishop which says nothing about ordination, to prove ordination?
It doesn't say ordination is a qualification for a bishop.
It doesn't say only bishops may be ordained.

Why shy away from that question?
IIt has not really been addressed by the church.

Women's ordination hasn't made ordination a sign of authority.
Ordination has been made a sign of authority long before the women's ordination issue was agitated.
The catholic meaning for ordination has been accepted, the biblical meaning of ordination rejected.


Ellen White tried to show a better way suggesting other spiritual leaders, like deaconess should be ordained, but that all fell by the wayside.
The Bible ordains missionaries.
We tried to implement it in our church. Several young people going as student missionaries were asked to come up front and the spiritual leaders of the church knelt around them with hand on their shoulder or head and prayed for their safety, spiritual strength and a close walking with God ...basically ordaining them for this task.


But the church has made ordination a sign of legal authority (an ordained person can do legal marriages etc.etc etc) a non-ordained person can still preach, teach, be a missionary, lead out in outreach programs, all of course without a special blessing from the church. So what is ordination? Is it the Biblical sign that the church asks God's blessing and gives their support to a person's spiritual ministry?

Yes, ordination is now basically understood as being restricted to Ordination of bishops. Why else would a list of qualifications for bishops be used to somehow show the meaning of ordination?
Of course the law of the land has had their hand in that as well. But that's not the Biblical definition of ordination.
So what is the BIBLICAL definition of ordination?

The Biblical sign of ordination to me is how effective/powerful a person's ministry is. But the church has been given the task of ordaining people. To do that we have to follow the closest instructions given us and the bishops qualifications, along with the deacon's, are the best we have.

I don't see ordination as being a big deal. I would far rather have the signet of God than that of man for if our lives have God's signet success in our witness will be very apparent. We will be bringing people to Jesus. The joy of that is so great any monetary rewards from man's signet pale in comparison. I can't see any sign of them being equal in value.

It's for this reason I've never seen any reason for the big brouhaha over women's ordination. The joy coming from the presence of God in our lives far outweighs money.

I would also point out what Paul said to Titus about ordination. I got to thinking about this more and started doing searches on line, in the SOP, and in the Bible. This quote actually came from what Ellen White said in Testimonies volume 5 page 617 on ordination

Here is more from Ellen White on ministers.



I have never read where she says God calls women to be minsters. She does say young men and young wonen should be trained to be gospel workers.

That is actually in the Church Manual, however, I have yet to see deaconesses being ordained in our local church.

It is sad how much she told us we have ignored. She told us how to run our educational system and we ignored her,
She told us not to congregate in a few areas and to spread out, but we ignored her. The results of us ignoring her are really coming home to roost too.

The small churches I've attended in my life have been, by far. the most spiritually alive churches and the big ones have been, and are, spiritually dead. When we don't follow God's leading we die spiritually.

Tit 1:5? For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and
ordain ( kath-is'-tay-mee from G2596 and G2476; to place down, to designate, constitute, convoy, to appoint, to make, ordain, set up ).elders in every city,
as I had appointed diatasso #1299 appointed, commanded, give order, ordained)thee:

Tit 1:6? If any be blameless, the husband of one wife,(not a polygamists, this doesn't mean they must have a wife, but that they must not be a polygamist) having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. (that doesn't mean they have to have children, but when they do have children they must show good upbringing)


So Titus was to be sure all the churches appointed leaders.
The translators used the word "ordain" elders, in this verse, but the word Kathistaymee is rarely translated as "ordain",
It's usually translated as "make,
as we see in Acts 7:10
And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made G2525 him kathistooymee governor over Egypt and all his house.

The same word kathistaymee is translated as "appoint"
in Acts 6:3
Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint G2525 over this business

Paul uses the word kathistaymee three times in Romans 5:19 in which it simply means "made".
For as by one man's disobedience many were made G2525 sinners, so by the obedience of one shall G2525 ➔ many be made G2525 righteous.


The word "diatasso #1299 was also used in the first verse sited -- Titus 1:5. where Paul writes to Titus "as I have appointed you".

Diatasso #1299 is also translated as "ordain" in other texts.

So Titus 1:5 could be translated " ordain elders as I have ordained you." Or
"appoint elders as I have appointed you".


But look at this verse:
1 Cor.7:17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain diatasso G1299 I in all churches.

Though Paul uses the the word diatasso#1299, which could have been translated as "command" or appoint, that verse may be coming the closest as to what "ordaining" is all about.


Paul speaks several times that ALL workers are equally important, we are one body with Christ the head, and all members with their individual gifts are equally important. Thus yes, it seems all should be "ordained" blessed and made to understand they are "called by God" to fulfill their gifts for the glory of God. Not all ordained to the same gift, for not all are called to be apostles or teachers etc. but each ordained to a ministry in which they use their gift.
Ep 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry,
Some the gift of hospitality, some the gift of healing, etc.

Not all receive the same gift or mission.
But all are equally important.

as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain G1299 I in all churches. 1 Cor. 7:17

Actually both words here discussed -- diatasso and kathistaymee don't really mean "ordained" in the way we see it today. But rather in the sense of appointed, being designated, made, even commanded.

To understand what we now call "ordination" we may have to do a research on what "laying on of hands" in spiritual sense, is all about.

To ordain means to make or appoint.

Here are the dictionary definitions.



The ESV translates the Greek as appoint. Here's the dictionary definition of it.



That pretty much knocks the props out from under your objections,

Knocks what props out of what objections???? What are you referring to????

The dictionary definition is man's definition, but is it the Biblical definition?

As explained in my previous post, the Greek words:

Diatasso #1299 is to command, set up, appoint
kath-is'-tay-mee from G2596 and G2476; is to put in place , to designate, constitute, convoy, to appoint, to make, set up

Both of those Greek words in scripture were translated as "ordain" a couple times in the King James Bible, but they occur many more times in the Bible where they are given the other translations,

The word "ordain" as such has no "one Greek word" to correspond to it.

The PRACTICE of ordaining is usually done with the "laying on of hands".
I've seen many ordination services in which the gentlemen kneel on the platform and a group of others surround them placing their hands on heads and shoulders of the initiates.
The PRACTICE of ordaining is considerably different than just setting up, designating , appointing.

Sabbath school superintendents are designated and appointed and officially set up by vote of the church, but they are not "ordained" in the meaning given by the church to ordination. They are just appointed, to do the job.
Bible workers are appointed, set up, officially voted by the church, even paid by the church, yet not ordained.
So if ordination really means "appointed to a position and officially set up" why aren't they ordained?

Obviously those dictionary definitions aren't what we think ordination means.

As suggested == maybe a little research on "laying on of hands" would be closer in finding the biblical meaning of the practice of ordination.

If the English language dictionary can't be used to define the words in the Bible then the entire Bible is useless. We have no other way to understand the Bible unless we are experts in Hebrew and Greek.

No one said the English language dictionary can't be used. I'm surprised how you swing into extreme's without addressing content. Of course the English dictionary attempts to show the meaning of words.

But there are two problems:
1. The Bible wasn't written in English
2. The translators' own ideas can influence which word(s) they use to translate the text into English.

There is no specific word for "ordain" in the Bible.
The two Greek words which on about 3 occasions were translated as "ordain" are:

Diatasso #1299 which means --- to command, set up, [b]appoint[.b]
and
kath-is'-tay-mee which means -- to put in place , to designate, to appoint, constitute, convoy, to make, set up

The translators decided to use the word "ordain" in translating the Greek word kathistaymee. That Greek word means -- to appoint, to designate, to make official.

It's an honest question, why didn't the translators simply follow the usual pattern and usual meaning of the word and write --

1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and designate elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

That's all the verse actually says -- Titus was to choose elders for all the churches in every city.


Now the English dictionary will give the meaning to words that PEOPLE have given to them.
So, while it included all the more general (designate, appoint, set up, make official) definitions, it also gives a very distinct meaning, the definition to "confer holy orders on".

Where does the concept of "conferring holy orders" come from?
The dictionary is just sharing what a popular thought is when the word "ordained" comes up.

The "conferring holy orders" is a very Catholic phrase.

Through the sacrament of holy orders, or ordination, a man is increasingly empowered to provide the sacraments. That is the Catholic staircase to glory.

Messed up post

Why did the translators use single words to describe concepts. That is very clear to me. The better an author is the more concise he is. It's the natural human instinct for those who want to be understood. Ellen white was very concise in her later years and had no problem using the word ordain. I really don't understand why, after years of reading her writings, you object to the very word she used. It seems to me it has to do with your political objectives within the church.

.

Yes, EGW used the word "ordain"
-- but did she give it the same meaning as the Greek word "kath-is'-tay-mee which means -- to put in place , to designate, to appoint, constitute, to make, set up,

or did she give it the Catholic meaning of "conferring holy orders"?

1. She quoted Titus 1:5 as written --

2. She sometimes used the word in contexts totally apart from anything to do with ministers, elders etc.


3. She sometimes used the word for "workers" in general



4. She used the word in reference to choosing ministers and elders, apostles, etc.


Probably the most thorough dealing with ordination is found in Acts of the Apostles


Ordination greatly abused


Quotes pertaining to women


WOMEN "LICENSED TO PREACH" BY THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH DURING ELLEN WHITE'S LIFETIME INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING:

1. A RESOLUTION TO ORDAIN WOMEN WAS DISCUSSED AT THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1881. Ellen White was not present. James White was dying, he died in 1881. The resolution was tabled, and disappeared.
Also after Ellen White's death, "licensing" women to preach died out for many decades.

What does all that have to do with the idea of ordaining women? Catholic ideas of ordination? Where did that come from?







Here is more from the same article from which I took the above quotes.



Here is the link to the article

Concept of Ordination in the Writings of Ellen White
https://www.andrews.edu/~fortind/EGWOrdination.htm

You will want to read the entire article. It shows that your selective quotes are taken out of the context of what she believed.

For some reason link creation is not working.

Here is another quote from Ellen White on the ordination of women. It comes from The Review and Herald July 9. 1895 in which she wrote an article titled The Duties of the Minister and the People.

Interesting, you quoted some of the same passages I did --

Review and Herald July 9, 1895
and Acts of the Apostles, except I quoted two whole pages on ordination from Acts of the Apostles saying "These are probably the most thorough dealing with ordination found in Acts of the Apostles"
It's on pages 161 to 163, quite a thorough presentation of what ordination should mean.


Yet when I quote that earlier, your only comment was to belittle all those direct quotes. Why?
They aren't out of context. They say exactly what she said.



I quoted a wide range of quotes by her to show her use of the word "ordain" and "ordination", starting with her general use of the word, then sharing quotes directly dealing with the ordination itself, then ending with her quotes pertaining to women workers, as well as a list of women licensed to preach in Ellen White's lifetime.

So what was your problem? I don't think you even read it. If you don't read it that's OK, I know it was long, but don't condemn what you don't read.



Yes, there was s reference to Catholic ordination as well, though not the main part of the post.

The dictionary meaning you posted earlier said a meaning of ordination was
-- "confer holy orders"

That is a Catholic meaning.
?Ordination? actually comes from the Latin word ordinatio, which means to incorporate someone into an order. In the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders, a man is incorporated into the priesthood of Christ with special powers. This is NOT a pastor, this is a priest, administering the Eucharist, and claiming to have the power to forgive people their sins.

1. In Acts of Apostles 162 Ellen White speaks of abuse made of ordination.

No, ordination does not elevate a man into a priest with the same role as Christ our High Priest, with the keys to grant forgiveness and reoffer Christ as a bloodless sacrifice.
Christ is our High Priest.

Why point that out?
It's true we don't see any women priests in the Levitical priesthood, so many anti-woman ordination, will wax quite eloquent as they liken pastors to priests. But the Levitical priesthood is no longer -- Christ is our high priest. Because these people are zealous to keep women out of the ministry, they elevate mere men into the priesthood of Christ, akin to Catholic understanding of what ordination does.

And also -- just as the Catholic church cannot make a day holy, yet the "ordain feasts" as "holy days".
Ellen White points out that ordination does not make a person holy, she is quite adamant that before anyone is ordained to gospel ministry, they should have a vital, sanctifying relationship with Christ.

Are you claiming the author of that article came to the same conclusions you do about what Ellen White believed about women's ordination?

Close, yes, though I won't say 100%, but definitely close. It depends on his understanding of certain terms he uses -- but let's not get into that.

What do I agree with?

All italicized parts are quotes from Fortin's paper.

Step one:
" God is the one who first of all ordains (in the sense of appoints) one to be his servant and, consequently, it is also God who spiritually lays his hands upon this servant."

Step Two:
"These ordinations to ministry in the New Testament church and early Adventist movement, therefore, demonstrated the organizational principles of harmony and order, and adaptability."
"Thus, as the early church and the apostles chose qualified men to serve as leaders and ordained them, so the early Adventist church was to proceed. The solution to false teachings and anarchy was the ordination of able men who would supervise and look after the interests of the people

There needs to be leadership and someway to recognize who is representing the church and it's teaching.
But notice the author's emphases on adaptability throughout the paper.
He does not launch into a male only, pastors only, lecture.

Step Three:
He points to the election of seven deacons in Acts. Broadening out responsibilities so the first apostles could do their designated work, seven more men were ordained for another work of ministry for the Lord.
Ellen White allowed for the church to decide whether some people, other than ministers, should be ordained or set apart by the laying on of hands in other ministries.
These too should be recognized and given church authority to carry out the work to which they were ordained.

She earnestly believed that the ordained ministry alone was not sufficient to fulfill God's gospel commission, that God is calling Christians of all professions to dedicate their lives to his service

Step Four:
Differentiates between Divine authority and church authority.
By setting someone apart as a leader and preacher, the church gives them the authority to represent and act for the church in a specified ministry for the gospel work.
But only God can give Divine authority, and God does not limit that authority to those who have received church ordination.

Step Five:
Fortin's conclusion is really quite pro-women's ordination

"Ellen White's basic reason for supporting the setting apart of women and medical missionaries concurs also with what we have already seen on the adaptability of church structures to meet new needs. Under the guidance of God, the church can and should branch out in its methods of labor by setting apart in ordination people serving in various ministries.But more importantly, I believe, Ellen White implied here that God is leading the church in this direction, that it is God's will for the church to branch out, to be strengthened and built up by ordaining women to ministry."


Just as the seven deacons in Acts, were not ordained as apostles, yet they were still ordained to the gospel ministry, authorized to be preaching, baptizing, and caring for the people in the church.
Actually those seven deacons in Acts were more like present day "pastors", while the first group ordained in the early church were the apostles.
The apostles were the overseers, the ones resisting confusion and keeping the church on the right track. Overseeing the church at large.

Then there are those seven deacons who had also been given considerable church authority, their ministry was to take care of the home church and its members. Though they too did the work of an evangelist.
So yes, I would agree, the church should ordain people (not based on gender) for their specific gospel ministry to which they (by God's calling) have dedicated their lives.

As I've said before:
Ordination shouldn't be only for Bishops. (overseers)

According to Ellen White's statement women can be called to the same type of work the seven deacons in Acts were designated to do. And that work was FAR different than what present day "deacons" do in the church today.

Here is what I out of of that article.











No where in this article does the author say Ellen White supported women's ordination. She supported ordaining women who supported their spouses financially but not ordaining them as ministers. She also supported ordaining women to do social work inside the church but not as ministers.

I'm sure those reading can come to their own conclusions. .

I see something different in the article as he reasons step by step how the church adapts and he ends with suggesting the next step is actually ordaining women.

Though this statement you made has me confused

Actually she wrote that women who supported their minister husband in his work (working beside them also giving Bible studies, and visiting from family to family, etc.) should be PAID. She didn't say they should be ordained.

Here's she writes in 5MR 323:
The ministers are paid for their work, and this is well. And if the Lord gives the wife, as well as the husband, the burden of labor, and if she devotes her time and her strength to visiting from family to family, opening the Scriptures to them, although the hands of ordination have not been laid upon her, she is accomplishing a work that is in the line of ministry. Should her labors be counted as nought, and her husband's salary be no more than that of the servant of God whose wife does not give herself to the work, but remains at home to care for her family?....
God is a God of justice, and if the ministers receive a salary for their work, their wives, who devote themselves just as interestedly to the work as laborers together with God, should be paid in addition to the wages their husbands {5MR 323-324}

The Review and Herald article by Ellen White -- July 9, 1895 -- is a different article.
It's not talking about minister's wives.
The greater context of that article by EGW is actually that the ordained ministers should get out of the way and not do all the work themselves but designate and empower church members.
If ministers and men in positions of authority will get out of the way, and let the Holy Spirit move upon the minds of the lay brethren, God will direct them what to do for the honor of his name. Let men have freedom to carry out that which the Holy Spirit indicates. Do not put the shackles upon humble men whom God would use. If those who now occupy positions of responsibility had been kept at one class of work year after year, their talents would not have developed, and they would not have been qualified for the positions they hold; and yet they make no special effort to test and develop the talents of those newly come into the faith. {RH, July 9, 1895 par. 7}
Let Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord 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. {RH, July 9, 1895 par. 8}


EGW was very cautious on this topic of women ordination, but that last quote says --
Women should be appointed to a ministry. (not THE ministry, but A ministry)
And be set apart for this work by prayer and laying on of hands

So, you've been telling me that she supported women's ordination for the ministry as that has been your position up to now. Now your tune has changed. What changed it?

So again you assumed I was telling you something, that I wasn't telling you.
It all depends on what you mean "THE ministry"
It seems to me that you see this whole conversation as a strict (that there is only one ordination which means the ordained person is qualified for ALL ministerial functions)
Not that I blame you -- as that seems to be how many see it --
They see it as THE ministry which enables the initiated to do EVERYTHING ( be pastor, overseer, evangelist, conference president, etc, etc, all wrapped up in one ordination). That's the NARROW view that sees Ordination as entitling the one ordained to do EVERYTHING, as in once ordained they are THE ministry.



The other position is to BROADEN ordination.
Go back and read what I wrote, if you want to know what I'm saying.
It's actual quite similar idea to the paper you linked.

I would propose that the church recognize the different ministries (and not lump them all into one) and then ordain, set apart, officially recognize, those called for these ministries.
So it's not just THE ordination, but more a matter ordaining people for their ministries, some overseers, some pastors, some missionaries, etc. The ordination for overseers (ministering to a region of churches), be not the same as the ordination for pastors (ministering to members in local churches).
Women, as I see it in EGW's writings can be ordained as pastors
In fact, EGW seems to quite strongly encourage women to take up pastoral work (not just men).
Yet, she still strongly promotes the need for true Christian men leaders.

Yes, I misunderstood you, but no more than than you misunderstood me. Why did I misunderstand you? This is a thread about women's ordination and you have consistently criticized the church's concept of ordination. I have said from the first that I considered the signet of God as of far more value than man's. And that was why I have never understood the big brouhaha over women's ordination. That should have been a clue. But you never responded to that post.

I have also consistently said the same things from the beginning of this thread and you seemed to feel the need to respond as if you disagreed with me. So what else was I to think?

Well -- you still don't understand, for I see you saying ordaining women as pastors is not from a righteous source. So seems to me, you see ordination in the narrow sense that ordination is just for males.
Yet the word "pastor" means a shepherd. Don't you see EGW writing about the need for women as shepherds (pastors) in the churches, and her saying they should be appointed with "the laying on of hands" (as in ordination)?


What if we don't agree with the ordination set up as it stands today?
What does it mean to be "ordained"?

Obviously, while God's ordination is the first and most important call, and many can serve God even if the church denies recognizing their ministry, yet both the Bible and the prophetic writings point out the need for the church recognition of leadership, the setting apart people for church recognized ministry.

So what is ordination?
In the church today, it seems the meaning of ordination is primarily a status of authoritive control, and only secondarily of spiritual leadership and mission.

Therefore, the text "a woman should not usurp authority over a man" is interpreted as "a woman should not be ordained." (If she is ordained, some will reason, she has authoritive control over male members)
But that is a misunderstanding of what ordination means.

A shepherd (a pastor) LEADS, they do not drive by force, they lead, facilitate, encourage, help.

While some focus on the verse that women should not have authoritive control over men, many ignore that it is not good for a man to mentor and be a private counselor and have authoritive control over a women.

We ignore the fact and reality that men having authoritive control over women is also wrong.
To take the bible text that a woman is to be subject to her OWN husband as meaning they are to be under control of any or all men is WRONG!
The very fact is that a man, with concern in his eyes, and sympathy in his voice is comforting a woman (albeit with Bible verses) is a snare, not a blessing, especially if her husband is a bit of a non communicating type.
How many churches are reeling from a male pastor taking advantage of female response to their "ministering sympathy".
Churches need female pastors.

There is a real need for God-fearing women in trained, spiritual leadership roles. Female shepherds (pastors) for the women in the church.

Yes, definitely churches need Male leaders for the men, and boys. This is important! Young people- especially young males, need a strong spiritual male influence.
Men should never sit back and leave their part in being strong leaders.
That's probably the biggest concern -- men shirking their role with a "all or nothing" mentality.


While women are not to take over, as in taking away from the men, the leadership roles,
women should be co-leaders. They are needed as co-leaders! With the same respect and authority, blessings and recognition as the male leader.

There is a very distinct and important need for a male leader. However, there is the need to have recognized, appointed, ordained associate women pastors in our churches as well

And I do see EGW leading the church in that direction.
As does the author whose article you posted
Fortin's conclusion is really quite pro-women's ordination

That's odd. You castigated me for "misunderstanding" your position in the following two posts of yours.

https://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=196491#Post196491

[url https://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=196523#Post196523 [/url]

I'm not castrating anyone (why such strong language????)
I still do not think you understand what I'm saying. Nothing you write indicates that you do.

Why not simply explain yourself, and at least try to understand. Yes, I don't understand you and you don't understand me, and it makes conversation very trying.

So let's look at this:

1. You said in your post, three up from this one, -- that you consider that the signet of God is far more valuable than man's, thus you can't understand the big brouhaha over women's ordination.

What do you mean by that? You said I've never addressed that, yet, I fully agreed several times, that the first and most important step is the call of God. I don't have any question with that -- it's vitally important.

But what I see is you obviously do have a big brouhaha over women's ordination. Why?
Yet you say you don't understand the big brouhaha? Doesn't make sense.
If they have the signet of God, why can't the church officially confirm it?

2. You wrote in the "IS THERE A CONNECTION BETWEEN WO AND LGBTQ" thread,
That you disagree with Kevin and myself that the two are two DIFFERENT issues that need to be addressed separately and not linked together.
You linked them together saying, both originate from the same unrighteous source.

That is pretty strong to put women being recognized by the church for pastoral work in the same class as something like that. If that isn't a big bouhaha statement concerning ordination, what is. Linking them together is basically denying that there are godly women with the signet of God to do ministry.

3. So how do you reconcile your two seemingly contradicting statements?

Another question:

If women wishing to be appointed and recognized by the church as doing a ministry for the church is not important (even though God has called them and they have the signet of God)
WHY should men be ordained? Won't God's call and his signet to them (which I agree is the most important) be sufficient for them? Why should they be ordained or why not???

I guess you don't know what castigating is. You might want to look it up in a dictionary.

And now you're for church ordaining women as ministers. First you deny it, and say it's the same idea as Catholic ordination, and now you're full on for it. Would you like me to quote your posts from the other threads?

I knew it -- you responded just as I thought you would!!!!! No answers to my questions. No explanations.
It's just voicing the narrow view of ordination that blinds you to what I'm trying to share. Its just as I've been trying to explain --The narrow view (which is the one now enforced) has just one ordination, thus everyone is pigeon holed into being either for or against women receiving that ONE ordination.
You've swung me into the "for" camp, then into the against camp, and now full force shoved me into the "for" camp.

All the while ignoring, or not understanding that there is another view in between that I've been trying to share.

Sure go ahead and post my previous posts. I tried very hard to convey my thought, but it obviously was not understood.

I believe women should be ordained to their ministry.
I suggested there should be different levels of ordination.
A more general pastoral ordination -- a pastoral ordination (ordained to be a shepherd to members) Women as well as men can be pastors.
The pastoral ordination should not be the same as the "overseer" ordination. (ordained to oversee the churches, regional overseers). A head minister in a college would be male -- an ordained overseer, while there would be male and female ordained pastors ministering to male and female students.

In the Bible we see the ordination of the apostles (overseers) and the ordination for deacons (which originally in the Bible was basically the role of a pastor, preaching, evangelizing, taking care of the poor, being there for the church etc etc. not what we understand deacons doing today)

Let's look at this quote by EGW again:

Do you have any idea why I disagreed with your stance? Because the push comes from those who do not accept the Bible as the word of authority.

And you just confirmed what I said. You think there should be women pastors, not female Bible workers who are paid.

So instead of answering questions and discussing the topic you turn to accusation.

You imply I do not accept the Bible as God's Word???

he Bible is the authority! But people interpret the Bible and impose their interpretation. That's what the Jews did and came up with all sorts of rules as to God's requirements. Are you so sure you are not doing the same? May the anti-ordination for women be like the Pharisees at the pool of Bethsada -- all they could see was a man carrying his bed. They had their proof text from the book of Nehemiah, and they stepped right up to vindicate the authority of the law.
They couldn't see that God had empowered this man, and that they only vindicating their own interpretations and rules.



So women can't be pastors you say, they are just females to be paid but not blessed and the church dare not set them apart and bless them and officially recognized them as workers for the Lord?
Why?
Sorry, but according to Ellen White they are to be paid and blessed by the laying on of hands (which means ordained for the task). Go back and read Fortin's paper.

When the Bible says "man" or "men" 90% of the time it does NOT mean the male.

People will point to texts and EGW quotes and say -- it says "man" here, and here and here and here. Man means male.

Wait a minute, for years I have read the bible and when reading "man" I understood "human". The word man has that generic meaning.
Oh, some will say, but the context will tell you.

See, some people say, The Bible says, a bishop must be the husband of one wife, therefore we know all those qualifications for a bishop are only pointing to a male.

Really?

I guess the ten commandments are pointing only for males as well.
It says, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife". See it's the male that has the wife, so these commandments are addressed to males. Do we therefore know all those commandments are only pointing to a male?

Of course not, but why would it be ridiculous to say the commandments are only for males, but its considered defending biblical authority to take the qualifications for a church leader and say they are only for males?
Or is the Word just saying any man selected must not be a polygamist.

First off, Ellen White never called herself a pastor nor did she do the everyday duties of a pastor.. She was never ordained by anyone but God. No laying on of human hands could have had any effect on her ministry. Neither will the laying on of human hands have any effect on anyone else's ministry, male of female. I've preached and brought people to Jesus, but my ministry was of purely divine blessing. I've never had human hands laid on me for any church office.

The only ordination required for successful ministry is God's ordination and that comes from a sincere love for God. That is not of human origin.

Ellen White understood that the work of the church was to spread the gospel message. She was cautious of anything that would excite unnecessary prejudice. Encouraging women to engage in the work was a step by step process.

I found the full copy of Denis Foutin's paper.
Ellen White, Women in Ministry and Ordination

His study is quite comprehensive.
He gives a history of her own "battles" against people who felt women had no place in preaching and doing the things she was doing.
Many times she was denounced as being out of place, for women were to be silent in church
1 Cor. 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

The general understanding of that Bible text was enough for her to deal with. Ordination for women at that point in time was simply not a practical idea, they had a battle simply to get people to believe women could speak in church.



We find men like J,N,Andrews, James White and Stephen Haskell writing articles in the Review and Herald and Signs of the Times, on women speaking in church. These articles seek to explain the two
main texts used to prohibit women from speaking in church. Their purpose was to show that a careful study of these texts cannot support this conclusion.

J. N. Andrews, ?May Women Speak in Meeting?? Review and Herald, January 2, 1879, p.
324 (emphasis added).
J. N. Andrews, ?Women in the Bible,? Signs of the Times, October 30, 1879, p. 324.
James White, ?Women in the Church,? Review and Herald, May 29, 1879, p. 172.

\
You're conflating two separate issues. Speaking in church is not the same thing as being a minister ordained by the church. That is not scriptural, but the leadership of women is. God has never shied away from woman leaders. Ellen White was not the first woman prophet by a long shot.

We also see the fruits of women being ordained today as many of the women pastors are leading out in putting homosexuals in leadership positions in the church. This is an extension of the women's lib movement and we know what that has brought about in the world. Nothing good. Jesus said by their fruits ye shall know them, and the fruit of ordaining women as ministers movement is becoming very clear as is its source.

Interesting --

1. I agree the verse "women should be silent in church" (1 Cor. 14:34-35) has to be interpreted according to it's cultural/situation and broader context. -- which the Adventist pioneers did.

2. But 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is by it's very nature, being linked to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:6. Thinking, well, we will let women speak in church, but cut it short with our interpretation of Paul's counsel to Timothy and Titus, and restrict women from any formal recognition. BUT those texts to Timothy and Titus aren't even addressing women. They are saying a church leader should not be a polygamist. We know those texts are not saying a church leader must have a wife, for we find singles in ministry in the Bible, That wasn't the problem. Paul himself didn't have a wife at this point. (1 Cor.7:8) The problem being addressed was polygamy. A moral issue of multiple spouses; moral issues listed should keep one out of leadership.

3. If people can see the rational for interpreting 1 Cor. 14:34-35 in it's cultural/situational broader context, thus dismissing it's very plain and direct words, why can't they see the same in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:6, where there are NO PLAIN words that women aren't included?

4. Bible has examples of women in leadership positions.
Romans 16:1 identifies Phoebe as a deacon of the church. The original word here used is "deacon" and refers to a Christian designated to serve with the overseers of a church in various ways.
This same word is used in Phil 1:1 and in 1 Tim 3:8,12 to identify leaders of the church.

Priscilla is also identified, along with her husband, Aquila in Romans 16:3, as a leader of a house church and "my co-worker in Christ Jesus".
The wife, Priscilla, is here named before the husband (as in Acts 18:18 and in 2 Timothy 4:19 ), signify she is probably the more prominent and helpful to the Church.

5. There are plenty of male pastors promoting objectional things. We could quickly disqualify the whole male species from the ministry if we focus on some who misuse their positions to take sexual advantage of their parishioners. Women pastors for the most part, do not agree with ordaining practicing homosexuals. Again there's the attempt to LINK the ministry with the objectional in order to denounce it.

6. Another attempted link is thinking women seeking to be treated fairly and not as inferiors, is bad. Yes, I agree that women's lib has overstepped, especially on their attacks on family life, but we sure appreciate some of the victories that have been won by brave women willing to stand up to current restrictions. We now have women doctors!!!!! We can own our property even if our husband has died. We can be paid for equal work, not get half the wage just because we are women. It's not all bad. And though not a women's lib -- EGW did fight for some of these rights for women!

So, we should interpret the Bible according to the culture of the time. I disagree. It means anything in the Bible is open for reinterpretation according to cultural issues. We could say the same with Ellen White's writings and just say times have changed so she's out of date. This is exactly what Sunday keepers do with the fourth commandment. There's a new covenant because the old was outdated.

No, thanks. You want to do that and use that excuse, you're welcome to it, but I will never agree with you.

We have talked about this in the long past: Is ordination Biblical? Why ordain anyone?

So why do you do it with 1 Cor. 14:34-35 ????

In fact 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:6 can easily be explained WITHOUT changing anything.
But 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is the one you as well as the pioneers push aside.
How do you explain that inconsistancy?

I don't remember discussing this with you. You'll have to refresh my memory.

I put it into the context of Ephesians 2 about loving our wives and 1 Corinthians.



1 Corinthians 11 has quite a bit to say about men and women in church and Paul points out that woman comes from man, not the other way around. It seems very important to him so I think it should be taken into consideration in all church offices.

Also in 1 Titus 2 Paul points out that it is the woman who first sinned and then was the cause of Adam's fall. It is for that reason he e says women are not to usurp authority over a man. His words not mine, but scripture is the authority.

1. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not taken literally as it reads, by you or the Adventist church pioneers. Woman don't have to be silent in church, they can talk, and share verbally.



2. 1 Corinthians 11:3 -- that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman the man; and the head of Christ God.
Christ is the head of the church.
The man is NOT the head of the church. Men need to realize this, they are not the boss of the church.
The man is to be the head of their own family, provide and care for their family, but NOT as an overlord either, but to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it.

If ordination means being "the head" of the church, then ordination has lost it's meaning, and man (male or female) have usurped Christ's position.


3. Gary wrote: "Paul points out that woman comes from man, not the other way around."

Eve came from Adam to stand by his side and help (work with) him,
but every male after Adam received their life through a woman. Paul says that as well.
1 Cor. 11:11-12 Nevertheless neither is the man independent of the woman, nor is the woman independent of the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

4. 1 Tim. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression... she shall be saved in childbearing
Adam was not deceived, he sinned willfully, knowing he was in direct violation to God's command,
he had the greater sin. Woman would be honored by giving birth to the Savior. Through woman salvation would be brought into the world. And the first to proclaim the risen Savior were women.

None of the above say the church can't officially recognize and set women apart for ministry.

That is a good question!
Why ordain anyone since the important thing is that God is the one who calls, qualifies and anoints His workers? Christ calls and spiritually ordains every Christian for ministry.

I think there are two legitimate reasons for the church to ordain (officially recognize people in leadership):

1. Recognition that the person represents the church
Adventists basically began ordaining ministers to bring some order into confusion. Back in those early days all kinds of people were preaching and teaching claiming to belong to the movement, but they were off on different theological roads. There was a need to verify who actually was a recognized Seventh-day Adventist preacher.

2. Government legalities
Secondly, the government sort of demands a person to be legally set in place by ordination before they can perform marriage and act in other legal capacities representing the church.


WHAT IT SHOULD NOT BE

1. It is not to be a sacramental view of ordination. Investing the person with some holy power. Convey some change in the character and innate abilities of the person.

2. Nor a clericalization (i.e., separation between clergy and members, instead of facilitators to get everyone working together to further God's work.

If we went back to the original reasons for ordinations there won't be all this conflict over ordaining women to ministries
-- to designate, officially recognize and bless people to ministries which they feel called to do, instead of having just one "ordination" which covers basically ALL ministries and simply elevates the initiates to a higher status of holy power, --

Yes, Eve came from Adam and was to be his equal, but sin changed the relationship. God said it did. God pronounced curses on all three involved including the serpent. I've never quite understood the curse upon the serpent as it goes far beyond how we see animals today. It implies the understanding of right and wrong and the power of choice.



So, should we ignore this sanction of God upon women? If so, why? Men had a sanction upon them too. We are all suffering from sin and what got us into this mess was the ignoring of something that seems very insignificant to humanity. I just don't see how we can say relations between men and women are the same as before sin. It just isn't true.

The only thing that was cursed in those verses was the ground and the serpent.

Adam and Eve were not cursed. Consequences of their failed trust in God, and yielding to Satan however were predicted. Indeed people are suffering from sin, but perpetuating the consequences is not going to make it better.

I don't believe God "sanctioned" (made holy) a painful and terrible existence for women.

There are actually people who say it's wrong to give women medication to relieve child birth pain because God sanction that. No --

The relationship God ordained between husband and wife of love and respect -- one to protect, love and care for his family, the other to work with him as his companion to make home a happy, peaceful place, does NOT mean only men can be leaders in church and nor does it mean that it is sin for women to be recognized as leaders in sharing the gospel as well.

\
Nobody has said that. God did tell Eve her husband would rule over her though. It's a consequence of sin. It seems to me you reject the clear, plain reading of scripture when it crosses your inclinations.

As far as I can see you did say, God cursed Adam and Eve and sanctioned what you refer to as the curse placed upon them. (Sanction=official permission or approval for an action. Sanctify = to make holy).

I disagree, God neither cursed nor sanctioned as in commanded and approved the consequences of sin on Adam and Eve.

The verse says the serpent (which includes both the snake and the one who used the most brilliant and flashy creature as his symbol and medium) was cursed.
It says the ground was cursed.

It does not say Adam and Eve were cursed.
In fact Eve was promised God would give her enmity against the serpent -- (give her protection from his deceptions)
Nor does it say God sanctioned or approved the consequences of sin. He would allow it to show what sin does to human nature and existence, but never commanded and approved it, His mission is to save and to lift people out of sin and restore them into His ways.

The consequences of sin are the result of sin. Once sin takes hold the physically stronger takes advantage of the physically weaker. That was not sanctioned or approved by God! It was a prediction that men, given superior physical strength to protect and provide for his family, would use that physical strength to rule and abuse those who are physically weaker.

The Bible is pretty clear that men (and women) are NOT to rule over others but to be submissive TO EACH OTHER.

Mark 10:42-45 Jesus called them together and said, ?You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.?

Eph. 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your OWN husbands, as UNTO THE LORD.
5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it,

Mark 5:5-9?It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,? Jesus replied. ?But at the beginning of creation God ?made them male and female.?For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.?

So when we read this from Christ's point view.
-- The hardness of sin in the heart has caused the true relationship between husband and wife to be distorted and abused, with the stronger thinking they could subject or reject their wives according to their inclinations.
In the beginning it was not so, and when the heart is in tune with Christ the original can be restored. And Christ came to restore the true not to sanction the distortions.

Ruling over and subjecting others is a result of sin. Not a virtue of Christianity.

interestingly God's command was for a man to leave his father and mother and cling to his wife!
What do we see in history? Did the man leave father and mother and cling to his wife? No, they developed the patriarchal system where the eldest man ruled over sons and grandsons, and the sons brought their wives to basically be servants in their father's household. That was not God's command.

God didn't even want kings to rule over the people. It was a sad day when God, out of the hardness of Israel's hearts allowed them to have a king (to be like the nations around them). See 1 Samuel 8.

So God over rode His own word and contradicted Himself.

I'm sorry if you see God's willingness to work with people where they are at, as God contradicting Himself. I see it as God guiding them from the low points sin has pushed them down into, and lifting them up to higher points step by step -- the ultimate goal is to restore what God had in mind for humanity in the first place.

And yes, at times we see instructions in the Bible that are only "lessen the evil" as to how to deal with situations, but not the ultimate right way of dealing with the situation.

It's the only way to understand scripture and make sense of it. There are many things in scripture that are puzzling.

Why did God only lessen the evil of slavery --
Why does God give commands on how to treat slaves and that slaves should obey their masters (when it's not God's will that men make slaves of other men) (Eph. 6:5-9, Ex.21:2)
But there are laws in scripture that made the situation more tolerable in the hopes mankind would move higher and respect every human as an equal.

Why does scripture tolerate polygamy?
Why did God say he could have given king David more wives, if that's what he desired? (2 Sam.12:8) David was chastised for taking another man's wife, but never for taking multiple wives? Yet it's obvious from scripture that God's way is that a husband should have only one wife, that included even kings (Deut 17:17) and having no more than one wife is a criteria to be selected as a leader. In the NT men with more than one wife were excluded from spiritual leadership. (Titus 1:6) Multiple partners is totally out of sync with God's ideal for marriage.

Divorce?
Deut 24:1-2 makes it sound like a man could divorce his wife simply because he didn't like her anymore. Yet Jesus plainly says this was NOT the plan, it was allowed because of the hardness of man's heart. (Mark 5:5-7) God hates divorce. (Mal. 2:16) and admonishes a man to love his wife as his own flesh for they are one (Eph. 5:28,29)

God does show a willingness to work with people where they are at, but God is not contradicting Himself. I see it as God guiding people from the low points sin has pushed them down into, and lifting them up to higher points step by step -- God's ultimate goal is to restore what He had in mind for humanity in the first place,
And we too, should strive to know and experience his ultimate ways, not revert back into the "lesser evil" ways.

Sorry for not answering sooner. I just now saw this post,

My only answer to you is that God doesn't argue with Himself. He never contradicts Himself. A house divided cannot stand.

I'm glad you realize God doesn't contradict Himself.

But how are you going to explain that to slave owners being told that is not God's way to have slaves, but who point to Bible verses that talk about slaves and their masters?
Do we simply tell them, God doesn't contradict Himself, case closed?
-- thus the commands to slaves and their masters must mean slavery is acceptable?
Does that mean the abolition movement was going against God's commands. Slaves are to submit to their masters, not seek liberation?




And by the way, slave trade/trafficking is still in operation, just not legal in North America.

Is this part of God's plan for mankind? NO? -- we know that is not the case, that is not proper reasoning. But why not? There are some very clear texts supporting slavery to submit to/ obey their masters.

But in order to realize it's true that God does not contradict Himself, we need to see how He deals with people trapped in certain cultures. In the ancient world outside of Israel, slaves had no rights. God does not force culture to change. God works to change the culture by first changing people to have the right attitude in spite of any good or evil circumstances. From there He, thus ultimately lead them into His original pln.

You must be desperate to "win" this discussion. Seems to me you're now equating the issues of slavery and women's ordination. You're basically saying that the most degrading human practice of all time is the equivalent of not ordaining women. All I can do with that is roll my eyes.

So if slavery is the most degrading human practice of all time, why did God allow it, even give counsel as to how to do it.
And no, I'm not desperate for ordination at all. But I do find the arguments you have given have gone far beyond ordination, as some kind of proof that women must be kept under rule. I find that to be a very degrading interpretation of the Bible's view of women.
I'm not really so much for ordination as I am against the interpretation of scripture that some people use to push women down pretty much to "slavery" position.

Genesis 3:16

How is it understood. Is it a license to have authoritarian control over one's partner or is it a sad statement of how sin will operate?

Is it saying, women will desire to be loved by their husbands, but instead husbands will act as authoritarians and rule over them?

Or are we to accept this distorted view we see in some OLD commentaries that claims: Women are not to be allowed to follow their own desires, their husbands must rule over them and tell them what they can and can't do?
.
Yet the first is the reality we see fulfilled as the sad state of women all over the world throughout history have suffered as men have implemented their faulty interpretation.


That's why Paul tells women -- yes, respect your husbands leadership. But he then goes into a lengthy appeal to husbands to love their wives and treat them as they themselves would want to be treated.

But guess what? So many ignored that part of much larger part of Paul's message and only thundered the "submit" part over their wives. That's why we have women's lib -- it's not what God planned either. His plan was for love and respect on both sides, neither is to use authoritarian power over the other.

So people haven't ignored what God tells us since sin began? This argument of yours is no better than your slavery argument.

For sure -- people have been doing exactly what God foretold since sin began.
But that's because they have largely ignored His ideal.

People have grasped for every excuse to exercise power to control others, whether to enslave other people in slavery, claiming the Bible supports slavery, or treating women as mere possessions, really not much different than a slave, again claiming the Bible supports this.

But all this is about marriage -- (not ordination)

I know there are some good marriages where love and respect reign, blessed are they that find that kind of relationship.

But sin reigns on earth -- both the sinful ambition to control and rule over others, and the lack of genuine love, true unselfish love, ( there is lots of self centered, lustful, selfish love, that's not true love), true love has been hugely missing.

God's ideal for marriage is one of love and respect, not an authoritarian/subservient arrangement.

A good leader is NOT an authoritarian. A good leader is respected and trusted, but an authoritarian is not respected, nor trusted even if he forces submission, and achieves outward control.


Again, this isn't about really about ordination any more. It's about marriage.
Someone ordained for spiritual ministry, is NOT ordained to be the husband or wife of the the rest of the members. There really is no correlation.
Someone ordained for spiritual ministry is actually a "SERVANT" there really shouldn't be any debate over "who is the greatest" among the ordained "servants" of God .

I don't get you. What does ordination have to do with "who is the greatest"? I've never looked at it that way but you obviously do or this idea wouldn't have made it into your argument. Ordination as a power struggle has never crossed my mind except as it has been done by the proponents of it have ordained women after it was voted down by the world church in session at least twice. That makes it a power struggle but not by those against it. The power struggle has always been on the side of those for women's ordination.

Funny how Ellen White said the GC vote in session was to be seen as the voice of God and yet those on your side ignore that constantly while being the ones who claim they are doing God's work. Looks like pure hypocrisy to me.