By the way, Dr. Fortin's article is based on his introduction to Dr. Davidson's presentation of the above in a special meeting at the Andrews seminary.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Thank you for a solid exposition instead of a superficial reading of the Word on this issue. The appeal to Genesis 1-3 and the restoring of the creation order provides a sturdy anchor, as well as the Hebrew thought and intention behind the move from incompleteness to completeness, and the view of woman as equal partner, not inferior helper.

Likewise, Paul's continual references to prominent women in leadership positions in the churches, indicate that passages like 1 Tim. 2: 8-15 must be considered in light of such.

Thanks...

Frank

Friends,
I fail to see why trying to get back to God's "ideal" design is such a bad idea!!
It would appear that this issue really is more about "control" than anything else.
Those in control seem threatened by the perceived loss of control even when they believe there is "no Biblical reason" to avoid women's ordination as stated by Dr. Paulson a couple of days ago. Overseas divisions may have some "cultural" issues with this but let's recognize that and move forward regionally with the stated long term goal of bringing gender equality to the worldwide church ASAP.
Is setting a good example in the NAD such a bad idea that will bring "disharmony" to the world church???
Just a few thoughts to consider.

tell me of the scriptures you see relating to our modern practice of ordination, george. There aren't any. Our form of ordination is not biblical-for women or men. No to both or yes to both.

David,

Do you realize that the position you are taking is that of the early opponents of Adventism? Do you realize J. N. Andrews, James White, and S. N. Haskell argued along the lines that Dr. Davidson has? Do you realize that Ellen White, as far as we can tell, approved of their position? (Read more on this at Memory, Meaning & Faith)

Saying that you'll take Paul over Davidson is begging the question. At issue is the interpretation of Paul. Davidson's interpretation is in harmony with Ellen White and our pioneers, and therefore should be worthy of more serious consideration.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Someone posted this comment on FaceBook recently:

"Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights... might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message. {1T 457.3}"

David and kindred spirits

On the parallel blog you complain about 'kids' and 'Southern Californians', opining that reform minded people should just leave as they used to.

Do you include the likes of Dr's Davidson and Paulsen in your awkward squad?

Please accept that there are many Adventists of substantial pedigree and intent, people who have committed their lives to this cause, leaders who appreciate that seekers have to be lead into a deeper understanding of Scripture beyond the literalist positions and short cuts taken by introductory evangelists. That some oversimplify when speaking to simple audiences may be excusable, but sloppy hermeneutics on a world stage is a disgrace.

Our 'Present Truth' heritage persists. We must speak prophetically, radically with justice and mercy to the societies in which we live. First century and Nineteenth century cultures were spoken to by Paul and the Prophetic voice we claim respectively, our task is be instruments of God's peace in our own time and culture.

Many of us have found a huge wealth -'unsearchable riches' beyond literalism. This is not about conservative or liberal thinking, it is about having growth mindset. Call it the liberality of God's grace if you will.

Many of us have grown up with fundamentalist bullies around us, harsh control freaks who 'lashed and thrashed' in church and school. Many young people did not survive and silently left. Those over whom you seem to rejoice.

Some of us, who have seen our friends needlessly sacrificed say: enough.

Please do not peristently violate the character of God by holding on to culturally conditioned dispensations outside their context.

The Biblical view of leadership is not hierarchical, otherwise how does one account for Servant Leadership. 'He that is first, shall be last' etc. Christians do not embrace to 'Fuherer' model of leadership. If we did we would just have to accept Dr Paulsen word, no further argument!

Man and Women lead in the home, society and indeed the church. We operate churches of many leaders, were it not so we would not be complaining about committees.

My prayer is that we don't find dozens of people, women in particular along with those they love, silently giving up on faith and community, with your ilk in effect saying 'good riddens'.

May I commend some deep soul searching.

T.R. Gallegos, I just looked up 1T 457, as I hadn't heard that one before. I'll capitalize the words you intentionally left out: "Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of women's rights AND THE SO-CALLED DRESS REFORM might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message."
This is taken from the chapter "Reform in Dress," and your comment follows the text from 1 Tim. 2:9 calling for women to "adorn themselves in modest apparel."

I suppose this deceptive contextualizing could be a small issue, yet it characterizes a shameful penchant to selectively use "evidence" toward whatever means we desire.

What would happen if we read the Bible primarily to discover instead of to defend? What would happen if we evaluated the Bible through the filter of "Is this the loving, Christlike approach in my context?"? What would happen if we understood Jesus' refrain on the mountain "You have heard, but I say to you . . ." for many contemporary topics he did not address--that he could not address in a culture that had no knowledge of issues we wrestle with today?

The answer to all: We would become more truly Christian.

May God have mercy on us.

George J:

I really appreciate it when people try to a give a reason for their belief. The reason will prove whether the conclusion is warranted.

So let's apply your reasoning to the creation: If the fact that Eve came from Adam makes Adam superior, then the the fact that Adam came from dirt makes the dirt superior.

Do I understand this right?

The headline is deceptive. No where does Rick prove that the Bible supports the ordination of women for any role or that they are specifically called to pastor or shepherd a church. It is not found in the Bible. Shame that these are the people We want our church back and we want our schools back. Defend your theories as much as you want but don't turn the truth into a lie.

I see no reason for not allowing ordination in cultures where it is not destructive of the preaching of repentance and forgiveness of sin in the name of Jesus. Lk.24:45-48.

regards,
pat

I reject this Pat, because morality is not determined by culture. Most cultures are heathen and even in Christian countries, heathen cultures have often dominated in many areas.

We would not go the a foreign country and evangelize people and suggest it is OK for men to retain several wives since it is in harmony with their culture.

Sadly, it is apparent we are moving more and more in this direction in general to increase our numbers and claim victories for Jesus. Cultural norms must change to fit the Christian faith. This was Paul's goal in all his evangelism.

The non-ordination of women is exactly in harmony with his evangelism and his goals to bring Christanity to the heathen cultures.

We seem to have reversed this order of evangelism and now assume we must incorporate heathen cultures into the church for the sake of increasing numbers of converts. And this agenda has come to America in full force in the last few decades.

Bill Sorensen

Bill,

>>I reject this Pat, because morality is not determined by culture<<

I agree Christian morality is not determined by culture. It is defined by God's Word.

But...I do not agree that the ordination of some/certain women is a "moral" issue.

regards,
pat

Men and women were created equal but so is God the Father and Jesus equal from eternity.

That does not mean that Jesus does what God the Father does, or even the Holy Spirit. They have different roles yet, they are one.

Equality does not necessarily means equal functionality. A father and mother can both be parents but the father can neither be a mother nor a mother a father.

If we take this to its logical conclusion, then men can marry men, and women marry women...will this soon enter the church?

God forbid!

Victor I love the question mark after conclusion? Marc's syllogism stands right up there with: Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, and I love you!. Dr. Paulsen made it very clear the issue is political not theological nor doctrinal. Type has met anti-type 2000 years ago. The priesthood is extinct--so men get over it! Tom

"Your Friend,"

To be clear, are you suggesting the following?

1. The missing material in T.R.'s quote was not deleted intentionally to focus on what the author wanted?

2. That anyone who supports "women's rights" (including the right to vote) might as well sever connection with God's remnant?

3. That Ellen White's writings are infallible? (If not, tell me one place she was wrong.)

4. When we discuss the "modern provocative dress" worn by women, if we follow the Sermon on the Mount shouldn't we be charitable in the characterization of them?

The main aspect I focused on had to do with FUNCTIONALITY. If my post is read with this in mind, perhaps "the logic" would be better understood. Or perhaps not. My objective is not to change anyone's mind or to understand the "logic"...that is the FUNCTION of the Holy Spirit.

George: I totally agree with you! The liberals in the NAD want to take over the world. Thank God the world SDA church is large enough to stop them. Jesus' example in ordaining 12 men explodes any basis for attempting to ordain women. Jesus did all kinds of things that were politically incorrect, and yet today SDA liberals want to say that Jesus did what the Jewish culture dictated Him to do in the 1st century. He kept the Sabbath in a manner that was according to God's will, not according to the traditions of the Pharisees, so why would Jesus exclude women from ordination if it was God's will?

Elaine: You misunderstood the political situation. Of the 13 World Divisions, only three would like to see the current policy of NOT ordaining women changed, therefore it was decided not bring up the issue for vote at the upcoming GC Session in Atlanta.

Note link to news article:

http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=3249

Truthwave,

I understand the political situation all too well. If the conferences who are willing and ready to ordain women, why should they be held hostage to the division who are not ready yet? Should the slowest to change subject the first world countries to abide by the decisions that they wish? Why must there be uniformity throughout the world church rather than unity?

There is a difference: we can be uniform in our Fundamental Beliefs, but ordination of women is not one of them and is only a cultural practice which operates differently in the various countries, e.g., in some divisions, it is perfectly proper for the Sabbath speaker to wear sandals and a shirt, not tucked in; for other places, the pastor is expect to dress with a suit, tie, socks and shoes. In some countries, nearly everyone is barefoot. (There was a time when women would never appear in church without a hat--a cultural practice that change with the passing of time.) This is not a doctrinal position, nor should it be elevated to such a priority, as Paulsen said, there is no Biblical texts that demand we take a certain position--and was only a political one.

Did the G.C. give permission for women to serve as pastors in China? Or was it simple expediency?

It's an egg vs chicken situation here folks. The leaders are male or work in a male-dominated culture, and many not be so sensititive to women in leadership roles, as say, women who had progressed to the same position. Therefore, it may not be deemed as important as the population deems it, even though the church population may be mostly female and vastly under-represented.

But, for women to get to this role, they would have had to be an ordained pastor at some point, and formally trained in ministry. I can name at least five women I know right now, that I think would be be fantastic in an ordained role because, quite simply, they are already doing the job succesfully. Why shouldn't they be supported by the church, and not have to raise their own funds to support ministry?

Thanks for a great article!

TrueWave:

The dark ages of the Seventh-day Adventist Church began with the negative reaction to the book: Answers to Questions on Doctrine. In the course of the Pearson/Wilson administration all rational thought and serious exigesis was banned and or prosecuted. What you label in a libelous fashion is in reality an attempt to undo the terrible injustices of domination of the White Estate and its shills. I believe that Dr. Paulsen has done as much as he could to bring Christianity back into Adventism. A very difficult task given the embedded infrastructure. The Adventism that you embrace is merely a perverted apology for the errors of the Millerite
heresy.
What you espouse is pure blatant Pharisaicalism of the 21st century. It will not stand any test that is Scripturally based. So all apologists pile red book upon red book until they have an idol of their own making and curse anyone with a contrary opinion even though it is anchored on Pauline theology and the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Tom

I see it coming.....
The interchange is approaching the level of that in YAHOO Christian Chat.

1. The Scriptures repeatedly point to Adam's fall (not Eve's) being the fall of the human race ("through one man sin entered the world" - Rom 5:12). This weakens Davidson's 1st point - that there was no leadership distinction in Eden.
2. He then states (Point 4) that, "Paul's Writings Maintain the Eden Model" while pointing out that Paul requires wives to be subject to their own husbands. So which is it? If "Paul's Writings Maintain the Eden Model" and the Eden model has no leadership distinction, then why is Paul telling wives to be submissive to their husbands?
It's amazing how culture pushes an issue and then theologians "discover" that the Bible taught it all along. Theistic evolution, homosexuality, women's ordination are just the latest examples. Funny how when racism was as American as apple pie people "discovered" that the Bible taught that too. Let's junk the syncretism and just let God be in charge.

Bravo, Richard! Thanks for using responsible biblical hermeneutics to show that there is no reason why women should not be ordained. For all the naysayers out there, here are just a few quotes from Ellen White on the subject:

"All who wish an opportunity for true ministry, and who will give themselves unreservedly to God, will find in the canvassing work opportunities to speak upon many things pertaining to the future immortal life. The experience thus gained will be of the greatest value to those who are fitting themselves for the work of the ministry. It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God." (Review and Herald, January 15, 1901)

"It is not always men who are best adapted to the successful management of a church. If faithful women have more deep piety and true devotion than men, they could indeed by their prayers and their labors do more than men who are unconsecrated in heart and in life." (Letter 33, 1879, p. 2)

“There are women who should labor in the Gospel ministry. In many respects they would do more good than the ministers who neglect to visit the flock of God.” (Evangelism, p. 472).

"Injustice has been done to women who labor just as devotedly as their husbands, and who are recognized by God as being as necessary to the work of ministry as their husbands. The method of paying men-laborers and not their wives, is a plan not after the Lord's order.... This arrangement... is liable to discourage our sisters from qualifying themselves for the work they should engage in [i.e. ministry].... As the devoted minister and his wife engage in the work, they should be paid wages proportionate to the wages of two distinct workers, that they may have means to use as they shall see fit in the cause of God. The Lord has put His spirit upon them both. If the husband should die, and leave his wife, she is fitted to continue her work in the cause of God, and receive wages for the labor she performs.... This question is not for men to settle. The Lord has settled it. You are to do your duty to the women who labor in the gospel." ("The Laborer Is Worthy of His Hire," Mss. 43a, 1898. MR 267)

"God wants workers who can carry the truth to all classes, high and low, rich and poor. In this work women may act an important part. God grant that those who read these words may put forth earnest efforts to present an open door for consecrated women to enter the field." (Ibid., MR 298)

“Again and again the Lord has shown me that women teachers are just as greatly needed to do the work to which He has appointed them as are men." (Ibid., MR 330)

For those opposed to women's ordination - in what way would ordaining women as pastors harm the church? If you believe in the equality of men and women in the sight of God (which is a biblical principle, as well as a fundamental belief of the SDA Church [see#14]), then there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that one gender is better qualified than another to lead souls to Christ. Especially when Christ himself included women in His inner circle against the cultural taboos of His time. I cannot believe that He would be against women serving as pastors and elders in His church.

It saddens me deeply that anyone would seek to deny the blessing of ordination to women who have been called by God to the gospel ministry. Every person who takes up that call should be encouraged and empowered to use their gifts to the utmost to share God's love with the world. To refuse women the opportunity to share their God-given talents solely because of their gender is not only a sin against them, but against those who could have been blessed by their ministry. And to call it anything less than bigotry is to deny that bigotry exists.

I have read, with much sadness, the above list of comments, with the exception of TMitchell's comment which was just plain funny - I guess no more dumber than dirt remarks.....

At issue - at least on the surface - is the ordination of women. I would suggest that the real issue is lack of respect and Christian charity. Lack of respect for women, who by the way, are also made in the image of God and a lack of respect for differing opinions to the extreme of suggesting that anyone who supports women in ministry is dancing with the devil and is in danger of receiving the Mark of the Beast. Anyone who makes such a claim should be ashamed and should not dishonor God by claiming to be a Christian.

I read this quote this morning from Desire of Ages:
It is no part of Christ's mission to compel men to receive Him. It is Satan, and men actuated by his spirit, that seek to compel the conscience. Under a pretense of zeal for righteousness, men who are confederate with evil angels bring suffering upon their fellow men, in order to convert them to their ideas of religion; but Christ is ever showing mercy, ever seeking to win by the revealing of His love. He can admit no rival in the soul, nor accept of partial service; but He desires only voluntary service, the willing surrender of the heart under the constraint of love. There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas. {DA 487.3}
Every human being, in body, soul, and spirit, is the property of God. Christ died to redeem all. Nothing can be more offensive to God than for men, through religious bigotry, to bring suffering upon those who are the purchase of the Saviour's blood. {DA 488.1}

That really says it all. No matter what side of the debate you are on, the very least you can do is respect and show kindness to the person who sees things differently.

To borrow the analogy---are we fiddling while Rome burns?

I have read all the comments here and elsewhere and am increasingly concerned with both the tone, the distortions (both scripture and Ellen White), and the lack of respect for individuals with whom you disagree. We are not behaving like the Christians we claim to be! These diatribes are sounding more and more like the "tea party" crowds, i.e., ignorance of facts, anger, high blood pressure, indigestion, gas and BO. Can heart attacks be far behind? And what has happened to civility in discourse?
I am particularly concerned with the legalists among you who insists that the rest of this crowd needs to repent. I thought it was the Spirit who "convicts of sin." But then, I might be mistaken. Of course I realize that one of mankind's greatest temptations is to be (and act) like God. Seems like some other creature also wanted that.
I am not attempting to make light of the issue being debated here. But sometimes it helps to hold up a mirror and take a look at what you see. And sometimes humor and even sarcasm can help.
I don't know who yo are, Bill Sorensen. I have read your comments on this topic and others several places. You seem to have made it your personal mission to correct and chastise. And you consistently appear to see yourself on a higher plane from the rest of the discussants. Do you always have to be right?
(I am only bringing up Bill Sorensen as an example. There are numerous others who seem to be in lockstep with this approach to discussion.)
Is it really important that we all agree on the issue of women's ordination? Is it an either-or issue? Is this really a question of morality? Do we have to force the entire world of Adventism into one mold? Can we not be unified as we celebrate our diversity?
I pray that we can manage to be agreeable in our disagreements. Unity does not mean conformity. It is based on mutual respect.

The person who commented on the "Tea Party", They, the Tea Party, aren't guilty of any violence, or any of the things invented about them by the far left, don't compare God's word or others who disagree with your opinion, to them. I happen to agree with the Tea Party.....This isn't about politics.
But will we expect to see a group of women carring signs, and marching on the up coming GC?
Do the men commenting on this site really believe in ordaining women, or is it because they have to face their wives?
If we all love as Christ Loved, then we wouldn't be on this web site. Would we? I mean would we? It's ok to stand up for God's word as a Christian again't the world. But we are standing up against other SDA's.
We can't take God's word and "MAKE IT" say what we want it too. And doesn't this smack a little of a womens's movement? I am reading these comments, and it seems it does.......Are women important? Yes.
Why? Why are the women riled? Unless it's not about the Bible, but about their wanting to be be equal with men? Seems to me, Satan is suceeding in causing a riff among God's people, when we are really, really in the last days.
No time people. No time....
We also don't have to take some one's opinion just because they are highly educated. We can all read the Bible. And He, (God) will lead us in all truths of His word. If you leave this church over this issue, you were never grounded in the truth, or you are looking for a reason to leave. This is the true Church, and I don't feel we have to bring it up to code, or to the 20th century, it has always been perfect the way it was. Can't change things for progress. New age worship,new age praise, ordaining women, ect.
Linda.

To say that this is "about their wanting to be be equal with men?" is a tacit expression that men are superior and not "equal" with women. Where in the Bible does it say that women are unequal to men? We were created in God's image, neither were in a subordinate position. The inference is that

I commend Dr. Davidson for a very thoughtful and biblically based article. At least since the 1880s, Seventh-day Adventists have had female pastors, and if we as a church believe that God has called them to ministry, it only makes sense to ordain them. Dr. Davidson's article demonstrates that this involves no violation of Biblical principles.

From a (woman's perspective)

A lot of women out there upset.I am sorry you are. But: The Levitical Priest, were Men. Faithful Shepherds, men. "Men" called into the ministry.( The Good Shepherd leads and protects "his" sheep, a man. The 12 dsciples were men, the Biblical Elders seemed to be men. God said, " Let us make "Man", in our image. Woman was a help mate, a child bearer. A companion, as man was lonely.
Read;
Gen,2;2
Deut.22;5
1Tim.2;11
1Cor.14;34
1Tim.2;9
Titus2;3 Submissive
1Peter,3;1 Subject to your own husbands

The Sadducees were men.
2.Tim.4;5 (an evangelist,fulfill your ministry)
Gen.6;4 mighty men of old

Yes there are woman mentioned in the Bible, there are stories about women in the Bible. But the Bible is basic about men and their role.
Men, and Man, are pretty much the whole make up of the Bible. Women are in there too, but It's adressed more to and about men.
And God's relationship addressing men and their role.
Men being Leaders. Such as a man meeting with God receiving the 10 Commandments, raising the dead, in Christs name. Healing, casting out divils. Parting the red sea. Getting taken up to heaven alive. God blessing an old man with children, (Jesus, born flesh, and a man) to save the world, A (Man) child, not a woman Saviour. A man swallowed by a whale, and saved, a man cast into a lion's den, and 3 men cast into a firey furnace. Not women.
It was a woman however who was cut into 12 pieces, and her body parts tied onto 12 donkeys, and sent to the 12 tribes.....Yeah..
A man called to build an ark,
I think you get my point. This Church appears to fall, but it goes through. Could it appear to fall because it becomes so divided over somthing?
It goes through because a Man called Jesus, gave His life that we might have Eternal life. He who wants to be first, shall be last, and He, (or she) who is last, shall be first.
I am happy to be a Woman. A woman who has a loving Man, and a risen Saviour. And thats good enough for me.

Dear Linda,

I'm a man who has a loving wife and a risen Savior, and for these precious gifts, I rejoice. The good news of a crucified, risen, and soon coming Savior is the best news the human race will ever hear!

However, Frank is correct about Gen 1:26. Although the Hebrew noun "Adam" was eventually applied to the first human male as a proper name, it is actually a gender inclusive term - it means "humanity" or more literally "earth being." The gender inclusive nature of the term is brought out in verse 27, where we are told that the "Adam" was created in male and female varieties.

Furthermore, the Bible does record the unfortunate incident when a murdered woman's body was cut into 12 pieces, and her body parts were then sent throughout Israel. (Judges 19:29-30) However, the Bible also contains many noble stories about women. Why do you pick out this one true but disgusting story and ignore all the beautiful women in the Bible?

Linda...

Where does the Bible talk about lifetime ordination men to the position of career, paid, pastorate? The professional, pastoral office is unknown in the NT. It's not there! It was a development of the medieval church.

A case can be made for women apostles, prophets, evangelists and deacons in the NT. No case can really be made from the NT for full time pastors as we know it...men or women.
It means that we are dealing with a church practice that rests more on tradition than biblical principle.

This takes the discussion onto a totally different footing. An area that because of the possible ramifications, nobody (including DB) seems to want to get into.

Thanks...

Frank

Brother, I have said my piece, I stand by it. I'll let all you good people have the floor now.
I only wanted to show how this is such a conflict, and brings Good Adventist at odds with each other. And that theres no Biblical grounds for ordaining women.
I pray we all keep loving each other, in spite of not being able to agree.
God knows the finale outcome, we must all accept
that. (yes, I MEAN ME TOO) I knew what you were all going to say......

One more Comment Frank.....

We are (PEOPLE OF THE "BOOK") The Word..... Not a People of "IDEALS"........

Where does the Bible talk about lifetime ordination men to the position of career, paid, pastorate? The professional, pastoral office is unknown in the NT. It's not there! It was a development of the medieval church.

Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 20 April 2010 at 2:28

Actually it far predates the medieval church. In the OT the priests in the temple served as lifetime ordination of men to the position of career, paid, pastorate. Actually even more than those who served in the temple. The whole tribe of Levi was as you have said.
So you need to further clarify your point. Is the difference between the OT and the NT? I doubt it since Christ never talked of disbanding the temple or its priests upon his death.
And since that is true it cant be the medieval church that started it.

Frank brings out an important point in all this, that is the difference that tradition has made between clergy and laity. That is the subject of my blog post last Saturday. Clink my name in read to read it.

He is also correct that dismatling that system would cause chaos. But then when the Western world is so decreasing in Christianity maybe it is time for some portions to consider trying methods which tradition have established but are no longer effective.

Ron

Actually it far predates the medieval church. In the OT the priests in the temple served as lifetime ordination of men to the position of career, paid, pastorate. Actually even more than those who served in the temple. The whole tribe of Levi was as you have said.
So you need to further clarify your point. Is the difference between the OT and the NT? I doubt it since Christ never talked of disbanding the temple or its priests upon his death.
And since that is true it cant be the medieval church that started it.
_____________________________________________________
Dear Michael,

You are correct about the Old Testament priesthood and ordination. But there is a distinct difference in the New Testament. No, Jesus Himself never spoke about disbanding the temple or the priests, but His followers did. Read the book of Hebrews. Under the new covenant, Christ is the High Priest, and He ministers in a heavenly sanctuary, not the earthly sanctuary in Jerusalem. In fact, all that is left of the sanctuary in Jerusalem is the western wailing wall. Furthermore, according to 1 Peter 2:5,9, the antiype of the Old Testament common priesthood is the New Testament priesthood of all believers. All believers in Christ are priests and all have a ministry to perform.

There are a few instances in the New Testament when the laying on of hands was practiced, but there is no proof that this was universal for all pastors/elders, nor does it seem to have the significance that is given to it today. There is absolutely no New Testament command to ordain in this way. That doesn't mean that human ordination is wrong. It is merely what the Protestant reformers called an adiaphoron - a non-essential.

Michael...

Bob answers your concerns quite cogently. There is no correlation between the OT priesthood and NT pastoral gift in the sense that is most often made. Christ as the one intercessor/HighPriest, and subordinately the priesthood of all believers, is the proper analogy, not the later development of a professional pastorate. That is a development that truly post-dates, and was not practiced by the apostolic church. It is nowhere to be found in the NT.

To attempt to tie our present practice of ordination to the OT Levitical priesthood, is to make a correlation that the NT never does. In another sense, it is also returning in viewpoint to an OT system that was exclusive in nature (by gender and bloodline) but has been now replaced by the inclusivity of the priesthood of all believers, of which the NT says quite a bit.

And, Bob...What you say about house churches is something I have felt for quite a while. It would make this whole argument about ordination moot. It would return to a more relational way of "doing church" and being the church. Funny that the fastest growing movement within Christianity is the cell/home church movement. I guess many have become disillusioned with the incresing institutionalization of the church, and have been opting for something much more grassroots, and seemingly more in line with what was practiced in the NT.

Thanks...

Frank

@Frank: "... the whole argument of lifetime pastoral ordination for anyone, including men, finds little to no support in the NT."

There's sufficient evidence, by the time the pastoral letters were composed, that ordination or consecration as a "rite of passage" was an established practice in the early Church.

“Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you" (1 Tim. 4:14).
"Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure" {1 Tim 5:22).
"The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint[a] elders in every town, as I directed you" {Titus 1:5}.

Though tradition seems to suggest exclusivity, for pastors and elders only, I have my doubts. At the very least, this is debatable in light of the diversity of spiritual gifts and on account of the priesthood of all believers. Is one's consecration for service, for spiritually-gifted church musicians for example, repeatable? Only once, as far as I'm concerned. Just like baptism.

Does ordination confer a lifetime appointment to a church office? Absolutely not. This is the reality for ordained pastors, on account of the current economic necessity and because of the politics involved.

Lastly, what ordination doesn't do, and should not be associated with, is the conferring of authority on the spiritually gifted. The headship issue, I believe, leads in the wrong direction. Ministry in the kingdom of God means servanthood, does it not? If so, of all vocations it should be the most inclusive.

I agree with most of what Bob and Frank have said.
It is interesting to note that rather than women confronting the issue as one of having no NT parallel and therefore no reason for such a practice, they would rather keep the practice because they seem to want the accolades of the ordination ceremony. Or is it something even more crass like how much one is paid?
I think it has already been stipulated quite well that being ordained has no practical ramifications. LuLu wightman raised the better part of 17 churches before any such issues arose.
The root of the problem may be expressed in such terms. That is to say, would a woman now consider raising nearly 17 churches without FIRST having the "degrees" and the ceremony's and the pay?
An interesting juxtaposition.

Michael, how is it 'crass' to believe women should have equal pay for equal work? And when inability to be ordained becomes a barrier to job competition (e.g. certain categories of church administration) it is a fairness question regarding both money and talent utilization.

But, Michael...

To be fair, would you extend the same invitation to ordained male pastors, to give up their ordination and pay and do the same for no remuneration...just as you are asking women to do? Why wouldn't it be just about the money for men? Under your stipulations, men are given the option to raise up churches with or without pay, ordination, etc. But women aren't? Why?What you're saying should cut both ways.

Then again, what has been pointed out about NT practice regarding lifetime, pastoral ordination, or the lack thereof, would make this a non-issue for men and women if it was adopted. But, I'm not holding my breath.

Thanks...

Frank

Let me add a further thought. The type of conference ordination that Seventh-day Adventists practice is simply human recognition that God has already called a person into ministry. But when we say we are willing to employ women as pastors but not ordain them (the SDA position since the 19th century), we are involving ourselves in serious contradiction. The fact that we as a denomination are willing to extend ministerial licenses to women and pay them to pastor churches indicates that we believe God has called them to this work. But when we refuse to ordain these women, we are refusing to formally recognize the divine call that we have already assumed in granting women ministerial licenses in the first place.

Simply put, it makes no sense to have women pastors but not ordain them. It is a blatant contradiction.

I agree Frank. Men too.
If the shoe fits wear it.
Perhaps the underlying lesson we should draw is that we should not employ anyone who has not or would not do it for free. Its the only way the I felt called and the I wont do it without pay and/or ordination positions can be reconciled.

Correction on my post. I meant to say "but claim we are not following the Bible because we believe women SHOULD be ordained?"

Should proof-read better!

Dear Darrell,

I agree with you completely. Paul says absolutely nothing for or against ordaining women. However, he does place certain restrictions on women - speaking, wearing veils, etc. - and these are ignored. And yet something that the entire Bible is silent on is blown into a huge issue. Please understand. I'm not a rabble rouser. I love the SDA Church, but I don't get it.

Dear Joselito,

Thank you for your comments. I guess I feel that even though we only officially recognize baptism and the Lord's Supper as sacraments, ordination comes close to sacramental status in many people's eyes. Many see it as conferring rank or status beyond that of the common disciple of Christ. When it is viewed in this way, it compromises the priesthood of all believers. I don't believe ordination is wrong or that it should be abolished, but I think it should be understood for what it is - human recognition that an individual has a spiritual gift to function as a pastor. Remember - all believers have spiritual gifts, and the possession of that particular spiritual gift (pastor/teacher) does not elevate a person to a higher plane of existence. On the contrary, it makes the person a servant of all - as Christ was!

I also believe that a wrong perception of ordination plays into this debate about women's ordination. People argue vehemently about this issue as if it is all important. They think ordination confers a status on women that they should not have. But it doesn't - because ordination is not a big a deal in the New Testament. The New Testament is not very interested in the laying on of hands. What counts in the New Testament is God's call! And the debate about women's ordination completely ignores this.

I don't believe that God has given us a clear mandate as to how we should do church either. I believe the Holy Spirit is flexible, as long as we are proclaiming the good news about Christ's free grace. Since the 4th century, most Christian congregations have been Constantinian. They have a central building for worship, with pews where the people sit and a pulpit up front, along with an altar or communion table. But prior to Constantine, the majority of Christian congregations were house churches or cell churches. Most of my experience has been with the Constantinian model, but I have also had a little experience with the cell church model. I believe the latter is elegant in its simplicity, and I also believe the priesthood of all believers functions better in cell churches - because worshipers are not relegated to being spectators. Also, a simple prayer of dedication in the home setting for someone who is beginning a ministry, coupled with laying hands on the person is quite different from the way ordination is commonly practiced today. Furthermore, cell churches are far more resilient in times of persecution - because they can function and even multiply in secret. But God can use either model.

It is just another form, not actually stated, that women have always been seen as the "inferior" sex, subordinate always to men.

Overlooked is that the condemnation of many of the early church fathers pointedly looked upon all women as being the one who brought sin into this world and because of that one act, she should be castigated, the evil seducer of man, taught by Tertullian in this sentiment:

"Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of you lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. YOU are the devil's gateway; YOU are the unsealer of that forbidden tree; YOU are the first deserter of the divine law: YOU are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. YOU so carelessly destroyed man, God's image. On account of YOUR desert, even the Son of God had to die."

Later, Augustine added:

"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman. If it was good company and conversation that Adam needed, it would have been much better arranged to have two men together as friends,not a man and a woman." (Approval of homosexuality?)

Woman's only function was the childbearing which passed the contagion of Original Sin to the next generation, like a veneral disease.

A religion which looks askance upon half the human race and which regards every involuntary motion of mind, heart and body as a symptom of sin can only alienate men and women from their condition. Men have never hesitated to remind them of their "proper" place because of rule of the church hierarchy.

Western Christianity has never fully recovered from this neurotic misogny, still seen in the UNBALANCED reaction to the very notion of the ordination of women.

This view of women has never disappeared from the religious world, and still seen in the reluctance, even refusal to acknowledge the equality of women before God.

I believe all of the Conference Officials, And all of the Ministers would do well to read the 1964 Manual for Ministers.
I don't think anything has changed in the last 46 years about this church, or message. Movements come and go, but I'd like to think God is still the authority in all matters. I don't think the people like authority, it appears they certainly don't even like God's authority......

Ellen White:

Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message.

The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other.

The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women.
--Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 421

Ellen White:

There are some that may think they are fully capable with their finite judgment to take the Word of God, and to state what are the words of inspiration, and what are not the words of inspiration.

I want to warn you off that ground, my brethren in the ministry. “Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.”

There is no finite man that lives, I care not who he is or whatever is his position, that God has authorized to pick and choose in His Word. . . .

I would have both my arms taken off at my shoulders before I would ever make the statement or set my judgment upon the Word of God as to what is inspired and what is not inspired.
--Ellen G. White Comments, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 919

This is what the Seventh-day Adventist prophetess said.

Nobody is compelled to be a Seventh-day Adventist.

Maggie - if you would look at the context of your quotes from 1 Testimonies 421, you would find that it is unisex dress, not fairness to women. To the extent that the women's rights movement supports the latter, it is to be commended. But to the extent that it supports the former and other types of immorality, it is to be rejected.

Remember, Elaine, that Ellen White was herself a woman with some rather strong opinions about "women's rights." She called for women and men to receive equal salaries. She stated that husbands were the heads of their households in the sense of providing for them and protecting them, not in the sense of being dictators. She rejected the idea that wives were to "obey" their husbands. And the fact that she uttered no protest in the 1880s when a vote was taken to ordain women (the only time the measure passed in the SDA church) suggests that she did not harbor any strong feelings against the idea.

1T421 does speak negatively about the women's rights movement, and it seems to connect that movement with immodest dress. Of course, the material in volumn one of the Testimonies is quite early, and the Ellen White positions I mentioned above were penned in later years. It may be that as the years passed, Ellen White modified her views on this subject somewhat, as she did in other areas. Or perhaps she was in favor of women's rights but objected to certain stances of the organized women's rights movement that she deemed immoral.

I agree that context and dates are important, which is why I pointed out that the context of the statement in 1T421 seems to deal with immodest dress. Be that as it may, the great bulk of Ellen White's statements on this subject are favorable to women's rights. Consider:

"God is a God of justice, and if the ministers receive a salary for their work, their wives, who devote themselves just as disinterestedly to the work, should be paid in addition to the wages their husbands receive, even though they may not ask for this. Seventh-day Adventists are not in any way to belittle women's work." "Gospel Workers," p. 453

"Women may take their places in the work at this crisus, and the Lord will work through them. If they are imbued with a sense of their duty, and labor under the influence of the Spirit of God, they will have just the self-possession required for this time. The Saviour will reflect upon these self-sacrificing women the light of His countenance, and this will give them a power which will exceed that of men." 6T117

"My brother, be kind, patient, forbearing. Remember that your wife accepted you as her husband, not that you might rule over her, but that you might be her helper. Never be overbearing and dictatorial. Do not exert your strong will power to compel your wife to do as you wish. Remember that she has a will and that she may wish to have her way as much as you wish to have yours." 7T48

"A woman does herself and her family a serious wrong when she does her work and theirs too - when she brings the wood and water, and even takes the ax to prepare the wood, while her husband and sons sit about the fire having a social, easy time. God never designed that wives and mothers should be slaves of their families." 5T180

"You think too much of your own opinion; you have taken extreme positions and have not been willing that your wife's judgment should have the weight it should in your family. You have not encouraged respect for your wife yourself nor educated your children to respect her judgment. You have not made her your equal, but have taken the reins of government and control into your own hands and have held them with a firm grasp." 4T255

"Brother B should soften; he should cultivate refinement and courtesy. He should be very gentle toward his wife, who is his equal in every respect." 4T 36-37

Thanks for identifying "apostasy." It has always been a concern of how we would know it, but now that it has been declared to be the ordination of women, I will stay away from any church that would promote such an unbiblical doctrine. Silly me, I had been taught that is the worship of antiChrist.

For those who wish to restore the Bible's prohibitions and instructions, for consistency here are some questions, old but with this subject seem worthy of repeating:

To Dr. Laura Schlessinger, an orthodox Jew who announced her belief that the Bible's prohibitions were relevant today:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.
I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to
defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them
that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End
of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a
fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem
is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it
creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my
neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there
'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some
wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the
hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden
by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig
makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep
with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can
help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.

Michael,

Can you dispute God's commands? Either the writers miswrote, or it is a true record. Did God give Moses these commands? How could anyone be so bold as to discount God's instructions?

If they are no longer to be followed, how does that affect all God's other commands? Please explain.

The last part of my correcton post above was cut off, here is the whole...

CORRECTION ON MY INITIAL POST: In posting on the issue of the “crowning work of creation” I left the impression that the Sabbath was the crowning act; however, this is a wrong impression. In light of what Mr. Robinson was stating I was attempting to imply that the Sabbath was ‘more’ of a climax, literally speaking. Even though Mr. Robinson’s assertion that ‘woman’ was the crowning act, he neglected to tell you that the Lord’s messenger stated that ‘man’, meaning men and women, were the crowning act of creation. Here is one of a number of quotes indicating the same, “Man is the crowning work of all that God has made. The proper study of every learner is man. Science, true and unadulterated, in all its achievements, is to be laid at the feet of the God of science. Man is a being to be prized”.--Ms 48, 1898. {3MR 335.1} “Of all the works of God, man stands highest, because he is to represent God. Men and women are the members of Christ's body, and they are to receive from one another respect and love and kindness, because they have been bought with a price, even the blood of the Son of God.’--Letter 185, 1902. My apologies for this oversight.

Part 1 of 3 – With apologies, my response is longer than anticipated… see Parts 2 & 3 following…

Oh! I thought I was communicating with a Seventh-day Adventist. But it would seem that I am not. At least this is the impression I am being left with. If you are not an SDA, then much is explained. If you are, then much needs to be. May the Lord have mercy.

No doubt Jesus came to reveal to us the Father, but this does not preclude the ‘moral’ law - the Ten Commandments. [Semantics 101 - I use the word ‘moral’ to distinguish the Ten Commandment law from the ‘ceremonial’ law. You know, sometimes we say that Jesus rose on ‘Sunday’, but really He rose on the ‘First Day’, even though ‘Sunday’ is never used in the Bible. Hopefully this example will suffice.]

So, when you say “He has overridden the Law” I assume you mean the Ten Commandment law. Yes?! If this is so, how exactly did He “override” it? Which of the definitions below should we apply…

to override (overridden)-: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• overrule: rule against; "The Republicans were overruled when the House voted on the bill"
• prevail over; "health considerations override financial concerns"
• counteract the normal operation of (an automatic gear shift in a vehicle)
• ride (a horse) too hard
• nullification: the act of nullifying; making null and void; counteracting or overriding the effect or force of something

Here are a couple of verses relating to the BUTs and the ‘moral’ Law,

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
BUT I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Matthew 5:27-28.

Now, if I had to follow the logic you seem to be putting forth above I would have to assume that Jesus is saying here that the ‘act’ of committing adultery is no longer an issue, it is null and void, the “BUT” now only considers the thoughts/thinking of the act which are now the transgression. This couldn’t be true, could it?

Here’s another one, this one concerning divorce,

“It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: BUT I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Matthew 5:31-32.

Using your same logic, what can we conclude from this statement? Is Jesus saying that it was okay to put away ones wife at one time for any reason, and only now do certain conditions apply? Not likely, and I would be shamefully surprised at any Christian (especially an SDA) who would purport the same. The ideal was always there; but so too was the hardness of heart in many of His people, so He was long suffering and permissive. Now that Mercy had come down to dwell among them He could fill in the gaps and show forth the ideal, the fullness of the law if you will, and also the consequences of living apart from it by way of His crucifixion.

One note of interest is that I could not find your quote when I considered the ones above, i.e. “Jesus also said, "the law has said, BUT I say unto you."” Where did you find this quote? I checked a few of the more commonly used translations but I could not find this text. In particular I could not find the part, “the law has said”. This is significant considering the use of the word ‘law’ and the definition of ‘override’, which, without clarification, could lead us to ascertain that you are claiming that Jesus may have ruled against or nullified His own law by interjecting the word BUT into a statement. Surely this is not your intent. He may have expounded or clarified it, but surely you are not suggesting that He made it void. Of course you are not, else why did He have to die? “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4 “Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die”. Ezekiel 18:4

End of Part 1 of 3; see below for Part 2…

Part 3 of 3

Finally, here are a few more quotes from the lesser light, and please read prayerfully…

“Christ lived in accordance with the principles of God's moral government, and fulfilled the specifications of the law of God. He represented the beneficence of the law in his human life. The fact that the law is holy, just, and good is to be testified before all nations, tongues, and peoples, to worlds unfallen, to angels, seraphim, and cherubim. The principles of the law of God were wrought out in the character of Jesus Christ, and he who co-operates with Christ, becoming a partaker of the divine nature, will develop the divine character, and become an illustration of the divine law. Christ in the heart will bring the whole man, soul, body, and spirit into captivity to the obedience of righteousness. Christ's true followers will be in conformity to the mind and will and character of God, and the far-reaching principles of the law will be demonstrated in humanity. “{RH, March 9, 1897 par. 2}

“If the world knew the principles of the laws of God's government, if they obeyed his commandments, they would discern the character of God in the law, and would no longer be at enmity with God. But turning from the law of God, men have no means of discerning his character, and the attributes of the character of Satan are cherished and cultivated. After Jesus told his disciples what manner of treatment they might expect from the world, he said, "These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended." That is, in receiving persecution from the hands of the world, they were not to feel that God was dealing with them unjustly, in permitting them to be thus treated. Jesus continued: "They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." Why is it that men reach this state of deception? Why is it they walk so contrary to all the laws of God? Jesus answers: "And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me." {RH, March 9, 1897 par. 12}

“Turning away from the law of God, trampling the commandments under their feet, men cannot know God; for the law of God is a transcript of his character. Failing to understand the law of God, they also fail to know the human agent who discerns the attributes of the character of God revealed in his law. This is why men are filled with prejudice against the truth of God, why they are inspired with the spirit of the great adversary of God and of his children. This is why they bear false reports, fabricating lies, and loving the lies that are prepared for their using. This is why they make such decided efforts to turn away the people from the law of God; for they have not seen him, neither known him. {RH, March 9, 1897 par. 13}

End of Part 3 of 3, again apologies for the length.

God bless,

Mike