Women and Equality: Theological Challenges for the Adventist Church

27 October 2011 | Trisha Famisaran

| 41

The most recent Annual Council meeting has renewed discussions about whether women should be ordained to ministry in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

I am reminded of the number of reasons why people object to ordaining women. “Headship theology” argues that it would distort the so-called natural order attributed to passages in 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5. Interpretations of these passages depend heavily on how “head” is translated from the original language, as well as depending on what a person is “looking for” or expects from the text. There is also the objection based on assumptions about a woman’s ability to be in a leadership position, that women are not intellectually or emotionally fit for these kinds of roles. This bias was seen at its worse, I dare say, in a sermon given by one Adventist minister in 2010, where he described women as having lower IQ’s than men, unruly, and physically weak.[1] A third objection to ordination, one that is perhaps a softer though still troubling one, is the argument that ordination of women is theologically permissible but will divide the world church. This prioritizes preserving the status quo over and against recognizing the full personhood of sixty percent of church members.

Even women pastors are reluctant to broach the issue. Some rationalize ordination as theologically unimportant. This is fair. Perhaps we should ask whether men ought to be ordained as well. Other women pastors avoid talking about ordination for a more telling reason. They feel they can’t bring it up out of self-preservation. It’s hard enough for women to be pastors in a church that doesn’t want to accept them. Adding a label like “feminist” or speaking up for herself could make things even more difficult. On the other hand, this presents us with a reason to ordain women—it would promote acceptance of women pastors in local congregations and provide a sense of legitimacy to their ministries.

Finally, I’ve heard a number of people question what the big deal is. They ask, if women can serve in conferences in California and elsewhere, where they can even receive ordained-commissioned credentials, then why do we need to continue hammering away at the issue?

I want to remark on connections I find between the questions of whether women should be ordained with relevant theoretical and theological factors. There was an important remark made at Annual Council on October 9, 2011 in the discussion period that preceded the vote taken over similar requests submitted by the North American Division and the Trans-European Division.[2] The requests sought to allow the growing number of women and men with “ordained/commissioned” credentials to be elected president of a conference. The measure failed to pass.

President of the NAD, Elder Dan Jackson, remarked, “It is not about women’s ordination. It is about governance and leadership.” His comment implies that we need to ordain women because they will help fulfill the mission and vision of the church in ministerial and administrative positions. Early Adventists and Ellen G. White also argued for ordination from a practical point of view.

There should be selected for the work wise, consecrated men who can do a good work in reaching souls. Women also should be chosen who can present the truth in a clear, intelligent, straight-forward manner.” (Ellen G. White, Evangelism, p. 471)

Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands…This is another means of strengthening and building up the church…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. (Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, (7-9-1895), p. 271)

Arguing for ordination as it pertains to governance, leadership, and church polity is an important piece of the discussion. I’m very glad that Elder Dan Jackson said what he did at Annual Council. However, this route does not directly allow us to deal with what I think lies at the foundation of the problem.

Governance and leadership tell us one reason why we should absolutely ordain women, but it doesn’t say what has prevented us from doing so all this time. Questions about polity, furthering the mission of the church, and governance are important. But they don’t quite force us to realize the issue—what it is about women that supposedly disqualifies them from ministry and administration in the minds of so many people, all those who voted down the measure at Annual Council. What happens when we continue to frame ordination of women as an issue of polity is that it makes secondary the fact that we take for granted what we mean by “woman” and the ways these assumptions feed into our theology and practices as a church. The practical/polity/governance route doesn’t bring up questions like how Adventism understands what it means to be a woman and investigate the kinds of norms and biases that shape what we mean when we talk about women as a category.

We can’t increase the number of women serving as pastors and administrators and expect the patriarchal undercurrents to go away. An important piece that we need to explore is what we as a church think it means to be sexed and gendered within our cultural contexts. I mean that we as a church need to expose the deep assumptions that we don’t even realize we harbor. We need to ask what it is about the way women are understood—the things that we’re taught—that makes it okay to treat us like second-class or worse. What, instead, can we teach in order to have women affirmed and treated as full human beings?

I suggest a couple challenges for Adventists to address.

Firstly, the church needs to differentiate between women’s ordination as an issue of polity in the church and address it as an issue of the unity of humans, justice, and equality.

Secondly, women need to have a major voice in the development of a theology of ordination. Seventh-day Adventist theology currently teaches that ordination is an affirmation of the ministry that a person is already doing, that it’s not a division that does away with our claim for the priesthood of all believers. Otherwise non-ordained ministries are implicitly understood as secondary to what ordained men do. This is significant given the fact that Adventists have long viewed ordination as a public recognition of a divine appointment. There are important practical reasons to ordain men and women. Women need to be involved in theological developments about ordination.

Finally, we need to challenge the church to understand that women’s issues are not fringe topics. “Theology and church have to be liberated and humanized if they are to serve people and not oppress them,” argues Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza.[3] The church is meant to extend God’s grace and redemption into the world, not oppress people. The equality and full humanity of women falls under redemption. The gospel is not just about salvation in a futural sense.

Adventists affirm that God cares about every part of our lives. This comes out of our anthropology when we describe what it means to be human and made in God’s image—male and female were made in God’s image. Seventh-day Adventists promote the full healing of the gospel when we engage in the work of health ministry and education. Adventists care about the physical body because we believe that it, not just the soul, is fundamental to being human. Likewise, the church as the body of Christ needs to fully heal itself by practicing and teaching that women’s issues, recognizing the full humanity of women, are also part of gospel healing.

Crossposted from the Women's Resource Center blog.

[1] http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/03/19/doug-batchelors-28-fundamental-arguments-against-women-ministers

[2] http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/10/10/annual-council-diary-sunday-october-9-2011

[3] Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Discipleship of Equals (New York: Crossroad, 1993), 63.

davidrlarson - Thu, 10/27/2011 - 14:00

Three excellent points, Trisha.

I hope that we can also remember the Anabaptist insight that good practice often flows from good theology but that it is also true that good theology often flows from good practice.

In other words, we don't have to wait until we have a comprehensive and elegant theology of ordination before we do our very best to treat each person fairly.

I think it clear that Elder Ted Wilson, the current President of the General Conference, does not see the moral flow of Scripture as moving in the same direction that many of us do. Those of us who differ from him in this regard must treat him and his office with respect because he is the world leader of our church. We must also admire the clairity and consistency with which he has advanced his views on this issue over many years.

Yet we are also duty bound to be as true to our convictions as Elder Wilson is to his and to act accordingly.

It is very important to stop bringing this matter to the General Conference and to focus on the union and local conferences where matters of ordination are typically handled. Every time this issue is taken to the General Conference it is voted down and every time this happens it is easier for it to happen again.

This church will stop resisting what I understand to be the moral flow of Scritprue only when the leadership of some union and local conference acknowledges its official responsibility and moves forward.

It is still true: Nothing changes when nothing changes!

Peter Marks - Thu, 10/27/2011 - 15:51

To all concerned,

The system of clergy ordination is already burdened with inequities in the way it is practiced among men. Who would expect anything else when imperfect people select who will join this elite class? That's why we discover that one conference ordains its treasurer. Another doesn't. One candidate is acceptable, having education of a certain kind, but another is not, having a different education etc.

The most fundamental issue in my mind is this - Does God design that Adventists will continue to create an elite class, with or without women, and thus grant DIVINE TENURE to them. Or is it God's plan that his church empower and resource the whole of the people of God, and set apart people with specific responsibilities on DIVINE CONTRACT.

The choice then is a simple one - clerical ordination with DIVINE TENURE or a setting apart and commissioning of selected individuals for particular roles with a DIVINE CONTRACT.

It would seem that the Apostle Paul was under DIVINE CONTRACT on his first missionary journey. He was set apart for the particular assignment to which he had been called. When he had finished the assignment he returned and reported on what had transpired.

Though we don't believe in Once Saved, always saved it appears that some of us believe in Once Ordained, always ordained.

Michael - Thu, 10/27/2011 - 16:45

Very good points Peter.
It is telling that in agitating for equality, the equality desired is to be apart of the "elite" rather than reminding the men that ordination was for a specific task, pretty much proving that the real motivation is elitism and power.

Reminds me of the middle ages when the clergy was plundering the masses and rather than speaking against the inequities some decided instead to become clergy themselves.

Michael

Carrol Grady - Thu, 10/27/2011 - 17:05

Thanks, Trisha. I have just finished reading NOMAD by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ex-Muslim former Somali woman living in the US, who points out how women are treated in the primitive, radical world of Islam - so similar in many ways to how women were viewed/treated in OT Israel. Do we want to go back to those days? Or can we be thankful that in our society we have moved beyond such ignorance and patriarchalism? When people in a secular society see the injustice in treating women unfairly, ti seems that followers of Jesus, who reached out to women, would see the justice in this, too.

Peter Marks - Thu, 10/27/2011 - 17:43

Michael,

As much as I would appreciate the Adventist church dismantling the power elites associated with the practice of ordination, I do not believe that women are anymore grasping than men.

Please, lets all work out a way to build up the church of the living God by creating a system of servant leadership from among the people of God, and then educating people in every division of the organization.

Certainly a system of servant leadership will not be created if we continue the practice of ordination.

Donna Haerich - Fri, 10/28/2011 - 02:55

Trisha has hit the nail on the head. We cannot resolve the ordination issue until we resolve what it means to be human. Once we have settled that, ordination will take care of itself.

I used to think - that if we ordained women - then that symbol of respect carry over into how women were perceived and treated. Change the behavior and the attitudes would follow. But Trisha has wisely pointed out - that is it our very understanding humankind that needs repentance.

Thank you, Trisha, for your insights.

Frank Allen - Fri, 10/28/2011 - 04:25

British PM says 16 Commonwealth nations agree to end gender discrimination in royal succession By Associated Press, Published: Friday, October 28

PERTH, Australia — British Prime Minister David Cameron said Friday that the 16 Commonwealth countries for which Queen Elizabeth II is monarch have agreed to remove gender discrimination in the order of succession to the throne.

Commonwealth national leaders also agreed at a summit in the west coast city of Perth to lift a ban on monarchs marrying Roman Catholics, he said.

Any one of the former British colonies could have vetoed the changes to the centuries-old rules that ensure that a male heir takes the throne ahead of older sisters.
“Attitudes have changed fundamentally over the centuries and some of the outdated rules — like some of the rules of succession — just don’t make sense to us any more,” Cameron told reporters in Perth.

“The idea that a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter simply because he is a man, or that a future monarch can marry someone of any faith except a Catholic — this way of thinking is at odds with the modern countries that we have become,” he added.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/meeting-of-commonwealth-leaders-o...

Russell - Fri, 10/28/2011 - 05:40

The Queen of England who is also head of the worldwide Anglican Church opened the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (in Perth, Australia, as discussed by Frank Allen, above) with an appeal to leaders to work on allowing girls and women reach their full potential.
"The theme this year is women as agents of change," the Queen said."It encourages to us find ways to allow girls and women to play their full part."
What does the head of our smaller, though still worldwide, church say to that? I, personally, see no argument. Agents of change are to be preferred to agents of reaction, and that role would not be exclusively female. Many thinking men will join the rally for reason, for change, for the paradigm shift.
But... "Women as agents of change" - I am happy with that.

George Tichy - Fri, 10/28/2011 - 06:26

The info on the posts above shows how outdated the SDAC is regarding to recognizing women as human beings.
Worse, I have the impression that this situation won't change any soon, especially while this retrograde GC administration remains in place. I am sure that the "guys upstairs" pray before every meeting to seek "God's guidance".... but then they just impose their own agenda. Which, for some reason... reminds me of the Pharisees...

Women have to organize, revolt, vote, defeat, and then conquer!

bevin - Fri, 10/28/2011 - 13:47

There is no need to revolt. Revolting implies disobeying the rules.

There are no rules that say that the local congregations have to send lots of money to the conference.
There are no rules that say the conferences have to listen to anyone higher up about who they ordain and who can be on the payroll.

The problem here is that the local conferences WILLINGLY LET the higher up organizations be their masters rather than their servants.

/Bevin

Elaine Nelson - Fri, 10/28/2011 - 15:29

Where are those conference leaders who will "Stand for the right though the heavens fall"? When, if ever, was an EGW statement so powerful and appropriate?

Elaine

Wendy M - Fri, 10/28/2011 - 17:01

I'm a woman and I happen to know my IQ. It has been measured at various times and ranges from 132 to 136. I'd love to challenge Doug Batchelor to make his IQ score known. (not that I think they're all that meaningful. I personally, have learned more from some severely mentally disabled persons than I have from certain members of the Adventist Intelligentsia)

I'm also taller than most of the men I meet and stronger than not a few. What does any of that have to do with preaching the gospel?

I don't say that I'm qualified to be a pastor or elder, myself, but I know of several women who I think are qualified to fill those positions.

C. Ray - Fri, 10/28/2011 - 18:41

Carrol, this is a bit off topic, however, I wanted to note that while I agree with most of your post, I challenge the characterization of the "primitive, radical world of Islam". Ali's account of her experiences is eye opening to the context in Somalia during the time she lived there. To generalize her account in such a way as to patently overlay these qualities to one of the largest religions in the world is akin to taking the experience of one woman within Adventistism and applying it to the entire Christian Church (Universal). I may not adhere to Islam, but I dislike broad sweeping statements made about my faith (especially negative ones), therefore, I ought to extend the same courtesy in the understanding of other faiths regardless of anecdotal testimonies.

Joe Willey - Fri, 10/28/2011 - 23:44

Let's turn to common sense concerning which of the human species, male or female, could society look to for dependability in the religious beliefs structures of the highest order. A good place to test our common sense is to look at survey results that were documented by James Leuba in 1916. (Assuming that males and females at the core are still the same today.) Leuba was a psychologist at Bryn Mawr College.

He measured the beliefs of students attending nine colleges of "high rank" and one normal school (teacher's college). The questionnaire of our interest here concerns beliefs in God. The first question..."Do you think of God as a personal or impersonal being?" The subsequent three questions asked students to describe what difference belief in God or nonbelief had in their lives. The most striking finding was that men were far more likely to accept modern ideas of an impersonal God than the women. Fifty-six percent of men affirmed belief in a personal God and thirty-one percent in an impersonal God. On the other hand, women's responses indicated eighty-two percent believed in a personal God and only eleven percent described God as impersonal. This appears to be a starting advantage in training a women for religious leadership.

Women show substantially higher rates of active church participation among college women than among men. So how would a psychologist attempt to explain these findings? Leuba gave a simple interpretation that for whatever reason..."During the years of adolescent self-affirmation the desires for intellectual freedom and for a rational organization of opinions and conduct are in young women more effectively balked than in young men by the tender ties of the home and the authority of the church." As men are used to saying in competitive sports.....So why not let a woman take the ball and run with it?

From the starting line in training ministers and pastors if you want to look at possible future outcomes which would require less time spent in overcoming disbelief structures? ...a man or a woman? At least from common sense it shouldn't really matter, except women are predisposed to believe in a personal God with greater abundance than men are. Seems to me that what needs to be done is to break down the cultural barriers that women prefer to hear men preach and make important decisions...right? Of course not. Because modern society is surely more complex than religious traditions that bare upon the common sense. But it is time for men to abandon attitudes of universal rule and full-fledged prejudice against the idea of women in higher places. Face up....Women have a starting advantage, and probably more durable.

Cheers
tjoe

David Read - Sat, 10/29/2011 - 00:09

T. Joe, Leuba attributed his results to cultural conditioning, not anything intrinsic. But guess what? Differences in cultural conditioning between the sexes are far, far less than they were in 1916, thanks in no small measure to a century's worth of the same mania for eradicating sex differences that is driving the current push for women's ordination in the SDA Church.

Divine Sky - Sat, 10/29/2011 - 00:37

If women cannot hold leadership roles in the church, than what is all the big fuss with
Ellen
White and her supposed role that still holds more influence than anyone else in the church today?

M Sahlin - Sat, 10/29/2011 - 12:55

It may be true that if the denomination moves forward with the ordination of women pastors that will cause some division. It is equally true that if the Adventist Church does not agree to allow the ordination of women in places such as North America and Europe that will also cause division in the denomination. I guess it comes down to which group one gives a hearing to. Do we anger the traditionalists who threathen to leave if ordination is allowed, or do we turn a deaf ear to the younger generations that are already slipping away because of they see the traditional position as immoral?

Is there middle ground somewhere to develop a compromise that will satisfy both sides of this divide? Perhaps this can be found in what the General Conference officers have evidently already decided to do about the fact that in China the church has already ordained women pastors. What if we simply allowed the Adventists in each country to decide for themselves? This would keep more people "in the boat." What, if anything, would be lost? Especially since we've already passed the threshold on this path with the largest nation on the globe?

S Styrra - Sat, 10/29/2011 - 13:20

The communist party in China forces the denomination to accept what some leaders fight against! Thank God for the communists!!!

Your Friend - Sat, 10/29/2011 - 13:50

"Do we anger the traditionalists who threathen(sic) to leave if ordination is allowed, or do we turn a deaf ear to the younger generations that are already slipping away because of they see the traditional position as immoral?" Sahlin.

Is this ageism raising its ugly head? It is not a tradition that males occupy spiritual headship positions. It has been clearly shown to be otherwise and there is not a scintilla of immorality to reserve spiritual headship positions to males.

"Also, in terms of day-to-day living, eliminating the clear role distinctions between men and women accelerates the breakdown of the family, leads to confusion of identity among children, and may contribute to acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle." Do you really want this? Some do as I've seen in this blog. Refresh your mind with a reading of: http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/article.php?id=25&search=ordination

Marianne Faust - Sat, 10/29/2011 - 13:59

if you don't even see the immorality in it, whose friend are you??

Your Friend - Sat, 10/29/2011 - 13:59

"It is telling that in agitating for equality, the equality desired is to be apart of the "elite" rather than reminding the men that ordination was for a specific task, pretty much proving that the real motivation is elitism and power."

Wow, Michael, did you hit the nail on the head in a striking fashion. Telling it like it is will not win you many accolades with those who post here. Many, I'm sure, outside this venue will agree with you.

Elaine Nelson - Sat, 10/29/2011 - 15:10

There is always a risk in any change in an organization. If ordaining caused many traditionalists to leave is that merely a fear or merely an assumption? Are the traditionalists largely the older generation?

Since we already know that not to ordain women is turning away the younger generation of both sexes who have been raised in a world where there is equality among the sexes, they see the church as antiquated in practice, and if this is their perception, how much more risk in failing to follow the equality promised in Christ? Where will the church be if we lose most of the X generation?

Elaine

Fay Crombie - Sat, 10/29/2011 - 15:12

Your Friend:... on your link, the logic and it's application, pretty much breaks down in the first few paragraphs. There is so much in the OT that Adventism rejects, purely because it is a tad distasteful, inconvenient, or even criminal. They capriciously pick and choose what parts of the OT law that they can appreciate and consequently bind onto themselves and others. Anyone can do this, and many do...and then claim that they are the only ones that have full respect for ALL the Bible.

George Tichy - Sat, 10/29/2011 - 22:03

Revolt against abuse of power or supression of freedom does not have to include any disobedience of rules.

However, for some people even "thinking" may be considered a revolt...

Christie C. - Sat, 10/29/2011 - 22:48

Trisha, thank you for raising these points and for your contributions to Christian conversation. The Women's Resource Center is lucky to have you.

Elaine, sadly we already have lost most of the X Generation. I'm not one of the Boomer adults asking where all of the kids are going. I'm a Late Gen X adult wishing there were more of us at church. The late Peter Drucker used to say that it is important for companies to invite feedback from their non-customers. What might Adventists learn from those who have opted out of our community? In what ways would we be able to see more of the big picture?

Christie

David Read - Sun, 10/30/2011 - 02:32

Again the idiocy about retaining members. For the 50 millionth time, The liberal churches who ordain women are shrinking faster than average. All denominations are either shrinking or treading water, probably because the neo-pagan culture of modern America is increasingly hostile to Christianity. But the churches who ordain women, and thereby bow to he culture rather than leaven it, are imploding.

Peter Marks - Sun, 10/30/2011 - 03:31

Frank,

You welcome the decision bythe 16 countries of the British Commonwealth of whom Queen Elizabeth is head not to oppose British legislation that would see to grant female heirs of the Queen equal rights in the line of sucession as male heirs. So be it!!

But have you noticed that such legislation will also grant the right of an heir to the throne the right to marry a Catholic spouse. The requirement that the monarch must be a member of the Church of England will still remain, according to David Cameron, because the monarch serves as Supreme Governor of the Church of England and of the Anglican Communion. These two legal requirements are almost totally exclusive. Therefore, the situation is absurd.

Here's why!! A Roman Catholic spouse would presumably be expected to nurture any children of theirs, and to prepare them for a potential role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, if so be that that become the monarch.

Thus to have the consort of the monarch Roman Catholic is just as problematic now as it was when the Act of Sucession became law in the sixteenth century. A Roman Catholic parent can't really be expected to nurture the spiritual life of the next Supreme Govenor of the Anglican Communion.

In a few years, the heir to the throne may even be allowed to choose whether their marriage will to be to someone of the same gender or to someone of a different gender. If the heir to the throne were to marry somone of the same gender, we can be sure that there would be no offspring. Again, how absurd!!

David Read - Sun, 10/30/2011 - 04:10

But thinking we have to have a monarchy is not at odds with the modern countries we have become?

What Mr. Cameron has become is a laughingstock, in which he is sadly emblematic of his once-great nation and empire.

S Styrra - Sun, 10/30/2011 - 05:49

David, what makes a church grow or shrink has no relevance to acting ethically and in the spirit of Jesus.

George Tichy - Sun, 10/30/2011 - 07:20

@David Read: "But the churches who ordain women, and thereby bow to he culture rather than leaven it, are imploding."

Can you please provide data on this statement? What churches are those? Was it actually proven that there was a cause-effect happening?

Before you make any detrimental statements about women as ordained pastors you should show the data!

It is hilarious, hypocritical for Adventists to keep this "against-women" policy since the very church founder was an ORDAINED WOMAN!!! And the church grew anyway...

(Please no comments denying that EGW was an ORDAINED MINISTER. Those who didn't know it, please just Google it and learn the facts!)

hopeful - Sun, 10/30/2011 - 22:16

“Your Daughters Shall Prophesy”: James White, Uriah Smith, and
the “Triumphant Vindication of the Right of the Sisters” to Preach

http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=1092&journal=1&typ...

"The Review addressed the issue of women’s public ministry in eight major articles during the formative period from 1850 to 1863 when the Seventh-day Adventist Church was organized. All of these articles, beginning with James White’s challenge to “Paul Says So” and closing with Uriah Smith’s “triumphant vindication,” supported the participation of women in the preaching ministry, often seeing it as a distinguishing mark of the Advent movement, setting it apart from the established churches which denied women an active role in preaching and teaching."

Thanks to Anonymous1 who posted on another thread, http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/10/28/constituents-stand-nad-gende...

____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3

Bbbazusa - Mon, 10/31/2011 - 07:10

WHAT IN FACT IS THE REAL ISSUE?

To the List

What does Gender Equality mean by those presenting to the GC?

1. Is it a structural/governance issue ie. should a women be allowed to do a traditionally male job, so in an age of gender equality of voting, pay, women directors, of course women should be allowed to be a Union president?

2. Or is it a theological issue ie. women are equal to men VERSUS women are not equal to men? Basically a sexist position.

IF the Church's view is #1then what is the Church's position on #2?

I believe this distinction is extremely important and might clear the air a bit.

To me the theological issue is the most important and is crucial to this whole debate.

George Tichy - Mon, 10/31/2011 - 08:29

To David Read:

Just to remind you that I am still waiting for your answer to my request above. Just to refresh it, here it is again:

@David Read: "But the churches who ordain women, and thereby bow to he culture rather than leaven it, are imploding."

Can you please provide data on this statement? What churches are those? Was it actually proven that there was a cause-effect happening?

I hope you are still participating in this conversation, especially after making some " interesting" statements...

Bbbazusa - Mon, 10/31/2011 - 08:51

DOES TED WILSON BELIEVE HIS WIFE IS LOWER THAN TED BUT HIGHER THAN THE ANIMALS or is equal to him?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Dr Larsson

BUT my question is an IS not an OUGHT

This is NOT a liberal/ conservative question.

I am NOT asking for a personal opinion.

Right now, I want to know, what does GENDER EQUALITY mean to the people sitting on opposite sides of the table and thrashing it out regarding whether a woman can be a Conference president?

Are the participants discussing this matter on the same page? Is their definition the same? Otherwise a lot of frustration, venom and hate is going to be produced without any useful discussion.

So as clear as I can be

Questions regarding the definition of Gender Equality by the 'big boys' discussing this

2. Or is it a theological issue ie. women are equal to men VERSUS women are not equal to men? Basically a sexist position.

IF the Church's view is #1then what is the Church's position on #2?

More plainly, do the churchmen believe men and women ARE equal but cannot decide if women can be president because of governance issues ie. only an ordained person can do the job

Is it because Ted Wilson does NOT believe women are equal to men? ie. THAT TED WILSON BELIEVES HIS WIFE IS LOWER THAN TED BUT HIGHER THAN THE ANIMALS? Or do I have to ask him personally?

Edgar Drew MD
Bbbazusa@aol.com

Bbbazusa - Mon, 10/31/2011 - 10:07

ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS WHAT ON EARTH WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought this was a blog for rational discourse.

I have just had one person tell me 'whatever the case ....a historical vote for equality in the Church' regarding the NAD vote

But he can't tell me what equality is, what it means to the voters and why they voted. But I assume because it went his way it is historical.

So this whole thread is on gender equality, but no one knows what it means, but we do know there are conservative and liberals slinging mud at each other in Christian discourse.

ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS WHAT ON EARTH WE ARE TALKING ABOUT

What does Gender equality mean.

If no one knows then it is time to sign off as this is not an intelligible discussion

I really do not want to have to report that not just Ted Wilson is irrational, but so are the Spectrum crowd.

Bbbazusa - Wed, 11/02/2011 - 06:16

APOLOGY FOR ANY OFFENSE
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Comment made to me regarding my attempt to clarify Gender Equality
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Although he might keep his thoughts and feelings on this to himself, I think that Elder Wilson would find the suggestion that he thinks that his wife is less valuable or important than he is false and offensive.

I certainly do. What's the point in making such silly and hurtful statements? They strike me as wholly unworthy of this discussion. I request that you stop making them."
-----------------------
1. I appreciate what discussion I have had on the Spectrum blog.
2. I have been rather blunt and possibly too aggressive for some or many
3. That my concern to get at the real issues and cut through the fog and possible muddled thinking may not be appreciated. In my job I am paid well to do that.
4. I actually work, mix and live among people in a big city, Los Angeles that the DC administrators in their offices plan to evangelize.
5. I have actually just read The Great Controversy and the beginning of Patriarchs and Prophet

I APOLOGIZE TO ANY THAT I MIGHT HAVE OFFENDED.

I believe we are in a very serious high stakes game. There is a lot at stake here. A lot that may not be obvious.

6. Regarding Ted Wilson - Theology of Women
- my Socratic question about how he views his wife is NOT meant to be offensive, but to find out what he truly believes the status and ESSENCE of women is. The Church needs to know what position the leader has if the leader is determined to defend a certain position, as it might appear, come what may
- the answer to my question is Yes, No or 'it all depends'
- it is hard to have a rational argument if you do not know what the premises are
- Socrates pushed Euthypro personally to find out what justice was. Euthypro was taking his own father to Court for a capital offense in the name of justice.

7. Regarding Ted Wilson - Church Leader
- I have described Ted Wilson as a 'talking suit', as an amateur ('he needs to get a real job and work with real people') a Home Depot CEO, I would now add as a demagogue after reading his article about City evangelism, who in my opinion has no clue but plans to spend millions of dollars for his grand view of the city.
- this is not personal as I do not know him. BUT he is well aware of the political game and stakes as a world leader, and rather than be offended he needs to argue his case as to why he is fit to lead the Church.
- it is quite possible that there is a serious power struggle going on in Washington. A lot of people do not want to go down with Ted and so are planning what to do.
- this whole NAD vote may be largely political. Ted is not going to have his way
- possibly NAD has won power to women but may have lost the ordination battle ( pragmatics versus theology)
- I have been humored by my concern over legal matters
- I do know what my experience is with post 9/11 Federal Government. A sensible risk management policy of an institution with deep pockets should reflect carefully on officially disseminating the Great Controversy in a post 9/11 enviroment where religious hatred and fundamentalism lie at the root of world terror.
- I have just read Great Controversy, and a case for anti semitism, religious bigotry - anti Catholic, anti Protestant, anti everybody in league with 'Satan', polytheism, Arianism, anthropomorphic view of God, just one big conspiracy theory masquerading as a theodicy exuding hate, fear, paranoia and endless violence, can be made.
- do NAD church leaders want to argue the First Amendment to evangelize?
- will someone request the Federal justice department to investigate Hate Crimes?
- we are in a post 9/11 period. The federal government takes hate seriously.
- finally we all know Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings and Narnia are fairy tales with a message. My understanding is that NAD leaders believe Great Controversy is a real/actual description of the future.
- the final Great Controversy edition was in 1911. Four years later was the First World War. Twenty eight years later was the Second World War. I don't know if EGW experienced the horrors of the US Civil War. I wonder IF she experience these world horrors, 35 million Russians died, whether she may have rewritten her Time of Trouble chapter.
- my father was 10 years old when the Germans blitzed his house. They could see the German machine gunners in the bombers. My mother was 12 years old in East Prussia in 1944 when the Russians came. The time of trouble?

8. It is NOT BEING OFFENSIVE to raise the question of the fitness of Ted Wilson to lead the Church.

9. WHAT IS OFFENSIVE to many is a Church which is 100 years behind the times, with division in it's ranks, with unclear theology having the audacity to claim this is God's unique vessel to bring the 'Good News' to the world.

So there we are. I live in a city, work there, related to people long term. I am a professional. The people I associate with have never heard of Seventh day Adventists. As for the billions of secular people, the Islamic and Hindu world, they do not appear to be moved so far by SDA 'evangelism'

I was in Stockholm, Sweden this summer and passed the Adventkyrkan. Forty years ago it was small and appeared irrelevant. Forty years later it is smaller and still irrelevant.

I apologize if I have offended anyone with my posts.

I believe there is a very serious high stakes game going on. It is a deadly serious matter. we all need to humbly pray.

Pax et Bonum

Edgar Drew MD
Board Certified Pychiatrist
Bbbazusa@aol.com

John Allen - Sat, 11/05/2011 - 02:04

This is not a cultural issue Donna. God put the headship principal in place before sin. Adam named Eve just like God named Adam. Satan was not happy with the position God had given him and wanted a higher one. It is for order in the family and the Church. Humble yourself in the sight of the Lord and He will lift you up not the renegade NAD.

John Allen - Sat, 11/05/2011 - 02:15

Its not Ted Wilson Edgar it is God speaking in Genesis. So...if this is going to be a cultural issue rather than a theological one, which it is, what about the gay, lesbian, and transgender population shouldn't they be affirmed also? Are we as Adventist going to stay firm to the Word of God and the counsels of EGW or follow the culture of the day to be politically correct?

eddieconst - Sat, 11/05/2011 - 04:10

John Allen

God named light, night, earth, sea, man...
Man named animals, man named woman
The woman Marie Curie named radioactivity, polonium and radium, that were before earth, sea and man.

Conclusion: worship woman

eddieconst - Sat, 11/05/2011 - 04:42

I respectfully disagree, doctor.

The Great Controversy kept us focused on the sabbath instead of getting distracted on such trivial issues as the death of 6 million Jews or the destiny of democracy in Europe. No adventist pastor tried to kill Hitler like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and no good adventist lied to Gestapo about the Jew in his closed. We knew that our purpose was to show the the universe that the ten commandment can be kept, not to save the Jews or take arms against Hitler.

Michelle K. W. - Sat, 04/14/2012 - 19:10

i know Trisha personally. I also know Danny, her husband and their two children. Right now she is a theology professor at La Sierra University. Her classes are easy and many students consider her classes as a GPA booster.

she is a feminist and i have no problem with that....considering that i am sorta one myself

however, i have to say this:

she is currently separated from her husband and wants to go through divorce. Her husband wants to keep her family together (she has two children) but then from what i understand, she simply wants to "move on" and reluctant to work things out.

so my question is. which is more important.... ordination? or keeping your family together.

i think both are important.... but criticizing church administration and other pastors is like criticizing yourself. most church administration and pastors are simply hypocrites..... most teach "the Bible" but don't even know how to keep their own self from falling after their own lust and habits... they need to focus in their own family and their behaviors first before starting to criticize other people of their own profession.