Thank-you, Dr. Kubo, for this article.

As you have articulately laid out- there are no good reasons to not ordain women from a rationally progressive Christian stand point. All other reasons that remain are based on individual/corporate interpretation of scripture, sexism and cultural bias.

Kim

Very good article! If we look at one other issue - death penalty, we can say too: "No rational and Biblically literate person today would argue for the supporting of death penalty as a church doctrine. The same logical and scripture principles applies to death penalty issue." In other words, SDA GC should officially make a statement against death penalty.

Abe...

"Get a life???" It's amazing how the lone dissenting voice on this thread has to resort to insult. It certainly does nothing to enhance the rational basis of your argument. In fact, if this type of tone is the fruit of your theology, on this issue or any other, then you're doing a great job of advertising its emptiness.

Frank

If Christianity is to maintain a moral edge, it needs to expand the concept of 'progressive revelation' to moral awakening. When it comes to ethics, the Bible, taken literally, has more in common with Sharia law than the moral standards we all embrace today. Those who insist that we not move beyond the phraseology of the Bible are stuck in Taliban territory. Unfortunately, Christians have rarely been at the forefront when it comes to moral thinking. It was Voltaire who spearheaded the movement that abolished capital punishment for offenses against a country's theological orthodoxy, not the Church. It was Montesquieu and Montaigne and free-thinkers like them--and individual church people (Bartolome de las Casas) who spoke up against slavery at a time when it was sanctioned by both Catholics (Council of Valladolid, 1550) and Protestants. The only moral movemens that I can think of in which Christians played an important role was 19th century abolitionism and the Civil Rights Movement (although virtually the entire conservative wing of US Christendom watched these movements passively or actively fought against them.) The fight against poverty has been dominated by socialists, not Christians (who've contented themselves with passing out alms but never taken on the avoidable blight called poverty.)

It's a paradox that moral consciousness seems to be inversely proportional to the influence of the Church. Morally the Western world (the only one I know) is far more morally aware than it was a hundred years ago, and few people would attribute that to Christian activism. What has happened is that we have finally embraced the spirit that went into the Bill of Rights during the Enlightenment.

Christianity, unfortunately, early on became a cognitive cult whose quest was the perfect password to Heaven, not a movement that explored the great moral principles embedded in its scriptures.

Abe, I feel you are barking up the wrong tree in your instructions for Dr. Kubo to "get a life" - this man is a well respected theologian, not only in SDA circles, who has in fact done remarkable things with his life! Just read his biography and you can tell what a life he has lived!

IMO, "progressive Christianity" is not giving its proper due to this article. Dr Kubo is taking all of Scripture seriously, including its trajectory. I call that simply responsible.

Do we believe in the inspiration and authority of scripture, or is it all up for grabs? If some, who decides and how?

Can we choose not to baptize or celebrate the Lord's Supper, like the Salvation Army? Can we decide to use orange juice and Ritz crackers, or flowers, instead of bread and wine? Can we wash hands or do manicures instead of washing feet?

But on a deeper level, this triggers Christological questions. Did Jesus know what he was doing? Did he really intend something other than what he did? Do we have the freedom to do other than what he did? Or was Jesus just a child of his time, bound by the ZeitGeist, ignorant of the future and unsure of what was best? Does the church after 2000 years know better than its Lord?

When the stage is set and the default condition is Slavery, Circumcision and the role of women.....and then fast forward to now and use as your validation of proof that the first 2 have been abandoned so the 3rd one should be as well is not a good thought process. Mentally or theologically.

There are a number of variables that must be proven to make such an assumption.
Some of the questions are;

1. Why were the first 2 abandoned?
a. Incorrect original implementation?
b.God changed his mind based on time or other considerations that changed?
c. Mans delicate sensibilities came to be at odds and Man changed it?
d. God still wants it the way he had it?
2. Can the 3rd be due to the same first 3 conditions? Or the 4th too?

All in all, the concept in the pieces first paragraphs shows a truncated decision process akin to the one often heard with Jewlery.

Person 1 Wearing Jewlery is wrong as it is stated in the bible
Person 2 Yeah, but you wear a semi expensive watch!

This type of thinking is displayed regularly by the priest Jim on this site, but true evaluation of something must be made on its own merits. If the best argument that can be made for a position is that there are others just as bad is a pathetic and poor reason to do something. It must be proved in the positive.
Even if it can be done as you have made a number of good points.....it still places the person who advocates it in the position of possibly doing what seemed to be right in his own eyes. That should not be taken lightly should it?

From PrBigKev
"Until those who wish to promote women's ordination can find a well reasoned, biblical argument for doing so we will continue to be dished up weak attempts such as this to build a case."

The same could be said for slavery. Show me in the bible where slavery is condemned as a human moral shortcoming? Rather we see that slavery was fully accepted as a fact of society. Explain why society in the last 150 years have found it so morally repugnant that we have abolished it when we have no clear biblical command to do so?

Seeing as conservative Adventism has shut the door on the 'there is neither free nor bond, male or female' interpretation so many advocates of women's ordination try to use, claiming that it means 'salvation' not structure...this verse cannot be used to abolish slavery either. As a matter of fact, if this verse only applies to salvation and not the abolishment of societal heirarchal norms, then it fully endorses slavery!

So what is your excuse for not having slaves?

Not if you no longer believe keeping sabbath is necessary for salvation. Christ has set us free from the Law. Whether one believes that or not makes all the difference in the world.

Dr Kubo may indeed be an educated man but that does not prevent him from making spurious arguments. Neither circucism nor salvery were ever requirements for church membership so why the attempt to link that to WO.

Paul made it very clear that women were not to have leadship roles in the Christian congregation and no fanciful arguments will change that.

If one wants to ignore Scripture or pick and choose what one believes (SDA does that all the time) all well and good but to make the argument the good doctor makes on the basis of a requirement that never existed is not honest nor logical.

This argument of slavery and circumcision in relation to women ordination is filled with loop-holes and Bible distortions. For a concise treatment and methodological look at this distortion; see,

Hasel, Gerhard. "Hermeneutical Issues Relating to the Ordination of Women: Methodological Reflections on Key Passages." Submitted to General Conference Commission on Roles of Women in the Church, 1994.

And who is best prepared to burn anyone at the stake than the church? (figuratively speaking).

I think we need to look at the "Big Picture" the Bible presents, and not get bogged down in literalism and details. If society in general is growing in its moral understanding, can't we credit that to God and the work of the Holy Spirit?

I want to thank Dr. Kubo for his willingness to grapple with difficult issues, even in retirement. And I would like to ask if these same principles of dealing with them can't also be applied to the issue of homosexuality.

Now, I'm not trying to start another argument about this well-worn issue, but it seems to me that each of the issues mentioned above were resolved (or are being resolved) because society/the church came to the place where they were "present truth." And as we see all denominations and religions struggling today with the issue of homosexuality, that suggests to me that it is the coming "present truth" that the Holy Spirit is preparing us for.

That is what I wanted to say also, Carrol...but didn't want to start another useless argument

Michael, ever read Galatians 5?

"1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
7 You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is.
11 And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. 12 I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!
13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!" - Galations 5:1-15

Bbbazusa: Something I must give you credit for at least. By stating that, "Paul was 'wrong' about women and leadership roles. JUST PLAIN WRONG." so assertively you are really admitting that what Paul wrote unavoidably opposes the view that women should be ordained. Thus people turn away from the clear, direct, inspired teachings of Paul and seek other ways of arguing their case in favour of ordination for women.

What do slavery, circumcision, and the subordinate role of women have in common? All three of these seem to be supported by Scripture.

Except that slavery isn't supported in Scripture, merely tolerated, and the New Testament casts a jaundiced eye on the institution, as the author indicates by citing Ephesians 6:5-9 and Philemon. Regarding circumcision, the New Testament clearly states in several places that circumcision is not to be required of the gentile Christians. See, e.g., Gal 5:2: ". . . if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all."

In contrast, the principle of male headship in both home (1 Cor. 11:3-12; Eph. 5:22-32) and worship (1 Tim. 2:11-15; 1 Cor. 14:34-40) is taught clearly in both the Old and New Testaments as a positive and salutary aspect of God's created order.

Professor Kubo argues as if we are still living in early New Testament times, and the canon is not closed; and so just as Paul and the early Christians decided that circumcision would not be required of Christian believers, we can decide to jettison the doctrine of male headship. It is a strange argument.

I have every respect for the wisdom and scholarship of Dr Kubo, and I find the passage from Joel compelling.

What more does one need than the indwelling Spirit, which I readily recognise as being present in many women, and in many roles. Set that to one side for a moment.

When arguing against literalists one can introduce all kinds of absurd textual propositions to dismiss the validity of the simple literal approach. I expect that scholars would not need to employ this strategy. Mixing issues like Ordination, Slavery and Circumcision is not particularly compelling.

Those who do not embrace literalism in the first place should present arguments purely consistent with the role being addressed. The authority we attribute to Ministry is a role, not a right common to all humanity.

Given that we are discussing Ordination, I would hope to hear convincing arguments from scholars explaining what actually transpires in the Ordination role making process, that makes it gender specific or not.

Edgar
Paul was wrong on other issues as well, but when it comes to the role of women, he may not be quite as guilty as most of us are used to thinking. With one exception, all the Pauline texts that reduce women to impotent silence are found in pseudo-Pauline books, and textual scholars even wonder if the quote from Corinthians (a genuine epistle) might be a later interpolation. Bart Ehrman has a very interesting discussion of this in his latest book, Forged (about the pseudo-epigraphical books that made it into the Bible).

Paul was right about women in the context of his admonish to the Church in Corinth. One has to read Paul in context. It might be applicable to the Church in Las Vagas or New Orleans or Reno etc. But St George Utah or Marysville, Calif? Tom Z

Are we as SDA’s using religion to deny equal rights to women?

“Differences of culture or religion cannot be used as a justification for denying equal rights to women anywhere in the world.” Cherie Booth the wife of former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

In a high profile, speech given at Chatham House in London, Ms Booth, denounced the unequal treatment of women on religious grounds as a "distortion" of the true message of faiths. In many areas, "proclaimed adherence to a specific religion or system of belief or culture is intimately tied to women's continuing discrimination and abuse," she said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/oct/31/immigrationpolicy.gender

The Adventist hermeneutic is skewed because the Bible is being used as prescriptive of how we should act and live. When in reality, it is merely a descriptive record of the people and their traditions in the distant past.

When the Bible is used, as it so often is, to move not one inch further than what prevailed in times long ago, we have this continuing problem with how we moderns should conduct our lives; not using the Bible for very general principles, but in very specific ways.

Not until we read the Bible as merely describing people and events, will we be able to clearly see that it is utterly impossible to live our lives as those people so many thousands of years ago. Otherwise, it is the road to insanity trying to mix ancient and modern cultures which becomes unworkable. Clocks don't run backward and neither do people.

It is impossible that GOD discriminates against his own creation in terms of gender. Impossible! And DOES NOT!

Thus, if the Bible teaches discrimination (which I don't belive it does!), it's easy to identify the problem: Whoever wrote such an absurdity in the Bible needs to be just discosidered. Human factor, human error.

May be the early church discriminated against women as some SDAs still want to do in our days, but it only shows how men kept control based on gender. These men who discriminate are the problem, not God or the whole Church. Only the abusers of power are the problem, the ones that need to convert their hearts to the GOD OF THE UNIVERSE, stopping worshiping the small "god in themselves."

@George Tichy - Tue, 11/22/2011—“It is impossible that GOD discriminates against his own creation in terms of gender. Impossible! And DOES NOT!”

Well George, the God of the Torah does discriminate: Look for yourself--

A man could sell his daughters into slavery, but not his sons. (Ex 21:7)

A husband could alter the vow of his wife, but she could not alter his vow. (Num 30)

After the birth of a male child, the mother will be unclean for 33 and a girl for 66 days, the sexes were not treated equal. (Lev 12)

Deuteronomic legislation permitted a man to divorce his wife if he found something "indecent" in her (Deut 24:1); she could not divorce him for anything “indecent.”

A husband who suspected his wife of adultery could subject her to a humiliating ordeal (Num 5:11-31;); but no reciprocal right existed for her if she suspected her husband of adultery, and she received no compensation if proved innocent.

The penalty for raping an un-betrothed virgin, a pre-teen, was that the man had to marry the woman and pay a fine to her father. She was given no choice as to whether she wished to be married to this perhaps older man, due only to a rape. (Deut 22:28)

Women were restricted in coming to public worship and could die if they came during menstruation or soon after childbirth. During this time, a woman was "unclean," and everyone and everything she touched became "unclean." "Thus you shall keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness; lest they die in their uncleanness, by defiling my tabernacle that is in their midst" (Lev 15:31).

by PrBigKev

"Darrell C: One major difference I see between the issue of slavery and women's ordination is that no-one is peddling the idea around that legal slavery should be re-introduced.....If women's ordination is ever to become a reality within the SDA Church, those who support and promote it must address the biblical arguments used by their "opposition". The fact is that biblically speaking there are no grounds for women's ordination."

As Aage has pointed out...nice try.
The bottom line is that slavery WAS condoned in the OT and fully accepted by NT Christian society. There is NO reason not to have slaves today according to fundamental, biblical interpretation. However, Christians in the 18th and 19th century protested against it and fought to have it abolished. This was accomplished without any biblical injunction to do so. It was done because people felt it was morally reprehensible and evil. Yet the Bible does not say that it is so.

The people felt that the biblical mandate of free will, peace and love for all fellow man trumped the support for it in the bible and lack of scriptural support against it. This is the same situation where advocates of women's ordination find themselves. Exactly where our Christian ancestors 140 years ago did when they accepted the greater laws of love and equality over the literal text that supported slavery. The spiritual gifts given to all men and women, the gift of prophecy and the priesthood of all believers trumps the cultural mandates of an OT patriarchal society that bled into the NT.

Like slavery, society changed where it was no longer acceptable. So it is with women's rights and suppression of the roles of women that were so prevalent in those days.

"If the meaning of 'Ordination' is not clearly defined, and since we seem to need a three year study, it is obviously not well defined for our purposes, it does not help to speak of God discriminating."

Dear Adventist Church,
I've been hearing announcements for an upcoming study of ordination for lo these many years. Seriously. When will we have enough information? We evidently have enough for ordaining Walter Veith. We evidently have enough also for ordaining immediately the pres of Union College when he accepted the SAU senior pastor position. His wife, accepting a spot on the pastoral team & who'd served previously in ministry roles, was not ordained. Wait, don't tell me. Not enough information?

What would be ethical is to include the half+ of the church that is now excluded, & study/refine our theology of ordination as an ongoing process. As David Larson has described, we should share the available dessert equitably, not refuse to share until we have a better dessert.

Our only other responsible course is to place a moratorium on all ordinations until The Study is completed.

odysseusonthestyx -

You have mentioned Galatians 3:26-29 as being salient to this discussion.
Perhaps you should study for further context.

The context is not the orgainizational make up of the church, it is the irriducability of the gift of salvation. All are offered Salvation. All are not offered the priesthood, even if they have the money to get a degree at Andrews.

Peruse Ephesians 4:11

Jag

No, I am not trying to defend discrimination at all. I don't believe that Adventist Ministry is equivalent to Catholic Priesthood though it is helpful to understand where their idea of 'Clergy' is coming from rather than impose a moral label. If their model has transferred into our practice, those who defend exclusive ministry should be frank about embracing the Pastor as a 'vicarious representative'.

The Adventist Pastoral title and role includes a variety of Biblical functions including Rabbi/Teacher, Apostle, Prophet, Carer, Leader, but not that of vicarious representative. Our Sanctuary model is very clear that Jesus Christ represents us before the Father, no human intermediary is necessary.

Discrimination happens when the Pastoral role becomes 'overlord' rather than 'servant'.

I have put my name on record, both in presence at TED debate and on this site as supportive of inclusive ministry along with the responsibility of helping those who have a different understanding.

Truthwave:

If Jesus had wanted us to eat veg a links He would have served them to the disciples on the lake short following His resurrection. I enjoy my baked fish. Thanks to the Master Chef. Tom Z

By TruthWave
"Jesus example of only ordaining 12 men and 0 women explodes the premise of women Apostles. If Jesus wanted women to be on the same level as the Apostles he would have ordained them before his death, for it to be included into the New Covenant! When Jesus died, His model of leadership was fixed till the end of time."

In addition to the obvious problems with this philosophy that others have pointed out, I'm sure that, along with Paul's opinion on the matter, that this would also eliminate any possibility of women serving on any boards be it school or church board, holding administrative positions in any form and having any authority over any men too in any capacity of leadership roles. Yet this has occurred throughout our history and is perfectly accepted by even the most conservative.

Our church is deviating from the NT accepted norm of 'men only' all the time. Ordination is the least of your worries.

TruthWave
--------------

Mr TruthWave

Does

The Truth and Nothing but the Truth

= TruthWave and Nothing but the TruthWave.

= I am right and you poor sods are wrong? No discussion.

If you were a manager of people, how would you deal with conflict?

Pax et Bonum

Edgar
'A sufferer of political correctness'

Pity
---------
Mr Abe

If you truly believe what you say, then all I can do is have pity for you.

Are you married? Do you have children?

BTW Do you 'spare the rod' Do you beat your wife and kids and call it discipline?

The Taliban are very devout.

Assuming you are not joking here, I find your thoughts nauseating.

I would warn all women and kids, even males to keep a wide berth from you.

Not in judgement, but in sorrow

Pax et Bonum

Edgar

"It is too late now to change the model that Jesus set up, if Jesus saw fit for women to be ordained as Apostles, then He would have left that example for us." --TruthinessWave

The Bible does not tell us that Jesus "ordained" anyone. It is from EGW that we have that description of the apostles, which is interesting on several levels. For this discussion, it is important to note that ordination was a fluid development in the founding Adventist years, so we don't know for sure what EGW meant using the word & it is guesswork to apply it to our current practice. Initially, our pioneers did not practice ordination at all because of its association w/ the churches they had left. Later, they began to 'ordain' when the movement grew enough that they needed some manner of identifying trustworthy preachers. They even accepted ordinations received from other churches by some of these preachers. Did I mention fluid development?

Neither from Scripture nor EGW can we prove what "Truth"Wave claims. E.g., Jesus did not start a church; so much for sealing up the model when He died. Our church has historically shaped ordination to meet needs. We are true to our full heritage when we "send out" whomever God calls.

Women in the Bible were given specific domestic roles and were not given equality with me. That is Biblical and from God. Paul's instructions were for women to cover up, and shut up, in public and that is still good advice for today. It is God's word for today as well as back the. Woman caused the Fall of humans. Satan desired equality and that was the beginning of sin. What is not clear about this that all you liberals seek to twist God's plain words into your own sinful nonsense. Women should know their place and stay there. God has set those biological processes in place and to go against nature as God intended is a sin.

Readers should understand that this comment has not been written by the person who uses the handle of 'Truthwave'. At least the specified email addresses of the commenters are different. I would suggest that whoever is commenting under the handle of 'Truthwave?' please choose a less confusing name, or risk your posts being deleted. - website editor

I think you might be taking the wrong lesson from the example here.
"Time and again Paul talks about those who subject themselves to the old law gain nothing from Christ, because if anyone could become righteous by the law then Christ's sacrifice would be for nothing (Galatians 2)."

This statement by Paul is not representative of the point you are applying it too. Here he is talking about the mechanisms of salvation not the changing morays of society that would allow your view of "....paradigm shifts, changing ideas, that there can be change and growth over time, that covenants change... that things are not static...."

I understand your overall point to be the fluidity of things over time. However if Gods word and his commandments are a reflection of his character, then what he says about himself should hold great insight as it pertains to your view.

For I am the LORD, I change not; Malachi 3:6
Psalm 102:27 But you remain the same, and your years will never end.
17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows" (James 1:17).
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

You might be better off addressing what has fundamentally changed in Gods POV that would nessisitate a180 degree shift in position on these issues.

If God decides to make a new covenant, that is his perogitive and he explains it to us to the extent we need to understand. But rationalizing that we can then shift 180 degrees on other issue's is dangerous and faulty reasoning from cause to effect.

TruthWave,

If you read your Bible and tried to understand it, you would be aware of a female apostle that Paul mentions on one of his letters...

Hi Frank,
Sorry, I took the upper words to be yours and gave you a thumbs down. Then I got to the words below the stars. Oops. I fully agree with, and endorse your statement. Cheers. dl

We should look on the bright side of these three issues. As far as the Western World is concerned, we have resolved the issue of slavery, and circumcision, that is 66% of the problem 100% of about half of the population. There are signs that the third issue is being resolved favorably for women.

I recall in the 1940's a mother and daugther were baptized into the West Side SDA Church.

When every time the pastor made a declarative statement they would loudly say Amen. That would occur about 12-15 times in a 20 minute sermon.

Leaving church we both took the same street car. The sat directly in front of me and my sister.
We overheard their conversation. The mother said: "We'll give them one more week, if they don't come around, we are leaving. Sure enough one more week and they were gone and we had again a pauline church.

Tom Z

So Abe, are you saying that the Bible is clear that women are second class citizens and should be treated as such due to making Adam sin and fertility cults? Do not some biblical mandates change with the culture? If not, you should still be stoning adulterers and Sabbath breakers.

This kind of mentality is a slippery slope to gender persecution and fanaticism so prevalent in Islamic cultures like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Sad that this misogynistic thinking is found in the Christian SDA church.

Frank,

I am glad you brought this up. It's amazing that someone could actually write what you quoted (The problem arises from giving females access to education etc which encourages them to aspire above their defined station in life that is to bear children and be keepers at home.).
I believe that this type of statements should not even be allowed on this site. It's so barbaric and offensive to women that it should not be tolerated by any decent people to have it on the Spectrum site.
Whoever wrote it should be ashamed of himself. And, if married, I doubt his wife reads this blog...

George,
I imagine there's a good chance whoever wrote that comment is a moby. The problem with this site is that you folk have such a warped view of conservatives, that you can't even detect parody of them. You're just excited to see your caricature of people confirmed.

John,
No "parody" is appropriate when it intents to put women down. It is just NOT FUNNY!
Some things are just inappropriate in themselves, and it has nothing to do with conservatives or progressives. It's a matter of moral decency. Just that.

I don't think that everything has to be classified as a "conservative vs progressive" matter. This is not the point, especially in this case. Can you agree that the statement was inappropriate, instead of throwing the conservative/progressive issue into it?

"The problem with this site is that you folk have such a warped view of conservatives, that you can't even detect parody of them. You're just excited to see your caricature of people confirmed." --John Mark

Unfortunately, most of the extremely conservative comments aren't parodies. You're just hoping that nobody notices the conservative absurdities confirmed.

Really TruthWave.

If you want to be so literal with the 'will and testament' idea, let's keep going with your reasoning.

Notice that Jesus did NOT choose any Gentile to be part of the apostles. Why not? There were plenty Romans and Greeks roaming around. Thus, we should only be having Jews as our leaders. Nowhere did Christ command that our leaders could be non-Jews. By default, we could conclude that the gospel message was really not for the Gentiles. If they were so important to the spreading of the gospel, this would have been the SMART thing for Christ to do. Thus, He really didn't think Gentiles deserved to be part of this movement. This is the EXACT same reasoning for not allowing women in leadership positions!

Christ told his disciples to continue His work which constituted roaming around the known world and preaching the message. Simple, tasteful and easy. Carry what you own on your shoulders as you walk around the countryside holding bible studies. Nowhere did He say that churches and conferences should be built or that our tithe should go to their coffers. Nowhere did Jesus institute any sort of physical heirarchal structure for the Christian church.

I could go on and on with your fallible reasoning but it would just go ignored anyway.

TruthWave
For somebody who is so quick to tell others that they don't know what they're talking about, you are very slow in sharing with us your research on Daniel's 1290 and 1335 days. Why is that--when it specifically says that 'the wise' understand it? Or if you don't have a clue--which is no doubt the truth, since nobody else has one either--maybe you should take that as a hint that you might want to tone down your rhetoric somewhat. It's not ignorance that makes people disagree with you. Most of us my age used to be just as brash when we were your age, and we live in the hope that the young could be talked into being smarter than we were.

George
So your solution to anyone disagreeing with you is to ban them from discourse that is an odd position for even a psuedo Liberal to take.

If we are to accept the Bible as the word of God than we have to accept that God put Eve and hence all women kind in a subservient position to men as the result of her part in the transgression. Both the snake and Eve lost their previous positions but Adam did not although he became subject to death and physicial toil. Which is corious because Adam's sin was deliberate while Eve was mislead.

In those cultures and or denominations where women are allowed only enough education to fulfil there role of wife and mother you do not have this unseemly clamouring for equality.Women know their place and are happy and fulfilled in it.

We are not talking here about abuse but a disciplined relationship where both men and women fulfil the roles God has given them.

Aage: The 1290 years and 1335 are easy to understand. That is not the topic of this discussion, you use it as diversionary tactic. I didn't respond, because we need to deal with one issue at a time, otherwise things turn into a neo tower of babel.

Yes all the Biblicial instructions should be followed.Intimate relations are for producing children and as women can't concieve during that part of their cycle intercourse would be a sin.You should read Luther and other Christian deep thinkers who recognise the true role of women.

That is why one can safely say EGW was not a prophet, God would not use a womean to instruct His church.

Abe said: "In those cultures and or denominations where women are allowed only enough education to fulfil there role of wife and mother you do not have this unseemly clamouring for equality.Women know their place and are happy and fulfilled in it."

Abe, do you believe that women should not be allowed to
1. run a corporation
2. teach
3. be a physician
4. be an attorney
5. work as a professional in any profession
6. stay in a house alone (when she may not be fertile or her husband may not be)
7. teach a S.S. class
8. serve on church ommittees
9. direct a choir
10. drive a bus, car, van, pilot a plane, or any other transportation mode
11. manage any kind of organization, nonprofit, nursing home, etc.
12. Get a high school diploma or college or graduate degree

Just clarifying that women should not be in the workforce, should not contribute to the support of children and family, should not be involved in any way in business, church, education, or charities in our society?

Second, you believe that Ellen White was not a prophet because you reject Joel's Old Testament words that "your young women shall prophecy and shall dream dreams..."?

Is this your position?

"Being a slave meant nothing if...the master treated you as one of the family..." ???

Only that you were OWNED by another. That supposed status of "one of the family" was fragile, indeed. The joy of freedom, autonomy, and equality is always preferable to mere kindness. And yes, the analogy between slavery, circumciision, and the place of women in the church, is apt.

Dr. Kubo said it well.

"I will argue that the subordinate role of women also should be abandoned on the same grounds as the previous two, especially in regard to the ordination of women as ministers in the Church."

Even learned men are not immune to illogical statements and non sequiturs. Come, Doc, you can do better than that, can't you? Absolutely no analogy can be made to slavery and circumcision; this article indicates to what a great extent supporters of WO are grasping at straws. And it is not even remotely related to equality.

"The 1290 years and 1335 are easy to understand." (TruthWave)

TruthWave, you ran away from the question on the thread where it belonged. These numbers are just as significant as the 1260 and the 2300, and you claim to have to figured it all out. I can understand why you don't want to tell us your name--those that do fear retaliation from the church leaders--but there is no reason to keep this vital interpretation to yourself.

As to the second paragraph:
Sure.

As to the third:
Perhaps.

Correction:

"What is relevant is we not make choices that will keep us in the will of the Loving Savior of the World"

should be....

Whats relevant is we MAKE choices that will keep us in the WILL of our Loving Savior of the World

The anti-women brigade in the church is great blasphemy and an insult to the God who created them and made them in God's image.

It's an insightful mythology that surrounds Eve - but nonetheless, still a myth

Eve lacked discernment because she was created without it. Her only role was to be a help for Adam and reproduce the species which did not require a lot of intelligence or will power.

The ironic thing is that God made Eve the way she was with complete foreknowledge of what she would do when faced with temptation so he must have had a purpose in doing so although I cannot figure out what it was.

No matter how one tries to change the word of God the Bible is consistently clear that women are not to have any role or authority where they supervise or instruct men. Period Case closed.

I Know Elaine!
Abes comment is as wild and off base as your views are!

Abe's position reeks of misogyny under the guise of religion.

Sadly, it is not the churches but the secular humanists, agnostics, and atheists who have been in the forefront of working toward equal rights for women and minorities.

From a powerful speech given in 1885 by Elizabeth Cady Stanton:

"You may go over the world and you will find that every form of religion which has breathed upon this earth has degraded woman....What power is it that makes the Hindu woman burn herself upon the funeral pyre of her husband? Her religion. What holds the Muslim woman in a harem? Her religion. By what power do the Mormons perpetuate their system of polygamy? By their religion. Man, of himself could not do this; but when he declares, 'Thus saith the Lord.' of course he can do it. So long as ministers stand up and tell us Christ is the head of the church, so is man the head of woman, how are we to break the chains which have held women down through the ages? You Christian women look at the Hindu, the Muslim, the Mormon women, and wonder how they can be held in such bondage. Now I ask you if our religion teaches the dignity of woman? It teaches us the abominable idea of the fourth century--Augustine's idea--that motherhood is a curse; that woman is the author of sin, and is most corrupt. Can we ever cultivate any proper sense of self-respect as long as women take such sentiments from the mouths of the priesthood?

"It is truly ironic that the church that claims a woman as prophet would not ordain women to the ministry, especially in the light of society's enlightened understanding of the role of women and Christ's treatment of women in a society where women were truly subordinate."

That right there is the elephant in the room.

It's only powerless emasculated men in serious need of guts and balls that would spew the anti-women misogynist drivel in the name of God. They feel powerless and feel helpless in the face of women with more power than them

Not SDA, Abe? Frankly, in this situation, I don't see it as something to brag about. I don't even know the most chauvinistic, conservative SDA amongst us who would have the stones to say this:

"Preparing for potluck and washing up afterward should be the extent of women's ministry in the church."

I think a comment like this pretty much stops any further rational discussion between us. I hope my fellow brothers and sisters on this forum feel the same way!

Sure, genitals do matter... they matter supremely... to the fundaMENTAList religious Right who are incessantly obsessed with them. No wonder it is their genitals that have with almost predictable frequency been thrusting them into the headlines.

What so many miss in all this is that headship of the male should not lead to abuse; discipline yes but not abuse.

************

Abe...

Discipline???? So do you advocate husbands physically "disciplining" their wives? I would call the authorities on a neighbor doing such.

Unless you are posting these things as a total sendup, which I really hope,then your views are totally misogynistic and totally out of step with Christ. But, I won't press this line of discussion any further, because once again, your misconceptions of the biblical text and biblical concepts of headship come shining through. The folly of such thinking is self evident.

Frank

"In training a horse or a dog the aim is to produce an obedient companion without breaking their spirit. Indeed a broken spirited companion is no companion at all."

Oh Lord, make it stop. Nothing like comparing the disciplining of a woman with the training of animals. Where are the women here protesting such chauvinistic, Taliban minded blather??

Abe...

The comparison to training animals takes the cake. Nowhere does the Bible ever make this comparison. In the beginning it says, "So, God created mankind in his image, male and female he created them." IOW, the image of the divine is both male and female equally in relationship with one another. Neither were ever meant to reflect God fully independently or in isolation. This speaks of equality.

Please stop it with the idea of man ruling over women as somehow being biblical. It's a gross misinterpretation of the created order, a gross misreading of Genesis 3, and a gross misunderstanding of biblical headship. In fact, these ideas are simply repulsive.

Go and learn what the bible is saying instead of distorting it to support your misogyny. Until then, I'm done.

Frank

As Ervin Farago pointed out, once we allow ourselves to make one extrapolation with the interpretation of Scripture, what will inhibit us from extrapolating to support other extra-biblical conclusion such as claiming biblical support for homosexual marriage?

"I think it is time men behaved like men and take back their headship in the church in the home and in society.'

Sounds a lot like the war cry of conservative bigots and racists to "take back" America.

Frank
Whether or not God intended equality of the sexes the Bible makes it clear that when transgression entered the world that supposed of probable equality was lost.

Nor will it ever be restored as in the new earth there will be neither male nor female.

And I was not equating the discipline of ones wife with training animals I was using it simply as an example of how important it is that discipline not break the spirit.

The Bible is clear that the male is to have the headship. One may opt for other arrangements if one so chooses but it will not be Biblicial and not amount of doublespeak will make it so.

Ah but Elaine it is quite the opposite. Most real women are attracted to masterful men who know who they are and how to lead effectively.

It is sad but too many of the men of this generation are so emasulated by the babble about equality that they have no idea what real men are like nor the benefits that go with it.

Women love the conquering heros not the wimps that disgust them.

Using the Bible to defend discrimination against women is NOT something men should be proud of.

First, because it's not true - the Bible does not teach such a nonsense.
Second, it shows that there are still too many men who are gender-biased. And this is too bad!

"Ah but Elaine it is quite the opposite. Most real women are attracted to masterful men who know who they are and how to lead effectively."

Actually, women are attracted to men who respect them.

That would not be you. In fact, you're about the most repulsive creature I've ever had the misfortune to see on these threads (and that's saying something).

Abe, oh, Abe, oh Abe....

What are you talking about, man?

Today's women appreciate and look for men to join them in partnership, companionship, respect....division of labor, help with housework, laundry, kids, sharing the load, affirming each other, working things out...collaborating...intelligence appreciated, encouraged. Development of talents encouraged. Independent yet partners.

What world are you from? Mars?

I'm curious...What kind of church do you go to, anyway? Do you REALLY belong to a church where women only prepare potlucks and do the clean up?

Are you a bachelor?

Did you order one of those mail-order submissive brides?

Potluck, indeed! Women have gotten a life, and they're not going back to your domineering, authoritarian, women-as-second-class dogma.

Abe, wake up!

Honey

Abe, your quote: Women love the conquering hero not the whimps that disgust them."

Having worked many, many years in prison and jail groups (stress and anger management), I have seen a large percentage of women who have been told by their 'conquering hero' to do a drug run for them. By far the largest percentage of women in prison are there because of some guy who declared himself the head-of-the-house, the conquering hero. They were told what to do and when. They dared not go against their man's wishes.

Girls
You are taking extreme cases of weaklings and non believers or rather non converted and equating that with what I am saying which is a gross perversion of my Scriptural position.

Paul instructed men to love their wives even as Christ loved the church which is a tall order but just as Jesus is the head of the church so is the man head of the household. It is sad commentary on our times when people equate "discipline" and "chastening " with verbal and/ or physical abuse.

And as men are to be head of their household so to they are to be in authority in the church.That means that women should not be elders deacons teachers of mixed gender sunday school classes etc. end of story.

Naturally if one does not believe that the Bible is the Word of God or believes that the story of A&E is a myth or that EGW is a prophet then of course there is little point in discussing the matter. But the Bible believeing born again Christian knows from Scripture what the true role of women in the true church is and preparing potluck and washing up afterward sums it up nicely.

for those who dislike the Bibles value of a woman (half that of a man), adopting Mohammed's views will not help.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/worth-of-woman-bible-vs-...

so everybody who takes the old texts literally, including the young earth, and instant creationism, should be aware that the same texts undervalue women because of the ancients scientific ignorance of a womans part in conception beyond being an oven for a man's seed.

to improve womens status in modern life requires stepping back from the ancient fundy beliefs of the ancients.

George, it's the same attitude that once controlled slavery: men wanted control over cheap and free labor, and fought to continue that practice until the Civil Rights finally loosened the bonds that had been held for ages.

This is the fear of men: women may get completely out of control--like an angry child and there's no telling what these "girls" may do unless someone controls their movement, their lives, their very being.

Only those few women who allow this will be subjected to domestic abuse which is rampant in the uneducated males of this world. They fear any change in the status quo.

It is recognized that in the areas of the world where women are not considered equal, only education offers true change. Once girls become educated, they begin to take charge of their lives and the level of GDP and success improves noticeably.

TruthWave,
Is this the BS (Best Statement) you can make on this issue? Sorry, not impressed. You haven't made much progress on this issue lately, have you?

By the way, what does it mean when you say, "Controlling men, yes they are out there,..." ? I need to inform you that they are "out there" as well as they are "in here" too - meaning "the church." Regarding domestic violence, for instance, it's not a strange practice by the "saint men in church." You would be surprised how many people commit this crime but are protected by their "Christian halo" and by women who are afraid of defending themselves properly against this monstruosity.
(CONTROL, ...remember???)

Frank
It is common in many circles today to simply explain away or disregard whatever part of Scripture disagrees with our own particular ideas and/or vice.

That does not take away what the Bible does say but it does allow for a buffet approach to religion pick and choose what our carnal minds like and ignore the rest.

We have in the course of these discussions gotten away from the main issue of the orginal article the spurious approach of picking random themes and making them apply to something else altogether.

Neither slavery nor circumcism were requirements for church membership and are entirely divorced from the issue of female ordination and from each other.

Indeed even in the OT the story line is how God led His people out of bondage but even then it was the males that did the leading. Both Aaron and Miriam sought to undermine Moses but it was Miriam who was stricken with leopersy showing that her rebellion was much more serious in God's eyes.

The Bible was given for our admonition and we do well to heed what is written not just pick and choose what we like.

It is folks like Abe who "freeze out" anyone in the church who is not also of the same opinion, and if there are some of the same opinion in the church he attends, that would be sufficient to give it a very wide berth.

This does not in any way represent the SDA church, but is much more Catholic, so he should become a monk or priest where he would feel free to spout his invectives against all females.

Folks, if you keep 'dialoging' with Abe you're going to get more of the same. You know what he thinks and it is clearly unlikely he will be persuaded. And he has been near-universally condemned for his misogyny.

Seems to me continuing to make him the center of attention does little good, unless you own stock in a pharmaceutical company selling blood-pressure meds.

Extremists come and go on this site. Don't continue to feed him.

Even if Abe is using a guise, the views he espouses here are held by a group of people within evangelicalism. His writings here represent a percentage of the population and their blatant portrayal of women as second class humans is a real one, unfortunately, held as biblically sound and argued just as he argues.

It makes no difference if he is sincere or not; his words are held and esteemed as truth by too many.

John
You make light of the Word of God as though your wisdom is greater than those ancient writers possesed of the Holy Spirit. That is presumptuous on your part.

When we look at the story of A&E we see that God's reaction to their transgression was indeed prescriptive and designed to modify the results of their sin. Presumably God had valid reasons for deciding what He did even if many may consider it unfair that he relegated the female of the species to a subordinate role. But that is the record whether we like it or not.

However that subordinate role does not entitle a man to abuse or mistreat a woman. Far from it as the Bible makes it clear that being the weaker vessel the woman merits protection and guidance.

Maybe it is time to move on the dyed in the wool feminists will not be convinced from Scripture but will continue to feed their martyrdom complex and see themselves as victims whether that is reality or not.

Should time last it is most likely that the SDA church will ordain women and most likely homosexuals also as that has been the way other denominations have gone.

If time lasts long enough it won't really matter as Islam is winning the numbers game given their birthrate. It is not impossible that Sharia law will be the law of the land in Europe and possibly most of the western world too.

Oh well it won't happen in my lifetime given my age but it would be interesting to be able to come back in te next century to see how it all turns out.

Anyway "girls" sorry if you were offended but I didn't write the Bible and it says what it says .

Abe,

What do you do about Deborah, leading men? Phillip's daughters who prophecied?

Are you discounting Joel who said your daughters shall prophecy and dream dreams?

If Phillip's daughter came to you (had you lived then) and said, "I have a message from the Lord," you would have looked for the closest door and bounded out, right? Saying, "I'll never listen to a woman with a message from God. I'm a man!"

And Deborah. How would you have handled HER leadership ordained of God?

You never answered my question about what you think women now should do with their medical licenses, leadership abilities, gifts of ministry. Do you have a daughter? What if she were a gifted veterinarian, physician, dentist, professor, mayor, congresswoman, news anchor, diplomat, church elder? What if your wife had been given leadership gifts? You would squelch them in any way you possibly could, wouldn't you? Or would you go for divorce?

The bottom line is...God's will is not to be manipulated into the will men.
God's Order for His church is sovereign, and as the signs are ALL around us, we need to stay in the will of God and not man!

@Anonymous1
Your Concern is...What should all these talented, gifted and intelligent woman do who are in various offices within God's ministry?

Answer: These "great women" should keep doing what they do! All in the precious NAME OF JESUS, so that HIS NAME be glorified! However, ordaining women to serve in God's church as conference presidents is not in God's ecclesiastical order. It is not supported by the sovereign Word of God nor the Testimonies of EGW.

To scale, the women in ministry today are not doing anything different than the women in the 1st century church did. Scripture reveals active, vibrant and keen business women, such as Lydia, Acts 16:14 and Dorcas Acts 9:36,39,

(and both "possibly" could have had men working for them in some capacity.)

Also was the very famous and technically the first "evangelist" known as "The Woman At The Well" John 4. She did a mighty work for God, even though her theology was a bit flawed, she undeniably held her own while in conversation with the CREATOR of the UNIVERSE! Again, inspite of her "flaws", GOD knew, with His guidance, she could get the job done for Him, and she did just that...without being ordained, or a "disciple" in the sense of the ecclesastical-order. She tasted The Living Water and wanted everyone she knew (verse 28 says MEN) to have drink also! THIS was her ONLY motivation. There were no women, no matter their talent or association with the ministry, seeking "higher spheres" in the development of the patriarchal ecclesiastic order of God that had been established at the foundation of the world. Acts 1:22-26, Matt 1:1-16, Luke 3:22-38

In ORDER of appearence: Seasons, Diet, Patriarchal Order, Marriage, and the 7th Day Sabbath. Established in Eden and these ordinances need to be left alone. President Ted Wilson decision is right!

Reform means to go back to the correct way = God's way. So all the seekers of something "new" or "different" are doing the same thing Eve did in the garden... and look where HER "incorrect decision" got us!!

Happy Sabbath!

Marianne, God gave us the "greater light" = the Bible, and the "lesser light" = Testimonies of EGW as our examples on how the structure of God's church is to be established. Remember, she was alive during the 19th/20th century development of our church, for those that do actually READ her writings, it is apparent SHE was met with much contention and resistence over different church policies, rules and regs, including her very own "calling as a woman in church ministry."

You are correct, Sis White was "ordained by God" & not man, but the Patriarchal Ecclesiastic order was ordained by God intentionally from the foundation fo the world. Sis White says, God has called and will continue to call great women to HELP for special purposes, i.e. herself, as well as call them for long term professions within the church in area's approved by what has been accepted and encouraged by God's prophets.

To my knowledge, the White Estate does not have a date/location for an ordination service performed by members of God's Ecclesiatic order. However, outside the ecclesiatical order, there are MANY laymen, women and children who are "ordained by God" to teach, preach and build up the Kingdom of God!

**The vision that mattered**

= W.C. White gave a testimony of a simple "hair net" that was stolen by a young girl that worked for Sis White. For a few days Sis White asked the household if anyone knew what happened to the "net". After a few days of questioning and to no avail, God gave her a vision about who stole the net, how it was done and what the young girl did with the net to hide the evidence. Sis White confronted the young girl, who confessed, repented and went on to live a victorious life in Jesus. Praise the Lord!

**The vision that did not matter or better yet, never happened**

= The ordination of women as pastors or conference presidents.

**The point**

= If JESUS saw fit to give Sis White a vision about a stolen "hair net" don't you think He could have given her a vision about a more "weightier matter" such as the ordination of women and having them as conference presidents? Let's face it...He could have, but it did not happen. Sis White gave plenty of offices for women and when done "joyfully" results are blessed.

Praying for the Latter Rain = Praying for the Holy Spirit, who leads us into all truth, allowing us to seek after Jesus' will not our own! God will nothing that contradicts His Word.

A warm hellow to my old colleague Sakae. I think your argument is quite unassailable. It's vintage Kubo.

Maybe we should not pile on Abe too much--if you make the assumption that every word of scripture is literally true and all of it is equally inspired, then his argument is quite logical--women are inferior and incapable of leadership and should be kept in their place. But, as you point out, you can also justify slavery from the same assumptions. Or you can justify a particularly brutal form of infanticide based on Psalm 137:9.

What is discredited is the assumption--an overly literalistic assumption about the scriptures. If you know that "if p then q" is true, and can show that "q" is false, then you have shown that "p" is false, by the laws of logic. The overly literalistic view of scripture that leads to these unfortunate conclusions is not supported by EGW who took a more plenary view of inspiration. This, of course, won't bother Abe.

The way I'd say it is: we should take scripture for what it is, a record of human understanding of God's dealings with a particular people. We should take scripture for what it is rather than for what some people pontificate that it is.

Don

Judy.......how do you explain the fact that our church ignores Paul's council to not allow women to speak in church? The church conveniently ignores what it wants to ignore but condemns what it conveniently wants to condemn.

The next time you attend church, I would hope you would make no comments in Sabbath School class. Nor get up in front to make any announcement. Then you will be following Paul's council and can defend your stand on ordination.

Don, it would interesting to know how many former SDAs left because the church was too liberal and how many left because it was too confining. My guess is that it's the latter. WDYT?

Elaine
The man that raped her owes it to her to marry and give her child legitmacy and provide for her. In that culture she has no market value that having been taken from her by force.

It is not an ideal solution to be sure and she does have the option of not marrying but going to a safe house something like a nunnery for devalued women.

But does it not make you proud that your country and mine and NATO has rid Libya of a dictator so sharia law and polygamy can be established like it is coming to Egypt.

Elaine, I'd agree that it's predominantly because the church is too confining. Don

@ renie Longfellow,

My defense is this... context, it's all in the context!

If I may suggest, 1 Cor 14:1-40 is Paul's letter to the NT church on the proper use of the "gift of tongues".....And I propose that this gift of tongues was given only to "men" in 1st century church.

Here's why....

1. New changes needed governing

1 Cor 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the LAW."
A Jewish web site states the "law" Paul was speaking of may have been an "oral law". I don't think there is a written law in scripture forbidding women to speak in church. It was just a part of the understood patriarchal system of the church.
Based on Jewish tradition men & women prayed in seperate quarters. Paul, the Apostle called to the gentiles, realized in the development of the NT church, God added "new spiritual gifts" and now possibly women and men were starting to worship together and that needed ecclesiastical-structure to govern these new changes.

2. On what day were the women in Upper Room (UR)?

Acts 1:14 (I believe) one can "assumed" that the gift of tongues fell on both the men and "women" in this verse, but (I don't believe) its a fact!

Heres why.....

At the top of verse 15 is the phrase "In those days". This (may) imply that any number of days could have transpired after the UR experience, and before the gathering of the 120 mentioned in verse 15. Therefore, those in attendance could have changed as well.

Acts 1:16-28
The disciples had serious official church business to take care of = election of the new 12th disciple. (MAYBE) there were no women present for this church business meeting. So after GOD confirmed the new disciple, He then poured out the gift of tongues upon the "men" (120)...after the Day of Pentecost had "fully come." = another indication this "amazing event" may have occurred on a day "other than" Acts 1:15's Upper Room experience.

3. Did CHRIST and Paul really mean the gift's would be for everybody?

1 Cor 14:5 "I would that ye ALL spake with tongues" = Paul wrote this letter to men, who would be reading it to men.

Mark 16:17 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues" = JESUS was telling this to the disciples, and 1 Cor 12 proves not all gifts literally follow everyone that "believes"...Heb 2:4 = God chooses who gets His Gifts & women (may not) have been on the list for "tongues" according to 1 Cor 14:34-37.

4. Paul did not contradict himself.

1 Cor 11:5 "But every *Woman that Prayeth or Prophesieth* with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven." = Paul understood Joels prophesy that "daughters/handmaidens" will prophesy & unless prophesying for "women" only occurred in the streets or at home (which I highly doubt), I believe this proves Paul didnt have a problem with women "speaking" in church/ temple/synagogue per se.

Conclusion: (I believe)1 Cor 14 is the complete instruction manual for proper use of the "gift of tongues", which include his belief that women should not even attempt to speak in tongues, or desire the gift.

Also, (I personally) don't see a reason for Paul to pull the topic of "women not speaking in church" out of a rabits hat in vrs 34-37, and then jump right back into a conclusion about tongues!
And...Sis White is a fulfillment of Joel 2:28,29, 1 Cor 12, 14:1, Heb 2:4 regarding the gift of Prophecy.

God Bless renie Longfellow!

Also, as an fyi....The term "UNKNOWN" in 1 Corinthians 14 was "added" by KJV translators and should be striked from the scriptures. Any words in "italics" are "words" added for enhancement, but in the long run, have led many into false understandings of the scriptures and have cause a multitude of confusion.

Bob,
Thanks for agreement! Disagreement is never threatening, but agreement is even better!

The man that raped her owes it to her to marry and give her child legitmacy and provide for her. In that culture she has no market value that having been taken from her by force.

It is not an ideal solution to be sure and she does have the option of not marrying but going to a safe house something like a nunnery for devalued women.
____________________________________________________________________
Abe, according to what I have recently read in the news, this particular woman in Afghanistan was not given the option of living in a safe house. She was given the option of living in prison or marrying her rapist. Why on earth would the rape victim be sent to prison instead of the rapist? However, you are probably on to something when you say that the man who raped her owes it to her to give her child legitimacy and provide for her. This is probably why the law of Moses makes provision for a rapist to marry his victim. It sounds dreadful to us, but in that culture, the alternative may have been even worse.

I indicated in my two recent articles that the Bible reflects different cultures and practices. There is in the Bible a reflection of the culture and practices of the time but above all of these culture and practices, there is also the ideal ethics and morality God wants us to reach. For example, while polygamy may be practiced, that is not considered the biblical ideal which Genesis points to as monogamy. While slavery is practiced beyond that is the biblical ideal of the equality of all men. This is true also regarding the subordination of women. The creation account which indicates that woman came from the side not the top or bottom of man shows that she should be considered his equal. The account also indicates that man—both male and female—was created in the image of God. Paul himself who seems to support the subordination of women and slavery pointed to the ideal in Gal 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
All have come to acknowledge that there is no Jew or Greek, i.e., that all races are equal. Black or white, yellow or brown or whatever all have equal status before God. We also have come to acknowledge that there is neither slave nor free. But we have not yet come to recognize that there is neither male nor female in the church. It is being recognized by almost everyone else. It is not just women’s ordination as such that we are promoting (It just happens to be the particular issue in the church where this inequality shows itself), but what I am promoting is the full equality of men and women. Not only should women be ordained but they should have complete equality in all things. They should be allowed to be elected to any office including General Conference President. They should receive all the financial benefits that men receive for the work they do. We have recognized the full equality of the races. Let us now recognize the full equality of the sexes.

Your Friend: "Kubo seems to me to say that Scripture must be modified according to modern corruptions"
Well I think that is exactly your problem. Because what he seems to you to say is not what he just said (wrote). If you read the Bible that way, no wonder we don't find any common ground...

and where is the connection to your misreadings?

Dr. Dr. Kudo, Broad stroke generalizations and simplistic takes on history are unbecoming of a scholar such as yourself. I'm afraid that is however the only arsenal those who want to abolish biblical gender roles possess. Here are some important differences between circumcision, slavery, and gender roles that your bird's eye exegesis seems to have missed.

1. The distinct roles of women and men are build right into the Genesis account, which you may or may not believe. This cannot be said of circumcision or slavery

2. Even in the old Testament, slavery was frowned upon, the laws of sinai making 'slaves' more into domestic servants with rights. Slavery is never once supported upheld in the New Testament as a Christian duty, whereas gender roles is.

3. Circumcision is expressly done away with in the New Testament, not so with gender roles. Your suggestion that the church today has equal authority to determine truth as did the apostles of the first century smacks of Catholicism. Where do we stop this slippery slope? Later church councils decided that the Bishop of Rome should be worshiped as God. Should we follow those too? Your interpretation of the Bible and the church`s authority is blatantly Catholic.

4. A person with legal training such as myself will tell you that a principle can never be used to do away with an non-abrogated rule. This is true of the New Testament. If Paul upholds gender roles, he must not have seen it as contrary to the principles of equality he also wrote about.

5. There is a big difference between Paul telling slaves to submit to their masters in order to win them to Christ, enforcing the apolitical nature of Christianity, and His command to women to submit to their husbands as to Christ. The fact that this notion has been abused does not mean it should be abandoned. Paul never told any Christians that they should own slaves. Christians were generally the slaves! Yet he explicitly upheld gender roles in almost all his epistles. The comparison is lame and has been well answered.

You must sense the complete weakness of your arguments when you end by waving your hands in unproven ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with you...

«No rational and Biblically literate person today would argue for the reestablishment of slavery or circumcision as a condition for church membership. The same logical and scripture principles applies to women's ordination. To argue otherwise places would be like maintaining that the world is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth.»

When was slavery ever a prerequisite for church membership? No rational, biblically literate person would write such an absurd idea.

@Your Friend

A woman also wrote the following quotes:
The primary object of our college was to afford young men an opportunity to study for the ministry and to prepare young persons of both sexes to become workers in the various branches of the cause. 5T page 60.

Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be men of blameless reputation. 5T page 598

Your "complete equality in all things" is true for salvation and the gift of Gods grace. But we were designed different for a reason. To be the leader of the family and the church all the way down to the task of playing in the Superbowl this Sunday.