Print
Ordination—A Holy Spirit Mandate
Ordination is the culmination of the call to ministry. The process begins when God qualifies the called with the gift of the Spirit to minister. “He gave some, Apostles, Prophets, Evangelist, Pastors, and Teachers.” The church, then, by acknowledging such gifts in individuals, authorizes them before the church, to work for the Lord. This formal authorization is called ordination.
Ordination may take such forms as: anointing, appointing, dedication, consecration, sanctification or separation. Nevertheless, all describe the same phenomenon of setting apart for holy use. “…The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them” (Acts 13:2, 3). And the church formally set them apart.
Thus by anointing the prophets, the priests, dedicating the temple, furniture or vessels and ordaining apostles or ministers, the church sets apart for holy use. These ceremonies do not impart power to these instruments but remind us that God’s claim is upon His chosen vessels, and to instill in us the principle that whatever is employed for God’s service must be sanctified. Interestingly, the church sets buildings, furniture, and even the pulpit apart for holy use but neglect some of the ministers who serve in the pulpit. Reasons: lack of degree or because they happen to be female! But isn’t it problematic, that we can use them for holy work but we can’t set them apart for holy use!
It’s unbiblical and even a desecration to put a person to minister before the alter to do a holy work for years without setting him/her apart for holy use. Can you imagine an Old Testament priest ministering before the alter unordained? Either we don’t employ them at all because they are not called but if they are called and we employ them for holy work, we must ordain them, for God calls nobody into a half ministry.
Some say female pastors cannot be leaders in the church, that’s why they can’t be ordained. Now, that’s contradiction in terms; either they are called to pastor or not. For there is no half calling! God never calls anyone to be a half pastor. When God calls a person into the pastoral ministry, He calls him or her into leadership to fulfill complete leadership functions. The job description of every pastor/shepherd (male or female) is the same: to lead. The shepherd leads the flock! Ellen White echoes the sentiment: “It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God” (1).
Religious leadership might have started as a birthright of the masculine gender in the Old Testament but in the Gospels, pastoral leadership is a gift of the Spirit given to the born again, called and chosen disciples of Christ. Church leadership is not a birthright to be possessed by men but a spiritual gift to be received by all the called: both men and women in Christ.
So those the Holy Spirit calls into the pastorate and are acknowledged by the church with employment must be set apart for holy use. Ordain them to perform their full ministry with dignity, respect and confidence. That was the practice of the New Testament Church. “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away” (Acts 13:2, 3 & Rom.1:1).
Ordination, therefore, is not only a culmination of a call to ministry but a mandate from the Holy Spirit for all those called ministry!
1. Ellen White, “Canvassers as Gospel Evangelists,” Review and Herald, January 15, 1901, para.
—Sednak Kojo Duffu Yankson, D.Min., is Pastor, East New York Seventh-day Adventist Church and Chaplain, Northeastern Conference Ministerial Association.
User login
Recent
- WC Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- victor Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Rescued LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Defender of THE Faith Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Roger S The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- George Tichy Pacific Union Conference Calls Special Constituency Meeting to Authorize Equality in Ordination
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Pagophilus Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
Newsletter
Organizations
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Local Elders are "ordained" but they must be voted on by the church nominating to serve - each year. A person can be an Elder, but not serve in that capacity unless the local church elects and approves.
Not so with the local pastor. His capacity to serve as pastor is not subject to church vote. He, as the article above reflects, serves as he has been set apart for his task.
A woman, ordained as an Elder, may do the work of a pastor, have the title of pastor and be employed by the conference, but she is subject to the yearly vote of the church board. What a travesty.
Thank you, Elder Yankson, for your clear thoughts on this matter.
"Ordination is the culmination of the call to ministry."
Why culmination? Why do we regard it as a kind of tenure?
In the Bible, it is the beginning. It is the setting apart. It is, as you say, the authorization. When Timothy struggles, Paul reminds him of the gifts that were given to him when he laid his hands upon him. With deacons and elders, ministry does not begin until they've been ordained--the Church Manuel is emphatic about this. Yet we reverse this with pastors. We make ordination the "culmination." Why? What Biblical authority is there for this?
Absolutely agree on the why culmination aspect. Its indefensible when viewed as the author suggests.
As to the part here;
“…The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them” (Acts 13:2, 3).
Its a fallacious argument to find a part in the bible where something happens in a certain way to certain people and then extrapolate that it means for everyone.
Perhaps we should first find someone brave enough to say that the Holy spirit specifically talked to them and told them which people are supposed to be separated?
If not, perhaps we should also extrapolate forward that all pastors should get outside jobs to support their families as Paul did?
Michael
Ordination - a Serious Matter
the SDA process of ordination
http://www.adventist.ca/en/administration/secretariat/article1.php
Paul makes it clear that only males should hold positions of spiritual headship and it is explained clearly in http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/article.php?id=156 written, of all things, by a woman.
Sometimes I wonder whether the main purpose of the Spectrum blog is support of female ordination and confusion on the issue of Creation.
Hi everyone,
Ivan - the article you link to certainly describes the seriousness of the SDA ordination, but it does not explain what actually happens when someone is ordained.
Your Friend - the article you link to starts of with a wonderful passage about the uniqueness of Mary. If only all Adventists could view her in this way!
On a more general note:
As a catholic, I believe that the sacramental priesthood is limited to men. Thus only men are truly called to it. (Which opens up another discussion on how one discerns their calling or vocation) However, as the SDA already has women serving as pastors, doing everything that their male counterparts do, it can only be discrimination that prevents such women being afforded the same title as the guys.
You can not have it both ways!
Tim
Tim - Clement
-------------
It's actually the picture assigned to this article that has stumped me! It's a pic of a "catholic nun" with a gleaming SUNburst behind her head in a bed of hot red roses and a disfigured greek god figure covering her mouth....hmmm! Her hands also quite disfigured...I need to contact Walter Veith on this one! Can I get a witness somebody?
Tim raises an important issue.
The Adventist church has female pastors. They can do everything that male pastors do (except participate in ordinations). They do this by virtue of the ordination to the office of elder. They can baptize and celebrate the Lord's Supper and preach. Thus the question, what is the point of ordination?
Well, the ordination to pastor that women can't receive enables pastors to minister anywhere in the world and to participate in ordinations (and has been a prerequisite to serving as a conference president).
Thus, I would argue, Adventists have, unintentionally, recreated the "three fold office" of deacon, presbyter, and episkopos. Deacons and Presbyters are local offices. Presbyters/elders, whether "pastors" or "local elders," can preach, baptize, and lead communion. Episkopoi/bishops, can do all this anywhere, are in charge of a church where there are deacons and presbyters serving, can ordain these and other episkopoi. So maybe we just need to call our ordained pastors bishops. Then we'll be in the position of the Anglicans in some places--women presbyters but not bishops. And that brings us back to the question--why?
Judy, perception is individual. The "nun" is wearing the usual middle eastern female attire; the "greek god" is actually patterned after Michaelangelo's ceiling painting in the Sistine chapel of God touching Adam bringing him to life; "hot" roses? Do red roses signify heat? Is it possible to see both Catholicism and Greek gods in such a picture?
Rorschach test, indeed!
Elaine
Bill,
Interesting analysis. Why indeed! Perhaps the upcoming review into Ordination will shed some light on the situation - or at least give it some consistency.
Tim
Tim - Clement
-------------
One thing we never do, Tim, is to speak of the pastor ministering "in persona Christi capitis." We do not speak of ordination as configuring the person ordained to act in the person of Christ.
In the Catholic system, because so much is invested in the bishop and the priest/pastor personally, in their configuration to Christ, that they govern/teach/sanctify in their own person. All boards, etc., are advisory only. All personnel who work for them serve "at will" and are representatives of the bishop or the pastor.
Our polity is more like what Martin Marty said of Lutherans: "presbygational." Pastors are employed by the conference directly, but congregations are run by boards, which are elected each year. Conferences have officers and an executive committee, but are accountable to the annual constituency meeting (and to elections every other year).
All bishops in the Catholic system are "vicarius Christi" (vicars of Christ). They aren't accountable to any committee or constituent assembly. They rule by their own decree, and hold property in their own name.
Arguments in the Catholic system about restriction of ordination to men rely upon 1) tradition, rooted in Christ's example and Scripture and 2) this theology of standing "in persona Christi capitis." Protestants as a whole are not going to have that second piece. We don't have a theology of indelible character. Thus the argument must rest upon the example of Christ and the teaching of Scripture. Do we have the freedom to do differently than Christ? Can we believe in Scripture's inspiration and yet hold that he and the apostles were blinded by patriarchal assumptions? If we argue for equality, are we going to do so on the basis of baptism or on the basis of the Zeitgeist?
Your Friend said:
Paul makes it clear that only males should hold positions of spiritual headship and it is explained clearly in http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/article.php?id=156 written, of all things, by a woman.
Jesus only ever chose Jewish men. Do we dare to go further?
Well, we abolished slavery and there's nothing about that in the New Testament. In fact slaves were counseled to be obedient to their masters.
Ellen said that the smell of flowers was always part of the 100 visitations that she had from Christ...(this may shed some light on the roses)
Bill, I believe males do more than participate in ordination services - Currently female pastors cannot "birth" a church.
When we began to "study" ordination - we need to carefully recognize the tie between ordination and the Lord's Supper. As Protestants we do not believe there is a unique action on the part of the Priest, who, "in the person of Christ", initiates a generative action on the bread and wine.
It is not that Catholics “will not” ordain women, but they “cannot.” According Catholic doctrinal tradition only males processed the ontologically configuration allowing them to say the words, “my body, my blood.”
Before the understanding of genetics, it was believed that only males possessed the "life-giving seed" within their bodies needed to generate new life. Once we remove the "specialness" of the male's body from the ordination equation our decision will be based on Protestant, not Catholic theology. Unless, of course, we wish to regress to a position of literal fundamentalism.
Etymology Online @ "Rosary"
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=rosary&sea...
rosary
mid-15c., "ROSE GARDEN," from L. rosarium "rose garden," from neut. of rosarius "of roses," from rosa "rose" (see rose). The sense of "series of prayers" is 1540s, from M.Fr. rosaire, a figurative use of the word meaning "rose garden," on the notion of a "garden" of prayers. This embodies the medieval conceit of comparing collections to bouquets (cf. anthology and M.L. hortulus animae "prayerbook," lit. "little garden of the soul"). Sense transferred 1590s to the strings of beads used as a memory aid in reciting the rosary.
Alrighty then............
I am really smh right now!
@ Elaine,
"the "greek god" is actually patterned after Michaelangelo's ceiling painting in the Sistine chapel of God touching Adam bringing him to life"
_______
Michaelangelo's perception of GOD is the farthest human perception of God I'd ever choose to prescribe to. He was a pagan and the pictures he painted were modeled after greek/roman pagan mythological god's like zeus. And the catholic church loves it!
Sorry Elaine...I'm not buyin it!
Peace!
Judy, whose perception of God is the correct one? No man has seen God, so every depiction is based on one's individual perception. Can you paint or describe how God looks?
It makes no difference Michaelangelo's beliefs. His "David" is declared the world's most beautiful art ever produced and his painting of the Sistine Chapel is the epitome of art. It's so easy to disparage a work that is incomparable and only demonstrates the mentality of the writer.
Elaine
Judy, Judy, Judy...(small homage to Cary Grant)
So rosary used to mean rose garden. I'm pulling out all my rose bushes.
Or perhaps these "connections" mean nothing?!
The point in this painting is the religious silencing of women's voices, whatever their gifts.
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
Why did a picture of a Catholic nun get used? This should be about Adventist ordination doctrines, not Catholic ones. How is it that we get pulled into this?
Btw, Bishops do not own diocesan property in their own name in canon law. Some used civil law, corporation sole, but I don't know of any who still do. In canon law property is held by the juridic person. The bishop has stewardship of diocesan property, but there is a finance council. At times the bishop must receive their counsel and even consent to do certain acts. Likewise if the value of the property is above a certain amount he needs consent from the Holy See to alienate or acquire it. Bishops need to follow canon law just like everyone else.
I am so impressed by loyalty to the sacred principle that New Testament practices are normative for us today. Of course that means:
*No clergy,
*No church weddings,
*No ministerial involvement in weddings anywhere,
*No hierarchy,
*No women speaking in church,
*No women teaching men,
*no restricting baptizing to the non-existent clergy,
*no “tithes” or offerings sent to a central power,
*no ordination of Blacks,
*no ordination of Anglo-saxons,
*no ordination of Hispanics.
Baptisms will be performed by the laity as soon as candidates are converted, whether 1843-er-1844 makes sense to them or not. Pastors and bishops will be selected locally. Congregations will hold title to their real property. Etc., etc., etc.
Oh yes. And *no ordination of women.
What’s that? Oh , only no ordination of women.
-Harry
Big pet peeve:
There was no such office or title as elder in the N.T. church.
When we speak of ordaining women, we mean women are the candidates of ordination, not the product.
When the Bible speaks of ordaining elders, it means elders are the candidates of ordination, not the product.
In both cases, the product is episcopos,/overseer/bishop.
Harry
Donna
"A woman, ordained as an Elder, may do the work of a pastor, have the title of pastor and be employed by the conference, but she is subject to the yearly vote of the church board. What a travesty. "
I agree that we are in a bit of a pickle, and have ended up with an unjust fudge, but I don't think that the above quite follows.
Elders Male and Female are Ordained once in their lives and serve a given church at the voted pleasure of a congregation. They may also serve as 'Lay Preachers' with Lay Credentials voted by the Conference from time to time as recommended by their church for service beyond their congregation, whether active as Elders or not. They are not re-ordained on reappointment.. I suppose Elders can be 'defrocked' but I have never heard of it happening. We certainly don't have a mechanism for registering it.
Pastors Male and Female are Ordained or Commissioned once in their lives and serve at the voted pleasure of a Conference committee with a wider remit than the vote of a single church. If they are not employed, or not given a Credential at the Conference Session they have no particular authority to serve anywhere save at the casual invitation of a particular church or group that invites them. There are many Pastors in name who are not generally authorised to serve. This has nothing to do with the whim of a local church.
Conference committees have no more sanctity of responsibility than a church board, only a wider scope.
While Conference Presidents have a lot of influence, they do not act alone as would a Bishop.
Whether this is a divinely appointed order is another matter.
That we have created a notional differential in sanctity between Ordination and Commission is more a nonsense than an injustice. We all know that it is a work around to deal with an illusional quest for international consistency.
Those opposed to women in leadership will be opposed to it whatever the title or committee of conferance.
Re: "corporation sole" and "juridic person"--yeah, that's what I was alluding to, oversimplifying. Googling, I can still find some that appear to. But thanks for the correction. :-)
And if anyone wants to see for themselves the details of such stuff:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PD.HTM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P4P.HTM
The Archdiocese of Boston describes how such things stood in 2005: http://www.bostoncatholic.org/Offices-And-Services/Office-Detail.aspx?id...
As to Harry's claim, "There was no such office or title as elder in the N.T. church," that elders are candidates for the office of bishop .... no. E.g., Acts 14:23
Can you all imagine how much junk we would be learning on this site about Catholics if Fr. Jim were not here to clarify the distorted information often posted?
Fr. Jim, please keep investing some time here, to help us distinguish what is real or fake about Catholics! There are obviously too many people making statements that are not correct.
Please, someone explain me where is the ordination in the Bible. I've been looking for it, have not found it (maybe i need to get a bigger Bible). Do not confuse ordination with laying of hands. I know priest were ordain, but since Christ came we are all priest and have direct access to the throne of grace. I do not recall Paul being ordain to ministry by any apostle. I also do not recall any apostle being ordain by Jesus. In fact, they were all mess up until after Jesus Died. When the Holy Spirit came it made the difference. In my opinion, we have so many issues about ordination because ordination is not Biblical concept. Most of the divisive issues we find in the church are not Biblical.
Peace and love
Ordination is the laying on of hands. It is in the OT, and it is in the NT. It is Biblical. It is practiced in Judaism. It has always been a part of Christianity. It is basic.
Donna,
You made a very valuable point at the beginning of this thread.
There are huge anomolies in the system of ordination as Adventists practice it.
Ordination of elders is insufficient for them to serve. They must equally be elected and voted.
But ordination of pastors granted the unfettered right to serve without local endorsement by the local church.
And Bill Cork!!
Again, you have pointed to a huge anomoly!
As you so rightly express it - Ordination should not be regarded as the culmination of the call to ministry. Nor is it to be regarded as the granting of some kind of tenure.
You also point to another huge anomoly. The Church Manual emphatically mandates that the ministry of deacons and elders should not begin until they have been ordained. Yet with pastors we reverse this.They must serve for a trial period first, before ordination.
Can we anticipate that the study of ordination will note these anomolies and propose solutions?
My solution to these anomolies is that
1. The word órdination' be deleted from the Adventist vocabulary, because it carries so much baggage. We should simply talk of 'the laying on of hands' and 'setting apart.'
2. To escape the anomoly of deacons and elders being elected and approved by the local members but the pastor not being so recognized I propose that deacons, elders and pastors be inducted into their newly beginning responsibilities as often as they undertake such.
3.To escape the anomoly of ordination being regarded as the culmination of one's call to ministry (ie. some kind of tenure) pastors should be inducted to undertake current responsibilities only.
4. To escape the anomoly of pastoral ordination only being undertaken after a trial period, a service of the laying on of hands shall be undertaken each and every time one is given a different role.
It may well be, that only certain individuals with a certain amount of experience will be granted authority by church and state to be marriage celebrants, or to birth churches etc.
Peter
"But ordination of pastors granted the unfettered right to serve without local endorsement by the local church."
I generally agree with your observations, but we do need to fair to the facts.
Pastors are not granted unfettered right. They are given a remit by the Conference Committee which is a representative panel appointed through a democratic process. During internship, In order to celebrate certain rights, the intern needs to be ordained as an Elder which is the prerogative of the local church.
Believe me, Churches are on the phone within days if they get a Pastor or Intern who does not mind his manners. For a Pastor to minister where he is not assigned, requires a service request. There is no such thing as 'unfettered right'.
Blessings
I defer to your wisdom, Victor!!
Ordained pastors are only given unfettered rights to serve in that the system doesn't require them to seek annual endorsement from the local church community as deacons and elders do. (As an aside, my local Conference last year, according to one report I heard, with perhaps 40+ local church pastors, and about 60 odd local congregations, had 15 churches that were seriously unhappy with the quality of their pastoral care).
Yet, I agree!! Conferences do take a lot of notice of local reaction to pastors. And they should!! But it is almost never the case that ordained persons are taken out by surgical stike.
And why is it that Union Committees must be unanimous in their decision to ordain! Or at least it is so in my part of the world! This opens such decision to all kinds of potential abuses.
On another point, how can I encourage the brethren to notice these admitted anomolies and propose solutions.
"1. The word órdination' be deleted from the Adventist vocabulary, because it carries so much baggage. We should simply talk of 'the laying on of hands' and 'setting apart.'"
I don't think we can do that at this point in our history since in English, ordination is the term used throughout the Christian world for "laying on of hands" and "setting apart." Better to get clear on what we mean by the term. And we can then say what connection ordination has to ordinances. Is ordination itself an ordinance? :-)
"2. To escape the anomoly of deacons and elders being elected and approved by the local members but the pastor not being so recognized I propose that deacons, elders and pastors be inducted into their newly beginning responsibilities as often as they undertake such."
I think that's the solution to that issue.
"3.To escape the anomoly of ordination being regarded as the culmination of one's call to ministry (ie. some kind of tenure) pastors should be inducted to undertake current responsibilities only."
I'm going to disagree on the question of "current responsibilities"--but I do think it needs to take place at the beginning.
"4. To escape the anomoly of pastoral ordination only being undertaken after a trial period, a service of the laying on of hands shall be undertaken each and every time one is given a different role."
That I would have a problem with. If ordination is a setting apart, it needs to take place only once for that ministry (weather deacon, elder, pastor). But I think it would be good to have installation services for pastors in new assignments, which underscore the connection between the conference's oversight and the pastor's ministry. Rather than the pastor just showing up and starting. And I'll take all the prayer and laying on of hands I can get at that point, begging the Spirit's wisdom and strength and support.
So does the laying on of hands actually "do" something, or put another way - does God the Holy SPirit "do" something at the laying on of hands which is not "done" if this act is nto performed?
Tim - Clement
-------------
Interesting concept. I am puzzled how the Pacific Union Conference President "ordianed senior faculty at LSU by letter as recently reported on this web-site.
The author uses the word culmination in his definition of the process leading up to ordination.
The conotation is that the subject to ordination has passed through certain educational and behavioral tests that met the criteria necessay to the "laying on of hands".
So appointment to office as treasurer or auditor qualify for ordination to pastorship.
The strangest part of all is the transfer with credentials of ordianed found in questionable fiduciary practises, questionable inter-personal relationships, and/or other questionable practises.
While at the same time withholding ordination to others on the basis of gender.
It seems to my reading the qualifications for ordination are based upon issues of the heart and mind and not the gonads.
Strangest of all is the increasing number of women scholars in Seminaries--how can a man trained by a woman ascend to the level of ordination?
The issue is one of power not of service. Tom Z
Tom raises another important issue.
Ordination is to the office of preaching, baptizing, and celebrating the Lord's Supper. It is not to the office of treasurer. We need to stop that. I can think of no reason, Biblical or otherwise, for this practice.
Elaine = "whose perception of God is the correct one."
Since you asked, I'm thinking: King David, Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah and John the Revelator's up close and "personal account" on a canvas would be nice. I did get a really nice rendition of Christ on a post card from the Hope channel painted by an artist named Nathan Greene. I saw him on a program hosted by Pastor Mark Finley. Thats about it!
Elaine = "It makes no difference Michaelangelo's beliefs. "
For those that have eyes to "see", it should make a difference.
"Ordination is to the office of preaching, baptizing, and celebrating the Lord's Supper. It is not to the office of treasurer. We need to stop that. I can think of no reason, Biblical or otherwise, for this practice."
Correct me if I'm wrong, pastor, but I have a theory that treasurers are ordained to allow them to be paid with tithe money. Whether that's right or wrong is another question. Am I wrong? I am in agreement with you that this practice must stop.
Lemuel S.
I would be interested in reading the most explicit..supposed, PRO women pastor SOP texts like the one posted above from 1901..
Maybe a half dozen of those or more..??
Since only one was posted..is this all there are in the 20th century?
“It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God” (1).
1. Ellen White, “Canvassers as Gospel Evangelists,” Review and Herald, January 15, 1901, para.
What does the "para" at the end represent?
hopeful = "Judy, Judy, Judy...(small homage to Cary Grant)"
*smile*
hopeful = "So rosary used to mean rose garden. I'm pulling out all my rose bushes."
No hopeful, dont pull up your rose bushes, that's Gods creation. Rosary beads on the other hand, are mans creation, developed from ancient paganism.
hopeful = "Or perhaps these "connections" mean nothing?!"
My point exactly..the "connections" don't mean anything! The pic used, was misused and thats what left me smh!
hopeful = "The point in this painting is the religious silencing of women's voices, whatever their gifts."
That's all good, but after viewing that pic I felt like I needed to first address the different views on all the "catholic" ordinances "it" promotes.
As for the hand over the mouth...the only reason GOD would do such a thing is
for: Mat 6:7 & James 1:26, definitely not for a godly daughter/handmaiden who is praying and prophesy under the anointing of the Holy Spirit of GOD. (none of whom are ordained ministers of course.)
"For a Pastor to minister where he is not assigned, requires a service request. There is no such thing as 'unfettered right'." --victor
Which is why the classic Adventist opposition to approval of women's ordination by the GC is so lame, i.e., that it'd grant an international/intercultural "unfettered right".
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
Bill- That's the text I was talking about. Episcopos is the name of a responsibility, overseer, just like deacon. Find me a text that unambiguously describes a ceremony that makes a man into an elder who wasn't one before. They selected mature men for the task of overseeing. I don't know when overseer became a rank, but I know of no evidence that it happened in the NT.
My concern is that we read our stultifying bureaucrasy back into the New Testament wherever an ambiguity gives us a chance. We didn't start this practice but we could eliminate it as part of a reform. Whenever a couple of fuzzy-chinned Mormons at the front door introduce themselves as Elders so-and-so, I feel like saying, "Look that word up in a concordance and come back when you're elderly."
Harry
@ Paquitin
You want Big Bible? Here's some Big Bible Verses!
Mar 3:14 And HE "ordained" twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
John 15:16 "Ye have not chosen ME, but I have chosen you, and "ordained" you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."
"Laying on of hands" = to impart gifts, blessings, healings..AND setting apart for ecclesiastical ministry
1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the **laying on of the hands of the presbytery.**
Hbr 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of **laying on of hands,** and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that through **laying on of the apostles' hands** the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
Mat 19:14,15 But JESUS said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And HE **laid his hands on them,** and departed thence."
Act 6:2-6 "Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you SEVEN MEN OF HONEST REPORT, FULL OF THE HOLY GHOST AND WISDOM, ***WHOM WE MAY APPOINT OVER THIS BUSINESS.***
But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they **laid their hands on them**
Act 8:17 Then **laid they their hands** on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Act 13:3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and **laid their hands** on them, they sent them away.
Act 19:6 And when Paul had **laid his hands** upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Act 28:8 And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and **laid his hands** on him, and healed him.
Ordination = OT
1Ch 9:19-22. 22. "All these which were chosen to be porters in the gates were two hundred and twelve. These were reckoned by their genealogy in their villages, whom David and Samuel the seer did ORDAIN IN THEIR SET OFFICE."
Ordain = NT
Titus 1:5-14 "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest SET IN ORDER the things that are wanting, and ORDAIN elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Not giving heed to Jewish fables.
Act 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the DECREES FOR TO KEEP, that were ORDAINED of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.
**Paul's Special Calling** = He was both an Apostle and a Prophet and Prophet's receive visions directly from God, just like Sis EGW. Therefore, by default, he is whatever God wants him to be without having to go through an official ordination service performed by pastors/ministers/apostles. (to my knowledge, only men were referred to as elders in scriptures, not women)
1 Tim 2:7 "Whereunto I am "ordained" a preacher, and an apostle, I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not; a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
Gal 1:1 "Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead."
Merry Christmas!
In the Bible's original languages, there are more than two dozen different words that sometimes get translated "ordain", "ordained." There really is no word in either Hebrew or Greek that carries our meaning of "ordain."
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
"Laying on of hands" = to impart gifts, blessings, healings..AND setting apart for ecclesiastical ministry
Mat 19:14,15 But JESUS said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And HE **laid his hands on them,** and departed thence." --Judy
This doesn't seem to support the claim of "AND setting apart for ecclesiastical ministry."
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
To answer Lemuel:
There is a lot of mythology that creeps in here. If I can help with reality.
Tithe funds are used for the those who engage in the support of the Gospel Ministry infrastructure, which includes Conference and Union Workers and Officers. We avoid using Tithe for Institutional support other than recognised Pastoral positions. (Though the membrane is a bit permeable)
As a Union Treasurer I am neither ordained or commissioned as an Elder or Pastor. I have declined such epithets. Having worked for the church for 35 years and been elected for the last 20 or more, I see no need for the sudden conferal of titles.
Treasurers were at one time Ordained, though this has not been the case for many years now.
@ hopeful,
You are right, the term used mostly was "appoint" or in some cases the term "set" is used.
Regarding your last comment, I'm trying to say that the same hands that are used to bless the little children were the same hands that can performed the ordination services for the patriarchal ecclesiastic order in the NT church! It just depends on the event and purpose.
God Bless!
Bill Cork,
Why is it only possible to set people aside for the Lord's work only once?
It seems that when the Apostle Paul was set aside before being sent on his first missionary journey, when he arrived back at Antioch and had given his report, he had completed the task for which he was set apart.
How is it that if someone is "set aside" they can then choose when they will serve and when they will not? A prime example of this is Sir Patrick Allen, who for the best of reasons has chosen to step aside from the work to which he was "set aside." At least in my part of the world, if one steps aside from ministry, there is no guarantee that such a person will be called on to return to gospel ministry
By suggesting that a person should only be set aside once for all lifetime, you really have created a system of clerical tenure.
Adventists do not believe in "once saved, always saved." Nor should we believe in once ordained always ordained!!
Dear @ judy
I think your Bible is as big as your mistakes.
Mark 3:14: He ordained twelve - The word rendered "ordained" here does not express our notion of ordination to the ministry. It means, literally, "he made" - that is, he "appointed" twelve to be with him.
John 15:16: "Ordained you" - Literally, I have placed you, appointed you, set you apart. It does not mean that he had done this by any formal public act of the imposition of hands, as we now use the word, but that he had designated or appointed them to this work,
Titus 1:5-14: It means to set, place, or constitute; then, to set over anything, as a steward or other officer (see Matthew 24:45; Luke 12:42; Acts 6:3), though without reference to any particular mode of investment with an office.
if you are truth to the authors of the bible (and not forcing the text to support your point of view), "laying of hands" is associate with the Holy Spirit. Read your text within the immediate and historical context.
1 Timothy 2:7: Does not indicate any the manner in which he was set apart or to any act consecrating the apostle to his work. He was chosen by God.
You should also read some church history and you will find that ordination was introduce after all the apostle had died (late second century). The ritual became famous after constantine gave clergy some secular rights. The purpose of ordenaiton was to give ecclesiastical power and authority to church officials. Thus widening the gap between clergy and laity.
You have to remember that ordination in this modern context implies ecclesiastical power.
Laying of the hands in the bible was use for many others things as you noted. Therefore is is not correct to apply it to ordination.
peace
@ Bill
"Laying of hands" is biblical." But ordination as we see it today, is not biblical.
Bill Cork,
The only reason I can see for disallowing the practice of the "laying on of hands" on multiple occasions is that you believe that some special grace is infused into the individual, never to depart.
If however, such an event in the life of an Adventist minister of the gospel or of congregational leaders is intended to seal the decision of the Spirit and the church to call such individuals to a leadership role, without the infusion of a special grace unavailable to others, one should practice the "laying on of hands" as often as a divinely initiated call to serve with specific responsibilities is made.
"The only reason I can see for disallowing the practice of the "laying on of hands" on multiple occasions is that you believe that some special grace is infused into the individual, never to depart."
Show me the Biblical precedent. Paul appeals to the laying on of hands past tense in Timothy's case. You are set apart once. You are baptized once. God does something. We don't need to keep doing it.
Bill Cork,
Your response is less than adequate.
It should be interesting to see what the Biblical study the church is doing on this issue brings out. I think our current method is probably far removed from the Apostolic model regardless of what we do concerning women. For example, I don't think you'd find the levels of ordination - local elder, full time pastor...in the Bible. It is possible that we have totally superimposed our own ideas of ordination onto what we read in the Bible, and what it talks about is nothing like we imagine it. Personally, I find it interesting that the liberals accept the traditional role of ordination and it's spiritual authority, and indeed, reaffirm it by making it such a central issue. If you really want to challenge tradition, you should challenge the whole concept as it is currently designed. There seems to be a few of these ideas circulating the Seminary, so I will be interested to see if it has any effect on the study.
Oh my....doesn't life get complicated:
I am not sure that we have rules barring multiple ordination, in the same way that we don't exclude multiple baptism. I think there is general recognition that yo-yo commitments to faith and service are a little shabby, so we don't recommend them.
On the other hand, if like Paul we 'die daily' .....?
Victor,
Are you saying that SDA's allow an individual to be baptised more than once?
Tim
Tim - Clement
-------------
"I am not sure that we have rules barring multiple ordination, in the same way that we don't exclude multiple baptism. I think there is general recognition that yo-yo commitments to faith and service are a little shabby, so we don't recommend them." --victor
Beneath the problem of repeat baptisms is the belief that if a person "backslides" the baptism didn't "take" & the repentant person needs express a new commitment. I.e., baptism is an exclusively human action. For Adventists (as inheritors of the radical Reformation) , there is such reluctance to regard ordinances as sacramental that we end up not acknowledging the divine participation in crucial Christian moments. Better to regard a spiritual re-commitment as a response to the Spirit, with us in a real way since baptism, & proof that baptism did "take".
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
I have heard of the same individual being baptized several times.
Elaine
John Mark said: " Personally, I find it interesting that the liberals accept the traditional role of ordination and it's spiritual authority, and indeed, reaffirm it by making it such a central issue."
Ordination represents the tradition and current rules of engagement for authorization to minister in this denomination. You conservatives want to throw out the existing rules of engagement when women enter the circle. Why?
I recall a Lake Union Conference Tresurers who as an ordained officer of the Seveth-day Day Adventist Church, combined auditing the Broadview Academy and an affair with one of the female students living in the Academy dorm. That Sabbath began a week of prayer at the academy. The treasurer had the 11 oclock sermon at E.M.C.
That afternoon the young lady confessed her sin and named her partner. The news reached
E.M.C. before vespers. The treasurer lost his credentials and job by Sunday noon. He lost his wife by Sunday evening.
I would like to know what infusion he took with him with his resume as he looked for employment.
Tom Z
"Ordination represents the tradition and current rules of engagement for authorization to minister in this denomination. You conservatives want to throw out the existing rules of engagement when women enter the circle. Why?"
Those wanting to throw out the existing R.O.E. by definition are not conservative, at least not on that issue. I'm not necessarily placing myself in that camp, I think there may be some case to be made for ordination procedure being adiaphora, and therefore culture and tradition should perhaps play a role.
Tim
Within some cultures or brands of Adventism, re-baptism is not-uncommon.
In the traditional Western model, Baptism follows doctrinal studies, a commitment to Christ, and commitment to the values espoused by the Church. It is then followed by acceptance to church membership. It is intended to be a life long commitment.
In other cultures, disfellowship for marital infidelity (for example) is more common than we wish to acknowledge. People so involved will be readily re-baptised. Some of these large revivalist events will include significant numbers of spontaneous re-baptisms.
In some cultures "success = baptisms" and the pressure on Reverends to report numbers is significant. For them, they all count.
Fay Crombie wrote:
"Ellen said that the smell of flowers was always part of the 100 visitations that she had from Christ...(this may shed some light on the roses)"
Can you document that?
"Ordination is to the office of preaching, baptizing, and celebrating the Lord's Supper."
Are we saying that someone who is not ordained does not have the gift of preaching?
Are we saying that someone baptized by someone who is not ordianed will not be allowed into heaven?
Are we saying that celebrating the Lord's Supper without ordination is sin?
Maybe we should give a little more thought to the implications of some of our statements.
BTW, with all due apologies to the author of this article, stating that ordination is "the culmination of the call to ministry," is strictly an opinion and represents a bias against the concept of the priesthood of all believers from the moment of their Acts 2:38 experience. My greatest fear regarding the upcoming theology of ordination study is that it will be a search for biblical support for such biases as opposed to an honest search for understanding of what the Bible is saying, even if it disagrees with our biases.
While I support the principle of women's ordination, I am concerned that anyone ordained into the current system without regard to gender becomes invested in maintaining the status quo and will become no less intransigent than those who now man the barricades to prevent change. May they prove me wrong is my prayer.
Victor - thank you for your answer.
Hopeful - I think that the underlying issue for SDA's behind both ordination and baptism is the question about God's action (if any) in each ritual. If God truly does something, and these are not just public professions of faith or setting apart, then what is that, and what are its affects on the individual. Only when these questions are answered can SDAs begin to move forward with questions of women's ordination / multiple baptisms.
Stephen Terry -
"My greatest fear regarding the upcoming theology of ordination study is that it will be a search for biblical support for such biases as opposed to an honest search for understanding of what the Bible is saying, even if it disagrees with our biases."
It seems in the quote above that you are prejudicing the outcome of an "honest search" by suggesting that if such a search leads to the current position, it was biased, but if it leads to the conclusion that you like, it was not. This is the inherent problem with sola scriptura. We all bring our own interpretation to the texts and then argue it out. Who is the arbitrator of the truth? (The bible tells us that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth - but perhaps this is too much for now!).
Tim
Tim - Clement
-------------
Ah, Women's ordination.
Over the years I have watched the North American Division among others attempt to get the rest of the world to accept its view of this matter. Hasn't this been voted down several times at the General Conference? And now we have "commissioned ministers" a way to get around the "problem".
I doesn't matter to me, as women already work closely with me in my churches. I have no problem with women being ordained in the fullest sense.
But the disrespect for cultures who hold another view does bother me. Is North America the arbiter of world church policy? If others disagree with us are they immoral for their stand?
The arrogance of some in North America who feel that this is the case astounds me. The Bible is not clear on the matter, one way or the other, therefore it is not a moral issue. And ordination could cripple our work in some cultures.
Liberal Adventists have a hard time believing that they do not have all the answers. They should let those in other situations than theirs work it out on their own rather than dictating to them what is "right."
Re: question of EGW's sensing the fragrance of flowers during visions--
from
The Significance of Ellen White's Head Injury, by Molleurus Couperus
Adventist Currents, June 1985
"...she [EGW] smelled the fragrance of violets, and at another time she was "gathering the flowers and enjoying their fragrance."72 At another time "she knelt by the bed, and before the first word of petition had been offered she felt that the room was filled with the fragrance of roses. Looking up to see whence the fragrance came she saw the room flooded with a soft, silvery light."73
"Arthur White, when describing a visionary experience of Ellen in 1901 in which there was "a sweet fragrance, as of beautiful flowers," added: "She knew what it meant." Apparently it was a frequent part of Ellen's visions to notice this fragrance. ... Ellen has stated:
'"Well, while I was praying and sending up my petition, there was, as has been a hundred times or more, a soft light circling around in the room, and a fragrance like the fragrance of flowers, of a beautiful scent of flowers."74 If one takes seriously the statement "a hundred times or more," the circling light and the fragrance of flowers must have been present in nearly every vision.'
----------------------------
72. E. G. White, Sketches of Ellen G. White, 310; an authentic interview between Elder G. W. Amadon, Elder A. C. Bordeau, and Dr. Harvey Kellogg in Battle Creek, Michigan, on 7 October 1907; A. L. White, The Early Elmshaven Years. 23-24; Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ (1892; reprint Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1940), 121.
73. E. G. White, Life Sketches of Ellen G. White. 310; interview between Elders G. W. Amadon and A. C. Bordeau and 15r. Harvey Kellogg; A.- L. White, The Early Elmshaven Years. 23-24; E. G. White, Steps to Christ. 12 1.
74. Manuscript 43a (I 90 1). in A. L. White, The Early Elmshaven Years. 53-54.
http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/headinjury.htm
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
"If God truly does something, and these are not just public professions of faith or setting apart, then what is that, and what are its affects on the individual. Only when these questions are answered can SDAs begin to move forward with questions of women's ordination / multiple baptisms." Tim-Clement
Tim, I believe that "God truly does something" in these events, but no faith community has answered completely those questions about God's action on an individual. Even when believed to be sacramental, God's part never overrides human choice & imperfection. Think of conversion/baptism w/ its individual differences & subsequent sin, marriages that are destructive or break apart, & ordinations that end in dishonor. I wonder if anyone can fully explain them. The greater challenge IMO is countering the loss of faith these inconsistencies bring about, especially when too much has been claimed on the sacramental side.
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
But the disrespect for cultures who hold another view does bother me. Is North America the arbiter of world church policy? If others disagree with us are they immoral for their stand?
The arrogance of some in North America who feel that this is the case astounds me. The Bible is not clear on the matter, one way or the other, therefore it is not a moral issue. And ordination could cripple our work in some cultures. Liberal Adventists have a hard time believing that they do not have all the answers. They should let those in other situations than theirs work it out on their own rather than dictating to them what is "right." -Allen Shepherd
Au contraire. In requiring that the church must act in worldwide uniformity, there's disrespect of the needs/cultures of N. America, Europe, & Aus/NZ. I've seen no demand that those in different situations do the same, only the request that we not be dictated to on this issue that cripples our work.
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
I think Elder Yankson's article shows uncommon "common sense," and I would like to thank him for his hard-to-refute assertions. Most of the thread has not been in response to the article, but simply reiteration after reiteration of people's views regarding women's ordination.
"your friend" said, "Sometimes I wonder whether the main purpose of the Spectrum blog is support of female ordination and confusion on the issue of Creation." Oops! didn't you forget support of gays and lesbians?
The author of this article mentions Acts 13:2-3, in which Paul and Barnabas were set aside and ordained as Apostles, as the basis for ordaining women. But, the example of Acts 13 is strong evidence that men were only to be ordained, since this took place after Jesus' death, and it correlates with the ordaining of 12 men as his first Apostles. Jesus could have ordained at least a few women before his death, setting an example to be included into the NC, but he didn't. And we know that after the Testator dies no change can be made in the New Covenant. One after thought, in Acts 13, it says that the "Holy Spirit " said to set aside Paul and Barnabas for their specific Apostolic ministry, if it was God's will for women Apostles in the NT church, and to be ordained by the laying on of hands, then why didn't the Holy Spirit tell the Elders to ordain at least one or more women Apostles? These facts taken together, explode the fallacy being promoted on this forum, regarding ordaining women to be Apostles in the NT era.
The truth and nothing but the truth.
Truthwave, so you insist on truth and nothing but the truth, which is truth without love.... in that case, who cares....
"And we know that after the Testator dies no change can be made in the New Covenant."
This is clearly not true, but keeps being claimed by "Truth"Wave.
Why did Paul dismiss the requirement for circumcision when Jesus did not?
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
@Marianne: Is it real "love" that you promote, or false love? The Hippies of the 1960's promoted "free love", but was in truth a cloak to cover sin. Telling the truth is true love. Would you lie to your family members so they would like you more if in your heart you knew it was not the truth, but indeed a lie? I simply base my conclusions on the teachings and clear examples that Jesus left for us in the OT and the NT. And regarding women's ordination we have clear examples of Jesus giving us a model of male leadership in the OT and the NT, and yet you refuse to acknowledge it, and want to replace it with a politically correct model like the world wants. So much for your love without substance.
The truth and nothing but the truth.
@hopeful: It is true, my friend, for this reason: Look at the example of Jesus, He was circumcised on the eighth day. John the Baptist was circumcised on the eight day, and they were Jews who were given the "Oracles of God" to share with the Gentiles. I have not read anywhere in the Gospels where Jesus told a Gentile to be circumcised, but he never said to be not circumcised either. Paul's view was similar to Jesus, circumcision is biblical, but if you are an adult Gentile, and received Jesus let it be, But for babies Jew, or Gentile, circumcision on the eight day is a good thing. And we know now based on modern medical research, that the 8th day that the human body of a male baby is still the best time to perform male circumcision: "On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present actually is elevated above one-hundred percent of normal—and is the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case under normal conditions. If surgery is to be performed, day eight is the perfect day to do it. Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak." Therefore, we can conclude that Jesus and Paul taught a practical teaching applying common sense to in the Jewish OT practices and applied them to the Gentiles. So there is no conflict regarding the NC being binding after Jesus' death. Jesus' and Paul's teaching were congruent regarding circumcision.
The truth and nothing but the truth.
Truthwave,
NOT supporting women as recipients of the Gifts of the Spirit (do you believe in this Biblical truth?) would be the "politically correct" thing to do in the evangelical, fundamentalist world.
James White published articles in the Adventist Review straightforwardly called this view held by mainline churches, "worldly," and anti-scriptural based on the Biblical principle of Spiritual Gifts.
@Up with Women: Who said anything about not supporting women and their Spiritual Gifts? My wife has a HUGE spiritual gift given to her by God, when it comes to playing the piano in church, that I do not have. I don't view my wife as being inferior to me, just different. EGW was very inspired by God, and wrote many things that no one has ever written about, regarding the deep things of God. This issue is about professed Christians, both men and women, who want to change the divinely inspired examples that Jesus and the Apostles left for us to follow, but now in modern times men and women want to morph them into something strange, modeled after the pattern that world around us wants and desires. This issue is not a civil rights issue, its a biblical order issue. The Apostles that were ordained before Jesus was put to death were all male, and after his death the Holy Spirit called only male Apostles (i.e. Paul and Barnabas), this is bullet proof evidence of a all male Apostolic model that we must continue to follow in modern times, because its solidly based on the Bible, not the whims of the fickle sinful culture around us.
The truth and nothing but the truth.
Truthwave
James White's and Uriah Smith's Adventist Review articles were not about musical gifts. They specifically addressed the gift of women to not only speak and be pastors, but to be "exhorters."
I'm delighted your wife is a gifted pianist. What if she or your daughter were gifted with gifts of pastoral ministry? To NOT support this gift, according to the Adventist Review, is to be in the same camp as "worldly" churches who deny women can be pastors.
You are on very shaky Biblical ground when you define who the Holy Spirit can gift and try to limit to whom and which gifts can be given. I would not want to give account on Judgment Day for that view"
"Lord, I didn't realize that women are also your Spirit-filled servants with powerful gifts for speaking and leading. I always thought because you just chose men as your 12 originally (well, besides Phillip's four daughters, and the women Paul mentioned as leaders) that you didn't want women to have gifts of leadership."
The Righteous Judge: "Where were you when I placed my hands on many women, who were supposedly unclean and outcasts, and empowered them and blssed them? Where were you when I gifted thousands of women servant leaders to preach, teach, organize, exhort, pastor, lead for the last days? You limit my power and show your total lack of knowledge in the way I empower "people" with just the gifts needed right where they are. I'm sorry you were so closed to my open gifts which are spoken about plainly throughout scripture. Please don't stand in the way of my gifted ones in speech, pastoring, leadership, exhortation. Weren't you watching how I worked in China, Australia, and other geographical regions around the globe? How dare you limit my gifted ones?"
"Truth"Wave,
Biblical circumcision wasn't health advice, but the sign of God's everlasting covenant.
Apparently you believe that Paul didn't break new theological ground. That's what it takes to maintain your baseless FictionWave of "no change after the testator dies."
Genesis 17 (NIV)
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
@Anonymous1: Jesus and the Holy Spirit limited the Apostolic leadership of the church to men. Do you deny this? If the Godhead wanted a male/female Apostolic model surely Jesus or the Holy Spirit would have done so. But it wasn't God's will. It is so plain the OT and the NT. All of these modern creative arguments given on this forum just don't hold water, against the bullet proof examples we have in the Bible.
The truth and nothing but the truth.
The issue is not spiritual gifts, its is it biblical to lay hands and ordain women to the Apostolic leadership positions in the modern Christian church? We just don't have any bullet proof examples of that in the Bible to follow, but modern theologians are trying to invent one, but they are lame at best.
The truth and nothing but the truth.
@hopeful: I agree it was part of God's covenant in the OT, just as the dietary laws still work in the NT, so does circumcision. That is why I posted the medical evidence that proves it. If circumcision was purely ceremonial, like the sacrificial system, then all male babies born after Jesus died on the cross would not have their level of blood clotting at their highest level in the life of the child, on the 8th day, from ancient times to 2011!!
The truth and nothing but the truth.
Truthwithoutlovewave; the fact that some people have misused the term love, doesn't change anything. Truth without love is worth nothing, according to the Bible. But actually Steve Moran is quite right in pointing out that in your case it isn't even the truth. All of you claims have been refuted over and over again, and you just keep repeating them as if this would make them true...
@Marianne Faust: You say that my claims have been refuted. I say, show me the strong evidence from the Bible, while you, and at least 90% of the Spectrum members bring forth texts not directly related to the issue, or cultural reasons as your evidence. Additionally, your position does not agree with our historical SDA position on this issue of women's ordination. Again, I say to you and so many others on Spectrum who mimic the ideology of the hippies of the 1960's, "all the world needs is love, sweet love", free sex, along with a some LSD and a Marijuana joint. Which lead to the worst moral bloodletting in our Nation's history. Basically, it was love without a basis in truth. I want to know love with truth, you want to have love without truth. That is where we differ.
The truth and nothing but the truth.
Truthwave
Would you prayerfully and sincerely consider studying these 8 articles from the Adventist Review as our church wrestled with this same issue in the beginning?
from p. 58, a summary of "YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY" :
JAMES WHITE, URIAH SMITH, AND THE "TRIUMPHANT VINDICATION
OF THE RIGHT OF THE SISTERS" TO PREACH'
"All of these articles, beginning withJames 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 Adventist
movement and setting it apart from the established churches which denied
women an active role in preaching and teaching."
And this on the role of Spiritual Gifts of the Holy Spirit:
"Their conviction of the right of the sisters to publicly proclaim the Word was based on their
understanding of spiritual gifts as given to men and women equally
according to the will of the Spirit. Their defense of women's preaching,
particularly against those who would cite the Pauline injunction that women
should keep silent in the church, was based on their interpretation of the
Bible and modeled the principles of Adventist hermeneutics used to establish
the doctrines and practices of the church."
Did they base this on study of the scripture?
"Most specifically in this discussion, the principles of biblical interpretation used in this study of women's role included comparing Scripture with Scripture, understanding the context of
a biblical text, and examining the functions that women filled in biblical
history. These principles led the early Adventist Church to defend
vigorously the right of the sisters to engage in public ministry against those
who 'do not like to hear the Marys preach a risen or coming Saviour.'"
Anonymous1: I don't have any problem with women preaching or doing evangelism. Maybe I didn't make myself clear, I have an issue with women being ordained by the laying on of hands in positions that would be the modern equivalent to the 12 Apostles in the NT, and or Paul and Barnabas.
The truth and nothing but the truth.
"The truth and nothing but the truth."
.This sentence is tiring and completely inaccurate. To be consistent with what we see on his discussion it needs to be re-written to:
"MY truth and nothing but MY truth!!!"
Isn't that what you think when you post a reply? You feel that you are telling the truth, not a lie. Both sides cannot be right on this issue. I happen to base my evidence on the clear texts and examples in the Bible, while you use cultural reasons for your basis of faith, which could also be called the "traditions of men".
The truth and nothing but the truth.
Truthwave
I think I understand now.
The recognitiion of Spiritual gifts by God's people is symbolized by setting those apart (deaconnesses included now--see recent church manual of the laying on of hands to dedicate deaconnesses and to recognize their gifts).
You are hung up on genatilia issues related to public recognition of spiritual Gifts. It's clear.
What is your definition of a pastor vs. apostle?
"That is why I posted the medical evidence that proves it. If circumcision was purely ceremonial, like the sacrificial system, then all male babies born after Jesus died on the cross would not have their level of blood clotting at their highest level in the life of the child, on the 8th day, from ancient times to 2011!!"
Oh, my. Actually, the best time for infant circumcision is when the baby is between 24 and 72 hours old, as they tend to bleed less.
'Soon after birth the blood vessels in and around the penis increase in size and the foreskin changes and starts to grow over the head of the penis. “The longer you wait, the higher the risk your child will require stitches to stop the bleeding,” says Dr. Rui Martins, a Toronto-based doctor who performs circumcisions.' http://www.justthefactsbaby.com/pregnancy/article/whens-the-best-time-to...
But, in any case, "dialoguing" w/ you is pointless, NoTruthWave. Blessings on you & yours.
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
Thanks so much to Pastor Yankson for writing a a well research response in support of the topic of ordaining female ministers in the SDA Church. I have read many of the blog responses from the original story, and I am in agreement with all of the progressive SDA folks who support this issue, and I am frighten by some of the responses from the ultra orthodox wing of the SDA Church. I find that most of these individuals reasoning on this topic is seriously slanted by there regressive approach to biblical teachings on this issue. I have searched the scriptures on the topic of anointing a person for leadership, and could not find one verse that stated that this practice is only reserved for men. In reading this article Pr. Yankson provided valid example of persons and inanimate objects such as furniture, pulpits, buildings, and I'll add to this list feasts and musical instruments that were ordained for holy use(See Ps. 132:17; 1 Kings 12:32-33; 2nd Chronicles 29).
So in the eyes of the Lord specific inanimate objects are valued and are set apart for holy use, so here is a question that the SDA leadership should answer; Are lifeless objects more valued than women?
Why does the Wilson and many of his orthodox colleagues continue to abide by a non biblical stance on the topic of ordaining female ministers?
When will these individuals in leadership stop practicing discrimination against women?
I pray that they will study the bible earnestly and be willing to follow the leading of the holy spirit on the topic of ordaining female ministers to lead in the SDA Church.
Peace & Justice,
Progressive SDA
@ Progressive SDA1: "When will these individuals in leadership stop practicing discrimination against women?"
When? Never! Their influence will cease only when they are sent home and stop having political power in the church.
They should try to tell their wives that they (the men) are in control of them (the women). And if they do, there will be feathers everywhere in the house... kkk
The SDA needs the help of a saint... SAN ANTONIO (TX). To send Ted back home, and electing a president able to lead the church forward, not backward. (Provided he will still be the president at that time, which I doubt... Doing as he is doing he will have to resign before the GC in San Antonio...)
@hopeful: I know there are doctors out there who claim that, but there are many more doctors who have found that medical science has confirmed why the 8th day as recorded when John the Baptist was circumcised was of divine origin. So when you have biblical evidence that has been practiced for thousands of years and inspired by God, along with scientific evidence for the 8th day, that explodes your case.
The truth and nothing but the truth.
Circumcision, when it began, had nothing to do with today's medical science and for the Jews, everything to do with marking them for life. The Egyptians practiced circumcision earlier, as have other cultures.
Did God need to improve the creation of humans which he declared was "good"? If circumcision was necessary to correct His mistake, He could have simply created man without foreskin.
If "medical science" has shown the 8th day is the most appropriate time, please supply the sources of this statement. The American Society of Pediatricians are against circumcision as an unnecessary and painful procedure without the patient's consent.
Elaine
@Elaine: Do you disagree with what God told Abraham to do? Circumcision was put into place after mankind sinned. Before mankind sinned everything was indeed "good" but not for long, because as you know, Eve sinned, and then Adam as well.
Copied below, is the medical science link to back up what God told Abraham to do 4,000 years ago, which is amazing evidence that this is a God thing!
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1118
The truth and nothing but the truth.
Truthwithoutlovewave,
"I happen to base my evidence on the clear texts and examples in the Bible, while you use cultural reasons for your basis of faith, which could also be called the "traditions of men".
At least that is what you wish... why then do you keep avoiding the questions? By what reason do you follow certain isolated verses while ignoring the big picture of Jesus' teachings and while not following other similar verses which would not allow any woman to teach or to even say anything in church?
Using the Bible like this, you can easily justify slavery. But this and many other arguments have been pointed out to you...you ignore them or twist them, but you insist on your truth and nothing but your truth.
Your inward anger is very obvious for most readers. Why are you so angry? Don't tell me you hate Spectrum...you are one of those who really keep it going...at least a while...because after some time most of us realize that we are wasting our time with someone who just loves being right and doesn't care at all about doing right.
Could it be, that Adventism has become an idol for you? How would you feel, if one day you found out, that there was something wrong with Adventism? Would that be devastating, almost killing your identity? If it would, you have made an idol out of Adventism. If the center of your faith and the center of your identity isn't the Gospel but anything else, you have worshiped the wrong god.
The truth is not a set of beliefs. The Truth is a person. Worship the person not the set of beliefs. Then love is included. And by the way, I find it alarming that love for you seems to be equal with all that stuff you mentioned above...
It makes no difference whatsoever, as circumcision was eliminated for the early Christians and is no longer required. It was given ONLY to the Jews, and the Jewish requirements were abrogated for Christians.
Elaine
Just like the 10 commandments? Those were only given to the Jews too, right?
Michael
Yes, if you can show they were given to anyone but the Jews, please supply that information.
Elaine
Circumcision was given to Abrahan, not Moses. In fact God confronted Moses prior to his return to Egypt because his sons were not circumcised. Thus he would have had no standing among the Hebrews.
Paul is arguing about the Sabbath as was Jesus. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The question as posed by the woman at the well ended that it was not where, or when but to whom worship was merited.
The heavenly choir is clear that praise and worship are merited by the creative power and redemptive love of God. That praise and worship is merited 24/7. Even secular mandates limit work to 5 ten hours shifts. More than that demonstrates a reduction in productivity and quality of workmanship.
The basic problem within Christianity is either day is a chore rather than a blessing.and the pulpit is of very little help in most cases.
Adventism makes a huge mistake in focusing on time and end time rather than the Centrality of the Cross. The glory of Christianity is found in the empty tomb. Tom Z
So Elaine in all her wisdom thinks the 10 commandments dont apply to her.
Not surprising.
Michael
Although this thread has take a turn to circumcision, I'm still deeply concerned and appalled about the integrity of leaving the chairship of a meeting and going down to the microphone to speak against complete equality of women in "God's Church."
Not only does this intimidate voters, it shows a gross mishandling of the role of a meeting chair. Leadership through intimidation may work for a time, but the NAD has shown that it will not be intimidated. Kudos to Dan Jackson for standing up and representing the NAD in a polite but firm way, even though he obviously was in direct conflict with his boss's views.
May NAD show the way and provide true leadership in the equality of women and the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Ted thinks he is above the rules; when he wants something he ignores the proper protocol. Is this the kind of leader you want?
Elaine
Add your comment