Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => Womens Ordination & Related Issues => Topic started by: Artiste on September 11, 2012, 01:40:16 PM
-
Women's Ordination advocates are all for treating women equally, even when new responsibilities might require women to leave their children for others to raise, put themselves at physical or psychological risk, or even forgo having a family so they can reach for a more elevated position in society.
It is possible that those advocates might think that Freudian issues are involved when others protest against WO.
What about the Freudian references? Does believing in the Biblical doctrine of male headship stem from some unresolved mother issues?
And what is the current feeling as to the validity for "Freudian" thinking?
A 2004 Los Angeles Times article authored by Todd Dufresne, a professor at the Northern Ontario Medical School, started out with this statement:
Arguably no other notable figure in history was as wrong as Freud was about every important thing he had to say.
However, Freud's influence lives on...in some circles, anyway. After commenting on the large number of books, reviews, and lectures that promotied Freud's thinking, and then listing the numerous beliefs of Freud that have been debunked, the article goes on to say,
But, luckily for him, academics have been -- and still are -- infinitely creative in their efforts to whitewash his errors, even as lay readers grow increasingly dumbfounded by the entire mess
.
So it is not completely surprising that some pseudo intellectuals continue to bring up Freud. But is it valid?
-
AntiWOs obviously feel that men will lose their "manhood" if women are granted spiritual leadership roles.
For them it appears to be a "them or us" position.
Why not reconcile and work in unity?
The question that arises is --
Why are men afraid they will lose their "manhood" and their spiritual leadership roles if women are also allowed to be recognized and ordained (set apart for the work) ministers.
As far as children--
The world is overpopulated so there is no problem if a woman forgoes having a family in order to serve the Lord.
In fact there is both Biblical and spirit of Prophecy support for that.
Not sure why someone would think they put themselves to physical or psychological risk if women want to be set apart to spend their life working for the Lord.
I suppose the persecution that comes to all who work for Christ may be a risk, but are they supposed to fear that and refuse to answer God's call.
A lot more women died from childbirth than from following a career. Of course now modern medicine has reduced the risk, but in years past being pregnant was a pretty scary thing.
In our society most women work outside the home.
Whether women are ordained to ministry or not, that situation won't change.
Every woman is faced with the decision to take time out for family or not.
-
Does believing in the Biblical doctrine of male headship stem from some unresolved mother issues?
Where in scripture does it say
MEN must be the head of the church?
-
I have often wondered about this. I do know that there are many reasons why people oppose WO. We could eliminate the Freud question, and just refer to men who have particular issues with women in general, such as fear, hatred, disdain, disrespect, or view them as objects, and so forth. Unfortunately there have been boarding schools within some Adventist circles that have fostered an unhealthy environment in regards to the relationship between the sexes, and produced men and women who who didn't know how to relate in a healthy manner, some for a time, and others never. I went to one of them, and in this school girls were not allowed to learn computer, and they were held back in a variety of areas. They were to learn the wifely things, gain a modest scholastic education (unrecognized by any school outside of these circles), while boys were to learn toward more advanced goals. This policy was a part of the school culture and boys learned that these were the proper roles. Many of these "schools" tended to be the little groups who came to the ASIs looking for donations, although some of them are now the mainstream of ASI.
-
Does believing in the Biblical doctrine of male headship stem from some unresolved mother issues?
Where in scripture does it say
MEN must be the head of the church?
This is a Catholic tradition that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has never adopted.
-
Christ is the head of the church.
For a man to set himself up as the HEAD in the church -- as "god" sitting in the church, is described in 2 Thess. 2 and it is not a favorable mention.
Yes, the church is to have leadership -- but it is to be a "servant leadership" not an authoritarian leadership.
When we look at the texts where "woman are to be silent in church" everyone (as far as I can see) already agrees that doesn't mean they can't teach, share, prophecy and even preach in church.
However, they are to first go home and LEARN, -- women in those days didn't have the opportunity to learn scripture like men. A few did learn, but most did not. So how could they teach? They were not to disrupt the service with their questions, but to go home and the husbands were to teach them! The men were to open the often closed door so the women could become intelligent on spiritual matters.
But obviously from the same scriptures we see women who DID learn and knew the truths and they were in leadership positions, teaching and sharing the gospel right along with the men.
Paul neither elevates women over men nor men over women when it comes to spiritual teaching, but is rather concerned that men and women be granted equal opportunity to learn and grow in submission to one another and to God (1 Timothy 2:11; cf. Ephesians 5:21).
Women should not aspire to gain the "headship" . For women to "have authority over men" the present situation would have to be reversed -- Ordained Women in all leadership roles while men only receive "commissioned" licenses and are denied ordination.
Of course that is WRONG!
For the work to flourish there is to be total consecration to the Lord of both men and women who go out to prepare people for the soon coming of Christ the Lord.
-
I hope you all realize that there are also a lot of women who don't believe that the ordination of women is biblical, therefore, this is far from being a man thing.
-
I hope you all realize that there are also a lot of women who don't believe that the ordination of women is biblical, therefore, this is far from being a man thing.
Very good point, and there are lots of women who live with abuse for whatever their reasons. Also, I know that in the schools such as I was talking about, the unhealthy attitudes towards women were also built into the women.
-
It gets a little tiresome hearing men speaking for women.
-
It gets a little tiresome hearing men speaking for women.
Good point. (Btw, here in the PUC we get to hear the women speak for themselves more... [ducking and running] Lol! I couldn't help it. ;) )
-
And I'm not speaking for myself right here...?
-
I hope you all realize that there are also a lot of women who don't believe that the ordination of women is biblical, therefore, this is far from being a man thing.
I wonder if anyone of them would be able to show me from the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy that the ordination of women is not biblical? Nobody has shown me that yet.
-
And I'm not speaking for myself right here...?
(Apparently women are only allowed to speak for themselves when they agree with PUC, CUC, and european men on WO.)
-
And I'm not speaking for myself right here...?
(Apparently women are only allowed to speak for themselves when they agree with PUC, CUC, and european men on WO.)
Not at all! We here-at least in the PUC-believe women should speak for themselves, have their own say, and be who and what they want to be. And I doubt anyone here would presume to speak for you. You speak for yourself.
-
I hope you all realize that there are also a lot of women who don't believe that the ordination of women is biblical, therefore, this is far from being a man thing.
I wonder if anyone of them would be able to show me from the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy that the ordination of women is not biblical? Nobody has shown me that yet.
I know one lady personally who was ordained as a local elder, was the Head Elder of one of our local churches, who told me recently that she no longer recognizes her ordination since believing that it is not biblical. Perhaps I can ask her how she came to that conclusion.
-
And I'm not speaking for myself right here...?
(Apparently women are only allowed to speak for themselves when they agree with PUC, CUC, and european men on WO.)
Not at all! We here-at least in the PUC-believe women should speak for themselves, have their own say, and be who and what they want to be. And I doubt anyone here would presume to speak for you. You speak for yourself.
Why thank you!
-
I know one lady personally who was ordained as a local elder, was the Head Elder of one of our local churches, who told me recently that she no longer recognizes her ordination since believing that it is not biblical. Perhaps I can ask her how she came to that conclusion.
It's not hard if one continually reads the AntiWO presentations.
However, I'm finding more and more holes in the AntiWO presentations.
Especially when one goes back to the original scripture before the "all male" interpretations squashed women's involvement.
For example the Biblical reference to Phebe:
Quoting from the KJV
Romans 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant (diakonos) of the church which is at Cenchrea:
16:2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becomes saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she has need of you: for she has been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
Now do a little study on Paul's use of the word "diakonos".
In Paul's writings (in the KJV) the word is translated:
"diakonos" translated as:
minister 17 times
Rom. 13:4; 15:8; 1Cor 3:5; 2Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Gal. 2:17; 3:7; 6:21; Col 1:7,23,25; 4:7; 1 Thes 3:2; 1Tim. 4:6
deacon 3 times
Phil 1:1; 1Tim 3:8,12
and servant 2 times (and both in connection with Phebe)
Rom 16:1,27
Why did the translators switch from "minister" (or even deacon) to lower Phebe's status to "servant"?
But scripture is plain Phebe was a "diakonos" and she was a woman!
So all the arguments that the following text is proof positive that women can't be included because they aren't a husband of one wife is obviously false.
Let the deacons (diakonos) be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 1 Tim 3:12
-
Another "hole" in the antiWO presentations is with 1 Tim. 3
Yes, it sounds so "final" in a lot of the bibles, till one realizes in the original it's different!
In verse 3:11 the word "gyne" is the word for "women" or "woman", though it is translated as "wife" in scripture quite a few times as well. But notice the "their" is added -- the possessive is missing in the original. It's just talking about "women" not "their wives".
3:11 Even so [must their] wives "gyne" [be] grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
If we do a literal translation it would read like this: (from YLT)
3:8 Ministrants (diakonos) in like manner to be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not given to filthy lucre,
3:9 having the secret of the faith in a pure conscience,
3:10 and let these also first be proved, then let them minister, being unblameable.
3:11 Women in like manner to be grave, not false accusers, vigilant, faithful in all things.
3:12 Ministrants (diakonos), let them be of one wife husbands;leading the children well, and their own houses,
3:13 for those who did minister well a good step to themselves do acquire, and much boldness in faith that [is] in Christ Jesus.
Remember Phebe was a "diakonos" or Ministrant.
Since verse 11 does not have the possessive, it is not talking about the diakonos' wife, but a woman gyne diakonos.
-
Youths oppress my people, women rule over them. O my people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path. Isaiah 3:12
The Pacific Union Conference is trying to move women into conference and union leadership position as soon as possible.
"Your guides lead you astray...?"
-
Isaiah 3 is talking about all the mighty men of war being gone and only children and women left.
Read the verse in context.
It's not talking about depriving women of leadership rolls.
Isaiah 3... behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah...The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient, The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator. ...When a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, [saying], Thou hast clothing, be thou our ruler, and [let] this ruin [be] under thy hand: ... my people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
-
Isaiah 3 is talking about all the mighty men of war being gone and only children and women left.
Read the verse in context.
It's not talking about depriving women of leadership rolls.
I don't think so...
-
Were there actual women ruling in Isaiah's time?
No -- during Isaiah's time it was --
Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, kings of Judah. There were no women rulers.
It was the next king that REALLY lead Judah down the wrong path (and killed Isaiah) and he was a man.
Manasseh 697-642
Amon 642-640
Josiah 640-609
Jehoahaz 609-608
Jehoiakim/Eliakim 608-597
Jehoiachin 597
Zedekiah
All men -- all men after Isaiah except for Josiah, were they which lead and caused [Judea] to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
It was they that caused all the mighty men to perish and left Judah in desolation. Just like Isaiah prophecied, the royal princes were taken off to babylon, many of the mighty men taken away or killed, and the city left without strong rulership. Zedekiah was a weak kneed indecisive ruler, who begged Jeremiah the prophet SECRETLY for help but openly went the wrong way, till Jerusalem was destroyed.
-
It is threads like these which clearly reveal who is truly in power on this forum.
And it is not those whom one might think.
-
Vox Clamantis In Deserto - a voice in the wilderness. Great pseudonym. I will be listening to the voice and must assume you will live up to your name-sake.
I notice there are missing "voices" from this love-fest thread. The civility is astounding. My guess is this a welcome change. Relax, I will not alter this tranquility.
In any event, Voice, welcome aboard and I will be listening!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Vox Clamantis In Deserto - a voice in the wilderness. Great pseudonym. I will be listening to the voice and must assume you will live up to your name-sake.
I notice there are missing "voices" from this love-fest thread. The civility is astounding. My guess is this a welcome change. Relax, I will not alter this tranquility.
In any event, Voice, welcome aboard and I will be listening!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Greetings friend!
I hope you had a blessed Sabbath.
Unfortunately, you are correct. The voices are missing. The few which can be heard are being drowned out by the remnant shouting 'Give us Barabbas'.
We need Elijah to come on the scene. :thumbsup:
-
"Elijah" is not going to come down from heaven to straighten everyone out.
The coming of Elijah was fulfilled in the prophet John the Baptist prior to Jesus first coming, and by Ellen White prior to His second coming. However, few listen to EGW any more.
When in my youth God opened the Scriptures to my mind, giving me light upon the truths of his word, I went forth to proclaim to others the precious news of salvation. My brother wrote to me, and said, "I beg of you do not disgrace the family. I will do anything for you if you will not go out as a preacher." "Disgrace the family!" I replied, "can it disgrace the family for me to preach Christ and him crucified! If you would give me all the gold your house could hold, I would not cease giving my testimony for God. I have respect unto the recompense of the reward. I will not keep silent, for when God imparts his light to me, he means that I shall diffuse it to others, according to my ability." {ST, June 24, 1889 par. 9}
-
"Elijah" is not going to come down from heaven to straighten everyone out.
The coming of Elijah was fulfilled in the prophet John the Baptist prior to Jesus first coming, and by Ellen White prior to His second coming. However, few listen to EGW any more.
Friend, it appears you need to do a thorough study on the 144,000.
The final Elijah has not yet come.
-
I agree that the final Elijah has not come.
-
Perhaps a thread on Elijah's second advent could be started elsewhere.