Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Pickle]

The explanation given below differs drastically from those of earlier issues, in my opinion. Rather than showing that Paul was not against women taking part in public worship services, the author below, an editor for the Review, says quite the opposite.

In the older arguments, the explanation used other Bible verses to show what Paul meant. The editorial below instead relies on a cultural argument, asserting how women were treated back then, without citing any Bible verses to support that assertion.

This is a problem. How can we go outside of the Bible to some unspecified authority and use that to interpret the Bible, and still have the Bible be the final authority? Advocates of Sunday sacredness do this all the time. Ignatius and others, they say, used "Lord's day" to refer to Sunday, and thus when we read "Lord's day" in Rev. 1, it must be referring to Sunday. But if we take the Bible alone, the only possible conclusion is that the Sabbath is the Lord's day.

A PLEA FOR REVERENCE

Fed up with the continual gossiping of women in the church, Cyril J. Starling, Anglican rector of Holy Trinity church in Newport, England, aired his irritability in the weekly parish newsletter.

Referring to the babble that greeted him whenever he entered the church to conduct a service, he quoted the words of Paul: "As in all the churches of the saints the women should keep silence . . . for they are not permitted to speak . . . for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. . . . Let all things be done decently and in order [sic]" (1 Cor. 14:33-40).

He reported later that the next time he entered church he found everything "very quiet."

Admitting that he did not agree with Paul, he said that what he was pleading for was less conversation before a service and a devout concentration on eternal things.

We suppose that what Mr. Starling meant when he said that he did not agree with Paul was that he did not believe that Paul's message applied to the churches today.

In this he was right. The restriction on women was based on both Greek and Jewish custom that dictated that women should be kept in the background in public affairs. Current custom does not require this. Hence, today women function publicly in our churches.

Clearly, in the scripture cited, Paul was not trying to quiet a babble such as confronted Mr. Starling when he entered his church. What apparently he meant is clarified in 1 Timothy 2:11, 12: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

But Mr. Starling's church is not the only one that has been plagued by babble. We decry the babble that ascends from some Seventh-day Adventist congregations before services begin on Sabbath morning. Not that we recommend a stony silence devoid of friendliness and greeting, for this, too, would belie the character of our God; but we are suggesting that on the part of worshipers there be a recognition of the presence of God, a realization of His greatness and majesty, a humble opinion of self, and an awareness of utter dependence on God.

We believe that often this attitude can be best experienced in silence, that it is, in fact, impossible in the midst of babble. While there may be occasions where song services are appropriate, we believe that even such activities can detract from the devotional attitude of those who desire quietly to commune with their God while waiting for services to begin.

"Humility and reverence should characterize the deportment of all who come into the presence of God." —Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 252.

D. F. N.

[Bob Pickle]

Similar reasoning was used in RH Sept. 8, 1955 (http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19550908-V132-36__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=11).

I find this 1955 one a bit odd. It takes the position that women could not speak in public in Paul's day, and yet also takes the position that the stuff in 1 Cor. 11:6 about women with their heads covered had to do with women appearing in public. But if that is the case, then 1 Cor. 11:5 must be referring to women praying and prophesying in public! So the article appears to me to be internally inconsistent.

At any rate, sometime between 1901 and 1955, the editors of the Review changed the way they understood 1 Cor. 14, and how they approached that verse. How and why did this happen?

[Johann]

Many years ago the airplane I was traveling on made a stop at Barcelona in Spain. Many years later I was on assignment by 3ABN and got to Barcelona by car. The place was still Barcelona, but this time I met many important people, including Elder Follkenberg, and one morning the two of us had breakfast together. Would it be a different place if I get there by train? I would meet different people there.

We might get through the Bible comparing our text with various verses. We might read it in Greek, in English - or Icelandic, as long as we understand the message. I think the way Ellen White did it was to determine her conclusion/destination was in full harmony with the truth she had already established.

I saw many more beautiful things in France, Switzerland, Germany, when i traveled that way to Barcelona. But I still got to Barcelona. This is how it is when we study the Word of God with an open mind and permit the Holy Spirt to guide us. Then our jawbones do not get stuck on a hard root with no nourishment.

[Bob Pickle]

But Johann, the Review in 1901 and earlier took the position that women could speak in church in Paul's day, using the Bible alone, and the Review in 1955 and 1970 took the position that women could not speak in church in Paul's day, using a non-biblical assertion based on some undisclosed non-biblical source. That isn't the same destination at all, and it represents a definite change in how we interpret Scripture.

Some have asserted regarding higher criticism that it was already making inroads earlier than 1955. This definite change in hermeneutic may be small evidence that this indeed was occurring.

Now we have progressed, if I can use that word wrongly, to the point that some Adventists out there embrace evolution and gay rights. Let's get back to the Bible.

[Artiste]

In this he was right. The restriction on women was based on both Greek and Jewish custom that dictated that women should be kept in the background in public affairs. Current custom does not require this. Hence, today women function publicly in our churches.

I see what you mean there, but it is a little confusing. 

[Johann]

But Johann, the Review in 1901 and earlier took the position that women could speak in church in Paul's day, using the Bible alone, and the Review in 1955 and 1970 took the position that women could not speak in church in Paul's day, using a non-biblical assertion based on some undisclosed non-biblical source. That isn't the same destination at all, and it represents a definite change in how we interpret Scripture.

Some have asserted regarding higher criticism that it was already making inroads earlier than 1955. This definite change in hermeneutic may be small evidence that this indeed was occurring.

Now we have progressed, if I can use that word wrongly, to the point that some Adventists out there embrace evolution and gay rights. Let's get back to the Bible.

Back to the Bible is just right. Yet you keep claiming there are things in the Bible which the present administration of GC has not referred to at all.

It was Linda Shelton who pointed out to me that while she was reading her Bible confined to Southern Illinois she thought she had all the answers. It was not until she traveled all over the world and met Adventists in various countries that she started learning what it is to be a Seventh-day Adventist.

You may have heard of the man who thought it would be easiest for him to be a real Christian if he lived alone out in the desert. He discovered it was impossible because he had the biggest problems with himself.

Doctrines expressed from a vacuum - in solitary confinement in a study - become incomprehensible. Without the 3 dimensions as explained in 1 John 3 they are useless.

[Bob Pickle]

Johann,

Your comments aren't helpful. It is as if you are intentionally trying to evade the points being made. What's wrong?

Consider what has occurred in this thread:

• I posted a 1970 article and a link to a 1955 article which interpreted Paul's statements to mean that women cannot take part in public worship services, which is a radical departure from earlier Adventist interpretations.
• I pointed out that the 1970 article used a non-biblical cultural argument rather than other Bible verses to explain 1 Cor. 14, which was a radical departure from how earlier Adventists approached the passage.
• You proposed that two people can arrive at the same destination by different methods.
• I responded that these writers were arriving at opposite destinations, the one group deciding from the Bible that Paul allowed for women to speak in church, and the other group deciding from a cultural reason based on some undisclosed non-biblical authority that Paul prohibited women from speaking in church.
• Rather than address the points under consideration, you evade them and start bringing up world travel, what the present GC administration has or hasn't said, and Linda Shelton.

If you don't want to contribute to the discussion, then stop posting.

But consider carefully what you most definitely can agree with me about, even if you think women should be ordained.

• That only biblical arguments should be made in favor of WO.
• That using a non-biblical cultural argument in the 1970 article to arrive at an interpretation that contradicts what Paul said elsewhere in the same book was wrong.
• That unions should not rebel against the authority of a GC Session since a GC Session is the highest authority on earth God.
• That unions should not ordain women without some sort of clear inspired mandate to do so, unless a GC Session paves the way for that to happen.

I think that any loyal Seventh-day Adventist who is in favor of WO should be able to agree with these four points, and thus I think that you should be able to as well. If preferable, I can start a separate thread where you can state for all your agreement with these four points.

[Bob Pickle]

The July 3, 1952 issue of the Review (http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19520703-V129-27__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=12) also takes the position that Paul prohibited women to speak in church. So now we can see that the radical shift in the understanding of the texts in question occurred somewhere between 1901 and 1952.