Print

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

[Johann]

This quote does not refer to the ordination of women but an ongoing developing place for service of women that is better administered by women in certain fields where it would be harder for men to do.

You seem such an honest person, tinka, that it is dangerous to rouse your tranquility. For now you can follow Bob in his claim that Ellen White states a woman can be ordained for internal services in the church, as long as she keeps silent with her beliefs when meeting strangers. Then her ordination does now apply any more. I have a different definition for what Ellen White really is saying both here and elsewhere, but if you feel safer following Bob I leave that to your and his responsibility.

The problem is for readers of her books is to take one paragraph out of context with the rest of her written explanations and try to change in one certain spot that EGW does not intend in any way to change back and forth her given counsels.  That is why I believe her writings are true as she does not change her stance and a spot reader can not pick up right context.

How true, tinka, I agree with you 100% on this point.

This only went along with all the rest of context in her writings.  Just as today, people want to change the foundations that are never to change to please the modern day liberals to look for all justifications of doing their own thing.  Example, she gave her very thoughts and beliefs that were "inspired" at the moment of her baptism. So what did the church find and go against this?? Their continual reasoning on why over and over and over again why they should wear a wedding ring. The fact is the missionaries traveling to other countries sort of won out for that time, but low and behold look what it did and no EW did not concede it was right but did not make waves to their decisions. Of course she did not wear a wedding ring on her missionary trips as others found the excuse to do just that.

I get your point here, tinka, I just wonder why her son and daughter-in-law tell us that Mother told them to wear wedding rings as long as they worked for the Lord in Australia. Do you think they were liars? Can you help me with that question? Even Ellen White herself says that the rule against wedding rings applied to the United States. Could that be taken out of context? Should all the American women who wear wedding rings be ashamed of themselves? Should they be dis-fellowshipped?

Now on this subject it is exactly the same so far so good if they ruled against women wannabes for paychecks,  but the rings were now added in church manual against what she advised but later gave no waves on it and definitely gave her opinion and only a few to this day don't are free from that "controversery" and know what the consequences are to jewelry justifications as one will cause the downfall of others. It's all decked out on  "hope channel and now 3 abn too for the world to see that Adventists are in confusion. If you justify in one thing it might as well be many. like a little wine will do ya or etc,etc,

Just tell me one good reason or thing what a woman can't do if she really has right motives in mind that she can't do without a piece of paper and then try to cause great waves within and find any writings and try to place words that just are not there into something that was never intended.

I have a good suggestion for you, tinka. Next time you get to Elmshaven take a good look. Right there on top of one of the cabinets you find the paper which shows that Ellen G White was employed by the General Conference on an equal basis with the ordained ministers. The document has all the right signatures of the prominent Brethren she was working with. If you think that paper will keep Ellen White out of Heaven, perhaps you'd better take it down and burn it before Jesus sees it at His Second Coming? That is a question you have to decide yourself, tinka. I can assure you the paper was right there last time I went to Elmshaven, unless someone else has taken it down to prevent Jesus from seeing it.

This is strictly the work and actions of the"enemy".  On a really big scale cannot one open their eyes and see that the women's movement has went beyond their "gender"!   

Far beyond!

An interesting woman(as in Bible days) is how they accomplish greatly under "inspiration and motives."  a good man behind the pulpit is there because of "Intelligent, behind the scenes working women of service and helpmate that I am sure man cannot do all that is required right down to telling him simply to straighten his tie or comb a few out of place hairs so that his appearance goes well with "his presentations". or just keeping him in health to give his "ministering" to the people. 

I still cannot believe all of this "controversy" over the foundations of our beliefs, but know without doubt it was coming and it is here right now and on this spot! a sign of the times and EGW on going truth of events that she was shown of future just like John.

Makes no difference what other "professors" high credential holder's or their education write or  state, I got the best of it all and "blessed" to have answers in simplicity and believe me I took the time to read it all as this day of "controversy is within the SDA church to deceive the very elect!

It was a great blessing to me to have my mother take me on her lap reading to me from her writing. Later in school we used her writings as our textbooks, even as English readers. Had to digest it all, and I believe every word of it. This is why it hurts me so deeply when I see some of my Beloved Brethren put on their papal goggles to circumvent the truth in her writing. Seems like they are honest and meaning it well. Something is happening just before Jesus comes. But who would Satan deceive if not God's elect children?

[Johann]

Bob, at one time we had 3 separate threads going all talking about ordination of women.  So I merged them together into one thread.  However, I did not delete any posts.

Well done, Snoopy. Thank you!

[Bob Pickle]

As far as where the Bible forbids ordaining women to the role of gospel minister, we already quoted 1 Tim. and elsewhere, and I don't recall anyone offering an alternative interpretation.

Where in 1 Timothy does Paul mention ordination? Where does he forbid something he does not even mention? You are reaching far for that explanation, especially since you concede that deaconesses can be ordained.

The issue as far as I know has never been ordination. It has been the role the ordination service was setting apart one for, as Damsteegt stated at the 1995 GC Session. And thus, since 1 Tim. forbids certain roles, it forbids ordination to those certain roles.

As far as EGW goes, consider that in 1901 and 1902 she wrote the IA Conference and told them that as a general rule the conference laborers were to go out from the churches into new fields. Therefore, the idea of ordaining women to serve as local pastors of local churches would be a bit foreign to Ellen White, since that isn't even how she thought our male ministers were supposed to be used.

Apples, oranges, apples, oranges. . .  is what you keep repeating. Yes, if you agree that an apple story might well illustrate an orange truth.

How can you evaluate what is foreign to Ellen White? Why should then male pastors be ordained for what you - rightfully - claim was not the intention, but it is all right to ordain women for that work?

I never said it was all right for men to be doing something other than what God said they should be doing. Did I?

You are explaining that Ellen White thought it was all right for women to be ordained if they would only work for the local church.

I never said that. What I acknowledged was that women can be ordained to do the work we commonly associate with deaconesses. I never addressed the matter of local church elders.

Why are you so rigidly opposed to the Biblical Model where deacons both preach and baptize? Has the Bible pattern become obsolete?

I never addressed that question. Do you have any references to women serving as deaconesses who also baptized?

Whose tent? May the Lord have mercy! I see one of your points: Better not ordain a woman in case she gets a threat someone will burn her tent!

Who taught you than one? Weimar?

No. Women taught me that. Women generally would rather not engage in combat. They are more suited to nurturing roles by nature.

[Bob Pickle]

Bob, at one time we had 3 separate threads going all talking about ordination of women.  So I merged them together into one thread.  However, I did not delete any posts.

Well done, Snoopy. Thank you!

Yes, thanks, Snoopy. My confusion on the matter was due to Johann earlier wondering if posts had disappeared, and my inability to pull up posts with California in the subject field via a search. I don't know what was wrong with the search, but I assume that all the posts are there. I did find some.

[Johann]

As far as where the Bible forbids ordaining women to the role of gospel minister, we already quoted 1 Tim. and elsewhere, and I don't recall anyone offering an alternative interpretation.

Where in 1 Timothy does Paul mention ordination? Where does he forbid something he does not even mention? You are reaching far for that explanation, especially since you concede that deaconesses can be ordained.

The issue as far as I know has never been ordination. It has been the role the ordination service was setting apart one for, as Damsteegt stated at the 1995 GC Session. And thus, since 1 Tim. forbids certain roles, it forbids ordination to those certain roles.

It is quite interesting you stating that it is not the question of ordination. What is it then? This discussion started out by condemning the entities who feel this question is clear and therefore just want to go ahead and ordain women for the ministry.

Your new statements seems to change the emphasis and turn it in a different direction. The way I understand it is that you are now referring to the theology formulated on the basis of the words you find Paul using in 1 Tim. Even if you have not formulated this very clearly I have sensed this is what you actually had in mind.

Before I go any further I want you to tell me if I am right in concluding that you are basing your understanding of Paul on what some call something like a headship theology? Or do you want to define it with a different term?  Then it is easier for me to define where we are at.

[Bob Pickle]

This discussion started out by condemning the entities who feel this question is clear and therefore just want to go ahead and ordain women for the ministry.

This discussion began with condemning the apparently blatant violation of 9T 261.

Your new statements seems to change the emphasis and turn it in a different direction.

Not at all. This is has been what it's always been, to my knowledge. See Damsteegt's comments in the 1995 GC Bulletin.

Before I go any further I want you to tell me if I am right in concluding that you are basing your understanding of Paul on what some call something like a headship theology?

If I use the term "headship," I am not basing my understanding of Gen. 3:16 and Paul's writings on that theology. Rather, I am basing my theology on what Gen. 3:16 and Paul's writings explicitly say. We can never base our understanding of Scripture upon some sort of theology. That would be a violation of sola scriptura.

[Gregory]

Women generally would rather not engage in combat. They are more suited to nurturing roles by nature.

I served in the military, in combat, at a time when females were first being integrated into many of the military jobs.

My personal observation:  Most of the women with whom I served were of a higher quality than many of our males.  They had to be in order to survive and advance.

Yes, some women are not fit to serve in a combat role in the military. But, so also some males are not fit to serve in that role.  People should not be judged by their classification in a class. Rather they should be judged by their ability to perform as individuals

I have spent most of my life at 6 feet tall.  Recently, due to age, I have shrunk and I am no longer 6 feet tall.   I am taller than most women. As a class, women are generally shorter than males.  However, in the hospital where I work, I work with women who are 6 feet tall.

People are more than a generalized class, they are individuals.

I am in a unique position in my job.  I am supervised by a male who is probably 5' 8" and a woman who is 5' 11" or mayber 6'.
I will take her supervision any day over that of my male supervisor.  She is of greater quality as a supervisor.

[Johann]

If I use the term "headship," I am not basing my understanding of Gen. 3:16 and Paul's writings on that theology. Rather, I am basing my theology on what Gen. 3:16 and Paul's writings explicitly say. We can never base our understanding of Scripture upon some sort of theology. That would be a violation of sola scriptura.

False. You are using a "system" of understanding avoiding individual perception to comply with how to justify a traditional Roman Catholic tradition. This will never bring you into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, which is the purpose of Scripture. In many cases this will bring a person into an egocentric understanding of the divine.

[Johann]

Women generally would rather not engage in combat. They are more suited to nurturing roles by nature.

I served in the military, in combat, at a time when females were first being integrated into many of the military jobs.

My personal observation:  Most of the women with whom I served were of a higher quality than many of our males.  They had to be in order to survive and advance.

Yes, some women are not fit to serve in a combat role in the military. But, so also some males are not fit to serve in that role.  People should not be judged by their classification in a class. Rather they should be judged by their ability to perform as individuals

I have spent most of my life at 6 feet tall.  Recently, due to age, I have shrunk and I am no longer 6 feet tall.   I am taller than most women. As a class, women are generally shorter than males.  However, in the hospital where I work, I work with women who are 6 feet tall.

People are more than a generalized class, they are individuals.

I am in a unique position in my job.  I am supervised by a male who is probably 5' 8" and a woman who is 5' 11" or mayber 6'.
I will take her supervision any day over that of my male supervisor.  She is of greater quality as a supervisor.

You said it! A good answer to a statement so ignorant of true fulfillment in a God-centered life. I have heard similar statements from a certain group of homosexuals who disregard female dignity.

[Bob Pickle]

People are more than a generalized class, they are individuals.

True. And in the situation I had to deal with, the men were willing to deal with it and felt it must be dealt with, their wives tremblingly supported them, and the rest of the women opposed anything being done. I highly doubt that that sort of general reaction is atypical.

Another thing, maybe I've already shared this. There was a seminar at one of our colleges that showed a movie about two lady instructors who were teaching women to survive in the wild. They then left them to fend for themselves with a designated leader, with the expectation that they would end up at a certain destination at a certain time. It started out well, and then ended up in bedlam and revolt.

The final scene was the two instructors with all the ladies gathered in a room, all of them griping about each other. Our teacher, a lady, asked us what went wrong. I didn't have a clue, but some of the ladies in the class knew the answer: There was no man in charge. I had no idea about that sort of dynamic, no idea that women don't work well together if there is a woman in charge. But at least some of the women in the class already knew.

[Bob Pickle]

False. You are using a "system" of understanding avoiding individual perception to comply with how to justify a traditional Roman Catholic tradition.

Aren't you being pretty judgmental, Johann? How do you know what I'm thinking inside my head? If I say that I'm basing my theology on the text, not the other way around, how can you say that's false if you can't read my heart?

You said it! A good answer to a statement so ignorant of true fulfillment in a God-centered life. I have heard similar statements from a certain group of homosexuals who disregard female dignity.

My understanding is not based alone on the troubling experience I just referred to, in which the men felt the situation had to be dealt with, and the women either tremblingly supported their husbands or opposed anything being done. My understanding is also based on the SoP.

"All members of the family center in the father. He is the lawmaker, illustrating in his own manly bearing the sterner virtues: energy, integrity, honesty, patience, courage, diligence, and practical usefulness" (1T 547).

You can find similar statements that emphasize the stronger qualities of women too. It's a simple fact that men tend to be stronger in some qualities, and women in others. It's not a put down to anyone to recognize that fact.

Anything in that list that you feel the average woman excels in equal to or more than the average man?

[Snoopy]

Another thing, maybe I've already shared this. There was a seminar at one of our colleges that showed a movie about two lady instructors who were teaching women to survive in the wild. They then left them to fend for themselves with a designated leader, with the expectation that they would end up at a certain destination at a certain time. It started out well, and then ended up in bedlam and revolt.

The final scene was the two instructors with all the ladies gathered in a room, all of them griping about each other. Our teacher, a lady, asked us what went wrong. I didn't have a clue, but some of the ladies in the class knew the answer: There was no man in charge. I had no idea about that sort of dynamic, no idea that women don't work well together if there is a woman in charge. But at least some of the women in the class already knew.

I am speechless.  I recently worked for a man who had no leadership skills whatsoever.  As a matter of fact, his lack of management abilities caused some substantial problems in the organization.

[Bob Pickle]

I don't think the women in our class were trying to say that men have superior leadership skills. That's not how I remember it.

Wish I knew the name of the film. Anyone else ever seen it?

[Gregory]

I had no idea about that sort of dynamic, no idea that women don't work well together if there is a woman in charge.

What planet have you visited where you saw such women?

In the hospital where I work, the top 4 executives are female.  On lower levels, the genders are mixed with substantial numbers of females among the males.

I am in a unique position where I observe the top 4 very closely.  None supervise me.  However, I report to one each week and at other times as I chose.  I periodicly meet with the other 3 at times mutually agreeable to us.  Right now I have 30 minutes scheduled with one of them for April 4.  I do not always agree wth them and they do not always take my advice.  But, I can assure you that all four of these executives are competent and do not need a male to tell them what to do.

In addition to managing the teaching hospital where I work, the female director is guiding the construction of a one billion dollar hospital which will replace our present one in 2015.  The is the second such construction project that she has been invnolved  in.

I also have opportunity to observe managers on a lower level, some of whom are male and some are female.  The majority are good.  A few are exceptional and a few are quite poor.  And by the way, among both genders, some are homosexual--we do not discriminate.  With the large number of employees, and in our society today, one could expect that some would be homosexual.

Where I work, the females do not need a male to supervise them.  I cannot think of any who do need a male to supervise them. 

[Murcielago]

Arguably, the greatest period of peace, prosperity, progress, and expansion in the British Empire was under the leadership of Queen Victoria, who was the last British monarch to rule the government. After Winston Churchill, one of the most respected Prime Ministers was Margaret Thatcher. Queen Elizabeth the first was a powerful leader who seized the throne and brought an end to the Catholic suppression of the realm. When the Emperor Justinian was fleeing Byzantium to escape the revolt, it was Theodora who took control and laid the plans that saved the empire from anarchy. I could go on  for a very long time giving examples of women who were powerful and very capable leaders. The theory that women can't lead is not backed up by history any more than the theory (see the book "When God was a Woman") that men can't lead.