Advent Talk

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

If you feel a post was made in violation in one or more of the Forum Rules of Advent Talk, then please click on the link provided and give a reason for reporting the post.  The Admin Team will then review the reported post and the reason given, and will respond accordingly.

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: RH Feb. 4, 1988: Failure to disclose? If so, why?  (Read 5493 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4061
    • Pickle Publishing
RH Feb. 4, 1988: Failure to disclose? If so, why?
« on: August 15, 2012, 05:30:07 AM »
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19880204-V165-05__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=20

What we have in this issue of the Review is what I think is an informational insert for the discussions then going on regarding the ordination of women. It is part of what led to the 1990 vote against the ordination of women.

Note that this issue has two articles by our pioneers, one by James White and one by G. C. Tenney. Both articles explain 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2 in a way that permits women to speak in church.

What I'm wondering is why no articles by the pioneers were reprinted in this insert showing that while our pioneers were pretty much united in the above interpretation of 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2, they at the same time were also united against the idea that women could be elders and local pastors of local churches because of these same passages.

I haven't had time to thoroughly look at the insert, so I could easily have missed something, and probably have. Can anyone find anywhere where it acknowledged that our pioneers opposed women being the head of churches?

It seems that the Adventist Archives server may be unreachable this morning.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »