Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

Then the second group writes a book explaining that women aren't required to absolute silence in church, Paul meant something else when he wrote that.

The first group writes another book affirming that women are not to present any type of teaching or leading activity in the church where men and women are gathered for worship,  but are to be silent.
And they can't understand how anyone could make the decision to write a book contrary to their stand.

That isn't quite the situation we have here, if I understand correctly.

Generally speaking, the pro-WO side believes that Paul was commanding women to be silent in church, but then say that we don't have to follow his instruction today. The anti-WO side, generally speaking, instead takes the position that Paul was not prohibiting women from any sort of teaching.

Regarding the makeup of Women in Ministry, I would think that if a book is represented as coming from scholars at our seminary, it would fairly represent the views of those at the seminary, and not be orchestrated in such a way that only one view is represented.

[Bob Pickle]

Special Committee, SDA Theological Seminary - Nancy Vyhmeister,  editor

EPILOGUE


So, what did we, the members of the Ad hoc Committee on Hermeneutics and Ordination, learn from our two-year study? Much, in every way! Short reflections on each of the five parts of this book condense our findings.

This is my question: Who put the committee together, and how were the members chosen? Was the process intended to fairly represent both views?

I asked this same question of J. David Newman regarding CUC's ad hoc committee, and never got an answer. If CUC put together a committee intentionally stacked to ensure that the outcome was pro-WO, that would be wrong.

[Bob Pickle]

It seemed a great disappointment to Bacchiocchi to discover that this journalist was a female, and he lost no time before showing his disdain. He refused to answer any of her questions, and just kept on following his own agenda, no matter what I did to get him to pay attention to the questions she was asking him.

Bacchiocchi knew how to be rude to men too. I can document that.

[Johann]

Regarding the makeup of Women in Ministry, I would think that if a book is represented as coming from scholars at our seminary, it would fairly represent the views of those at the seminary, and not be orchestrated in such a way that only one view is represented.

It seems to me that the other side had already presented their view as if that was the only truth, and therefore that view was not regarded as needing another possibility of prsenting their view.

[Daryl Fawcett]

Regarding the makeup of Women in Ministry, I would think that if a book is represented as coming from scholars at our seminary, it would fairly represent the views of those at the seminary, and not be orchestrated in such a way that only one view is represented.

It seems to me that the other side had already presented their view as if that was the only truth, and therefore that view was not regarded as needing another possibility of prsenting their view.

I don't think that is the case, as the "Prove All Things" book is the response to the one-sided "Women in Ministry" book.

[Murcielago]

Regarding the makeup of Women in Ministry, I would think that if a book is represented as coming from scholars at our seminary, it would fairly represent the views of those at the seminary, and not be orchestrated in such a way that only one view is represented.

It seems to me that the other side had already presented their view as if that was the only truth, and therefore that view was not regarded as needing another possibility of prsenting their view.

I don't think that is the case, as the "Prove All Things" book is the response to the one-sided "Women in Ministry" book.

So basically they are both one-sided?

[Johann]

Regarding the makeup of Women in Ministry, I would think that if a book is represented as coming from scholars at our seminary, it would fairly represent the views of those at the seminary, and not be orchestrated in such a way that only one view is represented.

It seems to me that the other side had already presented their view as if that was the only truth, and therefore that view was not regarded as needing another possibility of prsenting their view.

I don't think that is the case, as the "Prove All Things" book is the response to the one-sided "Women in Ministry" book.

Do I have to line it up? According to my memory:

1. Samuelle Bacchiocchi wrote a one-sided book against the ordination of women.

2. Pipim and others followed with more one-sided writings against the ordination of women. While Ellen White teaches that inspiration means God inspires the writer, but that the writer uses his own vocabulary (See the Introduction to the Great Controversy) Pipim already in his early books comes very close to claiming verbal inspiration, and  thereby lays the groundwork for an interpretation of Scripture which SDA do not accept.

This is the conclusion I have reached from years of reading all the material I have been able to get hold of from both sides of this question.

3. "Women in Ministry" was a response to what the authors thought were the false claims in the previous one-sided publications against OW.

4. "Prove All Things" was again a one-sided presentation as a reaction against "Women in Ministry". Part of this material had already been published before in magazine articles, ets.

[Daryl Fawcett]

One good thing coming from all of this is a study that will take an unbiased look at the whole concept of ordination to be ready for the 2014 GC Fall Council.  I expect it will eventually be available for us all to read.

In the meantime, we have these one-sided books and whatever else is out there to look at.

[Dedication]

That isn't quite the situation we have here, if I understand correctly.

Generally speaking, the pro-WO side believes that Paul was commanding women to be silent in church, but then say that we don't have to follow his instruction today. The anti-WO side, generally speaking, instead takes the position that Paul was not prohibiting women from any sort of teaching.

Then we have three groups!
1. Those who take Paul's words literal and apply them today (Some very conservative Baptists, Hutterites, Mennonites )
2. Those who take Paul's words literal and say it was for cultural reasons.
3. Those who say Paul  didn't mean it the way it reads and find another interpretation and apply that.

My point is that any person in any one of those groups could easily write a book explaining why they believe the way they do while the those in a different group would insist that it was wrong.

Regarding the makeup of Women in Ministry, I would think that if a book is represented as coming from scholars at our seminary, it would fairly represent the views of those at the seminary, and not be orchestrated in such a way that only one view is represented.

Have you read the book?
Anti-WO material was piling up and some people saw a need to counter balance the growing entrenchment.
These anti-WO were NOT fairly representing the views of the seminary, they were VERY one sided, very much orchestrated in such a way to make it seem only one view could possibly be considered as correct.

The whole purpose of the "Women in Ministry"  was to explore the other side and give a good explanation from scripture and history as to why they believed differently.  It was exactly an effort to help people understand that the seminary had OTHER views as well.

[Johann]

One good thing coming from all of this is a study that will take an unbiased look at the whole concept of ordination to be ready for the 2014 GC Fall Council.  I expect it will eventually be available for us all to read.

In the meantime, we have these one-sided books and whatever else is out there to look at.

It may seem that way. The "problem" is that quite a number of Division, Union, and Conference presidents have already read all of these books, and prayerfully decided that only Women in Ministry follows the Biblical interpretation of Ellen G White, and therefore in harmony with the accepted teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They want to be true to their heritage and believe in all of the doctrines of our church. I know a number of these people. They are firm in their  faith and are determined to be loyal and faithful, no matter what happens, so they will remain on board the ship until Jesus comes.

That is why most of them will not force this through until the GC counsel or session will either see the light as they do, or at least permit them to follow what they believe is the truth and essential in their part of the world.

I have greater fear for those who have already abandoned the Biblical interpretation of Ellen G White and thereby are opening the gates to reject it all.

Yes, we must pray for unity, and unity on the basis of TRUTH, which means Jesus.

[Johann]

Have you read the book?
Anti-WO material was piling up and some people saw a need to counter balance the growing entrenchment.
These anti-WO were NOT fairly representing the views of the seminary, they were VERY one sided, very much orchestrated in such a way to make it seem only one view could possibly be considered as correct.

The whole purpose of the "Women in Ministry"  was to explore the other side and give a good explanation from scripture and history as to why they believed differently.  It was exactly an effort to help people understand that the seminary had OTHER views as well.

That was the reason it was essential to publish Women in Ministry - the result of a two year study program at the Seminary.

[Daryl Fawcett]

I know a Conference President who read both books and feels that the Women in Ministry book lacked substance, lacked teeth, whereas the Prove All Things book had substance, had teeth in it.   His present stance is that WO is not biblical.

I also know a lady who was ordained as an elder and was a Head Elder of her church at one time.   She since studied this out for herself and now doesn't even recognize her ordination for the reason that she believes her ordination wasn't biblical.

[Gregory]

The division on this issue is firmly fixed.  Both sides beleive that they are in accord with Biblical teacheing. Both sides have sincere people who honestly want to do what the Bible teaches.

Daryl, I do not doubt that you know of peole as you have stated.  Just about anyone who has been involved in the development of this issue in the SDA Church would be able to say the same thing.

Regardless of which side is correct, I, along with others, beleive that President Wilson has done more (and is doing more) to bring this issue to the forefrornt than possibly any other person  could have done.  If in the end, those who believe that females shoud be ordained achieve their purpose, I believe that President Wilson will be able to take much of the credit for that.  On the other hand, if in the end the opposite happens, I believe that he will be able to take much of the credit.

NOTE: I have previously posted here on that issue.

[Bob Pickle]

That isn't quite the situation we have here, if I understand correctly.

Generally speaking, the pro-WO side believes that Paul was commanding women to be silent in church, but then say that we don't have to follow his instruction today. The anti-WO side, generally speaking, instead takes the position that Paul was not prohibiting women from any sort of teaching.

Then we have three groups!
1. Those who take Paul's words literal and apply them today (Some very conservative Baptists, Hutterites, Mennonites )
2. Those who take Paul's words literal and say it was for cultural reasons.
3. Those who say Paul  didn't mean it the way it reads and find another interpretation and apply that.

I think those who hold what you label as #3 would object to the idea that they aren't taking the Bible literally.

[Bob Pickle]

Regarding the makeup of Women in Ministry, I would think that if a book is represented as coming from scholars at our seminary, it would fairly represent the views of those at the seminary, and not be orchestrated in such a way that only one view is represented.

Have you read the book?
Anti-WO material was piling up and some people saw a need to counter balance the growing entrenchment.
These anti-WO were NOT fairly representing the views of the seminary, they were VERY one sided, very much orchestrated in such a way to make it seem only one view could possibly be considered as correct.

The whole purpose of the "Women in Ministry"  was to explore the other side and give a good explanation from scripture and history as to why they believed differently.  It was exactly an effort to help people understand that the seminary had OTHER views as well.

Take a look at http://www.andrews.edu/universitypress/catalog.php?key=147. Do you see any hint that the book was intended to show that there was more than one view at the seminary on the matter? It is described as coming from "the Seventh-day Adventist Seminary," as if this is the view at the seminary.

I realize that Adventist Affirm has already published a book on the question. But Adventist Affirm does not profess to speak on behalf of the seminary, or the Michigan Conference, or the world church. If a book is going to be put out by the seminary, and if different views are held at the seminary, then the book should contain essays written by those holding both views, or else the book should be clearly marketed as only presenting one view of two or more held at that institution.

In dealing with these questions, we need to avoid politics, because political maneuvering is a very poor way to decide theology. If those who obtain and read Women in Ministry do not know that more than one view is held by those at the seminary, and thus believe that our scholars are more or less united on the topic, then that seems to me to be akin to political maneuvering.