Print

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

[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.

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

True
However they do have to engage in considerable explaining to present how they interprete the text.
Also,
they claim others don't take the Bible as authoritive if they don't follow their reasoning, and most would object to that idea as well.

[Bob Pickle]

True
However they do have to engage in considerable explaining to present how they interprete the text.

Quoting 1 Cor. 11 doesn't seem like "considerable explaining" to me. Of course, if they pile it on, it could come across that way. But a short explanation citing 1 Cor. 11 could easily suffice: If Paul permits women to pray or prophesy in church in 1 Cor. 11, he can't be prohibiting all speaking in church in 1 Cor. 14.

Also,
they claim others don't take the Bible as authoritive if they don't follow their reasoning, and most would object to that idea as well.

If the one side uses a Bible passage to show that Paul can't be prohibiting all speaking in church in 1 Cor. 14, and the other side uses an argument that can't even be found in the Bible to show that we can disregard what they say 1 Cor. 14 says, there does appear to be a marked difference between how the two sides view Scripture.

[Dedication]

Well, we've covered that before --  (I realize you believe "churches" means authoritive meetings, though I don't really see it)
Paul says women are to keep silent IN CHURCHES  1 Cor. 14:34
 But there is no mention of prophecying IN CHURCHES in 1 Cor. 11

1 Cor. 11 It's all about covering the head.   
Men are not to cover their heads, while women are to cover their heads.
That is preplexing too -- for in the Jewish culture men always covered their heads (prayer shawl) when they prayed or read scripture in the synogogue.

Also -- what have we done to the literal translation of "covering the head" in today's society? 

[Gregory]

Bob said:

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.

Bob, you are wrong.  You may believe your statement that the book is published as if it is the view of the Seminary.   But, that position is not accurate.

This is how the Andrews University Press describes the book:

An ad hoc committee on hermeneutics and ordination from the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary provides thoughtful answers to good questions:

Acaeemic institutions typically publishe works simply because they present a statement on an academic issue that is of academic interest.  That is true whether the book is written by one person or by several.  E.g.  Take the example of Dr. B.  The Pontifical Gregorian University published his work on the Sabbath.  Yet no one with a correct understanding of what are published by an academic press could say that such publication was a statement that either the University or the Roman Catholic Church agreed with it.

The Andrews University Press publishes a lot.  Such cannot be taken as a statement that the published works represnt the official view of either the University of of the SDA Denomination.

The same is true for works published at LOma LInda.

Examine the statment by the publishers as I have cited it above:  It clearly states that it was written by an "ad hoc" committee.  Do you underestand what those Latin words mean?  Check any responsible dictionary.   Those Latin words mean in simple language that the book was written with a specific agenda in mind.  Yes, that agenda was to present a specific view on female ordination.  That is what an academic press does.  It presents a specific view.  Bob, read  peer reviewed articles in any respectable scientific journal.  The published articles always present a specific view.  They are not intended to argue all sides of a question.  The arguements for other positions come in articles that rebut them.

 

[Daryl Fawcett]

And the "Prove All Things" book was written to rebut the "Women in Ministry" book.

Compare the two and tell me which one contains substance and which one lacks substance in the Scrpitural and SOP reference sense.

[Gregory]

PROVE ALL THINGS is now online and may be read at: 

http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/proveallthings.html

It has been suggested that WOMEN IN MINISTRY represents the view of the Seminary.  I have posted previously to state that such is false.  In addition there is an interesting statement made on page 19 of PROVE ALL THINGS:

Second, the twenty auathors of the book (WOMEN IN MINISTRY) have invited those who disagree with the volume's findings to engage them in a dialogue:  "This volume represents the understanding of the Seminary Ad Hoc Committee on Hermeneutics and Ordination.   We do not claim to speak for others, either at the Seminary or in church adminnistration.  Some may disagree with our findings.  That is their privilege.  We welcome their responses and invite them to dialogue."

The above should be pretty clear that the authors of WOMEN IN MINISTRY did not suggest that this book represented the  view of the Seminary. 

It should also be noted that on the same page of PROVE ALL THINSG, it is suggested that the   book WOMEN IN MINISTRY was developed following a request to the Seminary by several NAD leaders to provide a response to issues that were being raised regarding female ordination.
IOW, those faculty members did not initiate this task on thier own.

[Johann]

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.

Some of us have heard that kind of arguments before. I recall some "theologians" claiming there was no teeth nor substance in the Seventh-day Adventist doctrines because of our disregard for the "Biblical" teaching of eternal hellfire. They claimed it was impossible to preach the gospel to people without this threat if they would not accept!

It may be true that there is more hell fire in some of the proclamations of the agents against the ordination of women, if that is what you want. To some this seems to be a sign of sanctification.

[Johann]

When I was at the GC session in 2005 I visited the independent stand of Adventist Affirm which to me is a strong indication this is a separate association, separate from Andrews University, General Conference, or the Ministerial Association. They clearly have their own agenda. At least one  of those at the stand was an old friend, and we talked for a while.

[Daryl Fawcett]

Were you also at the GC Session in 2000 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada?

My wife and I were at that one.

[Johann]

Were you also at the GC Session in 2000 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada?

My wife and I were at that one.

No, I have only been to the following:

1958  Cleveland
1966  Detroit
1975  Vienna
1995  Utrecht
2005  St. Louis - 47 years after the first one. It has really been interesting following the development of the Seventh-day Adventist church through all of those years. At my age I do not expect attending any more sessions, also hoping there will not be many more.

[Bob Pickle]

Bob said:

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.

Bob, you are wrong.  You may believe your statement that the book is published as if it is the view of the Seminary.   But, that position is not accurate.

If you take a poll, you will likely find that many people believe that that book presents the view or the predominant view of the Seminary.

[Bob Pickle]

It should also be noted that on the same page of PROVE ALL THINSG, it is suggested that the   book WOMEN IN MINISTRY was developed following a request to the Seminary by several NAD leaders to provide a response to issues that were being raised regarding female ordination.
IOW, those faculty members did not initiate this task on thier own.

What NAD leaders made that request? On what basis did the ad hoc committee represent only one view? Did the NAD leaders intend for it to be that way?

[Daryl Fawcett]

The book I ordered, namely "Women in Ministry", arrived in the mail yesterday.

I now have both books, "Women in Ministry" and "Prove All Things", with a lot of reading and comparing to do.

[Battle Creek]

What NAD leaders made that request? On what basis did the ad hoc committee represent only one view? Did the NAD leaders intend for it to be that way?

That book, Prove All Things, is an interesting document. Even on the front page it claims to be a response to Women In Ministry. And it answers your questions right from the beginning. Since I can't copy from the book on the net I have to do it by memory.

It states that several Union Presidents from North America, who were dissatisfied with the GC votes, requested some of their friends at Andrews University to make a thorough study of how to present their views on the basis of Scripture, the SoP, and on the history of our church. It took them two and a half years to produce the book.

Now we know that it was the North American Division which requested a permission to ordain women within their area, even if other parts of the world were not prepared to do that. Does anyone imagine the NAD would make such a request unless they were fully convinced that they were doing this on solid Scriptural grounds?

If nothing else, they had all been delegates at the GC session where they heard Dr. Damsteegt's presentation, and they had most probably also read both his and other's arguments against their own, which they did not find his based on solid Scripture, and therefore they made their request to the GC, which was voted down.

Since they were already convinced in spite of hearing the arguments against it, would you think they should go to Dr. Damsteegt and his associates, requesting them to write down the arguments against their own views? So they asked those who agreed with them to write down their views to counteract what they considered a false presentation.

Dr. Damsteegt makes it clear that the basic "problem" is their different ways of interpreting Scripture, so he makes a comparison of the two methods used by the two views. Before commenting on that I'd like to mention what difference I have noticed in the writings of one of the authors, Samuel Koranteng Pipim. Already around 1920 the Seventh-day Adventist Church rejected the Biblical interpretation of the Christian Fundamentalists because it was not in agreement with EGW. I feel that Pipim is more liberal towards EGW and turns more back towards the fundamentalists which SDA rejected. I am way too much of a conservative to follow that line.

I did not notice Damsteegt going far into the Pipim line. He says he agrees with the basic EGW interpretation of Scripture, and he even goes partly along with WiM in following James White,  but here appears the difference which becomes so dramatically basic for Dr. Dam. He claims that another dimension must be inserted into the James White understanding. That, he claims, is the headship doctrine.

Now I have not been able to detect that headship doctrine anywhere within the SDA 28 fundamentals, so to me that doctrine seems to be borrowed from other religions or churches. I find that its adherents try to find texts to prove their points, but quite a few serious Bible students are not convinced.

Somehow that headship doctrine seems more in harmony with the teachings of some of the male Church leaders already in the 4th century who firmly believed that females were but second rate citizens.

[Daryl Fawcett]

I can't remember if already stated it here or not, but I am aware of one Conference President who read both books and said the "Women in Ministry" one lacked substance, whereas the "Prove All Things" one had substance.  He was looking into the WO issue at that time and hadn't yet come to a conclusion back then. 

He has since come to a conclusion by saying  that he believes that the ordination of women, even as a local elder, isn't biblical, although in his experience two of his best elders while pastoring churches were women.