Liberals and feminists are holding the Adventist Church hostage in North America. The Bible clearly teaches that men are called to be the spiritual leaders in the home and church. This does not mean that men are more important or have higher value than women. All humans, male and female, were created equal. Because of the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden, God has given each gender specific “gender roles” to help bring a little peace in a world of chaos.
Instead of focusing on self-driven agendas, we need to support and hold our men accountable to their spiritual calling in the home and church. I personally have seen “many” Adventist women belittle and emasculate the very men they have been called to support and encourage.
We need to stop learning from worldly media how to interact with each other. Christian men and women are to seek to be like Jesus in all things. If we truly following God’s will in this matter, we would see more men standing up for Jesus in the home and church and less women trying to hijack key leadership roles.
Let’s pray that God will open our eyes and give us the desire to get to work seeking and saving the lost in the world around us.
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land (church). 2 Chronicles 7:14
“Thank you Dr. Pipim for your many years of service in the Adventist Church. You have proven to be a man of God who knows how to study and teach the wonderful truths found in the Bible.”
(((Take time to read this article)))
Does the Bible Support Ordaining Women as Elders or Pastors? Part 1
By Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, PhD
Introduction
Regardless of one’s position on women’s ordination, this one fact is incontrovertible: Ordaining women as elders or pastors is new light that the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist church is being urged to embrace. 1 For more than 100 years, Adventists have been unanimous in their view that no precedent for the practice of ordaining women can be found in Scripture or in the writings of Ellen G. White and the early Seventh-day Adventist Church . 2
By the 1970s, however, this established position began to be reversed in favor of ordaining women as elders and pastors.
This new trend was created by the converging interests of feminism; liberalism; church leaders’ desire to enjoy United States tax law benefits to ministers; questionable church policy revisions and Church Manual alterations allowing women to serve as elders; calculated attempts by some influential North American churches unilaterally to ordain women as pastors; the silence of leadership to this defiance of two General Conference (GC) session votes against women’s ordination; a well-orchestrated strategy by influential thought leaders and pro-ordination groups to domesticate the practice in the church; a determined effort by some church scholars to reinterpret the Bible and early Adventist history to justify the practice; the systematic and aggressive lobbying by liberal and feminist groups for the church to issue unisex ordination credentials for ordained and nonordained employees of the church; the hijacking of official church publications, institutions, departments, and certain other organs and events of the church for pro-ordination propaganda; and the silencing, coercion, or persecution of individuals who challenge the un-Biblical practice of ordaining women as elders or pastors. 3
Initially, the campaign to overthrow the long-standing Biblical position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church was spearheaded by a relatively few, but influential, liberal and feminist thought leaders within the church. But today, as a result of the converging interests identified above, and as a result of a wide range of arguments being employed, an increasing number of church members are not sure about what the real issues are in the debate over women’s ordination, nor about the Biblical correctness of the practice.
In this article, I will (1) briefly summarize the arguments that have been employed over the years in defense of women’s ordination, (2) identify the crucial issues in the campaign for women’s ordination, (3) discuss the role differentiation between men and women, and (4) set forth the Biblical and theological obstacles against ordaining women as elders or pastors.
I’m writing this article from the perspective of one who used to support the practice but who has since changed my mind on the strength of the evidence from the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, as reflected also in the understanding and example of the Adventist pioneers, including Ellen G. White. 4
The Evolving Arguments for Women’s Ordination
Since the 1970s, several arguments have been employed in the church in an attempt to overthrow the church’s long-standing position against ordaining women as elders or pastors. During this period two major pro-ordination works have come to embody the most reasoned defense of women’s ordination: (1) The Welcome Table and (2) Women in Ministry .
The Welcome Table. In 1995, fourteen (14) pro-ordination thought leaders produced the 408-page book, The Welcome Table: Setting a Table for Ordained Women. 5 Published shortly before the 1995 General Conference session in Utrecht , this volume was designed to convince the world church to approve the request by the North American Division to ordain women.
In this work some of the authors argued that Bible passages (like Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18, 19; 1 Peter 3:1-7; 1 Corinthians 11:3, 11, 12; 14:34, 35; 1 Timothy 2:11-14; 3:2; and Titus 1:6) which Adventists historically understood as having a bearing on male-female role relations in both the home and the church, are the product of the Bible writers’ faulty logic or mistaken rabbinic interpretations in vogue in their day.
Reasoning along feminist and higher-critical lines, some of the writers maintained that the apostle Paul erred in his interpretation of Genesis 1-3 when he grounded his teaching of role distinctions between male and female in Creation and the Fall. They claimed that the apostle Paul’s statements were merely expressions of uninspired personal opinionsopinions that reflect his culture and hence do not apply to us. To these authors, Paul was “a man of his own time.” He occasionally glimpsed the ideal that Jesus established during His time on Earth; yet he never fully arrived at “the Gospel ideal” of “full equality” or complete role interchangeability in both the home and the church. 6
Despite the wide publicity given it, The Welcome Table (1995) did not gain much credibility among thoughtful Adventists because its conclusions were based on liberal/feminist and revisionist interpretations of the Bible and Adventist history. Thus, at the 1995 Utrecht General Conference session, the world church overwhelmingly voted to reject the request to ordain women. The arguments in the book, together with other pro-ordination arguments up to 1995, failed to convince the world church. These can be summarized as follows:
1. The Bible is “silent” or “neutral” on the women’s ordination issue (that is to say, the Bible is “neither for nor against” women’s ordination).
2. The lack of Biblical precedence for women in spiritual leadership (as priests in the Old Testament, and as apostles and elders in the New Testament) and the presence of Biblical prohibitions against women serving in those roles, is due to the nature of the Bible as “culturally conditioned” (that is to say the Bible is the product and a reflection of its unenlightened or patriarchal culture).
3. Ordaining women as elders or pastors is a “power” issue (this argument transformed the Biblical teaching of male “headship” in both the home and in the church into a symbol of male oppression of women).
4. Ordaining women as elders or pastors in the church is a “cultural” issue (in the sense that it has to do with the “cultural readiness” of groups or regions of the world Adventist Church ).
5. Women’s ordination has to do with “equality,” “capability,” and “ability” of male and female (this argument transformed the women’s ordination issue into a “fairness,” “justice,” or civil rights issue).
6. The issue of women’s ordination is not theological but “ecclesiological” (by this argument proponents meant that the issue of women’s ordination could be settled not by the Bible, but by administrative “policy” of church leaders).
7. The issue of women’s ordination is an example of “unity in diversity” (this argument, which deals with pluralism in belief and practice, maintained that just as there is “diversity” in attitudes and practices within the church in such areas as Sabbath observance, worship styles, dress, participation in one’s tribe’s/nation’s war machinery, so also on the issue of women’s ordination there should be “diversity”). Some argued that “diversity” or pluralism in theological belief and practice was evidence of maturity, strength, and true unity, not of blind uniformity or lockstep conformity.
8. The issue has to do with the “Spirit’s leading” or “progressive revelation” (this argument seeks to make the women’s ordination issue a question of “present truth” or “new light”). 7 Not infrequently, the issues of polygamy, slavery, war, and divorce and remarriage were cited as Biblical examples to illustrate God’s “accommodation” to sinful human situations in the Bible writers’ timesconditions that led God, under His “Spirit’s leading,” to later “correct” these prior revelations. In this argument, Biblical examples and texts that teach male headship and female supporting roles, within the complementary relationship of spiritual equals in the home and church, were explained away as “culturally conditioned.”
When the above arguments failed to overthrow the long-standing Seventh-day Adventist position against women’s ordination, some pro-ordination church leaders in the North American Division urged pro-ordination scholars at the Andrews University Theological Seminary to “do something about it [ Utrecht ‘s decision against women’s ordination].” The result was the 1998 book Women in Ministry .
Women in Ministry . The second major pro-ordination work was published by some 20 scholars at Andrews University . 8 The book, Women in Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives (1998), prepared by an Ad Hoc Committee from the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary in Berrien Springs, Michigan, was supposed to offer the much desired justification for the new light of women’s ordination. 9
Unlike the authors of The Welcome Table , many of whom seem to put their liberal and feminist commitments above Scripture, the authors of Women in Ministry consciously underscore the claim that their approach to the Bible is different. They disavow the feminist and higher-critical method of their ideological cousins. 10 Although the actual practice in the Women in Ministry book was inconsistent with the authors’ claim, at least for the first time a group of church scholars attempted to present conservative arguments to justify women’s ordination.
The Seminary book presents new arguments and, in some instances, articulates more carefully old arguments to justify women’s ordination. The following are the essential contours of the Biblical and historical arguments advanced by Women in Ministry : 11
(1) Genesis 1-3 teaches that God did NOT institute headship and submission or male-female role distinctions at Creation. Adam and Eve enjoyed “full equality” of “shared leadership” or “shared headship.” Male headship and female submission were introduced by God after the Fall ; even then, this was a nonideal arrangement designed only for the governance of the home, not the of the church or covenant community.
(2) New Testament teaching on headship and submission (Ephesians 5:21-33; Colossians 3:18, 19; 1 Peter 3:1-7) suggests that today Christians should aim at reaching the Creation ideal of “total equality,” understood to mean the obliteration of any gender-based role differentiation.
(3) A careful study of the Bible reveals that there was actually at least one “woman priest” in the Old Testament. God Himself ordained Eve as a priest alongside Adam when, after the Fall, He dressed both as priests in the garden of Eden using animal skins. Prophetesses Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah exercised headship or leadership roles over men.
(4) The Bible also reveals that there were actually “women apostles and leaders” in the New Testament. Junia (Romans 16:7), for example, was an outstanding “female apostle,” and Phoebe (Romans 16:1, 2) was a “female minister.”
(5) The New Testament teaching of “the priesthood of all believers” suggests that women may be ordained as elders or pastors.
(6) When correctly understood, Biblical texts (like 1 Timothy 2:11-15, 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35, etc.) that seem to preclude women from headship responsibilities in the home as husbands and fathers and in the church as elders or pastors, are temporary restrictions that applied only to specific situations during New Testament times.
(7) Careful study of early Seventh-day Adventist history reveals that women actually served as pastors in those days and were issued ministerial certificates. Ellen G. White apparently endorsed the call of such women to the Gospel ministry.
(8) The 1881 General Conference session voted to ordain women. This vote, however, was apparently ignored or killed by the all-male General Conference Committee (comprised of George I. Butler, Stephen Haskell, and Uriah Smith).
(9) A landmark statement in 1895 by Ellen G. White called for ordaining women to the Gospel ministry. This statement could have spurred on the male brethren who were reluctant to implement the alleged 1881 General Conference decision.
(10) Ellen G. White was herself ordained and was issued ministerial credentials.
In two later chapters I will argue that the above assertions are based on speculative and questionable reinterpretations of Scripture as well as misleading and erroneous claims regarding Adventist history. Yet on the basis of such “Biblical, theological, and historical” evidence, Women in Ministry seeks to convince readers of the “new light” of ordaining women as elders or pastors .
But there is also a moral/ethical argument. Emphasizing the ethical necessity of ordaining women as elders or pastors, some of the Women in Ministry authors argue that “it is morally reprehensible to hold back from women the one thing that formally recognizes their work within the church.” “It is imperative” that the church act “with justice, with mercy, and with courage on behalf of its women.” The failure of the church to act ethically, or a delay on its part to do so, will compel “the forces of history” (such as the churches in North America that unilaterally engaged in “congregational ordinations”) to drag the church along. 12
Moreover, we are told, unless the new light of women’s ordination is implemented, the witness of the church will not only be discredited in countries where it is wrong to “discriminate” against women, but it will make God “look bad.” Thus, the church’s rejection of women’s ordination will be an affront to the character of God, even as slavery was in the nineteenth century. 13
If the reader were not yet convinced by the Biblical, theological, historical, and moral or ethical arguments of Women in Ministry , there is one final argument: We must listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit as He calls upon us today to change our patterns of ministry in response to the pragmatic needs of a growing church. Writes the editor in her summation chapter:
“If circumcision, based on divine [Old Testament] mandate, could be changed [by the apostles, elders, and believers, together with the Holy Spirit, at the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15], how much more could patterns of ministry [ordaining women as elders and pastors], which lack a clear Thus says the Lord,’ be modified to suit the needs of a growing church?” 14
Today, Women in Ministry has become the basis for some to see t he campaign for women’s ordination as an issue of the “individual’s moral conscience.” (This argument, which is another way of saying “I’ll have my own way, regardless of what others think,” offers a moral basis for advocates of women’s ordination to go against the decision of the world church on the matter.) The Seminary book is also the reason why some view the question of ordaining women as a “moral imperative” (in the sense that it is “immoral” for the worldwide church to refuse to ordain women as pastors). This argument offers the ethical basis to silence any objection to the practice and to coerce or persecute anyone who objects to the practice).
Women in Ministry is the most recent attempt by well-meaning church scholars to provide a much-desired Biblical, historical, and ethical justification for ordaining women as elders and pastors. But as some other church scholars have argued in their Prove All Things: A Response to Women in Ministry , the Seminary book suffers from some serious shortcomings. Prove All Things reveals that the Seminary book is based on: (1) ambiguity and vagueness, (2) straw man arguments, (3) substantial leaps of logic, (4) arguments from silence, (5) speculative interpretations, (6) questionable reinterpretations of the Bible, (7) distorted Biblical reasoning, (8) misleading and erroneous claims regarding Adventist history, (9) a seriously flawed concept of “moral imperative,” and (10) a fanciful view of the Holy Spirit’s leading. 15
The Evolving Arguments. Perceptive observers of the Adventist theological landscape will discover that the arguments for women’s ordination have evolved, some overlapping, and others contradictory, during the past four or more decades. In recent times there has been a 180-degree change in some of the arguments that had in the past been advanced in favor of women’s ordination.
For example, during the initial phase of the church debate, proponents of the practice argued that the Bible was either “silent” or “neither for nor against.” But now, since women’s ordination is believed to be a “moral imperative,” it means the Bible is for women’s ordination! The Bible is no longer to be seen as “neutral” on the issue of women’s ordination; Scripture is now decidedly for it!
Also, proponents in the past admitted that there was no Biblical precedent for women serving in the roles of spiritual leadership as priests, apostles, and elders in Bible times. But now, under the “Spirit’s leading” (or His work of “progressive revelation”), advocates are now preaching the “new light” that there were in fact women priests, women apostles, and women elders in the Bible!
Furthermore, because it was originally believed that the Bible was “neither for nor against” women’s ordination, the decision was to be determined by each “culture” according to the “cultural readiness” of the respective divisions. In other words, women’s ordination was to be settled by regional administrative “policy,” but the decision was not to be binding on all. Yet now, since women’s ordination is believed to be a “moral imperative,” it would seem to follow that, sooner or later, the practice would be urged as binding upon all, with moves to encourage it in all areas of the world church.
In view of the orchestrated attempt to impose women’s ordination on the Seventh-day Adventist Church , and in view of the confusing, sometimes plausible-sounding, arguments being advanced for women’s ordination, it is important that we identify the crucial issues that are at stake and find out what the Bible has to say on the issue.
_______________
Endnotes
1. Christians must always welcome new light from God’s Word, as long as the proposed new light does not contradict an established Biblical truth. For a careful summary of what Ellen G. White taught about “new light,” see P. Gerard Damsteegt, “When Is a Doctrine New Light?” at the Web site: AdventistsAffirm.org.
2. In my Receiving the Word: How New Approaches to the Bible Impact Our Biblical Faith and Lifestyle ( Berrien Springs , Mich. : Berean Books), pp. 123-126, I have challenged revisionist reinterpretations of Adventist beliefs and practice of ministry (see also pp. 138-140, nn. 34-44 of my book).
3. See Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, Must We Be Silent?: Issues Dividing Our Church ( Ann Arbor : Berean Books, 2001), pp. 161-189. Cf. C. Mervyn Maxwell’s “How Money Got Us Into Trouble,” in Here We Stand: Evaluating New Trends in the Church ( Berrien Springs , Mich ,: ADVENTISTS AFFIRM, 2005); Laurel Damsteegt’s “Shall Women Minister?”, ibid., nn. 28-30.
4. See, for example, my Searching the Scriptures: Women’s Ordination and the Call to Biblical Fidelity (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Adventists Affirm, 1995), my articles in Prove All Things: A Response to Women in Ministry (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Adventists Affirm , 2000), and part II of my book Must We Be Silent?: Issues Dividing Our Church (Ann Arbor: Berean Books, 2001).
5. The Welcome Table: Setting a Place for Ordained Women , edited by Patricia A. Habada and Rebecca Frost Brillhart (Langley Park, Md.: TEAMPress, 1995). The “fourteen prominent SDA historians, theologians, and professionals” who contributed essays to the book are: Bert Haloviak, Kit Watts, Raymond F. Cottrell, Donna Jeane Haerich, David R. Larson, Fritz Guy, Edwin Zackrison, Halcyon Westphal Wilson, Sheryll Prinz-McMillan, Joyce Hanscom Lorntz, V. Norskov Olsen, Ralph Neall, Ginger Hanks Harwood, and Iris M. Yob.
6. For a brief evaluation of the pro-ordination arguments by some of the authors in The Welcome Table , see my Receiving the Word , chapter 5, part 2, pp. 126-129.
7. During the discussions that culminated at the General Conference session in Utrecht , some voices heralded the ordination of women as elders and pastors as new light for God’s church in the last days. For example, in a letter dated June 1, 1995, given out to delegates at the 1995 General Conference session in Utrecht, the president of a major North American conference, in support of women’s ordination, presented new interpretations of “new light,” “present truth,” and “progressive revelation,” arguing that “present truth” represents “truths that were not present in earlier times”i.e., “the prophets and disciples of old” were not privileged to have the “new light” that our (then) twentieth-century progressive culture needs.
8. The 20 scholars whose works are published in Women in Ministry are: Nancy Vyhmeister, Jo Ann Davidson, Richard Davidson, Walter Douglas, Jacques Doukhan, Roger Dudley, Jon Dybdahl, Denis Fortin, Robert Johnston, George Knight, Jerry Moon, Larry Richards, Russell Staples, Peter Van Bemmelen, Randal Wisbey, Daniel Augsburger, Raoul Dederen, Keith Mattingly, Michael Bernoi, and Alicia Worley (the last two were MDiv Students at the time the book was published).
9. The generic phrase “women in ministry,” employed as a title for the book, can be misleading. For, the authors’ goal was not simply the ministry of women in the church (which has never been opposed by the Adventist Church ), but rather ordaining women as elders and pastors. For an insightful background into how this book came into being and its serious theological and historical defects, see Mercedes Dyer, ed., Prove All Things: A Response to Women in Ministry (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Adventists Affirm , 2000).
10. See Vyhmeister, “Prologue,” in Women in Ministry , pp. 3, 5, n. 1. Observe, however, that contrary to the church’s official position in “The Methods of Bible Study” document ( Adventist Review , January 22, 1987, pp. 18-20), shortly after the publication of Women in Ministry , Robert M. Johnston (a Women in Ministry author), for example, argued for the use of the historical-critical method. See his “The Case for a Balanced Hermeneutic,” Ministry , March 1999, pp. 10-12.
11. Source references from Women in Ministry for each of the following points, are provided in my evaluation of the book in Prove All Things , pp. 179-218; 287-312; cf. Must We Be Silent? , pp. 127-289.
12. Randal R. Wisbey, “SDA Women in Ministry: 1970-1998,” Women in Ministry , p. 251. For my response to the unilateral post-Utrecht ordinations, see my “How the Holy Spirit Leads the Church,” Adventists Affirm 12/3 (Fall 1998) :28-35.
13. Roger L. Dudley, “The Ordination of Women in Light of the Character of God,” in Women in Ministry , pp. 400, 413, 414; Walter B.T. Douglas, “The Distance and the Difference: Reflections on Issues of Slavery and Women’s Ordination in Adventism,” ibid., pp. 379-398; Nancy Vyhmeister, “Epilogue,” ibid., pp. 434, 435.
14. Vyhmeister, “Epilogue,” p. 436.
15. See Prove All Things: A Response to Women in Ministry ( Berrien Springs , Mich. : Adventists Affirm , 2000).
afellowservant
March 27, 2012
Have we not learned how to fear God and shun evil? Why are we not preaching and practicing godly fear if this is foundational to our salvation and the salvation of others! But before we go preach to the world to “fear God and give glory to Him”, we must first keep the fear of the LORD in our own hearts… Without this holy fear, seeds of pride, selfish ambition, and strife, which the enemy lays, will take root, grow and flourish, crowding out the love of Jesus! If we had kept this holy fear, many issues we now face in the church today would never be… like women’s lib which has infected our ranks… May God help us see our true condition! May He break us and humble us to the dust …May modern day prophets cry out, “REPENT, REPENT O house of Israel for the hour of His judgement is HERE!”
A Colleague in Ministry
April 12, 2012
Ken,
I’m kind of amazed that you are using Pipim’s material to dis-prove women’s ordination…especially after his self-admitted “moral fall” in 2011. I also found it interesting that he would write the following in his footnotes (#51) of one of his articles “To Ordain or Not To Ordain:”
“Of the many lines of ministry, women could be encouraged to participate in the study, teaching, and preaching of the Gospel in personal and public evangelism; to be involved in ministries of prayer, visitation, counseling, writing, and singing; to labor as literature evangelists, health evangelists, to raise new churches, and to minister to the needy; to serve in positions of responsibility that do not require ordination as elders or pastors, serving as colleagues in partnership with ordained men at the various levels of the church organization; to teach in our institutions and seminaries; and above all, to minister to their children at home. But I do not believe that the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy permit women to be ordained elders or pastors.”
So, let me get this straight; Dr. Pipim believes that women can:
* Teach the Gospel
* Preach the gospel
* Be involved in prayer ministries
* Be involved in visitation
* Be involved in counseling ministries
* Be involved in writing ministries
* Be involved in music ministries
* Be involved in literature work
* Be involved in health evangelism
* Preach in public evangelistic efforts
* Raise up new churches
* Minister to the needy
* Serve in position of responsibility
You’re a pastor Ken. Many of the ministries on this list look vaguely familiar don’t they?
Here’s a few questions for you to consider:
Was Deborah ordained?
Was she an authority figure? And, if she was ordained, who ordained her?
Was Ellen White ordained? (Wait, that’s a trick question.)
Was she an authority figure? Who ordained her?
Did God ordain them for service or didn’t He?
If God DID ordain a woman, how would we know?
I’ve heard people say that God chose two men BEFORE He chose Ellen White.
Do you seriously mean to tell me that He didn’t have ANY other men that he could have drawn from in the male gender “pool” of the human race? Seriously? And, if He was TOTALLY against women being ordained in roles of authority, why choose Ellen White at all?
I’m all for people voting their consciences, but you seem to have painted anyone who actually sees women’s roles a little differently than yours as “rebels,” and group them in with people who cuss and drink…if not by actual statement, by inference.
If this theological discussion were at all conclusive (like you seem to believe that it is,) then why haven’t our scholars (on both sides of the aisle,) just settled it once and for all? Are all people who don’t believe the way that you believe feminists and liberals, and all who agree with you “correct” in their understanding of Biblical exegesis?
Why does almost every person that I have ever heard that speaks about women’s ordination bring up homosexuality almost in the same breath?
I’ve dealt with a number of people over the years that would LOVE to paint this as a cut and dried issue, and seem to seek to vilify anyone who disagrees with them. I think God’s just a bit bigger than that. Opinions are like noses…everyone has one. Doesn’t feuding about this take our eyes off of bringing people into relationships with Jesus?
And, when we speak against our leaders in the church, do we not stand under the same condemnation? Does God set up leaders and take them down, or do we?
I see this as nothing more than Adventized “mud-slinging” and I don’t personally see the value of it on an eternal scale.
(If this is a moderated site, I don’t expect for this reply to EVER see the light of day. Kudos to you if you post it.)
Ken Lytle
April 13, 2012
In response to the above…
1. King David did some terrible things, but God forgave him and we still read his writings today.
2. Deborah and Ellen White were prophets. The Bible clearly supports female prophets.
3. The Bible clearly teaches that men are to be the leader in the home and church. To qualify for church leadership, a man must first prove himself in the home.
4. It is difficult to grow a church that is divided on important Biblical truths (creationism, ordination, etc.).
A Colleague in Ministry
April 13, 2012
Ken…hat’s off to you for allowing this conversation. I applaud your forth-right-ness in meeting the conversation head on. The following is your response, and my response to each of the points that you made:
In response to the above…
1. King David did some terrible things, but God forgave him and we still read his writings today.
Yes he did, and yes we do. However, it is rather curious that you would use Samuel’s writing as authoritative in light of the unfortunate events that surrounded his ministerial demise. What about the myriad of other scholars within the Adventist Church that don’t agree with Samuel’s point of view? They’re all wrong, and he’s all right? They don’t love God, they’re rebellious, and they all have incorrect interpretations about women’s place in ministry because they may not always agree with your point of view?
Please go back and re-read the list Ken. Samuel so much as said that females can do everything that males do….except be ordained. You don’t find that the least bit disconcerting? What does ordination mean?
I was ordained by God in ministry LONG before anyone laid hands on me. God ordained me. He doesn’t ordain women to roles in ministry that may defy our current understanding?
2. Deborah and Ellen White were prophets. The Bible clearly supports female prophets.
Deborah was not only a prophet Ken, she was a judge. (shaphat -to pronounce sentence, to vindicate, to punish, to litigate, to condemn, to execute judgement.)
Please go back and read the narrative of the situation between Deborah and Barak in Judges 4.
One cannot simply say, “Oh, Deborah? she was a prophet…that doesn’t count.” Barak wouldn’t go into battle without her! If that doesn’t turn gender roles a little upside down, I don’t know what does.
Ellen white taught, and spoke, and preached, and counseled, and wrote, and was used of the Lord in quite an authoritative way to bring messages to His people. I’m frankly amazed at the disconnect that you seem to have shown by seemingly passing this off as, “Oh, they were prophets…the Bible allows THAT!
3. The Bible clearly teaches that men are to be the leader in the home and church. To qualify for church leadership, a man must first prove himself in the home.
And what about areas of the world where the men are in prison because of religious persecution? What about churches where there ARE no men to lead? What about women in China who raised up churches because of the political environment, and the men could not?
What about women pastors at the turn of the last century that had enormous success in bringing people to Jesus Christ? (Ordained women pastors BTW.)
Were those decisions that people made for Christ real, (or, because a woman pastor brought them to that place,) they weren’t really converted? Does God work through what He has expressly said (as you claim,) that He will not work through? I personally know one individual that says that all the work that has done by women in a pastoral capacity is for naught…at least he’s consistent with his view.
4. It is difficult to grow a church that is divided on important Biblical truths (creationism, ordination, etc.)
It’s not that difficult to grow a church if people give each other the same latitude that God gives to each of us. Some Adventists seem to have the most difficult time with disagreement.
I’ve met more than my share of them who take on the following mindset – “If we disagree about something I KNOW to be truth, I must “wreck” your character in the eyes of others at all costs…even if it means calling names, describing you as a rebellious feminist and liberal, and trashing your position in the church.”
I’ve had the same kinds of conversations with people who are hung up on eating cheese, eating clean meats, and having a bowl of ice-cream once in a while. I’ve had them shake their fingers in my face and pronounce me “hell-bound” if I didn’t ascribe to everything that they saw as an “important truth.”
Yes, it’s difficult to grow a church when there are a number of people around being holier-than-thou about all the things that they see as TRUTH! Haven’t we been warned about accusatory behavior towards our brothers and sisters? Doesn’t Romans chapter 2:1 count anymore?
Ellen White said this: “He who is guilty of wrong is the first to suspect wrong. By condemning another he is trying to conceal or excuse the evil of his own heart. It was through sin that men gained the knowledge of evil; no sooner had the first pair sinned than they began to accuse each other; and this is what human nature will inevitably do when uncontrolled by the grace of Christ.” MB 126
John 13:35 illuminate’s Christ’s word pretty plainly: “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love one for another.”
Notice that Jesus didn’t say, “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you AGREE with one another about doctrinal issues.”
Having people agree with us is a wonderful thing. Loving them, and treating them with love and respect even when they DISAGREE with us is even more a sign that God’s Holy Spirit is working in us. Anything else smacks of being less than genuine (at least in my mind.)
Growing churches is not about getting everyone in line doctrinally. It’s about learning to live with one another, AND love one another EVEN when we DON’T agree!
Please check out Theologian Angel Rodriguez’ article on the subject of women’s ordination.
Here’s the link to that: http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/Biblequestions/can%20we%20talk.htm
Here’s the last two paragraphs of that article:
“So what’s next? We should work and pray for healing. The debate among theologians indicates that in this particular case the Bible is not as clear as some may think. Both groups should keep this in mind. Theologians in particular have contributed to the problem by being dogmatic in their views and unwilling to listen to each other.
Perhaps the time has come for all of us to sit together, look at the issue in a spirit of service to the church as the body of Christ, and pray for healing in an effort to see where the Spirit is leading. This will require humility and willingness to work together in building up the church.”
I applaud you for the work that it has taken to get a blog like this up and running, however, I’m not totally sure that “Adventist Voice” is the proper title…because I know MANY Adventists who don’t hold your sentiments…and we’re Adventists! I’m thankful that we live in a part of the world where we can all express our opinions without fear of retribution from the government. That’s my opinion…for what it’s worth.🙂
Have a blessed Sabbath!
Faithfulponderer
April 19, 2012
“I was ordained by God in ministry LONG before anyone laid hands on me. God ordained me. ”
Just a comment/question to the above. God has charged every one of his children to do his work. If God ordaines us, why do we so desire the official verification from the Church? What does a pastor do that any other member cannot do?… We don’t need a pulpit do be influential, to bring more sheep to the flock, or to serve faithfully. And is this not the work that each of us is charged with?
“…Love one another; as I have loved you”. I believe that ἀγάπη should be understood as a verb, not a noun. And we would do well to take that deep into our hearts to understand its meaning. Nothing can better bring others into the fold than this.
Ken Lytle
April 13, 2012
Here are a few things I know to be true:
1. God so loved the world, He gave His one and only Son
2. Jesus set the perfect example while living here on earth… showing us that it is not impossible to be connected to God the Father and obey His every word
3. We can do all things through the power of Jesus
4. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. — 2 Timothy 3:16, 17
5. If the Scriptures teach something difficult (death to self, Christ-like service, gender roles, etc.), this does not mean I have the right to “Thomas Jefferson” that portion of God’s Word. (Jefferson loved to cut out certain portions of the Scriptures to make it easier to digest)
The Bible clearly teaches us that there is a specific order in this world to help bring balance in chaos. “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” – 1 Corinthians 11:3 This does not mean one gender is more important than the other. It just means that God create this order at the fall of Adam and Eve to help create a healthy balance.
Let’s pray that God will give us the wisdom needed to understand His written Word without trying to cut out the difficult parts.
P.S. Deborah and EGW were both prophets who served as judges. If you read the writings of EGW, you will see that she judged the average church member and a number of church leaders. Deborah was not the leader of the people. Weak Barak was the offical leader, who needed the support of the prophet/judge. We cannot “add” to the Word of God… Let’s let God speak for HImself and pray that we will understand His every word.
A Colleague in Ministry
April 13, 2012
Ken, you seem have implied that I’m “adding” to the Word of God, and that in disagreeing with your view of the scriptures, that I am somehow “Thomas Jefferson-ing” the Word of God to fit my frame of mind and my belief system. That’s unfortunate, but it seems to bespeak volumes about how we can often surmise things about those who disagree with our beliefs.
You’ve also seemed to imply that anyone who doesn’t view it from that angle is “weak”…that those leaders who don’t take the position that can be “clearly” proven from God’s word are somehow less of a leader than those who agree with the stance that you’ve taken about a variety of subjects that you’ve written about on this blog.
God’s word is God’s word, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that we always fully understand it, and that we don’t wrestle with certain areas of the scriptures.
The same writer who penned the verse that you referenced also said in the very next verses that “every man praying and prophesying having his head covered dishonors his head,” and that “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.” What do you do with THOSE texts? If taken at face value, you better make sure that you never wear a hat while you’re praying…and….if any woman in your church prays, that her head is covered…Otherwise…well, ya know…
I’ve known people who take all of these texts literally to the Nth degree. Their wives wear head coverings, (which I have no problem with, but they often look down upon females who choose not to, citing biblical pureness in themselves, and “adding to the scriptures” for those who choose not to follow their example.) Do you REALLY want a church that’s like this? And if so, how could we ever begin to think that others would be attracted to that and want to spend an eternity with us?
The same writer that you referenced also states that there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, male nor female. For all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
These scriptures are to be wrestled with…but should they be fought over? Should they become points of contention, and a means of finding fault with those who don’t see it the same way? Should we sling doctrinal mud at others who don’t view these “proof” texts that are so clear to us? Does the idea that they don’t see it the way that we do prove that they are wrong, and we are right?
I don’t normally challenge anything like this because it often goes with the territory of being an Adventist, but claiming to have the “truth” on the subject while claiming that those that don’t see it that way are “weak” and “rebellious” doesn’t make for a very Christ-like dialogue to ensue in my humble opinion. I RAN from that kind of a church in my youth, and if it came back that environment again, I would put on my walking shoes. It doesn’t feel very loving and genuinely Christ-like to me.
You have been most kind to put my thoughts up, and I appreciate that. You have not backed away from my remarks, and again, I am thankful for your willingness to indulge my point of view.
I’m the chief of sinners, and I’m not fully convinced that there will be a time when we won’t continue to wrestle with some of the scriptures in ways that are VERY uncomfortable. For crying out loud, we have scholars on BOTh sides of the aisles that are STILL discussing it. God’s Spirit can allow us to lovingly work together to “agree to disagree” about things that we still wrestle with, WITHOUT the name calling.
’nuff said. I care about you, and hope that you will try to understand my point of view. If you don’t, I’m O.K. with it and won’t hold it against you.
Ken Lytle
April 14, 2012
It took me awhile to see where you were coming from… I do not call what I have written “name-calling.” I am just stating a “fact,” placing a label on an idea or activity (not a person). I call liberalism… liberalism. I call feminists… feminists. I call rebellion… rebellion. If a person places themselves in the conservative or liberal camps, they are wrong to do so (spiritually). Jesus came to teach us, show us, lead us, etc. in all things. I do not think Jesus was a liberal or conservative. Even though I have a “Biblical” understanding of gender roles and women in ministry, does not mean I pit myself against the opposition. All I can do is state the facts. Then I hope and pray God will use our spiritual leaders to uphold the truth no matter how difficult the issue may be.
God wants us to stop fighting against the “milk” and get serious about the “meat.”
1 Corinthians 3:2 – I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able;
Hebrews 5:12 – For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.
Instead of seeking more truth and light… we get stuck on creation, women in ministry, spirit of prophecy, Sabbath, sanctuary message, health, etc, etc, etc. These are all things that God has already revealed to us in His Word. Let’s embrace what we have and allow the Holy Spirit of give us more light.
I believe we can have an accepting Church… accepting all people no matter who they are or what they have done. This does not mean we have to water-down God’s truth and accept false interpretations. No! We need to stand strong on the wonderful truths God has given us and share them in love.
A colleague in ministry
April 15, 2012
You didn’t understand what I said actually, because in almost the same breath you stated, “Even though I have a Biblical understanding of gender roles and womn in ministry…” My word Ken, you can’t say it an you? You can’t even utter the phrase that you may NOT have the correct understanding about it. That’s not even a slight possibility to you is it? And then you go and talk about “milk” of the word, and “watering down” truth. This is exactly what I’m talking about brother! Exactly. This attitude is the very reason why Angel Rodriguez wrote the article that I posted in a former reply. Did you even read that?
You’re so dogmatic about this, and you’ve painted yourself into such a corner, that you cannot even entertain the idea that theres even a slight possibility that some of the things that you “state” aren’t fact at all.
Angel Rodriguez (a theological scholar) cannot say that there’s not a slight possibility, but you can? Wow. All I can say is wow!
Ken Lytle
April 17, 2012
I read the article and found it to be weak. The Bible clearly teaches “gender roles” and should not be an issue in the Adventist Church. Families are falling apart because of the lack of God’s order… husbands are neglecting their duty to be the spiritual leaders in the home and church and wives are following the world in learning to be disrespectful and belittling to the men in their lives. Men and women are wired differently. Homes and churches would be a lot safer if we stayed true to God’s will.