In post 107051 the following statement was made: "It is very obvious that either we have to say the New Testament teaches that only men should be pastors or we have to say that the Bible is not the final authority for doctrine and practice."

I disagreed with that, and suggested that there might be additional alternatives. I was then invited to share them, which I have not done.

I did not share them because: a) I did not post in an attempt to change the theology of the author of that statement. b) I felt from other comments made by him that he had considered others, and rejected them.

But, I will now comment further because I think that there is a lesson to be learned:

In referencing 8T, John317 clearly missed the context. EGW was telling us she was never a leader in the sense of election to office. I do not charge John with intentional misrepresentation of what she said. He simply missed that.

That is a common trait. People tend to focus on one point, and miss the forest, so to speak due to that focus on a single tree. I will suggest that people can do the same in the Biblical treatment of the issue of the role of women in the Church today. The writings of Paul should be looked at as a whole, and not in isolated comments. So also should the Bible be approached.

It should be noted that some claim that Paul also told men to keep silent in meetings of the church. I will let you-all look for yourselves, and determine if that is accurate. But, my point is that if Paul did so, then it appears that he told both men and women to keep silent. If so, what does that mean, and how should it be applied to a congregational meeting. People who deal with issues such as this are better able to determine a cogent (and consistent) Biblical teaching.

If you want to see what the Bible says about the role of women, also look at what it says about the role of men. Look at the whole picture.

NOTE: As an interesting sidelight, it is argued by some that the ordinations of males, as practiced by the SDA church, is not authorized in Scripture. That is an interesting point. If so, how might that relate to the ordination of women.

In looking at the Biblical teaching for the role of women, Romans 16 is an interesting chapter.

Here you will find that the writer of Romans (Paul) appears to repeatedly mentions women! An examination of those mentions in the Greek is also interesting. In some examples it is neither clear as to whether the person mentions was female or male, nor is it clear as to the role that the individual played in the Church. In some cases, arguments on both sides of that question may be made. It is not conclusive. So we are potentially left, if we only look at that chapter that women may or may not have played a major leadership role in the congregation addressed by Paul. He did not make it clear. We today are left to suppose.

However, there is a point that can be made, in my mind, with confidence. Some of the mentions are clearly female. (See verse 6, Mary, for one example, see also verse 12.) Those women must have played a major role in the life of that congregation, whatever that role was. That role was so important that Paul remembered them when he wrote the book of Romans that we have in the Bible. If they had played a minor role, he probably would not have thought them important enough to mention. He wrote in the time when people did not attempt to be "politically correct." He would not have felt a need to mention minor player in that congregation.

Individual comments:

Phoebe: Her role is not totally clear.

Priscilla: Her role is not totally clear. In any case, Paul calls her his fellow worker in Christ.

Junias: Could be male, could be female. In any case, Junias appears to be called by Paul an apostle, and is in prison with Paul.

Persis: Female.

This matter is REALLY EASY to resolve.

Just do it! If you really object to the way the SDA church treats women then simply stop enabling the behavior.

What is it that ordained pastor's can do that women can not?
Where do they get the right to do this things?
Why can't women get the right to do it?

For instance:

Baptism - the SDA church accepts ALL forms of adult baptism, followed by joining the SDA church by profession of faith. No ordained pastor required.

Marriage - there is no requirement to have an ordained pastor perform at a marriage service. The legal details can be handled by anyone the state allows. The SDA church does not require a church ceremony.

Elders - can be women

...

In short, the issue is actually irrelevant until you can find some task that requires an ordained pastor. Just enable women to do the roles that you want filled and provide them with the money to do so.

/Bevin

Bevin:

Women in the SDA Church currently do all of your three examples.

SDA Women currently serve as Federal chaplains, with the power to do anything that I do as a male chaplain.

You are right that the ordained part does not matter.(Male or Female) What does matter is the MONEY. Since the church is not ready to support women pastors to much degree ... the specific unique things that women pastors can offer are not being offered to most congregations because of the lack of support in the church.

What are the specific unique things that women pastors can offer that male pastors cannot?

(Not trying to be snarky here - just have no clue what pastoral gift a woman can offer to the church that a man cannot..)

Meeting the specific needs of women.
Of course if you believe that men and women are alike without any differences then I would suppose that women would have no unique or specific qualities compared to men.

I would deny that following the Bible's instruction about men being the leaders in the church is a put-down of women, just like I would deny that the male being the head of the woman in the home is a put down of women. Each gender has an important role in both the home and in the church but their roles are different. Wouldn't you agree that God made the husband to be the head of the home? If we read both the Bible as well as Ellen White, I don't see how we can come to any other conclusion because it is stated in as clear a way as possible. Eph. 5:23.

More emphasis should be placed on teaching and urging husbands to be loving and considerate of their wives, and if this was done, no doubt more women would accept the role God planned for them. Too many men don't love their wives as Christ loved the church, nor do they always love their wives as they do their own bodies, which is what the Bible tells men to do. Maybe that is one of the major reasons some women feel it is demeaning for the husband to be in the leadership position both in the church and in the home. My mother did not feel this way, however, and neither did my grandmothers, nor my sisters.



I agree that there needs to be honesty and freedom to discuss. We certainly have that freedom here, and I'm personally thankful for this opportunity. But yes, there needs to be more honest discussion of these things in other forums. I appreciate your willingness to discuss it and your honesty.





OK, I read your explanation of this view that you have, saying the fifth coming of Christ will be when He comes in glory to take His followers to heaven. I suppose if you want to call it the fifth coming, it is all right, but you only cause people to be confused about what you mean when you insist on calling the Second Coming the fifth coming.



I think you have the right idea by staying with the church and trying to correct what you believe are errors. I would just say here, though, that the concept of re-baptism is not merely an SDA tradition. A case could be made for it from the Bible and you will find other Christian churches that practice re-baptism. But I agree that it is something we should study and discuss. Have you discussed this with your pastor, church elders and others?



I can't agree with that, but I see what you mean. The Holy Spirit does work on hearts and minds to teach truth but people are often not listening or don't want to do what the Holy Spirit is telling them. Remember, the Holy Spirit speaks to us through God's word, the Bible, and even though the Bible is clear and plain, there is little unity about what the Bible teaches. That is not the fault of either the Bible or the Holy Spirit. That is the fault of people. There are various reasons for it, but let us not blame God or the Holy Spirit or the Bible. For one thing, it is not necessary for all of us to agree in all details about everything. Some of the differences don't matter and too much is made of some of those differences. God made all of us with different minds and we all come from difference backgrounds and experiences, so some of the differences are a reflection of that. However, there should be unity and the same thinking and speaking on clear Bible teachings. There shouldn't be the divisions and dissensions among us that are seen today. I think there needs to be more prayer and Bible study on that subject. Ellen White had a lot to say about it as well and it is something we all need to try to put into practice.



Well, I am sure that he would be the first to tell you he doesn't want you to agree with him just because of his say-so. I certainly wouldn't. What's important is that we reflect seriously on what our Christian brothers and sisters are saying, and if we see that they are teaching something that agrees with the Bible, we should agree with them about it. Sometimes I get the impression on CA that some people like to argue just to be disagreeing and to be arguing. We should try to find points of agreement and emphasize those more, I believe.



Actually I do agree that that is the most important thing, but I think there are a few more Bible doctrines, or teachings, that are also important for us as a church to have agreement on. I am studying the book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, which goes over the 27 or 28 major doctrines of the SDA church, and I am studying it with my wife and children. My wife speaks Spanish, so it is interesting to study it in both Spanish and English. I am finding it very exciting to study these teachings. I haven't found anything so far that I disagree with in that book. We also enjoy studying the books, Bible Readings and The Great Controversy. My wife was Catholic not too many years ago and most of her extended family still is. But she's already begun studying the Bible with several of her sisters! She became SDA by reading books and magazines that I left around the house and then attending the Spanish-speaking church. We thank and praise God every day for the Adventist church and its beautiful teachings.

A Merry and blessed Christmas to you, too!!!

John 317 ... I want to thank you for your thought filled comments. This will give me some good food for thought.

Each of us have our thinking shaped by our personal experiences. We all question God in different ways because of those experiences. If I did not check out others views ... my warped views would only get more warped. This is why I try to express my concerns and then listen to others who can help centralize and unwarp my warped views. It is a long and slow process however.

Thank you for helping me in this growth process. I've suffered spiritual abuse as many others have in this church. So ... it is difficult. This forum is going to help me to be a more rounded Christian.

Hi Gregory,

I'd like to suggest that a good reason to post is for everyone at CA to be given an opportunity to consider an idea or concept.

Also, it is very important not to assume we can tell what others have considered and rejected. If one has a good idea, one should share it and in this way give everybody the freedom and ability to choose and to make up their own minds.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!