QR frame:

Several points, if I may...

Asia, Africa, Latin America, and others - are rather male-oriented. Mention of others that view women as 'only a vessel to bear men sons' - is gratifyingly absent.

An approximation of the above cultures - is represented in both the OT and NT texts. However, regardless - 'example-as-provided' - that would not obtain re North America and other basically English-speaking countries :-) These English-speaking countries, having naturally evolved, are organically different from antiquated notions reflected and referenced.

I can understand a localized .org not condoning or supporting an oppositional viewpoint re this matter, but to actively participate in a direct ban against said oppositional viewpoint - goes beyond the pale. I believe Writ is very clear that the word of Gd is ever evolving as to its understanding..., and a .org, resorting to outright 'indexing', is equivalently approbative of the RCC application to the Librorum Prohibitorum.

Re EGW:

Certificates of Ordination re EGW exist; regardless, the prescription proffered that 'ministry' as pertains EGW is not in view - in those Certificates of Ordination.

[/Beg to differ...] :-o

"actively participate in a direct ban"

Folks this is not 1984 YET. there is no way to ban it. So lets not start any rumors.

>>"actively participate in a direct ban"

Folks this is not 1984 YET. there is no way to ban it. So lets not start any rumors.<<

Thread Title.

"...Central Study Hour is banned this"

Sorry, for the 'lack of the inflected' use. :-o

I do understand what you are saying here. The argument is often used in discussions of the topic, that the West is superior to the less socially evolved, more primative countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, etc.

The issue of women's ordination must be decided theologically, by the Bible, and not by appeals to ethnocentrism and the idea that one society is superior to another. Such arguments can lead to all sorts of things, such as the belief that homosexuality is OK because it is viewed as OK in the West.

Can we blame the other nations for feeling that we in the West are arrogant and think we're superior to them?

Besides, how do we know that we Westerners have "naturally evolved" upwards? Perhaps, rather, we have "naturally evolved" downwards when it comes to some issues. I submit that the fact that we accept certain behaviors and standards is no proof of our moral superiority.

Again, what we need to be looking at is whether we are more in conformity to the Bible, and not in conformity to the norms of society if these norms conflict with the Bible's. The Bible has to be the standard for the church, not the practices of society at large.

>>The argument is often used in discussions of the topic, that the West is superior to the less socially evolved, more primative countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, etc.<<

I don’t think one can automatically assume that “naturally evolved” translates to the pejoratively charged “superior” or “arrogant”. However, as those terms may rightfully apply to a society embracing and adhering to the belief that a woman serves only as ‘a vessel to bear men sons’ – I concur.

>>The issue of women's ordination must be decided theologically, by the Bible, and not by appeals to ethnocentrism and the idea that one society is superior to another.<<

Does the .Org require that others of differing cultures practice Adventism equally, the same – as do those living here? Or do they accept that other cultures simply cannot practice Adventism as might the North American?

>>Such arguments can lead to all sorts of things, such as the belief that homosexuality is OK because it is viewed as OK in the West.<<

Okay, is it Theologically/Biblically condemned that one hitch horse to buggy to travel miles and miles upon the Sabbath? I don’t suppose you would condemn the practice – as, likewise, no other practicing Adventist would. However, how does that square with the strictest reading of Writ?

>>Can we blame the other nations for feeling that we in the West are arrogant and think we're superior to them?<<

A nation that can place a man upon the moon is – superior; however, that would not argue for a general application of the term.

>>Besides, how do we know that we Westerners have "naturally evolved" upwards?<<

The facts argue the issue.

>>Perhaps, rather, we have "naturally evolved" downwards when it comes to some issues.<<

Goes to perception.

>>I submit that the fact that we accept certain behaviors and standards is no proof of our moral superiority.<<

I’ve not made that argument.

>>Again, what we need to be looking at is whether we are more in conformity to the Bible, and not in conformity to the norms of society if these norms conflict with the Bible's.<<

Horse and buggy?

>>The Bible has to be the standard for the church, not the practices of society at large.<<

Does the .Org understand the significance of incorporating? that would include, even the concept of ‘association’...

I'm a woman and one who has had position in the church, a national officer for many years in Adventist Singles Ministries.
I was opposed by the other women of the board of directors when I fought to not have a woman as president of that organization.
I'm not predjudiced toward women in office or as CEO's or even President of the United States. But this is a ministry to Christ and the cross. It is more effective with men as the pastors. Christ knew this, thus the reasoning behind Pastor DB's statements.
If it's not effective to God's glory, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Being a person who has studied this topic from both sides of the camp I can clearly say that the ordination of women issue for our church is illogical and unbiblical. First there are no scriptures that dictates which sex should and should not be ordained minsters. While there are many references to men being in leadership positions, we cant jump to the conclusion that women are not called to be ordained ministers, Else we find ourselves in the same camp as many Catholics and evangelicals, who read about early Christians worshiping on Sunday and take it as a sign that the first day of the week is the new Sabbath.
Secondly, lets be true to ourselves for a second if a women is doing the same work as a male in a church, if she's preaching, teaching and evangelizing who are we to say she's not ordained by God (especially if there's fruit to her labor). Remember the church only validates what God Orchestrates. And in our church the big difference between ordained and unordained is financial.

Finally E.G. White has made several references to women being equal to men when it comes to the gospel ministry, that they should receive equal pay and equal respect. As a side note Ellen White herself was the first women to be ordained in this church. Her papers can be viewed at the Ellen White estate at either Andrews University or Oakwood University
Family we are living in the last days the three angels message needs to go forth in power and authority I for one will not tell 1/2 of our population they can't minister because of cultural taboos that has nothing to do with the scriptures but our own beliefs

A technological advance or superiority does not translate into being better people spiritually or morally, which is the important point in our discussion about women's position in the church.



The facts argue the case that we in the West have more "things," greater wealth in terms of possessions, and have made technological progress, but I would make the argument that we have not kept pace with moral or spiritual health or conformity to the will of God.

This may be a really wierd tack to take, but I can't actually find a theology of ordination in terms of pastors, male or female-at least as we understand it. There are elders, there are deacons, there are evangelists, there are apostles, there are overseers, there are teachers and preachers. It mentions pastors in Ephesians, but simply mentions that God has given the gifts of people to the church as well as the gifts of the Spirit.

This is my best finding on each's role.
Overseer/bishop indicates the role of oversight
Pastor indicates the role of care
Elder indicates the necessity of spiritual maturity

Which role are females excluded from? All?

As best as I can find, the pastoral role as we understand it is a fairly new idea. One where all these roles are expected to be found in the one person. It might even be seen as a tradition inherited from the cultural understanding of how 'church' is done.

The role of pastoral care in particular, I often see females relating to more comfortably than their male counterparts. I don't see any Biblical mandate against women being involved in caring for people.
I also don't think its entirely fair to eliminate the cultural understandings, as I think they do actually help us gain a better understanding, and I believe that God works within culture and time.
My general conclusion is that there are gray areas in our understanding, and as such we work with the best of the understanding that we have. I also agree that it should definitely not be a church splitting issue.
I do believe that God has called women to work for him as well as men. Whether this ministry is within a church in one of these roles or in other ways - I think that we should not be discouraging them. It can be discouraging enough as it is with Satan's attacks that they don't need to feel undermined by their church. I have seen women verbally and loudly abused within a worship setting for simply being up the front. I'm not asking us to all find agreeance, but for care in how we approach it.

Excellent post. Thank you. But be prepared for someone here to change the subject and say that if you have women ... you will have homosexuality. Go figure.