Seventh-day Adventists believe that all people, male and female, are created equal, in the image of a loving God. We believe that both men and women are called to fill a significant role in accomplishing the primary mission of the Adventist Church: working together for the benefit of humanity. Yet we are painfully aware that throughout the world, in developing and developed nations, adverse societal conditions often inhibit women from fulfilling their God-given potential.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has identified several major problems, well-documented by research, that often keep women from making valuable contributions to society. Stress, the environment, and increased demands have placed women at greater risk for health problems. Poverty and heavy workloads not only deprive women of their ability to enjoy life, but also impair their physical and spiritual well-being. Family violence takes a heavy toll on its victims.

Women are entitled to the God-given privileges and opportunities intended for every human being—the right to literacy, to education, to adequate health care, to decision making, and to freedom from mental, physical, or sexual abuse. We also maintain that women should play an increased role in the leadership and decision-making bodies of both church and society.

Ultimately, we believe that the church will fulfill its mission only when women are empowered to achieve their full potential.

 

This statement was approved and voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Administrative Committee (ADCOM) and was released by the Office of the President, Robert S. Folkenberg, at the General Conference session in Utrecht, the Netherlands, June 29-July 8, 1995

Nice words but they are not the reality in the leadership of this church. The Tradition of not having women pastors and elders is alive and well. And what is the church doing about it? They continue to follow the tradition. The result is that women are not able to fulfill their call from God. And their unique abilities are not being used.

That's because the debate is not over. Paul seems to say that only a man should reside over the church. Here's one for example:

1 Tim 2:12 ...I [Paul] do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. [Why?] 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.

Now I am not taking a position, but if you go with the above quote it looks like the reason Paul is against women having church authority over men is that women tend to be more gullible. I'm not saying that, Paul seems to be....If not, then what does he mean?

Robert

If the church believed this statement as you are presenting it, Robert, they would not have women teachers in the adult SS classes, no women elders, no women preachers - unless of course the congregation was entirely female.

NB - I am not accusing you of holding any particular view and I am not even brandishing my own here. Just trying to see whether the church is consistent.

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. In that case, we have to say that Paul was only expressing an opinion based on local values or due to circumstances then present in the church, but this view obviously flies in the face of Paul's actual words. Then we move away from Scripture as the sole basis of our faith, doctrine, and practice. (And where does that kind of thinking lead to? Is it possible that Paul was also only giving us his opinion about many other things, such as the parousia or the nature of the resurrection body? This is not too far fetched, as most churches that ordain women as pastors and priests have already given up teaching a literal belief in an imminent parousia.)

Those are the only two possible alternatives that I see.

Now, if we check out carefully the churches that have accepted women as pastors and priests, we have to admit that it looks probable that acceptance of gay pastors is the next step after full acceptance of women's ordination as ministers.

But of course. And why not? Well, if Paul is merely stating a culturally conditioned opinion and "advice" rather than a command from God when it comes to women's leadership in the church, he was probably doing the same in regard to homosexuality. In fact, that has been the position of many people already, including many Seventh-day Adventists, even of some in leadership positions. IMO, it is just a matter of time before that view will be largely accepted once the worldwide church accepts women as pastors.

You are entitled to your opinion no matter how outragous and comic it is. More so, how dangerous and belittleing of women.

Very insightful post, 317. I agree fully with your assessment of homosexuality sharing a fundamental link with gender confusion & feminism. Very accurate.

Berit Kjos has well documented this link in her book "A Twist of Faith."

regards,

olger

Then please explain it.

Thanks,

Robert

Okay, but at least his opinion appears to based on Paul and he (Paul) is inspired.

So we must use the Bible as the bottom line in the Christian faith.

Robert

"...His gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ." Eph 4:11,12

Clearly there is different work for different folks within "the body of Christ". Those in favor of women's ordination quotes Gal 3:28, but the context there is talking about justification by faith. In other words it doesn't matter what gender you are or what nationality you are the only way to heaven is through faith in Jesus.

Could it be that God has reserved the role of Pastor for men? I mean Jesus did choose 12 men for His disciples. Yes, women were part of His ministry, but essentially He picked men. Are they better suited for this function?

Right now the church is not experiencing persecution, right? In Paul's day it was. Would a man be better suited under such conditions?

Robert