Is the Church Already Unified on the Issue of Women’s Ordination?


(reliquum) #221

@harrpa, seems some believe that headship is new and “present truth”-but also claim it was present from the beginning. Is it progressive truth, or regressive truth? Or is it neither, not truth at all?
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation .


#222

@Timo It is amazing to me to see the “everlasting ignorance.” It’s disheartening and scary. You are exactly right: “contempt prior to investigation.”


(Tim Teichman) #223

He’s somewhat of a jerk, isn’t he?


(Tim Teichman) #224

You’re rather rude. Do you think that’s appropriate for such a correct person as you see yourself?

  1. It’s not worth noting. It is not significant. Only a superficial assessment of the scripture would cause anyone to be impressed by that. Once understood in context of the culture of the day, it’s not worth noting.

  2. You have no way of knowing if that is true. Scripture does not record everything Jesus did. Further, the lack of an example in the bible is not an indication that something was prohibited then or is now, nor is it an indication that the choices made then are still good choices today.


(Tim Teichman) #225

Oh I don’t think we need to do that. You’ve done that yourself with your insistence that men should lead women. Total nonsense.


(Tim Teichman) #226

Yes, but 30 pages of ideas that are new. New information is scary and any acceptance of it could result in your doctrinal house of cards crumbling on you.

That is, if you’re one of those with a carefully constructed theology based on specific key texts in the bible used in an inappropriate way, often based on an English translation of an ancient text (from which we have no originals) written by and for a culture we don’t understand.


(Kade Wilkinson) #227

I don’t know what this means. It seems like it sets “the basic principles of Protestantism” in at least soft opposition to “progressive revelation,” but I’ve only ever heard of the concept of progressive revelation from Protestant sources. My observation of the SDA denomination is that it and its members sometimes extol doctrines because they are old, and sometimes extol them because they are new. I don’t see a conservative/liberal divide–it seems to me that all camps sometimes act like new doctrine is inherently questionable, and sometimes act like new doctrine is inherently superior to old doctrine due to “progressive revelation.” I’m just looking for another opinion on this.


(Kade Wilkinson) #228

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. As far as I can tell, you (@harrpa) and Tim (@timteichman) basically agree on the WO topic. Yet you seem to imply that newness makes a doctrine questionable, while Tim seems to imply that newness gives information a level of authority.


#229

Harrpa,

“Definitive history of headship? How it came into the SDA Church fairly recently?”

I don’t think so!

In the beginning of his article, Gerry Chudleigh wrote the following:

“In this study we will see that “the headship principle” is, in fact, new to Seventh-day Adventists in all parts of the world. Today’s popular male headship theology was developed in North America by a few Calvinist Evangelical teachers and preachers in the 1970s and 1980s, imported into the Adventist church in the late 1980s by Andrews University professor Samuele Bacchiocchi (1938-2008), and championed among Adventists during the late 20th and early 21st centuries by a small but committed group of Adventist headship advocates, mostly based in Michigan.” (Emphasis mine)

Well, this is not really correct. The subject was already spoken of in the 19th century. Here is what we can read in the “Signs of the Times” … in 1878!:

The divine arrangement,
even from the beginning, is this, that the
man is the head of the woman. Every relation
is disregarded or abused in this lawless age.
But the Scriptures always maintain this order
in the family relation. " For the husband is
the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head
of the church." Eph. 5 : 23. Man is entitled
to certain privileges which are not given to woman
; and he is subjected to some duties and
burdens from which the woman is exempt. A
woman may pray, prophesy, exhort, and comfort
the church, but she cannot occupy the position
of a pastor or a ruling elder
. This would
be looked upon as usurping authority over the
man, which is here prohibited."
(Emphasis mine)

Here is a copy of the entire newspaper. You will find the text I mentioned on page 380, third column, third paragraph.

So, obviously Gerry Chudleigh, and those who think that it is a new subject in the Adventist church, are in the wrong: the subject of headship didn’t appear just recently. It was already officially addressed not long after the establishment of the Adventist church.

I wonder what kind of research this author conducted but, here, we have an example showing us that it is a mistake to accept anything on an important topic without verifying for ourselves whether it is correct or not. Just because a writer comforts our preconceived ideas doesn’t mean that he is right.


(reliquum) #230

@Nymous, this is found verbatim on pipims site and fulcrum7

Are you perchance “churchmouse”?

…and why did you fail to cite the author of your definitive and rigorous research? (which, curiously, supports your own preconceived notion) Or should we automatically accept your c/p of signs of the times (is that the official church publication which determines and publishes policy and procedure?)


#231

Kalfoof, in this case you were requested to clarify your points specifically because they were “not” clear to the readers. Responding in a condescending or in an adversarial/defensive manner does not help better communicate with others. Based on analysis of your writing style I would advise strongly that you take the time to make some changes to avoid miscommunicating your intent and ensure your audience can reasonably understand your points.

Jesus never implicitly or explicitly excluded women from participating in spiritual life or gifts of the spirit. To His disciples he never gave them instructions that limited the role of women. To the contrary when he came into contact with the women at the well it was she that He sent to tell others in her community. In our own church God in the end used EGW when 2 other men refused to do His bidding. God has and will continue to use women in His service in spite of the level of thinking you express.


#232

Timo,

I didn’t find this on Fulcrum7 or Pipim’s website (though it would make not difference since the document that is presented has nothing to do with them). I found this on www.adventistarchives.org and also on www.adventmessenger.org.

My point was twofold:

  1. to show that the author used as a reference was not correct and that we have to check the claims made about a particular topic, above all when it is a sensitive one
  2. it took me a couple of hours or less to find these references on the internet. Anybody who wanted to seriously study the subject could have done the same thing.

Your remarks show that you totally missed the point. I was just answering to the claim that the notion of headship was a new one and that it had never been heard or discussed in the SDA church. I just produced a counterexample showing that that claim was incorrect.

So, it has nothing to do with my preconceived notions (which, as far as I know, you don’t know anything about) , nor policies, nor procedures.

It has to do with what the SDA church said about headship from the beginning of the establishment of the church.


(reliquum) #233

Unsurprising that you remain anonymous


#234

Like I said before, you totally missed the point.

Your position is not tenable. When Harrpa came up with her source and gave the internet address to read Gerry Chudleigh’s paper, you didn’t say anything of that sort. You didn’t say that we need to be skeptical, in spite of the fact that he wrote something that was not factual. It shows that you are biased and that you use double standards.

It seems that you are displaying the same attitude as the one Fulcrum7’s people are accused of having.


(reliquum) #235

LOL, i surely got your perhaps unintended point!
(I also understand the false point you want me to accept)

Which point? That a brief-AUTHOR UNCITED- google search does not equate with the rigors of Chudleighs treatise?
Um, ok. An “internet address” constitutes a qualified footnote??

Not at all certain what the first part of your second last sentence even means, but your attempt to slip in an uncorroborated pet assumption (you wish us to disbelieve veracity of a duly cited communicator, histiorian and respected author simply because you said so) is instructive.

Who are you, what are your credentials, and by what authority are your assumptions, words and opinions beyond scrutiny? I recognize those of the writer @Harrpa mentioned, but i know neither yours, or the one spurious (despite claiming plurality) writer you found on cursory google search from over a century ago.

Help me out here, where are my double standards? Should I let you off easy-and just accept what you say an uncited writer said back then? That WOULD be a double standard on my behalf. Inquiring minds want to know.


(Tim Teichman) #236

I’d like to know as well. Seems only polite for people new to the forum to introduce themselves. I wonder about those that hide in the shadows. Are they afraid to stand being their statements?


#237

Timo,

What is evident is that you have nothing to say about headship so you are trying to change the subject by introducing considerations that have nothing to do with what is being discussed.

This kind of tactics is typical of those who cannot refute an argument or don’t have a counterargument but refuse to recognize it. So they resort to what is practically akin to trolling.

So, let’s summarize the situation.

Harrpa wrote the following:

And to support her claim, she referred to the writings of Gerry Chudleigh about the question.

To this, I countered by showing an article dating from The Signs of the Times dating from 1878 showing that the SDA church was already talking about headship at that time, thus invalidating the claim that the notion of headship “came into the SDA Church fairly recently”.

The validity of the article has nothing to do with my identity, credentials or authority. The article in the Signs of Times exists and is there for everybody to see regardless of my existence or my preconceived ideas, assumptions, opinions, or whatever.

Now, I hope it is clear enough for you.

So, stop embarrassing yourself and tell us if you have anything constructive to say about headship. It is not a shame if you don’t.


(Tim Teichman) #238

This is getting tiresome.

It’s a mystery to me why anyone would be attracted to such ideas in these modern times, that men should lead women.

Why are you trying to promote headship? For example, are you threatened by women? Do you hate women? Or do you think that you are better than women because you are male?


(Kim Green) #239

Kade…I really have no clue as to what you are exactly talking about either…perhaps you can expound on what “New doctrine”??


(Kim Green) #240

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that there are writings of EGW that appear to support “Headship” were meant only for her day and age. However, I think that this concept was not what the Last Generation Theology teaches. In other words, I don’t believe that it was meant to carry over into our Post Modern society as it has been promoted by the Headship crew. I also don’t believe that this would have been promoted by EGW if she were alive today.
@Nymous