I disagree. Our “founders” (your term) promoted women but under male headship, not female headship. You forgot that part, or obfuscated it. Currently the church DOES ordain women, but they cannot lead a congregation (at least according to the church manual). Thusly, why can’t an ordain female pastor work under her husband or a male head elder? insert cricket sounds here…the answer SHOULD be obvious, but the pro WO group wants the whole enchilada. All the female led churches that I’m aware of (3 that I have personally visited) are failing badly. Additionally, female headship would NEVER work in Africa, South America, many parts of the US, the Middle East, India, and so on. Rebelling against the world church vote is simply that, REBELLION.
Pacific Union Officials Decline Inclusion in SDA Yearbook; Stand in Solidarity with President Sandra Roberts
However, so far the SECC is doing very well. It is a big deal not having the name of a Conference Prez in the YB. But, again, who cares?
I am sorry seeing this verse being, again, presented as “proof.” When people do this I always wonder, “Don’t they really know better about what Paul was talking, or are they deliberately trying to mislead others?” …
I am not sure I want to even offer the benefit of the doubt in cases like this…
No one knows.
Paul didn’t write Timothy, which is why that rather harsh advise appears so at odds with what he did write.
If what you prefer is the establishment of another papacy, then sure, I agree with you. If not, then with all due respect, you are in danger of the unpardonable sin by rejecting the Holy Spirit.
1 Tim. 2 begins by asking that “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority [for example, for SDA GC President Ted Wilson] …”
Both MEN and WOMEN should make such supplications.
“I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting …”
“in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.”
It is obvious that the women of those days were as fashion-conscious as the women today. Whereas the men wear one suit and tie every single sabbath without fail and not care at all, not so the women who often insist on having 20 pairs of shoes, 52 dresses, one for each sabbath of the year, and 19 hats of various sizes; plus money for hair-styling, pedicures, manicures, facials and pairs of earrings to match. Not so, Paul urges, but “in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, with good works.”
It is this theme, and Christian ideal, of conservative quiet God-fearing humility for both men (towards those in authority) and women (towards their own husbands) that Paul then applies to the ecclesiastical domain, alluding to the pattern set by God in the Garden of Eden to justify his advice to Timothy.
“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” BECAUSE (not that women are dumb, bimbos, incapable of thinking straight, doing Math or Science, but that …) “Adam was formed first, then Eve.”
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A MISOGYNISTIC VIEW OF WOMEN, THEIR CAPABILITIES OR POTENTIAL BUT WITH THE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF THE CONGREGATION AT THE TOP IN LIGHT OF THE EDENIC PATTERN SET BY GOD IN THE BEGINNING
It is NOT that women should be barred from speaking or teaching or preaching (any more than men ought to shut up because of higher authority such as kings or presidents over their heads) but that Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden was the ideal for not only the family but the congregation as well, where ultimate responsibility should lie at the foot of the man and that the man should always keep in mind that he is accountable to God.
At the highest level of the church, i.e. at the pastoral level, the man should be a man, pull his socks up and assume the burden of moving the congregation forward according to the commandments of God and not according to a rebel faction ranting and raving on Spectrum.
The last two verses (v.14 and 15) are a reflection on sin, its consequence and mitigation; and a subtle warning that deviating from the pattern set by God in the Garden of Eden, as then so now and ever shall be, injurious.
So the whole male headship scenario that you and so many others are demanding is basically built on one verse of scripture with a few others that you bring in purportedly to support that one verse.
The support of slavery by American Christians was built on many verses yet that scenario turned out to be a violation of God’s law. How much more then, does this destructive and false theory (it is nowhere stated as a doctrine of the SDA church) of male headship also become a violation?
It always amazes me the lengths people will go in order to be able to subjugate others agains’t God’s expressed orders not to do so.
As far as I know the only church that claims that the head preacher’s voice is the voice of God is the Catholic church. I’ve never heard this applied to SDA ministers. The only human that can rightly claim to be the word of God is Jesus Christ and last I heard, He is sitting at the right hand of God and not in Silver Spring MD.
Recently Donald Trump was accused of nepotism in his assignment of important government portfolios to his son-in-law and daughter. The cry against him has abated somewhat today because their security clearances were downgraded. Long ago, during the Clinton Administration, President Bill Clinton appointed his wife Hillary to oversee Health-care reform, something that drew the ire of Republicans in Congress and forever tarnished her likeability.
Paul’s advice to Timothy about “women being silent” is something similar to what those Republicans were talking about and what has generally been the practice of US First Ladies. With regards to US policy as articulated and implemented by their husbands’ administrations, they keep themselves silent, away from cabinet meetings. But that does not preclude them from actively advocating for those things they are passionate about otherwise. Malania Trump, for example, has spoken out against cyberbullying and has made it her goal to at least reduce its incidence.
This is not about discrimination, bigotry, subjugation or, God forbid, slavery; but about spheres of authority in government at the highest level. In Paul’s letter to Timothy, the subject of our discussion, it is about ecclesiastical management which Paul, drawing on the Edenic pattern, suggested should be, like that of the family, patriarchal, not misogynistic, but a Christ-like patriarchy.
Wow! What can a person say in response to that? Nepotism? Trump? I think that someone’s grasping at straws here. You can use any form of reasoning to back up bigotry. It works every time as a tool to assuage one’s conscience and validate them in their chosen path. In the end it is still bigotry.
Calling “rebels” those people who think differently from you is not an acceptable attitude if you want to participate in a continuing conversation. You either talk with civility, or you may be ignored - at least by me. No interest in that kind of lecturing.
Also, what is this about writing a whole paragraph shouting? (Using capital letters means shouting, I hope you know that).
If you are so consumed by a passionate resistance to all forms of discrimination that you cannot see the wisdom in hierarchy, and the exclusivity of spheres of influence in government, then …
Google Scholar: The practice of Management
If you count yourself a rebel, I’m sorry. It was in my mind to say, “not according to a rebel faction ranting and raving on [the internet (as in cyberspace)]” but I wanted to draw a more immediate and familiar parallel between:
– Ted Wilson, the Denomination and those pushing to influence his policies against his conscience
– Adam, Eve and the Serpent …
And to ask rhetorically, “What should he do?”
That and the two paragraphs surrounding it were the core ideas I wanted to emphasize to push back against the proposition that Paul was suggesting that women were somehow “intellectually inferior” (which I find repugnant); whereas he was instead interested in establishing respect for authority.
The use of different font styles and lines are all I have at my disposal.
It’s not about me. I said it clearly, “those people who think differently.” And I said it because it’s very common to see ultracorservatives/conservatives using this language ('rebels") when referring to those who may have different opinions than theirs. And they usually say it from a pedestal…,or posing themselves as the “true voice of God.” Both cases are sour and bad.
It is a must to identify who those are, in your opinion. Who are you actually talking about? Now you are changing the story; first it was about some people on Spectrum, now it’s on the Internet. Please clarify exactly, 1) who those people are, and 2) what they doing (saying)?
I am having difficulty figuring out exactly what you meant by this. Can you please clarify it in a short statement so that I can understand it better?
To validate such a statement, some Biblical proof is certainly needed. Especially the part about “the congregation as well.”
“that you cannot see the wisdom in hierarchy, and the exclusivity of spheres of influence in government, then …”
Then what? Please enlighten us.
Hierarchy has its place, even in the church, Bigotry does not. Supporting and defending it is putrid, evil, and ungodly. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I believe you are confused and have directed a statement at me where it does not belong. I do not advocate “another papacy”, nor have I rejected the Holy Spirit.
because female headship is not scripturally supported. “… I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” 1 Tm 2:12
This is a term used by those who promote the Headship Heresy. Those who support women in spiritual leadership have never claimed such.
Having said that, why, like Deborah, wouldn’t a woman be empowered for leadership by the Holy Spirit?
Well, whoever wrote Timothy wrote a real doozie in that passage. The section of the text is advise on prayer. I assume you agree with the rest of it as well:
Instructions concerning Prayer
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For
there is one God;
there is also one mediator between God and humankind,
Christ Jesus, himself human,
6 who gave himself a ransom for all
this was attested at the right time. 7 For this I was appointed a herald and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
8 I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; 9 also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, 10 but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. 11 Let a woman (or wife) learn in silence with full submission. 12 I permit no woman (or wife) to teach or to have authority over a man (or her husband); she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
- Men should pray, and
- Women should be modest: No braided hair, no pearl necklaces, no golden broaches, and no expensive clothes.
- No teaching anything to men, concerning prayer, the subject of this passage.
- Instead of praying, women will be saved through childbirth, as long as they are modest and have faith.
I’ll venture to say that in the SDA church it is quite acceptable for women to wear fancy clothes, a golden broach, perhaps a golden watch, and to braid their hair any way they want. And women pray all the time in church, to this passages’ point. And we have women teaching men all the time as well, both in and out of church.
And I have never heard it preached that women should stand by while men pray earnestly, have faith, and keep having babies in order to be saved. Is this taught by the church? (No)
Also, and of particular interest to me is this assertion:
"For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. "
This is a significant twisting of the first creation story in Genesis where, near the end of creation…
26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
There’s nothing about Adam being created first here, though there is in the second creation account where Adam names all the things as they’re created. I guess you can pick one or the other, but they can’t both be true: Either humankind was created together at the end of creation or Adam at the beginning and Eve at the end.
Later, with the serpent:
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.
Adam was right there with her listening to Eve and the serpent chat and he did nothing. Either he was not deceived, and so bears more of the fault than Eve, or he was also deceived by the snake, since Eve said nothing to him, and he too heard the snake. Either way, blaming Eve for the fall is misreading the story.
Paul didn’t write Timothy, most biblical scholars agree, and at best the advise here is cultural and mostly ignored. Even embarrassing. Women are not saved through childbirth.
Timothy is chock full of advise we ignore, even cringe at when read.
As an example, here’s some advice on widows:
But refuse to put younger widows on the list [younger than 60, on the list for charity]; for when their sensual desires alienate them from Christ, they want to marry, 12 and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge. 13 Besides that, they learn to be idle, gadding about from house to house; and they are not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not say.
So, withhold charity from a widow that may want to remarry because their “sensual desires alienate them from Christ”. Huh? Oh, and also because remarrying is a sin against her first marriage. And she’s condemned for it. And also, remember, because widows tend to be shameless gossips.
Try teaching that from the pulpit. Any of it. We accept remarriage on our church, and even more so for widows than probably any other type of once-married person. We do not disparage widows as gossips.
There are many more offensive statements in Timothy that are generally ignored, and for good reason. The advise for women to shut up and make babies to be saved while the men pray is just as invalid.