Do you really support the “she must be silent” part of this verse?
If so, please tell us what you have done in your Church to enforce this idea, so that we can also do the same in our Churches - hopefully successfully.
Pacific Union Officials Decline Inclusion in SDA Yearbook; Stand in Solidarity with President Sandra Roberts
Do you really support the “she must be silent” part of this verse?
He already said it…, he excluded that Church from the conversation. Basically he used the Trump’s Way. Yesterday when a reporter asked Trump if we was considering pardoning Cohen, Trump repkied, “Tha is a stupid question.” Trumpism at full speed!!!
I am always astonished seeing how far and how deep discriminators of women will go in order to defend their cause against women. When my professional eyes see that, my brain immediately triggers a question, “Is there any hope for such a distorted view to be cured?” And I am not really sure…
If you keep bringing those issue up you will soon be stamped as an "infidel."
I expect you mean using apologists’ texts against them in the discussion.
Have you noticed what I have? Almost every time I look up a proof text offered by an apologist to support their case, and I read it in context, I find that it either doesn’t really say what they want it to say or the proof text is embedded in a series of statements that are otherwise ignored by those same apologists.
It keeps happening over and over, and I personally continue to be somewhat surprised at these outcomes. More and more I am convinced that proof-texting, taking one or two sentences out of context, is quite inadequate and even a dangerous way to use scripture.
Here’s some proof texts we can have fun with. Things the bible clearly states:
We should not marry:
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.
You can save your spouse through your belief:
For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband.
Your belief, if you stay in an “unequally yolked” marriage, makes your children holy!:
Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
We can actually talk to the dead through mediums, and even while dead they know what is happening on the earth and can tell us the future:
The Medium said, “I see a ghostly figure coming up out of the earth." “What does he look like?” Saul asked. “An old man wearing a robe is coming up,” she said. Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”
Samuel said, “Why do you consult me, now that the Lord has departed from you and become your enemy? … The Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hands and given it to one of your neighbors—to David. … The Lord will deliver both Israel and you into the hands of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me [dead in the underworld]. The Lord will also give the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines.”
It’s appropriate and edifying to kill the babies of your enemies:
“Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”
I could go on and on.
Kevin is the King of the Spectrum Apologists.
Those guys should be rather apologizing…
I noticed this during my last 10 years or so in the SDA church. I always check on anything that is put forth by an SDA because of the problem that you have raised.
Please provide documentation (not your claim or opinion) that EGW was NOT in a spiritual leadership position.
Please provide documentation (not your claim or opinion) that this is the case in China.
You provide no documentation or facts for this claim.
Please provide documentation.
Please provide documentation for this claim.
As do I.
I would love if everyone actually talked about the situation in China instead of circle it. I was there, it is craving male headship. No one seems to be fact checking that Pastor Jie who leads the largest church in China was later joined by her husband whom she serves UNDER. But that’s another story no one wants to tell…
Brother, are you challenging Timothy’s validity and inspiration?
No. I & II Timothy are pseudepigraphic works, attributed to Paul, but falsely so. This was a common ancient tactic to give more credence to a published work & may have been part of the reason the church chose to include them in the Canon. However analysis of the writing and other factors indicate Paul didn’t write them.
This is not that different from the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write the gospels. They are all anonymous works, but their names were attached to them at a later date.
Still I have pointed out that there is a lot of material in Timothy that we do not adhere to. Picking the one or two verses that talk about women teaching while ignoring much of the other similar social advise is not a valid position to hold.
Such instruction is based on the norms of the time, and we should read it for its original intent, and not its literal details. If we were to read it literally, then we couldn’t braid our daugher’s hair. Whatever the author had against braiding hair is cultural, as it the rest of such instruction.
Poppycock! The early Church rejected pseudepigraphal work while the following ACCEPTED it:
“The early church clearly accepted them as genuinely Pauline. They were probably known to the author of 1 Clement (ca. 96 AD).2 Several passages in the letters of Ignatius (ca. 110 AD) seem to show dependence on them.3 Polycarp of Smyrna (ca. 117 AD) cited them,4 as did Justin Martyr (ca. 140 AD). They were rejected by the heretical Marcion Canon (ca. 150 AD) according to Tertullian, because of their emphasis on church discipline.5 They are clearly attributed to Paul by Irenaeus (ca. 180 AD).6”
You ARE challenging the validity and inspiration of Timothy 1 and 2! SHAME! Moreover, EGW stated that Paul was the author in her commentaries.
But…, WHO is trying to force those churches to “accommodate female leadership?” I haven’t heard of that at all!
Actually, it’s the opposite, it’s those people who CANNOT ACCOMMODATE female leadership that keep forcing their discrimination against women on those who want to give women the rights they deserve. The promoters of male headship are, so far, forcing their ideas on those who do not support male headship.
I want to see those women saying that…
But the more important news worthy that needs no “fact checking” is the realization that women can do what men can do and just be as effective, if not more. And what does this reveal? That behind this posturing lies the real beast and the root of all evil, the loss of empathy, discrimination.
Perhaps by Pastor Jie’s husband joining her, HE could learn a thing or two that would broaden his repertoire and make him more effective witness for God. Wouldn’t that make you happy?
You’re throwing stones. I’m only reflecting the best biblical scholarship. Yo will find educated pastors throughout the church that have the same understanding.
Your church history appears correct and is not in any disagreement with what I’ve relayed. It does not mean they were right. Adventists love to point out (what they claim are) the many errors of the RCC, which is the literal nature of protestantism. This is another of those. As I have written, it does not invalidate the work but it is important to understand that Paul didn’t write it. Once you do, and you review only the accepted Pauline works, Paul’s message comes across somewhat differently.
I hold the position that there is nothing wrong with understanding the sources of our scripture. Saying “it’s inspired” is not enough. It clearly came from somewhere, at some time, was possibly written by for a specific audience, for a specific purpose. Knowing these things can help.
For example, knowing that the Psalms are three(?) collections of poems from different sources and time periods helps. That’s why some of them appear to repeat (they were similar poems from different collections.) Similarly, knowing that Job, I think it is, is one of the oldest books in the bible can shed light on its teaching.
For a pretty good rundown of Paul’s works, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles
the pro-WO is actually trying to force the GC to make WO a binding act - and this would affect the entire church including a vast majority of SDAs who reside outside the USA.
Lastly, female spiritual headship has no biblical support. All references used to support it do not related to headship. The question is not about WO - the SDA church has a long history of that already. It is about female headship OVER her individual church as a spiritual leader. THAT is the debate and that is why 78% of the world church reps voted no.
God DOES use whom ever will hear his call. Historically the vision Ellen White first had went to 2 prior men who did not hear or follow.
- I would hope and pray that those so bent on WO t the offensive expense of many cultures who cannot accept female headship repent of their doings. They are not in the majority, in fact it is a slim minority.
- the SDA church already has ordained woman, they just could not be head of a church (Spiritual Headship), so the debate isn’t really about WO, it’s about headship and there’s no scripture to support that.
- unity: the short answer is ordain women but they must have their husbands as church head above them. What’s wrong with that?
you will have to fly to China.
Are these the African cultures engaged in female mutilation?
“What’s wrong with that?” Everything. Being “above” is best when earned, not conferred as an entitlement solely on the presence of testicles.
What’s wrong with earning respect and stature?
Never has it been spelled out more clearly.
This is not about WO.
This is about Headship OVER.
The baggage that comes with Headship is the stuff of nightmares.