What Women Can Do in the Church

bob_2 · 02-05-09 2:52 pm

What Women Can Do in the Church <a href="http://www.tbs.edu/papers.php?paperID=18&parentID=18&childID=13&childType=link" target=_top>http://www.tbs.edu/papers.php?paperID=18&parentID= 18&childID=13&childType=link</a> Reading this over, I wondered, could a woman be satisfied with some of these roles without coveting the spiritual leader role of the local church or denominational headquarter. Of course within SDAism given Glacierview, "spiritual leader" has become "foggy" in my opinion when Administrative and Spiritual are sometime hard to separate or some refuse to separate them. However, I do like the balance in this article, Elaine I am sure will differ, but what's new... Love you Elaine!!!

bob · 02-06-09 12:08 pm

"Women could be ushers. In the worship service, a woman could pray, could read the Scriptures, could give her testimony, could give a missionary report, could direct the singing, without violating biblical principles." from Toronto Baptist Seminary How does reading scripture, giving testimony, giving the missionary report or direct the choir not violate the command of Paul for women to be silent? 1 Tim 2: 11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

bob_2 · 02-06-09 1:12 pm

Well, Bob Shields, Paul must of contradicted himself because if you read the Toronto Baptist Seminary piece you found many female teachers of men, such as Apollos received from Priscilla and Aquilla. One has to read all the texts to get the total picture going on in the Early Church. What of when the women finally "got it" and were ready to teach, were they to be silent per the Bible???

bob · 02-06-09 4:49 pm

Priscilla may not have spoken a word, we are not told if one or both taught Apollos. It is hard to read something into that which is not there. You may have a good point about after being taught were women to still remain silent? There again it doesn't elaborate. Paul did use "I" like I urge, I want, I also want and I do not permit in 1 Tim 2. I realize he was an apostle, but he also made human mistakes. Was he a chauvinist or maybe there was a lot of unrest that needed strong discipline? Whatever the reason, we can only make a feeble attempt to decipher his meaning. Since it is not really clear what God would have us do, I, being raised by my mother because dad passed away early in my life, respect women's ability to council and teach. I have no qualms about women pastors and church leaders. If I am wrong, I believe I have an excellent excuse plus I don't believe the issue is salvational. Bob

elaine · 02-06-09 6:16 pm

Tradition is everything, especially in religion which is centuries behind social issues. Women were, for the most of history, to be fertile and produce offspring. Rarely (except in the priestess religions) were they allowed to study or participate in rituals. Some women entered convents because they were at least able to study and learn when only males attended schools. Keeping them barefoot and pregnant: "kinder, kirke and kuchen" was the only role for women. Only in the last 25-50 years have women had the freedom to be educated and work equally with men. Reading a report in the NYTimes today, with all the job losses, women may become a larger percent of employed workers than men. That's because they usually work in lower paying jobs and more necessary ones. Thankfully, this administration has passed the Lily Ledbetter Act that allows women to demand equal pay for equal work no matter when it the irregularity is discovered.

bob_2 · 02-06-09 8:27 pm

Interesting what John Gill says about the women mentioned in Romans 16. This may go along with Bob Shields cynical remark, which I looked for to quote directly, but essentially I remember Bob Shields suggesting loyal tithe paying covers a multitude of ills. It appears the women being praised in Romans 16 were women of means, and were being praised for using their means for the church's furtherance. Note John Gill surmising on the subject: <a href="http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/romans/gill/romans16.htm" target=_top>http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/romans/gill/rom ans16.htm</a> Their work was related to sharing their wealth, not that of spiritual leaders, any training or instruction prudently in private, not publicly touted.

bob_2 · 02-06-09 8:30 pm

My instincts, if we are going to take Paul serious on the details of salvation, we have to take him serious on the part that women were to play in the church. You start modifying culturally what is being said here, one could argue a cultural modification of the means of salvation, IMHO.

bob_2 · 02-06-09 8:38 pm

Here is that "cynical" remark from Bob Shields: <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=5&post=1311#POST1311" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=5&post=1311#POST1311</a> I don't disagree, but in the PCA church I once heard a minister say that it isn't always prudent to place someone with deep pockets in prominent, decision positions, where hold them back could have an effect on monetary support of the church operation.

bob · 02-07-09 2:05 am

Was it cynical or reality? Not much use beating around the bush. Sometimes we need to tell it like it is and let the chips fall where they fall.

bob_2 · 02-07-09 12:47 pm

However, Bob Shields, you have broad brushed anyone with any money as corrupt and unfit for church office, is that what you intended???

bob · 02-07-09 7:25 pm

Sorry I gave that impression. Why would you want to read something into my statement that isn't there? If anything is "corrupt" it is the system. The laity are just pawns, wealthy or poor. Poor pay the tax too and some are elevated into the prestigious positions.

billdljr · 09-02-09 9:13 am

Dear Bob and Don, I just now received this email from Tom Durst. A group of us have been reminiscing about the good old days of the Awakening of the 1960's and 70's and all of the great people we used to know. I think you will enjoy reading some of that history which touched on your family. "Ruth Sands was from Oshawa, Ontario. I think she had 8 children--all boys as I recall. Her husband had been a medical doctor who committed suicide in a motel and she raised the boys as a single mom and did a great job. One of her sons, Bill Sands, typed the 1888 Re-Examined MS for me to publish in book form when we were operating out of Strafford, Missouri. Ruth and some of her boys were at one or more of the Ridgetop institutes in the 60s. I have a picture of them. She was quite a character and wasn't bashful about standing up in a public meeting and stating her viewpoints. I remember hearing her on a tape when Dr. Cottrell in a SDA Forum was unraveling the 1844 teaching of the SDAs. She was vigorously in opposition. I remember thinking, "That's Ruth Sands." When Bob Brinsmead shifted to the new awakening in the 70s Ruth didn't handle that very well as I recall. She was really funny. Don't know if she is still living or not. I stayed at her home once in Oshawa I think as I was passing through on one of my awakening itineraries. I saw some old friends in the SDA Reform in that area at the same time. After they left the Reform I remained friends with several and whenever I saw any of them they embraced me with open arms like I was still one of them. I've found that love breaks down all barriers of religion. Might not that be telling us something????" Tom Durst I also have fond memories of Ruth Sands and her son Bill. I was at Andrews U. in Berrien Springs in the late 60's and got to know them. We posted the "40 Propositions" on the bulletin board in Griggs Hall and that really stirred the entire school with a buzz. The faculty was kind enough to allow the 24"x48" flyer to remain for an entire day. Bill Winebrenner and I were eventually persona non gratia on campus so I left the school and went out to California to help with the production of Present Truth Magazine. The rest is history. We eventually published "1844 Re-examined" which devestated the Millerite date setting paradigm once and for all time. Today's SDA movement owes much to the ministry of Bob Brinsmead for bringing it into the fold of the Protestant Reformation and justification by faith. There are very few "sinless perfectionism" ministers and members today as a result of the Awakening having recovered the reformation teaching of Original Sin and justication by faith alone. Bill Diehl (Message edited by billdljr on September 02, 2009)

don · 09-02-09 6:16 pm

Mom always had a positive attitude toward Bob Brinsmead, Des Ford, and those who associated with them. Regarding Brinsmead, she always held him up as the best teacher anyone could learn "the message" from. I remember Tom Durst by name but don't recall his visit. I do remember the meetings; one in New York, another in Tennessee (I think). At the Tennessee meeting, I recall Bob Brinsmead had a call to accept the Gospel to which I responded. Also, at this same meeting, I overheard two older gentlemen discussing who would be the next called of God after Brinsmead. .

bob_2 · 09-03-09 12:53 am

Bill Diehl, interesting you should put your remarks under this thread title. My Mom was from the old school and could often be heard saying to us kids, "Its a man's world." Remember that one, Don. Interesting Durst turned Coroner with his stating the cause of our Dad's death that us kids never got from a legitimate one, eh??? (Message edited by Bob_2 on September 03, 2009)

billdljr · 09-03-09 1:15 am

Bob, I am sorry that the referrence to your dad's death was in the post. I should have deleted that sentence but I overlooked it. I wlll ask Tom Durst what was the source of his statement. I am sure that he did not mean to be insensitive by the remark. Perhaps I should have just not posted the comment but I thought that you guys would like to know that there are people who really appreciated your mom. I had good intentions when I posted it. Bill Diehl

billdljr · 09-03-09 1:23 am

Bob, I looked for somewhere to post the comment on this forum but did not see anywhere else to put it.

don · 09-03-09 8:18 am

I recall Mom's statement "You think like a man" when she wanted to compliment a woman's ability to think. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> I also recall growing up viewing Dad's death as Tom reported it. But later on, I discussed the matter with Dad's brother, our uncle, and first heard the view that it could have been accidental since dad had lots of pain in his legs and took medication for it. .

don · 09-04-09 8:02 am

I am sure that he did not mean to be insensitive by the remark. Imagine the impact on seven kids, six boys and one girl, having this shadow in your consciousness. I think we can talk about it now somewhat easier than then. Mom would not talk about those times. If a person can casually mention things like Tom did, it indicates to me that he is not sensitive on that point. None of us are perfect; far from it. I thought that you guys would like to know that there are people who really appreciated your mom. I had good intentions when I posted it. Your intentions are acknowledged, too. Before the Brinsmead crisis of the early 60's, Mom was a strong local leader. Her Vacation Bible Schools enlisted hundreds of children, many not Adventist. Mom became very outspoken. She lived at the city where Adventist work in Canada and Ontario is headquartered. For some years she was treated like a pariah, mostly because of her support for Brinsmead. (She acknowledged what he taught but did not "follow the man" as some did.) Her Sabbath School teaching position was taken away. "I can teach from the pew," she responded. And she did. Several pastors tried to disfellowship her, but the majority of the local boards would not go along with them. Certain lawyers and businessmen who sat on the boards opposed such a plan. During these years, we were always intrigued with the response of church leaders. When we would meet them anywhere in Canada, their first question would be, "How is your mom?" Church leaders who knew how to work with people admired her, and she them. Church leaders who felt intimidated by her forthrightness, opposed her. Later on, the church, leaders and laity, began to understand her. She was treated better in her old age. At one point, I noted her tears when her cat died. I had very seldom seen mom cry. This "human" side of mom needed to be seen more often. As a young fellow, I recall advising her to talk more so that people eventually would see the whole of her. Her funeral was conducted in the headquarters church, well-attended. During these years of reconciliation, she was asked to conduct a series of worship services in the the two levels of conference offices. How times had changed. Her theology had not changed, as far as I could tell. (Message edited by Don on September 04, 2009)

don · 09-04-09 10:09 pm

Another interesting point relates to ordination. Mom contended, "I don't need any man to lay hands on me." She did not feel the need to receive ordination to do her task for God. I suppose it was her way of avoiding the issue. Ordination is a big issue within the world church. Intense fundamentalism took over the church in the early 1900's and some aspects, such as women's ordination, continue to be interpreted in this intense fashion. The Advent movement of the late 1800's did not limit service as it did later on. .

don · 09-05-09 9:06 am

Today's SDA movement owes much to the ministry of Bob Brinsmead for bringing it into the fold of the Protestant Reformation and justification by faith. There are very few "sinless perfectionism" ministers and members today as a result of the Awakening having recovered the reformation teaching of Original Sin and justication by faith alone. Bill, Brinsmead owed his Reformatin stance to some prominent Adventists, so I have heard. No one could teach "sinless perfection" like Brinsmead. I recall hearing that it was Larondelle who met with Brinsmead and persuaded him of the Reformation viewpoint. Paxton credits "Heppenstall, Ford, and others". Of course, Brinsmead was a tremendous teacher whatever view he espoused; clear, concise, persuasive. From an Adventist administrative point of view, whatever Brinsmead addressed was controversial because he addressed it. In the '70's, Righteousness by Faith seemed a controversial topic; I could never figure that out. I thought everyone welcomed the basic teachings of the Reformation Gospel. Looking back, when Brinsmead presented the Sanctuary message, "the church" *** opposed it. Now, "the church" champions it again. When Brinsmead presented the Reformation Gospel, "the church" opposed it. Now, there seems to be a congenial embrace of a wide variety of views. It seems that Brinsmead's style and persona touched a raw nerve in Adventism, especially during the two decades, the 60's and 70's. *** "The Church" is not a very accurate term. I use it to make a point; suggesting that a pervasive attitude within church leadership led to a certain church-wide outlook. Of course, individual church leaders varied considerably in their outlook and advocacy. (Message edited by Don on September 05, 2009)

bob_2 · 09-05-09 12:17 pm

Another thing about Mom that got her interest by the Conference/Union guys, she made a production of paying her tithe where she felt the MESSAGE was being taught, after the church treasurer told her, calculating backwards from her tithe, "You make more than my husband does." She vowed never to pay it through the church again and always paid it at the Conference or Union offices. Don might know which or both. Get a faithful tithe payer today and they will listen to just about anything, maybe even a little perfectionism, eh???

don · 09-05-09 2:12 pm

She vowed never to pay it through the church again and always paid it at the Conference or Union offices. As I understand it, the local conference is equipped to receive tithe directly. After all, there is what is called the conference church; an entity for isolated members. For some time, the Maritime Conference received her support. She would present her tithe to the Union office and they would apply it to the Maritime conference. I understand the conference, being smaller and in more financial need, appreciated her support. Financially, she had developed some interesting practices; minor stuff. For example, she often would purchase a $10.00 roll of quarters from the bank. Once, upon counting the roll, she found $9.50 rather than the full $10.00. She refused to confront the bank with the error. "I have to continue working with the cashier who erred," she said. From then on, she would order $7.00 worth of quarters. This caused the cashier to open a roll and count out the correct change while she watched. Get a faithful tithe payer today and they will listen to just about anything, maybe even a little perfectionism, eh??? I believe that conference officials pay attention to such financial help. Obviously, it is not absolute. For example, Des Ford and his wife were what I would call model Adventists in every way (so it seems to me). Yet, they were not favored. I suppose Ford shook the foundations in ways felt to be threatening. (Message edited by Don on September 05, 2009)

bob_2 · 09-05-09 5:54 pm

Brinsmead always seemed a decade or so in front of the church's evolution. In the 60s he expounded on the Sanctuary,(about a decade later it was the test of a faithful SDA minister if he taught the Sanctuary) to the nth degree, declaring parts of it representative of the subconscious mind, and using it as an example of the action of God at the Close of Probation, perfecting us even though we ourselves will not be perfect. Whether he believe one could attain that then have the result sealed or God made up the difference I can't now remember, even though it is an important point, is it not for all Christians to know what they believe in this regard, when God says "He that is holy, let him be holy still...". Cooperative effort, direction of the life or Imparted righteousness?? Brinsmead in the 70s , as Don pointed out, he became more Reformationist in his preaching,(a decade or so in front of the church)emphasizing righteousness by faith.

billdljr · 09-05-09 7:05 pm

Don and Bob, Yes, righteousness by faith as meaning the imputed righteousness of Christ which is reckoned to the repentant believer. This was great light to refute the old traditional SDA teaching that it is the imparted righteousness of Christ which prepared the believer for the second advent. The great light of the Reformation is that imputed righteousness is required for not only covering the sins of the past but also to cover even our good works in sanctification even unto the coming of the Lord. No amount of sanctification is ever good enough to enable us to stand before God, now or even at the final day. The light on the need of the imputed righteousness even unto the second coming was the death knell to SDA sinless perfectionism which all of the pioneers of the Advent movement like James White, Joseph Bates, and J.N. Andrews advocated from the earliest days of Seventh-day Adventism. Imputed righteous will be our only hope even in the time of trouble when no one will be able to "enter" the temple after the close of probation. Although no one can "enter" the temple then, the believing repentant sinner has already entered the temple through faith in Christ. He will have been sealed with the final seal of God. Those without the seal of God will be shut out of the temple and receive the final wrath of God, the seven last plagues. Bill

bob_2 · 09-05-09 7:16 pm

So Bill the overcomer, is a forensic overcomer, not a literal overcomer, eh??? With that view where is the power of your form of godliness?? Isn't the devil justified in saying, "See I told you it couldn't be done, God does it for you. There is no power to change you, only he can do it. It was rigged from the start, what does this whole experiment on earth prove anyway??"

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 02-05-09 2:52 pm

What Women Can Do in the Church

#2 02-06-09 12:08 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#3 02-06-09 1:12 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#4 02-06-09 4:49 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#5 02-06-09 6:16 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#6 02-06-09 8:27 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#7 02-06-09 8:30 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#8 02-06-09 8:38 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#9 02-07-09 2:05 am

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#10 02-07-09 12:47 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#11 02-07-09 7:25 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#12 09-02-09 9:13 am

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#13 09-02-09 6:16 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#14 09-03-09 12:53 am

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#15 09-03-09 1:15 am

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#16 09-03-09 1:23 am

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#17 09-03-09 8:18 am

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#18 09-04-09 8:02 am

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#19 09-04-09 10:09 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#20 09-05-09 9:06 am

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#21 09-05-09 12:17 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#22 09-05-09 2:12 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#23 09-05-09 5:54 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#24 09-05-09 7:05 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#25 09-05-09 7:16 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

Board footer