Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
Sign in to follow this  
Tom Wetmore

Phoebe, a leader in the New Testament Church

Recommended Posts

Mark Leslie
On 3/27/2018 at 7:07 PM, CoAspen said:

The topic was about Phoebe, yet the denigration of women in general and those seeking to be pastors, continues. We then get the 'play with words' in order to say, "I didn't say that". We have a little to much protest asthe obvious of that actuality . Greg I remember history when people stood around silent about issue/s. Since it seems to be okay for that to be repeated over and over, I will continue to voice my displeasure.

 

:backtopic:

Thats funny. The motivating factor behind the WO push is the use of the passage about Phobe, so lets be honest here.  And, even its true that someone "denigrates women", (Not saying anyone has) as you say - it still doesn't take away the fact that Womens Ordination cannot be demonstrated Biblically, either in principle, or in practice. WO guys just like to turn it into something that it is not. "All those against WO are woman bashers", then if you state your protest against it, you become a woman basher. Its an age old tactic called a straw man argument and WO proponents have used it from day one.

And by the way, I havent seen you silent at all. I have seen some pretty strong disapproval - and outright condemnations in your own posts.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark Leslie
On 3/7/2018 at 6:22 AM, Tom Wetmore said:

The whole of Mark’s dismissive condemnation is also, IMHO, a disingenuous indication of unwillingness to actually engage in the effort to seriously consider the wealth of information, and evidence from Scripture and EGW, and evidence of Gods calling of women, that supports women in ministry and leadership in the Church.  It is a fallacious reductionsitic argument frequently employed by opposers. It puts blinders on and makes it sound like absolutely nothing else has been said on the topic. It leaves out context. It pretends that whatever narrow point is targeted by the observation is the only and best point in support of the issue at hand.

One thing already said numerous times before that I alluded to above... The evidence of the call of God to ministry. That would be a supremely important Godly purpose. It is one of the most significant  things that is identified, based on Scripture and EGW’s writings,  as proof of the call to ministry as a prerequisite to ordination. Souls brought to Christ in baptism.  It is applied to men claiming a call to ministry before they can be ordained.  Yet for all the women that have brought many souls to Christ in baptism, it is ignored by those that are unwilling to approve of women as ministers. As if it never happened. Ever.  Blind to the obvious. 

Tom, I dont agree that I have been "dismissive".  I have put a lot of time and thought into this subject. I have stated clearly my reasons for rejecting WO. I don't think anyone can call my responses or position “dismissive”.

I do not believe that your statement "disingenuous indication of unwillingness to engage" is accurate either, to say nothing of the fact that you assume my level of understanding of this subject. It is amazing the patience that those concerned with the forcing of the WO issue have shown while carefully setting forth demonstrable facts as to why.

What I think you really take issue with is my (our) unwillingness to see things “your way”. In that assessment, you would be correct. However it is not without a rational and systematic approach to the question of Women's Ordination. It certainly isn't because of a "disingenuous indication of unwillingness to engage". Care has been taken countless times explaining why we reject it - and the reasoning is Biblical.

Finally, you have misstated a material fact. Not once has anyone that I know of (Respected theologians, and leaders in the Seventh Day Adventist Church) have ever said that women should not be in ministry in the church. It has never been said that women cannot take leadership roles. Leading one to Christ, or in healthful living for example, is in fact,”leading”. Leading a Sabbath school class, is a leadership role, for example. We have women leading specialized ministries and outreach programs in our church. None of this has ever been condemned as far as I can see. These are obvious facts. Therefore, It doesn't appear to me that WO proponents are concerned about women ministering, but rather that they cannot be ordained. What you do is muddy the waters, and confuse the issue. Ministry and Ordination do not equate to the same thing, so lets be honest here. Its not about “ministering” at all.

There is virtually no mention or platform describing the necessity of women ordination being crucial to the development of outreach, which is the primary function of the church. The reason is that it would be ludicrous to attempt such an argument for the simple fact that women are not denied the opportunity to serve the Lord in any means to reach the lost. The fact is that Pastorship or Eldership over the Church is not a requirement to be an active participant in the forwarding of the Gospel. If women would focus on that, and if men in support of WO would focus on that there would be absolutely no time left in a day to worry about “titles”.

What has been stated is that Women in Pastorship and Eldership positions cannot be demonstrated Biblically, neither in principal, nor in practice. It simply cannot. Do women pastor? Yes they do, because ultimately leading someone in right living for the Lord is, in fact, “pastoring”. However, that is a distinctly different role than that of being in the position of Pastor or Elder over the flock itself – regardless of whether or not the term “ordination” is appreciated.

Women's Ordination in either of the two roles as Pastor or Elder over the flock is neither Biblical in principle, nor is it Biblical in practice.

I think all of this has been enunciated, repeated and reiterated multitudinous times.

As a final note to your suggestion of reading the article by Darius Jankiewicz, I took time to do that today. I thought that surely there must be something compelling in the article that could lead a critical thinker to give cause for pause - after all, there was so much ballyhoo about it. However, It was anticlimactic. I got the impression that the author doesn't appreciate the difference between research, and speculation. I was disappointed. You should be too because although it may make you feel good, it is not flattering to your position as a serious treatise in support of the subject of WO.

One thing I can say was good about it. The first paragraph was a nice, quick outline of the book of Romans!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Wetmore

Thanks for reinforcing my points. Dismissive indeed...

Only one further response...

4 hours ago, Mark Leslie said:

What has been stated is that Women in Pastorship and Eldership positions cannot be demonstrated Biblically, neither in principal, nor in practice. It simply cannot. Do women pastor? Yes they do, because ultimately leading someone in right living for the Lord is, in fact, “pastoring”. However, that is a distinctly different role than that of being in the position of Pastor or Elder over the flock itself – regardless of whether or not the term “ordination” is appreciated.

Covered numerous times already, including Biblical evidence regarding the role ( and "position", although that is a distinction without a difference) of women as elders and pastors... While not specifically "Biblical" there is this from Testimonies for the Church, vol. 6, p. 322, regarding pastors "over the flock itself" [your words] (although I would contend that "over" is the wrong word choice for the role in question...) - 

"It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God." [emphasis added]

And from Acts of the Apostles, p. 162...

"At a later time the rite of ordination by the laying on of hands was greatly abused; unwarranted importance was attached to the act..."  I would only add to that by expanding the verb in both clauses to the present tense as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark Leslie
1 hour ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Thanks for reinforcing my points. Dismissive indeed...

Only one further response...

Covered numerous times already, including Biblical evidence regarding the role ( and "position", although that is a distinction without a difference) of women as elders and pastors... While not specifically "Biblical" there is this from Testimonies for the Church, vol. 6, p. 322, regarding pastors "over the flock itself" [your words] (although I would contend that "over" is the wrong word choice for the role in question...) - 

"It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God." [emphasis added]

And from Acts of the Apostles, p. 162...

"At a later time the rite of ordination by the laying on of hands was greatly abused; unwarranted importance was attached to the act..."  I would only add to that by expanding the verb in both clauses to the present tense as well.

 

Maybe you should re-examine the definition of "dismissive".  I, and the majority of others familiar with this debate have listened to and weighed all of the arguments in favor of WO. Therefore, your belief to the contrary is unsupported. As others have accused us of doing, you are pretending to know both our examination of the topic, and our motives. I can tell you our motives. We don't want Gods Church destroyed. There you go. Now you know. No more need for guessing.

One thing I did appreciate, a most astute comment in your post - language I fully agree with: You said the role is, and I quote "...not specifically "Biblical...".  You are correct. It is not.

In any event,  you have mischaracterized Mrs Whites writings - as WO proponents are wont to do. Reminds me of people taking Bible verses out of context, thereby causing divisions and misunderstandings.  A careful reading of those partial quotes from Mrs White that you so skillfully extracted  are incomplete without the rest of the chapter in which they occur.

A repeat of a comment in my earlier post bears repeating:

5 hours ago, Mark Leslie said:

Do women pastor? Yes they do, because ultimately leading someone in right living for the Lord is, in fact, “pastoring”. However, that is a distinctly different role than that of being in the position of Pastor or Elder over the flock itself – regardless of whether or not the term “ordination” is appreciated.

And that is precisely what Mrs White meant and this can be further supported by her understanding of Church leadership in many of her other writings.

Out of context statements do a fine job of creating doubt in the minds of the uninitiated, I'll give you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

To state what I have stated before:  The Biblical issue is not about ordination of females.  Rather it is the role that females should have in spiritual development.

In an earlier post, Mark Leslie said in a quote below:

I will suggest that her comment is not fully accurate.  I will illustrate.  How many people against female ordination would support Dr. Roberts as the President of the South Eastern California Conference if she would agree to be issued the credentials of a Commissioned Minister?

Many, even if not all, opposed to the ordination of women are against women in specific leadership roles.  Some do not want women on the platform in any capacity.

 

Finally, you have misstated a material fact. Not once has anyone that I know of (Respected theologians, and leaders in the Seventh Day Adventist Church) have ever said that women should not be in ministry in the church. It has never been said that women cannot take leadership roles. Leading one to Christ, or in healthful living for example, is in fact, ”leading”. Leading a Sabbath school class, is a leadership role, for example. We have women leading specialized ministries and outreach programs in our church. None of this has ever been condemned as far as I can see. These are obvious facts. Therefore, It doesn't appear to me that WO proponents are concerned about women ministering, but rather that they cannot be ordained. What you do is muddy the waters, and confuse the issue. Ministry and Ordination do not equate to the same thing, so lets be honest here. Its not about “ministering” at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
4 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

"It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God." [emphasis added]

And from Acts of the Apostles, p. 162...

"At a later time the rite of ordination by the laying on of hands was greatly abused; unwarranted importance was attached to the act..."  I would only add to that by expanding the verb in both clauses to the present tense as well.

She was talking about the benefits of colporteur work and how educational it can be if one wanted to *pastor* a group of people. IDK for sure that she was referring to ordained pastors or not, it doesnt seem like it...she definitely pastored many congregations but was never outright ordained herself.

Quote

Those who are fitting for the ministry can engage in no other occupation that will give them so large an experience as will the canvassing work.--Testimonies, vol. 6, p. 334. (1900)  {CM 34.2} 

This is not me taking sides at all. Just looking for a little clarification & context which is hard to glean from isolated sentences  I myself have  *pastored* a congregation as an elder, and I was not an *ordained* pastor. The title I was given was Lay Pastor. I was however, ordained as an elder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
48 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I will suggest that her comment is not fully accurate.  I will illustrate.  How many people against female ordination would support Dr. Roberts as the President of the South Eastern California Conference if she would agree to be issued the credentials of a Commissioned Minister?

Isnt Roberts already *pastoring* a congregation

Edited by The Wanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoAspen
Quote

We don't want Gods Church destroyed.-ML

One can then be lead to believe, based on prior rhetoric, that having women 'ordained' to be leaders in the church, pastor a church, leader over men including the .org is 'destroying Gods Church'. What is always missing in such an argument, is that Christ never spoke about a .org when refering to His Church but rather to those that followed Him. The RCC, however, does teach that Christ did just exactly that when speaking to Peter. That is the basis of their theology and is has crept in the the SDA .org from time to time...'headship'. I find it very interesting that after all we have taught about  'following after the beast', with the meaning being used most often to describe the RCC, there are some choosing to do that within the .org however unwittingly or just ignoring the parallels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
8 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

One can then be lead to believe, based on prior rhetoric, that having women 'ordained' to be leaders in the church, pastor a church, leader over men including the .org is 'destroying Gods Church'. What is always missing in such an argument, is that Christ never spoke about a .org when refering to His Church but rather to those that followed Him. The RCC, however, does teach that Christ did just exactly that when speaking to Peter. That is the basis of their theology and is has crept in the the SDA .org from time to time...'headship'. I find it very interesting that after all we have taught about  'following after the beast', with the meaning being used most often to describe the RCC, there are some choosing to do that within the .org however unwittingly or just ignoring the parallels.

I think *the problem* is much worse when people start saying *if Catholics do it, then we cannot do it.. *We wouldnèt want to follow the beast now, would we.*  The trouble is, that not everything Catholics do is *wrong,* and its equally not wrong to do some things that they do. I have no problem, (that I can see from the Bible) with the church organizing for service. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. There are entire web sites devoted to the supposed *.org* problem. But realistically, that problem, so called is moot.

Edited by The Wanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoAspen

The bigger issue to me, is that man seems to believe, he the human, has the sole right to 'ordain'.......

 ordain1 make (someone) a priest or minister; confer holy orders on.

Again, humans desiring to take the role of God  in leading others to Him. Did Christ not come to destroy that myth? Would He walk down the isle to congratulate those who condemn the women claiming to be following the voice of God and bringing others to Him? ( fruits of their labor) I, for one, am not going to interfere with the leading of the HS. Talk about 'out of context', is that not the usual happening with human interpretation of scripture when desiring to prove a certain point. 

I wonder how many people really believe God is in control or that humans have to help Him......in order that others will have 'correct' understanding?

:thinking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoAspen

Wanderer.....you argue a point that was not being addressed. We/I are taking about 'womens ordination', under the quise of 'headship' being the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
1 hour ago, CoAspen said:

Wanderer.....you argue a point that was not being addressed. We/I are taking about 'womens ordination', under the quise of 'headship' being the rule.

I quoted directly from your post, and did not alter in any way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
11 hours ago, Mark Leslie said:

In any event,  you have mischaracterized Mrs Whites writings - as WO proponents are wont to do. Reminds me of people taking Bible verses out of context, thereby causing divisions and misunderstandings.  A careful reading of those partial quotes from Mrs White that you so skillfully extracted  are incomplete without the rest of the chapter in which they occur.

Taking EGW out of context has been happening since the days of QOD. Here is a quote I posted in another thread:

 Froom wrote up the initial set of replies to Walter Martin’s initial set of questions. Twenty pages in length, they were handed to Martin at the next meeting, and he stayed up till 2 A.M. that night going over them. Those of you who have read in Leroy Edwin Froom’s books (Movement of Destiny is a good example) will know that Froom was an expert at marshalling words to say what he wanted them to say. As Elder Ralph Larson so ably pointed out in Documentary Fraud [FF-261, Froom could even take bits and pieces from a collection of Spirit of Prophecy quotations-and make them say exactly the opposite of what they originally said) He was a master at subtle verbal restatement.
 

https://adventistan.com/forums/topic/72558-desmond-ford-a-relook/?tab=comments#comment-770465 >

The quote came from:

https://heraldsofthemorn.com/tag/m-l-andreasen/

This is one of the reasons I do not like compilations of quotes from EGW. They put her name on the book, but the sentiment or argument was not hers.

FWIW, I am sure that people have been misquoting EGW since the beginning of the church, but the book QOD seems to have had a serious impact on the church and could even be said to have been the original inspiration for a number of heresies.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
4 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

Here is a quote I posted in another thread:

 Froom wrote up the initial set of replies to Walter Martin’s initial set of questions. Twenty pages in length, they were handed to Martin at the next meeting, and he stayed up till 2 A.M. that night going over them. Those of you who have read in Leroy Edwin Froom’s books (Movement of Destiny is a good example) will know that Froom was an expert at marshalling words to say what he wanted them to say. As Elder Ralph Larson so ably pointed out in Documentary Fraud [FF-261, Froom could even take bits and pieces from a collection of Spirit of Prophecy quotations-and make them say exactly the opposite of what they originally said) He was a master at subtle verbal restatement.
 

https://adventistan.com/forums/topic/72558-desmond-ford-a-relook/?tab=comments#comment-770465 >

The quote came from:

https://heraldsofthemorn.com/tag/m-l-andreasen/

This is one of the reasons I do not like compilations of quotes from EGW. They put her name on the book, but the sentiment or argument was not hers.

FWIW, I am sure that people have been misquoting EGW since the beginning of the church, but the book QOD seems to have had a serious impact on the church and could even be said to have been the original inspiration for a number of heresies.

what does any of this have to do with Phoebe being a church leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

what does any of this have to do with Phoebe being a church leader.

Ya gotta keep up with the whole discussion! There was a point made about EGW being misquoted. Thread drift happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark Leslie
On 4/6/2018 at 1:58 PM, CoAspen said:

One can then be lead to believe, based on prior rhetoric, that having women 'ordained' to be leaders in the church, pastor a church, leader over men including the .org is 'destroying Gods Church'. What is always missing in such an argument, is that Christ never spoke about a .org when refering to His Church but rather to those that followed Him. The RCC, however, does teach that Christ did just exactly that when speaking to Peter. That is the basis of their theology and is has crept in the the SDA .org from time to time...'headship'. I find it very interesting that after all we have taught about  'following after the beast', with the meaning being used most often to describe the RCC, there are some choosing to do that within the .org however unwittingly or just ignoring the parallels.

Perhaps pointing out the obvious, you are once again associating those who stand firmly against WO with the catholic church. That is a strawman argument together with ad hominem.

Another fallacy the WO proponents use, and you used here, is the argument from silence.

So, not only do you have no leg to stand on spiritually, it seems that your arguments dont stand the test of secular logic either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoAspen

Ahhhh....I am getting older but I can still stand on my own two legs! Not sure what spirituality has to do with legs...but to each their own!!

Speaking of legs...however...not sure what you are trying to say? You don't like my comments, is that it? It's okay, it doesn't bother me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
24 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

Ahhhh....I am getting older but I can still stand on my own two legs! Not sure what spirituality has to do with legs...but to each their own!!

Speaking of legs...however...not sure what you are trying to say? You don't like my comments, is that it? It's okay, it doesn't bother me!

You would be in even more trouble than I am if it did bother you! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
On 4/7/2018 at 5:53 AM, B/W Photodude said:

Ya gotta keep up with the whole discussion! There was a point made about EGW being misquoted. Thread drift happens.

Oh my. Did I sin again...Oh how I wonder....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×