Yes, I misunderstood you, but no more than than you misunderstood me. Why did I misunderstand you? This is a thread about women's ordination and you have consistently criticized the church's concept of ordination. I have said from the first that I considered the signet of God as of far more value than man's. And that was why I have never understood the big brouhaha over women's ordination. That should have been a clue. But you never responded to that post.

I have also consistently said the same things from the beginning of this thread and you seemed to feel the need to respond as if you disagreed with me. So what else was I to think?

Well -- you still don't understand, for I see you saying ordaining women as pastors is not from a righteous source. So seems to me, you see ordination in the narrow sense that ordination is just for males.
Yet the word "pastor" means a shepherd. Don't you see EGW writing about the need for women as shepherds (pastors) in the churches, and her saying they should be appointed with "the laying on of hands" (as in ordination)?


What if we don't agree with the ordination set up as it stands today?
What does it mean to be "ordained"?

Obviously, while God's ordination is the first and most important call, and many can serve God even if the church denies recognizing their ministry, yet both the Bible and the prophetic writings point out the need for the church recognition of leadership, the setting apart people for church recognized ministry.

So what is ordination?
In the church today, it seems the meaning of ordination is primarily a status of authoritive control, and only secondarily of spiritual leadership and mission.

Therefore, the text "a woman should not usurp authority over a man" is interpreted as "a woman should not be ordained." (If she is ordained, some will reason, she has authoritive control over male members)
But that is a misunderstanding of what ordination means.

A shepherd (a pastor) LEADS, they do not drive by force, they lead, facilitate, encourage, help.

While some focus on the verse that women should not have authoritive control over men, many ignore that it is not good for a man to mentor and be a private counselor and have authoritive control over a women.

We ignore the fact and reality that men having authoritive control over women is also wrong.
To take the bible text that a woman is to be subject to her OWN husband as meaning they are to be under control of any or all men is WRONG!
The very fact is that a man, with concern in his eyes, and sympathy in his voice is comforting a woman (albeit with Bible verses) is a snare, not a blessing, especially if her husband is a bit of a non communicating type.
How many churches are reeling from a male pastor taking advantage of female response to their "ministering sympathy".
Churches need female pastors.

There is a real need for God-fearing women in trained, spiritual leadership roles. Female shepherds (pastors) for the women in the church.

Yes, definitely churches need Male leaders for the men, and boys. This is important! Young people- especially young males, need a strong spiritual male influence.
Men should never sit back and leave their part in being strong leaders.
That's probably the biggest concern -- men shirking their role with a "all or nothing" mentality.


While women are not to take over, as in taking away from the men, the leadership roles,
women should be co-leaders. They are needed as co-leaders! With the same respect and authority, blessings and recognition as the male leader.

There is a very distinct and important need for a male leader. However, there is the need to have recognized, appointed, ordained associate women pastors in our churches as well

And I do see EGW leading the church in that direction.
As does the author whose article you posted
Fortin's conclusion is really quite pro-women's ordination

That's odd. You castigated me for "misunderstanding" your position in the following two posts of yours.

https://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=196491#Post196491

[url https://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=196523#Post196523 [/url]

I'm not castrating anyone (why such strong language????)
I still do not think you understand what I'm saying. Nothing you write indicates that you do.

Why not simply explain yourself, and at least try to understand. Yes, I don't understand you and you don't understand me, and it makes conversation very trying.

So let's look at this:

1. You said in your post, three up from this one, -- that you consider that the signet of God is far more valuable than man's, thus you can't understand the big brouhaha over women's ordination.

What do you mean by that? You said I've never addressed that, yet, I fully agreed several times, that the first and most important step is the call of God. I don't have any question with that -- it's vitally important.

But what I see is you obviously do have a big brouhaha over women's ordination. Why?
Yet you say you don't understand the big brouhaha? Doesn't make sense.
If they have the signet of God, why can't the church officially confirm it?

2. You wrote in the "IS THERE A CONNECTION BETWEEN WO AND LGBTQ" thread,
That you disagree with Kevin and myself that the two are two DIFFERENT issues that need to be addressed separately and not linked together.
You linked them together saying, both originate from the same unrighteous source.

That is pretty strong to put women being recognized by the church for pastoral work in the same class as something like that. If that isn't a big bouhaha statement concerning ordination, what is. Linking them together is basically denying that there are godly women with the signet of God to do ministry.

3. So how do you reconcile your two seemingly contradicting statements?

Another question:

If women wishing to be appointed and recognized by the church as doing a ministry for the church is not important (even though God has called them and they have the signet of God)
WHY should men be ordained? Won't God's call and his signet to them (which I agree is the most important) be sufficient for them? Why should they be ordained or why not???

I guess you don't know what castigating is. You might want to look it up in a dictionary.

And now you're for church ordaining women as ministers. First you deny it, and say it's the same idea as Catholic ordination, and now you're full on for it. Would you like me to quote your posts from the other threads?

I knew it -- you responded just as I thought you would!!!!! No answers to my questions. No explanations.
It's just voicing the narrow view of ordination that blinds you to what I'm trying to share. Its just as I've been trying to explain --The narrow view (which is the one now enforced) has just one ordination, thus everyone is pigeon holed into being either for or against women receiving that ONE ordination.
You've swung me into the "for" camp, then into the against camp, and now full force shoved me into the "for" camp.

All the while ignoring, or not understanding that there is another view in between that I've been trying to share.

Sure go ahead and post my previous posts. I tried very hard to convey my thought, but it obviously was not understood.

I believe women should be ordained to their ministry.
I suggested there should be different levels of ordination.
A more general pastoral ordination -- a pastoral ordination (ordained to be a shepherd to members) Women as well as men can be pastors.
The pastoral ordination should not be the same as the "overseer" ordination. (ordained to oversee the churches, regional overseers). A head minister in a college would be male -- an ordained overseer, while there would be male and female ordained pastors ministering to male and female students.

In the Bible we see the ordination of the apostles (overseers) and the ordination for deacons (which originally in the Bible was basically the role of a pastor, preaching, evangelizing, taking care of the poor, being there for the church etc etc. not what we understand deacons doing today)

Let's look at this quote by EGW again:

Do you have any idea why I disagreed with your stance? Because the push comes from those who do not accept the Bible as the word of authority.

And you just confirmed what I said. You think there should be women pastors, not female Bible workers who are paid.

So instead of answering questions and discussing the topic you turn to accusation.

You imply I do not accept the Bible as God's Word???

he Bible is the authority! But people interpret the Bible and impose their interpretation. That's what the Jews did and came up with all sorts of rules as to God's requirements. Are you so sure you are not doing the same? May the anti-ordination for women be like the Pharisees at the pool of Bethsada -- all they could see was a man carrying his bed. They had their proof text from the book of Nehemiah, and they stepped right up to vindicate the authority of the law.
They couldn't see that God had empowered this man, and that they only vindicating their own interpretations and rules.



So women can't be pastors you say, they are just females to be paid but not blessed and the church dare not set them apart and bless them and officially recognized them as workers for the Lord?
Why?
Sorry, but according to Ellen White they are to be paid and blessed by the laying on of hands (which means ordained for the task). Go back and read Fortin's paper.

When the Bible says "man" or "men" 90% of the time it does NOT mean the male.

People will point to texts and EGW quotes and say -- it says "man" here, and here and here and here. Man means male.

Wait a minute, for years I have read the bible and when reading "man" I understood "human". The word man has that generic meaning.
Oh, some will say, but the context will tell you.

See, some people say, The Bible says, a bishop must be the husband of one wife, therefore we know all those qualifications for a bishop are only pointing to a male.

Really?

I guess the ten commandments are pointing only for males as well.
It says, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife". See it's the male that has the wife, so these commandments are addressed to males. Do we therefore know all those commandments are only pointing to a male?

Of course not, but why would it be ridiculous to say the commandments are only for males, but its considered defending biblical authority to take the qualifications for a church leader and say they are only for males?
Or is the Word just saying any man selected must not be a polygamist.

First off, Ellen White never called herself a pastor nor did she do the everyday duties of a pastor.. She was never ordained by anyone but God. No laying on of human hands could have had any effect on her ministry. Neither will the laying on of human hands have any effect on anyone else's ministry, male of female. I've preached and brought people to Jesus, but my ministry was of purely divine blessing. I've never had human hands laid on me for any church office.

The only ordination required for successful ministry is God's ordination and that comes from a sincere love for God. That is not of human origin.

Ellen White understood that the work of the church was to spread the gospel message. She was cautious of anything that would excite unnecessary prejudice. Encouraging women to engage in the work was a step by step process.

I found the full copy of Denis Foutin's paper.
Ellen White, Women in Ministry and Ordination

His study is quite comprehensive.
He gives a history of her own "battles" against people who felt women had no place in preaching and doing the things she was doing.
Many times she was denounced as being out of place, for women were to be silent in church
1 Cor. 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

The general understanding of that Bible text was enough for her to deal with. Ordination for women at that point in time was simply not a practical idea, they had a battle simply to get people to believe women could speak in church.



We find men like J,N,Andrews, James White and Stephen Haskell writing articles in the Review and Herald and Signs of the Times, on women speaking in church. These articles seek to explain the two
main texts used to prohibit women from speaking in church. Their purpose was to show that a careful study of these texts cannot support this conclusion.

J. N. Andrews, ?May Women Speak in Meeting?? Review and Herald, January 2, 1879, p.
324 (emphasis added).
J. N. Andrews, ?Women in the Bible,? Signs of the Times, October 30, 1879, p. 324.
James White, ?Women in the Church,? Review and Herald, May 29, 1879, p. 172.