\Interesting. You seem to believe the world's position on women's lib. WO didn't become an issue in the SDA church until women's lib, a marxist invention, became a huge thing in the world. Evidently you believe the church needs to follow the example of the world.

I'm sorry but WO was an issue in the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the 1800s and the early 1900s, with people such as John Loughborough and A. G. Daniels supporting it, but Daniels wanted to postpone until more members could be educated that it was indeed Biblical. Mrs. White started writing more on women in ministry, and she choose to use the paperwork that had the word "Ordained" instead of the paperwork that the church thought was going to be temporary for women without the word "Ordained".

It fell on to the back burner as the events leading up to the 1919 Bible Conference and the reaction against it in the 1922 General Conference, and it just remained in the background until more recent times.

Also, in Jesus' day, among the Jews women becoming ordained as rabbis were an issue. Are you going to tell me that Jesus was a victim of Marxist women's lib?

Your source for female rabbi's? Something that's preferably on line.

I'm pointing out that it has only been since women's lib became a political power in the US that this has become a big controversy in the church.

Again, my point is that ordination is a church thing, not a legal thing.
And it seems suggested by others and Kevin that it is a money thing.
If "ordination" is causing controversy, why not stop doing it? Pay people for equal work. Use a pay scale. Waving a wand with "ordination" serves no purpose. Other than maybe pride. And be done with it.

In one sense, yes ordination is the method, or means for denominational churches to show who they deem representatives of their church who can preform legal services in the name of the church.
Thus it is a "legal" thing as well.

What you seem to be suggesting is to get rid of any middle, practicing/learning, step and give trainees (newly appointed pastors) full recognition as soon as they enter the ministry.
That would not solve the controversy at all as the controversy is over giving women full recognition as pastors. Simply changing the title won't change the minds of people who think women should not be allowed to be fully recognized pastors.
The accusations against the NAD is that they are misusing the "license" period to circumvent the GC decision, and giving licensed women ever fuller recognition, thus elevating the license (probationary intern period) to the level of ordination.
So it seems you are just suggesting to hasten that move?

It's like doctors -- once they've completed their formal training, they work as interns and are allowed to practice, but they are still trainees under supervision, not yet full accredited doctors. They first need to prove themselves as capable and dedicated to the work. It's the intermediate step that is being eroded in the ministry if the "licensed" are given the full recognition as the "ordained:.

Why does that have to happen? There can't be intern ministers without ordination?

I want to clarify "the money thing" Many of the anti-ordination people argue that Mrs. White needed ordination papers to get payed. But that is not true since the papers that were given to the women that had been ordained out west or who the conferences wished to ordain back east but received papers that did not include the word "ordained" yet, gave these women the same pay as the ordained men, and their husbands the same stipend that the wives of ordained ministers received. Mrs. White was free to choose paperwork without the word "ordained" but she choose to take the word "ordained."

The word "ordained" means that they have proven themselves to be competent ministers for the church. Mrs. White did not mind holding the paperwork with the word "Ordained" on her when she still could have been paid the same with the license that did not include the word "Ordained". Some of our pioneers, such as John Loughborough, had no problem ordaining women. Elder A. G. Daniels supported women's ordination, but requested that it be postponed until more of our members were educated to the fact that women's ordination is indeed Biblical.

As for the issue about women's rabbis in Jesus' day; while it was presented in different classes I took at AUC and Andrews, they are not that easy to reach, especially that over the years some if these professors have fallen asleep. Now, there is a book that discusses it, but unfortunately the old website is not working and the new one does not sell online any more. But if you can find the conference notebook "Attitudes Towards Women in the Bible" by Jim Fleming, and if you can find some churches big enough or to share the cost for him to come out and give a seminar on the topic.

What has been pointed out is that at least 200 years before Christ there were women rabbis. But then a Rabbi Jesus Ben Sirach, who wrote a lot of good things about God, and who's book was considered to be included in the Bible. However, he had a bad marriage and complained about how women were not able to understand the deep things about God. This lead to some rabbis wanting to stop the practice of having women rabbis and priests. They also took the word from Genesis 2 that up to this time always meant either a side, or a chambered room in a temple, and added a new definition to the word this brand new definition made the word mean "rib". Numbers 15 commanded everyone to wear the tassels with one blue thread on their garment. This to the ancient world in general was a sign that someone was a priest. As the caravans passed through this land, they would see it as filled with priests. Over the centuries both men and women wore this tassel. However about 200 years before Jesus, these rabbis who wanted to stop ordaining women declared that only men should wear these tassels and that women had to remove theirs. Also, a custom developed that when a rabbi sat down someplace to teach that the lay members would stand and the intern rabbinical students would sit as the rabbi's feet. However, as this movement started about 200 years before Jesus, the rabbis who wanted to put a stop to having women rabbis and priests, changed the custom of having only the male laymen stand when the rabbi sat and taught, while the women were expected to perform hospitality tasks to keep them busy. And of course no women were allowed to sit at the rabbi's feet. The influence of these rabbis who wanted only men to become rabbis encouraged Herod to include somethings that the Sanctuary, Solomon's Temple and the temple built after the exile did not have: a court of women, where women were allowed there but no farther.

This movement and changes were continued into what eventually became the Hillel rabbis. while the more conservative schools such as the Shammai did continue the practice of allowing the women to stand and listen to the rabbi without keeping busy with the hospitality tasks. they would continue to have both women and men wear on their clothes the tassels with the blue thread. And they would occasionally allow women to sit at a rabbis feet to be an intern rabbi and eventually become a rabbi. Now, there were two groups of intern rabbis, the 12 who were full time, and when traveling would share the same sleeping quarters as their teacher, and the 70 who, those the same gender might share the sleeping quarters if there was room, so that they can be privy to the late night discussions. Of course those who were not the same gender as the rabbi could not be among the 12, and if they were among the 70, always needed a different place to sleep.

As time went by, the women rabbis tended to need to work in more distant and isolated synagogues. Lists of synagogue rabbis would include women's names until about 200 years after Christ. Some rabbis say that the women's husband must have actually been the rabbi, but the members could not remember his name, so they put in the wife's name. Thus Jesus was living right in the middle of about 400 year debate about women becoming ordained as a rabbis.

There is just no evidence that I can find to support your assertions.

No, it's a church thing.
Anyone the church designates appropriate to the government fulfills the legal thing.
The church chooses on its own to decide who is appropriate or not. It's a church thing.


What I'm saying is too many people elevate the word, "ordination". Thereby, they are avoiding the issue, should women be pastors.
It's wishy washy.
Either women can be pastors or they can't. Ordination is not the issue.

Ordination is public confirmation of a holy calling. Rather than making ordination too much of ordination, I think it has been dragged down.
Yes, ordination is the method, or means for denominational churches to show who they deem representatives of their church who can preform legal services in the name of the church.
Thus yes, it is the churches process to address the "legal" thing as well.

If being a pastor is just a matter of hiring and paying someone -- that drags the whole pastoral work into the realms of common employment. Seems for many ordination is already dragged down to that low point already, but eliminating ordination would simply fully confirm and rubber stamp pastoral work as just another job to earn money.


What you seem to be suggesting is to get rid of any middle, practicing/learning, step and give trainees (newly appointed pastors) full recognition as soon as they enter the ministry.
That would not solve the controversy at all as the controversy is over giving women full recognition as pastors. Simply changing the title won't change the minds of people who think women should not be allowed to be fully recognized pastors.
The accusations against the NAD is that they are misusing the "license" period to circumvent the GC decision, and giving licensed women ever fuller recognition, thus elevating the license (probationary intern period) to the level of ordination.
So it seems you are just suggesting to hasten that move?

That its becoming more and more wishy washy, is true enough!
Yet, Ordination IS the issue for it is the means to be recognized as full pastor.
The General has already ruled that women should Not be pastors. That's the underlying issue of the vote -- it is saying "women should NOT be pastors. They can witness, but never with the authority of a fully recognized pastor.

The NAD on the other hand, says YES, women should be pastors, and proceeds to carve out loop-holds to circumvent the General Conference decision.
How do they make loop holes? -- by changing the label. Having a "commissioning" ceremony carry the same weight as the ordination ceremony.

Simply changing, or getting rid of the title conferred on those who are recognized as full pastors with the authority to represent the church as shepherds and also take care of legal matters for the church, won't change the minds of people who think women should not be allowed to be fully recognized pastors.