Adventist Online

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." 
Isaiah 8:20
Women’s ordination today is as popular as liberal social issues are in American Christianity and politics. The Seventh-day Adventist Church, particularly some Conferences and Unions in the NAD have been pushing hard for women ordination in disregard to the General Conference's authority and overwhelming vote in the opposite direction. But ultimately what is at stake here are not votes, by-laws, policies or actions by this or other Conference. No one would question that 11 Divisions voted against women ordination and only 2 voted in favor two GCs ago. But that vast majority IS the body of Christ deciding the role of women with "full ecclesiastical authority" (ordination according to the Spirit of Prophecy). However that started by slow escalation of authority from ordination of female elders and  deaconesses, so now leaders use that as justification for equal ordination of women to the pastoral ministry. Little by little we gave away the beauty and simplicity of the Scriptures for complexities and fluidity of policies.
What is at stake here is the integrity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church core of solid, Biblical unshakable set of fundamental beliefs. #1: The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. However the part wants to command the body and they are doing it because they can…unfortunately. By pushing, twisting and turning every piece of rule to accommodate their intent these leaders of some Conferences and Unions will vote after vote, meeting after meeting continue until their goal is accomplished. How many times do we need to vote "No" to women's ordination? The answer is simple: We'll continue to bring it up for vote until it becomes a "Yes", starting with female elders, deaconesses and then pastors. Brothers and Sisters, this will deeply divide the Church, not bring unity, because the vast majority of the body of Christ (the vast population of 11 Divisions) does not believe is this unbiblical, un-Adventist and unseemly fallacy.

This is a sign of something deeper and more pervasive. At the heart of the issue is that truth is no longer absolute. The Scriptures are no longer the infallible revelation of His will. Not according to some leaders. The discernment between truth and lie is no longer a bright line but a wide gray zone that is getting wider by the day. So wide that people do not see any difference in the sanctity of priesthood well written and articulated in the Bible from another form based on human wicked thinking. Just because someone is or was a great leader, male or female, that does not give him/her the right to officiate in the temple. Remember when that unfortunate man tried to catch the ark falling off the cart? He actually died on the spot. Why? Simple: God told them not to touch the ark. Period! 
Clear truth is no longer acceptable. That is too radical nowadays as the church has "evolved" and the firmness of pillars of principles are no longer that firm. After all, we need to be flexible with our cultural diversity. As if the Bible was written with versions for social adaptation...We now have human rationalization use of scriptures in lieu exegesis. Now society commands and demands truth to adapt and we say: Amen! Even at the cost of changing the real meaning of words such as "discrimination" which somehow became an ugly word although is expressed in the Bible abundantly. There is the saved and the lost. There is sheep and the goat. There is the holy and unholy. There are those that love Him and keep His commandments and those that want to do away with His commandments. There are those that do the will of God and there are those that follow their own will. God throughout the Bible makes clear distinction between those who follow Him and those who follow their own ways.   
This push for women ordination is based on popular social forces other than the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. The misconception is that although man and women are the same before God they have different and distinct roles, therefore they are not equal in the latter sense. We have become a church that embraces social issues ("not mission…") that plagues popular Christianity rather than the solid, strong Biblical truth centered church with a focus on the three angel’s message.  

What has made some leaders in church wonder off our basics? Think about the quality and formation of our leaders these days. Look honestly at our progress in America in terms of baptisms, church growth and expansion that has been nothing short of a disappointing and utterly failure. Mathematically we are not able to even keep our own children in the church, so it is understandable why some are desperate. We all should be! Now, in spite of an anemic baptismal record (Hispanics aside) the two Divisions that are performing terribly compared to the rest of the world (US and Europe) coincidentally are the ones pushing hard for ordination of women. That off course is in disregard for the vast majority of the body that has this terrible habit of insisting on sticking with the Bible and requiring nothing less than a "thou sayest the Lord" or "it is written"! It just happens that these areas are the ones growing by leaps and bounds!  That ought to tell something to Pastors that use little or no Bible and Spirit of Prophecy in their sermons, but rather make Internet their center of thoughtless sermon preparation.  

Having a popular false idea muddying our truth is nothing new. One single popular idea concerning Daniel 8:14 that the earth was the sanctuary was enough for the great deception of the Millerite movement. One little mistake can sour the entire truth. But if the Church leadership can use a set of poorly articulated, social pleaser, unfounded arguments with pseudo theological grounds, then we can prepare ourselves for the wave of arguments that will come against Sanctuary and primarily against the Sabbath, because enemies of truth have been using the same reasoning and rationale for several decades. The fact that there are no women ordained to priesthood in the Bible is the same reason why there is no Sunday as a day of keeping: It is just not there! In the end, if you can ordain a woman without solid Biblical reason to have "full ecclesiastical authority" and in vain worship Him, then you can keep Sunday on the same grounds.

This fear of discrimination based on gender and what others will say about us is an open door for lawlessness. The next question then is: What types of gender are we referring to? In my opinion, this is setting the path to apostasy and heresy. Forget what we think, or what policies say. The social and popular Christianity will dictate some of our leader’s next steps again in a near future - God help us! They already found the way. 

Views: 2190

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


You posted, correctly, that:

"All I can see is that our church worldwide is a mess...everyone wants to change it to "keep up with the times" etc."

However, the "times" in which we live is characterized by sex, violence, apostasy and moving away from God.  Why would any real Christian want to "keep up with the times?"


Maranatha :)


And the last three pages remind me why I don't read the threads on seems to descend into name calling and argueing.  I have to agree with Alli that the foundations of our church seem to be shaking and we need to strengthen them and each other.

It begins by truly "going back to Eden" and respecting each person as a God does--in all areas.  it ends with letting go of the "we're 'right'" and  "you need to repent" the new one thrown at me--or better yet "women need to wash men's feet--LOL) and getting one's own life in order.  


Going back to Eden is a good idea, but before Eve met Satan at the tree, not after. If we fail to learn from that monster mistake, what hope is there for anyone to learn from anything?

Maranatha :)


"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."--Ephesians 5:23, 24.

Husband does NOT = Man:


"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.  --Genesis 1:26, 27.

 Getting Back to Eden...

Not every female marries or will have a husband.  That is how we know.  =)


That is about the weakest excuse I have read.



You said it.. :0)

LOLOL!   That is a non-biblical answer! 

Indeed, a primary problem in our culture and in our churches isn’t that women aren’t submissive enough to men, but instead that they are far too submissive.

First of all, it just isn’t so that women are called to submit while men are not. In Scripture, every creature is called to submit, often in different ways and at different times. Children are to submit to their parents, although this is certainly a different sort of submission than that envisioned for marriage. Church members are to submit to faithful pastors (Heb. 13:17). All of us are to submit to the governing authorities (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). Of course, we are all to submit, as creatures, to our God (Jas. 4:7).

And, yes, wives are called to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; 1 Pet. 3:1-6). But that’s just the point. In the Bible, it is not that women, generally, are to submit to men, generally. Instead, “wives” are to submit “to your own husbands” (1 Pet. 3:1).

Too often in our culture, women and girls are pressured to submit to men, as a category. This is the reason so many women, even feminist women, are consumed with what men, in general, think of them. This is the reason a woman’s value in our society, too often, is defined in terms of sexual attractiveness and availability. Is it any wonder that so many of our girls and women are destroyed by a predatory patriarchy that demeans the dignity and glory of what it means to be a woman?

Submitting to men in general renders it impossible to submit to one’s “own husband.” Submission to one’s husband means faithfulness to him, and to him alone, which means saying “no” to other suitors.

Please stop the lying Alexander...There were no personal attacks in the statement "LOLOL!  That's a non-biblical answer!".  This is simply a distraction on your part--and it is not working.  I know that there are those who are on a mission to "remove" people from AO who do not share their positions....It's not happening here.  Thanks! should have read the rest of the post (where you omitted what else was written) which included scripture.

May I suggest that we not skirt around a very important point that Sarah has raised?

What does "submission" mean in terms of the Gospel where "God is love"? Should not submission also be performed in love? Should not submission be received in love?

Sarah has alluded to a major problem that has escalated dramatically in modern society. 

God's plan for us was that we should marry and have children. Each family unit containing father, mother and children. The roles, put simply, were: the father became the prime provider thereby freeing up the woman to give birth to children and grow them. The woman, from before their birth, nurtures and grows the children - the most important role that there can be in society. If the father was a good enough provider the mother could devote more time to the physical, mental and most importantly, spiritual growth.

Those are fairly equal roles, if anything I would suggest that the mother had the more important role as she influences the next generation at a very early age perhaps more than the father.

For some reason fathers/men got it into their head that as they were the providers and that they were therefore superior. Another extremely short-sighted move was to deny women education. How mothers were supposed to pass on wisdom and knowledge if denied the tools necessary didn't seem to occur.

With the advent of mass-media this subtle shift of power became embodied in accepted "types": the dumb blonde; the dizzy housewife; the girl that needed rescuing by the hero. I will only mention in passing the growing demon of sexual appetite which spawned the sex trade and a porn industry that is at the forefront of modern technology.

As women awoke from a partially self-induced haze they turned to a feminist movement that did not ask for equality but rather demanded it. This was a 'political' fight. I remember, when I was in my teens, seeing a book with a picture of breasts on the cover which, if I am honest, I think I then stole. It was called The Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer. It had just been published and went on to become one of the text books of the feminist movement. I thought it was a very enlightening book. Other books came out, some were revisionary books explaining that in prehistory it was women who were the main hunter-gatherers  and organised the hunt. During that time and up to now the issue of "rights", whether women's, human, gay, disabled... all you have to do is cry a "right" and all arguments against are voided.

All part of satan's attack on the family unit. The new morals and values were not Christian morals and values. The organised church was seen as one of the prime demons to be fought against. So whilst the whole of society is minutely examined under the microscopes of the various "rights" the foundation is not the Gospel of self-less love but rather gospel of self-love, self-interest.

When the same microscopes are brought to bear on our church do we have to exercise some caution?

Whilst one may agree with equal pay as per the Merikay Silver case that is addressing the outward structure of the church. As soon as one uses those microscopes on doctrines and beliefs then we must be very careful that we are not reaching out to steady the ark.

If it can be established that this is a completely non-theological argument and merely one of employment then I deeply suspect that the success of that argument will destroy the reason for the argument in the first place. 

I believe that this is a very serious theological issue that disturbs the pattern that God has presented to us and that certain essential questions should be clearly answered for those who have concerns:

What is the problem that we are solving by making this change?

Is this the best, Christian, way to solve the problem?

Is there any significance to the fact that from Eden, through the Old Testament, the Sanctuary service, the New Testament church, the early Christian churches right up to our current church Jehovah, Christ and the Holy Spirit have been represented consistently as male and by a male priesthood?

Do we have a Biblical mandate for the change being proposed?


You posted:

"Of course, we are all to submit, as creatures, to our God (Jas. 4:7)."

Then why do you refuse to submit to God's clear command that any candidate for ordination is to be a male?  See 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. 

Do not preach to others about submission when you have been so determined to not submit.

Maranatha :)




Site Sponsors


Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free

USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:


© 2022   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service