I have to confess that I wasn't aware of women are being denied opportunities in ministry and church leadership. Presumably you are aware of something other than mere numerical underrepresentation. Apparently you view this as so self-evident that citation to source material is unnecessary. Could you provide supporting evidence for benighted folks like me for who do not default to your assumption?

Disparate numbers don't prove lack of opportunity do they? I have read that 70% of veterinarians are women. Does that suggest discrimination against men in veterinary medicine? Women are horribly underrepresented among people who watch sports on T.V. Does that concern you? Why so relatively few male nurses? Are there perhaps innate gender differences which substantially impact vocational and leisure time choices that people make? Women account for somewhere around 50% of medical and law school graduates. Is society selectively misogynistic?

Nathan, do you really want to argue that Galatians 3:28 is a call for social or political equality? Wow! Maybe you need to do a blog extolling the virtues of extreme proof-texting. Where do you find Paul calling for an end to slavery? Where, for that matter, do you find Paul promoting gender equality? Perhaps you had in mind 1 Cor. 11:3-16...or maybe 1 Cor. 14:34?...Oh wait, it must have been Eph. 5:22.

Look, I'm all for equal opportunity, but how is it intellectually honest for you to argue, against overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Paul shared your values regarding gender equality? A dominant theme of both Christ and Paul is that external conditions of political justice and social equality are irrelevant to Kingdom living. That is no reason why we, as citizens of earthly kingdoms, should not strive, qua "we the people", for equality of social and political opportunity.  But let's not read our political agendas into Scripture.

Hi, to both Nathans!

It seems that the de rigueur subject matter is "women's role in ministry", ever since Pastor Batchelor decided to light that fuse!  

Having read and re-read his sermon, I've decided that while his intent was good, and his delivery - in parts - good as well, his sermon was marred by the few jabs and invectives he casually tossed into the mix.  C'mon.  Semen and Seminary?  We can agree or disagree on women, but to somehow tie "semen" and "seminary" together in an effort to bolster one side of the argument?  Erg.

First and foremost, I think it is pretty well accepted that women have been denied leadership roles in the Church.  The very most basic step for an SDA division or conference career is becoming an ordained minister, and we don't do that for women.  This isn't vet school or nursing or ESPN viewership - women don't dream of being the Next Jan Paulsen because the very first step in the process has been, is, and continues to be a doooooozy.    

As for Nathan B's blog, I think Nathan S may have read a little too much into what was printed.  As i understand it, Nathan B was not saying that Paul was pro-Emancipation Proclamation or Women's Liberation.  What he said was that Paul notably placed spiritual progress above both tradition and progress - to the point at which he enouraged slaves to focus on salvation above freedom.  If I were to place Paul's teachings in today's context, I also agree with Nathan B that he'd assess the situation, and then make a judgement call.  In the case of women in ministry, I believe he'd understand that in light of today's social environment, where women are more educated even than men, presidents of countries, and CEO's of Fortune 500 corporations, that women should be able to handle the role of ministering to God's people.  There was a time to end slavery, a time to propel Civil Rights forward, and a time to recognize women as intellectual equals, and that time has come and gone.  In light of this, why shouldn't our church get with the program, and why wouldn't one be safe in extrapolating the assumption that Paul would have supported such a move?  

Now, such an assumption is just that - merely an assumption.  Perhaps there is some as-yet-unrevealed-to-me deficiency in women that would restrict them to the roles they were allowed in 30 BC, of cooking, child-bearing, housecleaning, and footwashing, but I doubt it, even if Doug Batchelor is smarter and/or more spiritually enlightened than I.  

I think Nathan B's argument that in today's cultural environment, Paul would have encouraged us to be more open to women's leadership is both valid and sensible, and I enjoyed the framework in which he posted it.

Nathan S, are you suggesting that Christians should stay "above the fray" in regards to issues like gender equality or politics?  Because such a suggestion is understandable as well.  But it is hard for me to believe that no guidance can be found in between the covers of my Bible for how I should treat women, my fellow man, or even how I should consider my vote... 

Nathan S. writes "But let's not read our political agendas into Scripture."

While I don't necessarily agree that this is what Nathan B. has done; I wholeheartedly subscribe to Nathan S.'s admonition...and this from the man who once asserted that political liberals don't believe in original sin, no less.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. (LOL)

Blessings on all of you. 

StateFarmSteve,

Good to hear from you. I've missed you. "Assuming" our way to Biblical support for our values is the beginning of making God in our own image. Using your logic, Nathan B. might as well have found some endorsement of justice and love in Malachi, the Pentateuch, the Psalms, or any other Scriptural reference, and assumed away, using the rationale that all people of good will in every generation since the beginning of time would support gender equality if they lived today. Thus a good person (Paul) who was obviously misogynistic by contemporary standards, can be transformed into a believer in gender equality. This kind of reasoning would make even Foucault and Derrida blush.

Your effort to rescue Nathan B. is compassionate and admirable, but it comes at the expense of logic and reason. The point you ignore is that the textual authority he offers for his conclusion simply doesn't stand for gender equality, and you know it. Nor can St. Paul's larger body of writings on the subject admit such a tenuous interpretation. Let me reiterate that I am wholeheartedly in favor of equality of opportunity in the Church. I just don't see how "underrepresentation" of women in ministry proves lack of opportunity, or why it should occasion moral hand-wringing. Maybe I'm oblivious because I live in Southern California where women in ministry is taken for granted. 

And no, I do not believe that Christians should remain aloof from the political or culture wars. We are blessed and privileged to live in a time when the government is "we the people". As citizens of earthly kingdoms, I think we should bring our moral convictions - which are most certainly influenced by our understandings of Scripture - to the political table. But, as I think Stephen F. argues, I do not believe we should conscript the Gospel to advance our political views. The Church subverts the Gospel when it carries the banner of Christ into battles over political policy directed at creating the best type of earthly governments, economic systems, and institutional organizations. You and I may have sharply differing political views, but in Christ we are brothers. So I react very negatively when Christians tell me that followers of Christ should support Obamacare; or should support gay marriage; or should oppose the war in Iraq; or should support prayer in public schools, etc., etc.  

As for Stephen's suggestion that my reluctance to force social/political agendas on Scripture is inconsistent with positions I have previously taken on his blog - I fail to see the irony or inconsistency. I argued elsewhere that political progressives tend to believe in Rousseau's tabula rasa rather than the Biblical concept of original sin. This concept, along with rejection of human freedom, is foundational to the progressive movement of the 20th Century. Therefore, whether or not they admit it, I think Christian political liberals are implicitly buying into a liberal theology, though they may be extremely conservative and authoritarian on specific sectarian doctrinal issues, which do not expressly implicate these deeper themes of Scripture. But. as we have seen, reasonable minds differ on this issue. However, the position that belief in original sin and human freedom are deeply embedded in Scripture is hardly forcing a social/political agenda on Scripture. 

Hi Nathan - It's good to be missed!  

I agree that Assumptions are a quick way to remaking God in our own image.  However, I don't believe that sincere study, reflection, and prayerful exploration are the equivalent of Assumptions.  This is not to say that I believe that they are the equivalent of Truth, either, but you've got to continue to move (the direction isn't predetermined or sure, by any means) in order to continue to grow as a person and as a people.  To label what Nathan B has written as simple Assumption is, in my opinion, too light a treatment of his musings.  Of course, I'm not saying you have to agree with him, but I'm encouraging you to not cast his thinking aside as trite or silly or stupid.  

Biblical Study, or any study in my opinion, always has, and always will require contemporary context. Contemporary context may just be a nice way of saying that we select and reject pieces and portions of the Bible because we choose to apply what is now generally accepted common sense.  For example, we accept that the commandments in Exodus are relevant to our lives today, but we reject the punitive instruction of the Old Testament.  We don't advocate the death penalty for Sabbath-breaking or disrespectful children any more than we should accept that Paul was a misogynist.

Perhaps my experiences, like your idyllic Southern Cal surroundings, over-influence my views.  As a student of History, I was always examining and re-examining events and historical figures, and attempting to apply or insert historical and contemporary context.  The apostle Paul is not immune to my habitual treatment!  Without applying thought, Paul is simply a misogynistic, pro-slavery murderer with a temper, a colored past, and a poor ability to predict the future, like George Washington is just a slave owning treasonous rebel with bad teeth and an aversion to leadership.  

Do I agree that Paul would have been a Civil Rights crusader?  Maybe not.  Willie Mays, the baseball player, always felt that he was just a ball player.  He knew he was good, perhaps he even knew he was one of the greats, but he never stepped up and used his platform for integration or Civil Rights like Jackie Robinson did, and he was pilloried for it.  Today, he is unapologetic, though perhaps more understanding of the criticisms levied toward him.  He felt the best thing he could do was play ball and show his equality, rather than vocalize it. It doesn't mean he accepted inequality or rejected the Civil Rights movement - it just means he believed his mission was to play ball.  Paul may very well have felt the same.  He felt pressure to spread Christianity, and perhaps Women's Lib and Civil Rights didn't fit in with his mission.  I can't bring myself to believe that he embraced racism or a misogyny any more than I believe that Willie Mays embraced racism.  But did Willie Mays help the progress of Civil Rights in his own way?  He once witnessed a young boy in a little league game run down a fly ball screaming, "I'm Willie Mays!"  That boy was the son of a Ku Klux Klan leader.  I'd say he promoted Civil Rights magnificently, in his own way.  

Paul, as a historical figure, was above all else, a Christian.  I don't believe that it is a stretch to apply contemporary context, and read into his life and writings that he would embrace contemporary Christian standards of racial and gender equality and justice if he were alive today.  While there are some Christians that would reject both racial equality and gender equality, or one or the other, most Christians would uphold both as hallmarks of our religion.   That's not to say he would promote it by his writings or public proclamation - that would be assuming too much...

"God's people.  Amen."  Incredibly funny!!!    

I'm delighted this topic is floating to the top yet again.  It's time to consider not just women's ordination, but men's-- the meaning of ordination in general needs to be examined. 

To Nathan S & StateFarmSteve:

These two quotes are very telling, " Maybe I'm oblivious because I live in Southern California where women in ministry is taken for granted."(Nathan)

"Perhaps my experiences, like your idyllic Southern Cal surroundings, over-influence my views." (StateFarmSteve)

From my observations of Adventism in the NAD, Southern California would qualify as the epicenter of liberalism, affluence, and compromised Christianity.  The overall spiritual state of the SDA church among the affluent and educated professionals has created a psuedo SDA church, which cannot be used as a basis to pattern our church in 2010, unless our goal is to become like the Evangelicals.

I suppose, StateFarmSteve, that by your reasoning, you could read the same sentiments into any New Testament writer - Peter, John, Matthew...you name it. Were they alive today, they would no doubt think within the context of prevailing moral sentiments. Therefore, you are using prevailing moral sentiments, not the actual expressed thoughts of Paul, as your authority. You are arguing that what he actually said about women in church leadership roles is irrelevant, because he lived in a different context.  And with that I would agree.

Given the negative things that Paul had to say about leadership roles for women in the church, a subject about which the other writers were silent, it seems curious that one would choose him as Biblical authority for an expanded role for women. Similar logic might lead you to use a 19th Century Christian advocate of slavery as an authority for human equality - not based upon what he actually said, but based on the assumption that, since he was a fine Christian in other respects, had he lived today, he would certainly have opposed slavery.

I happen to think it is important to exercise intellectual discipline, even when arguing for a principle as uncontroversial as equality of opportunity.

Hi I'm new to AT & it's blogs

Sometimes newcomers to a religion can add a perspective different from the oldtimers, not necessarily right,  we all have to learn & grow.

If you view the Christian Churches today  across the spectrum, then the areas that seem to be in greatest crisis are Homosexuality & Women's place.

We range from the Catholic Church, hidebound in the 4th Century, in fact even today moving backwards rather than forward to the Mega Churches in the US. The Anglican Church (I'm British) seems to have lost it's way on all fronts.

What I find refreshing in the Adventist Church is the civilised discussions based on Scripture rather than a multitude of sources of non-scriptural texts. We may agrue if Paul meant this or that, John was being literal or allegorial but we accept the same source.

For my pennyworth (old english expression) I think that the subjects of Homosexuality & Women in Ministry are totally different. 

After the Fall, sin entered the human world, one of the consequences was homosexuals, it's not their fault but it's a sin nevertheless.

Women like Men were created in God's image, so does God have a Female face as well as a Male face? My take is that they are equal but different.  We must accept that the roles of Men & Women have changed in the 2,000 years since Christ last walked on the Earth, perhaps we should accept that this is the will of God.

I'm very new, not easily upset.

Hi spiritoftruth,

I'm deeply disappointed in your comments. The problem is that I totally agree with you. Usually my contrarian nature zeroes in with great gusto on the 10% of what I disagree with and can sink my teeth into. Your comment leaves me nothing to say but a hearty amen. Seriously, it is wonderful to have newcomers.  Keep posting comments. We may not always agree on where God is leading, but the confidence Scripture gives us to know that He is leading keeps us looking for His footsteps together.

TruthWave,

By comparison with most Adventists in the world, all North American Adventists are affluent and well-educated. Are you suggesting that perhaps all North American Adventists are "psuedo-Adventists" - or just those who are to the left of you, geographically and theologically? Hmmm. If "evangelical" means Christ-centered rather than belief-centered, as I think it does, I am heartened and encouraged by the future you see for Southern California Adventism.

Nathan:  I agree with you regarding the affluence of NAD SDAs, when compared to the rest of the SDA world outside of North America.  My point was that Southern California takes affluence and worldliness to a higher level than any other place in the world.  The fact that Loma Linda University has pumped out thousands upon thousands of doctors and dentists with the majority becoming affluent in the process, has made Southern California Adventism an affluent professional sub-culture within Adventism.  When in the history of Christianity has a church been affluent and been pure and on fire for God?  Never in the history of Christianity!  Here's an example to ponder: Bud Feldkamp of Redlands, CA, millionaire dentist and businessman, owns the largest for profit abortion provider in California, President of Glen Helen Raceway (motor cross racing), member of the exclusive Yellowstone Club in Montana.  And Bud is just one of scores of other medical and dental professionals who have become affluent and live the lifestyle of the rich and famous. 

On a different front, we have the Creation vs Evolution controversy arising out of LSU in Southern California. And as you said, there are most likely more women pastors in Southern California than any other region in the NAD.  I could go on and on, but just take a drive in Newport Beach, CA, home of the rich and licentious. The culture of Southern California has changed the majority of the SDAs view of Christianity, not the other way around. 

When I mentioned the "Evangelicals" it was not in a positive way.  As a whole,they profess to love Jesus, but they do not love Truth.  That same mindset is taking control of thousands of our pastors and lay members. Its setting them up to go along with the Sunday Law when it becomes law.