Don Mackintosh considers claims that women’s ordination came as new light to the Seventh-day Adventist Church 40 years ago and that in rejecting it, we are hindering the Second Coming. Pastor Mackintosh reviews the history and sees whether this is so. Is the push for women’s ordination helping us advance toward the Second Coming, or actually hindering us? Is the pro-women’s ordination movement helping or hindering the church toward unity? Pr. Don Mackintosh served on the General Conference Theology of Ordination Study Committee.

5 thoughts on “WO: helping or hindering unity?

  1. May God help our church. The pro ordination arguments could easily be used for acceptance of homosexuality and the observance of Sunday. A book “The Empty Church” shows how the mainline churches have nearly died by following the formula advocated by the pro ordination movement. May we not do the same.

    Reply
  2. To the comments of 11 & 14 August, wisdom would lead us to be cautious before linking ordination of women to other sinful and negative situations. We would not want to bring the judgement of God on ourselves because of hasty conclusions and accusatives.
    As God calls men and women to ministry and ordains both, then should not we operate from within God’s circle of unity? Some thing to think about.
    Blessings
    Paul

    Reply
  3. Pastor Paul is correct – it is fallacious and counterproductive to link gender equality with any discussion of other issues. God has no hierarchy of gender, calls who he will, and if we are to accept ordination as a necessary rite, we should apply it equally to men and women who speak for God.

    Reply
    • The thrust of 1 Tim. 1 – is the licentiousness and blasphemy of Alexander, Hermaneus and those who had chosen to follow them. The review of the commandments – with the amplification of the 7th commandment in 1 Tim 1:9,10, make it obvious that “sodomy” and “fornication” (pornos) were being certainly being addressed.
      In her commentary on Alexander and Hermaneus, Ellen White makes it clear that their actions represented a “departure form the faith of the gospel” that was manifest in “lustful ambition… sinful habits and practices,” specifically “the vice of licentiousness.” She says that their teachings had “endangered the purity of the believers” (LP 305). Additionally she indicates that these false leaders, when confronted concerning “the vice of licentiousness so prevalent in that age”, chose not to accept his rebuke, but rather to characterize the “wonderful revelations made to Paul” by the Lord as being from “Satan” (LP 305).

      This of course also happened in the OT, where Josiah (2 Kings 22,23) had to deal with “sodomites” in the temple, as well “ordained” priests who saw no problem with such behavior.

      Not only is the link made in Scripture and in the SOP, it is also increasingly being seen and commented on in current secular discourse.

      Example #1 – Obama’s second inaugural – where he trumped the need for equality, that with alliterative eloquence summed up his reasoning with an appeal to not forget what happened in: Seneca, Selma and Stonewall. What was it that happened in Seneca (a call for women’s rights / and specifically ordination), what happened in Selma (the call for civil rights – which was totally valid), and what happened in Stonewall (a call for gay rights). Obama has made the advancement of same sex marriage and homosexuality, a cornerstone of his administration.

      Example #2 – A recent TIME magazine, where the author states “The fight over sexual orientation is personal and complicated, and it goes far deeper than mere court rulings for marriage equality. In many evangelical communities, the Bible itself is on trial…”
      Another voice in the article opines: “The LGBT issue has been one of the most obvious forces behind the increasing loss of regard for Christianity in the American culture at large…”
      And later in the article, the situation is pictures as “the gay-marriage wave…” lapping “at the door of evangelical churches…”
      So – even TIME magazine makes the connection those (who have their mind set on promoting WO at any cost) refuse to make.

      Of course there are other examples, but perhaps this should be enough to again blow the trumpet of warning to those who unwisely call for the (mis) use of Galatians 3:29 in their quest for ordination “without regard to gender.” These rush forward without apparently recognizing (or worse being fully aware), that their unwise and unwarranted misuse of this text and denial of others (1 Tim, 1 Cor), paves the way for acceptance of the very type of licentious lifestyle that Paul, Timothy, and the Lord Himself have specifically deemed immoral and impure.

      Perhaps one of the largest errors that has been made in the current discussion, is a lack of looking at the context of 1 Tim 1, when considering the meaning of 1 Tim 2,3. This context provides the key for understanding 1 Tim 2 for that, and our time.

      May heaven open the eyes and the mouths of the laity, at this time when a minority of well positioned voices, are giving extremely poor advice. Advice that seriously threatens the remnant church!

      Reply

Leave a reply

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

required

*