Objectively viewed, in this epistle, Paul goes on to (re-)make some of his most debately controversial claims about what the Gospel of Christ meant vs. the Old Covenant. Most of these claims are controversial because the are sweepingly made, without much detail, and thus can, and indeed have led many to jump to conclusions which are actually detrimentally extreme. (2 Pet 3:15-16) As a key matter of Fact, Paul himself (and also other NT writers) has had to repeatedly qualify many of the things which he had “sweepingly stated” in this epistle, in his other, subsequent letters/epistle. (E.g. about the continuing application of the Moral Law (i.e. Ten Commandments) itself in Rom 7:7-12; the symbiotic role of good works (but not ceremonial works of the law) in salvation/justification (Eph 2:8-10; cf. Jam 2:14-26). And it is in this controversial, and somewhat ambiguous, context that is found the statement at issue here of Gal 3:28. From the detailed discussion later on this verse, it is seen that Paul evidently did here claim that the Mosaic/Ceremonial Law which had also been making a distinction between men and women was no longer applicable to Christians. And it manifestly seems that because, frankly, ‘all chaos broke loose’ in the Church from that statement (e.g. women were being unruly in living out that liberty, (e.g. by being disruptive in Church/Synagogue services, where now they no longer had to, like Gentiles, remain outside, silent, looking in), that Paul had to make, what turns out to indeed be, further qualifying, explaining and ordering statements in [by order of epistle authoring dates]: 1 Cor 11:2-3ff; 14:34-36 [ca. 55 AD]; Eph 5:22-24ff [ca. 61 AD]; 1 Tim 2:12-15 [ca. 65 AD]. Succinctly summarized here, most of this calibratingly and balancing by Paul had to do with him also presenting the still binding Biblical fact that there nonetheless still existed a default male headship, and thus determinative authority, which the woman/wife must respect, and not usurp (i.e. without an actual Truthwise-warranting reason), and the man/husband must not (irresponsibly) neglect or abuse.
The Revived Issue that Divides
Indeed ordination itself is a completely different Spiritual issue, with indeed the “rite” of the laying on of hands/pouring of oil symbolizing either a transference of one’s spirit or the fresh unction of God’s spirit unto another who God wants to use in a more spiritually specialized, leadership, way, and it (ordination), does not actually involve the right to administer ‘set rites’ per se, but the widely recognized authority of a person, whether male or female, to take/make/state a pointed Spirit-led decision on some special issue. Indeed if EGW was considered as being an ordained minister for particularly the reason that the Church recognized that God was specially guiding her through a special impartation of His Spirit in various key matters of the Church and individuals, then how can it be claimed today that women cannot (“continue to”) be ordained.
So in conclusion here/for now, to this brief statement on this issue, the Church should be looking to the manifestation of God’s Spirit in the life and ministry of a person, whether male or female, and not “chauvinistically” limiting this special gifting of God’s on one’s gender.... And, in continuance of what was already stated above, in the absence of any manifested, or effective, gifting, as Paul evidently is stating in 1 Tim 2:12-14, the natural order of things is that it is the man who should defaultly have the authority due to the fact that he was created first. (Much more can be said from that latter point/principle, but I personally don’t have the free resource of time to do so, at least for now.)
-In the face of this fact of genuine Biblical certainty confusion, the general calls and expectations that God would impart His Spirit to guide to the proper decision was fundamentally wrong because, as seen with pioneer SDAs, when trying to resolve a doctrinal issue, God only gave EGW special revelation to guide into the proper understanding of a text, and not to a decision as a whole, especially not despite misunderstood pertinent text or confusions over those texts. So I do not see that God would be sanctioning this actually preferred confusion when SDA Scholars should have, as they are now quite educationally capable, provided a united and most conclusive exhaustive exposition of all of the applicable passages and issues involved in this topic. Then could a proper decision be made, and as this, with the hards facts then all in, would then actually strictly involve a free choice decision, it is then unlikely that God’s Spirit would actually be, effectively, making that decision for someone. God never does for man, what they have the power to do for themselves. (As discussed here, that tangibly is actually too “costly” for God).
-Therefore the GC proposed Research Committee should really be given, as they say, a chance to do its work, which hopefully will now be, especially substantively, a ‘once and for all’, examination, (and there should also be a means, if this not already a possibility, by which Pastors and also Lay People can submit their own studied findings to this Research committee), as the present voting despite genuine uncertainties and inconclusivity will indeed only produce degrees of disunity. All wasting the various resources of the Church, including the ministering time of delegates. (And, though I am not factually sure here, yet an unnecessary and wasteful expense is nonetheless made, but the Union may also be paying for or reimbursing (from the tithe) the displacement (e.g., gas-mileage, transportation and hotel fare), expenses of their delegates for such remote, major committee meetings.) A sample, pertinent case in point, the Northern Union Conference of Germany had similarly voted to ordain women to the ministry, however they later suspended that decisions at the advice of their Division in order to allow the GC Research Committee to do its work.
-While many sermons and papers, even scholarly papers and books have been presented on this topic, there really lacks a definitive and clear Global Church wide decision/production, where moreover all of those individual contributions, whether for or against, are taking into proper consideration. Hopefully the present GC Research committee will do this. Otherwise fragmentation will continue to exists on this issue with people sectarianly going by what whatever they (personally/subjectively) deem to be true.
-The prayer/desire that the meeting would be conducted as per the Zech 4:6 principle of ‘not by might, but by that Spirit’ actually fell flat as, with the Biblical and Historical studies not then conclusively done by then, the decision was actually instead made under a degree of compellation [= “might”] including the several forceful pulpit and floor claims that ‘there were no texts which opposed women ordination’. Clearly not every present there validly considered that to be a conclusive fact.
-It was personally reassuring to me to see that available, more precise vote counting technology was used in this Session, (and this “precision” should be the default requirement for all such SDA sessions right up to the General Conference Session), because the delegates survey approach, as used in the CUC meeting, is not at all optimal. Case in point, I am sure they would have missed the 65% count that occurred in the PUC meeting and just assumed that it was a 2/3 vote. (Hopefully they would have judged that a written or counted ballot vote would instead be necessary). There should also be a documentation of how each delegates voted so that the local constituency that they represent can transparently, informedly know if they want to have that person be their delegate for other sessions.
-Quite evidently, the PUC Session was much more costly than the CUC meeting, as: it was held in a Hotel and not an SDA Church, though, especially for one day during the summer months, a University Campus, like Loma Linda University would have probably been just as “accommodating”, [unless of course they charge the same, or higher, “accommodating” rate as that Marriott Hotel!!]; the utilized, rented, vote counting technology (really the SDA Church, at at least the Division level should purchase such technology (which manifestly costs ca. $40 per unit), and lend them out to various Constituencies as they hold such meetings, or, of course, simply have local volunteers serve in the meeting as sectional ballot vote counters [and also for vote registering documenters]. Sure that latter option will take a little more time, perhaps 10 minutes per vote, but it will practically be free.)
-The CUC and now PUC deliberation highlighted/exposed a very significant deficiency in the SDA organizational operational structure, and that is that, although, like the country in which it is headquartered, the USA, it has, (as actually pre-monarchial OT Israel had) separate Legislative and Executive powers, it actually does not at all have an explicit, or at least standing, “Judicial Power”. And that is most strikingly seen in the fact that in such discussion, (and this is a phenomena which I have personally microcosmly encountered in various Biblical discussion with SDA on e.g., internet forums), people merely, effectively, “spout off” their personal views and opinions and....that is overwhelmingly it...unless the person makes a completely irrational claim. There is, particularly in non-policy matters, -for there is at least one Conference Legal Representative present, no one who “judges” whether what was said was true, factual, Biblical or not. So, e.g., a delegate gets up and claims that this text, precedence and/or policy supports or opposes the action, and there is no “truth/fact/judicious-checking” of that claim. Instead, and most mimickingly as the lamented days of Ancient Israel when ‘there was not a judge in Israel’, everyone is left to do/decide whatever is right/truth “in their own eyes”. If a “judicial panel” made of up e.g., Scholars from pertinent Biblical Research Institutes was also present, the many quite simple errors which are left standing as truth due to complete non-challenge would keyly be promptly corrected and/or resolved and prevent anyone present making a decision based upon wrong information.
-Also related to the above, when there are even opposing votes to a motion there should be a brief post voting procedure to find out exactly why those who had voted against did so. Of course it is assumed that this is because of some or all of the opposing opinions made during the pre-vote discussion, however/so this post-voting hearing procedure would really be most beneficial where the above discussed judicial measures had already occurred and would then reveal any lingering or outstanding, unresolved views issues, which, if found to be valid, could judiciously result in further debate and a second vote.
-It is quite wrongly claimed that the issue of women ordination is a “matter of conscience” and so a simple ‘voting of one’s conscience’ can be done to resolve it. But as it was opposingly stated, it rather is a matter of theology. It indeed involves an absolute Truth. A matter of conscience is one for which the Bible is completely silent on. So e.g., deciding whether to drive two hours to attend a local campmeeting on Sabbath Morning, or, most extremely, flipping a light switch, is against the Sabbath, is ultimately left to one’s conscience. (cf. Rom 14:5-6) In that first example, for an elderly person, such a drive would be so fatiguing, that it would be tantamount to work for them, but not so for a younger person.
-The various bursts of applause during that meeting, (especially the clapping for the prayer team going aside to pray during the whole meeting [30:50] (cf. Matt 6:5-6)), perfectly demonstrate what “applauding in Church” only means: it is pointedly done in relation to/for the person/individual and not for the Spiritual substance (usually) also involved. And that all is reflective of a wrong personal spirit being variously present in meeting, where, as the chairing PUConference president Ricardo Graham rightly relatedly pointed at the end of the meeting the ‘celebrations’ which broke out at the announcement of the results of the final vote, the whole thing was clearly being viewed as an ‘us vs. them’ conflict/‘competition’ instead of the ‘let’s ascertain what God’s will actually is on this matter’, for then a natural Amen would most likely simply have be heard. And I fault all of this on the flawed procedure of this whole matter which, as stated above, does not involve properly and/or conclusively arrived at Biblical understandings. E.g., I don’t think applause broke out the GC Session when a Fundamental Belief of the Church was approved.
-I am not sure if those who do these now typical SDA session-long praying are actually also hearing/watching the development of the sessions they are praying for but, really they substantively should because, their praying then could actually merely constitute a varied, yet nonetheless repetition of merely only one thought in that prayer, =both “vain repetitions” and “many words” (Matt 6:7). And God is not deaf or dumb. I.e., He heard you the first time. Instead those people should be praying as the actual perceived needs are throughout meeting, and so they should be also watching the development of the meeting. In that way, if e.g., someone should get up and be demonstrating a wrong spirit, or they see that an improper decision/procedure is being made, they could then tangibly pray for God to intervene and send a specific impartation of His guidance and wisdom on that pointed issue.
Even prayer to God is something out of a tangible reality/necessity, indeed, most basically, a concrete expression of one’s will, and not something “religious”. Tellingly enough, some of the most powerfully answered prayers in the Bible are quite short/concise, simple and (straightly/linearly, vs. circuitously/convolutedly) to the point, prayers. (E.g., 1 Kgs 18:36-37; 1 Chr 4:10; especially, pertinently enough, Jesus’ model/template prayer Matt 6:9-13; cf. 6-7). Even Solomon’s comparatively long Temple dedication prayer, which actually was a quasi-dedication homily which rehashed the past unworthy history of Israel, was non-repetitive (1 Kgs 8:22-53; 54-61). An interestingly enough, when it is said of Jesus that he ‘prayed all night’, it was when He, seeing the by now resolute opposition to Him by the Jewish leaders, evidently saw that He would have to establish a new leadership (=DA 291.2ff), and so, being about to fully/officially choose 12 people as His “apostles” from the large group of disciples who had come to support/follow Him thus far (Luke 6:11-13ff, 17a), He then probably spent the night actually reviewing with God the Father a mental listing of various complimentary people He was considering as well as praying for those who He had already informally chosen. So that prayer may have been also, or paramountly, a concrete back and forth judicious interaction on each of these name. Furthermore, in Elijah’s prayer for rain, it is actually only said, actually implied, that he only prayed once for that, if he actually then was praying and not only worshipping God (1 Kgs 18:42b) and only had 7 times been telling his servant go and see if the prayer was answered. (1 Kgs 18:43ff). Indeed by Elijah having already told Ahab to look for showers very soon after the fire response on Carmel (1 Kgs 18:41), Elijah may actually not have explicitly prayed/been praying at all here (PK 155.2-3). Even the season of fervent prayers for Peter when he was imprisoned (Acts 12:5ff|AA 144.2ff) was in the light of the tangible fact that he had not yet been delivered by God. So all of these examples show that praying without an actual tangible point, such as in not being actually aware of what is developing at a session being prayed for, is really not Biblical. And related, wider, case in point, even the many “rites” and ceremonies of the OT Sanctuary system were not for vacuous and pointless “religious” reasons but that tangible object-lesson and faith confirming purposes. So, as applicable, do “get real” with God. He craves for such, fully “mindful” interaction.
-As similarly/relatedly stated above in this post here: is it me, or should a voting delegate (and I moreover understand that only registered delegates were admitted in that meeting’s Hall), actually be an SDA member in “good standing”, unless, of course, the SDA Church now accepts, (contrary to its Fundamental Belief of Christian Behavior), that members wear (inherently “display”) jewelry, in this case, earrings [03:35:53ff]??!
-There, at least tacitly exists this clearly widespread, actually “humanistic”, belief that one can hold a view despite any opposing substantive (Bible/SOP) statements or objections against it. Similarly to what I said earlier, I have also encountered this attitude in discussions with SDA’s. It is actually all out of the typical “false facade/appearances” belief of such people that it is believed that not opposing something that is (supposedly) “wrong” is quite perfectly acceptable. And so if the Bible or SOP states something which opposes view of someone it is rather seen a more righteous to outrightly ignore that statement and hold on to one’s belief than to, and that validly, instead state and show how there was some degree of (honest) “error” (which usually is merely incomplete understandings) in the Bible or SOP. And so in this case of women ordination, many choose to ignore the many statements by Paul which seem to oppose women ordination, and that is also found in attempts to exegetically resolve those issues, where the arguments made still do not prove to be conclusive. So, e.g., it is deemed a sacrilegious to say that in 1 Tim 2:11-14ff Paul was actually presenting his personal view rather than something that God had directly revealed to him. I.e., dealing with manifestly a particular problem in the Church where it was probably already long understood, especially if/as Galatians 3:28 (written in ca. 48-49 A.D.) preceded the Letter to Timothy (ca. 62-64 A.D.), that there no longer was a distinction between men and women in Christ, that Paul then had to deal with a social-born problem where pointedly most women were actually uneducated, particularly religiously, and so it was detrimentally for them to “speak up” in Church or defaultly have ‘governing authority’ in the home. But then it is deemed as perfectly acceptable by those same people to just ignore that opposing passage in their decision making on women ordination. Proper exegesis will appropriately contextualize the meaning, scope and bindingness of such passages.
And the actual principle then involved in 1 Tim 2:11-14 rings even more loudly that despite the fact that everyone has a right to teach or govern, those who are not diligent to properly understand the facts of matters involved, whether male or female, should just keep silent on the issue rather than cause confusion. Such a principle would most pertinently be helpful in the present Women Ordination issue, as it has been seen that trusted people variously saying things which they have not properly studied out, and equally, conversely, similarly trusted people not being studied enough to immediately correct and redress those errors, has misled others/ the “Church”, and cause confusion, all resulting in various significant wastes.
And incidentally, Paul (as also with EGW) typically bolsters his personal/specifically applicable views/opinions with at least thematically corroborating Biblical (OT) passages, but that does not however mean that this was a direct word from God, nor a all-inclusively or “eternally” applicable principle/counsel. Neither Paul nor EGW spoke/wrote “ex-cathedra”, for, in EGW’s case, she then would have never recommended people to make the Bible the highest authority in doctrinal/spiritual matters, and similarly Paul would have never explicitly made his qualifying “permission vs. commission” statements, nor tried to corroborate even his “permissive” statements with Scripture, but both would have rather said something in the line of “just (only) go by what I have said/written”.
-In this interactive technologies day and age, there should be a more substantive way of deciding who to fully hear during the deliberations at such meetings. I was personally frustrated at summary voting decisions to cut off discussion as it was not known what argument someone then still in line to speak would make. A perfect and most appalling demonstration of this was a delegate during the CUC meeting [03:22:41-03:23:31] who got up at the last minute to say something who, who indeed really/actually knows, may have been something that God inspired him to say in the light of a recent statement, perhaps even something that would have corrected a critical error, which in the case of a doctrinal understanding error, manifestly does not qualify as a “point of order”. But without even getting an indication as to what that person was going to say, which, self-rationally enough, if he thought it was inconsequential would not have tried to be “urgently heard”, a perfunctory vote was taken and it was ‘opined’ (vs. actual “decided”) that hearing what that person had to, again, urgently say, was not important. I mean....based on what...his outward appearance????
-Indeed it seems that there is a fundamentally flawed belief in such SDA deliberations that merely democratically voting on something establish it as truth. And so judicious ascertaining usually takes a back seat to proper, or even actual, truth/fact-finding. But valid, decisions, even “opinions” are only based on properly resolved facts and not mere, subjective, and quasi-whimsical “opinion”.
-To slightly, (perhaps explicitly), “hone” something which Randy Roberts had stated in his pre-session sermon while listing a sample of significant women in Biblical/Church history: it logically was an inevitable reality/necessity that ‘the mother of our Lord be a woman’ (Mary, of course), but it was a distinctly special and commendable achievement on Mary’s part that she was quite evidently, and even as a woman in those times, entirely entrusted with the religious/spiritual education of Jesus. (See DA 70.1ff), -the education upon which the Savior of the world would, and that most counter-culturally, be shaped into foundationally properly understanding the God of Heaven and His Word!!...And pertinently enough, this task/commission was not done without God’s special ‘Holy Spirit anointing’ (= Biblical “ordination”) of Mary as the SOP reveals in SJ 30.5 that:
February 12, 2013 - In this GYC 2012 Seminar Presentation, Stephen Bohr tries to speak against the Ordination of Women by presenting an “equal but (still) subordinate” perspective, chiefly demonstrating from the Bible and SOP that this is how the Trinity, mainly the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, is. While that hierarchal subordination is indeed involved in the Trinity, as mentioned in some of the preceding points of discussions, there seems to be a confusion/conflation of the issues here in regards to specifically Women Ordination. Again, first of all, what is ordination?? If it is viewed in a Catholic way, where one comes to function as a priest in order to deal with a person’s sins, then that is completely unbiblical in the New Covenant. Women were not permitted to hold priestly functions because it was the woman who had convinced man to fall into sin, and so they would be trusted to function in the doing away with it. But then again, later on, it was only Levites who were allowed to be priests out of all the tribes of Israel because they had uniquely stood for the Lord against the Israel-wide apostasy in the Golden Calf incident. And then later on, in the Post-Exilic era, because of the historical failures of that priestly line of Levites in not duly dealing with sinning in Israel, it was specifically Zadokites Levites were only allowed to hold that position. (Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11). So God has always enforced the straightforward principle that those who lead out in sinning should not be the ones who are to be His functional representatives in dealing and doing away with it. In the beginning the were only two people and it was the woman who was guilty of this, this evidently due to the emotional influence by which Eve, the woman had caused Adam to give in to sin, God there dealt with a most-present reality and as a safeguard prevented women from holding a priestly position. Then since God did choose in Deborah a woman to hold the most powerful leadership position in Israel of judge (which included life and death power over men), when the People had become settled in their promised land, and since God did raise up women prophets in also OT times, then it is clear that God does not have a problem with a woman holding a leadership position, particularly if a woman is the best candidate available. It is just that in OT times, holding a priestly function was not allowed for women. So a leadership position is not necessarily a priestly position, and thus the question squarely is: are the (SDA) positions of Elder, Pastor, President: “priestly functions” and accessible only through an “investituring” ordination rite??
See my further, discussion comments on this issue in this thread from here & here; -which is eventually pertinently/substantively continued here/here.
The New Covenant equivalence of that Old Covenant special ministry/consecration is now to be wholly found in the pertinent Holy Spirit Wisdom and Understanding that any person (=Jer 31:34), particularly in the still needed Ecclesiastical leadership positions, (with the office of a prophet being, pointedly today, -2000 years after Christ in person appearance on Earth, the topmost (cf. Luke 11:49; 1 Cor 12:28; Eph 2:20; 3:5)), should have in order to make the proper Biblical decisions and judgements...and, through God’s empowering/complementing Spirit, (beyond just the basic substantive knowledge that can easily be accessed and had by educational/informing means), that now can be achieved by either a male or a female. (e.g., Joe 2:28-29|Acts 2:17-18).
* Another related example of the often, inherently indifferent, frankly, i.e. calling things as they are intended,“air-faced/quasi-air headed”, thus “hoodwinking” claims of/from Stephen Bohr is his claim here [41:43], (during his “Anchor School of Theology” series), that ‘1 Tim 2:12 does actually allows a woman to “teach” [oh, really??], but just not at a cross-jurisdictional/global level as someone who is “ordained”’, with that woman’s ‘permitted jurisdiction’ being claimed to be her local church or Sabbath school class. (So then, that woman can easily serve as a “local” pastor and/or teacher. That claim in itself indeed makes no sense as it is inherent self-contradictory as the issue here is “teaching” not “jurisdiction”. And to circumvent that quite obvious fallacy, Bohr claims, from his recurring “hoodwinking” pseudo-exegesis resorting that: ‘the Greek word for “teach” in 1 Tim 2:12 is not the normative one for “teaching”, but rather a special one which involves ‘teaching with authority’. Well first of all, that Greek word is didasko (#1321) [91 occurrences in NT; -204 (lemma) occurrences with LXX; relatedly see also Strongs #1317-#1322 (+#2085; #2567; #3547; #5572) for an added 114(+19) Greek words which are derived from didasko.)] which, as taught in “Greek 101”s, as I myself encountered, is the pointed/default word for “teaching”. The NT word which would come close to what Bohr could claim as a “secondary word” for “teaching” would be katecheo #2727 (lit. “according to[#2596]+‘echo’/noise”[#2278] i.e. ‘what has been said/sounded-heard’ =“catechism”) which has only 8 occurrences in the NT and means merely “instructing” which just involves a ‘(rote) repeating of something/knowledge’. So that would thus mean that women, when, “locally: of course, preaching or teaching are only permitted to repeat what they have heard from others (i.e., a male teachers) and certainly not advance new/original Biblical/Spiritual understandings.
Update: 11-08-13: Approving results, at 85%, of what is now dual-talkingly said to be ‘merely-NAD’ findings: here and here... So I guess that the 12 other Church’s Divisions better, for reasons of “efficiency”[##:##] of course, deferentially rubber-stamp these findings from “Jerusalem”... See a comprehensive sermon/presentation based directly on the NAD findings’s (voluminous) report here.
Update: 02-26-14 “Hermeneutics”: Most succinctly said, neither the [here, here then here discussed (by opponents)] NAD’s newly proposed: “Principle-Based Historical-Cultural” (PBHC) hermeneutic, nor the presently standing “Historical-Grammatical” (HG) “Thought Inspiration” Method of Bible Study are the proper ways of studying the Bible. The PBHC is too inherently prone to subjectivity and “human culture/traditions”; and the HG is actually only selectively strictly followed by its (SDA) proponents, not to mention in regards to textual ‘grammar’ issues. Instead, as cited for the “Eden in the Wilderness” section in here, the straightforward/realistic/logical “method” used and shown by Jesus in Matt 4:1-11|Luke 4:1-13 is the proper approach. It involves:
As, (as documented throughout this blog (see e.g. here)), I myself have consistently seen and experienced ever since adopting this “realistic” way of engage God and the Bible, which is fundamentally based on believe that God ‘says/does what He means and means what He says/does’, instead of various imposed “sanctimoniously apologetic” and/or merely rotely scholastic methodologies, you not only arrive at the Concrete Truth, but it also, (usually recursively through a better perception of what has actually already been (especially Divinely/prophetically) revealed in the Bible and SOP), opens up valid/proven avenues of/for sound, deeper and most enlightening Theological understanding!
Update 03-23-14 - For mostly documenting/journalistic value, see Bohr’s insider TOSC deliberations account, albeit coloringly biased from his view/stance, here [present wave of discussion on this issue, i.e., 2010+ is at 17:58ff. (Bohr’s commenting on issues of difference, most pointedly or generally debunked by what has been presented in this blog section on this issue is at ca. 38:34ff)
Update 06-18-14 - See here [38:00ff] for a presentation, from Stephen Bohr, on a “Third Option” which was claimed about Women Ordination in the June 2014 TOSC meeting.
EGW|Prophet and Baptizing - In regards to EGW’s Biblical (higher level of) Ordination, and what was permissible/acceptable for her to do:
Update 07-04-14 - This two part (Part 1|Part 2) discussion between Stephen Bohr and Jennifer Arruda on her ‘Open Letter to her SDA Family’ on the Women Ordination issue (see here|here, and commenting here), is perfectly reflective of how the against side is Truth-deaf in regards what the Bible fully teaches on this issue and how they prefer to dumbly, even, at least Spiritually, senilely (=Isa 29:9-14), double-down on their inherited Babylonian (i.e. Roman Catholic) traditions on this issue (e.g. God’s Spirit only “ordainedly works in men, Pastors and Elders = NT Priests; and baptism, communion, marriage are “(mystic) sacraments” (=“ordinances”) to be only administered by these “NT Priests”).
...Therefore, do sequiturly expect, contrary to Bohr’s mere human/“natural”-wisdom (1 Cor 2:6-16) blind and ditsy expectations [Part #2 at 56:30ff], a Satanic result for the TOSC resolution at the 2015 General Conference Session, for Satan is indeed the one ‘carrying on this (humanistic/unSpiritual) work’ by the long abandoned Throne (EW 56.1)!! Clearly all of their past, even future “prayers and study” are/will be making no difference for Satan is indeed the one who is responding to, and guiding this, his, -moreover desperately cheating (cf. 1 Kgs 18:25b), Baalic (=1 Kgs 18:26-29) “Assembly of Satan”!!!
-Not seeing that a competent knowledge is fundamental to one being ordained, indeed with God Himself doing this when it cannot be done otherwise, is like claiming that a person can be trusted to function as an engineer, doctor, lawyer without ever having had full education, training and experience in those professions. Furthermore, one’s ordination is not to be determined by e.g. the number of baptisms or membership growth that a pastor-teacher produces for if that is the criteria, then most Bible prophets were not ordained as they were roundly greatly/majoritarily rejected, even persecuted. Instead the substantive Biblical quality of the message being presented is what shows that God’s Spirit is working through that person. E.g. As sampled below, a preacher-teacher being “naturalistically” capable of “standing on his head” in the pulpit and spin the Scriptures in a creative or comical way, and thus can easily attract a similarly shallow and superficial crowd is, LOL, not proof that they are “anointed, thus ordained”. Just like the empty calories of a sugary breakfast cereal in not “proper nutrition”. When people became interested in Jesus even because of the Divine signs/miracles He could do, He immediately showed that this was not determinative of conversion. Rather the substantive Truth of God’s Word were. (John 6:26-27ff, 48-71).
-Trying to claim that the gift of prophecy is not proof that it is an office is again most unbiblical. And if people received their “different” Spiritual Gift at baptism but only were eligible to hold office through a different or matured gifting, then that would mean many people are generically given the gift of prophecy at their baptism but only some of those come to “mature” that gift. Fact is that God anoints/ordains and appoints people to the Prophetic Office at any needed time. And it is actually Prophets who would, at God’s leading, select (initial) kings. It is because God/Jesus themselves chose and appointed Apostles and Prophets that they, (and also those who they may in turn select, and God accept to succeed them in that office), had the highest position of leadership in God’s Israel, indeed above priests in the OT and pastor-teacher, evangelist, etc, in the NT. SDAs need to turn this hierarchy upside down because they are trying to justify the fact that they do not directly hear from God. So they have come to make it seem that God’s topmost authority is those who they themselves (“democratically”) select and vote into presidential and pastoral offices. But the overruling fact is that whenever God steps in and raises up, especially a prophet, who him/her-self directs to the establishment of a governing leader, that is to be considered the top most position in effect. In fact the counsels and writings of EGW, all pointing back to the Word of God, still hold such a topmost position in the SDA Church, but it is only subjectively/selectively followed by the lower Presidential and Pastoral leaders today.
-LOL, if, as per Doug Batchelor: ‘the selection of deacons in Acts 6:1-7 is to also be indicative that only men can be ordained’ (1 Tim 3:8-13)...then (1) how is Phoebe also called a deacon-ess (Rom 16:1), and (2) why does the SDA Church currently have deaconesses???!!! -And, debunkingly, in 1 Tim 3:11, Paul merely repeats, now for women deaconesses, what is pointedly applicable to them....which strongly implies that many men sins such as drinking were not prominent sins of women. And it is in this light of relevantly addressing the particularly main sins of each group, that Paul goes on to add the issue of men having more than one wife (1 Tim 3:12), which, as already discussed, most logically was not in regards to adultery, but in regards to Israel’s lawfully permitted bi|poly-gamy....The status quo of uninformed stupidity still reigns supreme in the Church, at some level or another, even, even more mind-bogglingly, when people are selected to represent the Church such deliberative, study committee. It would not at all shock me that many of these representative come to these discussion not to Biblically study together, but rather to merely just to pridefully champion their pet views and rationalizations.... Seriously, after 2+ years of ‘studying together’ how in the world does anyone still spout of uninformed and erroneous claims and views such as this one....It probably is the case that most of these participants would fail a factual exegesis-based test on the pertinent passages and arguments presented on the issue...Why then should their mere summary voting be considered valid!?? And of course, as is the Cainly-irresponsible/indifferent norm in SDA Circles, no one on that panel, who probably knew this was erroneous, cared to set the record straight, even for their audience, or, if for nothing the sake of Biblical Truth....But perhaps they actually all indeed are ignorant on that issue, and then who also knows what else, as made to seem here.
Indeed the Bible Studying which launched the post 1844-precursor group to the SDA Church was not settled by voting but by an arrived at unanimous consensus on what the Bible actually taught on an issue, and it is indeed that spirit dedicated to arriving at the full and exact Biblical Truth that God could, and preservingly did, honor and compliment by His Spirit. The fact that the SDA Church will be both deciding Truth by voting, (and now, as expressed in this 3ABN discussion, their grand, “indeed” inspired (=EW 56.1), solution is, -since their paid and supposedly educated leadership cannot either arrive at a Biblical evident solution, nor, vacuously enough, give the people what they (inevitably ignoramusly) think/want/prefer, is to indeed turn these involved things over to a further confused and amateur direct-democratic vote....Good Luck with that...), and also that they have been going on, even concluded their deliberations when there still is not a unanimous consensus on the Truth, (and have they actually been pleading with God for decisive light on these issues...or would they even be given it), is self-evidence enough of the dishonourable partisan-based approach to this deliberation. The Church should not consider this issue settled, or even then mootly “votable”, without having a prior unanimous consensus on each and every contributive passage, argument and issue and sub-issue (e.g. hermeneutics) on this topic....But, as mindless typical with SDAs...who actually has time for arriving at, especially, clear/concrete Truth....For they have Capitalistic bills to pay on one side, and a before-their-death, supposed-generally-scheduled Second Coming to, not even hasten, but merely carelessly “keep on schedule” with, on the other side. Talk about ‘shooting themselves “in the top of the head”’....Inceptively precisely and generally why indeed I long, Divinely-Encouragedly, left that iceberg side-swiping, now clearly sinking, Ship. Thank You Jesus for every preserving thing indeed (Rev 3:7-13; 11:3-4ff). I certainly did not contribute to that ‘selfishness-rooted & -cherished, catastrophic navigational error’ of that vessel, so I certainly have no, even, human compellation to “sink with that ship”!!!
Update 09-01-14 - Response to “Third Option Video” - So here, Stephen Bohr produced and presented a video response to the (Nicholas Miller)-Third Option Video (also promulgated by Light Bearers ministry). [See some related video-discussion of this exchange in here]. The funny thing is, “funny” in the sense that this whole juvenile/amateur dysfunction of the members in TOSC is quite comical, as typical, both sides here have valid points, but instead of doing what is in order to consensusly reconcile those points, they’ll manifestly instead choose to wholly set up camp around their side. The, actually only, and also actually semi-valid point from the Bohr and the WO-opposed side is that a more careful Bible and SOP look at the Matt 12:3-4 response of Jesus, (which Daniel Mesa sassily -(as if that should help these pride-loaded “SDA colleagues” readily resolve their differences) protractedly expounds in this sermon), does show that He was not actually, and actually “blanketly”, “commending” David. The fact is that Jesus was “commending” the fact that David had partaken of that holy bread to meet that urgent, and paramilitarily/strategically hunger need. Jesus did not actually involve or go into the sinful and faithless basis from which David went about to procure that bread. (1 Sam 21:1-3ff; PP 655.3) So while God allowed the natural consequences of that sin to be reaped, the “Third Option” side is right here in that the point of Jesus merely was, as actually further made in His next example in Matt 12:5, that ‘even holy (i.e. specially set apart) things can be “profaned” in order to deal with vital emergencies and needs. Again, that is not God’s ideal, but God, as repeatedly demonstrated, is just not “Pharisaically” in the business of letting people die just to preserve some “holy order” (=Luke 10:30-37). In fact God was twice willing to ‘killingly “profane”’ His entire initial Israel plan because these “chosen” people were getting in His, still-being-obstructed (by pointedly SDAs 15MR 292.3-4), nationalistic way/plan of “blessing all of the nations of the Earth (Gen 12:2) and thus potentially salvifically redeeming most of them.
Sub-Update 09-04-14 - In a follow-up sermon on 08-30-14, this time at Bohr’s Fresno Central Church, Daniel Mesa there [20:24-22:50], based on the also Bible, and SOP textual evidence (see DA 285.2; RH, August 3, 1897 par. 1, 3 = Matt 12:7) given to him, albeit actually obtsuely, “corrects” this above claim of his that: ‘David was guilty of a sin in eating the shewbread’, but now indeed rather obfuscatingly, seeks to still find something/someone sinfully responsible of not following the law of the shewbread by claiming that it was rather the priest himself, who was guilty of ‘halvingly’ breaking God’s Law on this matter. This claim here is quite evidently an eisegetical contrivance to try to maintain this episode as something which is opposingly allusive to the Woman Ordination issue today by ‘SDA priests’. Fact is, yes this episode does not at all serve as a “Plan B” basis to warrant the ordination of women, as claimed by the TOSC “Third Option” side, but it also is actually not an example against it, as Mesa now tries to make it seem. This episode merely highlights God’s overarching Law of Life which allows for the “violation” of any law/statute/holy practice which comes to stand in the way of a righteous/innocent life to be preserved. David here was genuine and seriously starving, and him and his followers eating the only available food there, moreover while on effectively a mission on God’s side, was warranted.
And contrary to what Daniel Mesa goes on to substantively airheadedly and biasedly chauvinistically claimed in that follow up sermon at [43:54ff] as he pompously rattles off the typical, vacuously inconsequential, deliberately selective listing of only male leadership groups in the Bible and the days of EGW, i.e. ignoring Chief Judge Deborah, and female prophets, including EGW who all Biblically, by God’s appointment had/held the highest ordained and authoritative positions in His Israel: ‘Mary was not considered in Acts 1:14ff as an apostle replacement because she was a woman, but rather because, as explained here against the likeminded “shamelessly moronic” and “exegetically idiotic”, Spiritually and mentally “immaturely” infantile claims/reasonings, (=what the Heavenly Intelligence itself also calls “stupid” (8MR 219.4; EW 111.2)), she had long disqualified (=Acts 1:21ff) herself of any such, moreover most gruelling, position because, though she had been “ordained” by God to (basically) “teach” Christ, (which, just as Jesus Christ Himself understood (Luke 11:27-28), is most determinative than Mesa’s ludicrous “changing his diapers”), at a certain point, probably starting from Christ’s Passover visit at age 12 and manifestly right through most of Christ ministry, she was not either physically or spiritually “following” Jesus, who she, and her other children deemed to have “lost His senses”. (Mark 3:21|DA 321.1-2, 325.1-3). So Jesus himself had publicly shown that she was disqualified (Matt 12:46-50; cf. Mark 8:34, 38), and all in an encroached context of the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit. (DA 324.3)
The “Third Option” side is also right, though not actually for the surface/superficial externally “influential”, even culturally-relational, reasons that they claim, in presenting the view that there is an ‘alternative plan’ being involved here. However unlike them, I am not “defensively” seeing that this is actually God’s “Plan B”, but rather that this was always to be part of His Plan A. Meaning that just as, before the Fall, Eve was to be to Adam a ‘“second self”, ‘non-surpassing’ and ‘non-trampled’ “equal”’ to him (PP 46.2), thus also in ruling, and pointedly towards their globally-filling offspring, (and technically speaking, it must be respondingly distinguished here that Adam only ‘named all the animals himself’ because Eve had not yet been created (Gen 2:15, 19-20 then Gen 2:18, 21-23 (=PP 46.1); -and also, as expounded here, God manifestly originally did not have plans to create/invent a (human) female gender, but later decided/opted otherwise, and evidently actually before Adam himself realized this which is manifestly why Gen 2:18's Divine statement is made before the creation of animals, and Adam’s own realization in Gen 2:19-20), and thus, as “equals” they would have equal contribution in actions and decision making, both women and men can have the same level of position, though the Fall has actually naturally limited the height of contribution that the woman was supposed to have, in fact by likewise also limiting/curtailing that of man. In other words, because both man’s work and women’s child bearing, and their joint child rearing were complicated by the Fall, both men and women have not been able to actually be all that they could, particularly jointly be. There was now a pervasive sin issue to deal with and be preserved from, and towards that end their necessarily became specializedly non-equals. And so, all things considered about the Fall, including the level/nature of deception between Adam vs. Eve (1 Tim 2:14) and also given the fact that Man also had manifestly been deliberately given a greater “experience” (thus inherently greatly (slightly-aged) wisdom) than the woman by being created first (1 Tim 2:13), with God manifestly delaying His opted plan to create woman only Adam had lived and experienced a while, it consensusly seems to me that it is thus, in matters which involve that the man and the woman just cannot be equals, whether Spiritually, physically and/or intellectually, that an actually superior in these regards man is to have/exercise the determinative “headship” authority. But in matters/situation where God has, especially Supernaturally, as mainly done through a special imparting/anointing (=ordaining) by His Spirit, made it that a women can overcome these limiting inferiorities, then, particularly in regards to subjects/subject matter with which she is then on a equal(-ized) footing/standing with a man, then she is to be considered, and function as, an equal.
-Ordination is not a ‘“blanket” qualifying for all leadership position’. Each position is distinct and requires its distinct calling/qualifying and anointing/ordaining for it. E.g, a pastor is not automatically also a prophet, nor a deacon automatically qualified to be president. A person may be anointed more than once for distinct positions, but that indeed should involved distinct commissionings. It may be ‘economical’ to simply have a “one-service-all-ordination” ceremony, but that is not at all Biblical.
Update 10-02-2014 - GC President “leverage” - For typical “moron-proofing” reasons, GC President Ted Wilson has seen as most contributive from him to remain ambiguously “neutral” in expressing his views during this whole Women Ordination Deliberation, -(perhaps he honestly was himself in fact not sure about what the Biblical Truth was on this). But now, as seen in this article, pointedly with his revealing/betraying: “we are to take the Bible just as it reads” ‘urging’, he is manifestly being less opaque about what position he supports. But here is the utter irony in all of this. Now, upon over 2 years of study and deliberation, it should have been that the SDA GC President should have himself been, especially as a Seminary Educated, (formerly functioning) Pastor/Evangelist, exegetically-competent enough to know that “taking the Bible as is reads” just does not mean ‘not involving proper exegesis and, when and where applicable, correcting deficient translating of the underlying text. Thus, in the light of what has been “correctively” exegetically brought forth in the present post, “taking the Bible as it reads” just does not lead to the Theology that ‘God had/has forever intended for women to not also function in the topmost leadership positions in His Israel’....But that’s all what happens when a Church innately has an effective amateur Theological competency level as the preference for its topmost position.
* So, as per that indeed ‘“fluffy/airy’ reasoning’, now that North America recognizes gay marriages, then the NAD/Church should ‘do what is acceptable in their region’ and also recognize and do gay marriages, and hire&ordain practising gay clergy.
...Case in point, now, post-vote, (some from) the defeated pro-WO side is on one hand consoled by having received ca. over 800 similar siding votes from non-North American delegates, as they are lamenting, even (“stereo-typically”) crying (-really!???-), about some injustices. Fact of the matter, contrary to their claims, this was not a: ‘democratic’, “religious liberty”, “liberty of conscience”, or “discretionary” matter, it was always a Biblical one, and this pro-WO side did a most shoddy and selective/subjective/whimsical and outrightly incompetent job in regards to arriving at a Biblical decision...as likewise did the side against WO in substantiating their stance. Hence no Biblical decision was actually done, or arrived at, in this GC Session and the prior 2-year TOSC deliberations.
** And just to stressingly highlight the entrenched Scholarly Incompetence and Spiritual myopia (Laodicean) diseases of/in the SDA Church, this is actually what those 3 final positions/conclusions from TOSC:
* Case in point, as the NAD (effectively) quasi-tauntingly stated in a responding statement to the GC 2015 decision, it, the NAD still has, and will have, women pastors, and will continue to ordain women as elders and deaconesses, not to mention also let women “teach”, -nor also serve as “(Departmental) directors” (also over men), as well as, since the first “General Conference” in Acts 15 was composed of Apostles and elders, -all men (Acts 15:6-7, 22), who were to study out, then make, and thus exercise, “authoritative” decision over/for the entire Church then, then women also shouldn’t be serving as delegates for any SDA Church Constituency/Business meeting, nor be part of deliberating or study committees, -all things which the TOSC Position 1 side has explicitly or effectively vehemently [incorrectly] argued were (supposedly) contrary to Biblical teaching. (July 17, 2015): See more on this prior Vision and its seemingly wrong message explained in (prophetic) detailing in Knoll’s next, post-GC Vote Dream #72 posted on July 11, 2015 which indeed hones in on the misleading motion for that GC “Women Ordination” Vote.
 See also Nelson’s 10-06-12 sermon on ‘rethinking male headship’ entitled, from, (supposedly thematically pertinently) Psa 68:11 (NASB)*: “A Mighty Throng of Women”, which mainly presents the correct Biblical Hermeneutic that God can supercede a previous law/order which He had given through His own, clear/explicit, overturning leading and/or direct actions.
Therefore that statement is not necessarily/actually saying, as implied in that sermon that: ‘these women are preaching as ordained ministers as did/would the Messiah’, all simply based on a shallow lexical matches of the Hebrew word “basar” in Isa 61:1 = Luke 4:18. “Good News” is not defaultly, technically, “Preaching the Gospel”, and that in an ordained capacity, but the bearing of any “good news”, -which nonetheless surely included the mere announcement of Christ’s resurrection (John 20:17-18), yet it does not in itself provide a theological proof for the ordination of women.
* Quite unlike the instance when, in the July 21 AM (i.e., Sabbath Morning Service) sermon here (mp3) [at 35:26-37:32-38:04] during a sermon as the invited, final weekend, main speaker at the 2012 Alberta Conference Campmeeting, Jonathan Henderson was resolutely, yet nonetheless politely/agreeably, interrupted by someone in the audience to be corrected on the view he had just claimed that ‘the actual/only reason why Sodom was destroyed was because of the socio-economic sins ‘“explicitly” cited by God’ in Ezek 16:48-50.’ It indeed was not the only reason, but probably the precursory selfish sinning which then led to a next level of “abominable” sinning (=Ezek 16:50b; Jud 1:7 (see here); cf. Josephus, Antiquities, 1:11.1 [#194] -typically bloodshedding and/or sexual perversion) which “haughty”/arrogant/righteousness disdaining people just would not be rationally corrected upon, and so God had no other choice then to efface such a pervasive, threatening and spreading culture of perversion, probably sickness, violence and death.#
Post Script: Frankly stated, the quite easily observable hard fact about Jonathan Henderson clearly is that: after ca. 15-20+ years, he just has not risen above being merely a “preacher hack” with a theological wit entrenchedly, basely controlled by a vexatiously whimsical, Freudian-longing/nostalgic (see here (on 05-03-14) [at 10:32ff]), ‘graphic-caricaturist’ wannabe, psyche, and who, moreover vacuously, -and actually bordering on clinical mental deficiency, and/or, and as also observed by several others: ‘quasi-demonic possession’, pointedly in, as amply, emblematically documented severally in this blog, him putatively, "correctingly", outrightly thinking that he knows more/better than (the even clearly stating): God, Bible, Bible people and/or the SOP... when it actually predominantly clearly rather, circularly, is nothing more than his own pridefully pompous, novice-(self)-maintained, ignoramus psycho-psyche producing brain "burps".
# E.g., Speaking at PUC on 01-11-14 (mp3), he smugly, nonsensically, “brain-burpingly”, re-claims at [00:46-02:45] that [and just ignoring his prior, as often, timidly/tacitly, “half-pregnantly” hinted at, heretically spurious Character of God% view/stance]: (a) ‘the Sabbath is not “called” (=‘understood as’) the day of worship in Scripture’ (contra. Lev 23:3; Ezek 46:1-3); (b) Isa 66:23 actually means that ‘people will be worship God for 7 days a week, during every week of every month’, when that is exegetically not at all what the Hebrew (nor LXX) grammar and syntax is saying (i.e., compared to how “durative” notions are expressed in Exod 27:21; Lev 23:32; 24:3; Num 9:21).
 In fact, I would see as transpiringly warranting in the SDA Church, given the present competitively head-strong stance by the majority male leadership to not want to humble themselves and instead seek to do, and better do, collaborating work, which women are more naturally prone to do, rather than the typical male, ‘cut throat duelling to one’s death’ preference, furthermore more with males innately more inclined to consider their church work more as their due food-providing job, rather than a ministry towards God and man, and thus not inclined to do anything which would result in them losing that position, and thus being fire and unemployed, and thus, just silently going along with whatever the Church does and accepts, however unbiblical it may be, not to mention the natural “good ol’ boys club” which naturally derives from such self-preservation, -that God is indeed anointing/ordaining women, who he has actually long been preparatory working with for such a time, to fill any of such key positions, given them, as done with EGW after Foy’s and Foss’ failure, their chance at correctly seeing that God’s will be done. And so, if women can sustain and/or overcome their own, really Fall-related and male-inculcated complex of endeavoring to be subserviently acceptable to men, and thus will not have any hindrance to full declaring, advocating and working to implement, the Full Counsel of God, just as EGW herself did, including many times going “over the heads” of blind leaders, who were actually all already inferior to her topmost prophet position, then they can now work to salvage whatever/whoever can be salvaged from the now Synagogue of Satan SDA Church.
 Corroboratingly enough, EGW states in PP 45.3 that ‘Adam and Eve’s robe of light was the same that angels wear’. Well since angels are “spirits” (=for their widely-travelling “ministering” duties -Heb 1:14) but can bodily incarnate themselves (to have tangible effectuations), then that would be the robe they wear when they want to visibly and/or tangibly manifest themselves, and conversely, that would explain why they are invisible when they are not wearing it. But as Biblical examples do indeed reveal that a person may be able to see an angel while another, right next to them, may not, then there still, as for Adam and Eve, is involved a process of “God opening the eyes of the person”, so that they can see that robe of light, and thus (also) that angel. Perhaps when Redeemed Man’s brain will be allowed/capable of growing to full development and usage, then will their mind be Naturally opened so that they can always see those (surrounding) angels, instead of depending upon/requiring a Super-Natural momentarily unlocking permittance by God.