Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
@S. Heisey: I agree with what you are saying. This is why adding women’s ordination to our doctrinal repertoire is so problematic. There is simply no Biblical support for it. Contrariwise, the scriptures speak plainly of ordaining men.

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
@Sean Pitman: It is not for me or others, of course, to question your sincerity. We all well know, however, the possibility of being sincerely wrong. In place of being sincere, we must study to show ourselves approved unto God–i.e., we should strive to be diligent. I may be sincere, but I would rather be praised for diligence than sincerity.

Diligence in this study requires some linguistic scholarship. Hebrew and Greek must be consulted to ascertain certain facts. For example, the “husband of one wife” passage becomes inescapably clear when a careful study is made of it. One cannot lightly add to the Word of God in twisting the phrase into “wife of one husband.” Nor can one lightly claim there is no distinction made between genders in the Bible on account of Galatians 3:28–doing so would enable homosexuality by the same interpretation. In fact, of course, the context is that of salvation and not of ordination nor of sexuality. But when the context does not suit the post-modern “progressives,” they wrest the lines that they like from it to leverage a thought never expressed in the original, supporting a concept foreign to its author. Thus they fall prey to a deception of their own making.

Mrs. White made clear that the last great deception would include self-deception. We see that happening among many today. The frightening thing with self-deception is that one may be oblivious to the fact. Sincerely self-deceived? How terrible the possibility! None of us can be confident of our own views except as they are based on a PLAIN “thus saith the LORD.”

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference

Sean&#032Pitman: Sure, I remain, by Divine appointment, the head of my own house and the head of my wife – because of this fallen world in which we live. However, this Divinely appointed headship ends there – within the home. It does not seem at all clear to me that this husband headship spills over into God’s church during these last days.

Actually, headship does not end in the home simply because home is not separate from the church. There is no such thing as separation of church and home as there is with separation of church and state. Consider Mrs. White’s words on the matter:

“Every Christian family is a church in itself. The members of the family are to be Christlike in every action. The father is to sustain so close a relation to God that he realizes his duty to make provision for the members of his family to receive an education and training that will fit them for the future, immortal life. His children are to be taught the principles of heaven. He is the priest of the household, accountable to God for the influence that he exerts over every member of his family. He is to place his family under the most favorable circumstances possible, so that they shall not be tempted to conform to the habits and customs, the evil practices and lax principles, that they would find in the world.” {1NL 77.2}

“If a man does not show wisdom in the management of the church in his own house, how can he show wisdom in the management of the larger church outside? How can he bear the responsibilities which mean so much, if he cannot govern his own children? Wise discrimination is not shown in this matter. God’s blessing will not rest upon the minister who neglects the education and training of his children. He has a sacred trust, and he should in no case set before church members a defective example in the management of his home.–Manuscript 104, 1901. (“The Need of Reform,” October 8, 1901.)” {5MR 449.4}

Yes, we still have priests today. We are still a “kingdom of priests,” just as we are in the “kingdom of God.” While the Israelites were to be a kingdom of priests and princes, we are never told that they were to be a kingdom of priestesses and princesses. Neither do we hear of queendoms. I believe there is a reason for this. “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” Why do we try to separate the wives from their husbands? When God created “man” in His image, we are told “male and female created he them.” If a woman wants to serve in an ordained capacity, let her marry a minister and be his helpmeet. They are one. He is the head of the home, and she is his helper.