Advent Talk

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Click Here to Enter Maritime SDA OnLine.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Down

Author Topic: A Compromise Solution?  (Read 34912 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Murcielago

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1274
Re: A Compromise Solution?
« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2012, 10:47:51 AM »

Is it proper for the church to establish broad policies that have no biblical mandate or affirmation?
Logged

christian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 345
Re: A Compromise Solution?
« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2012, 07:33:48 PM »

Are you indicating it was those who support the gay rights who prompted Ellen G White to write the following:

Quote
“Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church.”—The Review and Herald, July 9, 1895.
You will notice that Ellen G. White said "some of their time" in otherwords the roll of women have already been defined. It is amazing we take things out of proportion, when looking for an excuse for acceptance, the same as other denominations. After having stated the above, in my opinion it does not really matter. I think to a large extent those that will finish the work will not do so in an organizational fashion. The church now holds preeminence over God and there are many tied to the church with the belief like the Jews of old that the church will save them. Do you know how many will in the last days think they are saved only to find out that those that they trusted their salvation in were Charlot's and con artist. I can tell you that many of the changes that have occured in the last 25 years or so are definitly connected to an attempt to be accepted by the nominal churches. The many changes range from evangelism to music styles etc...
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4061
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: A Compromise Solution?
« Reply #17 on: June 05, 2012, 09:01:50 PM »

Why can't different denominational entities decide for themselves?  Why does it have to be "one size fits all"?  If differences matter enough to result in different working policies among divisions, why not in this case?

Valid questions. Yet on this precise point, the NAD already requested a GC Session (in 1995) for permission to ordain women if they believed it to be all right, and that request was voted down. The working policies of presumably all the divisions already say that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and therefore divisions cannot go contrary to that vote without having that vote rescinded ... unless God Himself has settled the matter in Scripture or the SoP.

My understanding of the problem is that ordination grants rights or privileges that are recognized worldwide. If each division does its own thing, it would be similar to one state "marrying" two men, and then another state trying to figure out how not to recognize that so-called marriage when dealing with taxes, adoptions, retirement, and inheritance.
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4061
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: A Compromise Solution?
« Reply #18 on: June 05, 2012, 09:09:22 PM »

Are you indicating it was those who support the gay rights who prompted Ellen G White to write the following:

Quote
“Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church.”—The Review and Herald, July 9, 1895.

Christian raised the issue of the roles of men and women, and the above statement does not contradict in any way what the anti-WO side considers to be any of the proper roles of women in the church.

Consider the story of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Formerly the first-born male of the family had been the priest, and Korah was the oldest, apparently. But God took that office away from the oldest and gave it to Aaron and his family. Korah didn't like it, says PP, and launched his rebellion.

The whole point of Korah's rebellion was that any of the congregation could serve as priests, and that it was wrong for Aaron and Moses to think that only they could hold the offices that they held.

How is the situation different today? God has told us what the role of women is to be, and yet we have today a significant number who maintain that anyone can be a priest, and for that reason women should be ordained to the gospel ministry as elders at large. But that isn't the role God has given women, according to Scripture and the SoP, as far as I can see.
Logged

Murcielago

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1274
Re: A Compromise Solution?
« Reply #19 on: June 05, 2012, 10:53:35 PM »

Bob and Christian, is biblical mandate required? There is no biblical foundation for the church's stand against slavery. Indeed, slavers have the bible as an ally in their enslavement of people. The bible is very clear on the role of slaves. Is it right for the church to take actions and establish policies that have no biblical foundation or mandate?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 11:01:57 PM by Murcielago »
Logged

Johann

  • Guest
Re: A Compromise Solution?
« Reply #20 on: June 05, 2012, 11:18:17 PM »

Are you indicating it was those who support the gay rights who prompted Ellen G White to write the following:

Quote
“Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church.”—The Review and Herald, July 9, 1895.
You will notice that Ellen G. White said "some of their time" in otherwords the roll of women have already been defined. It is amazing we take things out of proportion, when looking for an excuse for acceptance, the same as other denominations. After having stated the above, in my opinion it does not really matter. I think to a large extent those that will finish the work will not do so in an organizational fashion. The church now holds preeminence over God and there are many tied to the church with the belief like the Jews of old that the church will save them. Do you know how many will in the last days think they are saved only to find out that those that they trusted their salvation in were Charlot's and con artist. I can tell you that many of the changes that have occured in the last 25 years or so are definitly connected to an attempt to be accepted by the nominal churches. The many changes range from evangelism to music styles etc...

Yes, isn't it wonderful that some women are called by God, even away from other duties for some hours to associate with the minister in his work and talk with him about her assignments, and then receive the same blessings as the apostles,  set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. When men receive a calling by God, people usually expect them to work 24/7 and do very little else. Ellen G White makes it clear that this responsibility is not placed on the shoulders of women. They have the freedom to sleep and do other things in between if they can spend some hours in their special calling, not 24/7. Thank God for giving Ellen White this message. I thank God for the Spirit of Prophecy He provided for our church.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 12:04:15 AM by Johann »
Logged

Johann

  • Guest
Re: A Compromise Solution?
« Reply #21 on: June 06, 2012, 12:00:03 AM »

Are you indicating it was those who support the gay rights who prompted Ellen G White to write the following:

Quote
“Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church.”—The Review and Herald, July 9, 1895.

Christian raised the issue of the roles of men and women, and the above statement does not contradict in any way what the anti-WO side considers to be any of the proper roles of women in the church.


Yes he did, although I had not raised that issue in what he quoted. Then Christian wrote
Quote
The question of ordination is an issue of the current times and the desire of women's rights and comes from the same pot as those that advocate gay rights..
So I asked him if he really thought Ellen White also was prompted by those that advocate gay rights when she wrote this statement about the ordination of women. I was not asking about the roles or duties, but just wanted him to make clear what he had said.

Nobody has answered that question yet. Why?

Quote
Consider the story of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Formerly the first-born male of the family had been the priest, and Korah was the oldest, apparently. But God took that office away from the oldest and gave it to Aaron and his family. Korah didn't like it, says PP, and launched his rebellion.

The whole point of Korah's rebellion was that any of the congregation could serve as priests, and that it was wrong for Aaron and Moses to think that only they could hold the offices that they held.

How is the situation different today? God has told us what the role of women is to be, and yet we have today a significant number who maintain that anyone can be a priest, and for that reason women should be ordained to the gospel ministry as elders at large. But that isn't the role God has given women, according to Scripture and the SoP, as far as I can see.

Bob, I realize that some agree fully with your interpretation, but you even bite yourself in your tail with the above statement. It is only people who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God who believe it is stating the truth when it talks about the priesthood of all believes. This was a part of the Reformation of Martin Luther, who also made quite a point of this.

It is those who reject the Reformation message who reject the priesthood of all believers. So I'd invite you, Bob, to put on Protestant Spectacles so you can see clearly what Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy is telling us today.

Yes, the New Testament uses the term "priesthood of all believers", but it is only the Catholic church which has priests of  the Old Testament order. Consider that! English speaking Seventh-day Adventist have avoided the term "priest" when referring to our pastors/evangelists, just to make this distinction clear, and I believe this includes Ellen G White.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 12:08:18 AM by Johann »
Logged

Johann

  • Guest
Re: A Compromise Solution?
« Reply #22 on: June 06, 2012, 12:43:31 AM »

Reminds me, 37 years ago I was called to be the pastor/evangelist connected with the largest church in the conference. I handed papers out to the members and asked them to write down what they felt were my duties. I received only one reply. It was from a dear devoted and active lady who signed her name.

When I analyzed her answers I figured out I needed about 50 hours a day, seven days a week, to do all that was expected of me. No wonder the son-in-law of this lady became a Division administrator.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 01:29:25 AM by Johann »
Logged

Snoopy

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3056
Re: A Compromise Solution?
« Reply #23 on: June 06, 2012, 04:57:43 AM »

Why can't different denominational entities decide for themselves?  Why does it have to be "one size fits all"?  If differences matter enough to result in different working policies among divisions, why not in this case?

Valid questions. Yet on this precise point, the NAD already requested a GC Session (in 1995) for permission to ordain women if they believed it to be all right, and that request was voted down. The working policies of presumably all the divisions already say that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and therefore divisions cannot go contrary to that vote without having that vote rescinded ... unless God Himself has settled the matter in Scripture or the SoP.

My understanding of the problem is that ordination grants rights or privileges that are recognized worldwide. If each division does its own thing, it would be similar to one state "marrying" two men, and then another state trying to figure out how not to recognize that so-called marriage when dealing with taxes, adoptions, retirement, and inheritance.

Other policies are different between divisions.  And many policies are not consistently applied in the first place.  So why is this such a big deal? 
Logged

Gregory

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 964
Re: A Compromise Solution?
« Reply #24 on: June 06, 2012, 11:13:50 AM »

The authority to ordain rests with the Unions.

Whether or not to ordain  females should have been decided at the Union level.  It should never have gone to a GC session.
Logged

Johann

  • Guest
Re: A Compromise Solution?
« Reply #25 on: June 06, 2012, 02:25:05 PM »

The authority to ordain rests with the Unions.

Whether or not to ordain  females should have been decided at the Union level.  It should never have gone to a GC session.


We now have some unions who agree with this and are therefore taking action. Others fear the consequences of making that decision and reach the responsibility up to a higher level, because the higher organization - right or wrong -  have been dealing with it.

It is a little difficult to go back in our history to trace a precedent because at the beginning we had only a General Conference (with 20 delegates). It was A. G. Daniells who introduced the Unions into our denomination, and they have been developing through the years. There are different types of Unions, a Union with two or more conferences, then there are the Unions of Churches, and they are being administered on different levels. Then there are - or at least have been - Union Missions, which means they are Unions which are not able to take care of themselves, but need the support of a higher organization. It seems like some years ago we had the Alaska Mission, but all the Unions in North America would now be regular Unions, capable of taking care of themselves.

And therefore some of them are taking responsibility for their own actions, and Elder Jackson seems to be aware of this.
Logged

Snoopy

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3056
Re: A Compromise Solution?
« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2012, 03:15:34 PM »

The authority to ordain rests with the Unions.

Whether or not to ordain  females should have been decided at the Union level.  It should never have gone to a GC session.


Now that makes sense.

Logged

Gregory

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 964
Re: A Compromise Solution?
« Reply #27 on: June 06, 2012, 04:46:00 PM »

Johann is correct in his statement regarding the SDA organization kinown as a Union.  My comment was speacific to what is known as a Union Conference, which is the only type of Union organization that exists in the United States.    It is probably the most common Union organization in other parts of the world.  But, there are Union Missions and Unions of churches on other areas.  My comment does not apply to them.
Logged

Johann

  • Guest
Re: A Compromise Solution?
« Reply #28 on: June 06, 2012, 05:05:42 PM »

Right, Gregory. Union Conference is the right term, but is not usually used in daily talk. You say the Lake Union, when it really is the Lake Union Conference, or union of conferences.
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4061
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: A Compromise Solution?
« Reply #29 on: June 06, 2012, 09:53:28 PM »

Bob and Christian, is biblical mandate required? There is no biblical foundation for the church's stand against slavery. Indeed, slavers have the bible as an ally in their enslavement of people. The bible is very clear on the role of slaves. Is it right for the church to take actions and establish policies that have no biblical foundation or mandate?

Are you sure about that? There are a number of passages that speak against slavery, or that speak against aspects of how slavery has operated. One notable point is the prohibition against returning an escaped slave to his "master."

At the same time we should recognize that the church and American society today does not take a position against all forms of slavery. The constitutional amendment which "abolished" slavery left an exception: when convicted of crime. Slave labor happens in American prisons all the time, and no one complains, except perhaps other countries that refuse to clear through customs articles made in prisons. But maybe those customs regulations are targeting other countries, not the U.S.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up