Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => Womens Ordination & Related Issues => Topic started by: SDAminister on August 28, 2012, 09:52:05 PM
-
Well, why not? He's to blame for all the ills in the church, right?
I mean, in Folkenburg and Paulsen, two pro-WO presidents, you heard nary a word against them because WO didn't happen under their watch. Or did Dr Running or others send open letters to them too? I think we know the answer to that.
But now, Wilson is catching flak from the pro-WO crowd because he is ..... wait for it..... doing just what they wanted!! The poor guy can't win.
The pro-WO crowd begged and pushed for this worldwide study on ordination 3 years ago. Now, Wilson is administering the study according to plan and yet he is pilloried for doing so!
We're not sure just how disingenuous the pro-WO side can be. But it appears a much larger scale than currently exists will be needed to measure it in the days and years ahead.
SDAminister
-
Well, why not? He's to blame for all the ills in the church, right?
I mean, in Folkenburg and Paulsen, two pro-WO presidents, you heard nary a word against them because WO didn't happen under their watch. Or did Dr Running or others send open letters to them too? I think we know the answer to that.
But now, Wilson is catching flak from the pro-WO crowd because he is ..... wait for it..... doing just what they wanted!! The poor guy can't win.
The pro-WO crowd begged and pushed for this worldwide study on ordination 3 years ago. Now, Wilson is administering the study according to plan and yet he is pilloried for doing so!
We're not sure just how disingenuous the pro-WO side can be. But it appears a much larger scale than currently exists will be needed to measure it in the days and years ahead.
SDAminister
:ROFL:
Folkenburg and Paulsen never a word against them?
Where have you been?
An Open Letter
October 30, 2001
Dr. Jan Paulsen, President
Dear Dr. Paulsen:..................
David D. Dennis
OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT JAN PAULSEN -- The
Ultimate Goal of Ecumenism?
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006
Dear President Paulsen and GC .....
Phil Moore
Well that's just two -- there were more.
-
Frankly, my problem with Mr Wilson begins with his history. He has been in Washington for over two decades in various positions and never was noted for calling for "Revival and Reformation" until he faced election to the GC under the guiding hand of McNeilus and the ASI Mission Board. Excellent theme to attract conservative support but it simply has clearly not caught on in Washington, let alone the North American SDA Church.
In fact his most noteworthy achievement was the toppling of the Falkenburg Administration after Bob and brother were caught in collusion with the Vatican after he was in default and being sued in California and SR Wilson got wind. Yes, in the political world, what goes around will eventually come around and bite you!!! Bob topples Neil, Neil gets Jr to topple Bob!!!
Draw your own conclusions or talk to "Harold" and he will gladly share his!!!
I continue to insist this is an apple that did not fall far from the tree, a chip off the old block and more a political leader than a spiritual leader. WE NEED A SPIRITUAL LEADER. NEIL "TED" WILSON IS NOT A SPIRITUAL LEADER.
I site as proof the selection of 3ABN as the forum to discuss his position on Women's Ordination, the equivalent of going to the base and leaving the opposition party (yes, that would be LLBN) and the independent moderates (HOPE Channel) unchallenged.
Ironically, the administration at 3ABN is rife with open and notorious adultery, cover-ups and litigation, past and present, with more sure to come. 3ABN can best be described as a "false front". Why associate with the "false front"? The ASI base, managed by the ASI Mission Board, is definitely more conservative and supports the 3ABN message, despite it's hypocrisy. SIMPLE AS THAT.
And why not reach out to LLBN and HOPE? Well, ask Neil Jr, he is the President, after all.
Now, is there anyone on this Forum that does not wonder, given the history of 3ABN, why "this" President of the GC has abrogated his predecessors arm's length relationship and cuddled right on up there with Jim, DLS, et al??? I submit a political agenda can outweigh
"revival and reformation" in some circles.
Now, let's discuss his efforts to thwart WO...do I not recall him clearly stating he would stay out of this? Why? ... Answer: Politics... So much for honesty and leadership!!! He should take Governor Chritie's advice and stop following the polls and lead!!! He missed a very critical opportunity to "lead" and we now have two NAD Unions preparing to ordain Women contrary to the General Conference in session.
Where was the "emergency session" of the ENTIRE General Conference Executive Committee to deal with the issue "in the counsel of many"? Should we really have left the issue for the FALL COUNSEL, still a month and a half away??? And what will they do now that the horses are out of the barn???
People, understand when you have been duped by the very political "shrugged shoulder play" to the base:
"Look, I took a stand but could not get the constituency to change their mind and now there is not much we can do until the next General Conference session in "2015"!!!" (and how many other unions do we lose in the interim???)
I will REGRETFULLY side with Dr Taylor on this LIMITED issue and note that "THIS" GC President does not have the "POLITICAL WILL"l to deal with this open rebellion!!!
I would be the first in line to support a RECALL...and let us find a MOSES/DAVID to lead us!!! IT IS TIME TO RETIRE THE OLD ORDER and prepare a peculiar people for the LOUD CRY MESSAGE!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Many people see Elder Ted Wilson as the GC President for these times.
Can you think of anybody else who would do better?
-
As I have posted elsewhere: In restrospect, President Wilson may be seen as doing more to promote the ordination of females than any other person could have accomplished.
Prior to his accension to the office of President, the issue was simply sputtering along. Not much was ahappening. Two years has passed since he became President. In that time three Unions have decided to ordain without respect to gender. This is a greater advance of women's issues than has occured under any other leader. He may have started a train rolling down the track that can not be stopped.
-
I don't think that train rolling had anything to do with him. I think it would have happened no matter who the GC President was. Perhaps this is why he is our GC President right now.
-
Good observation: "Perhaps this is why he is our GC President right now."
Yes, that is exactly what they told us about "Mr Hope and Change"!!! Well, we are out of HOPE and we have way too little change!!!
This president will oversee the uneasy co-existence of Orthodoxy and Progressives, but it must sooner than later collapse upon itself and separate into two very different churches.
In three years he will have to explain to a world church the rebellion was not met head on.
I predict, if he survives as president that long, HE WILL BE A ONE TERM PRESIDENT.
Ironically, he will be hard pressed to get support from the orthodoxy or the left coast progressives. And the world church will see him for the week politico he is!!! HE WILL BE HISTORY.
If "some say" he is the man for this time...consider where we are after just two years of his administration...we have your ex-president, now NAD President, who cannot manage the progressives without getting sued. "Ted" has managed to loose control of the NAD and has three unions in rebellion and preparing to ordain women. And while Rome burns, Ted is doing an evangelistic series in Peurto Rico...couldn't even find an evangelist he could trust with this task (guess Finley was too busy) so he could deal with rebellion...or, do we see this man for our time simply ignoring the crisis...while he shrugs his shoulders!!!
I see no leadership from the top on this issue and no leadership from NAD and congregationalism is alive and well in the "TED WILSON" administration. He will reap what little he has sown.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Gailon has stated some of the reasons why I believe in retrospect President Wilson may be seen as doing more to bring about the ordination of females than any other person could have done.
I do not want my statment to be understood as agreeing with everything that Gailon said. But, I Believe that those who favor female ordination sense that there will never be a better time and now is the time to act. Gailon, in my opinion, has listed some valid reasons why I believe that there is a sense that this is the time to act in regard to female ordination.
-
Gailon,
You may be right, but I wonder if it was Dan Jackson who said he wasn't going to get involved rather than Ted Wilson. My understanding is that Dan Jackson did say he wouldn't encourage or discourage what was going on. I don't know of any similar quote from Ted Wilson.
This is a greater advance of women's issues than has occured under any other leader.
Gregory,
Your sentence above appears biased. There are women who feel strongly that God in the Bible reserving certain functions for men and certain functions for women in the home and in the church intended to protect women. If that be true, then what is going on right now would not be an advance of women's issues, not a retrograde.
It seems to me that the only way that what is going on can really be considered an advance is if we view God's instructions in the Bible about the roles of men and women as being discriminatory, unfair, and oppressive. But if we go down that road, we are siding with the Archrebel, agreeing with his positions in the great controversy about God's laws and instructions, and defying God Himself.
-
I think by "advance" he meant the issue of ordaining women, has made it's greatest advance.
In my listening to Ted Wilson's speech I didn't hear anything that would indicate he was against women's ordination. I didn't listen to every speech so may have missed something. But in the ones I did listen to he said that was " another issue" and he wasn't going to get into it.
His whole "plea" was not to go against the policy or "vote" of the General Conference, he made a strong case that their motion was "out of order" as far as policy was concerned, that more studies were being conducted, and that the Unions should "give time for the process to do its work".
So what is the "process". Were the unions just trying to "help" the process along, give it some energy by letting their vote speak. At the end of the Pacific Union meeting, it was stated "this wasn't really a 'win'," are they just trying to speed up the "process"?
-
Bob said:
Your sentence above appears biased. There are women who feel strongly that God in the Bible reserving certain functions for men and certain functions for women in the home and in the church intended to protect women. If that be true, then what is going on right now would not be an advance of women's issues, not a retrograde
I have never claimed to lack bias.
I think that most people would understand my comment as a statement that I believe that President Wilson will be seen as bringing about the ordination of females sooner than it whould have happened if he had not been elected President. That is what I was saying. YOu may disagre with that. But, that is my opinion and I have posted my reasons for saying such as this was not the first time that I have posted such.
-
Bob said:
Your sentence above appears biased. There are women who feel strongly that God in the Bible reserving certain functions for men and certain functions for women in the home and in the church intended to protect women. If that be true, then what is going on right now would not be an advance of women's issues, not a retrograde
I have never claimed to lack bias.
I think that most people would understand my comment as a statement that I believe that President Wilson will be seen as bringing about the ordination of females sooner than it whould have happened if he had not been elected President. That is what I was saying. You may disagre with that. But, that is my opinion and I have posted my reasons for saying such as this was not the first time that I have posted such.
-
Dedication is correct. In the present circumstances, President Wilson has never stated that he is against the ordination of women. He has not stated that he favors it. He has simply asked that a process to decide be put in place.
However, he has a past history that is well known and is commonly understood as being against women in the role of SDA Clergy.
But, his past history is mixed and the issue is not as simple as some would think. It was while President Wilson served as co-chair of the ACM Committee that the SDA denomination first placed SDA, female clergy into the U.S. military chaplaincy, where they still serve today.
-
Bob said:
Your sentence above appears biased. There are women who feel strongly that God in the Bible reserving certain functions for men and certain functions for women in the home and in the church intended to protect women. If that be true, then what is going on right now would not be an advance of women's issues, not a retrograde
I have never claimed to lack bias.
I think that most people would understand my comment as a statement that I believe that President Wilson will be seen as bringing about the ordination of females sooner than it whould have happened if he had not been elected President.
But you did use the word "advance," and I would like you to address whether or not that word was the right word to use.
So what you did was label the cause of women's ordination the "advance" of women's issues, even though a lot of women consider it something other than that. So since women aren't presently permitted to fill a certain narrow role, and since there is a movement afoot to force change before the study commission process is even completed, you referred to that as the "advance" of women's issues.
"And coveting the honor which the infinite Father had bestowed upon His Son, this prince of angels aspired to power which it was the prerogative of Christ alone to wield. ...
"In all the councils of God, Christ was a participant, while Lucifer was not permitted thus to enter into the divine purposes. 'Why,' questioned this mighty angel, 'should Christ have the supremacy? Why is He thus honored above Lucifer?' ...
"Working with mysterious secrecy, and for a time concealing his real purpose under an appearance of reverence for God, he endeavored to excite dissatisfaction concerning the laws that governed heavenly beings, intimating that they imposed an unnecessary restraint. Since their natures were holy, he urged that the angels should obey the dictates of their own will. ... He claimed that in aspiring to greater power and honor he was not aiming at self-exaltation, but was seeking to secure liberty for all the inhabitants of heaven, that by this means they might attain to a higher state of existence" (GC 494-495).
Would you say that it is fair to say that Lucifer was working for the "advance" of angel issues in heaven, since there was a particular role that God had not allowed him to fill, and that God was thus "discriminating" against him? Or would you designate the use of such words as being inappropriate?
-
Bob, the standard dictionary of the English language which I am using lists the first meaning of the word "advance" as: "to accelerate the growth or progress of."
That is how I used the word. President Wilson, in my opinoin, may be seen in the future as accelerating the time when in the SDA Church, females are ordained to a clergy position.
I am not going to play word games with you. I took your comment as an honest one. I attempted to clairfy my meaning. If you want to play word games, find someone else to play with.
Yes, the word that I used was the right one to use which, according to a standard dictionary, meant exactly what I intended it to mean.
-
Bob, the standard dictionary of the English language which I am using lists the first meaning of the word "advance" as: "to accelerate the growth or progress of."
That is how I used the word. President Wilson, in my opinoin, may be seen in the future as accelerating the time when in the SDA Church, females are ordained to a clergy position.
I am not going to play word games with you. I took your comment as an honest one. I attempted to clairfy my meaning. If you want to play word games, find someone else to play with.
Yes, the word that I used was the right one to use which, according to a standard dictionary, meant exactly what I intended it to mean.
:(
-
Well, why not? He's to blame for all the ills in the church, right?
I mean, in Folkenburg and Paulsen, two pro-WO presidents, you heard nary a word against them because WO didn't happen under their watch. Or did Dr Running or others send open letters to them too? I think we know the answer to that.
But now, Wilson is catching flak from the pro-WO crowd because he is ..... wait for it..... doing just what they wanted!! The poor guy can't win.
The pro-WO crowd begged and pushed for this worldwide study on ordination 3 years ago. Now, Wilson is administering the study according to plan and yet he is pilloried for doing so!
We're not sure just how disingenuous the pro-WO side can be. But it appears a much larger scale than currently exists will be needed to measure it in the days and years ahead.
SDAminister
:ROFL:
Folkenburg and Paulsen never a word against them?
Where have you been?
An Open Letter
October 30, 2001
Dr. Jan Paulsen, President
Dear Dr. Paulsen:..................
David D. Dennis
OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT JAN PAULSEN -- The
Ultimate Goal of Ecumenism?
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006
Dear President Paulsen and GC .....
Phil Moore
Well that's just two -- there were more.
:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:
Dedication, get it right and read what's posted. These two letters have nothing to do with women's ordination! I was referring to liberal, pro-WO people not criticizing the past presidents for not pushing WO more than they did. I wasn't referring to just anybody who might have written an open letter to Paulsen or Folkenburg for any reason at all.
SDAminister
-
In my listening to Ted Wilson's speech I didn't hear anything that would indicate he was against women's ordination. I didn't listen to every speech so may have missed something. But in the ones I did listen to he said that was " another issue" and he wasn't going to get into it.
The GC officers stated that they were concerned about unions committing themselves to a particular course of action before the study process is complete. Perhaps Ted Wilson doesn't want to express a personal opinion on the subject for that very reason.
-
Bob, the standard dictionary of the English language which I am using lists the first meaning of the word "advance" as: "to accelerate the growth or progress of."
That is how I used the word.
We can certainly use that definition if you'd like. How can we then label changing the roles God ordained in Scripture to be "growth" or "progress"?
Do repeat my earlier question which you have not answered: Do you think that Lucifer in heaven was really seeking the "growth" or "progress" of angel issues? Consider carefully the SoP references I quoted when you reply.
I am not going to play word games with you.
I'm not playing word games. I really want to know how you justify labeling the change of what God ordained in the Bible as being "advance," "growth," and "progress," without also justifying Lucifer's conduct in heaven.
The parallel does seem appropriate, does it not? Lucifer wasn't satisfied with the role God had given him, even though it was the highest possible role amongst the angelic host. And many women today aren't satisfied with the role God has given them, even though their God-given role surpasses all roles men have ever held from creation till now, except for Christ when He lived and died to save us from sin. Women thus have always been entrusted with the most important work on earth, second to Christ.
-
Folkenburg and Paulsen never a word against them?
Where have you been?
Dedication, get it right and read what's posted. These two letters have nothing to do with women's ordination! I was referring to liberal, pro-WO people not criticizing the past presidents for not pushing WO more than they did. I wasn't referring to just anybody who might have written an open letter to Paulsen or Folkenburg for any reason at all.
SDAminister
There was LOTS of "global warming" long before Ted Wilson.
Actually the "rebellion" began right after the 1995 General Conference vote.
Read the following report:
http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-U-Z/Women's-ord-Sligo.pdf
-
I'm not playing word games. I really want to know how you justify labeling the change of what God ordained in the Bible as being "advance," "growth," and "progress," without also justifying Lucifer's conduct in heaven.
After Lucifer sinned EVIL advanced and grew and progressed. That does not justify evil.
Just because something advances or grows or progresses does not indicate whether it is good or evil, it just means its spreading and gaining ground, influence and power.
-
This was posted over at Maritime, which I thought would also be appropriate to post here:
Dedication, when you make the suggestion in your posts from a few pages back that conservative Adventists are prepared to question the GC as the voice of God when they feel it's at odds with the scripture, but will back up the GC as the voice of God when it's in harmony with scripture, you pay these men and women a compliment. While Christ invests the church with terrible authority to bind and lose, that authority is conditioned on it's rulings agreeing with the divine precepts.
Our culture has trouble coming to grips with something so politically incorrect. Many a North American man feels much more comfortable letting women take the lead. It's the easy route, but not the biblical route. If the Hebrew men in Joshua's day had sent their wives and daughters to possess the promised land what would have happened? It's not an issue of physical strength, it's primarily an issue of moral leadership. In David's day, his army of mighty men weren't mighty merely physically, they were strong moral family leaders. The failure of North American men to lead morally in the families and communities is at the root of American's decline. So, for those who are open to hear, I'd encourage you to keep reading scripture and the SOP on the roles of men and women. This is crucial. Only if we as men fulfill the roles set out for us, can we develop symmetrical characters.
-
There was LOTS of "global warming" long before Ted Wilson.
Actually the "rebellion" began right after the 1995 General Conference vote.
Read the following report:
http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-U-Z/Women's-ord-Sligo.pdf
So right after the 1995 vote, the Sligo church ordained several woman.
That sounds like "rebellion".
That was close to 17 years ago.
Was the "rebellion" quelled and only now broke out again.
What make the present "rebellion" worse than the 1995 "rebellion".
In the 1995 they openly went against the GC vote.
In 2012 they voted that they wanted to go against the GC vote.
-
There's a big difference between the rebellion of one local church or two or three over the rebellion of a whole Union or two or three.
-
So right after the 1995 vote, the Sligo church ordained several woman.
That sounds like "rebellion".
Dedication gave the following citation:
http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-U-Z/Women's-ord-Sligo.pdf
Please read that citation in full. Pay special attention to Part 2.
It is clear from the citation that Dedication provided that the ordinatioin by the Sligo congregation in 1995 was nothing more than an ordination to the office of local Elder. That Sligo was permitted to do. Regardless of the truth that some wanted it to be more, it was not more. Note the comments from the Sligo pastor and those regarding credentials.
The authority to ordain to an SDA clergy position lies with the Unions. It does not sit at the local Conference level. The local congregation does not have tha authority.
Regardless of what some of those participating in the service at Sligo wanted, that service was only that of ordination to the office of local Elder. As such, it was not rebellion.
The real issue that is faced today is that of the Unions that have voted to ordain without reference to gender. It is not what happens in a local church.
-
So right after the 1995 vote, the Sligo church ordained several woman.
That sounds like "rebellion".
Dedication gave the following citation:
http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-U-Z/Women's-ord-Sligo.pdf
Please read that citation in full. Pay special attention to Part 2.
It is clear from the citation that Dedication provided that the ordinatioin by the Sligo congregation in 1995 was nothing more than an ordination to the office of local Elder. That Sligo was permitted to do. Regardless of the truth that some wanted it to be more, it was not more. Note the comments from the Sligo pastor and those regarding credentials.
The authority to ordain to an SDA clergy position lies with the Unions. It does not sit at the local Conference level. The local congregation does not have tha authority.
Regardless of what some of those participating in the service at Sligo wanted, that service was only that of ordination to the office of local Elder. As such, it was not rebellion.
The real issue that is faced today is that of the Unions that have voted to ordain without reference to gender. It is not what happens in a local church.
Thank you for clearing that up for us.
-
Originally Posted By: Mark
Our culture has trouble coming to grips with something so politically incorrect. Many a North American man feels much more comfortable letting women take the lead. It's the easy route, but not the biblical route. If the Hebrew men in Joshua's day had sent their wives and daughters to possess the promised land what would have happened? It's not an issue of physical strength, it's primarily an issue of moral leadership. In David's day, his army of mighty men weren't mighty merely physically, they were strong moral family leaders. The failure of North American men to lead morally in the families and communities is at the root of American's decline. So, for those who are open to hear, I'd encourage you to keep reading scripture and the SOP on the roles of men and women. This is crucial. Only if we as men fulfill the roles set out for us, can we develop symmetrical characters.
I agree we need men who are true leaders. Men who are truly committed to God!
The church is NOT to become a church of only women and children, we need men who can challenge other men to taste and see that God is good!
We need men who can show other men that religion is for "real men" not just for women and children.
Just like the women are needed to reach the special needs of women, so men are need to reach the special needs of men. And both can work to minister to the general needs of the congregation.
There should be NO "releasing" of men from their calling to lead.
What I find worrisome here is the idea that if women are moral leaders, then men can't, or won't be moral leaders.
Why is that?
So do you think "ordaining women" means men would no longer answer God's call to the ministry?
Is it a situation of "I won't share my position, if you become one of the team of leaders I'm out and you can lead the whole show," sort of thing?
Women aren't supposed to replace men, they are to be a recognized addition to the "army of workers" going forth to spread the gospel.
After all -- isn't the ministry supposed to be GOD CALLING PEOPLE to this position? -- aren't ministers supposed to have realized a call from God?
This isn't just a career -- this is a calling from God.
How can men sit back and reject a call from God, just because a woman receives a call from God as well?
-
It is clear from the citation that Dedication provided that the ordinatioin by the Sligo congregation in 1995 was nothing more than an ordination to the office of local Elder. That Sligo was permitted to do. Regardless of the truth that some wanted it to be more, it was not more. Note the comments from the Sligo pastor and those regarding credentials.
The authority to ordain to an SDA clergy position lies with the Unions. It does not sit at the local Conference level. The local congregation does not have tha authority.
Regardless of what some of those participating in the service at Sligo wanted, that service was only that of ordination to the office of local Elder. As such, it was not rebellion.
The real issue that is faced today is that of the Unions that have voted to ordain without reference to gender. It is not what happens in a local church.
The ordinations in 1995 were not an "ordaining to church elder" these women were publically ordained to the gospel ministry.
Legally, of course it wasn't recognized as such by the world wide church. But to say it wasn't done in rebellion to the vote of the GC is plain ignoring the facts of what was being done.
This wasn't just any church either -- it was the Sligo Church, home to many top leaders in the church.
Of course official ordination certificates could not be issued. Only congregational ones that didn't mean much.
But if it wasn't rebellion because legally it wasn't recognized by the world church, that would also excuse the present situation and we would have to say it wasn't rebellion either.
Unions have authority to ordain ONLY within the guidelines set out by the world church. Those guidelines at present say women can not be ordained to the gospel ministry. The 1995 vote specifically denies giving individual divisions the vested authority to ordain without regard to gender.
Thus what the unions did was totally illegal according to world church policies.
The unions do NOT have authority to ordain women to an SDA clergy position
Their vote to ordain women meant NOTHING -- they can't issue ordination certificates to women. The highest ordination for women they can give is to be an elder, and they can ONLY give them a "commissioned license" .
Thus, since the unions have no authority to do what they proposed to do, we would have to say it still isn't "rebellion"?
-
Thus, Pastor Torres arranged for the service to
be announced as an affirmation service, as the resolution
called for. When he did, he received strong
criticism for not using the word, “ordain.” So he
agreed to use “ordain” in the sense that the local
church has the authority to use that term for deacons,
deaconesses, and local elders.
Dedication, you tell us that the ordination was not that of a local Elder. Eler Torres, the Sligo pastor made the above statement on page 7. He is clear that it was the same as that of a local Elder. Your statement was incorrect.
Dedication, you tell us that the ordination was to gospil ministry. You are correct. However you fail to tell us that it was NOT to the gospil ministry of the SDA Church and you fail to tell us that it was clearly stated that it was to the same level of ordination that the Bible says all members, male and female, are call by God to do. That was an important point that you left out. Tell me, are all Seventh-day Adventists recognilzed as SDA Clergy? No!
Both the Potomac Conference and the Union Conference failed to give any kind of recognition as ordination to SDA Clergy. Without that it was only ordination to that of local Eldler. The women who were ordained were not issued new credentials. They continued to hold the same Commissioned Credentials, which was clearly stated in your reference.
You neglect to point out that one of the Sligo females refused to participate due to the fact that it was not ordination as SDA Clergy and that was clearly statead in your reference.
The references in your citation, which called it rebellion, generally came from an article in the New York Times. Such articles should not be considered to be authorative as to calling it rebelliotn.
In actual fact the denomination did not act as to what Sligo did because everything that Sligo did was exactly what they were denominatially authorized to do. IOW, they did not rebell. The fact that some wanted them to cross the boundaries is not relevant. When push came to shove, Sligo did not cross the boundaries.
As to your statemenet about Unions:
1) Some would say that it is not rebellion until a Union actually grants the credentials of an ordained minister to a female.
2) The vote by the Unions was on the basis that the Unions have the right to decide who to ordain and the General Conference did not have the right to demand that the Unions wait for a further decison by the General Conference. People here can argue over whether or not the Unions may be required to wait. The bottom line is that whether or not this action by the Unions was rebellion will depend upon what you believe on this point.
-
People here can argue over whether or not the Unions may be required to wait. The bottom line is that whether or not this action by the Unions was rebellion will depend upon what you believe on this point.
I don't think so. Acts 15 and 9T 260-261 are pretty clear. So is GC and NAD Working Policy. The only wiggle room Acts 15, 9T 260-261, and Working Policy leave is if someone can finally produce the Bible or SoP mandate that we must ordain women to organize churches, baptize, ordain local elders and deacons, and serve as conference and mission presidents.
-
Both the Potomac Conference and the Union Conference failed to give any kind of recognition as ordination to SDA Clergy. Without that it was only ordination to that of local Eldler. The women who were ordained were not issued new credentials. They continued to hold the same Commissioned Credentials, which was clearly stated in your reference.
In actual fact the denomination did not act as to what Sligo did because everything that Sligo did was exactly what they were denominatially authorized to do. IOW, they did not rebell. The fact that some wanted them to cross the boundaries is not relevant. When push came to shove, Sligo did not cross the boundaries.
I see you fail to see the point.
I agree it was NOT official.
But the act was an act of rebellion none the less.
Back pedalling that it was only "ordination to eldership" just shows the "excusing" of it.
These women weren't ordained to eldership, but to be PASTORS. Of course they could only receive the commission license, that's what I said. Of course they were not given recognition as ordained ministers by higher levels.
But the claim was made that these women were ordained as pastors
http://hope4washington-com.netadvent.org/sligostory5
1995 - Ordination of Women Pastors - Kendra Haloviak, Penny Shell, Norma Osborn
The woman that backed out, saw through the deception:
The whole fan fare that they were being ordained to the ministry when legally it couldn't be done.
Later another large church did the same:
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/wo/LaSierraOrdination.htm
The ordinations of Wilson and Haldeman closed a process that officially began on July 7, the day after the General Conference voted against women's ordination at its world session in Utrecht. La Sierra took pains to ensure that its decision to ordain was voted at each level of local church government. Immediately following the General Conference vote, the La Sierra Church Board met July 7, 1995, recommending that the Pacific Union Conference and Southeastern California Conference authorize women's ordination by November 1, 1995. This action was supported in a church business meeting on July 15, 1995, by a vote of 108 yes and 5 no.
However, when neither the union nor conference saw fit to move ahead with this recommendation by the November date, the church called a historic business session on November 11, 1995, to determine its course of action. This meeting was attended by more than 500 people, including 348 voting members. After a worship service and brief statements from Smith and head elder Steve Blue, the meeting began under the leadership of church board chair Dr. Cliff Reeves. Microphones were provided on the floor and 31 different church members addressed the issue; 26 of the speeches from the floor were in favor of women's ordination and 5 were opposed. When the discussion ceased a secret ballot vote was taken and the decision to proceed with the December 2 service passed by a count of 275 yes to 73 no.
A La Sierra church official pointed out that the local congregation was willing to vote its convictions on an issue like this by nearly an 80 percent margin, in spite of the world church's differing position. He said, "This provides hope that the priesthood of all believers is not dead in Adventism." Many other local churches are currently considering the ordination question at this time and it appears that action will be taken on a congregation-by-congregation basis.
As to your statemenet about Unions:
1) Some would say that it is not rebellion until a Union actually grants the credentials of an ordained minister to a female.
2) The vote by the Unions was on the basis that the Unions have the right to decide who to ordain and the General Conference did not have the right to demand that the Unions wait for a further decison by the General Conference. People here can argue over whether or not the Unions may be required to wait. The bottom line is that whether or not this action by the Unions was rebellion will depend upon what you believe on this point.
http://www.adventistworld.org/article/1308/resources/english/issue-2012-1008/questions-answers
1. Does the General Conference have authority to determine the criteria for ministerial ordination at the union level and below, or does the union conference have the delegated authority within its territory to establish such criteria, including gender?
Decisions of the General Conference Sessions profoundly impact the church at all levels, including General Conference/division, union conference/mission, conference, and local church. While it is true that local churches approve candidates for baptism, and local conferences recommend to unions for approval all requests for ordination, none of these levels establish the criteria for baptism or ordination. A local church board determines who is going to be baptized; it does not determine the criteria for baptism. The 28 Fundamental Beliefs and the baptismal vows have been mutually agreed upon by the world church. This keeps the church unified internationally. In the same way a union conference has the delegated authority to approve candidates for ordination based on their satisfying the criteria for ordination established by the world church; it does not have the authority to ignore this mutually agreed-upon criteria. That is why the unions are not authorized to move forward unilaterally with ordination without regard to gender. If the church were to accept such a premise, there would be varying standards of ordination and criteria for ministry. Such a path would not likely end there. It would open the door to varying standards for baptism, church membership, etc. The issue here is not women’s ordination per se; it is which level of church organization has the constitutionally given authority to determine what qualifies a person for ordination. This can only be done by the General Conference in Session, or the General Conference Executive Committee, which acts between General Conference Sessions (General Conference Working Policy L 35).
Notice how the Church Manual describes the relationship between the various levels of church organization:
In the Church today the General Conference Session, and the General Conference Executive Committee between Sessions, is the highest ecclesiastical authority in the administration of the Church. The General Conference Executive Committee is authorized by its Constitution to create subordinate organizations with authority to carry out their roles. Therefore all subordinate organizations and institutions throughout the Church will recognize the General Conference Session, and the General Conference Executive Committee between Sessions, as the highest ecclesiastical authority, under God, among Seventh-day Adventists.1
The requirement for all church entities, including conferences and unions, to follow existing policies is made clear in the Bylaws of the General Conference: “Administrations of all organizations and institutions within a division’s territory shall be responsible to their respective executive committees/boards and operate in harmony with [the] division and General Conference Executive Committee actions and policies.”2 For the above reasons, the recent action taken by the Columbia Union Conference Constituency Session to approve ordination without respect to gender represents a violation of these policies.