Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => Womens Ordination & Related Issues => Topic started by: Gailon Arthur Joy on July 31, 2012, 02:22:34 PM
-
An entire Union has now gone on record in opposition to the World Church's General Conference in Session and revolted against a world church policy, a biblical standard and the NAD working policy.
In a shocking rebellion the Columbia Union Conference has voted to allow the ordination "REGARDLESS OF GENDER" in the first step of many that will INEVITABLY lead to the adoption of Fallen Protestant theology. As predicted so many years ago it is just "The Tip of The Iceberg" and a matter of time before we see the abrogation of the biblical stand not allowing the fellowship of practicing gays and lesbians in the FORMER biblically sound Seventh-day Adventist Church.
In my lifetime, I have seen this purported forerunner of the Remnant allow the absolute disregard of the 7th commandment and allow fallen ordained ministers to continue their ministrations under SDA conferences, despite open and notorious adultery in direct disregard of the spirit of Prophecy warnings on this issue and the NAD working policy. We have gradually adopted incrementalism into
the body politic and seen "Creeping Compromise" warned of by Joe Crews nearly 30 years ago put us behind our evangelical brethren
in biblical standards. We can no longer claim to be a Bible Based church.
Just how far this will go will rely heavily upon the "Revival and Reformation" movement we hear so much about but little practiced.
It is imperative that this Iceberg Crisis be "met head on" and resolutely with a firm and open call for the disbanding of ANY UNION OR CONFERENCE IN REBELLION TO THE WORLD CHURCH IN GENERAL CONFERENCE SESSION lest we begin to take on the characteristics of BABYLON.
It is now time for the General Conference and the North American Division Church to step forward and take a direct and firm position,
and if they do not do so then we must have a special session of the General Conference to consider disbanding the entire North American Division to regain the purity of the FAITH. We must move expeditiously to cut out the cancer of rebellion against the biblical standards we have stood on for one hundred and sixty-eight years.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Are there some legal means to disband a Union Conference?
-
It seems to me that the existence of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as we know it today is at stake.
For many, many years our brethren have warned us against congregationalism. Not that we aren't to a degree congregational, as books on denominations have previously noted, but our congregations aren't independent atoms. They are part of a great whole, and the strength of our organizational structure has enabled us to proclaim the three angels' messages on a global scale more easily than if we were not united.
But now a union in North America has by an official action risen up in opposition to GC Working Policy, NAD Working Policy, two GC Session votes, 9T 260-261, and, some would argue, the biblical roles of men and women that God Himself established. What safeguards did the Columbia Union put in place to keep their action from leading to the disintegration of our church structure into complete and total congregationalism?
I agree that the GC and NAD need to meet this crisis head on. Otherwise, other unions, conferences, and churches will likely follow suit. The GC and NAD, and even unions and conferences, will lose all real authority as every church and every member does whatever is right in his own eyes, irregardless of whatever any other entity says or thinks or votes.
So in light of all this, I support the commencement of disciplinary proceedings against the Columbia Union Conference.
-
So in light of all this, I support the commencement of disciplinary proceedings against the Columbia Union Conference.
What disciplinary proceedings would be used?
-
It's in the GC Working Policy. Try downloading a copy at http://www.bibelschule.info/streaming/Working-policy-of-the-General-Conference-of-Seventh-day-Adventists---2005-2006_21970.pdf.
If I recall correctly, the section about dealing with rebellion by unions isn't in the NAD Working Policy, but I could be wrong. Looks like you can get a copy of it at http://www.rmcsda.org/article/68/our-purpose/corporate-documents/nad-working-policy.
-
I downloaded a copy of the GC Working Policy, but I don't see rebellious unions. I saw something about the GC President, Secretary, and Treasurer.
-
GC Working Policy 2005-2006 Organization and Administration
B 75 30 Process For Reviewing Status—The process to review, revise, suspend, or withdraw organizational status shall be conducted in a manner that permits consultation with, and representation from, organizations affected. A constituency meeting of the entity, whose status is under consideration, will be necessary in order to discuss the reasons for possible adjustment in status and in order to secure consent of the constituency membership. Such a process will seek to reach agreement, among all organizations involved, that an adjustment in status is appropriate. An agreement might provide for a probationary period, normally not exceeding 12 months, during which the entity under consideration addresses the operational issues involved. When such an agreement is reached the constituency and executive committees involved shall record the necessary actions. In the event that such an agreement is not reached the higher levels of organization involved may proceed, in the larger interests of the Church, with an adjustment in status.
A review of organizational status may be initiated by a decision of the executive committee in any higher level of organization that was involved in granting the type of status in question. (The merger or dissolution of local churches is addressed in the Church Manual.) If an organizational status review results in a recommendation to adjust the organization’s status the following shall apply:
1. When the entity under consideration is a local conference/mission, the decision to adjust status shall be made, after appropriate consultation with the entity concerned and the union executive committee, by the division executive committee at a midyear or yearend meeting.
2. When the entity under consideration is a union conference/mission, the decision to adjust status shall be made, after appropriate
consultation with the entity concerned and the division executive committee, by the General Conference Executive Committee at a Spring Meeting or Annual Council.
The decision to revise, suspend, or withdraw status due to operational reasons shall be effective immediately unless the decision also contains a probationary period, normally not exceeding 12 months, during which the entity concerned is given opportunity to address the deficiencies. The executive committee that made the decision shall determine, at the close of the probationary period, if operational deficiencies have been satisfactorily rectified and, if not, shall implement the adjustment in status upon expiry of the probationary period.
When the decision to adjust an organization’s status becomes effective the organization shall immediately comply with the operational terms and relationships pertaining to its revised status. If the decision to adjust status involves dissolution of the organization concerned, the assets of the organization shall be distributed in harmony with applicable organizational documents (such as Articles or Bylaws).
-
When does B 75 apply, and when does B 95 apply? I'm a little confused by two policies that both seem to be able to accomplish the same thing.
-
The principal process for the disbanding of ANY field organization is fundamentally the same...when a field organization is in rebellion against the world church, the administration of the next highest organization is first required to determine if reconciliation with the world church is feasible. If they determine reconciliation is not feasible they must report the same to the executive committee of the "next highest organization" and ask the executive committee to call a special constituency to consider disbanding the rebellious field organization.
The special constituency must then take up the matter with the officers or other delegated representatives to represent the offending entity in the special constituency session. The charges are read to the constituency and a floor debate is in order to allow ALL the parties DUE PROCESS an opportunity to state their position. Upon the call of the question, the vote on the motion must be by written ballot and the secretary of the "next high organization" reports the results to the constituency "in session". It is likely the administrator/chair would then ask the delegates to accept the results by unanimous consent in an effort to achieve "unity" despite the fact that some in that special constituency are now under discipline of the church. IT IS, IN FACT, SPIRITUALLY CATHARTIC!!!
Any dissenting member of the disciplined entity, or church loyalist, is allowed to join a conference/union/division accommodated "church" that becomes the base for a new field organization that must become a mission or company status. in essence, a new start for that field area. And remember, when a field is dissolved, the real property titles of those field entities must go to the "next high organization", leaving the rebels without essential organizational properties to continue their rebellion. The rebellious organizations also lose their SDA tax exemption and must begin again and of course can no longer use the copyrighted name "Seventh-day Adventist", among other issues, including the full development of congregationalism in the disbanded field, a prescription for disaster.
Disbanded organizations usually quite quickly disintegrate and are blown to the four winds quite quickly. It has been my experience that disbanded organizations are so dysfunctional and dis-united in purpose, theology and Faith that they rarely survive past the first six months.
It is time to disband a union or two and perhaps even a Division or two to restore a unity of Faith essential to the preparation of the final stages of earths history. It is clear that the North American Division is heavily divided and based upon field information, the Northern European Division has sufficient Lutheran/calvinistic roots that it also is at risk.
I understand Johann's position, but, the World Church has spoken clearly and concisely and private opinion MUST BE SET ASIDE to nurture the unity of Faith essential to a unity in the Spirit. In the alternative, the Lord will manifest His Power within the church and there will be a massive falling away as the crisis grows. The true REMNANT will be ALL that is left once that Power has been fully manifested and it most certainly will occur with or without our cooperation.
I implore EVERYONE to carefully consider the implications of this open rebellion and recognize it may well be the beginning of the false reformation, the sifting and a part of the Omega of Apostasy. YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THIS BIBLICAL STANDARD!!! NOR DO YOU WANT TO BE IN REBELLION TO THE SPIRIT OF THE GODHEAD!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
I downloaded a copy of the GC Working Policy, but I don't see rebellious unions. I saw something about the GC President, Secretary, and Treasurer.
-
And by the way, thank-you for the good research but in practice, whether a church here in the NAD, Hungarian Union or the Russian Union, the format has pretty much followed the format I have explained above. This is not the first time we have had to deal with these issues in my lifetime.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
B 95 Discontinuation of Organizations by Voluntary or Involuntary Dissolution
B 95 05
Discontinuation of Conferences, Missions, Fields, Unions, and Unions of Churches by Dissolution and/or Expulsion—
If a situation arises where it is determined by the higher organization that the majority of members of a conference, a mission, a field, a union, or a union of churches are in apostasy, or that the organization refuses to operate in harmony with denominational policies and constitutional requirements, and is in rebellion, the higher organization has a responsibility to act for the protection of its loyal members, and the good name of the Church.
Every effort should be made to avert the need for dissolution by counseling with the leadership and members, seeking to bring healing and reconciliation, and to preserve the organization as a witness for God and His saving truth. If conciliatory efforts fail and discontinuation appears to be the only solution, the higher organization shall have authority to act as set out under B 90 10, B 90 15, and B 90 20.
B9510
Dissolution and/or Expulsion of Local Conferences/ Missions/Fields—If, in the opinion of a union conference/mission administration, a local conference/mission/field appears to be in apostasy or rebellion, and the procedures outlined under B 90 05 have been followed, but have proved unsuccessful, the following steps shall be taken:
1. The matter shall be considered by the union executive committee at a duly called meeting of committee members, at which time all the relevant data shall be shared, and the union executive committee shall determine whether or not the conference/mission/field is in apostasy or rebellion.
2. a. In the case of a local mission/field: If the union executive committee determines that a local mission/field is in apostasy or rebellion, and should be dissolved, it shall take an action to dissolve the local mission/field, and shall recommend to the next union session, or to a specially called session, the expulsion of the local mission/field from the sisterhood of missions/fields.
b. In the case of a local conference: If the union executive committee determines that a local conference is in apostasy or rebellion, and should be expelled from the sisterhood of conferences, the union shall seek counsel from the division
1) The union, in consultation with the division, shall use its discretion to decide whether another local conference constituency meeting should be called, and if so, at what point in the procedure.
2) The union shall submit a recommendation for expulsion of the local conference from the sisterhood of conferences to the next union session, or to a specially called session if there is no evidence of conciliation on the part of the conference.
3. If the union constituency votes to expel the confer- ence/mission/field from the sisterhood of conferences/missions/fields, it shall, as a companion action vote to take into the care of the union all the churches of the conference/mission/field until reorganization, or some other provision can be arranged.
4. The union executive committee, functioning in place of the conference/mission/field constituency, shall proceed to disband any local churches which prove to be disloyal, and to redistribute remaining churches by territorial adjustment and/or reorganization.
5. The union executive committee shall make provision for the preservation of the membership of any such churches by holding records of their membership at the union until appropriate arrangements can be made.
6. In the event of the dissolution of a local mission/field and/or the expulsion of a local conference/mission/field from the sisterhood of conferences/missions/fields, audits of the financial and membership records of the conference/mission/field shall be conducted. All assets remaining after all claims have been satisfied shall be dealt with as specified in the conference constitution and bylaws; mission/field operat- ing policy; articles of incorporation of the organization. Assets not so covered shall be transferred to a legal entity authorized by the division.
B 95 15
Dissolution of Union Missions and Expulsion of Union Conferences/Union Missions—If, in the opinion of a division administration, a union conference/union mission appears to be in apostasy or rebellion, and the procedures outlined in B 95 05 have been followed, but have proved unsuccessful, the following steps shall be taken:
1. The matter shall be considered by the division executive committee at a duly called meeting of the committee, at which time all relevant data shall be shared. The division executive committee shall then determine whether or not the union conference/union mission is in apostasy or rebellion.
2. a. In the case of a union mission: If the division executive committee determines that a union mission is in apostasy or rebellion and should be dissolved, it shall take an action to dissolve the union mission, and shall recommend to the General Conference the expulsion of the union mission from the world sisterhood of unions.
b. In the case of a union conference: If the division executive committee determines that a union conference is in apostasy or rebellion and should be expelled from the world sisterhood of unions, the division shall refer the matter to the General Conference with the recommendation for expulsion from the world sisterhood of unions and the reasons for it.
3. The General Conference, in consultation with the division, shall use its discretion to decide whether another union conference constituency meeting should be called and, if so, at what point in the procedure.
4. The General Conference Executive Committee shall consider the recommendation of the division executive committee at its Spring Meeting or Annual Council. If it approves the proposal for expulsion, the General Conference Executive Committee shall refer the recommendation to the next regular or specially called General Conference Session for consideration.
5. If a General Conference Session concurs with a recommendation to expel and votes to expel a union conference/union mission from the world sisterhood of unions, the division shall exercise direct responsibility for the conferences and/or missions/fields affected by the expulsion and shall, through its executive committee, take an action to attach them directly to the division until a new organization can be established or a rearrangement of territorial boundaries effected. Disloyal conferenc- es/missions/fields shall be dealt with in harmony with the principles set out under B 75 10.
6. In the event of the dissolution of a union mission and/or the expulsion of a union conference/union mission from the world sisterhood of unions, audits of the financial records of the union conference/union mission shall be conducted. All assets remaining after all claims have been satisfied shall be transferred to a legal entity authorized by the division, or dealt with as specified in the union conference constitution and bylaws/ union mission operating policy
7. If, with the passage of time and efforts toward healing and restoration, it seems desirable for the nurture of the members and for the mission of the Church to reorganize the union conference/union mission, the process set out under B 65 20 or B 65 25 shall be followed.
-
Is there truth to what we've heard about the unions having the authority to make their own decisions regarding ordination?
-
Is there truth to what we've heard about the unions having the authority to make their own decisions regarding ordination?
Yes and no. As it is presently set up, conferences choose who they would like to see be ordained, and unions decide whether that will happen. That's the yes part. But unions only have authority to decide to ordain individuals that fit the specifications of GC and NAD Working Policy, the Bible, and the SoP, which happen to exclude anything that isn't a qualified living male human being. See L 45 and L 50.
-
Is there truth to what we've heard about the unions having the authority to make their own decisions regarding ordination?
Yes and no. As it is presently set up, conferences choose who they would like to see be ordained, and unions decide whether that will happen. That's the yes part. But unions only have authority to decide to ordain individuals that fit the specifications of GC and NAD Working Policy, the Bible, and the SoP, which happen to exclude anything that isn't a qualified living male human being. See L 45 and L 50.
Gregory, could you also comment on this?
-
Is there truth to what we've heard about the unions having the authority to make their own decisions regarding ordination?
Yes and no. As it is presently set up, conferences choose who they would like to see be ordained, and unions decide whether that will happen. That's the yes part. But unions only have authority to decide to ordain individuals that fit the specifications of GC and NAD Working Policy, the Bible, and the SoP, which happen to exclude anything that isn't a qualified living male human being. See L 45 and L 50.
What part of the Bible exclude anything that is not male? I'm certain that if the officers of the PUC had discovered that they would never have had the recent session.
-
- - -
I understand Johann's position, but, the World Church has spoken clearly and concisely and private opinion MUST BE SET ASIDE to nurture the unity of Faith essential to a unity in the Spirit. In the alternative, the Lord will manifest His Power within the church and there will be a massive falling away as the crisis grows. The true REMNANT will be ALL that is left once that Power has been fully manifested and it most certainly will occur with or without our cooperation.
I implore EVERYONE to carefully consider the implications of this open rebellion and recognize it may well be the beginning of the false reformation, the sifting and a part of the Omega of Apostasy. YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THIS BIBLICAL STANDARD!!! NOR DO YOU WANT TO BE IN REBELLION TO THE SPIRIT OF THE GODHEAD!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Somehow this reminds me of my personal meeting with Ted Wilson's father 20-30 years ago when he seemed clearly to classify the Heartland and Our Firm Foundation people as open rebels, and he saw to it that they were not classified as Adventists with whom the Church was willing to cooperate with. We, as Adventist workers, received a number of warnings from the GC not to cooperate with those rebels and heretics.
In spite of those warnings, I attended some of their meetings and I read all of the reading material I found scattered around in our churches - from them.
Somehow the SDA church survived the crisis. Is the Lord somewhere else these days?
You asked me to provide some text from Scripture or EGW which supported the ordination of women. I did. You never responded. Why?
-
Is there truth to what we've heard about the unions having the authority to make their own decisions regarding ordination?
Yes and no. As it is presently set up, conferences choose who they would like to see be ordained, and unions decide whether that will happen. That's the yes part. But unions only have authority to decide to ordain individuals that fit the specifications of GC and NAD Working Policy, the Bible, and the SoP, which happen to exclude anything that isn't a qualified living male human being. See L 45 and L 50.
What part of the Bible exclude anything that is not male? I'm certain that if the officers of the PUC had discovered that they would never have had the recent session.
Note that my statement listed four sources of authority:
- Bible
- SoP
- GC Working Policy
- NAD Working Policy
And I stated that those sources excluded anything that didn't have these four characteristics:
- Qualified
- Living
- Male
- Human being
I then referenced two sections in the GC and NAD Working Policy.
You have asked that I cite where one of those sources excludes things that don't have one of those characteristics. Here would be one place:
1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
And:
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Titus 1:6-7 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
-
[quote author=Bob Pickle link=topic=2392.msg37587#msg37587 [1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
I am thankful that I don't go to Bob Pickle's church. Where would our church be if women were to be in silence? Sad day that this verse has to be taken at face value and not in context just to prove a point.
-
[quote author=Bob Pickle link=topic=2392.msg37587#msg37587 [1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
I am thankful that I don't go to Bob Pickle's church. Where would our church be if women were to be in silence? Sad day that this verse has to be taken at face value and not in context just to prove a point.
I'm with you, christined. I'm thankful I don't serve Bob Pickle's God.
-
1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Would it be accurate to say that Ellen White was not in unity with Paul when she taught, exerted authority over men, and was certainly anything but silent? How does one reconcile her behaviour with Paul and his teachings on the woman's place in the context of religion and church?
-
1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
I am thankful that I don't go to Bob Pickle's church. Where would our church be if women were to be in silence? Sad day that this verse has to be taken at face value and not in context just to prove a point.
Feel free to cite any context from 1 Timothy that you think clarifies the meaning of what Paul was saying.
The women in our church have not been utterly silent in their opposition to women's ordination. And you will note that I quoted that verse and others to give Johann his requested biblical support for the idea that only qualified living male human beings may be ordained as gospel ministers.
In other words, if we were discussing whether the NT and Paul endorse women as teachers, then I would have quoted other verses too. But that wasn't the topic under discussion.
-
1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Would it be accurate to say that Ellen White was not in unity with Paul when she taught, exerted authority over men, and was certainly anything but silent? How does one reconcile her behaviour with Paul and his teachings on the woman's place in the context of religion and church?
We can certainly discuss this, and should. But apparent inconsistencies are not justification for ignoring a Bible text. For example, if one shares with a Lutheran about the Sabbath, that Lutheran could ask, "Did Luther keep the Sabbath?" It's good to ask, but the answer doesn't justify ignoring the Bible evidence for the Sabbath.
Since Ellen White never held an administrative position except for sitting on the board of Madison College, I don't know how we can say that she exerted authority over men. If by virtue of her prophetic office we want to say that she held such authority, I don't think we can say that Paul was excluding that sort of thing. Paul himself acknowledged to the Corinthians that women did pray or prophesy. It hardly seems that Paul was referring to them praying and prophesying where no one or no men could ever hear. As far as I know, the anti-WO crowd believe Paul was referring to women praying and prophesying in public meetings.
-
1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Would it be accurate to say that Ellen White was not in unity with Paul when she taught, exerted authority over men, and was certainly anything but silent? How does one reconcile her behaviour with Paul and his teachings on the woman's place in the context of religion and church?
We can certainly discuss this, and should. But apparent inconsistencies are not justification for ignoring a Bible text. For example, if one shares with a Lutheran about the Sabbath, that Lutheran could ask, "Did Luther keep the Sabbath?" It's good to ask, but the answer doesn't justify ignoring the Bible evidence for the Sabbath.
Since Ellen White never held an administrative position except for sitting on the board of Madison College, I don't know how we can say that she exerted authority over men. If by virtue of her prophetic office we want to say that she held such authority, I don't think we can say that Paul was excluding that sort of thing. Paul himself acknowledged to the Corinthians that women did pray or prophesy. It hardly seems that Paul was referring to them praying and prophesying where no one or no men could ever hear. As far as I know, the anti-WO crowd believe Paul was referring to women praying and prophesying in public meetings.
Would it be accurate to say that Ellen White taught and preached? Would it also be accurate to say that she gave orders and commands that men obeyed? In the matter of spiritual authority do the 9 vol of the Testimonies ever include an instance that could be seen as her taking spiritual authority over a man?
-
1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Would it be accurate to say that Ellen White was not in unity with Paul when she taught, exerted authority over men, and was certainly anything but silent? How does one reconcile her behaviour with Paul and his teachings on the woman's place in the context of religion and church?
We can certainly discuss this, and should. But apparent inconsistencies are not justification for ignoring a Bible text. For example, if one shares with a Lutheran about the Sabbath, that Lutheran could ask, "Did Luther keep the Sabbath?" It's good to ask, but the answer doesn't justify ignoring the Bible evidence for the Sabbath.
Since Ellen White never held an administrative position except for sitting on the board of Madison College, I don't know how we can say that she exerted authority over men. If by virtue of her prophetic office we want to say that she held such authority, I don't think we can say that Paul was excluding that sort of thing. Paul himself acknowledged to the Corinthians that women did pray or prophesy. It hardly seems that Paul was referring to them praying and prophesying where no one or no men could ever hear. As far as I know, the anti-WO crowd believe Paul was referring to women praying and prophesying in public meetings.
Would it be accurate to say that Ellen White taught and preached? Would it also be accurate to say that she gave orders and commands that men obeyed? In the matter of spiritual authority do the 9 vol of the Testimonies ever include an instance that could be seen as her taking spiritual authority over a man?
Perhaps the text should not be ignored, but should the inconsistencies be? Should we demand the acceptance of one part of the text, but say that the parts regarding teaching and silence don't apply? If we use a text to prove one point should it be ignored in the context of related points? If we agree that women should not have authority in the SDA church it follows that we must address that matter of Ellen White. She was not silent, she taught, and she still holds authority over the church and its leaders, and that includes men. How do we reconcile the use of this text as authoritative in stopping women from holding authority, while refusing to apply it to Ellen White? This tends to put into question the credibility of its use, does it not?
-
1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Would it be accurate to say that Ellen White was not in unity with Paul when she taught, exerted authority over men, and was certainly anything but silent? How does one reconcile her behaviour with Paul and his teachings on the woman's place in the context of religion and church?
We can certainly discuss this, and should. But apparent inconsistencies are not justification for ignoring a Bible text. For example, if one shares with a Lutheran about the Sabbath, that Lutheran could ask, "Did Luther keep the Sabbath?" It's good to ask, but the answer doesn't justify ignoring the Bible evidence for the Sabbath.
Since Ellen White never held an administrative position except for sitting on the board of Madison College, I don't know how we can say that she exerted authority over men. If by virtue of her prophetic office we want to say that she held such authority, I don't think we can say that Paul was excluding that sort of thing. Paul himself acknowledged to the Corinthians that women did pray or prophesy. It hardly seems that Paul was referring to them praying and prophesying where no one or no men could ever hear. As far as I know, the anti-WO crowd believe Paul was referring to women praying and prophesying in public meetings.
Would it be accurate to say that Ellen White taught and preached? Would it also be accurate to say that she gave orders and commands that men obeyed? In the matter of spiritual authority do the 9 vol of the Testimonies ever include an instance that could be seen as her taking spiritual authority over a man?
The text was used against Ellen White a number of times. How did she react?
me. I am still waiting for your reaction to my reply.
Who gave you permission to call me a "feminist"? That is a great deception!
Jóhann M Thorvaldsson
July 5
Jóhann M Thorvaldsson
Writing in Signs of the Times, June 24, 1889, Ellen White shared an intimate moment from her early years:
“When in my youth God opened the Scriptures to my mind, giving me light upon the truths of his word, I went forth to proclaim to others the precious news of salvation. My brother wrote to me, and said, 'I beg of you not to disgrace the family. I will do anything for you if you will not go out as a preacher.’
"’Disgrace the family!’ I replied, ’Can it disgrace the family for me to preach Christ and Him crucified! If you would give me all the gold your house could hold, I would not cease giving my testimony for God. I have respect unto the recompense of the reward. I will not keep silent, for when God imparts his light to me, he means that I shall diffuse it to others, according to my ability.’
“Did not the priests and rulers come to the disciples, and command them to cease preaching in the name of Christ? They shut the faithful men in prison, but the angel of the Lord released them that they might speak the words of life to the people. This is our work.”
Ellen’s brother was not the last to object to her preaching. After speaking in a tiny Northern California town in 1880, she shared in a letter to her husband, James, some backstage information:
“Elder Haskell talked in the afternoon and his labors were well received. I had in the evening, it was stated, the largest congregation that had ever assembled at Arbuckle. The house was full. Many came from five to ten and twelve miles. The Lord gave me special power in speaking. The congregation listened as if spell-bound. Not one left the house although I talked above one hour. Before I commenced talking, Elder Haskell had a bit [piece] of paper that was handed [him] in quoting [a] certain text prohibiting women speaking in public. He took up the matter in a brief manner and very clearly expressed the meaning of the apostles words. I understand it was a Cambelite [sic] who wrote the objection and it had been well circulated [among the audience] before it reached the desk; but Elder Haskell made it all plain before the people" (Letter 17a, April 1, 1880; Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, p. 70).
-
Would it be accurate to say that Ellen White taught and preached? Would it also be accurate to say that she gave orders and commands that men obeyed? In the matter of spiritual authority do the 9 vol of the Testimonies ever include an instance that could be seen as her taking spiritual authority over a man?
See if you can find a good specific example of Ellen White doing what you think Paul was forbidding, and then let's look at that example.
But remember, what we say that 1 Tim. 2:12 is referring to must agree with 1 Cor. 11:4, 5. Paul did allow for women to pray and prophesy, and from what 1 Cor. 14 says, it would seem that a proper place to prophesy was the church service since prophecy was a sign for believers.
Perhaps the text should not be ignored, but should the inconsistencies be? Should we demand the acceptance of one part of the text, but say that the parts regarding teaching and silence don't apply? If we use a text to prove one point should it be ignored in the context of related points? If we agree that women should not have authority in the SDA church it follows that we must address that matter of Ellen White. She was not silent, she taught, and she still holds authority over the church and its leaders, and that includes men. How do we reconcile the use of this text as authoritative in stopping women from holding authority, while refusing to apply it to Ellen White? This tends to put into question the credibility of its use, does it not?
Paul had no problem with women prophets. In Acts we even have Paul visiting with Philip, who had four daughters that were prophets. So women being prophets is not at issue in 1 Tim. 2.
We also have both Aquilla and Priscilla enlightening Apollos in Acts 18:26. This husband and wife team had labored with Paul in his missionary endeavors, and Luke who was also part of Paul's team was the one who wrote the verse. There is no hint that Priscilla did anything wrong in Acts 18:26.
Then we have Titus 2:3-5 which out and out instructs older women to teach. I realize a specific target audience is specified, but it still sheds light on Paul's statement, "But I suffer not a woman to teach," that that is not an absolute prohibition against any and all teaching.
Certainly in light of the 5th commandment and Jesus' comments on it, Paul was not saying that he does not suffer a mother to have authority over her son.
Maybe we should narrow things down a bit. What do you think Paul meant when he said "authority" in 1 Tim. 2:12, and can you provide a specific example where Ellen White exercised that type of authority?
-
How is "but I suffer not a woman to teach" not a prohibition against teaching? And how is "but to remain in silence" not a command that women keep silent in that context?
-
The text was used against Ellen White a number of times. How did she react?
me. I am still waiting for your reaction to my reply.
Who gave you permission to call me a "feminist"? That is a great deception!
Jóhann M Thorvaldsson
July 5
Jóhann M Thorvaldsson
Writing in Signs of the Times, June 24, 1889, Ellen White shared an intimate moment from her early years:
“When in my youth God opened the Scriptures to my mind, giving me light upon the truths of his word, I went forth to proclaim to others the precious news of salvation. My brother wrote to me, and said, 'I beg of you not to disgrace the family. I will do anything for you if you will not go out as a preacher.’
"’Disgrace the family!’ I replied, ’Can it disgrace the family for me to preach Christ and Him crucified! If you would give me all the gold your house could hold, I would not cease giving my testimony for God. I have respect unto the recompense of the reward. I will not keep silent, for when God imparts his light to me, he means that I shall diffuse it to others, according to my ability.’
“Did not the priests and rulers come to the disciples, and command them to cease preaching in the name of Christ? They shut the faithful men in prison, but the angel of the Lord released them that they might speak the words of life to the people. This is our work.”
If the brother was Robert, he was present prior to 1844 when she gave her testimony, and I don't recall him complaining then. It would be interesting seeing what the basis of his objection was.
Or, is it possible that this is referring to her giving her testimony before 1844, not after? The sentence "When in my youth ..." almost sounds pre-1844, but I can't tell for sure.
Ellen’s brother was not the last to object to her preaching. After speaking in a tiny Northern California town in 1880, she shared in a letter to her husband, James, some backstage information:
“Elder Haskell talked in the afternoon and his labors were well received. I had in the evening, it was stated, the largest congregation that had ever assembled at Arbuckle. The house was full. Many came from five to ten and twelve miles. The Lord gave me special power in speaking. The congregation listened as if spell-bound. Not one left the house although I talked above one hour. Before I commenced talking, Elder Haskell had a bit [piece] of paper that was handed [him] in quoting [a] certain text prohibiting women speaking in public. He took up the matter in a brief manner and very clearly expressed the meaning of the apostles words. I understand it was a Cambelite [sic] who wrote the objection and it had been well circulated [among the audience] before it reached the desk; but Elder Haskell made it all plain before the people" (Letter 17a, April 1, 1880; Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, p. 70).
Excellent, Johann. Great reference. Now if we can determine what Haskell's explanation was in 1880, and how he applied that explanation to the question of WO, we would have some more info to work with.
I just went to http://drc.whiteestate.org/ and searched for "women preaching." The first item in the results list refers to articles by some of the pioneers on this topic. I think it would be interesting to identify which articles are being referred to, and reading them to see what they say. Here's one sentence: "Waggoner's article was especially interesting to me because he explicitly distinguished between the right of women to speak and the role of the pastor or ruling elder. He held that the Bible grants the former to women, but not the latter."
That's all I can look at for now.
-
Excellent, Johann. Great reference. Now if we can determine what Haskell's explanation was in 1880, and how he applied that explanation to the question of WO, we would have some more info to work with.
I just went to http://drc.whiteestate.org/ and searched for "women preaching." The first item in the results list refers to articles by some of the pioneers on this topic. I think it would be interesting to identify which articles are being referred to, and reading them to see what they say. Here's one sentence: "Waggoner's article was especially interesting to me because he explicitly distinguished between the right of women to speak and the role of the pastor or ruling elder. He held that the Bible grants the former to women, but not the latter."
That's all I can look at for now.
The context tells us that Haskell was responding to the text about women supposing to be silent which was applied prevent EGW from speaking to the congregation, and Ellen approved of his application convincing the audience that the text should not be taken literally.
As for Waggoner, was he a prophet? Did his words prevent a GC in session to vote that female elders could be ordained?
-
The context tells us that Haskell was responding to the text about women supposing to be silent which was applied prevent EGW from speaking to the congregation, and Ellen approved of his application convincing the audience that the text should not be taken literally.
There is no hint in the quotation given that Haskell advocated or Ellen White approved of an abandonment of Adventist hermeneutic principles. There is no hint that Haskell's explanation involved not taking the text literally.
"He took up the matter in a brief manner and very clearly expressed the meaning of the apostles words."
It very clearly indicates that Haskell advocated accepting Paul's statement as it was, without spiritualizing or explaining it away.
As for Waggoner, was he a prophet? Did his words prevent a GC in session to vote that female elders could be ordained?
I don't know whether the question of ordaining female "elders" ever came up in a 19th century GC Session. As far as 1881 goes, Waggoner was not a delegate that year. The individuals who spoke to the resolution in 1881 were:
This was discussed by J. O. Corliss, A. C. Bourdeau, E. R. Jones, D. H. Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn, A. S. Hutchins, D. M. Canright, and J. N. Loughborough, and referred to the General Conference Committee.
-
There was a fear in 1991 that these private organizations represented a serious challenge to the authority of the SDA church and would replace the General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists. By 1991 they represented a serious threat to the General Conference and Neil Wilson was seen as the "anti-Christ" and Lord knows he earned the title. In 1995 we know that he was set aside and Robert Folkenburg replaced him, despite the "Re-coronation" having already prepped for the presses at the Review and Herald. His heirarchal instincts simply gained more enemies than friends over time. He was best described as a political animal and reveled with his son, "Ted", in the direct confrontation with Folkenburg over his "vatican bank" ties. In the political world, what comes around, goes around!!! Ted now faces hi Waterloo.
By 1991 many independent ministries were largely calling for revival and reformation in their various ways. They organized many separate and independent meetings including "camp meetings" and spent much time exposing the erroneous ways of Wilson Sr, a man I had little respect for as he used litigation and subscribed openly to Heirarchal Authority. Many independents certainly went the route of separationism, including many Home Churches, even organized Congregational groups purported to believe SDA beliefs. There were instances where some separationists actually attempted to Hi-Jack organized SDA churches and congregations.
However, at a critical point in the movement, late spring of 1992 I believe, a clear challenge to the organized church leadership, largely viewed as apostate and corrupt, was launched by three very specific ministries (John Osborne, John Grossball and Danny Viera) as they joined together and declared the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and the Divisions, Unions and Conferences "BABYLON" and was clearly the turning point in the struggle and viewed as the apogee of independence movement.
Our Firm Foundation and Hartland Institute did not participate in the Babylonian allegations and in fact preached against it, but the Leadership could not stand the scrutiny and call for revival and reformation and the two were lumped into the five major rebellion leaders in a Book written largely by Liberal Theologians at Andrews and titled "Issues...Certain Independent Ministries" a book that Dr Ralph and Dr Jeanne Larsen responded to quite elegantly. Revivalists, whether loyal to the church or not, were seen as dissidents and I proudly counted myself amongst them. However, we did fight vigorously against separationism and encouraged the various groups in our territory to stay with the church and seek revival and reformation within the church. We did manage to take over one ministry and kept in the straight and narrow and included retired pastors, elders and a variety of others formed into a 30 person board. We did hold a meeting based on revival and reformation one week-end each month and utilized elders on a "Platform Committee" that vetted all speakers. And we worked vigilantly to keep other independent ministries from separating from the church.
We also worked hard to replace heirarchal authority with develop the impossible responsive conference and Union leadership, but the cardinals have their advantages. He did blunt and even "overthrow" leaders on occasion, only to be followed by worse than we started with. C'est la vie!!!
I will also admit to challenging church entities directly on open and notorious wrongdoing and thus the creation of what became the Atlantic Union Reporter (at one point it was spoofed as the Atlantic Union Cleaner -Our Union paper was the Atlantic Union Gleaner).
Over time, we began to deal with issues extra-territorially, including issues at Hartland Institute and or course 3ABN.
Point is: Well, it took many years of vigorous confrontation but after doing a comprehensive read of EG White, including the Unpublished Testimonies, etc, I came to understand that human conniving and cunning is not the answer and that she made it clear the history we have seen was to be...and she made it clear that at some point the Lord will manifest His Power within the church, revival and reformation will result and the Loud Cry Message will be given. BUT, we are to stand firm on principle, to pull together, to uphold the Pioneer Biblical Standards, to share our Faith and Message and to stay the course he has laid out for us.
WE ARE NOT TO STRAY FROM THE BIBLE AS THE STANDARD OF FAITH.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
- - -
I understand Johann's position, but, the World Church has spoken clearly and concisely and private opinion MUST BE SET ASIDE to nurture the unity of Faith essential to a unity in the Spirit. In the alternative, the Lord will manifest His Power within the church and there will be a massive falling away as the crisis grows. The true REMNANT will be ALL that is left once that Power has been fully manifested and it most certainly will occur with or without our cooperation.
I implore EVERYONE to carefully consider the implications of this open rebellion and recognize it may well be the beginning of the false reformation, the sifting and a part of the Omega of Apostasy. YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THIS BIBLICAL STANDARD!!! NOR DO YOU WANT TO BE IN REBELLION TO THE SPIRIT OF THE GODHEAD!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Somehow this reminds me of my personal meeting with Ted Wilson's father 20-30 years ago when he seemed clearly to classify the Heartland and Our Firm Foundation people as open rebels, and he saw to it that they were not classified as Adventists with whom the Church was willing to cooperate with. We, as Adventist workers, received a number of warnings from the GC not to cooperate with those rebels and heretics.
In spite of those warnings, I attended some of their meetings and I read all of the reading material I found scattered around in our churches - from them.
Somehow the SDA church survived the crisis. Is the Lord somewhere else these days?
You asked me to provide some text from Scripture or EGW which supported the ordination of women. I did. You never responded. Why?