Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => Womens Ordination & Related Issues => Topic started by: Artiste on August 10, 2012, 09:07:50 PM
-
The Q & A the GC put out yesterday on unity and WO is lengthy, but I will post it below.
-
Aug. 09, 2012 Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
The following document addresses issues raised regarding the unity of the church, the authority of the General Conference, and its relationship to other levels and entities of the world church in connection with the current discussion on ordination to the gospel ministry. This document does not address whether ordaining women is appropriate but rather clarifies and corrects arguments that have been used throughout the discussion.
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.
2. Is the worldwide Theology of Ordination Study Committee, requested at the 2010 General Conference Session and established at the 2011 Annual Council, also studying the issue of the pastoral ordination of women?
Yes. The process for studying the theology of ordination voted by the General Conference Administrative Committee was handed out and reviewed by the 2011 Annual Council. As the document explains, “each division is asked to request their biblical research committee [BRC] to make a study of the theology of ordination and its implications for church practices.”3 As has been consistently explained verbally and in writing, these practical implications involve many questions related to ordination, including the ordination of women. For example, in a letter from the Biblical Research Institute to all the division presidents and BRC directors sent on May 1, 2012, numerous issues and questions were listed that could be considered by the division study committees. A number of these items relate directly to the question of ordaining women as pastors, including “Does the Bible teach leadership role distinctions between male and female in ministry?”
The Biblical Research Institute has provided the necessary materials for the divisions to establish biblical research committees, and all 13 world divisions are in various stages of the study process. In addition, the General Conference Administrative Committee will be appointing a Theology of Ordination Study Committee, to which each division is invited to send representatives who will be able to represent the study done by their division on this larger, worldwide committee. A report of the worldwide study committee will be presented to the General Conference administration, which will report the findings to the 2014 Annual Council. This would allow any agreed-upon resolutions to be placed on the agenda of the 2015 General Conference Session. Further details of this process are available through the Adventist News Network: http://news.adventist.org/en/archive/articles/2011/10/10/process-timetable-unveiled-for-review-of-theology-of-ordination.
3. Was it constitutionally appropriate for the General Conference Sessions of 1990 and 1995 to discuss and vote on the issue of ordaining women to ministry?
Yes. “The General Conference Session, and the General Conference Executive Committee between Sessions, is the highest ecclesiastical authority in the administration of the Church.”4 The General Conference in Session can deal with matters of global importance to the Church as well as matters referred to it from the General Conference Executive Committee. The General Conference in Session is the final place of appeal in matters of difference among organizations.
“When differences arise in or between churches and conferences or institutions, appeal to the next higher constituent level is proper until it reaches an Annual Council of the General Conference Executive Committee or the General Conference Session. Between these meetings, the General Conference Executive Committee constitutes the body of final authority on all questions. The committee’s decision may be reviewed at a General Conference Session or an Annual Council.”
The 1990 General Conference Session addressed a report and recommendations that were referred to it by the General Conference Executive Committee.5
The 1995 General Conference Session addressed a matter that originated as a request from the North American Division (NAD) officers and the NAD union presidents. This request was processed through the General Conference Executive Committee and placed on the agenda for the General Conference Session.
4. Did the 1881 General Conference Session vote to authorize the ordination of women to the gospel ministry?
No. However, a surface reading of the minutes of the session could leave a wrong impression. It was common to introduce motions at GC Sessions of the time with “Resolved.” In our day, it sounds as if it has been decided, but in fact it was merely the accepted way to place a motion up for consideration. Then it would be discussed by the delegates and put to a vote. The resolutions voted on and passed at the 1881 General Conference Session are clearly listed in the minutes as “adopted.” With regard to the ordination of women, the following resolution was presented for discussion: “Resolved, That females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry.” Eight individuals are listed as speaking to this resolution prior to it being “referred to the General Conference Committee.”6 It is never listed as having been adopted, nor is there any evidence it was ever taken up again, either at this Session or at any subsequent GC Session.7
5. If female pastors have already been ordained by some organizations in China, why not allow the ordination of women to the ministry in other regions of the world?
Women have and are doing a powerful work for God in ministry in China. They are serving as pastors and church planters. Of more than 6,000 pastors in China, approximately 4,000, or 70 percent, of them are women. While a few (currently, 20 women) have been ordained, we need to understand the complexity of the situation in China and the reality of life there. In China, the Seventh-day Adventist Church does not have a formal church organization. There are no conferences or unions. There is no official Adventist Theological Seminary in China. There is no standardized ministerial training. Pastors typically are chosen from the members of a local congregation as they demonstrate a calling for ministry by teaching Sabbath school, lay preaching, and church planting. Chinese pastors, male or female, are usually ordained in one of two ways: either by the local congregation with the participation of Adventist senior pastors from their region, or by the Three-Self Patriotic Movement. The Three-Self Patriotic Movement operates under the China Christian Council and is a nondenominational entity approved by the Chinese government.
Female Adventist leaders in China are not in agreement among themselves about the appropriateness of ordination: there is no uniform approach to the issue among the women who pastor Adventist churches in China. Some allow themselves to be ordained, some do not; while the large majority has not engaged in the discussion because women’s ordination has never been an issue among women pastors in China. While the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church acknowledges the fact of women’s ordination in China, it neither recognizes it nor endorses it. It doesn’t seek to initiate, guide, or control the process. The church in China functions in the context of its environment and with the limitations imposed upon it by the government where it exists. However, because of this anomalous situation, its practices with respect to the ordination of female pastors cannot be cited as a model for the world church.
6. Is the ordination of female pastors in China recognized by the world church?
No. Ordination in China is not officially recognized by any entity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church outside of China. The document, “An Appeal for Unity in Respect to Ministerial Ordination Practices,” written and approved by all General Conference officers (25 persons) and division presidents (13 persons) worldwide, makes this clear:
… these ordinations were not authorized or conducted according to the policies of the Church. Nor are these ordinations approved or recognized/endorsed by the Northern Asia-Pacific Division. The Seventh-day Adventist Church does not have an officially organized structure in China that is comparable to other areas of the world. Government regulations do not permit outside involvement in church affairs within China. The practice, in China, of ministerial ordination for women is acknowledged as a reality that has arisen in China and is beyond the influence of the world-wide structure of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.8
7. How is General Conference policy determined, and how is it related to practice? What is the connection between decisions voted by the General Conference Executive Committee, the General Conference Session, and policy?
Policy is thoughtfully developed, based on sometimes lengthy deliberations over issues both theological and practical, and recommendations made for consideration by duly appointed and elected representatives at these sessions and meetings of the world church. It is not accurate to assert that policy follows practice. It is more accurate to say that practice informs policy but that policy itself is based on Seventh-day Adventist principles found in Scripture and the writings of Ellen G. White. A recent example of how this process works in practice is the use of tithe. For several years, a committee at the General Conference has studied principles of tithing found in the Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White. Based on this study and discussion, the committee has formulated recommendations for General Conference administration that have been refined, adopted at the Annual Council, and then included in the Working Policy.
However, certain policies cannot be acted upon at Annual Councils but only at a General Conference Session. These sessions, held every five years, address matters of global importance that impact the entire world Church, such as the election of world leaders (officers and department directors serving from the General Conference office and officers of divisions), revision and approval of Fundamental Beliefs, amendments to the Church Manual, amendments to the General Conference Constitution and Bylaws, appointment of the General Conference Auditing Service leaders and board, etc.
The General Conference Church Manual and General Conference Working Policy contain the decisions that define the operating procedures and relationships among the various levels of church organization (churches, local conferences, unions, and the General Conference with its divisions). The policies of the Church Manual are determined by General Conference Sessions and those of the Working Policy are determined by the General Conference Executive Committee at Annual Councils. Between General Conference sessions the General Conference Executive Committee is delegated to act on behalf of the General Conference Session. A General Conference Session is not prevented from establishing policy by virtue of having given to the Executive Committee that prerogative between Sessions. Membership on the Executive Committee includes General Conference and division officers; presidents of all the unions worldwide; as well as representation, recommended by divisions, from laity, pastors and frontline employees within each division.
8. Is it obligatory for all entities of the world church to be in full agreement with the General Conference model constitution and working policies, or are they permitted to be only in “general” agreement?
The model constitutions and bylaws contain basic templates of language and concepts to be included in the constitution and bylaws of an organization such as a union or local conference. Some of the material in the model documents is optional. Other material, represented by bold lettering, is obligatory. The obligation for organizations to operate in harmony with General Conference Session and Executive Committee decisions is also shown elsewhere in the Working Policy. No organization is able to claim an exemption from such obligation merely because it has not adopted such language in its constitution and bylaws:
Local churches, local conferences/missions/fields, union conferences/missions, unions of churches, and institutions are, by vote of the appropriate constituency, and by actions of properly authorized executive committees, a part of the worldwide organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Whereas each has accepted the privilege and responsibility of representing the Church in its part of the world, each is therefore required to operate and minister in harmony with the teachings and policies of the Church, and the actions of the world Church in the General Conference Executive Committee or in General Conference Session. While individual units of the Church are given freedom to function in ways appropriate to their role and culture, no part of the worldwide organization of the Church has a unilateral right to secede.9
9. What did Ellen White say about the authority of the General Conference?
In the years preceding the reorganization of the church in 1901, Ellen White made several statements about the General Conference no longer being the voice of God because the General Conference president and his advisors were not willing to heed the messages from the Lord. An example of this is a statement in 1898: “It has been some years since I have considered the General Conference as the voice of God.”10 With the rapid growth of the church during these years, it was also clear that three or four leaders at the General Conference office in Battle Creek should not be making day-to-day decisions for fields half a world away. However, after the reorganization at the 1901 General Conference Session, Ellen White’s attitude was very different:
1909—“God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has invested in His church in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work.”11
1911—“God has invested His church with special authority and power which no one can be justified in disregarding and despising, for he who does this despises the voice of God.”12
10. What is the difference between unity and uniformity?
The difference between “unity” and “uniformity” is in how these words end. They both start with “uni”—a Latin prefix meaning “one,” but it is what comes after that “one” that explains the oneness. Unity is “the state of being one, being united, as of the parts of a whole,”13 but uniformity is “the state or quality of being uniform,”14 that is, in form being one, but not in heart, mind, and soul.
As evidenced from the Creation account to the story of the Earth made new, God is clearly a God of diversity. He did not make only one kind of animal, plant, flower—or even human. Instead, He created the diversity that we see in the world around us.
But God is not the author of confusion, nor did He intend the world to be fragmented and divided. The purpose of Creation was to give Him glory, and the purpose of the Church is to point people toward God as revealed in His Word.
When Jesus prayed, “That they all may be one” (John 17:21, NKJV), it was in the context of purpose and mission for those who believed (and would believe) in Him. He pleaded with His Father to “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (vs. 17). Regarding mission, He prayed, “As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world” (vs. 18). Summing up the unity Jesus desires for His followers, He prayed, “And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as you have loved Me” (vss. 22, 23).
Our goal is to work unitedly toward the realization of the kingdom of God. This is accomplished as a worldwide body of believers by coming together in belief and practice.
Nowhere is this more evidenced than during every quinquennium when the worldwide church comes together in a General Conference Session to pray, worship, fellowship, and conduct the business of the church. It is here, with the input from a wide diversity of representatives from every part of the globe, that the voice of the entire church is heard. It is here where our statements of belief and practice are voted. It is these beliefs—based on the truth of God’s Word and the practices that outline how best to accomplish our mission—that guide us and keep us united as we move together in mission.
--
1 Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 18th ed., rev. 2010, p. 31.
2 Section I.4 of the Bylaws of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook, rev. 2011, p. 11. The yearbook in PDF is available at: http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/YB/YB2011.pdf.
3 Minutes of the General Conference Executive Committee, GCC 11-105.
4 Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 18th ed., rev. 2010, p. 31.
5 Ibid.
6 Minutes of the 1881 General Conference Session, 197 GCS 63-88, published in The Review and Herald, vol. 58, no. 25 (Dec. 20, 1881), p. 392.
7 A short outline of General Conference and North American Division decisions relating to women and ordination, including this item, together with images of the original supporting documents, may be found at: GC and NAD Actions Related to Women's Ordination (PDF).
8 An Appeal for Unity in Respect to Ministerial Ordination Practices,” June 29, 2012 (p. 2, n. 5; the full document is available by clicking here.
9 From General Conference Working Policy, B 10 25 Structural Stability, p. 57.
10 17MR 216; this and similar statements can be found in LDE 50, 51.
11 9T 260, 261; this and similar statements can found in LDE 55, 56.
12 AA 164; also in LDE 56. For further reading, see George E. Rice, “The church: voice of God?” Ministry, December 1987, pp. 4-6, available at the Ellen G. White Estate: http://drc.whiteestate.org/files/4483.pdf.
13 From dictionary.com at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unity.
14 From dictionary.com at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uniformity?s=t&ld=1089.
-
It's interesting that the WO advocates put a lot of their reliance in their theory on the female pastors in China. But according to the excerpt below, that point wouldn't be so clear in China.
Female Adventist leaders in China are not in agreement among themselves about the appropriateness of ordination: there is no uniform approach to the issue among the women who pastor Adventist churches in China. Some allow themselves to be ordained, some do not; while the large majority has not engaged in the discussion because women's ordination has never been an issue among women pastors in China.
-
That pretty well settles the 1881 question.
-
It is interesting that a lot of the points being made in the above have already been made on this forum or elsewhere. Either the author spends a lot of time reading through people's posts, or the points are fairly self-evident to the point that multiple people can arrive at them simultaneously without collaboration.
However, the idea that the GC sets the criteria for baptism and ordination, and churches decide who fits the criteria for baptism, and unions decide who fits the criteria for ordination, I hadn't seen that point before. The fact that there are women ministers in China who oppose WO was also new. In fact, if only 20 out of 4000 female pastors in China are ordained, it sounds as if the overwhelming majority of female pastors in China may oppose ordination.
We'd hate to disappoint them by rushing to go contrary to their sincerely held beliefs, would we?
-
It is interesting that a lot of the points being made in the above have already been made on this forum or elsewhere. Either the author spends a lot of time reading through people's posts, or the points are fairly self-evident to the point that multiple people can arrive at them simultaneously without collaboration.
However, the idea that the GC sets the criteria for baptism and ordination, and churches decide who fits the criteria for baptism, and unions decide who fits the criteria for ordination, I hadn't seen that point before. The fact that there are women ministers in China who oppose WO was also new. In fact, if only 20 out of 4000 female pastors in China are ordained, it sounds as if the overwhelming majority of female pastors in China may oppose ordination.
We'd hate to disappoint them by rushing to go contrary to their sincerely held beliefs, would we?
I was surprised about that after people kept pointing to the ordained female pastors of China to validate their position.
-
The fact that there are women ministers in China who oppose WO was also new.
That has been known for some time. My personal position is that the SDA Church in China is divided into two (2) factions. However, I have been told that it is actually divided into four (4) factions. So far, I have not been convinced that statement is accurate. In any case, the reality remains that there is a faction of the SDA Church in China that does not support the ordination of females.
I find it interesting that current SDA leadership states that the deonmination does not and has not recognized those females in China who are ordained. Some years back, published statements in the REVIEW would naturally have led people to believe that: 1) The denomination recognized both (2) factions of the SDA chuch in China, and that was the only place in the world where the denomination recognized more tlhan one faction. NOTE: At a time in the Soviet Union when more than one faction existed, the denomination only recognized one. 2) The denomination recognized those females who were ordained in China.
In a situation like such exists, honest people can differ on the facts and on how the facts should be understood. Personally, I believe that people on both sides of this issue have made statements that were only partially accurate. In the ASI televised program led by President Wilson, one of the five made the statement that the General Conference sets that standard for the requirements for ordination, which apply world-wide. I do not believe that. In the United States and in certain Conferences, there are educational requirements that do not apply to some locations in other parts of the world. The reality is that some people would not be ordained in the U.S. that would be ordained on other places.
-
In fact, if only 20 out of 4000 female pastors in China are ordained, it sounds as if the overwhelming majority of female pastors in China may oppose ordination.
As I have stated before: Ordination is not the fundamental Biblical issue. The Bible does not say much about ordination. The fundamental Biblical issue is the role that females should plaly in spiritual nurture. I have issues witht he accuracy of the statement that I have quoted above. Regardless, it presents 4,000 females as playing a leadership role inspiritual nurture. That is the Fundamenetal Bibloical issue, rather than whether or not they are ordained.
The above statement does not make any statement in regard to whether or not the majority of female pastors in China oppose female ordination. It more likely says that female pastors in China are doing their job regardless of what they thinkaobut female ordination. NOTE: I am not convinced of the accuracy of the above statement.
-
I was surprised about that after people kept pointing to the ordained female pastors of China to validate their position.
The SDA Church in China operates under conditions that we in the U.S. may not understand. While operating under these conditions, the reality is that congregations pastored by females have brought thousands into SDA fellowship. It would seem to me that one must conclude that this is either the result of the working of the HOly Spirit, or it is the working of something other than God.
If one concludes that this is not the working of God, then one would naturally conclude that one should not point to China to support female ordination.
However, if one concludes that God is working in this, it is fair to point to China in relationshilp to female ordination.
-
It is 12:45 and I am sitting in the SDA Church that I attend.
There is a growing sense that the church is going down a road that will lead to a split and that split will be greater than is immagined. It it thought by some that such is what is desired by some of our members.
-
It is 12:45 and I am sitting in the SDA Church that I attend.
There is a growing sense that the church is going down a road that will lead to a split and that split will be greater than is immagined. It it thought by some that such is what is desired by some of our members.
So...a certain segment of the church is finally realizing that the rest of the world church and the leadership are not going to just roll over for the benefit of that certain segment's agenda...
-
It is 12:45 and I am sitting in the SDA Church that I attend.
There is a growing sense that the church is going down a road that will lead to a split and that split will be greater than is immagined. It it thought by some that such is what is desired by some of our members.
Yes, it seems that there is a small element calling for, and relishing the prospect of the GC imposing a split. In my opinion they are a radical fringe who thrive on controversy and love the idea of seeing those they disagree with destroyed. I trust that the GC is not made up of wild-eyed radicals, and will work out a wise solution that heals, rather than deepens the wounds.
-
There may be people in the denomination who would like to see th church purified by forcing people out.
-
It is 12:45 and I am sitting in the SDA Church that I attend.
There is a growing sense that the church is going down a road that will lead to a split and that split will be greater than is immagined. It it thought by some that such is what is desired by some of our members.
Yes, it seems that there is a small element calling for, and relishing the prospect of the GC imposing a split. In my opinion they are a radical fringe who thrive on controversy and love the idea of seeing those they disagree with destroyed. I trust that the GC is not made up of wild-eyed radicals, and will work out a wise solution that heals, rather than deepens the wounds.
Murcielago, your sentiments would be better expressed over at Spectrum or AToday.
-
It is 12:45 and I am sitting in the SDA Church that I attend.
There is a growing sense that the church is going down a road that will lead to a split and that split will be greater than is immagined. It it thought by some that such is what is desired by some of our members.
Yes, it seems that there is a small element calling for, and relishing the prospect of the GC imposing a split. In my opinion they are a radical fringe who thrive on controversy and love the idea of seeing those they disagree with destroyed. I trust that the GC is not made up of wild-eyed radicals, and will work out a wise solution that heals, rather than deepens the wounds.
Murcielago, your sentiments would be better expressed over at Spectrum or AToday.
Over the past week I have had ocassion to talk with various people from the GC and from the NAD. It is encouraging to hear their tone. It does not represent the rage and fear we are seeing expressed and reflected on them. They appear to be reasonable, sincere people who are trying to work out a solution that keeps the church intact, strengthens it, and promotes participation and growth at all levels. I have not heard even one of them express a desire for retribution, but reconciliation and understanding. I strongly support them in that goal.
-
I can agree that is what they wish. However, I also see a road that some are traveling, to include those who wish to heal, that may lead to a split.
-
I can agree that is what they wish. However, I also see a road that some are traveling, to include those who wish to heal, that may lead to a split.
It could, but from what I have heard from them, they are willing to take substantial time and do everything they can to prevent a rupture, rather than follow the lead of the radical few who are demanding an immediate split in the church. Of course anything could happen. The squeaky wheel often does get the grease, and those who thrive on controversy and dissent are usually the squeakiest of them all.
-
This was posted over at Maritime:
By the way, did I mention I'm in the Columbia Union but our conference in West Virginia, when it saw what the Union was about to do voiced it's objection officially by way of motion at it's own constituency meeting. So the Mountain View Conference (West Virginia) is the only conference in the Union that took preemptive action and stood with the world body.
I was happy to hear of this preemptive action by that Conference and hope others will follow after the fact.
-
I cannot verify this, but I think it is likely to be accurate.
It is being reported that Karen Cress has been ordained by a Conference in the Columbia Union and notice of such along with a photo of her ordinaiton certificate are posted on Facebook.
This is of interest as both she and her husband have been considered to be rising stars in the denomination.
I do not have a Facebook account.
-
It is 12:45 and I am sitting in the SDA Church that I attend.
There is a growing sense that the church is going down a road that will lead to a split and that split will be greater than is immagined. It it thought by some that such is what is desired by some of our members.
Yes, it seems that there is a small element calling for, and relishing the prospect of the GC imposing a split. In my opinion they are a radical fringe who thrive on controversy and love the idea of seeing those they disagree with destroyed. I trust that the GC is not made up of wild-eyed radicals, and will work out a wise solution that heals, rather than deepens the wounds.
Murcielago, your sentiments would be better expressed over at Spectrum or AToday.
Why do you say that, Artiste? I thought AdventTalk was a forum for respectful discussion of issues related to the Adventist church.
-
Over the past week I have had occasion to talk with various people from the GC and from the NAD. It is encouraging to hear their tone. It does not represent the rage and fear we are seeing expressed and reflected on them. They appear to be reasonable, sincere people who are trying to work out a solution that keeps the church intact, strengthens it, and promotes participation and growth at all levels. I have not heard even one of them express a desire for retribution, but reconciliation and understanding. I strongly support them in that goal.
NAD (North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists) is in favor of women's ordination.
Even a large percentage of people in the General Conference Office are in favor of women's ordination.
If this were only an issue for the churches in the "western world" to decide it would have been passed.
What took place in the Columbia Union is only one piece of a much larger puzzle that has been taking shape in America.
The union and local conference decisions to take up the ordination of qualified candidates to the pastoral ministry, regardless whether they be male or female, has been a response to the rescinding of the November 2011 North American Division's (NAD) decision to allow ordained/commissioned ministers to become conference presidents as a result of legal counsel indicating that the NAD could not make such a decision since they have no separate constituency. Thus the word "commissioned" was erased.
This does show me the movement wants more than recognition as qualified pastors, they want to get into leadership roles.
Actually the movement goes back to the Utrecht General Conference where women's ordination was voted down. Immediately after (in 1996) at least three women were ordained in the Loma Linda area.
March 8, 2012, the Mid-America Union Conference was the first to formally vote support for the ordination of eligible candidates to the pastoral ministry, regardless of gender.
On April 5, President Lemon found it necessary to clarify that the Mid-America Union had not voted to actually ordain women, but that the vote reflects the union’s commitment to work in harmony with the North American Division of the General Conference, and the Union still remains committed to moving forward on this issue.
The Pacific Union Conference (PUC) in its March 2012 meeting voted to table the motion to approve immediately the ordination of ministers without regard to gender until a later meeting. But is still fully committed to move in that direction and set up an ordination study committee to lay out the steps necessary to make gender-neutral ordination a reality.
Southeastern California Conference (SECC), urged by the One in Christ campaign, issued ordained minister credentials to all its eligible non-intern pastors, regardless of gender.
In May of this year, the Southern California Conference (SCC) “voted to support ordination of women"
The Columbia Union Conference voted to go ahead with women ordination in a constituency meeting in July
Other unions voted lesser decisions on the issue -- mainly to "study"
But NAD is moving pretty much as a whole toward women ordination. Just that some divisions are more willing to abide to "due process" and are willing to wait for that to take place, while others have given up hope that "due process", since it involves so many delegates from third world countries, will ever get them what they want.
You will also see (if you've watched the video of the Columbia Constituency meeting) that the president of NAD did not repeat president Wilson's call to desist and abide in compliance to GC process. He only prayed for the Holy Spirit to fill the meeting.
I'm not even sure the officers in the GC are against women's ordination.
Their call is that due process be followed and the church move in unity.
This is what's happening in America.
Whether a person likes it or not is another matter, but it is happening.
If a split were to take place it may split off the third world countries from the American and western Europen countries. Something the third world countries can't really afford to do.
I doubt that over half the membership in North america would vote against women ordination, and that's what it would take to halt the movement (at least for a little while)
-
Ulicia, thank you for the summation.
I think you are ignoring the information in the GC Questions and Answers statement above in this thread, though.
-
It is 12:45 and I am sitting in the SDA Church that I attend.
There is a growing sense that the church is going down a road that will lead to a split and that split will be greater than is immagined. It it thought by some that such is what is desired by some of our members.
Yes, it seems that there is a small element calling for, and relishing the prospect of the GC imposing a split. In my opinion they are a radical fringe who thrive on controversy and love the idea of seeing those they disagree with destroyed. I trust that the GC is not made up of wild-eyed radicals, and will work out a wise solution that heals, rather than deepens the wounds.
Murcielago, your sentiments would be better expressed over at Spectrum or AToday.
Why do you say that, Artiste? I thought AdventTalk was a forum for respectful discussion of issues related to the Adventist church.
It is starting to look like some here have a behind-the-scenes agenda.
-
This does show me the movement wants more than recognition as qualified pastors, they want to get into leadership roles.
I do not agree.
The current situation, that is permitted by the General Conference is that males are ordained and females are commissioned.
I will suggst that the "movement" (as it is called above) is saying: O.K. if you do not want to ordain us simply erase all distinctions between what an ordained minister does and what a commissioned minister does. In their attempt to erase the few distinctions, thay are dealing one by one with those differences and attempting to have them erased by a change in policy.
Let us agree that the Bible rules.
What is the Biblical reason for saying that a female may serve as a General Conference Vice President, but she may not serve as a local Conference President? Where in the Bible does it say that a female may present an evangelistic series that brings 1,000 people into the denomination, but she may not take those people and organize them into a congregation?
Where is the Biblical basis for limiting the female to a role that is less than that of a male?
As has been posted here before: During a time of war, when male SDA Clergy was generally unavailable, two women held evangelistic meetings (multiple ones) that brought more than 2,000 people into the denomination. Yet, at that time the denomination would not allow them to either baptize, or organize them into congregations. That had to be done by elderly, male clergy who cam in fromother parts of the country.
-
"Primarily, our accountability is to God."
Pres. Dan Jackson - CUC Constituency Meeting, July 29, 2012.
-
This does show me the movement wants more than recognition as qualified pastors, they want to get into leadership roles.
I do not agree.
I will suggst that the "movement" (as it is called above) is saying: O.K. if you do not want to ordain us simply erase all distinctions between what an ordained minister does and what a commissioned minister does. In their attempt to erase the few distinctions, thay are dealing one by one with those differences and attempting to have them erased by a change in policy.
Let us agree that the Bible rules.
What is the Biblical reason for saying that a female may serve as a General Conference Vice President, but she may not serve as a local Conference President? Where in the Bible does it say that a female may present an evangelistic series that brings 1,000 people into the denomination, but she may not take those people and organize them into a congregation?
Where is the Biblical basis for limiting the female to a role that is less than that of a male?
As has been posted here before: During a time of war, when male SDA Clergy was generally unavailable, two women held evangelistic meetings (multiple ones) that brought more than 2,000 people into the denomination. Yet, at that time the denomination would not allow them to either baptize, or organize them into congregations. That had to be done by elderly, male clergy who cam in fromother parts of the country.
I don't disagree with your assessment. I really can't see any reason why a woman recognized as a spiritual leader by the church, can not baptize people she won to Christ (following the prescribed guidelines of course ) or organize people into congregations after they have won them to Christ.
But I still think they also want leadership opened to them as well.
-
But I still think they also want leadership opened to them as well.
Is it possible that some women would be qualified for leadership? Or, are all women automaticly disqualified for leadership?
If it is possible that some women are quallified for leadership, should thay not be allowed ot demonstrate that qualification?
People who have posted here, have often posted to the efffect that men and women are different. They have often posted to the effect that men and women may have different social skillls and/or described situations where one or the other would be more effective. If such is accurate, it follows that there would likely be siltuations where women could exercise better leadership than men would exercise. Women should be allowed to contribute their skills.
-
In the ASI televised program led by President Wilson, one of the five made the statement that the General Conference sets that standard for the requirements for ordination, which apply world-wide. I do not believe that. In the United States and in certain Conferences, there are educational requirements that do not apply to some locations in other parts of the world. The reality is that some people would not be ordained in the U.S. that would be ordained on other places.
On what basis is such a variance made? Is the variance itself based upon the GC permitting or allowing for such a variance? If so, then it is still the GC that sets the criteria.
-
I can agree that is what they wish. However, I also see a road that some are traveling, to include those who wish to heal, that may lead to a split.
But why would it lead to a split? The issue is super simple: The 1990 and 1995 GC Sessions voted down the requests to ordain women, and the GC Sessions constitute the highest authority under God on earth in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
The only thing that would cause a split is if entities within the church refuse to recognize the authority of the GC Sessions.
This was posted over at Maritime:
By the way, did I mention I'm in the Columbia Union but our conference in West Virginia, when it saw what the Union was about to do voiced it's objection officially by way of motion at it's own constituency meeting. So the Mountain View Conference (West Virginia) is the only conference in the Union that took preemptive action and stood with the world body.
I was happy to hear of this preemptive action by that Conference and hope others will follow after the fact.
I wasn't aware that this was an action taken by the constituency session. Great news.
If a split were to take place it may split off the third world countries from the American and western Europen countries. Something the third world countries can't really afford to do.
In reality, the split would have already occurred before it got to that point. Unions and conferences voting to ordain women in rebellion of the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes would have already split from the world church.
I for one have no intention of being part of an offshoot. If our conference were to break from the world church, I would urge our church to take some sort of action that would align us with the world church and not with an offshoot.
By the way, what does your union in Canada think of all of this? And, is part of our problem today the unbalanced and biased reporting of Spectrum and AToday? We tend to think of the unions that have voted to move away from the church, but we don't tend to think of the unions that have voted to stick with the church, or that haven't taken any action whatsoever. The Southern Union is on record as saying they will not go against the GC Session votes. Atlantic Union, Southwestern Union, Lake Union, where do they stand? Perhaps in reality we're talking about a few or several renegade unions within the NAD, and not even a majority.
-
"We believe fully in church organization, but in nothing that is to prescribe the precise way in which we must work; for all minds are not reached by the same methods. Nothing is to be allowed to keep the working servant of God from his fellow man. The individual believer is to labor for the individual sinner. Each person has his own lamp to keep burning... {RH May 9, 1899, Art. B, par. 14)"
-
Bob, in the event the GC allows for gender neutral ordination in the fields that wish to proceed with it, but not imposing it on those that don't want it, if they allowed the fields to accept pastors from other fields at whatever the highest level of ordination the accepting field authorizes based on criteria such as gender, would you consider that an acceptable solution?
-
Here is the complete paragraph:
We believe fully in church organization, but in nothing that is to prescribe the precise way in which we must work; for all minds are not reached by the same methods. Nothing is to be allowed to keep the working servant of God from his fellow man. The individual believer is to labor for the individual sinner. Each person has his own lamp to keep burning; and if the heavenly oil is emptied into these lamps through the golden pipes, if they empty the golden oil out of themselves, and if it is received into the vessels which have been emptied of self, and so prepared to receive the holy oil, that lamp, well supplied with the holy oil, can to some purpose throw its light on the sinner's path. Very much more light shines from one such lamp onto the path of the wanderer, than would be given by a whole torchlight procession got up for parade and show. O, what a work may be done if we will not stretch ourselves beyond our measure! {RH, May 9, 1899 par. 14}
-
Bob, in the event the GC allows for gender neutral ordination in the fields that wish to proceed with it, but not imposing it on those that don't want it, if they allowed the fields to accept pastors from other fields at whatever the highest level of ordination the accepting field authorizes based on criteria such as gender, would you consider that an acceptable solution?
Not if in so doing we abandon our historic belief of having the Bible be the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian. If the above suggested accommodation is based on explanations of 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2 that use cultural arguments instead of biblical arguments, then no, it would not be acceptable.
But that is a different issue than whether unions would be in rebellion. If the GC Session, and it would need to be a GC Session I think, were to make the above suggested accommodation, then for a union to move forward in those lines would not be rebellion whereas now it would be.
But that wouldn't take care of the present problem. The precedent has now been set that a union can do as it pleases regardless of what a GC Session says. How will that precedent be neutralized? Voting the above suggested accommodation doesn't cut it. All that would do is send a signal to all the unions in the world, or at least the unions that have the money that the rest of the church relies on, that if they move forward unilaterally on any issue, the world church will possibly accommodate them anyway. But if they don't have enough money, they might get dissolved for their rebellion.
So I think the only fair, just, and workable solution is for the GC to move forward with some sort of disciplinary process.
-
Here is the complete paragraph: We believe fully in church organization, but in nothing that is to prescribe the precise way in which we must work; for all minds are not reached by the same methods. Nothing is to be allowed to keep the working servant of God from his fellow man. The individual believer is to labor for the individual sinner. Each person has his own lamp to keep burning; and if the heavenly oil is emptied into these lamps through the golden pipes, if they empty the golden oil out of themselves, and if it is received into the vessels which have been emptied of self, and so prepared to receive the holy oil, that lamp, well supplied with the holy oil, can to some purpose throw its light on the sinner's path. Very much more light shines from one such lamp onto the path of the wanderer, than would be given by a whole torchlight procession got up for parade and show. O, what a work may be done if we will not stretch ourselves beyond our measure! {RH, May 9, 1899 par. 14}
Johann,
Could you please explain how this quote justifies rebellion? And how not allowing women to serve as conference or mission presidents, or to ordain elders and deacons, or to organize churches keeps women from laboring for individual sinners? I really don't see the connection, and I doubt anyone else would either.
-
Murcielago asked:
Bob, in the event the GC allows for gender neutral ordination in the fields that wish to proceed with it, but not imposing it on those that don't want it, if they allowed the fields to accept pastors from other fields at whatever the highest level of ordination the accepting field authorizes based on criteria such as gender, would you consider that an acceptable solution.
Bob responded:
Not if in so doing we abandon our historic belief of having the Bible be the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian. If the above suggested accommodation is based on explanations of 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2 that use cultural arguments instead of biblical arguments, then no, it would not be acceptable.
Bob is fairly clear in his response. He gives two situaitons in which he would reject the GC action and he does not give any situations in which he would accept.
Essentially Bob would be doing exacty what he charges others presently with doing--rejecting the action of what he calls the highest spiritual authority on Earth and participating in rebellion.
However, Bob would be doing exactly what he should do. The GC, even in acting in Session, is a human body. Regardless of God's leading in the past, one cannot assume that it would always represent the will of God for us. One is obligated personally to be responsible to the leading of the Holy Spirit and the teaching of the Bible. Bob would be obligated to do that, if he was convinced that the GC action was not in accord with how the Spirit was leading him and with the Biblical teaching.
But, that is exactly what others are doing. Bob is criticizing them for doing exactly what they think is the will of God for them.
Those who take the position that we are obligated to follow forever, into the unknown future, remind me of the College of Cardinals in Rome. Only, the individual members of the College of Cardinals may have more spiritual freedom as they vote than is given to some by those who post here.
For those who might want to see more as to how the College of Cardinals works, they might want to read: THE LAST CONCLAVE.
-
Here is the complete paragraph: We believe fully in church organization, but in nothing that is to prescribe the precise way in which we must work; for all minds are not reached by the same methods. Nothing is to be allowed to keep the working servant of God from his fellow man. The individual believer is to labor for the individual sinner. Each person has his own lamp to keep burning; and if the heavenly oil is emptied into these lamps through the golden pipes, if they empty the golden oil out of themselves, and if it is received into the vessels which have been emptied of self, and so prepared to receive the holy oil, that lamp, well supplied with the holy oil, can to some purpose throw its light on the sinner's path. Very much more light shines from one such lamp onto the path of the wanderer, than would be given by a whole torchlight procession got up for parade and show. O, what a work may be done if we will not stretch ourselves beyond our measure! {RH, May 9, 1899 par. 14}
Johann,
Could you please explain how this quote justifies rebellion? And how not allowing women to serve as conference or mission presidents, or to ordain elders and deacons, or to organize churches keeps women from laboring for individual sinners? I really don't see the connection, and I doubt anyone else would either.
Who says it justifies rebellion? It justifies doing what you are convinced is the will of God, just like you have stated elsewhere you would do in case the GC votes something you think is not right. This is what we agree on.
Elsewhere Ulicia is quite right in what she states about the officers of the GC. I have it from one of them that the lacking light in your kind of arguments is just what is convincing some of them now that the ordination of women is the right thing for the church.
-
I did a search and failed to find the GC's criteria for ministerial ordination. Could someone who knows where it is post a link? Thanks.
-
I did a search and failed to find the GC's criteria for ministerial ordination. Could someone who knows where it is post a link? Thanks.
I guess I really need prayer. Anyway I find this topic like many of the other topics counter productive because the church is not doing what it is suppose to anyway. Sometimes I find myself identifying with the thief on the cross wanting to calm my spirit through crime. The church is so political and controlling far beyond what I believe God intended. We have trade marked our name and sued our brethren in the courts of the land. Why deny women ordination when we allow just about everything else I don't get it. We have as much counsel about the dangers of meat eating and lying, stealing, fornication, adultery and the fact that we must overcome all sin through the power of Christ. Yet we willfully deny the very core of our doctrine and teach men thus. What difference does it make whether women are ordained or not? Except, that men want to retain the control of the church and control of the tithe. Women should be ordained not because it is biblical or not but as a sign of the last days, so the church will wake up. I never understood what Jesus frustration must have been until now. No wonder he told them not to ignore the weightier parts of the law, they where totally gone spiritually. I know God is getting ready to rock this church to its very core, and I believe it won't be long. If God doesn't do something soon we will all be lost. It is time for God to take control of the reigns of the church, Lord help us. We have a bunch of good people in the church, which is so diabolical because they are actually a hindrance to the Christian development. The elders lay hands on the people and because of thus the people die faster. There is a retreat from the ultimate righteousness by faith message that we can overcome sin. Instead we are left with a knowledge of the truth but not the power to perform it. Thus it is necessary to concentrate on the things we can control, one is the act of performing ordination, whether of women or men. But the truth be told if both are left without power what difference does it make? FOR GOODNESS SAKE JUST LET THE WOMEN BE ORDAINED AND BE IN POSITIONS OF POWER. LET THEM GET A PAYCHECK THE SAME SIZE AS THE MEAN. LET THEM ENROLL IN USANA VITAMINS WITH THE INFLUENCE OF THE CHURCH AND GET RICH AND INFLUENTIAL LIKE THE MEN, PLEASE. Don't you realize God came to earth when man was in his worse state and when the church was the most corrupt? Some of these topics I cannot get real serious with. I know some of the people think they are sooooo smart, with all their quotes etc... They believe because they are a pastor or have been one or a lawyer, doctor etc... they are knowledgeable. But the truth of the matter is that their professional stance is what is killing the church and its church members. In almost every case the Lord has to get the uneducated to do his work because the suppose educated are beyond teaching. No one has been able to show how ordaining men or women will add one ounce of spirituality to our church. Why have we not overcome sin by the power of God? And please don't tell me that is impossible and then tell me to keep the Sabbath or I will go postal. Until we teach the people the truth it does not matter who teaches them, we are still lost without power, groping in the dark for a false sense of security. We are left trying to sing up dance up administrate up the power of the Holy Ghost. PLEASE JUST LET THE WOMEN MAKE A LIVING LIKE MEN, PLEASE.
-
Christian, you might recall that in the years leading up to the Civil War, the biggest fight was not the moral issue of slavery, but that of unity. The conservative southern states united under the Democrat party to keep the slaves in subjection. In the North the Republicans had to fight an enormous political battle against the status quo establishment who feared the liberated blacks as much as many cultures fear liberated women.
Whereas the Bible seemingly promotes and endorses slavery, much of the clergy and hierarchy of the mid nineteenth century successfully defended it from scripture, just as others are today.
160 years ago in the USA the morals of the issue were hidden behind a cloud of political and biblical verbiage meant to obscure, but in the end the moral prerogative prevailed. 160 years ago people with dark skin were inferior, today it is women.
160 years ago the fight to maintain slavery was led by white Europeans and Americans. Oddly, today the fight to free the oppressed is led by Europeans and Americans, while the vote of cultures steeped in subjugation of women, some who were once slaves, lead the fight to keep women in spiritual slavery today. And once again, the battle cry of the oppressors is unity.
But take heart Christian, Ellen White spoke out strongly against conservatives who would retard church growth. You are standing up for what you know is right, and in the end right will prevail, as the Bible and SOP predict. However, they also predict that the majority would first fall away.
-
Essentially Bob would be doing exacty what he charges others presently with doing--rejecting the action of what he calls the highest spiritual authority on Earth and participating in rebellion.
How so, Gregory? If the GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and a GC Session goes contrary to Scripture or the SoP, God's chosen ways of speaking to His church, how is a choice not to rebel against what God says an act of rebellion?
But, that is exactly what others are doing. Bob is criticizing them for doing exactly what they think is the will of God for them.
Can you cite for me Bible or SoP passages that mandate the ordination of women as local pastors of local churches, or as conference presidents? If not, then "what they think" is mere personal opinion or preference and not expressly stated "will of God." There is no basis for exalting mere opinion or preference above a GC Session vote.
-
I did a search and failed to find the GC's criteria for ministerial ordination. Could someone who knows where it is post a link? Thanks.
The quote from the GC WP is given here: http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,2416.msg37896/topicseen.html#msg37896
You can get your own copy at http://www.bibelschule.info/streaming/Working-policy-of-the-General-Conference-of-Seventh-day-Adventists---2005-2006_21970.pdf
-
I did a search and failed to find the GC's criteria for ministerial ordination. Could someone who knows where it is post a link? Thanks.
The quote from the GC WP is given here: http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,2416.msg37896/topicseen.html#msg37896
You can get your own copy at http://www.bibelschule.info/streaming/Working-policy-of-the-General-Conference-of-Seventh-day-Adventists---2005-2006_21970.pdf
Thanks Bob. And wow! That's like trying to read through the IRS tax codes. Lol!
-
But take heart Christian, Ellen White spoke out strongly against conservatives who would retard church growth. You are standing up for what you know is right, and in the end right will prevail, as the Bible and SOP predict. However, they also predict that the majority would first fall away.
This might be just what is happening in the near future - again. Even the good General Conference has often been against the methods of church growth called for by Ellen White from the time they chased her to Australia to 2012.
At least some of those who signed the recent plea for delay did so because they realize that more and more of those honest people who have previously rejected the ordination of women discover from reading the loudest objection today against the objection of the ordination of women, that they are venturing more and more out on thin ice as they discover themselves the weakness of their argument, and how they have to reject the clear words of Scripture and EGW in order to maintain their stubborn stand, and will eventually abandond the teaching of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
It also appears like we have quite a number of church members who have been brainwashed to think - without really understanding Scripture nor the Spirit of Prophecy - they just follow the crowd to think the real sign of truth is to object to having women abstain from doing the work God has called them to do. What a deception! This might soon drive the majority of our members to abandon ship as predicted.
-
I think that the falling away that was predicted is in reference to the tares leaving more so than the wheat.
-
Johann, Gregory, Murcielago, et al,
How is it that you, all so many years ago, decided to join the SDA church, a church so pervasively dedicated to the "slavery" and "subjugation" of women?
How is it that you received sustentation from this "evil" church? Did you swallow your convictions in order to keep the paychecks flowing?
SDAminister
-
How is it that you received sustentation from this "evil" church? Did you swallow your convictions in order to keep the paychecks flowing?
The above is a clear example of the missinformation that is posted here and the false assumptions that people make. To set the record straight:
1) I do not recieve any retirement pays from the SDA denomination.
2) I am employed full-time by the Federal (US) government. While the SDA denomination does not employ me, it has the right under the law to terminate my employment from the Federal government.
3) When the denomination, in North America, allows a minister to go to work for the Federal government, under the conditions that I first began to work for the Federal government, that employee loses all rights to recieve any retirement pay from the denomination.
How is it that you, all so many years ago, decided to join the SDA church, a church so pervasively dedicated to the "slavery" and "subjugation" of women?
Your description of the SDA Church is inflamatory, does not fit my picture of it and your sarcasm detracts from your message.
I joined and I have remained in the SDA Church because God has led me there. I look at people and institutions as human and defective in part. I do not ever expect to find a human institution that is perfect, at least not as long as I am a member.
NOTE: I have preveiously posted in this forum a very open and blunt statement as to why I have remained a member of the SDA Church. If you really want an answer to your question, you will find it there.
When I am a part of a human institution I am an agent of change. I have been employed as SDA Clergy pastoring a congregation. I have been an agent of change. In prior employment by the Federal government, I was an agent of change. In my present position, employed by the Federal government, I am an agent of change. Briefly: I change institutions. When I can no longer be that agent of change, I leave.
When I leave my present employment, I intend to write about my experiences and how I have been an agent of change. You simply do not know. You can beleive me, I will be published. But, now is not the time. Right now I can still effectively work for change in the institution that employees me.
-
Johann, Gregory, Murcielago, et al,
How is it that you, all so many years ago, decided to join the SDA church, a church so pervasively dedicated to the "slavery" and "subjugation" of women?
How is it that you received sustentation from this "evil" church? Did you swallow your convictions in order to keep the paychecks flowing?
SDAminister
I'm sorry you feel that way, and sorry to see an SDA minister feel that he needs to sink to sarcastic zingers in a respectful discussion where there are differences. Bob and I have differences, but we have consistently discussed them in a respectful manner toward each other. Although I don't agree with everything he says, I have a great respect for him.
-
Johann, Gregory, Murcielago, et al,
How is it that you, all so many years ago, decided to join the SDA church, a church so pervasively dedicated to the "slavery" and "subjugation" of women?
How is it that you received sustentation from this "evil" church? Did you swallow your convictions in order to keep the paychecks flowing?
SDAminister
As a reply to your sarcasm:
1. I do not receive a sustentation from the SDA church because that has been discontinued in this part of the world.
2. The church I belong to and have served, has for many years employed female pastors and is only waiting for the General Conference to be obedient to the clear call of God through Scripture and the writings of EGW to ordain the female pastors that are working for us.
-
Johann, Gregory, Murcielago, et al,
How is it that you, all so many years ago, decided to join the SDA church, a church so pervasively dedicated to the "slavery" and "subjugation" of women?
How is it that you received sustentation from this "evil" church? Did you swallow your convictions in order to keep the paychecks flowing?
SDAminister
I'm sorry you feel that way, and sorry to see an SDA minister feel that he needs to sink to sarcastic zingers in a respectful discussion where there are differences. Bob and I have differences, but we have consistently discussed them in a respectful manner toward each other. Although I don't agree with everything he says, I have a great respect for him.
I have respect for all of you, but considering the inflammatory remarks made from time to time by the proponents of WO, I don't feel that SDAminister's comments are out of line.
-
Johann, Gregory, Murcielago, et al,
How is it that you, all so many years ago, decided to join the SDA church, a church so pervasively dedicated to the "slavery" and "subjugation" of women?
How is it that you received sustentation from this "evil" church? Did you swallow your convictions in order to keep the paychecks flowing?
SDAminister
I'm sorry you feel that way, and sorry to see an SDA minister feel that he needs to sink to sarcastic zingers in a respectful discussion where there are differences. Bob and I have differences, but we have consistently discussed them in a respectful manner toward each other. Although I don't agree with everything he says, I have a great respect for him.
I have respect for all of you, but considering the inflammatory remarks made from time to time by the proponents of WO, I don't feel that SDAminister's comments are out of line.
I don't disagree. There has been a lot of inflammatory language from both sides in this discussion. And I'm sure there will be more before its over. I was just surprised to see it from him, but I wouldn't say he was out of line for expressing himself. It's just how this discussion seems to go.
-
Sarcasm IL can live with better than falsehood.
Falshhood has not been lilmited tdo one side.
As falsehood can stem from ignorance, rather than evil intent, I can live with it better than the personal attacks on people's motives. Both were clearly present in the psot bySDA Minister.
I agree with prior comments about Bob Pickle. He and I clearly differ on some points. However, in the recent discussions that he and I have had in this forum, he has generally been appropriate. I have appreciated that very much.
Why do I say "generally?" Because I Do not consider comments that he has made in regard to the ordiantion of dogs as approriate.
-
At least some of those who signed the recent plea for delay ....
Johann, the above excerpt concerns me, as it leaves the impression that you support rebellion. I have no issue with someone who wants to promote the idea of WO, as long as they use biblical rather than cultural arguments. But I do take issue with any support of rebellion,whether it comes from someone who is pro-WO or someone who is anti-WO.
Why do I say "generally?" Because I Do not consider comments that he has made in regard to the ordiantion of dogs as approriate.
Then we will have to agree to disagree on that one. If people discussing gay "marriage" can point out the absurdity of the notion that we can marry whatever we want by talking about marrying a cat or dog or whatever, then certainly people discussing WO can point out the absurdity of the notion that unions can ordain whatever they want by talking about unions ordaining a cat or dog or whatever.
Personally, I think that the reason my comments to that effect were deemed inappropriate is because my point cannot be refuted in any other way.
-
2. The church I belong to and have served, has for many years employed female pastors and is only waiting for the General Conference to be obedient to the clear call of God through Scripture and the writings of EGW to ordain the female pastors that are working for us.
I'm glad they are waiting. But where is the clear call of God through Scripture and the writings of EGW that: (a) Men and women ministers may primarily serve as local pastors of local churches? (b) Women may be "invested with full ecclesiastical authority" "to baptize" and to "organize churches" (LP 42)?
You said that there is a "clear call of God through Scripture and the writings of EGW," and yet you have never quoted for us this clear call to do (a) and (b) above. If it is that clear, then by all means settle the controversy and quote the clear call for us.
-
2. The church I belong to and have served, has for many years employed female pastors and is only waiting for the General Conference to be obedient to the clear call of God through Scripture and the writings of EGW to ordain the female pastors that are working for us.
I'm glad they are waiting. But where is the clear call of God through Scripture and the writings of EGW that: (a) Men and women ministers may primarily serve as local pastors of local churches? (b) Women may be "invested with full ecclesiastical authority" "to baptize" and to "organize churches" (LP 42)?
You said that there is a "clear call of God through Scripture and the writings of EGW," and yet you have never quoted for us this clear call to do (a) and (b) above. If it is that clear, then by all means settle the controversy and quote the clear call for us.
I wonder why nobody has taken up this challenge presented here by Bob?
-
Maybe because quietly, one by one, folks are learning the consequences of doing just that.
-
"Sister Caro Very Capable Woman—
Sister Caro is a superior dentist. She has all the work she can do. She is a tall stately woman, but sociable and companionable. You would love her if you should see her. She does not hoard her means, she puts it into bags which wax not old. She handles an immense amount of money, and she uses the money to educate young men to become laborers for the Master. I am greatly attached to her. She holds her diploma as dentist and her credentials as minister.
She speaks to the church when there is no minister, so you see that she is a very capable woman. Her husband is a physician and surgeon."—Letter 33, 1893, p. 2 MR678 {9MR 25.1}
Sister Caro not only does her business, but she has a ministerial license [MRS. CARO IS LISTED IN THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST YEARBOOK FOR 1894, P. 7, AS MINISTERIAL "LICENTIATE."] and bears many burdens in their church at Napier [New Zealand]. She speaks to the people, is intelligent and every way capable.
Manuscript 22, 1893, p. 2. (Untitled, July 12, 1893.) {9MR 25.2}
-
I wonder why nobody has taken up this challenge presented here by Bob?
A challenge does not have to be aacceepted, jsut because it was made.
I remind you of the recent litigation where Bob asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a Writ. That was a challoenge which gave 3-ABN the oopportunity to rebut the issuance of a Writ. The attorney who represented 3-ABN refused to take up the challenge and attempt to rebut the request that Bob had made.
In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant the request for a writ. There was no need for the 3-ABN attorney to respond to the challenge.
-
2. The church I belong to and have served, has for many years employed female pastors and is only waiting for the General Conference to be obedient to the clear call of God through Scripture and the writings of EGW to ordain the female pastors that are working for us.
I'm glad they are waiting. But where is the clear call of God through Scripture and the writings of EGW that: (a) Men and women ministers may primarily serve as local pastors of local churches? (b) Women may be "invested with full ecclesiastical authority" "to baptize" and to "organize churches" (LP 42)?
You said that there is a "clear call of God through Scripture and the writings of EGW," and yet you have never quoted for us this clear call to do (a) and (b) above. If it is that clear, then by all means settle the controversy and quote the clear call for us.
I wonder why nobody has taken up this challenge presented here by Bob?
Because I see no reason to repeat myself again and again.
-
2. The church I belong to and have served, has for many years employed female pastors and is only waiting for the General Conference to be obedient to the clear call of God through Scripture and the writings of EGW to ordain the female pastors that are working for us.
I'm glad they are waiting. But where is the clear call of God through Scripture and the writings of EGW that: (a) Men and women ministers may primarily serve as local pastors of local churches? (b) Women may be "invested with full ecclesiastical authority" "to baptize" and to "organize churches" (LP 42)?
You said that there is a "clear call of God through Scripture and the writings of EGW," and yet you have never quoted for us this clear call to do (a) and (b) above. If it is that clear, then by all means settle the controversy and quote the clear call for us.
I wonder why nobody has taken up this challenge presented here by Bob?
Because I see no reason to repeat myself again and again.
Can you show me where you already answered that question?
-
Daryl, my friend and I seriously consider you to be my friend.
Johan has responded to the question that he has been asked. There is no reason for him to repeat himself again.
He and I have both been challenged to provide clear answers to questions that he and I have responded to in the past. Our answers have not satisfied people who contnue to ask the questions. Current challenges are generally phrased with a: Provide a clear stataement where . . . . . [insert the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy says . . . .]. It is clear that there is no value in repeating answers that have been rejected in the past. So, why should we repeat them?
-
Daryl, my friend and I seriously consider you to be my friend.
Johan has responded to the question that he has been asked. There is no reason for him to repeat himself again.
He and I have both been challenged to provide clear answers to questions that he and I have responded to in the past. Our answers have not satisfied people who contnue to ask the questions. Current challenges are generally phrased with a: Provide a clear stataement where . . . . . [insert the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy says . . . .]. It is clear that there is no value in repeating answers that have been rejected in the past. So, why should we repeat them?
Because somebody different is asking, namely myself, who had never asked previously.
-
2. The church I belong to and have served, has for many years employed female pastors and is only waiting for the General Conference to be obedient to the clear call of God through Scripture and the writings of EGW to ordain the female pastors that are working for us.
I'm glad they are waiting. But where is the clear call of God through Scripture and the writings of EGW that: (a) Men and women ministers may primarily serve as local pastors of local churches? (b) Women may be "invested with full ecclesiastical authority" "to baptize" and to "organize churches" (LP 42)?
You said that there is a "clear call of God through Scripture and the writings of EGW," and yet you have never quoted for us this clear call to do (a) and (b) above. If it is that clear, then by all means settle the controversy and quote the clear call for us.
I wonder why nobody has taken up this challenge presented here by Bob?
Because I see no reason to repeat myself again and again.
Can you show me where you already answered that question?
No, Daryl, because that is the total picture of what I have been posting here for a long time. Too often the discussions here are limited to short phrases taken out of context which obliterate the total picture of redemption in Jesus Christ.
When this challenge was issued to me here on AT my wife and I were on a 6-day trip to enjoy nature. We intended to take a round trip of our country, but bad weather made us turn around and take the same way back. Our access to the Internet was mostly limited to stops we made at larger gas stations, where we were often disturbed by children, etc. So my concentration was quite limited for several days.
But now that my Division President has made it clear, and this is what I was referring to, I feel it is best that you see for yourself what he says. His views have been presented here now both by myself and Dedication.
Besides that, let me just repeat a few points.
We have seen lengthy discussions of what happened in 1891, and it has been made clear that some males tabled this in a committee, and it has even been suggested who these men were. So it could be suggested that some of the same men shipped EGW off to Australia.
Regardless of what happened in 1891, we have not found a single indication that EGW had anything to say against the proposal of ordaining women. Bob has tried to show us that there could have been some men who were opposed to it, at least we know that it did not happen.
Did EGW object to their opinions? It is my honest opinion, based on her writings, that under divine guidance EGW attempted to re-introduce the idea of ordaining women evangelists, then on a different level as part time evangelists who were to be ordained. This is what she made clear in 1895, and through several articles and writings, where she envisioned a great army of female evangelists meeting urgent needs in the homes and thereby revolutionize the whole concept of soul winning.
I understand the main hindrance being the vanity of egocentric men who were unwilling to break their traditional view of male superiority, fostered by what Pastor John from Yugoslavia termed as his own cultural tradition framed by Roman Catholicism, Orthodox, and Islamic teachings - until he had the time to read his Bible.
I invite you to do the same. Yesterday and today I have read quite a number of chapters in the New Testament, which inevitably leads to prayer, re-dedication, and a clearer understanding of the atonement of Jesus Christ, the investigative judgment going on, not to speak of the living hope of Jesus coming again.
Edited: 1891 - should have been 1881. Sorry for the mistake!
-
Daryl, my friend and I seriously consider you to be my friend.
Johan has responded to the question that he has been asked. There is no reason for him to repeat himself again.
He and I have both been challenged to provide clear answers to questions that he and I have responded to in the past. Our answers have not satisfied people who contnue to ask the questions. Current challenges are generally phrased with a: Provide a clear stataement where . . . . . [insert the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy says . . . .]. It is clear that there is no value in repeating answers that have been rejected in the past. So, why should we repeat them?
:TY:
Such a typical way to make it impossible to give an intelligent answer.
-
In that case I consider this a done deal and a closed issue between the two of you; namely Johann and Gregory.
In other words, I am done discussing this with the two of you.
-
LOL!! :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:
Join the club, Daryl!! There seems to be a lot of that going around!!
:thumbsup:
-
LOL!! :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:
Join the club, Daryl!! There seems to be a lot of that going around!!
:thumbsup:
When people don't want to respond to me, I in turn don't want to respond to them, no matter who they are.
-
In that case I consider this a done deal and a closed issue between the two of you; namely Johann and Gregory.
In other words, I am done discussing this with the two of you.
Daryl, I hope that we can remain friends.
There are many reasons why I do not post.
1) Some issues simply to not raise my interest level to the pont where I am willing to spend time posting.
2) I often do not post when other have said everything that I might say and/or said it better.
3) I Do not repeat myself a never ending set of times.
Daryl, I work full-time and cannot spend the amount of time on the Internet that I might wish. I have some vision problems and must spend extra time attempting to remove the typos from my psots. In addition to the micro-surgery that I had in January, I am now headed for catarect surgery.
GregoryMatthews
-
"Sister Caro Very Capable Woman—
Sister Caro is a superior dentist. She has all the work she can do. She is a tall stately woman, but sociable and companionable. You would love her if you should see her. She does not hoard her means, she puts it into bags which wax not old. She handles an immense amount of money, and she uses the money to educate young men to become laborers for the Master. I am greatly attached to her. She holds her diploma as dentist and her credentials as minister.
She speaks to the church when there is no minister, so you see that she is a very capable woman. Her husband is a physician and surgeon."—Letter 33, 1893, p. 2 MR678 {9MR 25.1}
Sister Caro not only does her business, but she has a ministerial license [MRS. CARO IS LISTED IN THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST YEARBOOK FOR 1894, P. 7, AS MINISTERIAL "LICENTIATE."] and bears many burdens in their church at Napier [New Zealand]. She speaks to the people, is intelligent and every way capable.
Manuscript 22, 1893, p. 2. (Untitled, July 12, 1893.) {9MR 25.2}
Women were given the credentials of a licensed minister, that is true. I don't see any problem with that.
-
Johan has responded to the question that he has been asked.
Gregory, Johann hasn't provided any quotations for us from the Bible or SoP which clearly mandate that women be ordained to organize churches, baptize, or ordain local elders and deacons. That's what he really needs to do.
-
Johan has responded to the question that he has been asked.
Gregory, Johann hasn't provided any quotations for us from the Bible or SoP which clearly mandate that women be ordained to organize churches, baptize, or ordain local elders and deacons. That's what he really needs to do.
Could that be why Johann didn't even provide me with a link to the post where he said he had previously already answered that question?
-
Give it a rest!!!!!
Johann can't give you a single link because this has been going on and on and on and on....
-
Give it a rest!!!!!
Johann can't give you a single link because this has been going on and on and on and on....
And it is still going on and on and on and on....
-
Right now I have an important sermon to preach to feed the people with a real message from God. It takes prayer, meditation, and Bible study. You might have to wait til next week before I answer another one of your needless questions.
I warn you that you need lots of prayer, meditation, and Bible study before you are ready for the reply, and if the good Lord hasn't got hold of you yet, . . .
Try to read all of Acts, Ephesians, Philippians, Hebrews, and keep on from there. Don't forget Psalms 119:105. Reading the Word of God is not going to hurt your soul.
Reading all of Steps to Christ in one sitting wouldn't do you much harm either. Get hold of Jesus Christ and discover what He will do for you. Do like Jacob had to do: Hold tight, and do not let go. This is the message we must give to our people after it gets hold of us.
Well, I'll keep you in my prayers.
-
One can only wonder in astonishment that the resolution to ordain qualified women to the ministry was made in the 1881 General Conference Session! I know it was never voted on, but it was still part of the 1881 GC meeting!
Why would this subject come up back then?
I mean -- if this really is a "Korah" situation of rebelling against God, you would think such a resolution won't have surfaced in 1881. Or at least that it would have been quickly voted DOWN, but instead it was referred to the General Conference Committe.
They were living in a culture where women weren't ordained into the ministry in any of the churches (other than the Quakers and Salvation Army).
There certainly wasn't any "politically correct" pressure on them to ordain women. In those days it was NOT regarded as "correct" to ordain women by society at large.
So why were they considering it in the 1881 General Conference?
According to a letter written by a Clarence Crisler, June 16, 1916, the reason ordination of women was not pushed in the church was due to " perils that such general practice would expose the church to by a gainsaying world."
So in essense it was culture that held it back.
-
One can only wonder in astonishment that the resolution to ordain qualified women to the ministry was made in the 1881 General Conference Session! I know it was never voted on, but it was still part of the 1881 GC meeting!
Why would this subject come up back then?
I mean -- if this really is a "Korah" situation of rebelling against God, you would think such a resolution won't have surfaced in 1881. Or at least that it would have been quickly voted DOWN, but instead it was referred to the General Conference Committe.
They were living in a culture where women weren't ordained into the ministry in any of the churches (other than the Quakers and Salvation Army).
There certainly wasn't any "politically correct" pressure on them to ordain women. In those days it was NOT regarded as "correct" to ordain women by society at large.
So why were they considering it in the 1881 General Conference?
According to a letter written by a Clarence Crisler, June 16, 1916, the reason ordination of women was not pushed in the church was due to " perils that such general practice would expose the church to by a gainsaying world."
So in essense it was culture that held it back.
I think the more important question is what the 1881 resolution was really intended to mean. If it was meant to authorize preaching and evangelizing, then it means less than if that resolution was meant to authorize the organizing of churches and baptizing.
-
What do you mean by "authorize the organizing of churches and baptizing".
Of course many authorized to preach and evangelize, if they seriously do that, are going to be raising new churches and companies in places where their were none.
It seems a rather "new thing" to think of ordination as meaning being conference president.
The actual "authorization" or including a new congregation into the statistics of the conference records of churches is of course, the role of the conference administration, not the work of the evangelist or minister.
However, it is still the evangelist, pastor, or minister or even just a lay person preaching the gospel that raises up new churches in the first place.
As I've said before, since "headship" is to be male, ordination can still be granted to women to minister, while not entitling them to be "president" over the churches.
It's obvious that our early church didn't have a problem with women preaching the sermons and carrying the burdens of their local church, or witnessing in the community, which is essentially the work of the pastor. So why not grant them the ordinance of recognition by the church?
As to baptizing--
The only problem I see there is the physical one.
Even men sometimes have a tough time raising a large convert back up out of the water.
As I've mentioned before -- the church board is responsible for accepting or rejecting a person into membership.
A responsible pastor will present the names of perspective baptisms to the board to be voted into membership pending their baptism, before it is presented to the church as a whole. Then the church is also required to vote a new member into fellowship before their names are added to the church list.
-
What do you mean by "authorize the organizing of churches and baptizing".
An ordained, male, pastor, is authorized to organize a newly formed congregation after the local Conference has given permission for the congregatlion to be formed. This is an administrative function that has nothing to do with an evangelist baptizing 200 new members who are then organized into a congregation.
It seems a rather "new thing" to think of ordination as meaning being conference president.
[/ quote]
Yes, it is relatively new in the SDA Chruch. In our early days we had a female local Conference President for a short period of time.
However, it is still the evangelist, pastor, or minister or even just a lay person preaching the gospel that raises up new churches in the first place.
Yes, the person who organizes the congregation is usually not the one who converted the new members.
The only problem I see there is the physical one.
Even men sometimes have a tough time raising a large convert back up out of the water.
Not if they have been properly trained. Problems only ocur if the person being baptized must remain in some device such as a wheel-chair or bed.
NOTE: Some women are stronger than some men. Yesterday I watched an attractive woman doing acts on trapeze bars. She was clearly stronger than many men. She was at least as strong as the man she was workign with.
the church board is responsible for accepting or rejecting a person into membership.
False. The Chruch Board can only recommend. It is the congregation that votes one way or the other. The Church Board does not have that power.
-
Repeat post
-
What do you mean by "authorize the organizing of churches and baptizing".
I was asking Bob, because that seemed to be his repeated question.
Unfortunately my response to his post appeared on the next page, thus losing the connection.
An ordained, male, pastor, is authorized to organize a newly formed congregation after the local Conference has given permission for the congregatlion to be formed. This is an administrative function that has nothing to do with an evangelist baptizing 200 new members who are then organized into a congregation.
In all the churches I've seen officially organized, (and I've seen a few) First permission must be obtained from the conference. If the conference says "no", that's the end of the matter. If they say "yes", then the pastor in consultation with leading members of the new group decide on a date. Then conference personel come for the service. The official part isn't left to the pastor to do. Sure he, along with the members of the new group then have "nominating committee" and set people into the offices, etc.
"The actual "authorization" or including a new congregation into the statistics of the conference records of churches is of course, the role of the conference administration, not the work of the evangelist or minister."
I wanted Bob to explain how this affected "ordination".
The only problem I see [with women baptizing] there is the physical one.
Even men sometimes have a tough time raising a large convert back up out of the water.
Not if they have been properly trained. Problems only ocur if the person being baptized must remain in some device such as a wheel-chair or bed.
Yes they do! I've been witness. It takes more than "proper training", it takes some co-operation from the person being baptized. If they FORGET to keep their feet under them, or go limp, or do some panicky or other strange thing, the pastor may have a real struggle to get them up. Get a bunch of pastors together talking about all their mishaps at baptisms and they can have you laughing for hours.
NOTE: Some women are stronger than some men.
No argument there, I know I'm stronger than some men, but I also know there are men who are a LOT stronger than I am.
On the average men are stronger than the average women.
the church board is responsible for accepting or rejecting a person into membership.
False. The Chruch Board can only recommend. It is the congregation that votes one way or the other. The Church Board does not have that power.
Why don't you take the WHOLE of what I said instead of contradicting half without reference to the whole.
"A responsible pastor will present the names of perspective baptisms to the board to be voted into membership pending their baptism, before it is presented to the church as a whole. Then the church is also required to vote a new member into fellowship before their names are added to the church list."
If the church board votes it down, (unless the pastor goes against their vote) it never gets to the church.
[/quote]
-
The big problem in baptism can be the depth of the water; the shallower, the harder. Why do most lay people onto their backs?
There is a technique where the person steps forward and crouches down under the water. They are always in full control of themselves.
-
Does the Bible support the requirement of baptism into a congregation, and the vote if the church or the church board?
-
Does the Bible support the requirement of baptism into a congregation, and the vote if the church or the church board?
Good question.
Sometimes SDA pastors have done exactly that--baptize without goining a congregation. Sometimes they have gotten into trouble for doign so.
NOTE: I do not baptize a person who does not intend to associate with a congregation as I think that the Bible is clear that there is a major spiritual benefit with associating with a congregation.
-
What do you mean by "authorize the organizing of churches and baptizing".
LP 42.
As I've said before, since "headship" is to be male, ordination can still be granted to women to minister, while not entitling them to be "president" over the churches.
It's obvious that our early church didn't have a problem with women preaching the sermons and carrying the burdens of their local church, or witnessing in the community, which is essentially the work of the pastor. So why not grant them the ordinance of recognition by the church?
I agree that there is room for more than one type of ordination, especially since we already have in practice or in the SoP (a) ordination of ministers, (b) ordination of elders, (c) ordination of deacons, (d) ordination of physicians, (e) ordination of Christian help workers/deaconesses.
But then I would appreciate some sort of discussion on when a position should involve ordination and when it shouldn't. How about ordaining a VBS director? It's nebulous right now to me regarding when a position should involve ordination and when it shouldn't.
-
1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, ....
Biblically, can we be baptized and not become a part of Christ's church? It doesn't appear to be so.
Note also the comparison in the same chapter between the parts of the body and the church. That means that we're talking about a closely connected organization, not some sort of mystical concept, when we are talking about the church in the context of 1 Cor. 12.