Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => Womens Ordination & Related Issues => Topic started by: christian on July 24, 2012, 08:06:51 PM
-
I believe based on my past experience what will happen when women get ordination. Let me digress for a second and talk about the Church's stance on jewelry and the health message as examples.
I can remember the great debate on jewelry and how there were those who were saying that they needed change because of the high rate of divorce. That culturally it was an exceptable thing in America now and that it would enhance the churches appeal to the world etc... Now looking at the progression some 20 years later there is hardly a church you go in that the women and men are not in earrings and some of the men and women have makeup on etc... The debate on wearing the wedding ring was really a debate on the acceptance of Jewelry. Many are baptized today while wearing not only wedding ring but jewelry in general. But the biggest plus for the change is that now those with money no longer have to give up something of status and what they love. In the end the church receives more tithe and membership and more of an acceptance of the world.
A few years ago where I worked , an Adventist Institution, there was a debate about serving meat. Those in favor of meat being served in the facility used the fact that Ellen White had eaten meat and that the public at large would be more served if we served it. The facility had a vote and at first it was voted down, only to be brought up a number of times unitil they it was allowed, which occurred only after forcing a few who were against it into early retirement. The institution was an hospital who's goal was to heal the community and promote health. The institution has since grown financially and in overale size though it is no longer seen by many as a beacon of Adventism but rather a regular hospital like many others in the area. -----I almost forgot one humorous situation that occurred at about the same time. The Hospital had a drive to provide facilities and ashtrays for people to smoke, the same tactic as stated above was used to get it passed. Soon after allowing people to smoke the community and the United States at large lauded the dangers of smoking and the hospital went about touting there previous stance against smoking.
In the instances posted above none of the changes created a spiritual growth but in every case that I have mentioned the controversy drew us closer to the world and its stance.
I have no doubt that eventually the ordination for women will go foreward, and I do believe that in the eyes of the world the church will become more main stream and exceptable to the Protestant churches. But I also believe it will diminish the character and distinctiveness of the church. In the end it will be the opposite of what is believed and less credence will be given to the spirit of prophecy. The diabolical part of the controversy is the implication that somehow Ellen G. White wanted that to occur. The second most diabolical implication is that somehow if we don't ordinate women it somehow takes away the influence of the lady Ellen G. White that called herself more than a prophet. Despite the many instances where she would reffer to her husband to help people to understand that her position was not design to lessen the family structure or for that matter the church structure.God has always had anomalies in the church however he has always had a preferred standard and design for the church and home. In the end the church will appear more like it is about to fall but the faithfull will remain and the sinners will be sifted out. The two groups will continue to strive together until the harvest and the reaping and in the end we know God will win.
-
I'll add another example also regarding a hospital. A health worker there told me quite some time back that a fellow came in to give them all a pep talk about how it was good to do good on the Sabbath. Since non-Adventists had off on Saturday and weren't in church, it was fine to do non-emergency, elective surgery on Sabbath.
The employees listening thought, but that's the only time we have off, something like that.
Next thing they knew they were being scheduled to do non-emergency, elective surgery on Sabbath, without getting their vote, approval, or permission.
These things ought not to be. If we are going to have the greatest outpouring of the blessing of God, we have to be obedient to His will.
-
1) Christ did non emergency healing onthe Sabbath. He was crilticized for such.
2) Our mission programs often provide non-emergency medical and dental care, free of charge, ontheSabbath.
-
The second most diabolical implication is that somehow if we don't ordinate women it somehow takes away the influence of the lady Ellen G. White that called herself more than a prophet.
The fundamental Biblical issue is not ordination. The Bible does not say much about ordination of either men or women. The fundamental issue is the role that females shoulld play in spiritual nuture. From that perspective, whatever position we take on the role of women affects Ellen White. The Bible either prohibits, or permits, women to have a leaadership role in spiritual nuture. Once we establish that position, we should measure EGW by that standard.
-
1) Christ did non emergency healing onthe Sabbath. He was crilticized for such.
2) Our mission programs often provide non-emergency medical and dental care, free of charge, ontheSabbath.
Christ's miracles relieved suffering, true. But why schedule a hernia repair, for example, on Sabbath when it can just as easily be scheduled for a different day? I seem to recall that Ellen White has some counsel regarding medical workers and doing routine work on the Sabbath.
-
A hernia can be painful.
Christ was criticized for d oing healing that could have been done on another day.
-
I believe based on my past experience what will happen when women get ordination.
It seems like there was a time before 1889 when some people believed a black male pastor could never be ordained in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. What happened after that? What gates did that open? Did the Seventh-day Adventist Church survive? Did we follow our prophetic guidance?
-
Bob, most surgeries performed in hospitals are not of the "face lift" elective type.
Modern medicine can postpone many types of surgery. I have seen a broken hip postponed for three days, due to a clinical reason. We kept the patient in the hospital (required care from ward personnel) and medicated him into a state free of pain. But, without the clinical reason for not doing immediate surgery, it would not have been good care to postpone for 3 days.
Christ clearly gave care on the Sabbath that could have been given the next day. There was no immediate, required, need.
Cancerous tumors can often wait. Most broken bones can wait. But, what does it say about God to tell a patient that we must wait until after the Sabbath to pin broken bones together? In the mean time, we will medicate them into a state where they are feeling no pain.
-
Bob, most surgeries performed in hospitals are not of the "face lift" elective type.
Modern medicine can postpone many types of surgery. I have seen a broken hip postponed for three days, due to a clinical reason. We kept the patient in the hospital (required care from ward personnel) and medicated him into a state free of pain. But, without the clinical reason for not doing immediate surgery, it would not have been good care to postpone for 3 days.
Christ clearly gave care on the Sabbath that could have been given the next day. There was no immediate, required, need.
Cancerous tumors can often wait. Most broken bones can wait. But, what does it say about God to tell a patient that we must wait until after the Sabbath to pin broken bones together? In the mean time, we will medicate them into a state where they are feeling no pain.
Gregory, you discussion does not do picture what was described to me. What was described was the intentional scheduling of surgeries on Sabbath, in advance.
"Mr. So and So, I see you need to have surgery for such and such. Which day would work for you?"
"I'm off work on Saturday. How about Saturday."
"Yes, we do have an opening for Saturday."
Look at CH 223, 235. Our medical facilities are supposed to be memorials to the true Sabbath. If they operate like a worldly business in that they do routine, non-essential work on the Sabbath, then they aren't serving the purpose for which they were founded, according to CH 223, 235.
"A spirit of irreverence and carelessness in the observance of the Sabbath is liable to come into our sanitariums. ... Especially should every physician endeavor to set a right example. The nature of his duties naturally leads him to feel justified in doing on the Sabbath many things that he should refrain from doing. So far as possible, he should so plan his work that he can lay aside his ordinary duties.
"Those who, from whatever cause, are obliged to work on the Sabbath, are always in peril; they feel the loss, and from doing works of necessity they fall into the habit of doing things on the Sabbath that are not necessary" (CH 422).
It isn't just in scheduling routine surgeries that we've had some challenges in recent years. Collecting parking lot fees on Friday night after sunset has also been a problem at at least one hospital, but they fixed that, which was good.
-
It seems like there was a time before 1889 when some people believed a black male pastor could never be ordained in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Could you provide more details?
-
Bob:
I work in a teaching hospital. We never schedule surgeries for Saturday or Sunday. Do we do them on those days. Yes, but not often. When we do it is because we belive it necessary. It is never for mere convience.
NOTE: Clinically, we can postpone if required. We can medicate to the point where the person is feeling no pain. We can generally keep a person alive until we take them to susrgery.
-
Bob:
I work in a teaching hospital. We never schedule surgeries for Saturday or Sunday. Do we do them on those days. Yes, but not often. When we do it is because we belive it necessary. It is never for mere convience.
NOTE: Clinically, we can postpone if required. We can medicate to the point where the person is feeling no pain. We can generally keep a person alive until we take them to susrgery.
The concerned employee definitely referred to a change of practice without their input, whereby regular surgeries were now being scheduled in advance for Sabbath, after a guy was brought in to give them a pep talk about why it was all right.
-
I'm not surprised by that, since such a large percentage of both doctors and employees at the medical center I am most familiar with are not Adventists. I could see it happening elsewhere.
-
I'm not surprised by that, since such a large percentage of both doctors and employees at the medical center I am most familiar with are not Adventists. I could see it happening elsewhere.
But the concerned employee was an Adventist, and didn't like it, and if it got worse was going to take a stand according to what he/she said.
-
Is the employee taking a stand now?
-
I believe based on my past experience what will happen when women get ordination. Let me digress for a second and talk about the Church's stance on jewelry and the health message as examples.
I can remember the great debate on jewelry and how there were those who were saying that they needed change because of the high rate of divorce. That culturally it was an exceptable thing in America now and that it would enhance the churches appeal to the world etc... Now looking at the progression some 20 years later there is hardly a church you go in that the women and men are not in earrings and some of the men and women have makeup on etc... The debate on wearing the wedding ring was really a debate on the acceptance of Jewelry. Many are baptized today while wearing not only wedding ring but jewelry in general. But the biggest plus for the change is that now those with money no longer have to give up something of status and what they love. In the end the church receives more tithe and membership and more of an acceptance of the world.
A few years ago where I worked , an Adventist Institution, there was a debate about serving meat. Those in favor of meat being served in the facility used the fact that Ellen White had eaten meat and that the public at large would be more served if we served it. The facility had a vote and at first it was voted down, only to be brought up a number of times unitil they it was allowed, which occurred only after forcing a few who were against it into early retirement. The institution was an hospital who's goal was to heal the community and promote health. The institution has since grown financially and in overale size though it is no longer seen by many as a beacon of Adventism but rather a regular hospital like many others in the area. -----I almost forgot one humorous situation that occurred at about the same time. The Hospital had a drive to provide facilities and ashtrays for people to smoke, the same tactic as stated above was used to get it passed. Soon after allowing people to smoke the community and the United States at large lauded the dangers of smoking and the hospital went about touting there previous stance against smoking.
In the instances posted above none of the changes created a spiritual growth but in every case that I have mentioned the controversy drew us closer to the world and its stance.
I have no doubt that eventually the ordination for women will go foreward, and I do believe that in the eyes of the world the church will become more main stream and exceptable to the Protestant churches. But I also believe it will diminish the character and distinctiveness of the church. In the end it will be the opposite of what is believed and less credence will be given to the spirit of prophecy. The diabolical part of the controversy is the implication that somehow Ellen G. White wanted that to occur. The second most diabolical implication is that somehow if we don't ordinate women it somehow takes away the influence of the lady Ellen G. White that called herself more than a prophet. Despite the many instances where she would reffer to her husband to help people to understand that her position was not design to lessen the family structure or for that matter the church structure.God has always had anomalies in the church however he has always had a preferred standard and design for the church and home. In the end the church will appear more like it is about to fall but the faithfull will remain and the sinners will be sifted out. The two groups will continue to strive together until the harvest and the reaping and in the end we know God will win.
If you are male and wear a necktie, you have no room to talk about jewelry. Of course, that's just my opinion. But you will never convince me that a man's necktie serves any purpose other than to "adorn". People spend so much time quibbling over stuff like this, while others in the world are suffering and need to know about Jesus.
-
The second most diabolical implication is that somehow if we don't ordinate women it somehow takes away the influence of the lady Ellen G. White that called herself more than a prophet.
The fundamental Biblical issue is not ordination. The Bible does not say much about ordination of either men or women. The fundamental issue is the role that females shoulld play in spiritual nuture. From that perspective, whatever position we take on the role of women affects Ellen White. The Bible either prohibits, or permits, women to have a leaadership role in spiritual nuture. Once we establish that position, we should measure EGW by that standard.
Excellent!! I agree 100%! In my opinion, the church is full of double standards and inconsistencies. According to the arguments of many SDAs on the topic of WO, Mrs. White comes out looking like a false prophet.
-
I believe based on my past experience what will happen when women get ordination. Let me digress for a second and talk about the Church's stance on jewelry and the health message as examples.
I can remember the great debate on jewelry and how there were those who were saying that they needed change because of the high rate of divorce. That culturally it was an exceptable thing in America now and that it would enhance the churches appeal to the world etc... Now looking at the progression some 20 years later there is hardly a church you go in that the women and men are not in earrings and some of the men and women have makeup on etc... The debate on wearing the wedding ring was really a debate on the acceptance of Jewelry. Many are baptized today while wearing not only wedding ring but jewelry in general. But the biggest plus for the change is that now those with money no longer have to give up something of status and what they love. In the end the church receives more tithe and membership and more of an acceptance of the world.
A few years ago where I worked , an Adventist Institution, there was a debate about serving meat. Those in favor of meat being served in the facility used the fact that Ellen White had eaten meat and that the public at large would be more served if we served it. The facility had a vote and at first it was voted down, only to be brought up a number of times unitil they it was allowed, which occurred only after forcing a few who were against it into early retirement. The institution was an hospital who's goal was to heal the community and promote health. The institution has since grown financially and in overale size though it is no longer seen by many as a beacon of Adventism but rather a regular hospital like many others in the area. -----I almost forgot one humorous situation that occurred at about the same time. The Hospital had a drive to provide facilities and ashtrays for people to smoke, the same tactic as stated above was used to get it passed. Soon after allowing people to smoke the community and the United States at large lauded the dangers of smoking and the hospital went about touting there previous stance against smoking.
In the instances posted above none of the changes created a spiritual growth but in every case that I have mentioned the controversy drew us closer to the world and its stance.
I have no doubt that eventually the ordination for women will go foreward, and I do believe that in the eyes of the world the church will become more main stream and exceptable to the Protestant churches. But I also believe it will diminish the character and distinctiveness of the church. In the end it will be the opposite of what is believed and less credence will be given to the spirit of prophecy. The diabolical part of the controversy is the implication that somehow Ellen G. White wanted that to occur. The second most diabolical implication is that somehow if we don't ordinate women it somehow takes away the influence of the lady Ellen G. White that called herself more than a prophet. Despite the many instances where she would reffer to her husband to help people to understand that her position was not design to lessen the family structure or for that matter the church structure.God has always had anomalies in the church however he has always had a preferred standard and design for the church and home. In the end the church will appear more like it is about to fall but the faithfull will remain and the sinners will be sifted out. The two groups will continue to strive together until the harvest and the reaping and in the end we know God will win.
If you are male and wear a necktie, you have no room to talk about jewelry. Of course, that's just my opinion. But you will never convince me that a man's necktie serves any purpose other than to "adorn". People spend so much time quibbling over stuff like this, while others in the world are suffering and need to know about Jesus.
I at no time talked about jewelry, except to bring out the result of the controversy about the ring not really being solely about the wedding ring. Your controversy is really not with me it is with the spirit of Prophecy and the Bible. Moreover there have been a number of times in the scripture when people thought things were quibbling, when God did not see them as thus. Satans way of convincing Eve to eat of the tree was to say in essence it is a little thing and you will not really die because of that. Some things are not bad in and of themselves and the person may live a relatively good life but in the end forfeit heaven because of it. The problem with many is they like you don't understand that the quote unquote little things are what will keep people out of the kingdom of heaven. There will be many who live a good life here enjoying the fruit of this land but in the end will not gain the greatest blessing, that being heaven. David saw people of such and commented they were like a blade of grass here today, gone tomorrow. All that live Godly will suffer persecution. The paraplegic that was let down in the mist of Jesus was not so much concerned about the relief of physical pain but what he wanted was to be with Jesus in heaven. The thief on the cross did not want to get off the cross, he wanted to be with Jesus. God fits the worker for truth under his standards to do the work that is before them. The devices of men will always fail to accomplish the task as long as the Lord is not put first. There is a way that seemeth right unto a man but the end thereof are the ways of death.
-
The second most diabolical implication is that somehow if we don't ordinate women it somehow takes away the influence of the lady Ellen G. White that called herself more than a prophet.
The fundamental Biblical issue is not ordination. The Bible does not say much about ordination of either men or women. The fundamental issue is the role that females shoulld play in spiritual nuture. From that perspective, whatever position we take on the role of women affects Ellen White. The Bible either prohibits, or permits, women to have a leaadership role in spiritual nuture. Once we establish that position, we should measure EGW by that standard.
[/quot
Excellent!! I agree 100%! In my opinion, the church is full of double standards and inconsistencies. According to the arguments of many SDAs on the topic of WO, Mrs. White comes out looking like a false prophet.
I don't know how the topic of women ordination has anything to do with Ellen G. White. There is no double standard here at all. I keep asking the question why do women have breast if God intended for men and women to have the same role? I have yet to see an answer to that question. Even through the history of the Church itself, the Lord went to a man, black and white and when they were either unwilling or unable to carry the message a young girl was chosen. The history of Joan of Arch is of a similar case. However in both cases there is never an indication that the role of women should be changed even by the women so blessed. Instead in the case of Ellen and the rest men were elevated in the service of God. Only, Satan who found himself to be equal with God is concerned with position, and I can see why he would want to blurr the lines between men and women. As far as prophecy goes there are women prophets in the bible and examples of women being judge but this is not the desired course of God. Why do you think God did not pick Joseph to bear Jesus in his stomach? Some may laugh at the preposterous statement but it cuts to the root of the diabolical plan of Satan. Joseph was to be the man and do his part as a man and Mary was to be a woman and be exactly that a woman. Of course the Catholic church has placed Mary the virgin over everyone. The Adventist church while seeing Ellen G. Whites writings as inspired of God do not see Ellen G. White as Holy. Thus Adventist understand that women and men have different roles in the church and home but both of equal value. We realize that there are occasions where the different responsibility of both will be shared, however that in not the norm. The church will do everything in its power to maintain the clear lines of responsibility of men and women. This controversyof women ordination is a self generated one by some, I believe, who do not really care about women but fain so not knowing or intentionally trying to destroy the foundation of the church. Christ is the groom and the church is the bride by bible standards. Some wrongly would have you believe the bible is gender neutral.
-
I at no time talked about jewelry, except to bring out the result of the controversy about the ring not really being solely about the wedding ring. Your controversy is really not with me it is with the spirit of Prophecy and the Bible. Moreover there have been a number of times in the scripture when people thought things were quibbling, when God did not see them as thus. Satans way of convincing Eve to eat of the tree was to say in essence it is a little thing and you will not really die because of that. Some things are not bad in and of themselves and the person may live a relatively good life but in the end forfeit heaven because of it. The problem with many is they like you don't understand that the quote unquote little things are what will keep people out of the kingdom of heaven. There will be many who live a good life here enjoying the fruit of this land but in the end will not gain the greatest blessing, that being heaven. David saw people of such and commented they were like a blade of grass here today, gone tomorrow. All that live Godly will suffer persecution. The paraplegic that was let down in the mist of Jesus was not so much concerned about the relief of physical pain but what he wanted was to be with Jesus in heaven. The thief on the cross did not want to get off the cross, he wanted to be with Jesus. God fits the worker for truth under his standards to do the work that is before them. The devices of men will always fail to accomplish the task as long as the Lord is not put first. There is a way that seemeth right unto a man but the end thereof are the ways of death.
You may not have spoke of jewelry, but there are others here who have mentioned it many times, as if wearing earrings is going to keep somebody out of heaven. And when it is a man who does the judging, I just chuckle inside since more likely than not, the man faithfully wears his necktie to church every Sabbath as he looks down his nose on those heathen women. THOSE are the ones I have a controversy with...not SOP or the Bible. There are plenty of "christians" (no pun intended with your screen name) who are so busy being "right" and judging everybody else that they can't see the HUGE plank in their own eye.
-
The second most diabolical implication is that somehow if we don't ordinate women it somehow takes away the influence of the lady Ellen G. White that called herself more than a prophet.
The fundamental Biblical issue is not ordination. The Bible does not say much about ordination of either men or women. The fundamental issue is the role that females shoulld play in spiritual nuture. From that perspective, whatever position we take on the role of women affects Ellen White. The Bible either prohibits, or permits, women to have a leaadership role in spiritual nuture. Once we establish that position, we should measure EGW by that standard.
Excellent!! I agree 100%! In my opinion, the church is full of double standards and inconsistencies. According to the arguments of many SDAs on the topic of WO, Mrs. White comes out looking like a false prophet.
I don't know how the topic of women ordination has anything to do with Ellen G. White. There is no double standard here at all. I keep asking the question why do women have breast if God intended for men and women to have the same role? I have yet to see an answer to that question. Even through the history of the Church itself, the Lord went to a man, black and white and when they were either unwilling or unable to carry the message a young girl was chosen. The history of Joan of Arch is of a similar case. However in both cases there is never an indication that the role of women should be changed even by the women so blessed. Instead in the case of Ellen and the rest men were elevated in the service of God. Only, Satan who found himself to be equal with God is concerned with position, and I can see why he would want to blurr the lines between men and women. As far as prophecy goes there are women prophets in the bible and examples of women being judge but this is not the desired course of God. Why do you think God did not pick Joseph to bear Jesus in his stomach? Some may laugh at the preposterous statement but it cuts to the root of the diabolical plan of Satan. Joseph was to be the man and do his part as a man and Mary was to be a woman and be exactly that a woman. Of course the Catholic church has placed Mary the virgin over everyone. The Adventist church while seeing Ellen G. Whites writings as inspired of God do not see Ellen G. White as Holy. Thus Adventist understand that women and men have different roles in the church and home but both of equal value. We realize that there are occasions where the different responsibility of both will be shared, however that in not the norm. The church will do everything in its power to maintain the clear lines of responsibility of men and women. This controversyof women ordination is a self generated one by some, I believe, who do not really care about women but fain so not knowing or intentionally trying to destroy the foundation of the church. Christ is the groom and the church is the bride by bible standards. Some wrongly would have you believe the bible is gender neutral.
Sorry - I totally disagree with you. The SDA church was founded by a woman. Period. Having one set of standards for her and another set for everybody else...well...actually that does fit right in with the way the church operates, but it makes no sense.
-
Sorry - I totally disagree with you. The SDA church was founded by a woman.
Did you mean co-founded instead of founded?
If we want to talk about the founder, we have to talk about James, White, not Ellen White. If we want to talk about co-founders, then we can talk about Ellen White, Joseph Bates, and perhaps Hiram Edson.
-
Sorry - I totally disagree with you. The SDA church was founded by a woman.
Did you mean co-founded instead of founded?
If we want to talk about the founder, we have to talk about James, White, not Ellen White. If we want to talk about co-founders, then we can talk about Ellen White, Joseph Bates, and perhaps Hiram Edson.
No, I meant founder, just as I said. None of the others authored the SOP as far as I know.
-
You may not have spoke of jewelry, but there are others here who have mentioned it many times, as if wearing earrings is going to keep somebody out of heaven.
If eating a piece of fruit could keep Adam and Eve out of Eden, why couldn't wearing jewelry keep a man or woman out of heaven? Why not?
Is. 4:4, in light of Is. 3:16-24, sounds pretty rough. But I don't see any problem including in the warning fancy attire worn by men, even though the description in these passages is only regarding women.
-
You may not have spoke of jewelry, but there are others here who have mentioned it many times, as if wearing earrings is going to keep somebody out of heaven.
If eating a piece of fruit could keep Adam and Eve out of Eden, why couldn't wearing jewelry keep a man or woman out of heaven? Why not?
Is. 4:4, in light of Is. 3:16-24, sounds pretty rough. But I don't see any problem including in the warning fancy attire worn by men, even though the description in these passages is only regarding women.
Whatever you say, Bob. I think my meaning was pretty clear, but you can try to muddy it up, if that makes you feel better.
-
Sorry - I totally disagree with you. The SDA church was founded by a woman.
Did you mean co-founded instead of founded?
If we want to talk about the founder, we have to talk about James, White, not Ellen White. If we want to talk about co-founders, then we can talk about Ellen White, Joseph Bates, and perhaps Hiram Edson.
No, I meant founder, just as I said. None of the others authored the SOP as far as I know.
She may have authored the SoP, but she was not THE founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. She is officially listed as a co-founder along with Bates and sometimes Edson. James White is listed as THE founder.
Each of these four individuals made important contributions. Bates was the evangelist and promoted the Sabbath. Ellen was the prophetic voice. Edson at least contributed the sanctuary message. James was the publisher and the organizer.
-
Sorry - I totally disagree with you. The SDA church was founded by a woman.
Did you mean co-founded instead of founded?
If we want to talk about the founder, we have to talk about James, White, not Ellen White. If we want to talk about co-founders, then we can talk about Ellen White, Joseph Bates, and perhaps Hiram Edson.
No, I meant founder, just as I said. None of the others authored the SOP as far as I know.
She may have authored the SoP, but she was not THE founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. She is officially listed as a co-founder along with Bates and sometimes Edson. James White is listed as THE founder.
Each of these four individuals made important contributions. Bates was the evangelist and promoted the Sabbath. Ellen was the prophetic voice. Edson at least contributed the sanctuary message. James was the publisher and the organizer.
Again, whatever you say, Bob. You know exactly what I meant. It gets really tiring trying to converse with you.
-
Sorry - I totally disagree with you. The SDA church was founded by a woman.
Did you mean co-founded instead of founded?
If we want to talk about the founder, we have to talk about James, White, not Ellen White. If we want to talk about co-founders, then we can talk about Ellen White, Joseph Bates, and perhaps Hiram Edson.
No, I meant founder, just as I said. None of the others authored the SOP as far as I know.
She may have authored the SoP, but she was not THE founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. She is officially listed as a co-founder along with Bates and sometimes Edson. James White is listed as THE founder.
Each of these four individuals made important contributions. Bates was the evangelist and promoted the Sabbath. Ellen was the prophetic voice. Edson at least contributed the sanctuary message. James was the publisher and the organizer.
Again, whatever you say, Bob. You know exactly what I meant. It gets really tiring trying to converse with you.
It's an important point when dealing with critics. They may say as part of their attack that our church was founded by Ellen White, when that isn't true. Their strategy seems to be to attribute everything to her and then discredit her. Since I've had to deal with this kind of thing in the past, that's why I tend to notice it.
But check out sources like the SDA Encyclopedia, and you'll find that James White is listed as the founder, while Ellen White is one of two or three co-founders.
-
Kind of like Danny Shelton, founder of 3ABN, and Linda Shelton, co-founder.
-
Sorry - I totally disagree with you. The SDA church was founded by a woman.
Did you mean co-founded instead of founded?
If we want to talk about the founder, we have to talk about James, White, not Ellen White. If we want to talk about co-founders, then we can talk about Ellen White, Joseph Bates, and perhaps Hiram Edson.
No, I meant founder, just as I said. None of the others authored the SOP as far as I know.
She may have authored the SoP, but she was not THE founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. She is officially listed as a co-founder along with Bates and sometimes Edson. James White is listed as THE founder.
Each of these four individuals made important contributions. Bates was the evangelist and promoted the Sabbath. Ellen was the prophetic voice. Edson at least contributed the sanctuary message. James was the publisher and the organizer.
Again, whatever you say, Bob. You know exactly what I meant. It gets really tiring trying to converse with you.
It's an important point when dealing with critics. They may say as part of their attack that our church was founded by Ellen White, when that isn't true. Their strategy seems to be to attribute everything to her and then discredit her. Since I've had to deal with this kind of thing in the past, that's why I tend to notice it.
But check out sources like the SDA Encyclopedia, and you'll find that James White is listed as the founder, while Ellen White is one of two or three co-founders.
Then somebody needs to explain that to Dr. Dwight Nelson.
-
Kind of like Danny Shelton, founder of 3ABN, and Linda Shelton, co-founder.
LOL!! Yes, Artiste!! I guess it just depends on who you talk to...who the founder is. Maybe the SDA church has more in common with 3ABN than we thought!!
-
According to the arguments of many SDAs on the topic of WO, Mrs. White comes out looking like a false prophet.
I agree that this is how she looks, according to the arguments of some SDAs.
I deal with non-SDA clergy who are astounded that we, as a church with a female co-founder, could have members who argue against female clergy.
NOTE: To be clear, I do not believe that EGW was a false propher. And, I support females in leaadership roles in spiritual nuture. I beleive that God has clearly shown us in China that God supports such.
-
According to the arguments of many SDAs on the topic of WO, Mrs. White comes out looking like a false prophet.
I agree that this is how she looks, according to the arguments of some SDAs.
I deal with non-SDA clergy who are astounded that we, as a church with a female co-founder, could have members who argue against female clergy.
NOTE: To be clear, I do not believe that EGW was a false propher. And, I support females in leaadership roles in spiritual nuture. I beleive that God has clearly shown us in China that God supports such.
We are talking about ordination here, but more and more I see you are talking about leading the church. How do you know God has clearly shown us in China that God supports such? I knew that leadership is what is at the basis for this topic and conversation, not merely ordination, but that the woman should lead the church? You know the garden had plenty of trees but God said don't eat that one. I know where this is leading to a none gender church leadership to include lesbians and eventually Gay men.
-
According to the arguments of many SDAs on the topic of WO, Mrs. White comes out looking like a false prophet.
I agree that this is how she looks, according to the arguments of some SDAs.
I deal with non-SDA clergy who are astounded that we, as a church with a female co-founder, could have members who argue against female clergy.
NOTE: To be clear, I do not believe that EGW was a false propher. And, I support females in leaadership roles in spiritual nuture. I beleive that God has clearly shown us in China that God supports such.
Don't give credence to snoopy, Ellen G. White nor Her husband are the founders of the Adventist Church, Christ is. It is amazing when you listen to people closely you can better understand where they come from and what their motives really are. I have probably said this a million time, Christ is not in the grave he is risen and alive. The statements made about Ellen White are like those taught in the public school for years as truth. "Columbus discovered America" what about the Indians (Native Americans) already here? Herein lies the problem with many that are in the church they view the church just like any other denomination, man founded. Many see the church as a club or an organization that they are connected too. But the God of Heaven founded the Adventist Church and used the mouthpiece of a little girl who would become a woman to express his will. Men like her husband were put at the forfront of the work but the founder of the church was God.
-
Christian, when we talk about the founder of the SDA Chruch, we are, of course, talking on the
human level, that is to say, people whom God used.
-
When we talk about the founder and the co-founders, we are in part talking about word definations. When I say that EGW was a co-founder, I am saying that her role was equal to that of others, although different in some respects.
Our foundational, in my thinking, doctrines grew out of the so-called Sabbath conferences, of which there were five. As I understand them, EGW did not play a major role in these. I do not give her equality in the development of our foundational doctrines of which there were five. Some will probablydiffer withme on this. So be it. I see those Sabbath Conferences as being Biblically based and not based upon EGW in any knd of a major way.
However, there are three areas in which I see EGW a playing a major role in the development of the SDA Church. These are: Education (schools), Publishing and medical (hospitals & sanitoriumns). We would not be the church that we are today if it were not for the role that EGW played inthese three areas. Yes, she clearly played an administrative role.
Her role differed from that of her husband and other co-founders. but, I give it equality to that of James.
-
If eating a piece of fruit could keep Adam and Eve out of Eden, why couldn't wearing jewelry keep a man or woman out of heaven? Why not?
On one level, in a specific case, most anything could keep someone out of heaven. But, to equate Adam & Eve eating the fruit with wearing a piece of jewelry is beyond belief to me.
God directly informed Adam & Eve that they had a choice as to their relationship with Him and the Garden of Eden. They could exercise that choice by choosing to eat of the fruit of that tree. The Serpant followed that same line of reasoning wth the statement that by eating the fruit they would be able to leave their role as children of God and assume a new role equal to God Himself.
Dress, adornment & jewelry have never been elevated to this level. These are not at the center of the Christian faith.
Further, dress, adornment & jewelry have a cultural aspect. The rules are not the same in every culture.
Yes, it is of interest that a male may find it O.K. to wear a $100+ Jerry Garcia necktie and yet criticize another person for wearing a $30 wedding ring.
-
If eating a piece of fruit could keep Adam and Eve out of Eden, why couldn't wearing jewelry keep a man or woman out of heaven? Why not?
On one level, in a specific case, most anything could keep someone out of heaven. But, to equate Adam & Eve eating the fruit with wearing a piece of jewelry is beyond belief to me.
Both are what many people would consider very little things.
And there are explicit instructions in the Bible concerning both.
Sometimes the consequences of unbelief manifested in disobedience are not always laid out ahead of time.
1 Kings 20:35 And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the LORD, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man refused to smite him.
1 Kings 20:36 Then said he unto him, Because thou hast not obeyed the voice of the LORD, behold, as soon as thou art departed from me, a lion shall slay thee. And as soon as he was departed from him, a lion found him, and slew him.
1 Kings 20:37 Then he found another man, and said, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man smote him, so that in smiting he wounded him.
So I agree with you that any unbelief manifested in disobedience could have very serious consequences. They certainly did in the slain man's case in the verses above.
-
The objective part of eating the fruit was a very minor issue. The subjective part which involved wanting to assume the role of God and to reject God's counsel that they would die if the chose to eat was major.
Wearing jewelry has not had that level of subjective part attached to it and does not generally have such today.
As I have said: There is a cultural basis for issues regarding dress, adornment and jewelry. What is considered appropriate in one culture may not be considered appropriate in another culture. I will suggest that both Scripture and EGW suggest that the Christian will not flaunt the cultural values of the society in which one lives. E.G. In the area where once a SDA would be disciplined for wearing blue jeans that might have been appropriate if one could establish that in that time and place blue jeans had a very negative value that violated Christian norms.
Neither my wife or I wear wedding rings. However, we would do so if we were in a culture where we thought that we brought disrepute upon our faith by not wearing such. IOW, if we thought that our culture required it for married people who intended to live chaste lives, we would both do so.
-
The objective part of eating the fruit was a very minor issue. The subjective part which involved wanting to assume the role of God and to reject God's counsel that they would die if the chose to eat was major.
Regarding the motive for eating, that would be true for Eve, but not for Adam.
Wearing jewelry has not had that level of subjective part attached to it and does not generally have such today.
I don't know. When you have Peter and Paul telling us not to decorate our outward appearance, and we decide we're going to do it anyway, that's pretty audacious.
Note: I didn't say "jewelry" in the above sentence. The counsel is against more than just that.
Would you agree that Is. 66 does connect "that level of subjective part," or something comparable, to the eating of swine, the abomination, and the mouse?
-
The objective part of eating the fruit was a very minor issue. The subjective part which involved wanting to assume the role of God and to reject God's counsel that they would die if the chose to eat was major.
Wearing jewelry has not had that level of subjective part attached to it and does not generally have such today.
As I have said: There is a cultural basis for issues regarding dress, adornment and jewelry. What is considered appropriate in one culture may not be considered appropriate in another culture. I will suggest that both Scripture and EGW suggest that the Christian will not flaunt the cultural values of the society in which one lives. E.G. In the area where once a SDA would be disciplined for wearing blue jeans that might have been appropriate if one could establish that in that time and place blue jeans had a very negative value that violated Christian norms.
Neither my wife or I wear wedding rings. However, we would do so if we were in a culture where we thought that we brought disrepute upon our faith by not wearing such. IOW, if we thought that our culture required it for married people who intended to live chaste lives, we would both do so.
You think way to hard, I mean way to hard. The act of eating the fruit was indeed the major part of the transgression. And I already express to you that the issue surrounding the wedding ring was a smoke screen for the introduction of jewelry in general. I have seen plenty of baptisms that include the individual in makeup and jewelry being baptise.
-
I recently heard a religion professor from an SDA university say that the sin is not in the action, it is in the rebellion. He said that if a person believes that God has commanded something, even if He hasn't, and they act out of line with their belief, they have sinned. Yet, another person who holds no such belief can perform the same act and not sin. He used a donut as an example. If Peter believes that God has forbidden the eating of donuts, yet he goes down to the local cop hang-out and eats a donut, he has placed his will above God's. Maybe eating the donut was not a sin, but in eating the donut he still sinned against God. Now Mary doesn't believe Peter's assertion that donuts are forbidden food, and she also eats one. Has she sinned? Peter asserts that God wants us to be healthy and in eating something unhealthy we are in direct disobedience, thus, in sin. He believes that donuts, although not specifically mentioned in the Bible, are fundamentally wrong. Is it possible that when they go out for a donut, Paul is truly sinning, and Mary is not?
-
It's a good thing we are not the judge. It can get complicated for us human beings to figure out.
Romans 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Yes, the principle the professor was sharing is true.
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
If there is something definitely forbidden by God, and someone doesn't know about it and doesn't think doing it is sin, the question is also whether or not that someone had opportunity to know, and rejected that opportunity.
Another thing we can be glad about, besides that God is our judge, is that He postpones the judgment so that if I goof today I still have opportunity to confess, repent, and make amends. However, I can't procrastinate without risk since I don't know how long I will have to do so.
-
I agree with that explanation and the texts you shared.
-
In fact, ordination is not really a Bible teaching. It is a tradition which developed over centuries in the Catholic Church and then was adopted by Protestants, including Adventists. Ellen G. White held the credentials of an ordained minister for decades and orthodox, loyal Seventh-day Adventists in China have ordained 17 women as ministers, starting in the 1980s.
-
So Peter's conviction that eating a donut does not make it a sin for Mary? Peter has a strong argument for his belief. Although the Bible does not specify donuts, it says that we are the temple of God, and it stands to reason that eating a donut it a veritable assault on that temple, at least to some, and thus eating a donut should constitute sin to anyone who hears Peter's assertion. If Mary doesn't agree with Peter's theory is she in sin for ignoring a divine command, as per Peter and his interpretation?
-
Or, is Peter in sin because he relentlessly pounded on Mary for her donut indiscretions (in his view) to the point that Mary was no longer interested in hearing anything relating to Peter's religious views?? Instead of teaching Mary about the love of Jesus, will Peter have to answer for the impact his incessant preaching and holier-than-thou attitude had on Mary such that he basically drove her away? And when Peter falls off that holier-than-thou pedestal he uses for preaching, will he break any bones?
-
In fact, ordination is not really a Bible teaching.
Sounds good, but is it true? I don't think so. One of the chapters in DA is entitled, "Ho ordained Twelve." And then there is the following description of Paul and Barnabas' ordination:
"Both Paul and Barnabas had been laboring as ministers of Christ, and God had abundantly blessed their efforts; but neither of them had previously been formally ordained to the gospel ministry by prayer and the laying on of hands. They were now authorized by the church, not only to teach the truth, but to baptize, and to organize churches, being invested with full ecclesiastical authority" (LP 42).
I suspect this is another example where an argument in favor of WO has not been well thought out or verified, or is being used anyway.
It is a tradition which developed over centuries in the Catholic Church and then was adopted by Protestants, including Adventists.
Now someone needs to explain how the Catholic Church "developed" ordination in or prior to the first century in time for Jesus to ordain the twelve and in time for Paul and Barnabas to be ordained.
Ellen G. White held the credentials of an ordained minister for decades and orthodox, loyal Seventh-day Adventists in China have ordained 17 women as ministers, starting in the 1980s.
This is misleading if the entity making the decision about who is going to be ordained is in reality the communist government.
Recall also that there has been an influence pushing the idea that just as in China they have the three self movement whereby the locals fund themselves, administrate themselves, and evangelize without assistance, there also ought to be a fourth self, whereby the locals come up with their own theology. And if that theology doesn't include the mark of the beast, 1844, and the sanctuary, that is all right, since those doctrines don't scratch where it itches.
So I'm not sure how far we want to push this China stuff.
-
Sin, what is it from the Biblical viewpoint? People who like argue (discuss) the Bible typicallly bring up their favorite texts to prove a point. Often they are correct, as far as they go. But, they will often forget one aspect os the Biblical teaching on sin. That aspect is: God does not charge us with sin, even when committed, unless we have been convicted on that point and following that conviction we rebell against that conviction.
There are several texts on this that one can easily find. My favorite is: "To him who knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin."
In brief: The Holy Spirit is our spiritual teacher. It is the HS who convicts us as to the will of God. As humans, none of us know the complete will of God for us and we all have more to learn. The HS teaches us individually according the what God wants us to learn at that point in time in our lives. God holds us accountable for our reaction to the leading of the HS. Yes, we typically resist and rebell, but that is where the plan of salvation comes into action. In the Cross there is salvation from our rebellion.
God is good!
-
Bob, you suggest that ordination is a Biblical concept and those who suggest otherwise are wrong. To support your statement you reference a statement that EGW has made. I find it interesting that you fail to provide a Biblical basis for your suggestion that ordination is Biblical.
I personally tend to agree with the statement that ordination is not derived from the Bible. But, I do not think that position is a slam dunk. If I were to want to argue that ordination is Biblical, I could find some texts that might provide some suport for the idea that it is Biblical. So, I am willing to state that you may be correct in your view that ordination is Biblical. I am simply surprised that after telling us that ordination may be Biblical you fail to support your position with Biblical support. Rather, you go to EGW.
-
Or, is Peter in sin because he relentlessly pounded on Mary for her donut indiscretions (in his view) to the point that Mary was no longer interested in hearing anything relating to Peter's religious views?? Instead of teaching Mary about the love of Jesus, will Peter have to answer for the impact his incessant preaching and holier-than-thou attitude had on Mary such that he basically drove her away? And when Peter falls off that holier-than-thou pedestal he uses for preaching, will he break any bones?
Snooopy has raised a valid point.
We represent God to others. I would not want to spend eternity with the God that some people portray.
It should be noted that the God of love that exists is not a mamby pamby God. An understanding of the Cross demonstrates the the price of sin and its consequences. There is a price paid for sin. There are consequences. God does not do away with those as God cannot. We humans make choices and those choices have consequences. Those who chose to seperate from God will be able to do so which includes the consequence of the choice to eternally seperate from God.
The god that some people represent is manipulative, dishonest, arbitrary, vendictive and much more. An eternity with such a god is not attractive to me.
Thankfully, in the light of the Cross, a different God is presented.
-
So Peter's conviction that eating a donut does not make it a sin for Mary? Peter has a strong argument for his belief. Although the Bible does not specify donuts, it says that we are the temple of God, and it stands to reason that eating a donut it a veritable assault on that temple, at least to some, and thus eating a donut should constitute sin to anyone who hears Peter's assertion. If Mary doesn't agree with Peter's theory is she in sin for ignoring a divine command, as per Peter and his interpretation?
The idea is expressed above that Mary may be in sin if after hearing Peter proclaim such, Mary ignores it and eats the forbidden pastry. Such, in my thinking, would only be true if the Holy Spirit had convicted Mary, on the basis of his comment that eating that pastry was sin. It is the HS who convicts of sin. We humans do not. Yes, the HS may use us.
Perhaps, the HS used Peter to proclaim the forbidden pastry? Or, perhaps, there was some other orgin for Peter's proclaimation. I will suggest that sometimes Saten proclaims truth in a manner that causes people to see God in a false light and to reject that proclaimation of "truth." NOTE: Truth that is proclaimed in a manner designed to fit the strategy of Saten should not be called truth.
-
So Peter's conviction that eating a donut does not make it a sin for Mary? Peter has a strong argument for his belief. Although the Bible does not specify donuts, it says that we are the temple of God, and it stands to reason that eating a donut it a veritable assault on that temple, at least to some, and thus eating a donut should constitute sin to anyone who hears Peter's assertion. If Mary doesn't agree with Peter's theory is she in sin for ignoring a divine command, as per Peter and his interpretation?
The idea is expressed above that Mary may be in sin if after hearing Peter proclaim such, Mary ignores it and eats the forbidden pastry. Such, in my thinking, would only be true if the Holy Spirit had convicted Mary, on the basis of his comment that eating that pastry was sin. It is the HS who convicts of sin. We humans do not. Yes, the HS may use us.
Perhaps, the HS used Peter to proclaim the forbidden pastry? Or, perhaps, there was some other orgin for Peter's proclaimation. I will suggest that sometimes Saten proclaims truth in a manner that causes people to see God in a false light and to reject that proclaimation of "truth." NOTE: Truth that is proclaimed in a manner designed to fit the strategy of Saten should not be called truth.
Now Peter and his fellow believers on the donut wagon may say that the Holy Sirit indeed spoke to Mary through him, and in ignoring Peter and his donut theology, she has disregarded the light of present truth and chosen to label the Holy Spirit as the mere word of Peter, thus making the choice to live in sin when truth was at her disposal.
-
Now Peter and his fellow believers on the donut wagon may say that the Holy Sirit indeed spoke to Mary through him, and in ignoring Peter and his donut theology, she has disregarded the light of present truth and chosen to label the Holy Spirit as the mere word of Peter, thus making the choice to live in sin when truth was at her disposal.
Yes, if indeed the Holy Spirit did convict her.
However, it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit would tell Peter that Mary had been convicted by the Holy Spirit. So, if Peter and his followers were to say such, they would be tresspassing in areas that belong to God alone. God alone convicts. Other humans do not know whether or not God has convicted. The mere presentation of truth by a human does not ipso facto result in conviction by the Holy Spirit.
-
Bob, you suggest that ordination is a Biblical concept and those who suggest otherwise are wrong. To support your statement you reference a statement that EGW has made. I find it interesting that you fail to provide a Biblical basis for your suggestion that ordination is Biblical.
I personally tend to agree with the statement that ordination is not derived from the Bible. But, I do not think that position is a slam dunk. If I were to want to argue that ordination is Biblical, I could find some texts that might provide some suport for the idea that it is Biblical. So, I am willing to state that you may be correct in your view that ordination is Biblical. I am simply surprised that after telling us that ordination may be Biblical you fail to support your position with Biblical support. Rather, you go to EGW.
If we want to find a biblical basis, we could go the passages upon which that DA chapter is based, or the passage in Acts that refers to Paul and Barnabas' ordination.
Mark 3:14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
Luke 9:1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
One nice thing about the SoP is that it removes a bit of the room for argument or uncertainty regarding whether this or that word or phrase was translated correctly, or regarding how to apply biblical concepts to more recent situations. But it does not replace the need for Bible study, and to base all our beliefs on the Bible.
-
So Peter's conviction that eating a donut does not make it a sin for Mary? Peter has a strong argument for his belief. Although the Bible does not specify donuts, it says that we are the temple of God, and it stands to reason that eating a donut it a veritable assault on that temple, at least to some, and thus eating a donut should constitute sin to anyone who hears Peter's assertion. If Mary doesn't agree with Peter's theory is she in sin for ignoring a divine command, as per Peter and his interpretation?
The idea is expressed above that Mary may be in sin if after hearing Peter proclaim such, Mary ignores it and eats the forbidden pastry. Such, in my thinking, would only be true if the Holy Spirit had convicted Mary, on the basis of his comment that eating that pastry was sin. It is the HS who convicts of sin. We humans do not. Yes, the HS may use us.
I think it is a little more complex than that.
"But that mighty evidence given to the Pharisees did not convert them. Men can so encase themselves in unbelief, doubt, and infidelity that the raising of the dead would not convict them. Because of their unbelief they would be in the same unbelieving position, unconvicted, unconverted" (FW 68).
"How many there are who are unwarned, and in consequence unconvicted. They are passing on, in harmony with the world and with the desires of their own undisciplined, unsubdued hearts. They live in pleasure and worldliness, and should sickness come, and death overtake them, they would be found unready" (RH 3-31-04).
"But for the mirror which Nathan held up before him, in which he so clearly recognized his own likeness, he would have gone on unconvicted of his heinous sin, and would have been ruined. The conviction of his guilt was the saving of his soul" (2BC 1023).
Based on these passages, I think it possible for someone to never be convicted about a particular sin, and to still be lost. So I don't think that whether someone has been convicted on a particular question is necessary the deciding factor.
-
Bob said:
Based on these passages, I think it possible for someone to never be convicted about a particular sin, and to still be lost. So I don't think that whether someone has been convicted on a particular question is necessary the deciding factor.
In the specific examples that you gave, I would not argue with you. In those examples, I would suggest that the individuals involved had made choices to reject the leading of the Holy Spirit. Once that decision had been made, they may have stood unconvicted on later attempts by the Holy Spirit to lead them. But, I will suggest that their loss of salvation came about due to their prior rejection of the Holy Spirit. They made a choice and God accepted that choice.
-
Or, is Peter in sin because he relentlessly pounded on Mary for her donut indiscretions (in his view) to the point that Mary was no longer interested in hearing anything relating to Peter's religious views?? Instead of teaching Mary about the love of Jesus, will Peter have to answer for the impact his incessant preaching and holier-than-thou attitude had on Mary such that he basically drove her away? And when Peter falls off that holier-than-thou pedestal he uses for preaching, will he break any bones?
I'd have to agree, Snoopy, that that type of behavior can be pretty bad, and Peter would most likely break some bones.
-
Zdravko Plantak
Five minutes ago, at the historic Columbia Union Conference Constituency meeting regarding ORDINATION TO GOSPEL MINISTRY WITHOUT REGARD TO GENDER, our Union has voted positively on this motion and has trail-blazed (as before) for the rest of the SDA church. May God continue to bless ministry of all who are called regardless of gender!
-
We now see in the reports from CUC that president Ted Wilson was present at the meeting, but that every protest of his was met with such a convincing reply that it did not prevent the delegates from voting in favor of ordaining ministers without regard to gender.
Something similar it taking place in North Germany.
-
People are beginning to comment that President Wilson is not very influential.
-
People are beginning to comment that President Wilson is not very influential.
What will be his next move, if any?
-
People are beginning to comment that President Wilson is not very influential.
What will be his next move, if any?
His next move should be to seek to unite the church. Would it be easier for someone else to do that now?
-
Personally, I am comming to the opinon that if female ordination becomes a reality, President Wilson may be seen in retrospect as contributing more to bring it about than any other person could have done.
If so, he may become known as an oxymoron personified.
-
Oxymoron personified:
President Wilson:
1) Is commonly understood as personally being against female ordination.
2) Believes in rule by committee and not by Presidential Edict.
3) Has expressed his leadership style in the replacement of the ADRA Director by a committee.
This has caused people to believe that the time has come to act immediately on the issue of female ordination before any committees have been formed and made a decision.
Just a personal opinon as to what it going on.
-
Here is the story:
http://www.columbiaunion.org/article/1093/news/2012-news-archives/july-29-2012-columbia-union-constituents-overwhelmingly-affirm-women-pastors-through-ordination#.UBYU36CoqSp
It includes Ted Wilson's appeal.
-
Here is the story:
http://www.columbiaunion.org/article/1093/news/2012-news-archives/july-29-2012-columbia-union-constituents-overwhelmingly-affirm-women-pastors-through-ordination#.UBYU36CoqSp
It includes Ted Wilson's appeal.
I read this article many times. It appears that the fundamental argument against the motion was "unity." I didn't see a biblical argument, or one based on EGW. I don't see where Wilson et al quoted or used scripture or EGW to make an argument against equality of the sexes in ordination. In fact, I don't see where they made any argument against it at all. They simply argued for unity. Interesting. Why is this?
-
Here is the story:
http://www.columbiaunion.org/article/1093/news/2012-news-archives/july-29-2012-columbia-union-constituents-overwhelmingly-affirm-women-pastors-through-ordination#.UBYU36CoqSp
It includes Ted Wilson's appeal.
I read this article many times. It appears that the fundamental argument against the motion was "unity." I didn't see a biblical argument, or one based on EGW. I don't see where Wilson et al quoted or used scripture or EGW to make an argument against equality of the sexes in ordination. In fact, I don't see where they made any argument against it at all. They simply argued for unity. Interesting. Why is this?
Yes, "unity" is their only argument, because there is no other. It is interesting that "unity" also seems to be the only argument, or slogan, all the other Christian Churches use for sticking together under one spiritual world leader.
The Columbia Union Conference responded immediately to the message from Ted Wilson about waiting until all had had the opportunity to come to a conclusion by 2014. The CUC remarked in their reply how strange it was that the General Conference had not used a single reference to Scripture nor the Spirit of Prophecy in the appeal they sent to churches in the whole world.
-
There are two different and distinct issues. One is women's ordination. The other is the authority of a GC Session. On the former issue you couldn't have a letter written by all of the division presidents, but on the latter issue you could.
So what Scripture and SoP references could you have in support of the latter issue? Acts 15 and Ellen White's comments about the decision of the council of Acts 15. And then there is 9T 260-261.
But the rebels in the Columbia Union, would any of these passages have dissuaded them in their determination to thumb their noses at the decisions of the representatives of the world church?
-
Bob is correct. There are two issues.
However, the authority of the General Conference is not as simple as Bob would make it. The General Conference operates under a Constitution which can only be changed by the GC in session. IOW, that Constitution was voted back in time by the GC in session.
Lower organizations operate under their own Constitutions. These are required to conform to "model constitutions" which are essentially a template and are authorized by the GC voting in session.
The typical Union Constitution give the Union the authority to decide who is ordained and who is not. IOW, constitutionally the authority to ordain rests with the Unions and not the General Conference in session.
-
The fundamental issue at stake here is not female ordination. It is the role that women may play in spiritual nurture. IOW, should females have spiritual authority over males? That is the fundamental issue.
If we say that females should not have spiritual authority over males, that position affects our view of EGW. Whatever our position is, that position would logically apply to EGW.
I support EGW in the role that she played in the development of the SDA Church. I support females in leadership in spiritual nuture, as God has demonstrated many times. I support female ordination.
-
Bob is correct. There are two issues.
However, the authority of the General Conference is not as simple as Bob would make it. The General Conference operates under a Constitution which can only be changed by the GC in session. IOW, that Constitution was voted back in time by the GC in session.
Lower organizations operate under their own Constitutions. These are required to conform to "model constitutions" which are essentially a template and are authorized by the GC voting in session.
The typical Union Constitution give the Union the authority to decide who is ordained and who is not. IOW, constitutionally the authority to ordain rests with the Unions and not the General Conference in session.
It seems like your explanation does not really address the point. One what constitutional or legal basis can a conference or union vote to do something diametrically opposed to a GC Session vote, in light of GC & NAD Working Policy, Acts 15, and 9T 260-261? What is the constitutional or legal basis for the present rebellion?
-
My opinion --
A lot of people don't see it so much as opposing the General Conference, they tend to see the Adventist Church as an American Institution being told by third world countries (where women are regarded as lessor creatures) what they can and can't do.
Adventism, even though the General Conference office is still in America, now has it's greatest membership outside of America, so they now have a larger vote.
Of course there are people in America who are against women ordination as well, so it isn't a clear cut thing here, but the battle of cultures is playing its role here.
-
Kevin Paulson used an interesting term--"act of ecclesiastical sedition" in reference to the CUC vote.
-
My opinion --
A lot of people don't see it so much as opposing the General Conference, they tend to see the Adventist Church as an American Institution being told by third world countries (where women are regarded as lessor creatures) what they can and can't do.
Adventism, even though the General Conference office is still in America, now has it's greatest membership outside of America, so they now have a larger vote.
Of course there are people in America who are against women ordination as well, so it isn't a clear cut thing here, but the battle of cultures is playing its role here.
I'm not sure it really is a battle of cultures. If our members in other countries base their opposition on Scripture rather than culture, it really isn't a battle of cultures.
-
My opinion --
A lot of people don't see it so much as opposing the General Conference, they tend to see the Adventist Church as an American Institution being told by third world countries (where women are regarded as lessor creatures) what they can and can't do.
Adventism, even though the General Conference office is still in America, now has it's greatest membership outside of America, so they now have a larger vote.
Of course there are people in America who are against women ordination as well, so it isn't a clear cut thing here, but the battle of cultures is playing its role here.
I'm not sure it really is a battle of cultures. If our members in other countries base their opposition on Scripture rather than culture, it really isn't a battle of cultures.
Bob, notice they want to be gender neutual.
-
You're right, Christian, and the next "gender neutral" action would logically be to include homosexuals as church clergy, a topic that is already being raised by some.
-
You're right, Christian, and the next "gender neutral" action would logically be to include homosexuals as church clergy, a topic that is already being raised by some.
Homosexuality is not a gender, it a sexual preference.
-
See the new topic on "gender neutrality".
-
See the new topic on "gender neutrality".
Oh. Thanks. :)
-
You're right, Christian, and the next "gender neutral" action would logically be to include homosexuals as church clergy, a topic that is already being raised by some.
That is exactly what I am implying. The people who say that is not the issue are fooling themselves. Already scientist and others are saying that people are born gay. Once the church votes that it is gender neutral it sets itself up to being sued for discrimination.
And before people say that is crazy think about this. The Jewish people were suppose to usher in the Savior of the world. Actually, the very purpose for their existence as a nation was for that purpose. However when the Savior of the world came they murdered him, exactly opposite of what their design was suppose to be.
-
My opinion --
A lot of people don't see it so much as opposing the General Conference, they tend to see the Adventist Church as an American Institution being told by third world countries (where women are regarded as lessor creatures) what they can and can't do.
Adventism, even though the General Conference office is still in America, now has it's greatest membership outside of America, so they now have a larger vote.
Of course there are people in America who are against women ordination as well, so it isn't a clear cut thing here, but the battle of cultures is playing its role here.
I'm not sure it really is a battle of cultures. If our members in other countries base their opposition on Scripture rather than culture, it really isn't a battle of cultures.
Bob, notice they want to be gender neutual.
Could you please explain what in my comment led you to think I want to be gender neutral?
I'm very happy to be a woman. I do NOT want to be an ordained minister. \
I just find some of these arguments to be rather on the desperate side to keep women in their place.
-
You're right, Christian, and the next "gender neutral" action would logically be to include homosexuals as church clergy, a topic that is already being raised by some.
Homosexuality is not a gender, it a sexual preference.
Well said!!!!
And I'll say it again for emphases.
Homosexuality is not a gender, it a sexual preference (propensity)
-
You're right, Christian, and the next "gender neutral" action would logically be to include homosexuals as church clergy, a topic that is already being raised by some.
Homosexuality is not a gender, it a sexual preference.
Well said!!!!
And I'll say it again for emphases.
Homosexuality is not a gender, it a sexual preference (propensity)
And I will say it again for emphasis.
The movement is that Homosexuality is a gender, not a sexual preference. Most Homosexuals believe that they were born that way and that it is not a choice.
-
Homosexuality is not a gender, it a sexual preference.
Well said!!!!
And I'll say it again for emphases.
Homosexuality is not a gender, it a sexual preference (propensity)
And I will say it again for emphasis.
The movement is that Homosexuality is a gender, not a sexual preference. Most Homosexuals believe that they were born that way and that it is not a choice.
So does the church make it's decisions on what a "movement" defines as a gender, or on what
God defines as a gender?
Do we attack a God given gender, because the world introduced a concept that isn't real?
-
My opinion --
A lot of people don't see it so much as opposing the General Conference, they tend to see the Adventist Church as an American Institution being told by third world countries (where women are regarded as lessor creatures) what they can and can't do.
Adventism, even though the General Conference office is still in America, now has it's greatest membership outside of America, so they now have a larger vote.
Of course there are people in America who are against women ordination as well, so it isn't a clear cut thing here, but the battle of cultures is playing its role here.
I'm not sure it really is a battle of cultures. If our members in other countries base their opposition on Scripture rather than culture, it really isn't a battle of cultures.
Bob, notice they want to be gender neutual.
Could you please explain what in my comment led you to think I want to be gender neutral?
I'm very happy to be a woman. I do NOT want to be an ordained minister. \
I just find some of these arguments to be rather on the desperate side to keep women in their place.
Welcome to Advent Talk, Ulicia. You are not the only one who finds these arguments on the desperate side. If you followed the arguments, including what president Ted Wilson said at the CUC meeting, not one of the opponents of ordaining women used a valid argument against the question, except their definition of unity and authority.
These people keep claiming they have Scripture and Ellen White on their side, but the real evidence is nowhere in sight, unless they interpret Scripture in a way that would discredit the Spirit of Prophecy, and who wants to be caught doing that?
This is the reason why you find all of these desperate arguments.
There are some in ----- who ought to be men instead of boys and heavenly minded instead of earthly and sensual; but their spiritual vision has become obscured; the Saviour’s great love has not ravished their souls. He has many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. You are children in growth and cannot comprehend the mysteries of God. When God raises up men to do His work, they are false to their trust if they allow their testimony to be shaped to please the minds of the unconsecrated. He will prepare men for the times. They will be humble, God-fearing men, not conservative, not policy men; but men who have moral independence and will move forward in the fear of the Lord. They will be kind, noble, courteous; yet they will not be swayed from the right path, but will proclaim the truth in righteousness whether men will hear or whether they will forbear. {5T 263.1}
True leaders, according to this, will not be "conservative, not policy men; but men who have moral independence and will move forward in the fear of the Lord."
-
My opinion --
A lot of people don't see it so much as opposing the General Conference, they tend to see the Adventist Church as an American Institution being told by third world countries (where women are regarded as lessor creatures) what they can and can't do.
Adventism, even though the General Conference office is still in America, now has it's greatest membership outside of America, so they now have a larger vote.
Of course there are people in America who are against women ordination as well, so it isn't a clear cut thing here, but the battle of cultures is playing its role here.
I'm not sure it really is a battle of cultures. If our members in other countries base their opposition on Scripture rather than culture, it really isn't a battle of cultures.
Bob, notice they want to be gender neutual.
Could you please explain what in my comment led you to think I want to be gender neutral?
I'm very happy to be a woman. I do NOT want to be an ordained minister. \
I just find some of these arguments to be rather on the desperate side to keep women in their place.
Welcome to Advent Talk, Ulicia. You are not the only one who finds these arguments on the desperate side. If you followed the arguments, including what president Ted Wilson said at the CUC meeting, not one of the opponents of ordaining women used a valid argument against the question, except their definition of unity and authority.
These people keep claiming they have Scripture and Ellen White on their side, but the real evidence is nowhere in sight, unless they interpret Scripture in a way that would discredit the Spirit of Prophecy, and who wants to be caught doing that?
This is the reason why you find all of these desperate arguments.
There are some in ----- who ought to be men instead of boys and heavenly minded instead of earthly and sensual; but their spiritual vision has become obscured; the Saviour’s great love has not ravished their souls. He has many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. You are children in growth and cannot comprehend the mysteries of God. When God raises up men to do His work, they are false to their trust if they allow their testimony to be shaped to please the minds of the unconsecrated. He will prepare men for the times. They will be humble, God-fearing men, not conservative, not policy men; but men who have moral independence and will move forward in the fear of the Lord. They will be kind, noble, courteous; yet they will not be swayed from the right path, but will proclaim the truth in righteousness whether men will hear or whether they will forbear. {5T 263.1}
True leaders, according to this, will not be "conservative, not policy men; but men who have moral independence and will move forward in the fear of the Lord."
Interpreting the scriptures in a way that is consistent with the scriptures is not discrediting Ellen G. White. Please stop trying to put your words into other peoples mouth and minds. We have consistently said that men and women have different roles and how that discredits Ellen G. White is a mystery to me. We have all concluded that there are exceptions to the rule and circumstances that arise where God works outside the norm, however there is no scriptural evidence that this is a call for a gender neutral approach. Both the concept that God used Ellen G. White and the concept that women and men have different roles are compatible in every way.
The fact that you come to a conclusion on the basis of someone elses argument, in no way means that is the conclusion of others, they are just that, your conclusions. Again, woman's roles and the role of Ellen G. White are completely compatible. There are not desperate arguments but rational ones based on the Biblical principles of the church and based on the makeup of men and women. It is you that cannot seem to see what is right before your face. God made men and women different but equal. The woman was made with breast for child birth to rear the children and the man was given the main responsibility to be the head of the church and the head of the family. Neither position was to be looked at as above the other.
-
James Greene justified his intended rebellion against the GC Session votes in this letter: http://www.columbiaunion.org/site/1/July%20Constituency/7-24-2012%20Ltr%20to%20Ted%20Wilson%20GC%20President.pdf.
In it he argues that Fundamental Belief # 14 is opposed to the GC Session votes, and he pretends that the GC Session votes were only a recommendation (... I must at this time vote against this recommendation of the General Conference in Session ...).
One thing Greene fails to notice is that FB # 14 recognizes that there are indeed distinctions between male and female. FB # 14 does not say that there are no distinctions. It merely says that those distinctions should not be divisive.
And thus FB # 14 does not deny what we all acknowledge as absolute truth, that there are things that only men can do, and there are things that only women can do. Our roles in God's creation are different. Only women have babies.
-
Le1)t us look a bit more at the letter the Bob cites and the fundamental belief that is quoted:
1) The fundamental beliefs of the SDA Church are focused on spiritual issues. They are not focused on issues of anatomy. IOW, they do not deal with whether or not males have breasts on which children can nurse. OUr beleifs do not address the issue as to whether or nto men can give birth. Whether or not men can nurse children and give birth has nothing to do with the spiritual roles that men and women play in spiritual nuture.
2) The underlying fundamental belief says: " . . . differences between . . . male and female, must not be divisive among us. We are all equal in Christ, . . . we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation. . . . We reach out in one witness to all. This unity has its source int he oneness of the triune God, who has adopted us as His children.?
The position of the author of the letter that Bob cites is that the cited fundamental belief clearly calls for no distisnction between males and females in the spiritual service that they give to the denomination. I will suggest that position is correct.
This issue is complex. Honest people do see it differently. It is not fair to individuals involved to claim that those who favor the action of the Ckolumbia Union Conference are advocating rebellion and/'or are in rebellion.
Questions as to whether or not men can nurse and give birth simply make us look foolinsh.
One shoud argue their position on the basis of theBible and prior church practice.; Again I will point out: EGW carried the credentials of an ordained minister for years. She filled a position of spiritual leadership. So, did other women, one of whom was a Conference President for a short time.
-
Gregory,
I think you are muddying the waters regarding the point that I made. FB 14 acknowledges that there are differences between the roles of men and women. Greene wants to pretend that it does not.
This issue is complex. Honest people do see it differently. It is not fair to individuals involved to claim that those who favor the action of the Ckolumbia Union Conference are advocating rebellion and/'or are in rebellion.
No, it is not unfair, and the issue is not complex. The issue is super simple. In 1990 and 1995 people in North America asked the highest church authority on earth under God to permit them to ordain women, and the answer was "NO." Like rebellious teenagers, James Greene and others are rebelling against those votes, without any clear authorization in the Bible or SoP to justify their actions.
Read again what Greene wrote: "... I must at this time vote against this recommendation of the General Conference in Session ...." Since when was the 1990 and 1995 votes mere recommendations? Since when? And since they weren't, why is Greene calling them such? And why is Greene publicly stating that he is refusing to obey the highest authority on earth under God? How dare he!
-
B 15 15—Officers/Administrators to Work in Harmony with Policy—Officers and administrators are expected to work in harmony with the North American Division Working Policy. Those who show inability or unwillingness to administer their work in harmony with policy should not be continued in executive leadership by their respective constituencies or governing boards/committees.
B 15 15—Officers/Administrators to Work in Harmony with Policy—Officers and administrators are expected to work in harmony with the General Conference Working Policy. Those who show inability or unwillingness to administer their work in harmony with policy should not be continued in executive leadership by their respective constituencies or governing boards/committees.
-
However, if church policy is a dead letter, and none of this means anything at all, then each is a law unto himself, and everyone can do as they please, without accountability to anyone.
And thus I wonder, what was all the hoopla about Danny Shelton really all about? Who cares how many wives Danny had, whether Danny had grounds to divorce Linda, how many boys Tommy molested, how long Danny covered it all up, how many millions Danny siphoned away from 3ABN, how many whistle blowers Danny fired and sued. No accountability, utter anarchy, don't dare call anyone to account for anything, much less call folks rebels who are encouraging revolt against the highest authority on earth under God.
I don't buy it. God is not the author of confusion. Let all things be done decently and in order. Unless inspiration clearly and unequivocally states something to the contrary, the GC Session votes must be adhered to, and church officers who refuse to do so must be replaced.
-
Le1)t us look a bit more at the letter the Bob cites and the fundamental belief that is quoted:
1) The fundamental beliefs of the SDA Church are focused on spiritual issues. They are not focused on issues of anatomy. IOW, they do not deal with whether or not males have breasts on which children can nurse. OUr beleifs do not address the issue as to whether or nto men can give birth. Whether or not men can nurse children and give birth has nothing to do with the spiritual roles that men and women play in spiritual nuture.
2) The underlying fundamental belief says: " . . . differences between . . . male and female, must not be divisive among us. We are all equal in Christ, . . . we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation. . . . We reach out in one witness to all. This unity has its source int he oneness of the triune God, who has adopted us as His children.?
The position of the author of the letter that Bob cites is that the cited fundamental belief clearly calls for no distisnction between males and females in the spiritual service that they give to the denomination. I will suggest that position is correct.
This issue is complex. Honest people do see it differently. It is not fair to individuals involved to claim that those who favor the action of the Ckolumbia Union Conference are advocating rebellion and/'or are in rebellion.
Questions as to whether or not men can nurse and give birth simply make us look foolinsh.
One shoud argue their position on the basis of theBible and prior church practice.; Again I will point out: EGW carried the credentials of an ordained minister for years. She filled a position of spiritual leadership. So, did other women, one of whom was a Conference President for a short time.
"simply make us look foolish."
Please speak for yourself here, Gregory.
-
B 15 15—Officers/Administrators to Work in Harmony with Policy—Officers and administrators are expected to work in harmony with the North American Division Working Policy. Those who show inability or unwillingness to administer their work in harmony with policy should not be continued in executive leadership by their respective constituencies or governing boards/committees.
B 15 15—Officers/Administrators to Work in Harmony with Policy—Officers and administrators are expected to work in harmony with the General Conference Working Policy. Those who show inability or unwillingness to administer their work in harmony with policy should not be continued in executive leadership by their respective constituencies or governing boards/committees.
That's very clear, that they should work in harmony.
Since the actions of CUC leadership clearly weren't in harmony, they should be removed.
-
Did you already say who James Greene was?
-
Did you already say who James Greene was?
He's the executive secretary of the NJ Conf.
-
Did you already say who James Greene was?
He's the executive secretary of the NJ Conf.
What did he do?
-
Did you already say who James Greene was?
He's the executive secretary of the NJ Conf.
What did he do?
James Greene justified his intended rebellion against the GC Session votes in this letter: http://www.columbiaunion.org/site/1/July%20Constituency/7-24-2012%20Ltr%20to%20Ted%20Wilson%20GC%20President.pdf.
-
Interesting how these people quote Ellen White and refer to Martin Luther which they think proves their points.
I also noticed that some on either Atoday or Spectrum were acting surprised and disappointed that so many were expressing their disapproval of the actions of CUC.
Do they really think they are in the majority?
-
The Christ or Culture petition against women's ordination for the PUC is getting very close to 5,000 signatures.
-
"Columbia Union Constituents Overwhelmingly Affirm Women Pastors Through Ordination" report from the special constituency session. Sharon Cress, Potomac Conference’s Women’s Ministries director, said at the meeting, “The General Conference calls for unity in the face of unfairness and this wounds deeply the women who serve this church,” she said. “Some have appealed for unity today to justify continuation of unfairness. I tell you there is no unity today, and there can be no unity as long as we practice unfairness.”
For many years Sharon worked together with her husband, who was the General Conference pastor's pastor. I had the pleasure of traveling a few hours with Jim Cress, and also corresponding with him. I think both of them went out of their way just to help any Adventist pastor or spouse, anywhere in the world. To me that is doctrine in real life.
-
Interesting how these people quote Ellen White and refer to Martin Luther which they think proves their points.
I also noticed that some on either Atoday or Spectrum were acting surprised and disappointed that so many were expressing their disapproval of the actions of CUC.
Do they really think they are in the majority?
No. I think they are vastly in the minority when you consider the entire Adventist membership.
-
"Columbia Union Constituents Overwhelmingly Affirm Women Pastors Through Ordination" report from the special constituency session. Sharon Cress, Potomac Conference’s Women’s Ministries director, said at the meeting, “The General Conference calls for unity in the face of unfairness and this wounds deeply the women who serve this church,” she said. “Some have appealed for unity today to justify continuation of unfairness. I tell you there is no unity today, and there can be no unity as long as we practice unfairness.”
For many years Sharon worked together with her husband, who was the General Conference pastor's pastor. I had the pleasure of traveling a few hours with Jim Cress, and also corresponding with him. I think both of them went out of their way just to help any Adventist pastor or spouse, anywhere in the world. To me that is doctrine in real life.
I wonder what her deceased husband would say if he were here, to see his wife display such leadership in the present rebellion. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, according to Scripture. What a sad day.
So Sharon justifies her participation in, support of, and active promotion of the present rebellion against the highest authority on earth under God on the basis of unfairness. Is this justification of fairness authorized in Scripture? If it were, would not Christ have authorized and urged rebellion against the Roman government? The Zealots certainly did. And wouldn't Paul have promoted rebellion of slaves against their masters?
One example I can think of in the SoP is Ellen White's urging that we disobey the Fugitive Slave Law. But when it comes to that topic, we should note that we have an explicit Bible verse that forbids that we return runaway slaves. Thus, the SoP's divine counsel on this point is based on a scriptural prohibition, not the notion of fairness.
Presuming that Sharon has kids and grandkids, is she comfortable with the idea of those kids or grandkids disregarding what their parents say whenever they think what the parents say is unfair? Would she agree that there can never be unity in the home whenever kids or grandkids perceive unfairness? I highly doubt it.
What is ironic about all of this is that the Potomac Conference didn't have a conference-level women's ministries program until perhaps June. So Sharon wasn't even in that position not long ago, and one of the conferences pushing the current rebellion didn't even have have a women's ministries department.
-
Is this justification of fairness authorized in Scripture? If it were, would not Christ have authorized and urged rebellion against the Roman government? The Zealots certainly did. And wouldn't Paul have promoted rebellion of slaves against their masters?
He may not have urged and authorized rebellion against the civil government, but he did engage in active and open rebellion against conservative church leadership and policy, encouraging people to break the laws of the church and disregard its policies.
-
Is this justification of fairness authorized in Scripture? If it were, would not Christ have authorized and urged rebellion against the Roman government? The Zealots certainly did. And wouldn't Paul have promoted rebellion of slaves against their masters?
He may not have urged and authorized rebellion against the civil government, but he did engage in active and open rebellion against conservative church leadership and policy, encouraging people to break the laws of the church and disregard its policies.
How can you say that when He was the one who had originated the laws of the "church" (theocracy), Himself.
-
Is this justification of fairness authorized in Scripture? If it were, would not Christ have authorized and urged rebellion against the Roman government? The Zealots certainly did. And wouldn't Paul have promoted rebellion of slaves against their masters?
He may not have urged and authorized rebellion against the civil government, but he did engage in active and open rebellion against conservative church leadership and policy, encouraging people to break the laws of the church and disregard its policies.
How can you say that when He was the one who had originated the laws of the "church" (theocracy), Himself.
True, yet He did.
-
Is this justification of fairness authorized in Scripture? If it were, would not Christ have authorized and urged rebellion against the Roman government? The Zealots certainly did. And wouldn't Paul have promoted rebellion of slaves against their masters?
He may not have urged and authorized rebellion against the civil government, but he did engage in active and open rebellion against conservative church leadership and policy, encouraging people to break the laws of the church and disregard its policies.
How can you say that when He was the one who had originated the laws of the "church" (theocracy), Himself.
True, yet He did.
"encouraging people to break the laws of the church"
It is my understanding that He didn't necessarily follow the traditional rules and regulations of the current Jewish practice, but that He followed the laws that He Himself had set up for the nation of Israel, and thus His "church".
Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
-
I think Artiste is correct on this one. Jesus originated the church of those times, and if anything, the leaders of those times were the rebels, rebelling against His authority and Scripture. Christ was not the rebel. They were.
In contrast, no one in the Columbia Union can claim to have founded the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Thus far I know of no one who claims that the world church was in rebellion against Christ when in 1990 and 1995 it voted down requests to ordain women to the gospel ministry.
But I do know where Ellen White puts the GC Session on a level with the voice of God, and I do know where GC and NAD Working Policy state that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and that administrators who won't uphold church policy should not be put into office.
-
I think Artiste is correct on this one. Jesus originated the church of those times, and if anything, the leaders of those times were the rebels, rebelling against His authority and Scripture. Christ was not the rebel. They were.
In contrast, no one in the Columbia Union can claim to have founded the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Thus far I know of no one who claims that the world church was in rebellion against Christ when in 1990 and 1995 it voted down requests to ordain women to the gospel ministry.
But I do know where Ellen White puts the GC Session on a level with the voice of God, and I do know where GC and NAD Working Policy state that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and that administrators who won't uphold church policy should not be put into office.
God put the priesthood above the people, but when the priesthood became entrenched in conservatism he led a rebellion against them. Is it possible for God to lead someone, or a group in rebelling against rebellion?
-
I think Artiste is correct on this one. Jesus originated the church of those times, and if anything, the leaders of those times were the rebels, rebelling against His authority and Scripture. Christ was not the rebel. They were.
In contrast, no one in the Columbia Union can claim to have founded the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Thus far I know of no one who claims that the world church was in rebellion against Christ when in 1990 and 1995 it voted down requests to ordain women to the gospel ministry.
But I do know where Ellen White puts the GC Session on a level with the voice of God, and I do know where GC and NAD Working Policy state that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and that administrators who won't uphold church policy should not be put into office.
In another forum there is a discussion now between two Adventist workers, one of which was a delegate in 1990 and the other one in 1995. There seems to be some uncertainty among the delegates what they really had voted for.
I find it interesting that one of these tells that after the vote he interviewed about 50 delegates. At least 50% of those he talked to indicated they had felt forced to cast the vote the way they did but had no choice since it was an open vote. They said their vote had been different if it had been a secret ballot.
I was not a delegate in Utrecht, but I was there, and I discovered there was a considerable unrest among the delegates the way the vote was forced through. Is this the right way of discovering what is the Lord's will? Also considering that Ellen White expressed several times it was not the Lord's will which had prevailed?
-
In another forum there is a discussion now between two Adventist workers, one of which was a delegate in 1990 and the other one in 1995. There seems to be some uncertainty among the delegates what they really had voted for.
Since we are human, there will always be some of that. In our constituency meeting in April I spoke a number of times against WO. I voted yes for a number of motions to amend motions. Then when it came time to vote for one of two main motions via secret ballot, I again voted yes.
After handing in my ballot, I then realized my mistake in not voting no for that main motion. But the vote wasn't that close that my one mistaken vote made a difference.
I find it interesting that one of these tells that after the vote he interviewed about 50 delegates. At least 50% of those he talked to indicated they had felt forced to cast the vote the way they did but had no choice since it was an open vote. They said their vote had been different if it had been a secret ballot.
Then why didn't they ask for a secret ballot? And so what whether it was a secret ballot or not? The men should be a man.
-
In another forum there is a discussion now between two Adventist workers, one of which was a delegate in 1990 and the other one in 1995. There seems to be some uncertainty among the delegates what they really had voted for.
Since we are human, there will always be some of that. In our constituency meeting in April I spoke a number of times against WO. I voted yes for a number of motions to amend motions. Then when it came time to vote for one of two main motions via secret ballot, I again voted yes.
After handing in my ballot, I then realized my mistake in not voting no for that main motion. But the vote wasn't that close that my one mistaken vote made a difference.
I find it interesting that one of these tells that after the vote he interviewed about 50 delegates. At least 50% of those he talked to indicated they had felt forced to cast the vote the way they did but had no choice since it was an open vote. They said their vote had been different if it had been a secret ballot.
Then why didn't they ask for a secret ballot? And so what whether it was a secret ballot or not? The men should be a man.
When I was a delegate in 1966 each Division had such a large number of delegates that they appointed just about anyone who was available to travel or happened to be in the vicinity. Later I was on the committee in two different countries so I could follow how the delegates were appointed. As our total membership increased the GC had to cut down the percentage of delegates, and were much more selective than before. I noticed that from then on a majority of the delegates were already members of the Division committee, and then a few more were hand picked, and the local conferences had no influence.
This is a strong indication that the Church is more and more ruled from the top, and not by the membership. The members elect their own church officers. The local church officers select the delegates to the conference elections, after getting an approval of the members. It is not easy to vote down the selection by the church officers in the average church.
The conference officers select the delegates to the Union session in all the geographic areas where I have worked.
Division officers are elected at the General Conference session, and are therefore, by some, regarded as officers of the General Conference.
In some areas there is no local conference any more, and in some instances a local conference is directly under the Division.
In a way each division has two presidents. There is the local one, who is often regarded as a vice president of the General Conference. In addition to that, at least some of the vice presidents of the General Conference who have their office at Silver Springs, are each assigned a world area as their responsibility. I know that at least in certain cases, these vice presidents have earlier served as Division presidents in the area of their present responsibility. Then they have secretaries as their assistants.
It varies greatly how the various General Conference presidents use their mandate. Some presidents rule by proxy and leave most of the responsibility to the person they have put in charge of certain areas. Other presidents make most the decisions themselves. These ignore the counsel of Moses and Ellen White. Are they true leaders?