Advent Talk
General Category => General Discussions => Topic started by: Johann on June 01, 2012, 09:22:34 PM
-
Three Views
From Thursday to Last Sunday we had our triennial conference session to which both my wife and I were delegates. Many things were discussed at the meetings, and yet there was no discussion on the question of the ordination of women. Such discussions occurred in private in the hall or outside in the sunshine in between the meetings where no vote was taken.
I sensed there were three views among those delegates I happened to meet at such discussions, and also among church members elsewhere.
1. A large number seem to be impressed the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church in the clear understanding of Scripture that women should be ordained to the ministry in these last days as a fulfillment of prophecy.
2. A strong minority here is opposed to this view as they interpret the same texts as opposed to ordaining woman.
3. A third group see that those texts can be interpreted either way and therefore realize they create a conflict in the church. They think that since the texts can be interpreted either way it could not be a question of right or wrong, but must be a question solved by the work of the Holy Spirit to determine what will be the greatest benefit to the Church.
From the Sabbath School lesson for today we learn that there can easily be a difference of opinions in certain areas without creating problems in the Church. The main question is that the Gospel be proclaimed unhindered by different opinions that are not an issue. Since our Brethren interpret the texts and Ellen White in different ways in this area of ordaining women we must not let the question divide us, but we must rather unite in our only task before the Coming of Jesus.
-
Three Views
From Thursday to Last Sunday we had our triennial conference session to which both my wife and I were delegates. Many things were discussed at the meetings, and yet there was no discussion on the question of the ordination of women. Such discussions occurred in private in the hall or outside (now isn't that pretty sneaky behind backs or in private) in the sunshine in between the meetings where no vote was taken. ( Doesn't make any difference where Adversary starts opposition, in fact it's the best place and time for searching followers of such suggestions.)
I sensed there were three views among those delegates I happened to meet at such discussions, ( does this pattern ever hit wrong button for you?? Sure you were there and no doubt were the head of it.)and also among church members elsewhere.
1. A large number seem to be impressed the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church in the clear understanding of Scripture that women should be ordained to the ministry in these last days as a fulfillment of prophecy.
This little story is of your opinion and if a large number that believes that are evidently influenced very easily by the instigator of "change".
2. A strong minority here is opposed to this view as they interpret the same texts as opposed to ordaining woman. (Yes there seems to be a few that do follow the correct directions of Holy Spirit, SoP.)
3. A third group see that those texts can be interpreted either way and therefore realize they create a conflict in the church. ( One part of this is right, they have sense not to create confusion in church when they ride the fence and too lazy to effort the truth.) They think that since the texts can be interpreted either way it could not be a question of right or wrong, ( There is the problem, THEY THINK! WITH OUT KNOWLEDGE OF READING THEIR OWN DECISIONS) but must be a question solved by the work of the Holy Spirit ( it already has been determined by HOLY SPIRIT )to determine what will be the greatest benefit to the Church. (Are they or you writing new Scripture for this new age??)
From the Sabbath School lesson for today we learn that there can easily be a difference of opinions in certain areas without creating problems in the Church. (Then you need to take this as not to create confusion as the one group claims.!) but see you can't and are obsessed with this or you would not have been there doing your thing the same on these post to convince this obsession The main question is that the Gospel be proclaimed unhindered by different opinions (Hows that possible and still come out?)that are not an issue. Since our Brethren interpret the texts and Ellen White in different ways in this area of ordaining women we must not let the question divide us, but we must rather unite in our only task before the Coming of Jesus.
COMPROMISE?? COMPROMISE WHAT?? HOW CAN YOU UNITE WITH ALL DIFFERENT OPINIONS?
*****************************************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************************
Edited to remove inappropriate content. Read the forum rules, please!!
-
I was not giving my opinion, only reporting what is taking place among members of my church and how different members of my church evaluate the meaning of Scripture.
I reported three different viewpoints. They would never be all mine.
-
Deleted entire inappropriate post.
-
Thank you for posting this, Johann. It is very sad to me to observe that some folks are more concerned with being "right" than with the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
-
Actually the Sabbath School lesson for next sabbath will also be dealing with thie question. I look forward to discussing the subject with the church where I will also be preaching next Sabbath. Come and join us? Some of the members might agree with you.
I try to let the members present the lesson as an answer to my questions. But they had better verify their views with solid references to Scripture. Are you prepared?
-
Three Views
From Thursday to Last Sunday we had our triennial conference session to which both my wife and I were delegates. Many things were discussed at the meetings, and yet there was no discussion on the question of the ordination of women. Such discussions occurred in private in the hall or outside in the sunshine in between the meetings where no vote was taken.
I sensed there were three views among those delegates I happened to meet at such discussions, and also among church members elsewhere.
1. A large number seem to be impressed the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church in the clear understanding of Scripture that women should be ordained to the ministry in these last days as a fulfillment of prophecy.
2. A strong minority here is opposed to this view as they interpret the same texts as opposed to ordaining woman.
3. A third group see that those texts can be interpreted either way and therefore realize they create a conflict in the church. They think that since the texts can be interpreted either way it could not be a question of right or wrong, but must be a question solved by the work of the Holy Spirit to determine what will be the greatest benefit to the Church.
From the Sabbath School lesson for today we learn that there can easily be a difference of opinions in certain areas without creating problems in the Church. The main question is that the Gospel be proclaimed unhindered by different opinions that are not an issue. Since our Brethren interpret the texts and Ellen White in different ways in this area of ordaining women we must not let the question divide us, but we must rather unite in our only task before the Coming of Jesus.
What would compromise really mean?
1. Would the first group in compromising surrender their belief that the Scriptures definitively mandate that women be ordained?
2. Would the second group in compromising surrender their belief that the Scriptures definitively prohibit the ordination of women?
3. Would the third group in compromising surrender their belief that the Scriptures make no definitive statement one way or the other?
Thus, would compromise in effect be capitulation rather than simply compromise?
-
Three Views
From Thursday to Last Sunday we had our triennial conference session to which both my wife and I were delegates. Many things were discussed at the meetings, and yet there was no discussion on the question of the ordination of women. Such discussions occurred in private in the hall or outside in the sunshine in between the meetings where no vote was taken.
I sensed there were three views among those delegates I happened to meet at such discussions, and also among church members elsewhere.
1. A large number seem to be impressed the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church in the clear understanding of Scripture that women should be ordained to the ministry in these last days as a fulfillment of prophecy.
2. A strong minority here is opposed to this view as they interpret the same texts as opposed to ordaining woman.
3. A third group see that those texts can be interpreted either way and therefore realize they create a conflict in the church. They think that since the texts can be interpreted either way it could not be a question of right or wrong, but must be a question solved by the work of the Holy Spirit to determine what will be the greatest benefit to the Church.
From the Sabbath School lesson for today we learn that there can easily be a difference of opinions in certain areas without creating problems in the Church. The main question is that the Gospel be proclaimed unhindered by different opinions that are not an issue. Since our Brethren interpret the texts and Ellen White in different ways in this area of ordaining women we must not let the question divide us, but we must rather unite in our only task before the Coming of Jesus.
What would compromise really mean?
1. Would the first group in compromising surrender their belief that the Scriptures definitively mandate that women be ordained?
2. Would the second group in compromising surrender their belief that the Scriptures definitively prohibit the ordination of women?
3. Would the third group in compromising surrender their belief that the Scriptures make no definitive statement one way or the other?
Thus, would compromise in effect be capitulation rather than simply compromise?
I guess we'll never know the answer to that, Bob, unless God decides to come down here and strike down those who are woefully wrong. In the meantime, why not embrace our differences and allow each other their own opinions?
-
It seems to me that for each of the three parties, compromise would amount to capitulation, a surrender of that party's view.
Allow each their own opinion is fine. The problem is that each party, or at least two of them, wants to translate that opinion into action or policy which affects at least one other party.
-
It seems to me that for each of the three parties, compromise would amount to capitulation, a surrender of that party's view.
Allow each their own opinion is fine. The problem is that each party, or at least two of them, wants to translate that opinion into action or policy which affects at least one other party.
Why can't different denominational entities decide for themselves? Why does it have to be "one size fits all"? If differences matter enough to result in different working policies among divisions, why not in this case?
-
I understand that some of our scholars have come to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing conclusive either way in Scripture, and that both those who claim that women should not be ordained, and also those who claim that women should be ordained, have no solid Scriptural foundation for their beliefs. Both parties are misusing the Holy Bible, according to this view.
Therefore the ordination is merely a personal choice of the Church members involved, and nothing else, according to this view. I am not trying to defend this view, nor can I disprove it completely. I am just mentioning that this seems to be taught at some of our colleges, but I have not read enough to say much about it, except that this seems to be the reason for point #3.
-
The reference to the Sabbath School lesson is where we are told that Paul and Barnabas had a strong disagreement concerning the ordination qualifications of John Mark.
And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other.
Acts 15:39.
Barnabas accepted the appointment (ordination qualifications) of John Mark and Paul refused, so they separated. The dispute was not about doctrine but about the qualification for ordination. As a result of the dispute there now were two groups in stead of one proclaiming the Good News.
Later on Paul succumbed and accepted John Mark as a partner, as qualified for ordination, and they could work together.
Here the question of ordination had nothing to do with doctrines, and even if they separated for a while because of this question, they were not separated in the church fellowship nor doctrines.
Does this indicate that the question of ordination could be a matter of personal choice?
-
The reference to the Sabbath School lesson is where we are told that Paul and Barnabas had a strong disagreement concerning the ordination qualifications of John Mark.
And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other.
Acts 15:39.
Barnabas accepted the appointment (ordination qualifications) of John Mark and Paul refused, so they separated. The dispute was not about doctrine but about the qualification for ordination. As a result of the dispute there now were two groups in stead of one proclaiming the Good News.
Later on Paul succumbed and accepted John Mark as a partner, as qualified for ordination, and they could work together.
Here the question of ordination had nothing to do with doctrines, and even if they separated for a while because of this question, they were not separated in the church fellowship nor doctrines.
Does this indicate that the question of ordination could be a matter of personal choice?
First, the roll of women and men need to be affirmed. I believe that the question is not about ordination at all but rather whether we will follow the dictates of other prodistant religions and be excepted. The question of ordination is an issue of the current times and the desire of women's rights and comes from the same pot as those that advocate gay rights etc... Bu
-
Are you indicating it was those who support the gay rights who prompted Ellen G White to write the following:
“Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church.”—The Review and Herald, July 9, 1895.
-
First, the roll of women and men need to be affirmed. I believe that the question is not about ordination at all but rather whether we will follow the dictates of other prodistant religions and be excepted. The question of ordination is an issue of the current times and the desire of women's rights and comes from the same pot as those that advocate gay rights etc... Bu
Do we use Scripture to affirm that role? If we do, then we find women in such roles as judge, at the time when that was the highest civil post in Israel,(possibly prime minister)
as prophet in Old and New Testament, and this is what comes close to the post as pastor/evangelist today,
as female deacon when deacons also baptized new members,
as mother,
as wife,
There is no female priest in Scripture. The priests within Christianity today are the catholic priests who still perform the offerings of the Old Testament priests, except they do it as miracle mongers when they make the bread in their communion into real flesh, and the wine into real blood, according to the teachings of their church.
The priests of the Old Testament had to struggle with and kill real bulls and other animals, and this was not regarded as fitting for women.
The term ordination is not found anywhere in the Bible, so it needs to be defined. . . How, and by whom?
-
Is it proper for the church to establish broad policies that have no biblical mandate or affirmation?
-
Are you indicating it was those who support the gay rights who prompted Ellen G White to write the following:
“Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church.”—The Review and Herald, July 9, 1895.
You will notice that Ellen G. White said "some of their time" in otherwords the roll of women have already been defined. It is amazing we take things out of proportion, when looking for an excuse for acceptance, the same as other denominations. After having stated the above, in my opinion it does not really matter. I think to a large extent those that will finish the work will not do so in an organizational fashion. The church now holds preeminence over God and there are many tied to the church with the belief like the Jews of old that the church will save them. Do you know how many will in the last days think they are saved only to find out that those that they trusted their salvation in were Charlot's and con artist. I can tell you that many of the changes that have occured in the last 25 years or so are definitly connected to an attempt to be accepted by the nominal churches. The many changes range from evangelism to music styles etc...
-
Why can't different denominational entities decide for themselves? Why does it have to be "one size fits all"? If differences matter enough to result in different working policies among divisions, why not in this case?
Valid questions. Yet on this precise point, the NAD already requested a GC Session (in 1995) for permission to ordain women if they believed it to be all right, and that request was voted down. The working policies of presumably all the divisions already say that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and therefore divisions cannot go contrary to that vote without having that vote rescinded ... unless God Himself has settled the matter in Scripture or the SoP.
My understanding of the problem is that ordination grants rights or privileges that are recognized worldwide. If each division does its own thing, it would be similar to one state "marrying" two men, and then another state trying to figure out how not to recognize that so-called marriage when dealing with taxes, adoptions, retirement, and inheritance.
-
Are you indicating it was those who support the gay rights who prompted Ellen G White to write the following:
“Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church.”—The Review and Herald, July 9, 1895.
Christian raised the issue of the roles of men and women, and the above statement does not contradict in any way what the anti-WO side considers to be any of the proper roles of women in the church.
Consider the story of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Formerly the first-born male of the family had been the priest, and Korah was the oldest, apparently. But God took that office away from the oldest and gave it to Aaron and his family. Korah didn't like it, says PP, and launched his rebellion.
The whole point of Korah's rebellion was that any of the congregation could serve as priests, and that it was wrong for Aaron and Moses to think that only they could hold the offices that they held.
How is the situation different today? God has told us what the role of women is to be, and yet we have today a significant number who maintain that anyone can be a priest, and for that reason women should be ordained to the gospel ministry as elders at large. But that isn't the role God has given women, according to Scripture and the SoP, as far as I can see.
-
Bob and Christian, is biblical mandate required? There is no biblical foundation for the church's stand against slavery. Indeed, slavers have the bible as an ally in their enslavement of people. The bible is very clear on the role of slaves. Is it right for the church to take actions and establish policies that have no biblical foundation or mandate?
-
Are you indicating it was those who support the gay rights who prompted Ellen G White to write the following:
“Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church.”—The Review and Herald, July 9, 1895.
You will notice that Ellen G. White said "some of their time" in otherwords the roll of women have already been defined. It is amazing we take things out of proportion, when looking for an excuse for acceptance, the same as other denominations. After having stated the above, in my opinion it does not really matter. I think to a large extent those that will finish the work will not do so in an organizational fashion. The church now holds preeminence over God and there are many tied to the church with the belief like the Jews of old that the church will save them. Do you know how many will in the last days think they are saved only to find out that those that they trusted their salvation in were Charlot's and con artist. I can tell you that many of the changes that have occured in the last 25 years or so are definitly connected to an attempt to be accepted by the nominal churches. The many changes range from evangelism to music styles etc...
Yes, isn't it wonderful that some women are called by God, even away from other duties for some hours to associate with the minister in his work and talk with him about her assignments, and then receive the same blessings as the apostles, set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. When men receive a calling by God, people usually expect them to work 24/7 and do very little else. Ellen G White makes it clear that this responsibility is not placed on the shoulders of women. They have the freedom to sleep and do other things in between if they can spend some hours in their special calling, not 24/7. Thank God for giving Ellen White this message. I thank God for the Spirit of Prophecy He provided for our church.
-
Are you indicating it was those who support the gay rights who prompted Ellen G White to write the following:
“Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church.”—The Review and Herald, July 9, 1895.
Christian raised the issue of the roles of men and women, and the above statement does not contradict in any way what the anti-WO side considers to be any of the proper roles of women in the church.
Yes he did, although I had not raised that issue in what he quoted. Then Christian wroteThe question of ordination is an issue of the current times and the desire of women's rights and comes from the same pot as those that advocate gay rights..
So I asked him if he really thought Ellen White also was prompted by those that advocate gay rights when she wrote this statement about the ordination of women. I was not asking about the roles or duties, but just wanted him to make clear what he had said.
Nobody has answered that question yet. Why?
Consider the story of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Formerly the first-born male of the family had been the priest, and Korah was the oldest, apparently. But God took that office away from the oldest and gave it to Aaron and his family. Korah didn't like it, says PP, and launched his rebellion.
The whole point of Korah's rebellion was that any of the congregation could serve as priests, and that it was wrong for Aaron and Moses to think that only they could hold the offices that they held.
How is the situation different today? God has told us what the role of women is to be, and yet we have today a significant number who maintain that anyone can be a priest, and for that reason women should be ordained to the gospel ministry as elders at large. But that isn't the role God has given women, according to Scripture and the SoP, as far as I can see.
Bob, I realize that some agree fully with your interpretation, but you even bite yourself in your tail with the above statement. It is only people who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God who believe it is stating the truth when it talks about the priesthood of all believes. This was a part of the Reformation of Martin Luther, who also made quite a point of this.
It is those who reject the Reformation message who reject the priesthood of all believers. So I'd invite you, Bob, to put on Protestant Spectacles so you can see clearly what Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy is telling us today.
Yes, the New Testament uses the term "priesthood of all believers", but it is only the Catholic church which has priests of the Old Testament order. Consider that! English speaking Seventh-day Adventist have avoided the term "priest" when referring to our pastors/evangelists, just to make this distinction clear, and I believe this includes Ellen G White.
-
Reminds me, 37 years ago I was called to be the pastor/evangelist connected with the largest church in the conference. I handed papers out to the members and asked them to write down what they felt were my duties. I received only one reply. It was from a dear devoted and active lady who signed her name.
When I analyzed her answers I figured out I needed about 50 hours a day, seven days a week, to do all that was expected of me. No wonder the son-in-law of this lady became a Division administrator.
-
Why can't different denominational entities decide for themselves? Why does it have to be "one size fits all"? If differences matter enough to result in different working policies among divisions, why not in this case?
Valid questions. Yet on this precise point, the NAD already requested a GC Session (in 1995) for permission to ordain women if they believed it to be all right, and that request was voted down. The working policies of presumably all the divisions already say that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and therefore divisions cannot go contrary to that vote without having that vote rescinded ... unless God Himself has settled the matter in Scripture or the SoP.
My understanding of the problem is that ordination grants rights or privileges that are recognized worldwide. If each division does its own thing, it would be similar to one state "marrying" two men, and then another state trying to figure out how not to recognize that so-called marriage when dealing with taxes, adoptions, retirement, and inheritance.
Other policies are different between divisions. And many policies are not consistently applied in the first place. So why is this such a big deal?
-
The authority to ordain rests with the Unions.
Whether or not to ordain females should have been decided at the Union level. It should never have gone to a GC session.
-
The authority to ordain rests with the Unions.
Whether or not to ordain females should have been decided at the Union level. It should never have gone to a GC session.
We now have some unions who agree with this and are therefore taking action. Others fear the consequences of making that decision and reach the responsibility up to a higher level, because the higher organization - right or wrong - have been dealing with it.
It is a little difficult to go back in our history to trace a precedent because at the beginning we had only a General Conference (with 20 delegates). It was A. G. Daniells who introduced the Unions into our denomination, and they have been developing through the years. There are different types of Unions, a Union with two or more conferences, then there are the Unions of Churches, and they are being administered on different levels. Then there are - or at least have been - Union Missions, which means they are Unions which are not able to take care of themselves, but need the support of a higher organization. It seems like some years ago we had the Alaska Mission, but all the Unions in North America would now be regular Unions, capable of taking care of themselves.
And therefore some of them are taking responsibility for their own actions, and Elder Jackson seems to be aware of this.
-
The authority to ordain rests with the Unions.
Whether or not to ordain females should have been decided at the Union level. It should never have gone to a GC session.
Now that makes sense.
-
Johann is correct in his statement regarding the SDA organization kinown as a Union. My comment was speacific to what is known as a Union Conference, which is the only type of Union organization that exists in the United States. It is probably the most common Union organization in other parts of the world. But, there are Union Missions and Unions of churches on other areas. My comment does not apply to them.
-
Right, Gregory. Union Conference is the right term, but is not usually used in daily talk. You say the Lake Union, when it really is the Lake Union Conference, or union of conferences.
-
Bob and Christian, is biblical mandate required? There is no biblical foundation for the church's stand against slavery. Indeed, slavers have the bible as an ally in their enslavement of people. The bible is very clear on the role of slaves. Is it right for the church to take actions and establish policies that have no biblical foundation or mandate?
Are you sure about that? There are a number of passages that speak against slavery, or that speak against aspects of how slavery has operated. One notable point is the prohibition against returning an escaped slave to his "master."
At the same time we should recognize that the church and American society today does not take a position against all forms of slavery. The constitutional amendment which "abolished" slavery left an exception: when convicted of crime. Slave labor happens in American prisons all the time, and no one complains, except perhaps other countries that refuse to clear through customs articles made in prisons. But maybe those customs regulations are targeting other countries, not the U.S.
-
Bob, I realize that some agree fully with your interpretation, but you even bite yourself in your tail with the above statement. It is only people who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God who believe it is stating the truth when it talks about the priesthood of all believes. This was a part of the Reformation of Martin Luther, who also made quite a point of this.
It is those who reject the Reformation message who reject the priesthood of all believers. So I'd invite you, Bob, to put on Protestant Spectacles so you can see clearly what Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy is telling us today.
Yes, the New Testament uses the term "priesthood of all believers", but it is only the Catholic church which has priests of the Old Testament order. Consider that! English speaking Seventh-day Adventist have avoided the term "priest" when referring to our pastors/evangelists, just to make this distinction clear, and I believe this includes Ellen G White.
Johann,
I think you need to explain what you mean a little more. We have already covered, I believe, that the NT reference to the priesthood of all believers is a quotation from Ex. 19:6. Since the priesthood of all believers is therefore an OT concept, and since all believers could not serve as priests of the tabernacle in the OT, where is the problem of gleaning lessons from the rebellion of Korah for the current situation?
Another point I think that has been raised is that no one is calling for the ordination of all believers. Shall we ordain all 6 year old believers to the gospel ministry since all believers are priests? If not, are we thereby rejecting the concept of the priesthood of all believers, leaving Protestantism behind, and becoming Roman Catholic? Certainly not.
Therefore, the concept of priesthood of all believers is insufficient justification for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.
-
Why can't different denominational entities decide for themselves? Why does it have to be "one size fits all"? If differences matter enough to result in different working policies among divisions, why not in this case?
Valid questions. Yet on this precise point, the NAD already requested a GC Session (in 1995) for permission to ordain women if they believed it to be all right, and that request was voted down. The working policies of presumably all the divisions already say that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and therefore divisions cannot go contrary to that vote without having that vote rescinded ... unless God Himself has settled the matter in Scripture or the SoP.
My understanding of the problem is that ordination grants rights or privileges that are recognized worldwide. If each division does its own thing, it would be similar to one state "marrying" two men, and then another state trying to figure out how not to recognize that so-called marriage when dealing with taxes, adoptions, retirement, and inheritance.
Other policies are different between divisions. And many policies are not consistently applied in the first place. So why is this such a big deal?
I wasn't at the 1995 GC Session when the ordination of women, within divisions that decided to permit it, was voted down, but the vote was taken and the decision was made, and that decision has never been rescinded.
-
Are you indicating it was those who support the gay rights who prompted Ellen G White to write the following:
“Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church.”—The Review and Herald, July 9, 1895.
Christian raised the issue of the roles of men and women, and the above statement does not contradict in any way what the anti-WO side considers to be any of the proper roles of women in the church.
Yes he did, although I had not raised that issue in what he quoted. Then Christian wroteThe question of ordination is an issue of the current times and the desire of women's rights and comes from the same pot as those that advocate gay rights..
So I asked him if he really thought Ellen White also was prompted by those that advocate gay rights when she wrote this statement about the ordination of women. I was not asking about the roles or duties, but just wanted him to make clear what he had said.
Nobody has answered that question yet. Why?
Consider the story of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Formerly the first-born male of the family had been the priest, and Korah was the oldest, apparently. But God took that office away from the oldest and gave it to Aaron and his family. Korah didn't like it, says PP, and launched his rebellion.
The whole point of Korah's rebellion was that any of the congregation could serve as priests, and that it was wrong for Aaron and Moses to think that only they could hold the offices that they held.
How is the situation different today? God has told us what the role of women is to be, and yet we have today a significant number who maintain that anyone can be a priest, and for that reason women should be ordained to the gospel ministry as elders at large. But that isn't the role God has given women, according to Scripture and the SoP, as far as I can see.
Bob, I realize that some agree fully with your interpretation, but you even bite yourself in your tail with the above statement. It is only people who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God who believe it is stating the truth when it talks about the priesthood of all believes. This was a part of the Reformation of Martin Luther, who also made quite a point of this.
It is those who reject the Reformation message who reject the priesthood of all believers. So I'd invite you, Bob, to put on Protestant Spectacles so you can see clearly what Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy is telling us today.
Yes, the New Testament uses the term "priesthood of all believers", but it is only the Catholic church which has priests of the Old Testament order. Consider that! English speaking Seventh-day Adventist have avoided the term "priest" when referring to our pastors/evangelists, just to make this distinction clear, and I believe this includes Ellen G White.
The answer is no i don't think Ellen G. White was prompted by the Gay or Woman's movement in her day. What I am saying is in this time we live I do believe that it is the case. I also believe that the ordination of women is a platform for women to become Conference Presidents and even General Conference President. The reason for it (women's ordination) is not strictly kept in the paremeters of gay and women's rights but it is also a money issue too. You know most of the early leaders of the church were not willing participates to the cause outside there love for God. The positions were not positions that paid money nor were they held as positions of honour, but for the most part were positions of sacrifice. There are many today in the position of Pastors, Elders etc... who want the position for the purpose of Honour not true love for God (not all) but some *this is my opinion not meant to individually judge motives.* Thus we have myriads of pastors who are not converted on the issues of diet, sabbath observance or even the roll of Ellen G. White. But the most frightening thing is that the church has taken the position that only God should have. My original statement was based on the status of the church as it stands. Even the positions of Elder, Pastor, Deacon, are not viewed in their right light because of the blatant stance of the church against itself. Like when Jesus came in the time of the Jewish church who were allowing divorce for any cause because of the hardness of the peoples hearts. Thus women now strive to be in the glorified position of Elder, Pastor, General conference leader etc... And we have only ourselves to blame because the positions have been glorified and made the portals for heaven and enlightenment.
-
The authority to ordain rests with the Unions.
Whether or not to ordain females should have been decided at the Union level. It should never have gone to a GC session.
I suppose a teenager might ask Dad for permission for something, get turned down, and then regret that he had ever asked Dad instead of Mom, or that he had asked anyone at all if his request seemed fairly innocent. But once Dad says no, if the kid does it anyway, the label "rebellious teenager" just might fit if he balks at restrictions, doesn't want to be told what to do, and wants to have his own way.
Yet the fact of the matter is that doctrinal matters are not decided at the union level, and this is a doctrinal matter. It therefore ought to be decided by a GC Session.
You refer to unions being in charge of deciding who gets ordained. This is true. It is also true that local churches, not GC Sessions, are in charge of deciding what is served at potluck. (Some potlucks out there are coordinated.) Nevertheless, a local church should not start serving pork chops and champagne at potlucks simply because the local church is in charge of potlucks. Thus, the choices made by the entity in charge of potlucks/ordinations are expected to be within the parameters established by GC Sessions.
If unions are in charge of deciding who gets ordained, which they are, does that mean they can ordain someone without examining them at all? Or must they ordain only within the parameters laid down higher up, which includes the requirement that the candidate be examined?
-
Bob said:
Yet the fact of the matter is that doctrinal matters are not decided at the union level, and this is a doctrinal matter. It therefore ought to be decided by a GC Session.
Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word.
The Seventh-day Adventist Chruch has expressed its doctrinal beliefs in a statement that was voted in 2005, at a General Conference session, as constituting 28 beliefs. Nowhere in those 28 beliefs is ordination restricted to males. In none of those statements is ordination prohibited to females. Ordination of females is not required to be voted on by the General Conference in session. The authority to ordain is given to the Union Conferences.
Bob said:
If unions are in charge of deciding who gets ordained, which they are, does that mean they can ordain someone without examining them at all? Or must they ordain only within the parameters laid down higher up, which includes the requirement that the candidate be examined?
Bob, you misunderstand the process of ordination in the SDA Chruch. Union Conferences in the NAD, never personally examine the candidates for ordination. In this process, the Local Conference simply submits a list of candidates to be ordained. The Union Conference simply votes the list up or down. It has the authority to delete a candidate and, I suppose, the authority to add a candidate, although you might be able to challenge me on that.
You may tell me that the Local Conference exmined the candidate prior to sending a list to the Union Conference. I would not argue at length such a statemetnt. However, I remind you that the Local Conference can conduct that so-called examination of candidates in just about any manner that it choses to do. To be specific, I am aware of decisions (Note, I have stated in the plural form.) that were made without talking personally to the candidate. So, your statement that examination of the candidate is required is rather weak.
In modern times, the NAD has attempted to clean up the process of ordination by stopping what some have considered to be problems in ordaining people who realisticly were unlikely to ever serve as congregational pastors and/or to standardize the requirements for ordination in the NAD. However, that attempt has been imperfect and not fully successful. In modern times people have been ordained who have not met those requirements and/or are unlikely to ever serve as congregational pastors in the NAD. These may be few, but this has happened.
-
The authority to ordain rests with the Unions.
Whether or not to ordain females should have been decided at the Union level. It should never have gone to a GC session.
I suppose a teenager might ask Dad for permission for something, get turned down, and then regret that he had ever asked Dad instead of Mom, or that he had asked anyone at all if his request seemed fairly innocent. But once Dad says no, if the kid does it anyway, the label "rebellious teenager" just might fit if he balks at restrictions, doesn't want to be told what to do, and wants to have his own way.
Yet the fact of the matter is that doctrinal matters are not decided at the union level, and this is a doctrinal matter. It therefore ought to be decided by a GC Session.
You refer to unions being in charge of deciding who gets ordained. This is true. It is also true that local churches, not GC Sessions, are in charge of deciding what is served at potluck. (Some potlucks out there are coordinated.) Nevertheless, a local church should not start serving pork chops and champagne at potlucks simply because the local church is in charge of potlucks. Thus, the choices made by the entity in charge of potlucks/ordinations are expected to be within the parameters established by GC Sessions.
If unions are in charge of deciding who gets ordained, which they are, does that mean they can ordain someone without examining them at all? Or must they ordain only within the parameters laid down higher up, which includes the requirement that the candidate be examined?
Just because there are rebellious teenagers in the world is no evidence this is a rebellion. It is rather a disagreement on who is qualified for ordination, just like Paul and Barnabas disagreed on if John Mark was qualified. Silas accepted him while Paul did not. Against the arguments of Paul, Silas "rebelled" and accepted John Mark and made him his companion in evangelism. Later on Paul repented and accepted what, according to your arguments, could be defined as a rebellion.
Here is another illustration: Yesterday our conference arranged a trip for senior members where we, among other tings, saw the only antique cream diary in our country where the machinery is still in running condition. For our sake the guide opened the watergate starting the mill whereby the gears and belts turned. What was missing was the old generator run by the system where people could bring their radio batteries and have them recharged. We saw an empty barrel ready to be filled with butter to be sold in England. On the barrel it said "Danish Butter". Why? Because British housewives know that Danish butter tastes good, and the name could be used because Danish farmers did not have a copyright on the trade name, so it was perfectly legal.
There was also a bedroom with a kerosene lamp where the two young ladies running the place for the owners the final years, took turns sleeping. One of them actually went back to school to learn how a modern diary works when the place closed down 1952, while things seemed to run smoothly.
Our guide gave us a picture of certain "rebellions" against the owners taking place that were needed to make certain improvements. The owners were eight local farmers. The final rebellion took place when the place was shut down against the wish of some of the owners. It seems like the rebellious ones were the new generation of farmers who were no longer just teenagers.
I see a comparison in this with how our church functions, and I wonder if any of you do too? Were the "rebellions" justified?
On that trip I was told something that really alarms me. In certain areas in the world we have people who have been truly God-fearing, loyal believers who are still convinced that rejecting female pastors is a true sign of sanctification. But as these people have been searching eagerly for support in the writings of Ellen G White for their conviction they discover there is no such support to be found.
What these "honest" people are doing now is studying the writings of James White and other pioneers. Some of these people are now indicating there is more "truth" to be found among the male pastors of antiquity than in the writings of this young female, Ellen, who was really trying to play a role greater than the male pastors. Therefore she cannot be fully trusted, they say.
So what this "new" group is teaching us is how important it is for us to understand the inferior role of women to that of men in order to understand the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. Only then, according to this doctrine, can we be true Christians. We must also learn that not everything Ellen White says is quite what it appears to be, according to this new theory.
Do you feel this is a development in the right direction for our church? I sincerely hope not.
-
What these "honest" people are doing now is studying the writings of James White and other pioneers. Some of these people are now indicating there is more "truth" to be found among the male pastors of antiquity than in the writings of this young female, Ellen, who was really trying to play a role greater than the male pastors. Therefore she cannot be fully trusted, they say.
Johann has raised an interesting point: In the early days of EGW, the developing SDA church was divided as to whether or not the Bible allowed EGW, as a female, to fill the role in the developing denomination that she claimed. Those who were opposed took essentially the same position that is taken today by those who are opposed to ordaining females today. Those who supported EGW in her role, argued essentially the same as those today who approve of ordaining women. These discussions were well reported in SDA publicaitons such as the REVIEW.
Those who supported EGW in her claimed role essentially won the arguement when EGW was issued the credentials of an ordained minister by the General Conference, although she was not ordained in a public ceremony, or any private ceremony.
The arguements of today on this issue are largely a repeat of arguements from our early history.
-
Yes, Gregory, we have seen treasurers who have never functioned as pastors/evangelists being ordained, and my wife was asking me the other day how this could happen.
Bob has so aptly pointed out that leaders have authority. One of the arguments by leaders has been that if a General Conference or Division treasurer travels in the mission field as a Church Administrator he needs to have the authority of a pastor.
Times change, and this might not apply any more. So this is what leaders are now attempting to change. But there are still some among us who religiously adhere to a doctrine that nothing changes.
-
Each Division establishes the basic requirements that people who are expected to meet in order to be ordained. These requirements are not the same betweent the Divisions. I agree that they should not be the same. E.G. There are differences in required education. There are other differences.
In my comment, I was thinking of people who were ordained who will never travel to other countries in the service of the denomination and who realisticly will never pastor churches in the NAD.
I refrain from being specific because I do not want peole reading this post to attempt to identify individuals.
We really are not consistent. I am reminded of an individual who had spent his life as a congregational pastor. Finally due to health reasons he was not able to continue as a local pastor. So he went back to school and move to the Conference office to an administrative position to which he became qualified due to his new education. I consider him to be an excellent pastor. With this change in employment he lost his credentials as an ordained minister and was given a different credential.
During this period of time, that Local Conference ordained an individual who had never pastored a congregation, who will never serve the denomination on higher levels and is unlikely to ever pastor congregations on any permanent basis. Yes, he can fill in to present sermons when regular pastors are unable to do so. But, he will never be a regular congregational pstor.
-
The working policies of presumably all the divisions already say that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and therefore divisions cannot go contrary to that vote without having that vote rescinded ... unless God Himself has settled the matter in Scripture or the SoP.
You make an important point here, Bob. Some people in our Church believe sincerely that this matter is settled in Scripture and the SoP and therefore the church would be blessed by issuing certain women the same certificate the General Conference issued Ellen G White as an ordained minister rather than a commissioned minister.
My understanding of the problem is that ordination grants rights or privileges that are recognized worldwide. If each division does its own thing, it would be similar to one state "marrying" two men, and then another state trying to figure out how not to recognize that so-called marriage when dealing with taxes, adoptions, retirement, and inheritance.
Does your understanding have a Biblical foundation, Bob?
When Barnabas took John Mark with him into the work of evangelism he did not have such an approval by the apostle Paul, so they went different ways - and that turned out to be a blessing. If that could be a blessing in the days of the Apostles, would that prohibit the Holy Spirit from providing a blessing to the world if different things is done in different parts of the world. Why not rather search for samples from Scripture rather than the world of sodomy, sin, and gay movements? I have no claims of familiarity with such a world, because my real home is in heaven.
-
The answer is no i don't think Ellen G. White was prompted by the Gay or Woman's movement in her day. What I am saying is in this time we live I do believe that it is the case. I also believe that the ordination of women is a platform for women to become Conference Presidents and even General Conference President. The reason for it (women's ordination) is not strictly kept in the paremeters of gay and women's rights but it is also a money issue too. You know most of the early leaders of the church were not willing participates to the cause outside there love for God. The positions were not positions that paid money nor were they held as positions of honour, but for the most part were positions of sacrifice. There are many today in the position of Pastors, Elders etc... who want the position for the purpose of Honour not true love for God (not all) but some *this is my opinion not meant to individually judge motives.* Thus we have myriads of pastors who are not converted on the issues of diet, sabbath observance or even the roll of Ellen G. White. But the most frightening thing is that the church has taken the position that only God should have. My original statement was based on the status of the church as it stands. Even the positions of Elder, Pastor, Deacon, are not viewed in their right light because of the blatant stance of the church against itself. Like when Jesus came in the time of the Jewish church who were allowing divorce for any cause because of the hardness of the peoples hearts. Thus women now strive to be in the glorified position of Elder, Pastor, General conference leader etc... And we have only ourselves to blame because the positions have been glorified and made the portals for heaven and enlightenment.
I am really struggling to get your points, Christian.
-
Bob, I realize that some agree fully with your interpretation, but you even bite yourself in your tail with the above statement. It is only people who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God who believe it is stating the truth when it talks about the priesthood of all believes. This was a part of the Reformation of Martin Luther, who also made quite a point of this.
It is those who reject the Reformation message who reject the priesthood of all believers. So I'd invite you, Bob, to put on Protestant Spectacles so you can see clearly what Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy is telling us today.
Yes, the New Testament uses the term "priesthood of all believers", but it is only the Catholic church which has priests of the Old Testament order. Consider that! English speaking Seventh-day Adventist have avoided the term "priest" when referring to our pastors/evangelists, just to make this distinction clear, and I believe this includes Ellen G White.
Johann,
I think you need to explain what you mean a little more. We have already covered, I believe, that the NT reference to the priesthood of all believers is a quotation from Ex. 19:6. Since the priesthood of all believers is therefore an OT concept, and since all believers could not serve as priests of the tabernacle in the OT, where is the problem of gleaning lessons from the rebellion of Korah for the current situation?
Nothing wrong with referring to Korah, but that does not justify the OT priesthood is the same as the NT.
Just because I have not responded to a post does not mean that I am in agreement with everything it said.
Just because the Priesthood of all Believers is also found in the OT in connection with the old priesthood, does this mean the NT concept is entirely the same? Did the offerings of the OT not cease with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the real sacrifice?
In my Bible Ex 19:6 states that Israel is to be a nation ruled by priests. Perhaps this is a problem? And why you dislike the idea of being ruled by female priests?
When reading modern sermons by Roman Catholic priests I understand your concern. They teach that Jesus Christ will never come back to earth in person, but that the Second Coming becomes real when the whole world is ruled from the Vatican through the priests around the world.
Protestants do not make priests their rulers, and they should not be. Pastors are teachers, like prophets. Since when have Adventists dismissed a female prophet?
Another point I think that has been raised is that no one is calling for the ordination of all believers. Shall we ordain all 6 year old believers to the gospel ministry since all believers are priests? If not, are we thereby rejecting the concept of the priesthood of all believers, leaving Protestantism behind, and becoming Roman Catholic? Certainly not.
Therefore, the concept of priesthood of all believers is insufficient justification for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.
To which I agree wholeheartedly. That if far from the intention. And I have no intention of dealing with this question on the level of a 6-year old kid.
-
I wasn't at the 1995 GC Session when the ordination of women, within divisions that decided to permit it, was voted down, but the vote was taken and the decision was made, and that decision has never been rescinded.
I was there.
Do you really mean what you said, Bob? Perhaps you intended to word it somewhat different?
-
What these "honest" people are doing now is studying the writings of James White and other pioneers. Some of these people are now indicating there is more "truth" to be found among the male pastors of antiquity than in the writings of this young female, Ellen, who was really trying to play a role greater than the male pastors. Therefore she cannot be fully trusted, they say.
Johann has raised an interesting point: In the early days of EGW, the developing SDA church was divided as to whether or not the Bible allowed EGW, as a female, to fill the role in the developing denomination that she claimed. Those who were opposed took essentially the same position that is taken today by those who are opposed to ordaining females today. Those who supported EGW in her role, argued essentially the same as those today who approve of ordaining women. These discussions were well reported in SDA publicaitons such as the REVIEW.
Those who supported EGW in her claimed role essentially won the arguement when EGW was issued the credentials of an ordained minister by the General Conference, although she was not ordained in a public ceremony, or any private ceremony.
The arguements of today on this issue are largely a repeat of arguements from our early history.
Gregory, I believe this is really our primary concern.
-
Bob said:
My understanding of the problem is that ordination grants rights or privileges that are recognized worldwide.
On one level, Bob is correct. The underlying theory is that ordination qualifies a perosn to work world-wide. Therefore, when I was living in Korea, I was quallified to perform the d uties of an ordained minister in Korea. However, that theory has been modified to some extent.
1) While an ordained minister is quallified to perform the duties of an ordained minister world-wide, that minister is supposed to do so only with the permission of the local church auathorities. As a U.S. Army chaplain, if I baptized someone outside of the U.S. Army, I had to get permission from the local Koran leadership. When I once asked for such, I was granted that permission, but I could only perform outside of the U.S. Army with their permission.
2) Realisticly, a SDA minister ordained in one Division is not likely to be authorized to regularly perform the duties of an ordained minister, such as be a congregational pastor, in another Division unless that ordained minster meets the local requirements of that Division/Union/Local Conference. IOW A local pastor from some Divisions will likely be able to serve as a local pastor in the NAD only if that local pastor meets NAD/Union/Local Confereance requirements to be a local pastor.
I have lived in another Division where the majority of local pastors would not be allowed to serve as local pastors in the NAD. This is potentially true for people going in the other direction. Most NAD pastor would not likely be able to serve as local pastors in some other areas.
-
To help you to understand, I will give you a very specific example.
When I asked permission of Koran SDA authorities to baptize outside of the U.S. Army, they were concerned that they understood that I did not meet one of the requirements that they had for their local clergy. They hesitated to give me that peremisison.
They sought advice from U.S. SDA leadership. The answer came back to them: He is credentialed by the General Conference. He meets GC standards. The quesion you raise is not of concern to the GC. He is not asking to be one of your local pastors. You do not have any grounds to refuse him permission to baptize, even though you may have the authority to do so. He had to ask you for permission and he did so. Make your decision, but do not do so on the basis of the question that you asked. It is not a problem.
I was granted permission to baptize and I did so.
-
Right, Gregory, the requirements are not universal, although they may seem to be in USA. As an ordained minister in the SDA church I have performed marriages in the United States, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria, without any questions or problems, and this would also be true in Iceland. I have also performed marriages in in Denmark and Norway, but I could not go back there and do it today. Unless something has changed since I was there, only certain SDA churches in Denmark are authorized for marriages, and the pastor of those churches is therefore authorized to perform a marriage. In Denmark I have had marriages in unauthorized churches where I had to send an application to the government for special permission to marry a certain couple at this church. That permission did not authorize more than one wedding at that given time.
In Norway weddings can be held at any SDA church provided the performing minister is the pastor of a SDA church somewhere in Norway, and he needs to be registered with government authorities that he/she is the pastor of a specified church. It does not have to be that particular church, but it must be a church in Norway. Here the universal ordination does not count as far as weddings are concerned.
-
We really are not consistent.
I totally agree with that statement. Additionally, favoritism and nepotism run rampant, in my experience anyway.
-
Snoopy: Sometimes.
I do not justify. I do not excuse.
Denominations are a mixture of godly and human. As human they are imperfect. In their human element they may discourage people on their spiritual journey.
Some years back I went through a spiritual crisis where I re-evaulated my relationship to the SDA denomination. My decision to remain came only after I decided that I would not allow anyone else to define the SDA Chruch for me. Rather I wold define it for myself, I would determine what was representative of what God would ask of the SDA church and I would disstinguish between that and what I saw as human imperfection.
Out of that experience, I do not judge the spiritual walk that others take. I do not attempt to impose my views on them. Each person must make their personal decisions as to spirituality, hopefullly led by the Holy Spirit and it is not my function in life to put them in a box.
At the risk of being misunderstood: Some people have been so injured in their relationship with the SDA Chruch that in order to experience the love of Christ and salvation, they must leave. Hopefully they will be able to return at some point in their journey. In any case the God who loves them will continue to seek to lead them spiritually.
Well, did I open up a Pandora's Box?
-
The answer is no i don't think Ellen G. White was prompted by the Gay or Woman's movement in her day. What I am saying is in this time we live I do believe that it is the case. I also believe that the ordination of women is a platform for women to become Conference Presidents and even General Conference President. The reason for it (women's ordination) is not strictly kept in the paremeters of gay and women's rights but it is also a money issue too. You know most of the early leaders of the church were not willing participates to the cause outside there love for God. The positions were not positions that paid money nor were they held as positions of honour, but for the most part were positions of sacrifice. There are many today in the position of Pastors, Elders etc... who want the position for the purpose of Honour not true love for God (not all) but some *this is my opinion not meant to individually judge motives.* Thus we have myriads of pastors who are not converted on the issues of diet, sabbath observance or even the roll of Ellen G. White. But the most frightening thing is that the church has taken the position that only God should have. My original statement was based on the status of the church as it stands. Even the positions of Elder, Pastor, Deacon, are not viewed in their right light because of the blatant stance of the church against itself. Like when Jesus came in the time of the Jewish church who were allowing divorce for any cause because of the hardness of the peoples hearts. Thus women now strive to be in the glorified position of Elder, Pastor, General conference leader etc... And we have only ourselves to blame because the positions have been glorified and made the portals for heaven and enlightenment.
I am really struggling to get your points, Christian.
Okay, here is my point. I believe that the church is in apostasy so bad you might as well ordain anyone who wants it. In the light of the churches position on topics that are clear as glass the church takes positions based the same as the nominal churches (what is appropriate and acceptable for the time). We, the church at large are simply a quasi Sabbath keeping denomination, saved by the fourth commandment. We have become such a denomination of contradictions, we mirror the church prior to Christ coming. You must remember that the church was the tool used to kill the Son of Man. We argue topics like the Jews of old and then ignore the very truth we have. We believe that anything we do as a cooporation is the will of God once we in session have approved it, so lets just let the majority rule, what is the use of debating. It is becoming more and more difficult for me to debate things as though we are Gods tool for spreading the Gospel no matter what we do. If we would just do what we know and have no conflict with the rest would take care of itself. Ellen White would say that a pastor that is not converted on the issue of meat eating should not be trusted,) I am paraphrasing)
-
Okay, here is my point. I believe that the church is in apostasy so bad you might as well ordain anyone who wants it. In the light of the churches position on topics that are clear as glass the church takes positions based the same as the nominal churches (what is appropriate and acceptable for the time). We, the church at large are simply a quasi Sabbath keeping denomination, saved by the fourth commandment. We have become such a denomination of contradictions, we mirror the church prior to Christ coming. You must remember that the church was the tool used to kill the Son of Man. We argue topics like the Jews of old and then ignore the very truth we have. We believe that anything we do as a cooporation is the will of God once we in session have approved it, so lets just let the majority rule, what is the use of debating. It is becoming more and more difficult for me to debate things as though we are Gods tool for spreading the Gospel no matter what we do. If we would just do what we know and have no conflict with the rest would take care of itself. Ellen White would say that a pastor that is not converted on the issue of meat eating should not be trusted,) I am paraphrasing)
Christian, you and I are so much in agreement that I might even read some of your post in connection with my Sabbath sermon tomorrow. You seem to have a burden on your heart, and so do I.
Eight months from now I have been a vegetarian for 80 years, so I am in agreement with your main grievance. Three months ago I went on our national TV and I still meet people who saw and heard me speak about my vegetarian experience.
With you I believe we need a real repentance and reformation also within our ranks. Yes, we still have a majority within our ranks who take pride in following the teachings of Babylon and reject the clear counsel of the Spirit of Prophecy.
Israel in the wilderness missed the Egyptian pots of meat and they rebelled. Meat for the home is still prepared in the kitchen. For many this is where the conversion begins because what you eat becomes a part of your being. Most of the eager vegetarians I meet are women. We must not stop them in their work for the Lord.
I think the pope is aware of this and he - together with the great majority of the so-called Christian World - are fearful of an awakening and a reformation.
Christian, I weep at the altar when I consider that even some of my good friends on this forum are blind to the facts, they throw the clear words of prophecy into the dust just to please the great majority of so-called Christians in the world.
Yes, the Pope controls the majority of Christianity. Add to that the Southern Baptists in the United States, and what a glorious majority you have. How long are they to remain a ruling force among us too?
Add even to that the majority and leaders in the Seventh-day Adventist Church today. Christian, it is an uphill struggle. This great majority fight hands and foot against the awakening as the Lord is revealing to a minority among us that the great prophecy of Joel might soon reach its fulfillment. A woman was the most important pioneer in our church. She was not ashamed of receiving an ordination, and she was so fortunate it was God Himself who ordained her. For that she had no qualms about receiving the recognition of her church as an ordained minister. She clearly stated that some women should be ordained, and she never put a single iota down on paper against the ordination of women. How blind can the great majority of the Christian world remain? Even among our own leaders? What is holding us back?
We must not let the demonic influences hold us back, Christian. It is still an uphill battle, but here we find a comfort:
"Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, we may go on from strength to strength, from victory to victory; for through Christ the grace of God has worked out our complete salvation" (Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 364).
-
It seems appropriate to add the following quotations:
“We are not to make the use of flesh food a test of fellowship, but we should consider the influence that professed believers who use flesh foods have over others. . . . Will those who are supported by the tithe from God’s storehouse permit themselves by self-indulgence to poison the life-giving current flowing through their veins?”—Testimonies, vol. 9, pp. 159, 160; “While we do not make the use of flesh meat a test, while we do not want to force anyone to give up its use, yet it is our duty to request that no minister of the conference shall make light of or oppose the message of reform on this point.”—Letter 48, 1902, cited in Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 401
What does this mean to us?
If this is not to be a test of fellowship, what is?
How important to us are some of those things that are not a test of fellowship?
Are we making things a test of fellowship that are not?
-
The answer is no i don't think Ellen G. White was prompted by the Gay or Woman's movement in her day. What I am saying is in this time we live I do believe that it is the case. I also believe that the ordination of women is a platform for women to become Conference Presidents and even General Conference President. The reason for it (women's ordination) is not strictly kept in the paremeters of gay and women's rights but it is also a money issue too. You know most of the early leaders of the church were not willing participates to the cause outside there love for God. The positions were not positions that paid money nor were they held as positions of honour, but for the most part were positions of sacrifice. There are many today in the position of Pastors, Elders etc... who want the position for the purpose of Honour not true love for God (not all) but some *this is my opinion not meant to individually judge motives.* Thus we have myriads of pastors who are not converted on the issues of diet, sabbath observance or even the roll of Ellen G. White. But the most frightening thing is that the church has taken the position that only God should have. My original statement was based on the status of the church as it stands. Even the positions of Elder, Pastor, Deacon, are not viewed in their right light because of the blatant stance of the church against itself. Like when Jesus came in the time of the Jewish church who were allowing divorce for any cause because of the hardness of the peoples hearts. Thus women now strive to be in the glorified position of Elder, Pastor, General conference leader etc... And we have only ourselves to blame because the positions have been glorified and made the portals for heaven and enlightenment.
I am really struggling to get your points, Christian.
Okay, here is my point. I believe that the church is in apostasy so bad you might as well ordain anyone who wants it. In the light of the churches position on topics that are clear as glass the church takes positions based the same as the nominal churches (what is appropriate and acceptable for the time). We, the church at large are simply a quasi Sabbath keeping denomination, saved by the fourth commandment. We have become such a denomination of contradictions, we mirror the church prior to Christ coming. You must remember that the church was the tool used to kill the Son of Man. We argue topics like the Jews of old and then ignore the very truth we have. We believe that anything we do as a cooporation is the will of God once we in session have approved it, so lets just let the majority rule, what is the use of debating. It is becoming more and more difficult for me to debate things as though we are Gods tool for spreading the Gospel no matter what we do. If we would just do what we know and have no conflict with the rest would take care of itself. Ellen White would say that a pastor that is not converted on the issue of meat eating should not be trusted,) I am paraphrasing)
Amen!! :goodpost:
-
In many ways a Church is simply people who have been called out from the world. It is not a building. According to the Bible, God's church consists of called out people.
As to the SDA denomination: More than one denominational commentator has suggested that the SDA Denomination today is made up of five (5) groups that differ in belief and life style. As an interesting point, people differ as to the specifics of these five groups. :)
My personal opinion is that I would rather have this denomination consist of five different groups than to see it split. I say, leave some things to God and let God cast the weeds out of the flowers if need be. I do not believe that I need to be doing that.
Further, I do not believe that every doctrinal or life-style issue is of equal importance. I am a life-long lacto-ova-vegitarian. But, I do not believe that such a diet is the most important part of the gospel. I place at the center of the gospel the cross and the salvation that Christ has provided us in the fullness of God's love. That is more important than the Sabbath, EGW, the state of the dead and whether or not one votes for a President in November who uses tobacco. Some spiritual issues are more important and more central to the gospel message than others. In fact, some spiritual issues are presented in a manner that they do not seem to be any kind of "good news" at all.
Yes, it can be said the there are members within the SDA Church who are in apostacy just as it can be said that there are some members who are followers of Christ. It will likely be like this until the 2nd Advent. I do not expect to find a perfect church, at least not one of which I am a member. :)
-
We really are not consistent.
I totally agree with that statement. Additionally, favoritism and nepotism run rampant, in my experience anyway.
A constant fight with human sinful nature. The church should be a hospital, but healing is only available if the divine physician is allowed to do His work.
-
It has been suggested that even though Ellen G. White had the credentials of an ordained minister she did not function as such because she never baptized nor performed marriages.
Have you forgotten the story of the Apostle Paul? Didn't he state that he tried to leave all of the baptisms to others, with a few exceptions? How many couples did he marry? How many burials are recorded?
Does the record indicate that he did not fulfill the requirements for ordination? Was Paul ordained?
-
The same for other people who we have ordained.
Take A.L. White--the grandson of EGW, for an example. He was ordained but did not function as a typical pastor.
-
Nowhere in those 28 beliefs is ordination restricted to males.
I don't think you adequately addressed the issue. You had stated that the issue was one for the unions to decide, not the GC, and I pointed out that GC Sessions, not unions, decides doctrinal issues. It is therefore within a GC Session's realm to decide this question, which it already has, twice.
Bob, you misunderstand the process of ordination in the SDA Chruch.
I was referring to what I had read in GC/NAD policy. That policy calls for an examination, and states who is supposed to conduct the examination. The existence of such policies is proof that higher entities set parameters within which the unions' authority to authorize ordinations operates. Thus that authority does not mean there are no parameters determined by higher organizations.
-
Just because there are rebellious teenagers in the world is no evidence this is a rebellion.
If the unions and conferences involved make it crystal clear that they will not ordain a woman until permitted to do so by a GC Session vote, then there certainly is not rebellion against properly constituted church authority going on.
-
Johann has raised an interesting point: In the early days of EGW, the developing SDA church was divided as to whether or not the Bible allowed EGW, as a female, to fill the role in the developing denomination that she claimed.
Could you provide some references? I am unaware of such a discussion.
-
You make an important point here, Bob. Some people in our Church believe sincerely that this matter is settled in Scripture and the SoP and therefore the church would be blessed by issuing certain women the same certificate the General Conference issued Ellen G White as an ordained minister rather than a commissioned minister.
They may believe sincerely, but they have difficulty thus far in articulating a solid biblical and SoP basis for their belief. And that is a problem.
-
We really are not consistent.
I totally agree with that statement. Additionally, favoritism and nepotism run rampant, in my experience anyway.
A constant fight with human sinful nature. The church should be a hospital, but healing is only available if the divine physician is allowed to do His work.
Too many egos in SS in the way for that, I'm afraid... It's sad, really.
-
Snoopy: Sometimes.
I do not justify. I do not excuse.
Denominations are a mixture of godly and human. As human they are imperfect. In their human element they may discourage people on their spiritual journey.
Some years back I went through a spiritual crisis where I re-evaulated my relationship to the SDA denomination. My decision to remain came only after I decided that I would not allow anyone else to define the SDA Chruch for me. Rather I wold define it for myself, I would determine what was representative of what God would ask of the SDA church and I would disstinguish between that and what I saw as human imperfection.
Out of that experience, I do not judge the spiritual walk that others take. I do not attempt to impose my views on them. Each person must make their personal decisions as to spirituality, hopefullly led by the Holy Spirit and it is not my function in life to put them in a box.
At the risk of being misunderstood: Some people have been so injured in their relationship with the SDA Chruch that in order to experience the love of Christ and salvation, they must leave. Hopefully they will be able to return at some point in their journey. In any case the God who loves them will continue to seek to lead them spiritually.
Well, did I open up a Pandora's Box?
No. On the contrary, your thoughts gave me hope! Thank you!!
-
Bob, in the days of my early ministry I lived in metro-washington DC. I spent time at the General Conferences reading in the vaults the articles in the REVIEW and other such publications. There was a lot of contraversy then over the role of EGW since she was a female. Those publications reported on the contraversy and the differencs of opinon. The arguements were essentially the same as are made today.
No, I cannot give you a listing of references.
-
Bob, in the days of my early ministry I lived in metro-washington DC. I spent time at the General Conferences reading in the vaults the articles in the REVIEW and other such publications. There was a lot of contraversy then over the role of EGW since she was a female. Those publications reported on the contraversy and the differencs of opinon. The arguements were essentially the same as are made today.
No, I cannot give you a listing of references.
What you are stating here, Gregory, is fully in agreement with studies and reading I did while taking classes in SDA church history, but just like you, I do not have the references, except in my memory during the past 50-60 years. However, I recall reading quite a bit about it in the writings of Ellen White as well. And it certainly is true that the modern antagonists against women in ministry are parroting the objections used against that young girl claiming she was called by God. I'd like to make a study to see if they aren't interpreting Scripture in the same way, because some things point in that direction.
-
We really are not consistent.
I totally agree with that statement. Additionally, favoritism and nepotism run rampant, in my experience anyway.
A constant fight with human sinful nature. The church should be a hospital, but healing is only available if the divine physician is allowed to do His work.
Too many egos in SS in the way for that, I'm afraid... It's sad, really.
A good reason to keep studying Scripture to rediscover the love of God and how it should reflect in our own lives. It is impossible for us to work on being good and obedient in order to love God and others. It is but the love of Christ, like Paul states it, which constrains us to do good.
Let's pray for each other!
-
Just because there are rebellious teenagers in the world is no evidence this is a rebellion.
If the unions and conferences involved make it crystal clear that they will not ordain a woman until permitted to do so by a GC Session vote, then there certainly is not rebellion against properly constituted church authority going on.
This may be true, Bob, but you expressed an exception yourself, and that is unless you are convinced the GC vote was made contrary to the will of God as expressed in Scripture and/or the Spirit of Prophecy. It is my honest belief that it is this conviction which has prompted certain duly elected Church leaders to follow their conviction and conscience, knowing the history of the past how similar arguments were used against the young girl, Ellen Harmon.
Ellen White praised young Martin Luther for rebelling against the decisions of the Church when his conscience convinced him to go in a different direction, and not wait for the approval of the cardinal. This was at a time when the future program of the church was dependent on the income derived from the sale of indulgences, but that did not prevent Martin from stepping forward.
Have you seen the church door where young Martin nailed his rebellious post? There is a comfortable room in the nearby SDA church where you can stay overnight for a modest fee.
-
You make an important point here, Bob. Some people in our Church believe sincerely that this matter is settled in Scripture and the SoP and therefore the church would be blessed by issuing certain women the same certificate the General Conference issued Ellen G White as an ordained minister rather than a commissioned minister.
They may believe sincerely, but they have difficulty thus far in articulating a solid biblical and SoP basis for their belief. And that is a problem.
At times actions speak louder than a clear articulation.
-
I truly wonder why we do not follow the prophetic guidance the Lord so graciously bestowed on the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I find it interesting how many times we do find resolutions taken in the past in the direction of ordaining women. Then so many treat the leaders who worked in this direction as if they did not read the Word of God, So many of our Bible teachers have studied the question thoroughly and come to the conclusion that it is Biblical to ordain women.
Many refer to 1 Tim. 3 without considering how the original Greek of verse 11 is being translated by many scholars, and is shown in a number of Bible translations which show that the same principles that are listed for men, apply to women as well. Just look at your KJV and notice that three words in that verse are rendered in italics which show that they are added to the original text by the translators. Then the word for "women" is rendered as "their wives" by those translators. To me this is a sign that some portions of our Bible have been manipulated by chauvinist males, probably the same who placed the comma in the wrong place in Luke 23:43.
Consider also how some of our pioneers rejected the testimony of the young Ellen Harmon because she was just a girl, and yet she was ordained by God himself, and she had no qualms about receiving the certificate and classification as an ordained minister in our church,
Add to that that Ellen White pronounced in 1895 that certain women in our church should be ordained, and that she never issued one iota against the ordination of female ministers in the church. How could she, when she herself was classified as an ordained minister?
In spite of this we still have these male chauvinists who think they can change and manipulate all of the facts according to their own desires. Then just now it has been revealed that one of the most expressive chauvinist of them all, an expert and scholar classifying the role of women in comparison with that of the male, has showed by his own example that such women are but playthings to gratify the lust of man.
-
We really are not consistent.
I totally agree with that statement. Additionally, favoritism and nepotism run rampant, in my experience anyway.
Recently I was part of an SDA workgroup where our secretary, a married lady, was carrying on a friendship with a married man - an old romantic flame from academy. This woman's husband was not thrilled about this, of course, so to appease him she quit communicating with the old flame from her home. Alternatively, she resorted to maintaining the friendship from our office using church equipment and systems, even receiving gifts from him there!! As far as I know to this day, she still has a wooden basket on her desk with a gold heart attached which she hides with silk flowers!!! I could usually tell when she was chatting with this guy online by the dreamy look on her face!!
-
Sin waits at the door for many of us, both men and women.
-
Hi Johann
"The term ordination is not found anywhere in the Bible, so it needs to be defined. . . How, and by whom?"
Certainly agree with you on this one. I can't believe this is such a contentious issue and one that can hinder the spread of the gospel. Who cares?I don't.Women whether ordained or not are also part of the great commission of Christ to spread the message to the whole world. EGW's counsel is ideal, but reality is as much important. Don't you think?
-
Hi Johann
"The term ordination is not found anywhere in the Bible, so it needs to be defined. . . How, and by whom?"
Certainly agree with you on this one. I can't believe this is such a contentious issue and one that can hinder the spread of the gospel. Who cares?I don't.Women whether ordained or not are also part of the great commission of Christ to spread the message to the whole world. EGW's counsel is ideal, but reality is as much important. Don't you think?
Welcome, Sauliga. Good to see you here. I hope we willl have some enjoyable time together here.
It was a woman who first brought the resurrection message. It was a woman who had the greatest influence on forming our church right from the beginning. It would not surprise me if women will close the work so Jesus can come back.
-
Hi Johann
"The term ordination is not found anywhere in the Bible, so it needs to be defined. . . How, and by whom?"
Certainly agree with you on this one. I can't believe this is such a contentious issue and one that can hinder the spread of the gospel. Who cares?I don't.Women whether ordained or not are also part of the great commission of Christ to spread the message to the whole world. EGW's counsel is ideal, but reality is as much important. Don't you think?
Johann, what gain do women get from being ordained? How is whether women are ordained or not hinder the spread of the gospel? Is this a prelude to women Conference Presidents or General Conference President? Is this a fight for better pay or more respect? In your opinion what is the end game here?
Welcome, Sauliga. Good to see you here. I hope we willl have some enjoyable time together here.
It was a woman who first brought the resurrection message. It was a woman who had the greatest influence on forming our church right from the beginning. It would not surprise me if women will close the work so Jesus can come back.
-
Hi Johann
"The term ordination is not found anywhere in the Bible, so it needs to be defined. . . How, and by whom?"
Certainly agree with you on this one. I can't believe this is such a contentious issue and one that can hinder the spread of the gospel. Who cares?I don't.Women whether ordained or not are also part of the great commission of Christ to spread the message to the whole world. EGW's counsel is ideal, but reality is as much important. Don't you think?
Johann, what gain do women get from being ordained? How is whether women are ordained or not hinder the spread of the gospel? Is this a prelude to women Conference Presidents or General Conference President? Is this a fight for better pay or more respect? In your opinion what is the end game here?
Welcome, Sauliga. Good to see you here. I hope we willl have some enjoyable time together here.
It was a woman who first brought the resurrection message. It was a woman who had the greatest influence on forming our church right from the beginning. It would not surprise me if women will close the work so Jesus can come back.
The greatest gain I can think of at the moment is the knowledge they are following the Spirit of Prophecy and not the great crowd of Adventists who think we do not have to follow her any more. It is ridiculous then to claim they are doing it for greater pay or prestige.
Tell me why you are a vegetarian? Is it only because meat is more expensive? Or do you have any other reason?
-
In the early days of our church we had a female President of the IA Conference. Yes, it was for less than one year, but, she was President and she was female.
We presently have a female General Conference Vice-President.
-
Hi Johann
"The term ordination is not found anywhere in the Bible, so it needs to be defined. . . How, and by whom?"
Certainly agree with you on this one. I can't believe this is such a contentious issue and one that can hinder the spread of the gospel. Who cares?I don't.Women whether ordained or not are also part of the great commission of Christ to spread the message to the whole world. EGW's counsel is ideal, but reality is as much important. Don't you think?
Johann, what gain do women get from being ordained? How is whether women are ordained or not hinder the spread of the gospel? Is this a prelude to women Conference Presidents or General Conference President? Is this a fight for better pay or more respect? In your opinion what is the end game here?
Welcome, Sauliga. Good to see you here. I hope we willl have some enjoyable time together here.
It was a woman who first brought the resurrection message. It was a woman who had the greatest influence on forming our church right from the beginning. It would not surprise me if women will close the work so Jesus can come back.
The greatest gain I can think of at the moment is the knowledge they are following the Spirit of Prophecy and not the great crowd of Adventists who think we do not have to follow her any more. It is ridiculous then to claim they are doing it for greater pay or prestige.
Tell me why you are a vegetarian? Is it only because meat is more expensive? Or do you have any other reason?
I am vegetarian because the meat is so much more expensive. I believe your point is that I am vegetarian because of Ellen G. White, wearing or jewelry etc. However if that is what you are implyng you would not be correct. I can tell you that whatever Ellen White says must be conformed to the Bible and a study of the Bible simply confirms what the Spirit of Prophecy says.
-
In the early days of our church we had a female President of the IA Conference. Yes, it was for less than one year, but, she was President and she was female.
We presently have a female General Conference Vice-President.
And I think you should have a female over you and President of your Conference. And you should also put on a skirt and have a baby. Matter fact you should stay home and change diapers and burp the baby you mamby pamby. Look be a man for goodness sake, and be a mouthpeice for men. I can see if you were in the time of swords and arrow and going to war and the men all said "play the man" and fight for your wives and your family you would say "why should I since my wife can fight as well as I."
-
And I think you should have a female over you and President of your Conference. And you should also put on a skirt and have a baby. Matter fact you should stay home and change diapers and burp the baby you mamby pamby. Look be a man for goodness sake, and be a mouthpeice for men. I can see if you were in the time of swords and arrow and going to war and the men all said "play the man" and fight for your wives and your family you would say "why should I since my wife can fight as well as I."
I will let you diatribe speak for itself. To think that my simple comment that in the early days of our denomination we had a female President of the IA Conference produced your response.
However, as many here know: I am a combat veteran! I served in the time when women began integrating into the military. I served in combat with a unit that had female soldiers. In general terms, with occasional exceptions, our female soldiers were of a higher qualilty than our male soldiers. Why? They had to be in order to survive.
I suppose you may pontificate on women in the military. I will find your comment much more interesting if you tell us that you have served in combat and with females. If you can't tell us that, I will suspect tha you do not have the experential background to comment on females in the military.
-
In the early days of our church we had a female President of the IA Conference. Yes, it was for less than one year, but, she was President and she was female.
We presently have a female General Conference Vice-President.
And we have a female Union Vice-President in Denmark
and there is a female secretary in the Trans European Division of the General Conference
-
Just because there are rebellious teenagers in the world is no evidence this is a rebellion.
If the unions and conferences involved make it crystal clear that they will not ordain a woman until permitted to do so by a GC Session vote, then there certainly is not rebellion against properly constituted church authority going on.
This may be true, Bob, but you expressed an exception yourself, and that is unless you are convinced the GC vote was made contrary to the will of God as expressed in Scripture and/or the Spirit of Prophecy. It is my honest belief that it is this conviction which has prompted certain duly elected Church leaders to follow their conviction and conscience, knowing the history of the past how similar arguments were used against the young girl, Ellen Harmon.
Unless someone can provide at least one 19th century reference to that effect, I don't think we should be stating as fact that similar arguments were used against Ellen Harmon.
If the individuals involved cannot articulate a sound Bible and/or SoP basis for violating a GC Session vote, then it is rebellion, pure and simple. The Israelites tried the same sort of rationalizations after God told them they would die in the wilderness to justify their ongoing rebellion. We must not go down that road.
-
I have referred to it elsewhere that just the other day I had a talk with a person who has been traveling recently to different countries where this person had discovered traces of a new neo-orthodox movement in certain areas. These are individuals who think it is appropriate that the Adventist Church should follow the great majority of fallen Christianity in their views of preventing women to accept the role alongside males who proclaim the gospel.
Since these individuals are honest enough to understand that Ellen White endorsed the ordination of women to certain offices in the church, they find it convenient to sidetrack Ellen White, claiming the real prophets were James White and his fellow male preachers. Ellen was just trying to cope with them and borrow from them what she needed, and then she used it to further the role of women in the church, something the real males never endorsed.
I wonder if you have met anyone from this movement yet?
I find it interesting that our General Conference president has made a trip to China where women are officially ordained as regular pastors in some of our largest churches. Could this have shown him the importance of their work, and that it is more important now that we are approaching the soon coming of Jesus, than waiting for an endorsement at the next session of the General Conference? At least there have been positive reports of his visit in our church paper.
-
I have referred to it elsewhere that just the other day I had a talk with a person who has been traveling recently to different countries where this person had discovered traces of a new neo-orthodox movement in certain areas. These are individuals who think it is appropriate that the Adventist Church should follow the great majority of fallen Christianity in their views of preventing women to accept the role alongside males who proclaim the gospel.
Since these individuals are honest enough to understand that Ellen White endorsed the ordination of women to certain offices in the church, they find it convenient to sidetrack Ellen White, claiming the real prophets were James White and his fellow male preachers. Ellen was just trying to cope with them and borrow from them what she needed, and then she used it to further the role of women in the church, something the real males never endorsed.
I wonder if you have met anyone from this movement yet?
I find it interesting that our General Conference president has made a trip to China where women are officially ordained as regular pastors in some of our largest churches. Could this have shown him the importance of their work, and that it is more important now that we are approaching the soon coming of Jesus, than waiting for an endorsement at the next session of the General Conference? At least there have been positive reports of his visit in our church paper.
First of all the church is not beholden to the General Conference President and He is not appointed to be a dictator. You keep equivocating ordination to the effective work of women as though not doing it will prohibit the Gospel. If men and women would simply perform the equal important jobs God appointed them the Gospel long since would be spread. I liken your argument about ordination to that of the Gays who see the fact that they cannot carry the name marriage as prohibiting them from cohabitation. Jesus when he was here had twelve disciples and all were male, why do you think that was the case? There are a few instances where women took the place of men and that being because men did not perform the job God intended. I do not think that women ordination is an attempt to fill a position not held by men but rather for gender equality. Men and women were designed for different rolls by God, should we ignore the many many text that make that plain?-----And as far as your Military Combat goes, anyone can carry a gun but that does not make him a hero or an expert on matters of women in combat. I went in the service in 1977 and served till 1983 and most of us were in the service for a job. Looking back on those years I am very proud of the time I spent in the service, but the truth is I enlisted because I wanted to see the world and have a job.----- You continually push for women ordination as though you are helping women when in fact you are trying to blur the lines between men and women, either knowingly or unknowingly.
-
Many refer to 1 Tim. 3 without considering how the original Greek of verse 11 is being translated by many scholars, and is shown in a number of Bible translations which show that the same principles that are listed for men, apply to women as well.
Johann,
There are two possible interpretations, neither of which helps the cause of women's ordination: (a) 1 Tim. 3:11 refers to the wives of deacons. (b) 1 Tim. 3:11 refers to deaconesses. I know no one who is opposed to women serving as deaconesses.
Then the word for "women" is rendered as "their wives" by those translators.
The word for husband means "man," and the word for wife means "woman." Often the true meaning of the word can be determined by the presence of a possessive pronoun. Thus "her man" is "her husband," and "his woman" is "his wife." This coincides with Paul's teaching that either spouse belongs to the other, not to himself or herself.
Consider also how some of our pioneers rejected the testimony of the young Ellen Harmon because she was just a girl ....
I'm still waiting for a reference.
Add to that that Ellen White pronounced in 1895 that certain women in our church should be ordained ....
As deaconesses, which I know of no one who is opposed to.
... and that she never issued one iota against the ordination of female ministers in the church.
Why should she if it was never an issue.
How could she, when she herself was classified as an ordained minister?
Apples and oranges. It is the resorting to such arguments that makes the women's ordination side seem like it can't articulate a sound biblical or SoP reason for going contrary to a GC Session vote. In what way does God's ordaining a woman to be a prophet via a vision justify a woman today being ordained by humans to be a local pastor when we aren't supposed to have local pastors, generally speaking, and when no one involved has had a vision?
Then just now it has been revealed that one of the most expressive chauvinist of them all, an expert and scholar classifying the role of women in comparison with that of the male, has showed by his own example that such women are but playthings to gratify the lust of man.
And since Danny Shelton is against eating pork, we should be able to eat pork because of all his shenanigans?
-
And I think you should have a female over you and President of your Conference. And you should also put on a skirt and have a baby. Matter fact you should stay home and change diapers and burp the baby you mamby pamby. Look be a man for goodness sake, and be a mouthpeice for men. I can see if you were in the time of swords and arrow and going to war and the men all said "play the man" and fight for your wives and your family you would say "why should I since my wife can fight as well as I."
I will let you diatribe speak for itself. To think that my simple comment that in the early days of our denomination we had a female President of the IA Conference produced your response.
However, as many here know: I am a combat veteran! I served in the time when women began integrating into the military. I served in combat with a unit that had female soldiers. In general terms, with occasional exceptions, our female soldiers were of a higher qualilty than our male soldiers. Why? They had to be in order to survive.
I suppose you may pontificate on women in the military. I will find your comment much more interesting if you tell us that you have served in combat and with females. If you can't tell us that, I will suspect tha you do not have the experential background to comment on females in the military.
My response was in no way diatribe to women. The response was meant for you and what I perceive as a lack of understanding of what a mans roll is and what most females want from men, I am talking about real men. You, being a military man and around women should more than most know that women want men to be just that men. God gave women and men differnt rolls to perform, both of equal importance. Do you believe men have differnt rolls than women? Why do you think God made the woman to carry the baby? Don't you think he could have made the man with the ability to have a child too? You think that you care about women more than those who oppose womens ordination? Look I oppose a man having a baby though scientist are working hard to make it so. I believe God gave women a sacred trust the same as men and their roll is essential to the understanding of the character or God.
-
I cleary understood that your diatribe ws directed against me. That was clear.
Your description of women cleary fits some females, but not others. People are different. Men are different and so are women different. The role that you attribute to women does tno fit all.
Why should everyone be forced to fit into a box.
We have some family frilends that have reversed what you call the normal role: The woman earns her living by charging $3,000 per hour to advise others in regard to her speciality. She is the power that lies behind major media headlines in business. AS I write this, she is in London on business. When she and her husband married, he gave up his occupation as a RN. He stayes home, runs the household and takes care of their child. NOTE: She is very much involved in raising the child, even if not on a daily basis. The husband has a side business (The child is in school.) He purchases houses, with the moneythat she earns,l upgrades them and sells them at a profit. He had total charge of building the home in which they live.
By the way, both are active SDAs. She does not do business on the Sabbath and is well known for that. She makes certain hat she is home on Sabbath and in church--they all are. She is active in the life of the local congregation.
This family system wo rks. Why should these people be forced into different roles?
-
As I said: the women that I served with in combat, as a group were generally better soldiers than the men. They had to be, in order to survive and make it.
What did they want? They wanted to be recognized for their skills and the contribution that they made. The did not want to be forced into a steriotype that dit not fit their personality and circumstances. They did nto want to ive in the shadow of a male.
You talk about the man being the head. Have you ever lived in a culture where the male was king? Do you really know what it is like in a culture where the female walks 6-steps behind the man in public. I have lived in such a culture--in an Asian country.
1) The male ruled in public.
2) The female ruled the household at home.
3) The man turned his paycheck over to the woman and she returned to him what she had decided he should have an an alloowance to spent that month.
4) The woman invested and/or purchased property without his knowledge and consent.
5) NOTE: I am not even getting into the issue of the "Extended family" and gender roles.
NOTE: Our young soldiers who married these females often had trouble when they mopved to the United States and did nto want to give the women what they expected in their role. The most successful marriages were those in which the men allowe the women to continue to play the role that they had been trained for in their culture. We are close friends of one such SDA family. Both the husband and the wife are highly trained. They both travel internationally (Mainly between the US and her home country.). She traines and teaches in her area of expertese. He provides services to the U.S. government in her home country and in the U.S.
-
As I said: the women that I served with in combat, as a group were generally better soldiers than the men. They had to be, in order to survive and make it.
What did they want? They wanted to be recognized for their skills and the contribution that they made. The did not want to be forced into a steriotype that dit not fit their personality and circumstances. They did nto want to ive in the shadow of a male.
You talk about the man being the head. Have you ever lived in a culture where the male was king? Do you really know what it is like in a culture where the female walks 6-steps behind the man in public. I have lived in such a culture--in an Asian country.
1) The male ruled in public.
2) The female ruled the household at home.
3) The man turned his paycheck over to the woman and she returned to him what she had decided he should have an an alloowance to spent that month.
4) The woman invested and/or purchased property without his knowledge and consent.
5) NOTE: I am not even getting into the issue of the "Extended family" and gender roles.
NOTE: Our young soldiers who married these females often had trouble when they mopved to the United States and did nto want to give the women what they expected in their role. The most successful marriages were those in which the men allowe the women to continue to play the role that they had been trained for in their culture. We are close friends of one such SDA family. Both the husband and the wife are highly trained. They both travel internationally (Mainly between the US and her home country.). She traines and teaches in her area of expertese. He provides services to the U.S. government in her home country and in the U.S.
What are you talking about? I never said anything that would imply that a woman had to walk 6 feet behind a man. I have simply stated that the BIBLE lays out men and women's duty. It is you that seem to indicate in your post that for a woman to do her roll is some kind of position that makes the man king, those are your words and understanding not mine. And I have lived in the Philippineans, Egypt, and seen the abuse that women have to take from men in that type of society. I am in no way shape or form advocating that kinda of culture (which is not biblical) for women or men. That is not the discussion here, at least from my side. I am saying that God set guidelines for men and women in the ministry and it is gender specific for a reason. Please, do not twiste my words to make them some kind of extreme position when I am in no form trying to make it thus. Again, why did God only chose men to be his diciples? Why did God not make men with the ability to carry bear children?