Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => Womens Ordination & Related Issues => Topic started by: SDAminister on August 08, 2012, 08:04:33 PM
-
*See explanation below
One of the rights a man has when he is ordained to the gospel ministry is that his call, his ordination, is recognized worldwide within the SDA church. As such, he can go to teach, preach, and minister anywhere in the world and the worldwide church allows and recognizes this as essential. There is no separate or different ordination for those in Ghana from those in Bolivia. Ministers travel, move, work, and live between all the world fields with total spiritual freedom.
If a minister is ordained in Japan and then goes to work in France, the church in France must recognize this ordination.
Enter CUC. IF a Union can draw up its own guidelines for ordination separate from the world church, then individuals ordained under these laws would, by current order of the church bylaws, be able to serve anywhere in the world at a later time. And the rest of the world would have to recognize their ordination.
But let's suppose that the New Zealand Pacific Union Conference used their new-found "power" to ordain whomever they want AND they ordain homosexuals to the gospel ministry, then all Unions in the world would be compelled to recognize and honor those ordinations, including CUC! Hey, if it's okay to foist their rebellion upon the rest of the church, why not another Union foist a deeper rebellion upon them (would be the thinking)?
CUC is opening a Pandora's box with their rebellion.
Gay pastors, coming to a church near you, thanks to legal precedents set by the CUC.
SDAminister
-
*See explanation below
One of the rights a man has when he is ordained to the gospel ministry is that his call, his ordination, is recognized worldwide within the SDA church. As such, he can go to teach, preach, and minister anywhere in the world and the worldwide church allows and recognizes this as essential. There is no separate or different ordination for those in Ghana from those in Bolivia. Ministers travel, move, work, and live between all the world fields with total spiritual freedom.
If a minister is ordained in Japan and then goes to work in France, the church in France must recognize this ordination.
Enter CUC. IF a Union can draw up its own guidelines for ordination separate from the world church, then individuals ordained under these laws would, by current order of the church bylaws, be able to serve anywhere in the world at a later time. And the rest of the world would have to recognize their ordination.
But let's suppose that the New Zealand Pacific Union Conference used their new-found "power" to ordain whomever they want AND they ordain homosexuals to the gospel ministry, then all Unions in the world would be compelled to recognize and honor those ordinations, including CUC! Hey, if it's okay to foist their rebellion upon the rest of the church, why not another Union foist a deeper rebellion upon them (would be the thinking)?
CUC is opening a Pandora's box with their rebellion.
Gay pastors, coming to a church near you, thanks to legal precedents set by the CUC.
SDAminister
That is a sobering thought!
-
August 15, 1918 - the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is ratified, guaranteeing women the right to vote. This current issue in the SDA church is eerily reminiscent of what took place in the years leading up to that historic date. Three times it was brought to the supreme court citing the 14th and 15th amendments, and three times it was struck down. A powerful anti-suffrage lobby developed giving many of the same arguments we are hearing today. It was predicted that the structure on which our government and financial system ran would be radically altered and damaged if women were given the vote. Industry fought it vehemently. Today the arguments seem preposterous.
At the same time that the fight to control the women was going on in the USA, the debate raged in England, Canada, and other countries.
There were the inane arguments that the next step would be pets and farm animals voting if it passed (not unlike some of the outrageous arguments we hear today regarding WO), but here are some of the saner arguments of that time.
Against Women Suffrage
Because women already have the municipal vote, and are eligible for membership of most local authorities. These bodies deal with questions of housing, education, care of children, workhouses and so forth, all of which are peculiarly within a woman's sphere. Parliament, however, has to deal mainly with the administration of a vast Empire, the maintenance of the Army and Navy, and with questions of peace and war, which lie outside the legitimate sphere of woman's influence.
Because all government rests ultimately on force, to which women, owing to physical, moral and social reasons, are not capable of contributing.
Because women are not capable of full citizenship, for the simple reason that they are not available for purposes of national and Imperial defence. All government rests ultimately on force, to which women, owing to physical, moral and social reasons, are not capable of contributing.
Because there is little doubt that the vast majority of women have no desire for the vote.
Because the acquirement of the Parliamentary vote would logically involve admission to Parliament itself, and to all Government offices. It is scarcely possible to imagine a woman being Minister for War, and yet the principles of the Suffragettes involve that and many similar absurdities.
Because the United Kingdom is not an isolated state, but the administrative and governing centre of a system of colonies and also of dependencies. The effect of introducing a large female element into the Imperial electorate would undoubtedly be to weaken the centre of power in the eyes of these dependent millions.
Because past legislation in Parliament shows that the interests of women are perfectly safe in the hands of men.
Because Woman Suffrage is based on the idea of the equality of the sexes, and tends to establish those competitive relations which will destroy chivalrous consideration.
Because women have at present a vast indirect influence through their menfolk on the politics of this country.
Because the physical nature of women unfits them for direct competition with men.
-
Almost 100 years later the SDA church is finally arriving at that point, and it is eerie to see a part of history we think of as unthinkably outdated alive and fighting for survival today. So strange to hear arguments that have faded into history come alive again. 100 years from now I suppose this will be in the church history books as kids learn about the time when women were finally freed and given equal rights in the church.
-
Almost 100 years later the SDA church is finally arriving at that point, and it is eerie to see a part of history we think of as unthinkably outdated alive and fighting for survival today. So strange to hear arguments that have faded into history come alive again. 100 years from now I suppose this will be in the church history books as kids learn about the time when women were finally freed and given equal rights in the church.
Can you post for us Ellen White's arguments against women having the right to vote?
-
*See explanation below
One of the rights a man has when he is ordained to the gospel ministry is that his call, his ordination, is recognized worldwide within the SDA church. As such, he can go to teach, preach, and minister anywhere in the world and the worldwide church allows and recognizes this as essential. There is no separate or different ordination for those in Ghana from those in Bolivia. Ministers travel, move, work, and live between all the world fields with total spiritual freedom.
Where did you pick up this idea?
If a minister is ordained in Japan and then goes to work in France, the church in France must recognize this ordination.
False. The church in France does not have to do that.
Enter CUC. IF a Union can draw up its own guidelines for ordination separate from the world church, then individuals ordained under these laws would, by current order of the church bylaws, be able to serve anywhere in the world at a later time. And the rest of the world would have to recognize their ordination.
False
But let's suppose that the New Zealand Pacific Union Conference used their new-found "power" to ordain whomever they want AND they ordain homosexuals to the gospel ministry, then all Unions in the world would be compelled to recognize and honor those ordinations, including CUC! Hey, if it's okay to foist their rebellion upon the rest of the church, why not another Union foist a deeper rebellion upon them (would be the thinking)?
False
CUC is opening a Pandora's box with their rebellion.
False
Gay pastors, coming to a church near you, thanks to legal precedents set by the CUC.
False
SDAminister
No wonder they manage to get so many people to sign against WO because of the lies and false information thrown out to the members.
-
Almost 100 years later the SDA church is finally arriving at that point, and it is eerie to see a part of history we think of as unthinkably outdated alive and fighting for survival today. So strange to hear arguments that have faded into history come alive again. 100 years from now I suppose this will be in the church history books as kids learn about the time when women were finally freed and given equal rights in the church.
Can you post for us Ellen White's arguments against women having the right to vote?
Did anyone suggest she did? What is the purpose of your question?
-
Almost 100 years later the SDA church is finally arriving at that point, and it is eerie to see a part of history we think of as unthinkably outdated alive and fighting for survival today. So strange to hear arguments that have faded into history come alive again. 100 years from now I suppose this will be in the church history books as kids learn about the time when women were finally freed and given equal rights in the church.
Can you post for us Ellen White's arguments against women having the right to vote?
Did anyone suggest she did? What is the purpose of your question?
It's not a suggestion. It's a fact. Ellen White opposed giving women the vote, and Adventists being involved in pushing that issue.
Murcielago posted arguments against women having the right to vote. I thought it would be good to compare the posted arguments with Ellen White's argument(s).
-
*See explanation below
One of the rights a man has when he is ordained to the gospel ministry is that his call, his ordination, is recognized worldwide within the SDA church. As such, he can go to teach, preach, and minister anywhere in the world and the worldwide church allows and recognizes this as essential. There is no separate or different ordination for those in Ghana from those in Bolivia. Ministers travel, move, work, and live between all the world fields with total spiritual freedom.
Where did you pick up this idea?
Johann, see GC WP L 40 which is entitled, "Ordained to World Church." That's part of the issue. Within Adventism, we currently don't have a way to not recognize the ordination of someone on a region by region basis. If someone is ordained, they are ordained.
-
I agree that there is much that is being said on this issue that is false. However, both sides are partially correct in a comment that is being made in regard to ordination:
1) It is true that ordination is for the world church and is to be recognized world wide.
2) That recognition means that an ordained minister, traveling to another part of the world will not be required to be ordained in that part of the world in order to function as an ordained minister. This is the sense in which ordination is world-wide and is to be recognized world-wide.
3) However, an ordained minister can not simply travel to another part of the world and begin to function in that part of the world as an ordained minister unless that ordained minister recieves permission to do so. No organization is forced to allow that ordained minister to function as such.
Let me give so me examples:
As a military chaplain, I was authorized to function as a SDA minister in any part of the world as long as I functioned in relation to members and families of U.S. military. When I was stationed in other countries, I had to get permision to perform as clergy in any situation outside of the military. Local leadership decided whether or not I preached in their church and I did. Local leadership decided whether or not I could baptize someone in their church building and I did. That decision was that of local leadership and it was not mine to make.
We have evangelists who travel the world holding evangelistic meetings. When they are asked to come and hold meetings, they are automaticly given permission to function as SDA Clergy. That goes with the request to come.
There are SDA Clergy who are ordained in other countries who do not meet requirements that we havev in the U.S. We are not forced to allow them to come here and funciton as such.
At the same time, the local leadership can put restrictions on a request to come. Back when I was in the Seminary, we had a General Conference leader who was asked to visit another country. He was well known for his mucical abilities with a certain musical instrument. When he was asked to visit that country the request included a statement that he was not to play his musical instrument in any of thier churches as local custom considered that instrument to not be acceptable in religiouis worship. He told us Seminary students that himself.
I hope that this clairfies the situation.
-
This is all that I could find so far in my EGW-CD on what she said about women and voting:
A Discussion of Women's Suffrage.-- I called upon Mrs. Graves. She had a burden upon her mind and ever since she knew I was at home she desired to see me. She said she felt that she must talk out her feelings to me. She is desirous that women's suffrage should be looked into by me. She says women ought to vote, and she related many things of startling character which were legalized in France and St. Louis, and an effort was made to carry them out in Chicago this year, but [the effort] failed. Houses of ill fame are legalized. Women who travel alone through those cities, if they are the least suspicious of them, are taken up by the authorities and their cases are investigated. If they are diseased they are placed in the care of the doctors and cured. Then they are fit for the visits of men and are placed in the legalized home for men to satisfy their lusts upon. No examination is made of the men, and where this law is carried into effect the crime and immorality resemble the condition of the world which existed previous to the Flood. {10MR 69.1}
Mrs. Graves viewed the matter as I do in regard to the increase of crime and demoralization of society. She says women must vote if this law is [to be] withstood. We had a long talk in regard to temperance. I told her that my mind was unprepared for any such matter as women voting.[/u] She had been thinking and dwelling upon these things and her mind was ripe upon them, while my work was of another character. We were doing upon the point of temperance what no other class of people in the world were. We were as much in favor of a pledge against tobacco as liquor. {10MR 69.2}
"So am I," said she. "I am against the use of tobacco in any form." We were interrupted by company and I returned home. Strange things are developing. God help us to occupy the right position in all places and at all times.--Letter 40a, 1874, pp. 2, 3. (Written from Battle Creek, Mich., to James White, July 10, 1874.) {10MR 70.1}
The bolded and underlined part of the above quote was the closest I could come to finding an anwer in relation to herf thoughts on women having the right to vote.
-
It is arguments such as the one presented to open this thread that shows me that the spirit driving the resistance is not the right spirit.
The outright falsehood of the title for one thing.
Do we now have to resort to false "headlines" to "put women in their place"?
The illogical reasoning presented that leaps from recognition of women as servents of God, to equate that with recognition of people living in active sin as spiritual leaders, is outright perposterous.
Bigotry is not part of Christ's way, it's not the way He treated women.
In fact, Christ was in rebellion against the established norms of His day as He, a male, talked with women and encouraged them to follow Him and minister to Him.
And while often in rebellion to established traditions, He was NEVER in rebellion against the principles of heaven.
It wasn't just 12 men that walked with Jesus from place to place during His three years of ministry, there were many women as well.
Luke 8:1-2 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him, And certain women... Mary called Magdalene...And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.
And who was it that DID NOT run and hide when the mobs turned against Jesus?
Matt. 27:55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
27:56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.
Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
15:41 (Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.
Who was it that stayed with Jesus during the terrible crises of His life when it was no longer easy to be one of his followers? When popular opinion turned, the men ran for their lives and hid (with only one exception, John, who recovered himself). One of His closest disciples betrayed Him, another denied Him, all ran and hid, locking themselves in a room for "fear of the Jews".
BUT MANY women, not just those named above, but many who had been following Him for the past years from Galilee and Jerusalem, ministering to Him, taking care of His needs, being His disciples, stayed!
It was the women who went to the tomb.
They were the ones to whom angels appeared with the Good News.
They were the FIRST to believe and to spread the news of His resurrection.
They were commissioned to -- " "go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; Matt. 28:7
28:8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
28:10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
And now comes the main reason why men were chosen as apostles -- BECAUSE MEN so often WON'T LISTEN to women.
The men refused to believe, reasoning the women were just telling "idle tales".
But if it weren't for the women in the early church, and their leadership on the local levels, the church would not have grown with the success that it did.
The concept that women have no ability to reason and chose their religious affiliation independant of the man (or make any other logical decisions) was engrained in the mindset of the day.
As Murcielago pointed out -- that mindset was still alive and well in America back in 1918.
And, as seen in the first post, is still alive today. Women are regarded in the same class as people living in sin, thus can be given no spiritual authority. If we allow women to minister, the reasoning goes, we will have to allow "fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, the thieves, the covetous, the drunkards,the revilers, and the extortioners," (adp from 1 Cor. 6:9-10) to also minister.
What strange reasoning.
In truth all -- men and women need to be cleansed FIRST -- for everyone is born carnal, they must be born again,
that is the true criterion for ministry.
1 Cor. 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
-
This is all that I could find so far in my EGW-CD on what she said about women and voting:
A Discussion of Women's Suffrage.-- I called upon Mrs. Graves. She had a burden upon her mind and ever since she knew I was at home she desired to see me. She said she felt that she must talk out her feelings to me. She is desirous that women's suffrage should be looked into by me. She says women ought to vote, and she related many things of startling character which were legalized in France and St. Louis, and an effort was made to carry them out in Chicago this year, but [the effort] failed. Houses of ill fame are legalized. Women who travel alone through those cities, if they are the least suspicious of them, are taken up by the authorities and their cases are investigated. If they are diseased they are placed in the care of the doctors and cured. Then they are fit for the visits of men and are placed in the legalized home for men to satisfy their lusts upon. No examination is made of the men, and where this law is carried into effect the crime and immorality resemble the condition of the world which existed previous to the Flood. {10MR 69.1}
Mrs. Graves viewed the matter as I do in regard to the increase of crime and demoralization of society. She says women must vote if this law is [to be] withstood. We had a long talk in regard to temperance. I told her that my mind was unprepared for any such matter as women voting.[/u] She had been thinking and dwelling upon these things and her mind was ripe upon them, while my work was of another character. We were doing upon the point of temperance what no other class of people in the world were. We were as much in favor of a pledge against tobacco as liquor. {10MR 69.2}
"So am I," said she. "I am against the use of tobacco in any form." We were interrupted by company and I returned home. Strange things are developing. God help us to occupy the right position in all places and at all times.--Letter 40a, 1874, pp. 2, 3. (Written from Battle Creek, Mich., to James White, July 10, 1874.) {10MR 70.1}
The bolded and underlined part of the above quote was the closest I could come to finding an anwer in relation to herf thoughts on women having the right to vote.
I wonder if she would say the same today.
How many threads have been started on this subject of women's ordination in the last couple days?
Are minds too centered on this, when our work should be "of another character"?
Even when the ordination of women came up in 1881 -- it appears EGW didn't enter into the issue one way or the other, she had work of "another character".
One author -- I think it was a link to Spectrum magazine -- made an important point.
What is needed today is women who will work in ministry for the glory of God regardless of whether or not the church admistration ordains or not. When the church is blessed by their ministry and drawn closer to God through their encouragement, they will more readily show their gratitude with approbriate official recognition.
What is needed is not a war as to who can be the authority over who -- but all recognizing that Christ is the head of the church and we are His vessels to bring the Good News to others.
It's when this gospel of the kingdom is preached in all that world that Jesus will come. (Matt. 24)
-
"There are speculations as to woman's rights and duties in regard to voting. Many are in no way disciplined to understand the bearing of important questions. They have lived lives of present gratification because it was the fashion. Women who might develop good intellects and have true moral worth are now mere slaves to fashion. They have not breadth of thought nor cultivated intellect. They can talk understandingly of the latest fashion, the styles of dress, this or that party or delightful ball. Such women are not prepared to intelligently take a prominent position in political matters. They are mere creatures of fashion and circumstance. Let this order of things be changed. Let woman realize the sacredness of her work and, in the strength and fear of God, take up her life mission. Let her educate her children for usefulness in this world and for a fitness for the better world" (3T 565).
"Who can have so deep a love for the souls of men and women for whom Christ died as those who are partakers of His grace? Who can better represent the religion of Christ than Christian women, women who are earnestly laboring to bring souls to the light of truth? Who else is so well adapted to the work of the Sabbath school? The true mother is the true, teacher of children. If with a heart imbued with the love of Christ, she teaches the children of her class, praying with them and for them, she may see souls converted and gathered into the fold of Christ. I do not recommend that woman should seek to become a voter or officeholder; but as a missionary, teaching the truth by epistolary correspondence, distributing reading matter, conversing with families and praying with the mother and children, she may do much and be a blessing" (WM 164-165).
-
*See explanation below
One of the rights a man has when he is ordained to the gospel ministry is that his call, his ordination, is recognized worldwide within the SDA church. As such, he can go to teach, preach, and minister anywhere in the world and the worldwide church allows and recognizes this as essential. There is no separate or different ordination for those in Ghana from those in Bolivia. Ministers travel, move, work, and live between all the world fields with total spiritual freedom.
Where did you pick up this idea?
Johann, see GC WP L 40 which is entitled, "Ordained to World Church." That's part of the issue. Within Adventism, we currently don't have a way to not recognize the ordination of someone on a region by region basis. If someone is ordained, they are ordained.
No matter how you turn it, the ordination is worthless for employment unless the employing conference accepts the ordination and it is reconfirmed at the next conference elections where each pastor's ordination is evaluated by a committee and the proposal by the committee is accepted by a majority of the delegates. No loophole there. I think if you go far enough back this happened annually. Later every other year. Now a number of conferences do it every third year to save traveling and other expenses.
-
It is arguments such as the one presented to open this thread that shows me that the spirit driving the resistance is not the right spirit.
The outright falsehood of the title for one thing.
Do we now have to resort to false "headlines" to "put women in their place"?
The illogical reasoning presented that leaps from recognition of women as servents of God, to equate that with recognition of people living in active sin as spiritual leaders, is outright perposterous.
Bigotry is not part of Christ's way, it's not the way He treated women.
In fact, Christ was in rebellion against the established norms of His day as He, a male, talked with women and encouraged them to follow Him and minister to Him.
And while often in rebellion to established traditions, He was NEVER in rebellion against the principles of heaven.
It wasn't just 12 men that walked with Jesus from place to place during His three years of ministry, there were many women as well.
Luke 8:1-2 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him, And certain women... Mary called Magdalene...And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.
And who was it that DID NOT run and hide when the mobs turned against Jesus?
Matt. 27:55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
27:56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.
Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
15:41 (Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.
Who was it that stayed with Jesus during the terrible crises of His life when it was no longer easy to be one of his followers? When popular opinion turned, the men ran for their lives and hid (with only one exception, John, who recovered himself). One of His closest disciples betrayed Him, another denied Him, all ran and hid, locking themselves in a room for "fear of the Jews".
BUT MANY women, not just those named above, but many who had been following Him for the past years from Galilee and Jerusalem, ministering to Him, taking care of His needs, being His disciples, stayed!
It was the women who went to the tomb.
They were the ones to whom angels appeared with the Good News.
They were the FIRST to believe and to spread the news of His resurrection.
They were commissioned to -- " "go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; Matt. 28:7
28:8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
28:10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
And now comes the main reason why men were chosen as apostles -- BECAUSE MEN so often WON'T LISTEN to women.
The men refused to believe, reasoning the women were just telling "idle tales".
But if it weren't for the women in the early church, and their leadership on the local levels, the church would not have grown with the success that it did.
The concept that women have no ability to reason and chose their religious affiliation independant of the man (or make any other logical decisions) was engrained in the mindset of the day.
As Murcielago pointed out -- that mindset was still alive and well in America back in 1918.
And, as seen in the first post, is still alive today. Women are regarded in the same class as people living in sin, thus can be given no spiritual authority. If we allow women to minister, the reasoning goes, we will have to allow "fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, the thieves, the covetous, the drunkards,the revilers, and the extortioners," (adp from 1 Cor. 6:9-10) to also minister.
What strange reasoning.
In truth all -- men and women need to be cleansed FIRST -- for everyone is born carnal, they must be born again,
that is the true criterion for ministry.
1 Cor. 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
:TY: :goodpost:
I'd say a mighty AMEN :amen: to every point you have made here, Ulicia!
-
Johann said:
No matter how you turn it, the ordination is worthless for employment unless the employing conference accepts the ordination and it is reconfirmed at the next conference elections where each pastor's ordination is evaluated by a committee and the proposal by the committee is accepted by a majority of the delegates. No loophole there. I think if you go far enough back this happened annually. Later every other year. Now a number of conferences do it every third year to save traveling and other expenses.
I hate to seem to be arguing minor wording issues with my friend Johann. There is a fundamental correctness in what he said below, although I have a little problem with some of his wording.
In the SDA Church, ordination is for life unless annuled. Ordination is not affected by employment. Unless annuled, one remains an ordained minister regardless of employment.
Credentials authorize the level on which one is to function. A credentialed ordained minister is authorized to function as an ordained minister. Committees grant credentials. Due to a change in job function an ordained minister may be granted the Missionary Credentials or Commissioned Minister Credentials, or something else. Granting such authorized that ordained minister to function on the level of the Missionary Credentials or those of the Commissioned Minister, or whatever else has been granted. Regardless, the authorization to function on that level did not affect the fact that the person remained ordained, just authorized to function on a different level.
Remember, in most (not all) cases, it is the Union that approves ordination, not the local Conference. So, also, it is not the local Conference that removes a person from the status of an ordained minister. That is the function of higher a higher level of the denomination which may act on the recommendation of the local Conference.
-
Almost 100 years later the SDA church is finally arriving at that point, and it is eerie to see a part of history we think of as unthinkably outdated alive and fighting for survival today. So strange to hear arguments that have faded into history come alive again. 100 years from now I suppose this will be in the church history books as kids learn about the time when women were finally freed and given equal rights in the church.
Along with the the part where kids learn about the time long ago when homosexuals were not allow to be clergy in the church?
-
No matter how you turn it, the ordination is worthless for employment unless the employing conference accepts the ordination and it is reconfirmed at the next conference elections where each pastor's ordination is evaluated by a committee and the proposal by the committee is accepted by a majority of the delegates.
As Gregory has pointed out, ordination is not about employment. Ordination is about a conferral of authority, as Ellen White described when commenting on Acts 13.
-
Almost 100 years later the SDA church is finally arriving at that point, and it is eerie to see a part of history we think of as unthinkably outdated alive and fighting for survival today. So strange to hear arguments that have faded into history come alive again. 100 years from now I suppose this will be in the church history books as kids learn about the time when women were finally freed and given equal rights in the church.
Along with the the part where kids learn about the time long ago when homosexuals were not allow to be clergy in the church?
Hypothetically speaking, women's ordination could lead to ordination of gays, dogs, and peacocks (all of which have been listed as potential candidates as a result of the CUC vote), but it is not fact. it is hypothetical. 94 years ago when the 19 amendment was ratified, the same hypothetical arguments were made about children, farm animals, and pets. You have full rights as a full citizen of this country because rational people chose to ignore the irrational arguments of tabloid sensationalism, and dishonest headlines.
-
Almost 100 years later the SDA church is finally arriving at that point, and it is eerie to see a part of history we think of as unthinkably outdated alive and fighting for survival today. So strange to hear arguments that have faded into history come alive again. 100 years from now I suppose this will be in the church history books as kids learn about the time when women were finally freed and given equal rights in the church.
Along with the the part where kids learn about the time long ago when homosexuals were not allow to be clergy in the church?
Hypothetically speaking, women's ordination could lead to ordination of gays, dogs, and peacocks (all of which have been listed as potential candidates as a result of the CUC vote), but it is not fact. it is hypothetical. 94 years ago when the 19 amendment was ratified, the same hypothetical arguments were made about children, farm animals, and pets. You have full rights as a full citizen of this country because rational people chose to ignore the irrational arguments of tabloid sensationalism, and dishonest headlines.
Aren't you ignoring the fact that a definitive list of Protestant churches have made exactly that progression?
-
Artiste has a valid point.
Once we take the step of exalting non-biblical sources of information above the authority of Scripture, then we have removed an important safeguard. Whether we do or do not ordain sodomites as preachers becomes then a question of who can produce the most convincing non-biblical argument in its favor, or who can pull the best political shenanigans behind the scenes.
It would be as if the First Amendment was reduced to mere jurisprudence rather than divinely endowed rights. If freedom of religion and speech is a right granted by God, Congress cannot go contrary to it. But if it just a nice legal theory, then given the right logic and the right lawyers, it can be repealed or evaded, or suspended in times of national emergency.
We cannot change our approach to Scripture without opening up Pandora's box. And once the box is opened, how do you close it again? Churches don't seem to mind departing from Scripture, but getting back to Scripture is a rarity.
-
When we allow our kids to get a driver's license and drive a car are we ignoring the list of kids who have accidents on the highway, and are injured and killed? Because some kids drive in an irresponsible manner should they all be painted with the same brush?
The 19th amendment has not resulted in allowing children, farm animals, or pets to vote (although voter fraud has certainly happened) even though it was predicted.
Stating as fact that certain hypothetical results will take place is very different from suggesting that they could. That is the tactic of dishonest politicians in their campaigns.
-
No matter how you turn it, the ordination is worthless for employment unless the employing conference accepts the ordination and it is reconfirmed at the next conference elections where each pastor's ordination is evaluated by a committee and the proposal by the committee is accepted by a majority of the delegates.
As Gregory has pointed out, ordination is not about employment. Ordination is about a conferral of authority, as Ellen White described when commenting on Acts 13.
OK, so we should not employ our pastors? Would you suggest ordination is just for those who function like local elders and deacons who are not employed by the church? Perhaps not a bad idea. We have had a number of pastors who have not received a salary from the church but lived on other income.
Should we follow Paul by letting the evangelists earn their living by tentmaking? Is this what our discussion is all about?
From all of your reading of working policies, have you found the reason why pastors have to have their credentials renewed at every conference session, but neither local elders nor deacons need to have their ordination approved by any other organization than their own local church?
But the ordination of the local elder and deacon is still valid if he moves to another church, anywhere in the world, provided he is elected to the same position in his new church?
-
When we allow our kids to get a driver's license and drive a car are we ignoring the list of kids who have accidents on the highway, and are injured and killed? Because some kids drive in an irresponsible manner should they all be painted with the same brush?
Comparing the ratio of kids who have drivers licences to the number who have accidents with the ratio of Protestant Churches who have progressed to the acceptance of homosexuality with the number who have not will give you very different results, I think.
So that is not a good example, Murcielago.
-
Thank you Bob for locating these, especially where she says, "I do not recommend that woman should seek to become a voter or officeholder..."
"There are speculations as to woman's rights and duties in regard to voting. Many are in no way disciplined to understand the bearing of important questions. They have lived lives of present gratification because it was the fashion. Women who might develop good intellects and have true moral worth are now mere slaves to fashion. They have not breadth of thought nor cultivated intellect. They can talk understandingly of the latest fashion, the styles of dress, this or that party or delightful ball. Such women are not prepared to intelligently take a prominent position in political matters. They are mere creatures of fashion and circumstance. Let this order of things be changed. Let woman realize the sacredness of her work and, in the strength and fear of God, take up her life mission. Let her educate her children for usefulness in this world and for a fitness for the better world" (3T 565).
"Who can have so deep a love for the souls of men and women for whom Christ died as those who are partakers of His grace? Who can better represent the religion of Christ than Christian women, women who are earnestly laboring to bring souls to the light of truth? Who else is so well adapted to the work of the Sabbath school? The true mother is the true, teacher of children. If with a heart imbued with the love of Christ, she teaches the children of her class, praying with them and for them, she may see souls converted and gathered into the fold of Christ. I do not recommend that woman should seek to become a voter or officeholder; but as a missionary, teaching the truth by epistolary correspondence, distributing reading matter, conversing with families and praying with the mother and children, she may do much and be a blessing" (WM 164-165).
-
I have been to every session of our Maritime Conference for the last several sessions. I also served three terms on the Maritime Conference Board of Directors.
I don't remember reviewing the ordination status of any of our ordained ministers. I do remember doing a yearly salary review of all Conference Employees at our Maritime Conference's Annual Meetings, but nothing to do with their ordination status, etc.
It is also my understanding that even the ordination of local elders is recognized around the world. If, for example, I were to move and tranfer my membership to a church in Sydney, Australia and they wanted me to elect me as a local elder, they wouldn't need to ordain me again as a local elder.
No matter how you turn it, the ordination is worthless for employment unless the employing conference accepts the ordination and it is reconfirmed at the next conference elections where each pastor's ordination is evaluated by a committee and the proposal by the committee is accepted by a majority of the delegates.
As Gregory has pointed out, ordination is not about employment. Ordination is about a conferral of authority, as Ellen White described when commenting on Acts 13.
OK, so we should not employ our pastors? Would you suggest ordination is just for those who function like local elders and deacons who are not employed by the church? Perhaps not a bad idea. We have had a number of pastors who have not received a salary from the church but lived on other income.
Should we follow Paul by letting the evangelists earn their living by tentmaking? Is this what our discussion is all about?
From all of your reading of working policies, have you found the reason why pastors have to have their credentials renewed at every conference session, but neither local elders nor deacons need to have their ordination approved by any other organization than their own local church?
But the ordination of the local elder and deacon is still valid if he moves to another church, anywhere in the world, provided he is elected to the same position in his new church?
-
It is also my understanding that even the ordination of local elders is recognized around the world. If, for example, I were to move and tranfer my membership to a church in Sydney, Australia and they wanted me to elect me as a local elder, they wouldn't need to ordain me again as a local elder.
Correct, once ordained as an Elder no further ordination is required to serve as an Elder.
However, to function as an Elder one must be elected by teh local congregation at each election period.
-
From all of your reading of working policies, have you found the reason why pastors have to have their credentials renewed at every conference session, but neither local elders nor deacons need to have their ordination approved by any other organization than their own local church?
The reason:
1) Elders are considered to serve the local church. Therefore, the local church has to elect them and the Conference does not normally review the officers who are elected by a local congregation.
2) On the other hand, pastors serve the local Conference, most directly. Therefore, their credentials are reviewed by the local Conference.
-
From what I understand the Unions are responsible for ordination of the Pastors.
The issue of ordaining women was removed from the unions and placed in the General Conference jurisdiction.
Personally I don't see the problem that was the topic of this thread.
Since the world church has not voted to ordain women, any ordaining of women that the columbia Union does is not recognized by the world church. It would only be recognized in the Columbia Union. As more unions vote for women's ordination (which they are already considering) the sphere of recognition for ordained women would grow, but until the General Conference votes for women ordination, a woman's ordination would be valid only in the unions that support it.
-
From what I understand the Unions are responsible for ordination of the Pastors.
The issue of ordaining women was removed from the unions and placed in the General Conference jurisdiction.
Personally I don't see the problem that was the topic of this thread.
Since the world church has not voted to ordain women, any ordaining of women that the columbia Union does is not recognized by the world church. It would only be recognized in the Columbia Union. As more unions vote for women's ordination (which they are already considering) the sphere of recognition for ordained women would grow, but until the General Conference votes for women ordination, a woman's ordination would be valid only in the unions that support it.
Ulicia, the title of this thread that you have complained about in an earlier post was merely a literary devise to attract attention to the topic and the problem it addresses.
I don't think that the "sphere of recognition for ordained women" will grow since the GC is reportedly considering sanctions for unions who have gone against General Conference authority and the world church.
-
*See explanation below
One of the rights a man has when he is ordained to the gospel ministry is that his call, his ordination, is recognized worldwide within the SDA church. As such, he can go to teach, preach, and minister anywhere in the world and the worldwide church allows and recognizes this as essential. There is no separate or different ordination for those in Ghana from those in Bolivia. Ministers travel, move, work, and live between all the world fields with total spiritual freedom.
Where did you pick up this idea?
If a minister is ordained in Japan and then goes to work in France, the church in France must recognize this ordination.
False. The church in France does not have to do that.
Enter CUC. IF a Union can draw up its own guidelines for ordination separate from the world church, then individuals ordained under these laws would, by current order of the church bylaws, be able to serve anywhere in the world at a later time. And the rest of the world would have to recognize their ordination.
False
But let's suppose that the New Zealand Pacific Union Conference used their new-found "power" to ordain whomever they want AND they ordain homosexuals to the gospel ministry, then all Unions in the world would be compelled to recognize and honor those ordinations, including CUC! Hey, if it's okay to foist their rebellion upon the rest of the church, why not another Union foist a deeper rebellion upon them (would be the thinking)?
False
CUC is opening a Pandora's box with their rebellion.
False
Gay pastors, coming to a church near you, thanks to legal precedents set by the CUC.
False
SDAminister
No wonder they manage to get so many people to sign against WO because of the lies and false information thrown out to the members.
Johann,
Did Gregory, Bob, and others sufficiently explain to you how and what rights ordination confers upon a man within the world church or would you like me to speak more directly to the points you dispute above?
SDAminister
-
When we allow our kids to get a driver's license and drive a car are we ignoring the list of kids who have accidents on the highway, and are injured and killed? Because some kids drive in an irresponsible manner should they all be painted with the same brush?
The 19th amendment has not resulted in allowing children, farm animals, or pets to vote (although voter fraud has certainly happened) even though it was predicted.
Stating as fact that certain hypothetical results will take place is very different from suggesting that they could. That is the tactic of dishonest politicians in their campaigns.
Then let's frame the discussion differently. Ordaining women for the reasons commonly given is a radical departure from how we interpret Scripture, and from our doctrine about the Scriptures.
That radical departure opens the door for lots of things down the road, whether or not it ever happens.
But we could just stop with the very serious doctrinal departure re: how we interpret and view the Scriptures.
-
From what I understand the Unions are responsible for ordination of the Pastors.
The issue of ordaining women was removed from the unions and placed in the General Conference jurisdiction.
This is incorrect as shown by the last release by the GC. The GC Sessions and/or Executive Committee determines the criteria for baptism and ordination, and the local church decides who meets the criteria for baptism and the union decides who meets the criteria for ordination.
It's pretty standard to think of the GC Sessions determining what our fundamental beliefs are. Local churches do not decide what things are tests of fellowship. They just decide who meets the tests that the GC Sessions have decided upon.
-
Still -- the first argument was that since Columbia Union voted to ordain women, any woman ordained is an ordained minister the world over. Thus, according to that poster, any Union who choses to ordain homosexuals would mean that homosexual is an ordained minister the world over.
That is NOT a valid argument since the General Conference has NOT agreed to the ordination of women.
Since the world church has not voted to ordain women, any ordaining of women that the Columbia Union does is not recognized by the world church. Their ordination would not be like GC recognized ordination. It would only be recognized in the Columbia Union.
It's only as more unions vote for women's ordination (which they are already considering) the sphere of recognition for ordained women would grow, but until the General Conference votes for women ordination, a woman's ordination would be valid only in the unions that support it.
-
Ulicia, the title of this thread that you have complained about in an earlier post was merely a literary devise to attract attention to the topic and the problem it addresses.
The title is an outright falsehood. Many people surf through these forums and don't bother to read all the posts. They just latch on to the titles and soon all kinds of gossip float around the internet.
Besides I do find equating women in the same class as those practicing what the Bible calls an abomination, very offensive.
Basically what it's saying is that men, due to their gender are righteous, pure and worthy, while women, due to their gender, are sinful, defiled and unworthy.
It's just not a Christian position.
When people use those arguments to make their point, to me it's a clear sign that they are NOT following the Biblical principles. Those who see all people as equal before God appear much closer to Biblical principles. Especially since the male priesthood was done away with at the cross and everyone is now invited to directly come to God through Christ. There's no more need to go through a priest. All are invited to go out and preach, teach, and explain the good news of the gospel to everyone. And when that is done, Jesus will come.
-
Still -- the first argument was that since Columbia Union voted to ordain women, any woman ordained is an ordained minister the world over. Thus, according to that poster, any Union who choses to ordain homosexuals would mean that homosexual is an ordained minister the world over.
That is NOT a valid argument since the General Conference has NOT agreed to the ordination of women.
Since the world church has not voted to ordain women, any ordaining of women that the Columbia Union does is not recognized by the world church. Their ordination would not be like GC recognized ordination. It would only be recognized in the Columbia Union.
It's only as more unions vote for women's ordination (which they are already considering) the sphere of recognition for ordained women would grow, but until the General Conference votes for women ordination, a woman's ordination would be valid only in the unions that support it.
Very good point. That point was also made in the statement put out by the PUC.
-
Ulicia, the title of this thread that you have complained about in an earlier post was merely a literary devise to attract attention to the topic and the problem it addresses.
True. This is a literary device most commonly used and associated with magazines such as The National Inquierer, and others in its class. It carries with it an associated level of credibility.
-
Ulicia, the title of this thread that you have complained about in an earlier post was merely a literary devise to attract attention to the topic and the problem it addresses.
True. This is a literary device most commonly used and associated with magazines such as The National Inquierer, and others in its class. It carries with it an associated level of credibility.
I disagree with you, Murcielago. I have not seen this type of literary device used in tabloids. The topic title here has an asterisk after it, which means to look below for explanation. I have not seen this done in tabloids.
Maybe you would like to give us an example of the type of title you think is appropriate at AT in your next topic that you initiate.
-
Ulicia, the title of this thread that you have complained about in an earlier post was merely a literary devise to attract attention to the topic and the problem it addresses.
True. This is a literary device most commonly used and associated with magazines such as The National Inquierer, and others in its class. It carries with it an associated level of credibility.
I disagree with you, Murcielago. I have not seen this type of literary device used in tabloids. The topic title here has an asterisk after it, which means to look below for explanation. I have not seen this done in tabloids.
Maybe you would like to give us an example of the type of title you think is appropriate at AT in your next topic that you initiate.
I wouldn't call it inappropriate for what it is meant to do.
-
Still -- the first argument was that since Columbia Union voted to ordain women, any woman ordained is an ordained minister the world over. Thus, according to that poster, any Union who choses to ordain homosexuals would mean that homosexual is an ordained minister the world over.
That is NOT a valid argument since the General Conference has NOT agreed to the ordination of women.
Since the world church has not voted to ordain women, any ordaining of women that the Columbia Union does is not recognized by the world church. Their ordination would not be like GC recognized ordination. It would only be recognized in the Columbia Union.
It's only as more unions vote for women's ordination (which they are already considering) the sphere of recognition for ordained women would grow, but until the General Conference votes for women ordination, a woman's ordination would be valid only in the unions that support it.
Ulicia,
Then I suppose you'd consider that turnabout is fair play? That is, that Mark Finley's, Ted Wilson's, and Doug Batchelor's ordination wouldn't be recognized within the CUC? Would their ordinations only be valid in all territories outside of the CUC?
Also, do you suppose that women OR men ordained within the CUC would like to be told that they can't minister anywhere outside of the CUC, not even for a campmeeting or a bible study across the state line into the Atlantic Union Conference?
Do you suppose that those ordained women and their supporters will be satisfied and content with just being able to work within the CUC? Tell us, who is going to pay for these people's salaries? Will any of it come from the common pot of retirement funds? Or, should we set up a separate sustentation fund for those ordained in the CUC?
-
We might recall a valid point made by the PUC stating that nothing changes except within the ordaining union. There are currently women being ordained in California whose ordination is accepted as commissioning in those areas that don't ordain women. Men ordained in other areas are accepted as ordained in CUC. They are accepted across the board at the maximum level authorized within the union.
-
It is usually treated like a routine that the average person hardly notices, except when there are matters of discipline involved. You will notice it when the list of ordained ministers is voted on, and there you notice that a name is missing. That is because that special committee functioning at every normal session dealing with credentials has discovered a reason why his credentials as an ordained minister should not be renewed.
I have experienced where a conference eliminated a local church leader by dismissing the church from the sisterhood of churches and transferring all of the other members to another church. Thereby the leader was not an Adventist any longer. I am not sure if this was fully according to policy, but sometimes conferences get away with things due to circumstances.
It is something like what just happened in North Germany. The Union president seems to acknowledge that their decision to ordain without regard to gender is seen by some as a disobedience of the GC rule. He claims they were forced to do it because federal law in Germany now demands equal status for men and women employed also by a church. They could do it because the question of ordaining women is not regarded by the GC as a doctrine based on Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy, but rather dictated by culture.
I have been to every session of our Maritime Conference for the last several sessions. I also served three terms on the Maritime Conference Board of Directors.
I don't remember reviewing the ordination status of any of our ordained ministers. I do remember doing a yearly salary review of all Conference Employees at our Maritime Conference's Annual Meetings, but nothing to do with their ordination status, etc.
It is also my understanding that even the ordination of local elders is recognized around the world. If, for example, I were to move and tranfer my membership to a church in Sydney, Australia and they wanted me to elect me as a local elder, they wouldn't need to ordain me again as a local elder.
No matter how you turn it, the ordination is worthless for employment unless the employing conference accepts the ordination and it is reconfirmed at the next conference elections where each pastor's ordination is evaluated by a committee and the proposal by the committee is accepted by a majority of the delegates.
As Gregory has pointed out, ordination is not about employment. Ordination is about a conferral of authority, as Ellen White described when commenting on Acts 13.
OK, so we should not employ our pastors? Would you suggest ordination is just for those who function like local elders and deacons who are not employed by the church? Perhaps not a bad idea. We have had a number of pastors who have not received a salary from the church but lived on other income.
Should we follow Paul by letting the evangelists earn their living by tentmaking? Is this what our discussion is all about?
From all of your reading of working policies, have you found the reason why pastors have to have their credentials renewed at every conference session, but neither local elders nor deacons need to have their ordination approved by any other organization than their own local church?
But the ordination of the local elder and deacon is still valid if he moves to another church, anywhere in the world, provided he is elected to the same position in his new church?
-
They could do it because the question of ordaining women is not regarded by the GC as a doctrine based on Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy, but rather dictated by culture.
Are you sure?
-
They could do it because the question of ordaining women is not regarded by the GC as a doctrine based on Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy, but rather dictated by culture.
Are you sure?
This is what they are saying. By the way, have you found a single instance where the General Conference has issued a statement claiming that the refusal to ordain female pastors is based on Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy?
-
*See explanation below
One of the rights a man has when he is ordained to the gospel ministry is that his call, his ordination, is recognized worldwide within the SDA church. As such, he can go to teach, preach, and minister anywhere in the world and the worldwide church allows and recognizes this as essential. There is no separate or different ordination for those in Ghana from those in Bolivia. Ministers travel, move, work, and live between all the world fields with total spiritual freedom.
Where did you pick up this idea?
If a minister is ordained in Japan and then goes to work in France, the church in France must recognize this ordination.
False. The church in France does not have to do that.
Enter CUC. IF a Union can draw up its own guidelines for ordination separate from the world church, then individuals ordained under these laws would, by current order of the church bylaws, be able to serve anywhere in the world at a later time. And the rest of the world would have to recognize their ordination.
False
But let's suppose that the New Zealand Pacific Union Conference used their new-found "power" to ordain whomever they want AND they ordain homosexuals to the gospel ministry, then all Unions in the world would be compelled to recognize and honor those ordinations, including CUC! Hey, if it's okay to foist their rebellion upon the rest of the church, why not another Union foist a deeper rebellion upon them (would be the thinking)?
False
CUC is opening a Pandora's box with their rebellion.
False
Gay pastors, coming to a church near you, thanks to legal precedents set by the CUC.
False
SDAminister
No wonder they manage to get so many people to sign against WO because of the lies and false information thrown out to the members.
Johann,
Did Gregory, Bob, and others sufficiently explain to you how and what rights ordination confers upon a man within the world church or would you like me to speak more directly to the points you dispute above?
SDAminister
Not sufficiently for you to draw the conclusions you do.
If you want to dispute that, I have no problem, because I have dealt with such questions for about half a century in many different countries.
-
Still -- the first argument was that since Columbia Union voted to ordain women, any woman ordained is an ordained minister the world over. Thus, according to that poster, any Union who choses to ordain homosexuals would mean that homosexual is an ordained minister the world over.
That is NOT a valid argument since the General Conference has NOT agreed to the ordination of women.
That doesn't matter. The point that Ted Wilson made at the last annual council, as I recall, is that we presently do not view ordination on a region by region basis. We view ordination on a global basis. That's simply the way it is. And thus any woman or homosexual that is ordained in a single union would have an ordination that is automatically recognized the world over, UNLESS we change how we view ordination. But we haven't made any such change yet.
If the GC fails to make that change and individual unions start making that change on their own, then that would be another step in the process of the disintegration of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
-
Besides I do find equating women in the same class as those practicing what the Bible calls an abomination, very offensive.
Basically what it's saying is that men, due to their gender are righteous, pure and worthy, while women, due to their gender, are sinful, defiled and unworthy.
You may take it that way, but that's not what it's really saying. The point being made concerns the ramifications of changing our hermeneutical principles, ramifications that have been seen in other denominations and which we were warned about by C. Raymond Holmes, someone who personally experienced these kind of things in his Lutheran denomination.
I suggest that you read his book if you haven't done so already, and then letting us know if you still feel the same way.
Especially since the male priesthood was done away with at the cross and everyone is now invited to directly come to God through Christ. There's no more need to go through a priest. All are invited to go out and preach, teach, and explain the good news of the gospel to everyone.
Though doing away with an earthly all-male priesthood, Jesus established an all-male apostleship, yet He used women to be the first to proclaim his resurrection. All can preach, but not all can lead. It is the leadership aspect that is at issue right now, not the preaching aspect, since we are talking about ordination which confers the authority to organize churches and ordain elders and deacons.
-
Besides I do find equating women in the same class as those practicing what the Bible calls an abomination, very offensive.
Basically what it's saying is that men, due to their gender are righteous, pure and worthy, while women, due to their gender, are sinful, defiled and unworthy.
You may take it that way, but that's not what it's really saying. The point being made concerns the ramifications of changing our hermeneutical principles, ramifications that have been seen in other denominations and which we were warned about by C. Raymond Holmes, someone who personally experienced these kind of things in his Lutheran denomination.
I suggest that you read his book if you haven't done so already, and then letting us know if you still feel the same way.
Especially since the male priesthood was done away with at the cross and everyone is now invited to directly come to God through Christ. There's no more need to go through a priest. All are invited to go out and preach, teach, and explain the good news of the gospel to everyone.
Though doing away with an earthly all-male priesthood, Jesus established an all-male apostleship, yet He used women to be the first to proclaim his resurrection. All can preach, but not all can lead. It is the leadership aspect that is at issue right now, not the preaching aspect, since we are talking about ordination which confers the authority to organize churches and ordain elders and deacons.
When Ellen White spoke about the ordination women, she is not referring to deaconesses, as has been claimed, but public evangelism the way she finds it should be done in Australia as a model for world evangelism. There she does not mention organization of churches nor ordaining elders and deacons. Don't make majors out of minors.
-
It is something like what just happened in North Germany. The Union president seems to acknowledge that their decision to ordain without regard to gender is seen by some as a disobedience of the GC rule. He claims they were forced to do it because federal law in Germany now demands equal status for men and women employed also by a church. They could do it because the question of ordaining women is not regarded by the GC as a doctrine based on Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy, but rather dictated by culture.
Johann, I wonder if in making this sort of claim, if the union in North Germany violated GC WP B 15 10(1)(b):
"Compliance with the law does not constitute a violation of scriptural principles."
Since the Scriptures explicitly state that within the home and within the church, men rather than women must lead, even though women are free to speak in church, for that German union to decide to ordain women in violation of GC Policy and GC Session votes is not allowed, and thus also appears to constitute rebellion. This is so because "compliance with the [alleged] law" constitutes "a violation of scriptural principles."
-
When Ellen White spoke about the ordination women, she is not referring to deaconesses, as has been claimed, ...
Why make the point if you aren't going to support it with even a shred of evidence? It isn't helpful to make mere assertions and expect us all to just take your word for it.
... but public evangelism the way she finds it should be done in Australia as a model for world evangelism. There she does not mention organization of churches nor ordaining elders and deacons. Don't make majors out of minors.
On what basis are you belittling the point by calling it a minor?
The fact of the matter is that when we are talking about the ordination of women today, we are talking about granting women the authority to ordain elders and deacons, and the authority to organize churches. That's what we are talking about. Calling that a minor would be about the same as discussing creation vs. evolution, and then calling it a minor point whether "creation" means a 6-day creation or a creation via slow changes over a long period of time. You'll remember how Bille Burdick wanted to define "creation" in something along those lines.
-
When Ellen White spoke about the ordination women, she is not referring to deaconesses, as has been claimed, ...
Why make the point if you aren't going to support it with even a shred of evidence? It isn't helpful to make mere assertions and expect us all to just take your word for it.
I sure did, but again you refuse to look at it. Are you scared of something? I gave the link in another post of mine, an article wrongly attributed to Ivan Blazen
... but public evangelism the way she finds it should be done in Australia as a model for world evangelism. There she does not mention organization of churches nor ordaining elders and deacons. Don't make majors out of minors.
On what basis are you belittling the point by calling it a minor?
Why do you question that without reading what EGW says about it?
The fact of the matter is that when we are talking about the ordination of women today, we are talking about granting women the authority to ordain elders and deacons, and the authority to organize churches. That's what we are talking about. Calling that a minor would be about the same as discussing creation vs. evolution, and then calling it a minor point whether "creation" means a 6-day creation or a creation via slow changes over a long period of time. You'll remember how Bille Burdick wanted to define "creation" in something along those lines.
I have absolutely no interest in evolution, since I believe in creation, so you have to discuss that question with someone else. When EGW was in Australia she was writing about how women could be successful evangelists, even if they could not devote full time in that work they should still be ordained. The story is longer than I can just give a quote in our discussion. I have already given you a reference, and it is up to you if you want to read EGW or not. If you don't want to, you have no right to belittle her words and what she has written about it. To me her words mean more than whatever someone else you quote may have said, and I prefer her hermeneutic of Scripture.
-
It is something like what just happened in North Germany. The Union president seems to acknowledge that their decision to ordain without regard to gender is seen by some as a disobedience of the GC rule. He claims they were forced to do it because federal law in Germany now demands equal status for men and women employed also by a church. They could do it because the question of ordaining women is not regarded by the GC as a doctrine based on Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy, but rather dictated by culture.
Johann, I wonder if in making this sort of claim, if the union in North Germany violated GC WP B 15 10(1)(b):
"Compliance with the law does not constitute a violation of scriptural principles."
Since the Scriptures explicitly state that within the home and within the church, men rather than women must lead, even though women are free to speak in church, for that German union to decide to ordain women in violation of GC Policy and GC Session votes is not allowed, and thus also appears to constitute rebellion. This is so because "compliance with the [alleged] law" constitutes "a violation of scriptural principles."
It is only a portion of those who fight as if it means life or death against the ordination of women who claim this ordination is a violation of scriptural principles. The General Conference is not making that claim, since they only refer to unity. You cannot demand of the North German Union that they read the "authorized" writings of Bob Pickle and follow them. Neither have they accepted the wrings of Pipim as authorized, nor Doug Batchelor.
In order to maintain that the ordination of women is unscriptural you first have to accept the doctrine of male headship, an item that has never been among any of the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
-
You cannot demand of the North German Union that they read the "authorized" writings of Bob Pickle and follow them.
If you can't bring yourself to post a response devoid of insults, then please stop posting.
In order to maintain that the ordination of women is unscriptural you first have to accept the doctrine of male headship, an item that has never been among any of the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
I have already posted multiple articles from the 1850's to 1901 which contradict your statement. So your point is false.
-
Why make the point if you aren't going to support it with even a shred of evidence? It isn't helpful to make mere assertions and expect us all to just take your word for it.
I sure did, but again you refuse to look at it. Are you scared of something? I gave the link in another post of mine, an article wrongly attributed to Ivan Blazen
Stop the insults, Johann.
I have absolutely no interest in evolution, since I believe in creation, so you have to discuss that question with someone else.
Then if you don't want to discus the ramifications of your advocacy of changing Adventist doctrine of how we view the Bible, take your points somewhere else. In other words, either discuss the topic or don't discuss the topic. If you don't want to discuss it, bow out of the discussion of WO.
When EGW was in Australia she was writing about how women could be successful evangelists, even if they could not devote full time in that work they should still be ordained. The story is longer than I can just give a quote in our discussion. I have already given you a reference, and it is up to you if you want to read EGW or not.
You never gave a page number. It is not up to me to read a long document and to try to guess which particular point you are trying to emphasize. I can't read your mind.
-
Am I to take as a compliment that you call those arguments of mine which disagree with yours, an insult. An insult to what?
Any more insult than the title of this thread?
-
Why make the point if you aren't going to support it with even a shred of evidence? It isn't helpful to make mere assertions and expect us all to just take your word for it.
I sure did, but again you refuse to look at it. Are you scared of something? I gave the link in another post of mine, an article wrongly attributed to Ivan Blazen
Stop the insults, Johann.
I have absolutely no interest in evolution, since I believe in creation, so you have to discuss that question with someone else.
Then if you don't want to discus the ramifications of your advocacy of changing Adventist doctrine of how we view the Bible, take your points somewhere else. In other words, either discuss the topic or don't discuss the topic. If you don't want to discuss it, bow out of the discussion of WO.
When EGW was in Australia she was writing about how women could be successful evangelists, even if they could not devote full time in that work they should still be ordained. The story is longer than I can just give a quote in our discussion. I have already given you a reference, and it is up to you if you want to read EGW or not.
You never gave a page number. It is not up to me to read a long document and to try to guess which particular point you are trying to emphasize. I can't read your mind.
Again, Bob... I find your tone is very condescending and offensive. So if someone disagrees with you, they are insulting you? That explains a lot!!
-
Why make the point if you aren't going to support it with even a shred of evidence? It isn't helpful to make mere assertions and expect us all to just take your word for it.
I sure did, but again you refuse to look at it. Are you scared of something? I gave the link in another post of mine, an article wrongly attributed to Ivan Blazen
Stop the insults, Johann.
I have absolutely no interest in evolution, since I believe in creation, so you have to discuss that question with someone else.
Then if you don't want to discus the ramifications of your advocacy of changing Adventist doctrine of how we view the Bible, take your points somewhere else. In other words, either discuss the topic or don't discuss the topic. If you don't want to discuss it, bow out of the discussion of WO.
When EGW was in Australia she was writing about how women could be successful evangelists, even if they could not devote full time in that work they should still be ordained. The story is longer than I can just give a quote in our discussion. I have already given you a reference, and it is up to you if you want to read EGW or not.
You never gave a page number. It is not up to me to read a long document and to try to guess which particular point you are trying to emphasize. I can't read your mind.
Again, Bob... I find your tone is very condescending and offensive. So if someone disagrees with you, they are insulting you? That explains a lot!!
In the process, why don't you also reprimand Johann for not specifying where in a lengthy document I was supposed to find the information he was referring to? Otherwise, your reprimand to me will seem biased and unfair.
-
Why can't you ever simply accept some responsibility for a change? Rather than trying to crawl into my brain and telling me how to think or feel?
-
Why can't you ever simply accept some responsibility for a change? Rather than trying to crawl into my brain and telling me how to think or feel?
What change? It is a fact that I can't read his mind, and therefore there is no way for me to know which page out of a lengthy piece contains the information he wants me to read.
I have to face this kind of thing every now and then. For example, someone who believes in keeping Sunday may not be able to explain why we should keep Sunday, and so they ask me to read some thick book on the topic without telling me where in that thick book is to be found the answer to my question. I can't read their mind. I'm not going to read the whole thing and try to guess what part answers the question(s) that I raised.
If Johann thinks the answer is somewhere in the lengthy piece, it is his responsibility, not mine, to point out where.
-
Why can't you ever simply accept some responsibility for a change? Rather than trying to crawl into my brain and telling me how to think or feel?
What change? It is a fact that I can't read his mind, and therefore there is no way for me to know which page out of a lengthy piece contains the information he wants me to read.
I have to face this kind of thing every now and then. For example, someone who believes in keeping Sunday may not be able to explain why we should keep Sunday, and so they ask me to read some thick book on the topic without telling me where in that thick book is to be found the answer to my question. I can't read their mind. I'm not going to read the whole thing and try to guess what part answers the question(s) that I raised.
If Johann thinks the answer is somewhere in the lengthy piece, it is his responsibility, not mine, to point out where.
Of course. I know. Bob Pickle is never wrong.
-
Why can't you ever simply accept some responsibility for a change? Rather than trying to crawl into my brain and telling me how to think or feel?
What change? It is a fact that I can't read his mind, and therefore there is no way for me to know which page out of a lengthy piece contains the information he wants me to read.
I have to face this kind of thing every now and then. For example, someone who believes in keeping Sunday may not be able to explain why we should keep Sunday, and so they ask me to read some thick book on the topic without telling me where in that thick book is to be found the answer to my question. I can't read their mind. I'm not going to read the whole thing and try to guess what part answers the question(s) that I raised.
If Johann thinks the answer is somewhere in the lengthy piece, it is his responsibility, not mine, to point out where.
Of course. I know. Bob Pickle is never wrong.
Not so. I think I was wrong in stating that the 1895 quote was about the ordination of deaconesses. It certainly sounded like it was, and it has been characterized that way, but I think I was wrong. I now believe that that quote is talking about Christian Help workers.
-
Why can't you ever simply accept some responsibility for a change? Rather than trying to crawl into my brain and telling me how to think or feel?
What change? It is a fact that I can't read his mind, and therefore there is no way for me to know which page out of a lengthy piece contains the information he wants me to read.
I have to face this kind of thing every now and then. For example, someone who believes in keeping Sunday may not be able to explain why we should keep Sunday, and so they ask me to read some thick book on the topic without telling me where in that thick book is to be found the answer to my question. I can't read their mind. I'm not going to read the whole thing and try to guess what part answers the question(s) that I raised.
If Johann thinks the answer is somewhere in the lengthy piece, it is his responsibility, not mine, to point out where.
Of course. I know. Bob Pickle is never wrong.
Not so. I think I was wrong in stating that the 1895 quote was about the ordination of deaconesses. It certainly sounded like it was, and it has been characterized that way, but I think I was wrong. I now believe that that quote is talking about Christian Help workers.
Thank you, Bob. I think with this, one of our greatest problems solved
-
Why can't you ever simply accept some responsibility for a change? Rather than trying to crawl into my brain and telling me how to think or feel?
What change? It is a fact that I can't read his mind, and therefore there is no way for me to know which page out of a lengthy piece contains the information he wants me to read.
I have to face this kind of thing every now and then. For example, someone who believes in keeping Sunday may not be able to explain why we should keep Sunday, and so they ask me to read some thick book on the topic without telling me where in that thick book is to be found the answer to my question. I can't read their mind. I'm not going to read the whole thing and try to guess what part answers the question(s) that I raised.
If Johann thinks the answer is somewhere in the lengthy piece, it is his responsibility, not mine, to point out where.
Of course. I know. Bob Pickle is never wrong.
Not so. I think I was wrong in stating that the 1895 quote was about the ordination of deaconesses. It certainly sounded like it was, and it has been characterized that way, but I think I was wrong. I now believe that that quote is talking about Christian Help workers.
Thank you, Bob. I think with this, one of our greatest problems solved
In what way, Johann? I've already pretty much acknowledged that before. The current problem as far as I can tell is that you don't want to acknowledge that Christian help workers are not ministers in the sense that that same 1895 quote used the word "minister."
-
If a minister is ordained in Japan and then goes to work in France, the church in France must recognize this ordination.
SDAminister
I do not think this is true. If a Ordained female Pastor from the Columbia Union, moves to the Union just south, they would be given Commissioned Ministerial Credentials.
This is a long thread, perhaps someone has already stated this.
-
What about in the case of a female Conference President, or even a female Union President?
How would that work at Spring and Fall GC meetings, etc?
-
If the Union does not recognize female ordination, they could not be hired for that position by the Union.
-
But in a Conference that does and also in a Union that does and each elects their own female presidents, will the GC recognize them at their Spring and Fall Annual meetings?
-
Interesting situation... I would imagine they would have both voice and vote. I do not think they would be the only females there, as their are female treasurers, I do not think, (And I could be wrong) that it is only Presidents at those meetings.
-
If a minister is ordained in Japan and then goes to work in France, the church in France must recognize this ordination.
SDAminister
I do not think this is true. If a Ordained female Pastor from the Columbia Union, moves to the Union just south, they would be given Commissioned Ministerial Credentials.
This is a long thread, perhaps someone has already stated this.
And what if her local church in that Union refuses to vote her in as a local elder?
-
Stan said:
I do not think this is true. If a Ordained female Pastor from the Columbia Union, moves to the Union just south, they would be given Commissioned Ministerial Credentials.
Correct.
Recognition of ordination would apply in the following situation: If the employing organizaiton wishes to grant the credentials of an ordained milnister, it could do so based on the prior ordination. It would not have to publicly ordain again.
Recognition of the prior ordination would not prevent the issuance of Commissioned Minister credentials.
-
Do churches still have the Pastor be one of the elders still?
More often the not the church approves the Pastor before they are assigned. It has not always been that way in most conferences.
-
I find the title of this thread rather deceiving.
-
Do churches still have the Pastor be one of the elders still?
More often the not the church approves the Pastor before they are assigned. It has not always been that way in most conferences.
If the local pastor is a licensed or commissioned minister, they cannot function as such if their local church does not elect them as a local elder.
-
OK thanks, I forgot about that Bob.