Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Johann]

3-4 months ago our daughter noticed police and ambulance arriving at the house next to hers. A young athletic lady who had accepted Christ recently was dead. The evening before she had attended a gathering where someone had given her too much dope, something she had not been using, and to her it was fatal. Had she accepted Jesus in vain?

Today her brother, who was a dope addict until he met Christ 5 years ago, has been greatly disturbed because of his sister's death just because she happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Then someone comforts him with the encouraging thought that he was able to bring his sister to Christ before she died. Is that a false comfort?

I have now re-read the information given by Samuel Koranteng-Pipim and others. There is no doubt he was the great leading "light" in the opposition against the ordination of women until that day when he happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong moment, and that killed his usefulness - at least for the time being - as an ordained pastor in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I agree that his admittance of guilt and request for forgiveness is a great example for other leaders/pastors to follow in a similar situation.

That does not change the fact, in my opinion, that the moral fall of the leader of this movement against females in ministry, leaves less support to his opinions, especially since so many other theologians and leaders in the Seventh-day Adventist Church disagree with him. Perhaps his "slip" was just a "minor" one, but his leading position against female ministers increases its importance. Fortunately he realizes this himself so he takes the consequence and leaves the ministry himself.

[Bob Pickle]

4)    For the General Conference to tell the Unions that they can continue to decide for males, but that they no longer have the authority to decide for females, is discriminatory and may be beyond the authority of the General Conference.

5)   In my opinion, the issues here are greater that whether or not females may become ordained clergy.  They involve the authority and role of the General Conference in the world church.

To narrow the discussion to what I think is a key point and question: Do the unions have God-given authority to ignore or violate or rebel against (or however-you-want-to-describe-it) the testimony of Jesus in 9T 261, by violating the 1990 and 1995 votes of the GC Session on the ordination of women?

We could discuss all this in simply human or political turns, but I don't think we can ignore the spiritual component. We have clear cut counsel in 9T 261. Can we violate that?

NOTE:  My attempt here has been to discuss denominational policy.  Some may say that such is not Biblical.  I have not attempted to discuss it from that point of view.

The problem with that approach is that it somewhat begs the question. Since the issue of ordination of women is a theological issue, not a policy issue, and since doctrinal matters, particularly major ones, are determined at GC Sessions, not by a small union conference executive committee, then to exclude entirely biblical considerations is putting the issue in a false light. It is treating the issue as if there is no theological issue involved, allowing it to be decided by small union conference executive committees after all.

1) Ordination is not the fundamental Biblical issue. In regard to ordination, questions could be asked related to SDA practice as it applies to males and the extent to which those practices are Biblical.  The fundamential issue to me, is that of role.  IOW, what is the role that women should have in ministry?

Then we are in agreement on that one.

[Bob Pickle]

As far as I know their headship ideology was never accepted by a majority vote at any General Conference session. Here we are actually dealing with a doctrine that has not been approved. I find it strange that some are using this doctrine that has not been approved, - they use this to interpret Scripture so they can find fault with a procedure used by some which they feel has not been approved by the same authority.

1) Am I incorrect to say that opposition speeches at the 1995 GC Session cited what some might label "headship theology," and that thus the overwhelming vote against women's ordination in that session showed indirect approval, at least somewhat by some who voted no, to the concepts expressed in those speeches?

2) You have worded it wrong. The issue is not regarding "a procedure" that "has not been approved" by a GC Session. It was about a practice that was rejected by two different GC Sessions.

If the pro-ordination side must spin votes of rejection into simply that no GC Session has ever approved the procedure, then that should raise red flags in all of our minds, because it's less than honest.

At least the General Conference has issued a publication denying the validity of the headship ideology. They would hardly have done that if it had been accepted by a majority vote at any time.

Could you provide a link?

[Bob Pickle]

That does not change the fact, in my opinion, that the moral fall of the leader of this movement against females in ministry, leaves less support to his opinions, especially since so many other theologians and leaders in the Seventh-day Adventist Church disagree with him.

I think it unfair to call him the leader. Was he a delegate at the 1990 GC Session too? What percentage of theologians and leaders in the world church disagree with him? I have no idea, but your wording suggests that the majority of all Adventist theologians and leaders around the world disagree with him, and I would like to confirm that that is so if it is indeed so.

By the way, to see books written by women which speak to the issue of women not working well with women, please see http://www.amazon.com/s/?field-keywords=tripping+the+prom+queen. It seems common that women think that women in particular have problems with rivalry, backstabbing, and the like. I read that opinion by women on one website, and then was told the very same thing by a woman who had not read that website.

Of course, you can likely find a woman somewhere that disagrees with these observations made by women. But this does seem to be a fairly common perception.

[Johann]

As far as I know their headship ideology was never accepted by a majority vote at any General Conference session. Here we are actually dealing with a doctrine that has not been approved. I find it strange that some are using this doctrine that has not been approved, - they use this to interpret Scripture so they can find fault with a procedure used by some which they feel has not been approved by the same authority.

1) Am I incorrect to say that opposition speeches at the 1995 GC Session cited what some might label "headship theology," and that thus the overwhelming vote against women's ordination in that session showed indirect approval, at least somewhat by some who voted no, to the concepts expressed in those speeches?

I was present at the 1995 GC Session and I saw and heard myself how - in my opinion - things were manipulated by who and in what order speakers were admitted to the mikes. Of course that had influence on the votes. The most dynamic speakers against the ordination of women got the floor or the platform at the most impressive times. When a powerful speaker gets the opportunity, it is not just the words which you can still read, but his manner and cadence and oratorical power which influences the voting. I also heard some protesting how some speakers were not admitted before the vote, but the chair did not listen. I was not a delegate there, but I stood behind and watched the procedure. I was greatly disappointed how things were handled.

2) You have worded it wrong. The issue is not regarding "a procedure" that "has not been approved" by a GC Session. It was about a practice that was rejected by two different GC Sessions.

If the pro-ordination side must spin votes of rejection into simply that no GC Session has ever approved the procedure, then that should raise red flags in all of our minds, because it's less than honest.

I am in full agreement with you that it should raise red flags in our minds, especially how the opposition against the ordination of women are handling things - in my opinion. But you have the full right to have a different opinion.

At least the General Conference has issued a publication denying the validity of the headship ideology. They would hardly have done that if it had been accepted by a majority vote at any time.

Could you provide a link?

http://books.google.is/books?id=tJqDo447Sl8C&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=headship+adventist&source=bl&ots=g1d1QF0W0w&sig=MEL0Ra6gvUIGWh12cIC5zwQA6jY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SOR2T7Zagr3RBZXo2McN&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=headship%20adventist&f=false

[Snoopy]

Who is going to answer for those dear souls who are lost because an ordained male pastor failed to reach them when an ordained woman could have?

[Johann]

That does not change the fact, in my opinion, that the moral fall of the leader of this movement against females in ministry, leaves less support to his opinions, especially since so many other theologians and leaders in the Seventh-day Adventist Church disagree with him.

I think it unfair to call him the leader. Was he a delegate at the 1990 GC Session too? What percentage of theologians and leaders in the world church disagree with him? I have no idea, but your wording suggests that the majority of all Adventist theologians and leaders around the world disagree with him, and I would like to confirm that that is so if it is indeed so.

1) Judging from the publications, books and articles, and speakers available for any pulpit or mike, that I saw available for quite a while, it appeared to me that Sam Bacchiocchi was gradually succeeded by Samuel Koranteng-Pipim as the main proponent against the ordination of women, weather that had anything to do with speakers at a GC session or not. I actually have seen that elsewhere that SKP was regarded as the man.

If they managed to train other leaders, or how things have happened since then, or if you regard other men or woman as greater spokespersons, I will have no disagreement with you on that, because that is a matter of personal evaluation.

2) Neither will I indulge in any head count. If my words indicated to you I was talking about any majority, I suppose that is my fault. I was referring to an existence, which, in my opinion, seems important.

By the way, to see books written by women which speak to the issue of women not working well with women, please see http://www.amazon.com/s/?field-keywords=tripping+the+prom+queen. It seems common that women think that women in particular have problems with rivalry, backstabbing, and the like. I read that opinion by women on one website, and then was told the very same thing by a woman who had not read that website.

Since you thrive on such references I can add to that that an advocate against female pastors once made the statement that all women are chicken-heads, whatever he meant with that expression. Then to me what you refer to is that some chicken-heads are merely documenting that they are all chicken-heads.

I do not subscribe to that theory. I know the man I quoted above had one of the most wonderful wives imaginable, and yet he gave her a terrible life directed by his headship theology.

Of course, you can likely find a woman somewhere that disagrees with these observations made by women. But this does seem to be a fairly common perception.

Have you made a count?

[Johann]

Who is going to answer for those dear souls who are lost because an ordained male pastor failed to reach them when an ordained woman could have?

And especially in the light that Ellen G White definitely stated that women ministering to such women should be ordained for that ministry. What are these men trying to avoid? The voice of God so that they may freely indulge in their male made headship role?

[Johann]

As I have already stated I was present at the 1995 GC session. Prior to that session I knew, according to Scripture and Ellen White, that female deacons should be ordained, but I was still hesitating on the question of pastors. I was under the influence of people claiming they were the only ones holding on to the true Seventh-day Adventist doctrines.

It was when I observed the strange methods used by the opponents of female ordination at the 1995 GC session I no longer had any doubt in my mind. It was as observing evil forces at work, even though some of the speakers appeared honest and convincing. I still recall how a former Union President, who is no longer among us, shook his head as a reaction to what he saw.

Were my observations all wrong? Was I deluded? My only purpose is to do the will of my God, guided by His Holy Spirit - and obeying what I see in His Word!

[Gregory]

Bob said:

The problem with that approach is that it somewhat begs the question. Since the issue of ordination of women is a theological issue, not a policy issue, and since doctrinal matters, particularly major ones, are determined at GC Sessions, not by a small union conference executive committee, then to exclude entirely biblical considerations is putting the issue in a false light. It is treating the issue as if there is no theological issue involved, allowing it to be decided by small union conference executive committees after all.

The Biblical issues are more important than the policy issues:  Policy should give way to Biblical teacheings.

I do not respond, generally to the Biblical issues because I believe that anything that I might say would be nothing more than what someone else has already said and probably better than I.

So, I selectively respond to policy issues, in part because they have not been discussed, in my opinion as much as the Biblical issues.

[Johann]

We have heard so many times in this discussion that all  should follow the GC decisions because this is the will of God. Let's take heed to later counsel by Ellen G White:

"We have heard that the voice of the GC is the voice of God. Every time I have heard this, I have thought it was almost blasphemy." Manuscript 37, April 1, 1901

"That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the GC to be - this is past." General Conference Bulletin; 1901; pp. 23, 25

[Bob Pickle]

At least the General Conference has issued a publication denying the validity of the headship ideology. They would hardly have done that if it had been accepted by a majority vote at any time.

Could you provide a link?

http://books.google.is/books?id=tJqDo447Sl8C&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=headship+adventist&source=bl&ots=g1d1QF0W0w&sig=MEL0Ra6gvUIGWh12cIC5zwQA6jY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SOR2T7Zagr3RBZXo2McN&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=headship%20adventist&f=false

Johann, that is not a link to a book issued by the General Conference. The Review and Herald was the publisher, and the copyright page contains a disclaimer that the authors (not the publisher) are responsible for the accuracy of the facts and quotations the book contains. If either the Review or the GC was issuing that book as an official statement, it wouldn't have contained such a disclaimer.

Were you thinking of a different book, or were you mistaken?

And especially in the light that Ellen G White definitely stated that women ministering to such women should be ordained for that ministry. What are these men trying to avoid? The voice of God so that they may freely indulge in their male made headship role?

She advocated that they be ordained as gospel ministers, as local church elders, or as deaconesses?

[Bob Pickle]

We have heard so many times in this discussion that all  should follow the GC decisions because this is the will of God. Let's take heed to later counsel by Ellen G White:

"We have heard that the voice of the GC is the voice of God. Every time I have heard this, I have thought it was almost blasphemy." Manuscript 37, April 1, 1901

"That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the GC to be - this is past." General Conference Bulletin; 1901; pp. 23, 25

Johann, 9T 261 was published in 1909, 8 years after your quote above. How then do you conclude that a 1901 statement is "later" than the 1909 statement in 9T 261?

I have a particular interest in this question since 9T 261 even refers to what she said in 1901. So if you want to maintain that 1901 is later than 1909, you also need to explain why the 1909 statement refers to what she had not yet said in 1901.

[Bob Pickle]

Who is going to answer for those dear souls who are lost because an ordained male pastor failed to reach them when an ordained woman could have?

Whether or not a woman is ordained to the gospel ministry should not affect whether or not she reaches the lost.

[Snoopy]

Who is going to answer for those dear souls who are lost because an ordained male pastor failed to reach them when an ordained woman could have?

Whether or not a woman is ordained to the gospel ministry should not affect whether or not she reaches the lost.

You don't know that.  And the same argument can be applied to men.  Maybe there are parts of the world where the church, in its ultimate wisdom of course, will only send an ordained minister.  If women are ruled out of that group by design, what happens then?

Sorry Bob - I don't buy your arguments.