Print

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

[Johann]

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?

1) Well, the book isn't an official statement. Why does an editor state:

The North American Division Women's Commission had a great desire that the research and experiences of these pages be made available to the church family. Allow the authors' messages to be understood.

Written by:

Elizabeth Sterndale is a field secretary and director of Womens' Ministries of the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists, Silver Spring, Maryland.

This is the North American Division of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists with a similar address as the GC. Why would they want this contents to be known to members of the church? Could it be more legal reasons the authors are held responsible for the wording? This is an opinion and not a legal document? A book is too long a document to be voted on?

A similar situation would be a book explaining our official faith - where the wording has not been voted on, so the words of the book remain the responsibility of the authors?

2) You sure wish Ellen White had never made that statement so you keep on nit picking hoping we will not take the Spirit of Prophecy seriously, it seems to me.

[Gregory]

Purely a technical correction to a statement that Bob made:

Most of us reacing from 9T today, are reading from a book that was publiched in 1948, or perhaps from a computerdisk that was publish much later than that.

Pages 257 through 261 in 9T were taken from a speach given by EGW on May 30, 1909.  So, Bob is essentially correct in his dating of what EGW said.

The minor technical correction is that the origin of that comment is from a speach given by EGW to the delegates of the General Conference, rather than some work that came off of a printing press.  However, her comments were published later in a report of that General Conference.

[Alex L. Walker]

I have not posted on this thread in the last few day's because I think it has been a great debate! Both sides are bringinging out excellent points.

I have taken the position along with Bob, Gailon, and others that women should not be ordained.

I believe that some women would make better leaders then men. I agree!

But...the bottom line is its not biblical. Women are not to be in authority over men. The Apostle Paul is clear on this.

Just because some women may make better leaders does that mean we should abandon biblical principle?

 

[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.

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?

It isn't just ministers who are supposed to be reaching out to the lost. If you have an area where all the members just sit in the pews letting the preacher do it all, that area has serious problems. That's not what Seventh-day Adventism is all about.

Such reasoning would possibly conclude that a Bible worker, whether male or female, cannot reach a person unless they are ordained. I don't see how that is valid.

[Snoopy]

I have not posted on this thread in the last few day's because I think it has been a great debate! Both sides are bringinging out excellent points.

I have taken the position along with Bob, Gailon, and others that women should not be ordained.

I believe that some women would make better leaders then men. I agree!

But...the bottom line is its not biblical. Women are not to be in authority over men. The Apostle Paul is clear on this.

Just because some women may make better leaders does that mean we should abandon biblical principle?

So according to you, a woman should not hold a management position where she supervises a man??  Uh-oh!  That is NOT what my Bible says!!

[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?

It isn't just ministers who are supposed to be reaching out to the lost. If you have an area where all the members just sit in the pews letting the preacher do it all, that area has serious problems. That's not what Seventh-day Adventism is all about.

Such reasoning would possibly conclude that a Bible worker, whether male or female, cannot reach a person unless they are ordained. I don't see how that is valid.

Well, Bob, I don't see how your point is valid, so I guess we are even.  I also don't have the emotional energy nor the desire to argue with you about it further.  So you can have the last word now!!  In my opinion, it is this type of minutia that drives people away from church.

[tinka]

What really drives people away from church is their own opinions and go where they feel most comfortable with what their own desires want instead of excepting Bible Truth.  and the other is just too busy or laziness to put first  finding out Truth with open mind. Most just don't want to know to upset the apple cart. I know where some SDA congregate just to wear all their earrings, rings and all that goes including adultery and inter mingling. They seem to be just comfortable and no complaints.

[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

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.

You caught that, Bob. Good! That gives me the opportunity to enforce some my earllier comments, and add some new ones.

That 1901 statement is also of particular interest to me, because that happens to be the time a reformation of our Church was approaching. When EGW was in Australia she worked there together with her own former secretary, A G Daniells. First leading the work in New Zealand, later in Australia, and finally in charge of all of most of the Australasian Division (no, that name was not coined yet). EGW was greatly impressed with this man, even if some of you might not, when I tell you this story about him:

My wife and I had a dear friend, who, together with her husband spent many years as missionaries to Madagascar. Most honest and sincere people. One day she told us that just before they left for the mission field, AGDaniells visited Denmark and had an appointment giving the young couple some good advise to follow on their way to the Mission Field.

   - Be sure to wear wedding rings where you are going. This was the advice Ellen White gave us in Australia, and I have known it is good to follow her words. Take the rings off when you go to America because our Brethren over there don't like them, and Ellen White supported them in stating they are not needed over there.

Ellen White supported A G Daniells, and he supported her. He was elected president of the GC in 1901, and remained in that position longer than any other president before or after. It is evident that by her statement in 1909 Ellen White still supported the leadership of A G Daniells, in spite of what she had said in 1901.

Now the big question is if the 1909 is a fully valid statement until the final day of our history?

I have earlier mentioned my reaction to the happenings at the 1995 GC session. Led my just add to that another one of my observations. I  never noticed before how easy it is for the chairman to manipulate a vote. If he is for the resolution he will present it with great enthusiasm as if expecting every vote cast to be in favor. Wile all of the vote cards are held up high and counted he prepares the onslaught with an exclamation as if only the idiots strolling by would cast a vote against it. He might be right, and yet is that democracy? It that how to force the Holy Spirit to be on your side?

What I discovered at the 2005 CG session was even worse. I got this documented by a reporter. You realize that most of the matters voted on first go through a committee. It so happened in a nomination committee that a man came in and told the members that if they would bring a certain name to the floor - this was the leader of an important section within our Church - then someone would donate a certain huge amount of dollars to that particular cause. That donation would not follow any other candidate.

Is that God or Mammon ruling? Does the statement of 1901 or 1909 apply now?

This, I think, is a serious question.

Purely a technical correction to a statement that Bob made:

Most of us reacing from 9T today, are reading from a book that was publiched in 1948, or perhaps from a computerdisk that was publish much later than that.

Pages 257 through 261 in 9T were taken from a speach given by EGW on May 30, 1909.  So, Bob is essentially correct in his dating of what EGW said.

The minor technical correction is that the origin of that comment is from a speach given by EGW to the delegates of the General Conference, rather than some work that came off of a printing press.  However, her comments were published later in a report of that General Conference.

Thank you, Gregory.

[Alex L. Walker]

Snoopy: I do not know what Bible you read out of, but it is not the KJV.

Also, I am going to go even a step further than Bob, on this issue.

I do not believe women should be Sunday School teachers,pastors, Deacons, Prophets or etc. They are to remain silent and allow the men to do these things.

Now, I have seen EGW
 mentioned. I do not agree with her on about 75% of her supposed prophocies. But.....I will not speak any further on my thoughts of a woman prophet, but to say I have issues with that.

[SDAminister]

This was shared with me:

"What tells me that WO is wrong goes even beyond the scriptural evidences. It comes from the fruit of its proponents.

Supporters of WO tend to be supporters of rock music in church, drama, sports, evolution, jewelry and lax Sabbath-keeping. They also are disinterested in doing outreach, sacrificial giving, and proclaiming distinctive SDA truths.

This fruit also shows itself in how the WO movement is progressing. Is God behind it? Hmmmmmm. Without exception, WO proponents seem to rely upon feelings, lies, subterfuge, rebellion, and hysterics to get their way. These are not kind and considerate people.

Look at the past 4 months. Look at the rebellion from the NAD on down. Look at how these people act if they don't get their way. "You won't give us a variance from the GC constitution? Fine, we'll vote it anyway...."

In the splits of the three churches in our area over this issue, the pro-WO indivuduals to include pastors, lay people, and elders have resorted to screaming, bullying, lying and a purposeful attempt to NOT have the issue studied Biblically before the church.

Maybe it will get voted by the GC sometime. And if it does, I fear for our church. Because, as I said, these are not nice people."

Wow!!

[Gregory]

Alex:  Generally I donot, for reasons that I have stated, get involved in a discussion of the Biblical issues in forums such as this one.

But, I will ask you a question:  Do you see in either, or both, the OT and the NT females in leadership, to include spiritual leadership  in a manner that is seemingly approved.  IOW, I am not talking about pagan priestesses and witches.

Thanks,

[Gregory]

We have a group of younger people in the congreation that I attend that is very active in: Outreach, financial support of church programs, outreach and the proclaimation of Christ and Calvary as the answer to the sin problem.

[tinka]

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.

You caught that, Bob. Good! That gives me the opportunity to enforce some my earllier comments, and add some new ones.

That 1901 statement is also of particular interest to me, because that happens to be the time a reformation of our Church was approaching. When EGW was in Australia she worked there together with her own former secretary, A G Daniells. First leading the work in New Zealand, later in Australia, and finally in charge of all of most of the Australasian Division (no, that name was not coined yet). EGW was greatly impressed with this man, even if some of you might not, when I tell you this story about him:

My wife and I had a dear friend, who, together with her husband spent many years as missionaries to Madagascar. Most honest and sincere people. One day she told us that just before they left for the mission field, AGDaniells visited Denmark and had an appointment giving the young couple some good advise to follow on their way to the Mission Field.

   - Be sure to wear wedding rings where you are going. THIS MAKES HEARSAY A LIE.This was the advice Ellen White gave us in Australia, and I have known it is good to follow her words.THATS NOT THE WAY THE STORY GOES! READ IT FOR YOURSELF. Take the rings off when you go to America because our Brethren over there don't like them, and Ellen White supported them in stating they are not needed over there.

Ellen White supported A G Daniells, and he supported her. He was elected president of the GC in 1901, and remained in that position longer than any other president before or after. It is evident that by her statement in 1909 Ellen White still supported the leadership of A G Daniells, in spite of what she had said in 1901.

Now the big question is if the 1909 is a fully valid statement until the final day of our history?

I have earlier mentioned my reaction to the happenings at the 1995 GC session. Led my just add to that another one of my observations. I  never noticed before how easy it is for the chairman to manipulate a vote. If he is for the resolution he will present it with great enthusiasm as if expecting every vote cast to be in favor. Wile all of the vote cards are held up high and counted he prepares the onslaught with an exclamation as if only the idiots strolling by would cast a vote against it. He might be right, and yet is that democracy? It that how to force the Holy Spirit to be on your side?

What I discovered at the 2005 CG session was even worse. I got this documented by a reporter. You realize that most of the matters voted on first go through a committee. It so happened in a nomination committee that a man came in and told the members that if they would bring a certain name to the floor - this was the leader of an important section within our Church - then someone would donate a certain huge amount of dollars to that particular cause. That donation would not follow any other candidate.

Is that God or Mammon ruling? Does the statement of 1901 or 1909 apply now?

This, I think, is a serious question.

Purely a technical correction to a statement that Bob made:

Most of us reacing from 9T today, are reading from a book that was publiched in 1948, or perhaps from a computerdisk that was publish much later than that.

Pages 257 through 261 in 9T were taken from a speach given by EGW on May 30, 1909.  So, Bob is essentially correct in his dating of what EGW said.

The minor technical correction is that the origin of that comment is from a speach given by EGW to the delegates of the General Conference, rather than some work that came off of a printing press.  However, her comments were published later in a report of that General Conference.

Thank you, Gregory.

Now a days you can't go by hearsay or 3rd party talk: Here is the truth of the matter and read very carefully exactly how the story goes for the truth of the matter. It's lengthy but factual.

This was a point of some concern to the bride before the wedding. She was aware of Ellen White's counsel addressed to American ministers laboring in Australia, written from Melbourne on August 3, 1892, and published in a pamphlet. Ellen White had found a growing feeling among some of the American workers that the wives of Seventh-day Adventist ministers should, in Australia, wear the ring. She said Americans could make their position clear by stating that "the custom is not regarded as obligatory" in their country, and added:  {4BIO 196.1}
        I feel deeply over this leavening process which seems to be
     going on among us, in the conformity to custom and fashion.
     Not one penny should be spent for a circlet of gold to testify that
     we are married. In countries where the custom is imperative, we
     have no burden to condemn those who have their marriage ring;
     let them wear it if they can do so conscientiously, but let not our
     missionaries feel that the wearing of the ring will increase their
     influence one jot or tittle.--Special Testimonies to Ministers
     and Workers, No. 3, p. 6 (TM, pp. 180, 181).  {4BIO 196.2}
     In May Lacey's heart there was no problem relative to this counsel. She had no desire to wear the ring, and so she hesitated about having the wedding in Tasmania, where she knew her father would be greatly disturbed if she did not wear the ring, especially over the fact that she would be traveling on ships and trains with an American almost twice her age. Before consenting to have the marriage at her home, she talked it over with Ellen White, and then on February 13, 1895, wrote to William:  {4BIO 196.3}

        I have talked with your mother on the matter of a wedding
     ring and showed her what you said on the subject. She says she
     has no objection whatever to my wearing one.  {4BIO 196.4}
        To tell you the truth, I had not given that matter very much
     thought, but I believed that it would be better to have one, as
     without doubt, in the colonies, if I was to travel with you not
     wearing the sign that I was your wife, people would be led to
     imagine all sorts of things, and we should in many instances lose
     our influence for good that we might otherwise have over the
     minds of others. I am very glad you look at the matter in the way
     you do.


                               197  {4BIO 196.5}
        I have wondered sometimes what you thought about it. I feel
     sure that, as you say, God will not be displeased with me for
     wearing it. [YEARS LATER, W. C. WHITE, ON ELLEN WHITE'S REQUEST,
     RESPONDED TO AN INQUIRY FROM A MINISTER'S WIFE IN EDINBURGH,
     SCOTLAND, ON THE POINT:
        "NOW REGARDING THE QUESTION RAISED IN YOUR LETTER. THE WEARING
     OF A GOLD RING AS A MATTER OF ORNAMENT IS A USELESS PRACTICE, AND
     CONTRARY TO THE BIBLE INSTRUCTION REGARDING THE SIMPLICITY OF DRESS
     AND APPAREL. THE WEARING OF A RING AS A TOKEN OF LOYALTY IN THOSE
     COUNTRIES AND AMONG THOSE PEOPLE WHERE SUCH A CUSTOM IS SO THOROUGHLY
     ESTABLISHED THAT DEPARTURE FROM THAT CUSTOM WILL BE UNIVERSALLY
     MISUNDERSTOOD IS, IN MY OPINION, QUITE ANOTHER MATTER, AND I THINK
     THAT IF YOU SHOULD FOLLOW THE COUNSEL OF MEN AND WOMEN OF EXPERIENCE
     WHO HAVE LABORED IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IN INDIA, THE LORD WILL NOT
     COUNT IT TO YOU AS A VIOLATION REGARDING THE SIMPLICITY OF WOMEN'S
     APPAREL.
        "POSSIBLY YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN THE STORY OF MY WIFE'S
     EXPERIENCE WITH THE WEDDING RING. WHILE SHE WAS ATTENDING BIBLE
     SCHOOL IN AUSTRALIA, I BECAME WELL ACQUAINTED WITH HER, AND WHEN THE
     TIME DREW NEAR FOR OUR MARRIAGE, I PROPOSED THAT IT BE IN TASMANIA
     AT HER FATHER'S HOME. REGARDING THIS SHE WAS NOT ENTHUSIASTIC, AND
     UPON INQUIRY, I LEARNED THAT HER FATHER HAD VERY DECIDED OPINIONS
     REGARDING THE DUTY OF THE WIFE TO WEAR THE WEDDING RING, AND MY WIFE,
     KNOWING THAT AMERICANS LOOKED UPON THIS MATTER DIFFERENTLY THAN THE
     BRITISH PEOPLE, SUPPOSED THAT I WOULD OBJECT.
        "SHE DID NOT CARE FOR IT PERSONALLY, BUT I PURCHASED A RING, AND
     WE WERE MARRIED WITH IT BECAUSE HER FATHER'S FAMILY AND ALL HER
     FRIENDS REGARDED IT AS ESSENTIAL. AFTER WE HAD BEEN MARRIED A FEW
     MONTHS, AND HAD SETTLED DOWN IN OUR HOME WHERE WE WERE WELL KNOWN,
     SHE LAID ASIDE THE RING, AND WHEN I ASKED HER WHY SHE TOOK IT OFF,
     SHE SAID IT WAS IN THE WAY WHEN SHE WAS WASHING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT
     BECAME OF THE RING, BUT SHE HAS NOT WORN IT SINCE. I THINK THAT IN
     THIS EXPERIENCE IT WAS HER DESIRE TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTION OF PAUL
     WHEN HE WROTE, 'WHETHER THEREFORE YE EAT, OR DRINK, OR WHATSOEVER
     YE DO, DO ALL TO THE GLORY OF GOD.'
        "BY THE WEARING OF THE RING DURING THAT PORTION OF OUR EXPERIENCE
     WHERE ITS ABSENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN WONDERED AT, AND CAUSED UNNECESSARY
     PREJUDICE, AND BY LAYING IT ASIDE AS SOON AS THAT EXPERIENCE WAS
     TERMINATED, SHE HAS FELT THAT SHE WAS DOING THAT WHICH WOULD BEST
     SERVE THE CAUSE OF OUR MASTER."--DF 121, WCW TO MRS. W. E. INGLE,
     APRIL 14, 1913.]--DF 121.  {4BIO 197.1}

 Now who in the world cannot understand this in content ?  They found a reason, to justify and the church did the rest. I can state one thing the Menonite, and the Amish all do not sneak around or display what they know to be truth. At least they got that right.

[tinka]

For some reason I could not separate my post from "Quote" above but the response is on bottom.

[Murcielago]

For reasons I won't go into right now, I believe it is inevitable that the GC will vote for the ordination of women. If/when that happens, Bob, do you intend to honour that as the will of God? Should an action of the GC be honoured as the will of God, even when one believes it is not?