Print

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

[Snoopy]

Oh for the sake of pete!  I think I've heard it all now!!  Johann is smoking something because he has an opinion!!

[Johann]

°Just to make it clear: The SDA church has never voted against ordaining women ....

Hate to say it, Johann, but your statement above is either false or a lie. In 1990 and 1995, the GC Session voted against women's ordination. It's clearly so stated in the minutes of those sessions.

And that right there is one of the reasons I oppose women's ordination, because its proponents repeatedly resort to promoting falsehoods in order to win their case. A righteous cause need not rely upon falsehood.

We each have the right to have an opinion, right?

Here is the 1995 resolution:

1995 General Conference Action on Woman's Ordination

Summary: The recommendation to give each division the right to authorize the ordination of individuals within its territory came from the North American Division through the 1994 Annual Council. It was rejected by a margin of 66 percent to 34 percent.

Official Church Language Follows:

North American Division Request — Ordination
56th General Conference Session, Utrecht, Netherlands — July 5, 1995, 2:00 p.m.

Voted: To refer to the 1995 General Conference Session the North American Division request that the General Conference in Session adopt provisions on ordination as outlined below:

"The General Conference vests in each division the right to authorize the ordination of individuals within its territory in harmony with established policies. In addition, where circumstances do not render it inadvisable, a division may authorize the ordination of qualified individuals without regard to gender. In divisions where the division executive committees take specific actions approving the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, women may be ordained to serve in those divisions."

In favor of the recommendation: 673
In opposition to the recommendation: 1,481

(Source: Adventist Review, July 11, 1995, p. 30)

I was there when this happened. The opinion several of us had of this wording  then was that the session voted against permitting each division already now - before the rest of the world was ready for it - to go ahead and ordain women within their own area.

You will recall that the 1990 vote stated that it did not reject the opinion of many that it was fully Scriptural and in accordance with Ellen White with these words:

While the commission does not have a consensus as to whether or not the Scriptures and the writings of Ellen G. White explicitly advocate or deny the ordination of women to pastoral ministry. . .

In my opinion this wording does not finally close the door for the ordination of women in the future. And it recognizes that, at that time, both opinions exist within the church.

[Johann]

Oh for the sake of pete!  I think I've heard it all now!!  Johann is smoking something because he has an opinion!!

Somebody else must have been smoking too, because I was not the one who wrote the talk that was quoted.

[Johann]

It is my honest opinion that the votes of the GC sessions recognize that some SDA believe that women should be ordained, and it has never been declared that this is wrong.

[christian]

It is my honest opinion that the votes of the GC sessions recognize that some SDA believe that women should be ordained, and it has never been declared that this is wrong.

Johann, I hope you are nominated as a deaconess. I am sure you will be honored since we are all the same. Why did Jesus just pick men as his Disciples? And I wonder why Jesus came as a man instead of a sheman? And I guess it does not matter if a man marry a man since they are all equal? And why does it matter if a woman marries a woman since they are all the same? It matter because men and women are not the same and God has given them both different but equal responsibility. The man is the head of the house as God designed it to be. And the man was design by God to be the head of the church, and play the roll the Lord has design for him. 

[Bob Pickle]

°Just to make it clear: The SDA church has never voted against ordaining women ....

Hate to say it, Johann, but your statement above is either false or a lie. In 1990 and 1995, the GC Session voted against women's ordination. It's clearly so stated in the minutes of those sessions.

And that right there is one of the reasons I oppose women's ordination, because its proponents repeatedly resort to promoting falsehoods in order to win their case. A righteous cause need not rely upon falsehood.

...

Here is the 1995 resolution:

1995 General Conference Action on Woman's Ordination

...

Voted: To refer to the 1995 General Conference Session the North American Division request that the General Conference in Session adopt provisions on ordination as outlined below:

"The General Conference vests in each division the right to authorize the ordination of individuals within its territory in harmony with established policies. In addition, where circumstances do not render it inadvisable, a division may authorize the ordination of qualified individuals without regard to gender. In divisions where the division executive committees take specific actions approving the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, women may be ordained to serve in those divisions."

In favor of the recommendation: 673
In opposition to the recommendation: 1,481

[/quote]

So let's break it down, Johann. The motion had three parts:

• "The General Conference vests in each division the right to authorize the ordination of individuals within its territory in harmony with established policies."
• "In addition, where circumstances do not render it inadvisable, a division may authorize the ordination of qualified individuals without regard to gender."
• "In divisions where the division executive committees take specific actions approving the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, women may be ordained to serve in those divisions."

So what did the vote mean, based on the wording of what was voted?

• Divisions may not authorize the ordination of individuals within their territories.
• Divisions may not authorize the ordination of individuals irregardless of gender.
• Women may not be ordained to the gospel ministry within any division, even if a division executive committee approves the ordination of women within that division.

It's #3 that proves your position to be incorrect. Clearly, in 1995 as well as in 1990, the ordination of women was voted down.

The opinion several of us had of this wording  then was that the session voted against permitting each division already now - before the rest of the world was ready for it - to go ahead and ordain women within their own area.

And how is that not a vote against the ordination of women? A vote that you can't ordain women is not a vote that you can't ordain women?

You will recall that the 1990 vote stated that it did not reject the opinion of many that it was fully Scriptural and in accordance with Ellen White with these words:

While the commission does not have a consensus as to whether or not the Scriptures and the writings of Ellen G. White explicitly advocate or deny the ordination of women to pastoral ministry. . .

In my opinion this wording does not finally close the door for the ordination of women in the future. And it recognizes that, at that time, both opinions exist within the church.

Sure, it recognizes that there was a difference of opinion and did not close the door. But your initial sentence is misleading. Not only did the 1990 vote not reject the opinion of some or many that the practice was fully Scriptural, but the 1990 vote also did not reject the opinion of some or many that the practice was contrary to Scripture.

Yet while the 1990 vote did not close the door to any and all future consideration, it still was a vote against the ordination of women.

[Johann]

You will recall that the 1990 vote stated that it did not reject the opinion of many that it was fully Scriptural and in accordance with Ellen White with these words:

While the commission does not have a consensus as to whether or not the Scriptures and the writings of Ellen G. White explicitly advocate or deny the ordination of women to pastoral ministry. . .

In my opinion this wording does not finally close the door for the ordination of women in the future. And it recognizes that, at that time, both opinions exist within the church.

Sure, it recognizes that there was a difference of opinion and did not close the door. But your initial sentence is misleading. Not only did the 1990 vote not reject the opinion of some or many that the practice was fully Scriptural, but the 1990 vote also did not reject the opinion of some or many that the practice was contrary to Scripture.

Yet while the 1990 vote did not close the door to any and all future consideration, it still was a vote against the ordination of women.

That is exactly what I am saying, although I did not use exactly the same words as you do, nor did I state it in the same order as you do. How much difference is it stating that the door is open - or saying the door is not closed? I suppose some people could keep arguing the difference till doomsday.

[Bob Pickle]

You will recall that the 1990 vote stated that it did not reject the opinion of many that it was fully Scriptural and in accordance with Ellen White with these words:

While the commission does not have a consensus as to whether or not the Scriptures and the writings of Ellen G. White explicitly advocate or deny the ordination of women to pastoral ministry. . .

In my opinion this wording does not finally close the door for the ordination of women in the future. And it recognizes that, at that time, both opinions exist within the church.

Sure, it recognizes that there was a difference of opinion and did not close the door. But your initial sentence is misleading. Not only did the 1990 vote not reject the opinion of some or many that the practice was fully Scriptural, but the 1990 vote also did not reject the opinion of some or many that the practice was contrary to Scripture.

Yet while the 1990 vote did not close the door to any and all future consideration, it still was a vote against the ordination of women.

That is exactly what I am saying, although I did not use exactly the same words as you do, nor did I state it in the same order as you do. How much difference is it stating that the door is open - or saying the door is not closed? I suppose some people could keep arguing the difference till doomsday.

But you stated that there was never a vote against the ordination of women, which readers here would naturally take to mean that no GC Session vote currently stands in the way of ordaining women now, which is false.

[Johann]

By that I mean that - in my opinion -there has never been taken a vote that makes the ordination of women unBiblical. In spite of what some think, no official publication that I know of, such as

1. The Adventist Review
2. Ministry
3. Publications of the Adventist Biblical Research Institute

has ever declared the ordination of female ministers against the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

As far as I know no such publication has ever been published with the official sanction of our church. It is possible that some reports have appeared of what certain individuals have said, but that is not the same as an official declaration,  no matter who said it.

I have noticed a number of books on the subject written ny men like Pipim and Bacchiocchi, but all of the books I have seen were published privately.

If you know of any such publication, then please let us know.

[Artiste]

For more information on the subject, you can see Shane Hilde's new website "Christ or culture". 

http://christorculture.com

For those of you not acquainted with Shane's "ADvindicate" website or Dr. Sean Pittman's site "EducateTruth", Shane is a young man graduated from La Sierra University who, along with Dr. Pittman, has been combatting the evolution problem at La Sierra.

Shane's website also weighs in on the feminist agenda with women's ordination.

His petition to the leadership of the Pacific Union Conference to limit ordination to men has about a 1,000 signatures so far.   

[Murcielago]

Oh for the sake of pete!  I think I've heard it all now!!  Johann is smoking something because he has an opinion!!

Snoopy, that kind of sentiment toward the holding or sharing of a differing opinion is not dissimilar to the sentiment displayed by Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, a long string of popes, etc.

[Murcielago]

Johann, there are those who speak of the Great Reformation in the past tense, but in my opinion it is still ongoing, and this issue is a part of it. 1,500 years of Catholic tradition, structure, and interpretation are not entirely undone in a few short centuries. Despite the empty, yet heart-felt protests to the contrary, the Protestant denominations, including ours, hold tradition to be as sacredly binding as does the Roman Catholic church, in my opinion.

[Artiste]

Murcielago, before you attempt to give arguments which equate the Seventh-day Adventist church with the rest of the Protestant denominations, I think you should clarify for readers on this site your affiliation or non-affiliation with the SDA church.

[Johann]

For more information on the subject, you can see Shane Hilde's new website "Christ or culture". 

http://christorculture.com

For those of you not acquainted with Shane's "ADvindicate" website or Dr. Sean Pittman's site "EducateTruth", Shane is a young man graduated from La Sierra University who, along with Dr. Pittman, has been combatting the evolution problem at La Sierra.

Shane's website also weighs in on the feminist agenda with women's ordination.

His petition to the leadership of the Pacific Union Conference to limit ordination to men has about a 1,000 signatures so far.   

I'm glad someone is combating evolution. That does not mean that what the person is saying about females is any official documentation of the teachings of the church. It just makes a false impression that whatever he is combating is right.

[Murcielago]

Murcielago, before you attempt to give arguments which equate the Seventh-day Adventist church with the rest of the Protestant denominations, I think you should clarify for readers on this site your affiliation or non-affiliation with the SDA church.

Were I making arguments I would be citing examples, sources, and otherwise making a case. At this point I am simply stating an opinion, as I noted in the post I believe you are referring to.