Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

Bob, I realize that some agree fully with your interpretation, but you even bite yourself in your tail with the above statement. It is only people who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God who believe it is stating the truth when it talks about the priesthood of all believes. This was a part of the Reformation of Martin Luther, who also made quite a point of this.

It is those who reject the Reformation message who reject the priesthood of all believers. So I'd invite you, Bob, to put on Protestant Spectacles so you can see clearly what Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy is telling us today.

Yes, the New Testament uses the term "priesthood of all believers", but it is only the Catholic church which has priests of  the Old Testament order. Consider that! English speaking Seventh-day Adventist have avoided the term "priest" when referring to our pastors/evangelists, just to make this distinction clear, and I believe this includes Ellen G White.

Johann,

I think you need to explain what you mean a little more. We have already covered, I believe, that the NT reference to the priesthood of all believers is a quotation from Ex. 19:6. Since the priesthood of all believers is therefore an OT concept, and since all believers could not serve as priests of the tabernacle in the OT, where is the problem of gleaning lessons from the rebellion of Korah for the current situation?

Another point I think that has been raised is that no one is calling for the ordination of all believers. Shall we ordain all 6 year old believers to the gospel ministry since all believers are priests? If not, are we thereby rejecting the concept of the priesthood of all believers, leaving Protestantism behind, and becoming Roman Catholic? Certainly not.

Therefore, the concept of priesthood of all believers is insufficient justification for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.

[Bob Pickle]

Why can't different denominational entities decide for themselves?  Why does it have to be "one size fits all"?  If differences matter enough to result in different working policies among divisions, why not in this case?

Valid questions. Yet on this precise point, the NAD already requested a GC Session (in 1995) for permission to ordain women if they believed it to be all right, and that request was voted down. The working policies of presumably all the divisions already say that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and therefore divisions cannot go contrary to that vote without having that vote rescinded ... unless God Himself has settled the matter in Scripture or the SoP.

My understanding of the problem is that ordination grants rights or privileges that are recognized worldwide. If each division does its own thing, it would be similar to one state "marrying" two men, and then another state trying to figure out how not to recognize that so-called marriage when dealing with taxes, adoptions, retirement, and inheritance.

Other policies are different between divisions.  And many policies are not consistently applied in the first place.  So why is this such a big deal?

I wasn't at the 1995 GC Session when the ordination of women, within divisions that decided to permit it, was voted down, but the vote was taken and the decision was made, and that decision has never been rescinded.

[christian]

Are you indicating it was those who support the gay rights who prompted Ellen G White to write the following:

“Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church.”—The Review and Herald, July 9, 1895.

Christian raised the issue of the roles of men and women, and the above statement does not contradict in any way what the anti-WO side considers to be any of the proper roles of women in the church.

Yes he did, although I had not raised that issue in what he quoted. Then Christian wrote

The question of ordination is an issue of the current times and the desire of women's rights and comes from the same pot as those that advocate gay rights..

So I asked him if he really thought Ellen White also was prompted by those that advocate gay rights when she wrote this statement about the ordination of women. I was not asking about the roles or duties, but just wanted him to make clear what he had said.

Nobody has answered that question yet. Why?

Consider the story of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Formerly the first-born male of the family had been the priest, and Korah was the oldest, apparently. But God took that office away from the oldest and gave it to Aaron and his family. Korah didn't like it, says PP, and launched his rebellion.

The whole point of Korah's rebellion was that any of the congregation could serve as priests, and that it was wrong for Aaron and Moses to think that only they could hold the offices that they held.

How is the situation different today? God has told us what the role of women is to be, and yet we have today a significant number who maintain that anyone can be a priest, and for that reason women should be ordained to the gospel ministry as elders at large. But that isn't the role God has given women, according to Scripture and the SoP, as far as I can see.

Bob, I realize that some agree fully with your interpretation, but you even bite yourself in your tail with the above statement. It is only people who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God who believe it is stating the truth when it talks about the priesthood of all believes. This was a part of the Reformation of Martin Luther, who also made quite a point of this.

It is those who reject the Reformation message who reject the priesthood of all believers. So I'd invite you, Bob, to put on Protestant Spectacles so you can see clearly what Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy is telling us today.

Yes, the New Testament uses the term "priesthood of all believers", but it is only the Catholic church which has priests of  the Old Testament order. Consider that! English speaking Seventh-day Adventist have avoided the term "priest" when referring to our pastors/evangelists, just to make this distinction clear, and I believe this includes Ellen G White.

The answer is no i don't think Ellen G. White was prompted by the Gay or Woman's movement in her day. What I am saying is in this time we live I do believe that it is the case. I also believe that the ordination of women is a platform for women to become Conference Presidents and even General Conference President. The reason for it (women's ordination) is not strictly kept in the paremeters of gay and women's rights but it is also a money issue too. You know most of the early leaders of the church were not willing participates to the cause outside there love for God. The positions were not positions that paid money nor were they held as positions of honour, but for the most part were positions of sacrifice. There are many today in the position of Pastors, Elders etc... who want the position for the purpose of Honour not true love for God (not all) but some *this is my opinion not meant to individually judge motives.* Thus we have myriads of pastors who are not converted on the issues of diet, sabbath observance or even the roll of Ellen G. White. But the most frightening thing is that the church has taken the position that only God should have. My original statement was based on the status of the church as it stands. Even the positions of Elder, Pastor, Deacon, are not viewed in their right light because of the blatant stance of the church against itself. Like when Jesus came in the time of the Jewish church who were allowing divorce for any cause because of the hardness of the peoples hearts. Thus women now strive to be in the glorified position of Elder, Pastor, General conference leader etc... And we have only ourselves to blame because the positions have been glorified and made the portals for heaven and enlightenment.

[Bob Pickle]

The authority to ordain rests with the Unions.

Whether or not to ordain  females should have been decided at the Union level.  It should never have gone to a GC session.

I suppose a teenager might ask Dad for permission for something, get turned down, and then regret that he had ever asked Dad instead of Mom, or that he had asked anyone at all if his request seemed fairly innocent. But once Dad says no, if the kid does it anyway, the label "rebellious teenager" just might fit if he balks at restrictions, doesn't want to be told what to do, and wants to have his own way.

Yet the fact of the matter is that doctrinal matters are not decided at the union level, and this is a doctrinal matter. It therefore ought to be decided by a GC Session.

You refer to unions being in charge of deciding who gets ordained. This is true. It is also true that local churches, not GC Sessions, are in charge of deciding what is served at potluck. (Some potlucks out there are coordinated.) Nevertheless, a local church should not start serving pork chops and champagne at potlucks simply because the local church is in charge of potlucks. Thus, the choices made by the entity in charge of potlucks/ordinations are expected to be within the parameters established by GC Sessions.

If unions are in charge of deciding who gets ordained, which they are, does that mean they can ordain someone without examining them at all? Or must they ordain only within the parameters laid down higher up, which includes the requirement that the candidate be examined?

[Gregory]

Bob said:

Yet the fact of the matter is that doctrinal matters are not decided at the union level, and this is a doctrinal matter. It therefore ought to be decided by a GC Session.

Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word.

The Seventh-day Adventist Chruch has expressed its doctrinal beliefs in a statement that was voted in 2005, at a General Conference session, as constituting 28 beliefs.  Nowhere in those 28 beliefs is ordination restricted to males.  In none of those statements is ordination prohibited to females.  Ordination of females is not required to be voted on by the General Conference in session.  The authority to ordain is given to the Union Conferences.

Bob said:

If unions are in charge of deciding who gets ordained, which they are, does that mean they can ordain someone without examining them at all? Or must they ordain only within the parameters laid down higher up, which includes the requirement that the candidate be examined?

Bob, you misunderstand the process of ordination in the SDA Chruch.  Union Conferences in the NAD, never personally examine the candidates for ordination.  In this process, the Local Conference simply submits a list of candidates to be ordained.  The Union Conference simply votes the list up or down.  It has the authority to delete a candidate and, I suppose, the authority to add a candidate, although you might be able to challenge me on that.

You may tell me that the Local Conference exmined the candidate prior to sending a list to the Union Conference. I would not argue at length such a statemetnt.  However, I remind you that the Local Conference can conduct that so-called examination of candidates in just about any manner that it choses to do.  To be specific, I am aware of decisions (Note, I have stated in the plural form.) that were made without talking personally to the candidate.  So, your statement that examination of the candidate is required is rather weak.

In modern times, the NAD has attempted to clean up the process of ordination by stopping what some have considered to be problems in ordaining people who realisticly were unlikely to ever serve as congregational pastors and/or to standardize the requirements for ordination in the NAD.  However, that attempt has been imperfect and not fully successful.  In modern times people have been ordained who have not met those requirements and/or are unlikely to ever serve as congregational pastors in the NAD.  These may be few, but this has happened.

[Johann]

The authority to ordain rests with the Unions.

Whether or not to ordain  females should have been decided at the Union level.  It should never have gone to a GC session.

I suppose a teenager might ask Dad for permission for something, get turned down, and then regret that he had ever asked Dad instead of Mom, or that he had asked anyone at all if his request seemed fairly innocent. But once Dad says no, if the kid does it anyway, the label "rebellious teenager" just might fit if he balks at restrictions, doesn't want to be told what to do, and wants to have his own way.

Yet the fact of the matter is that doctrinal matters are not decided at the union level, and this is a doctrinal matter. It therefore ought to be decided by a GC Session.

You refer to unions being in charge of deciding who gets ordained. This is true. It is also true that local churches, not GC Sessions, are in charge of deciding what is served at potluck. (Some potlucks out there are coordinated.) Nevertheless, a local church should not start serving pork chops and champagne at potlucks simply because the local church is in charge of potlucks. Thus, the choices made by the entity in charge of potlucks/ordinations are expected to be within the parameters established by GC Sessions.

If unions are in charge of deciding who gets ordained, which they are, does that mean they can ordain someone without examining them at all? Or must they ordain only within the parameters laid down higher up, which includes the requirement that the candidate be examined?

Just because there are rebellious teenagers in the world is no evidence this is a rebellion. It is rather a disagreement on who is qualified for ordination, just like Paul and Barnabas disagreed on if John Mark was qualified. Silas accepted him while Paul did not. Against the arguments of Paul, Silas "rebelled" and accepted John Mark and made him his companion in evangelism. Later on Paul repented and accepted what, according to your arguments, could be defined as a rebellion.

Here is another illustration: Yesterday our conference arranged a trip for senior members where we, among other tings, saw the only antique cream diary in our country where the machinery is still in running condition. For our sake the guide opened the watergate starting the mill whereby the gears and belts turned. What was missing was the old generator run by the system where people could bring their radio batteries and have them recharged. We saw an empty barrel ready to be filled with butter to be sold in England. On the barrel it said "Danish Butter". Why? Because British housewives know that Danish butter tastes good, and the name could be used because Danish farmers did not have a copyright on the trade name, so it was perfectly legal.

There was also a bedroom with a kerosene lamp where the two young ladies running the place for the owners the final years, took turns sleeping. One of them actually went back to school to learn how a modern diary works when the place closed down 1952, while things seemed to run smoothly.

Our guide gave us a picture of certain "rebellions" against the owners taking place that were needed to make certain improvements.  The owners were eight local farmers. The final rebellion took place when the place was shut down against the wish of some of the owners. It seems like the rebellious ones were the new generation of farmers who were no longer just teenagers.

I see a comparison in this with how our church functions, and I wonder if any of you do too? Were the "rebellions" justified?

On that trip I was told something that really alarms me. In certain areas in the world we have people who have been truly God-fearing, loyal believers who are still convinced that rejecting female pastors is a true sign of sanctification. But as these people have been searching eagerly for support in the writings of Ellen G White for their conviction they discover there is no such support to be found.

What these "honest" people are doing now is studying the writings of James White and other pioneers. Some of these people are now indicating there is more "truth" to be found  among the male pastors of antiquity than in the writings of this young female, Ellen, who was really trying to play a role greater than the male pastors. Therefore she cannot be fully trusted, they say.

So what this "new" group is teaching us is how important it is for us to understand the inferior role of women to that of men in order to understand the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. Only then, according to this doctrine, can we be true Christians. We must also learn that not everything Ellen White says is quite what it appears to be, according to this new theory.

Do you feel this is a development in the right direction for our church? I sincerely hope not.

[Gregory]

What these "honest" people are doing now is studying the writings of James White and other pioneers. Some of these people are now indicating there is more "truth" to be found  among the male pastors of antiquity than in the writings of this young female, Ellen, who was really trying to play a role greater than the male pastors. Therefore she cannot be fully trusted, they say.

Johann has raised an interesting point:  In the early days of EGW, the developing SDA church was divided as to whether or not the Bible allowed EGW, as a female, to fill the role in the developing denomination that she claimed.  Those who were opposed took essentially the same position that is taken today by those who are opposed to ordaining females today.  Those who supported EGW in her role, argued essentially the same as those today who approve of ordaining women.  These discussions were well reported in SDA publicaitons such as the REVIEW.

Those who supported EGW in her claimed role essentially won the arguement when EGW was issued the credentials of an ordained minister by the General Conference, although she was not ordained in a public ceremony, or any private ceremony.

The arguements of today on this issue are largely a repeat of arguements from our early history.

[Johann]

Yes, Gregory, we have seen treasurers who have never functioned as pastors/evangelists being ordained, and my wife was asking me the other day how this could happen.

Bob has so aptly pointed out that leaders have authority.  One of the arguments by leaders has been that if a General Conference or Division treasurer travels in the mission field as a Church Administrator he needs to have the authority of a pastor.

Times change, and this might not apply any more. So this is what leaders are now attempting to change. But there are still some among us who religiously adhere to a doctrine that nothing changes.

[Gregory]

Each Division establishes the basic requirements that people who are expected to meet in order to be ordained.  These requirements are not the same betweent the Divisions.  I agree that they should not be the same.  E.G.  There are differences in required education.  There are other differences.

In my comment, I was thinking of people who were ordained who will never travel to other countries in the service of the denomination and who realisticly will never pastor churches in the NAD.

I refrain from being specific because I do not want peole reading this post to attempt to identify individuals.

We really are not consistent.  I am reminded of an individual who had spent his life as a congregational pastor. Finally due to health reasons he was not able to continue as a local  pastor.  So he went back to school and move to the Conference office to an administrative position to which he became qualified due to his new education.  I consider him to be an excellent pastor.  With this change in employment he lost his credentials as an ordained minister and was given a different credential.

During this period of time, that Local Conference ordained an individual who had never pastored a congregation, who will never serve the denomination on higher levels and is unlikely to ever pastor congregations on any permanent basis.  Yes, he can fill in to present sermons when regular pastors are unable to do so.  But, he will never be a regular congregational pstor.

[Johann]

The working policies of presumably all the divisions already say that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and therefore divisions cannot go contrary to that vote without having that vote rescinded ... unless God Himself has settled the matter in Scripture or the SoP.

You make an important point here, Bob. Some people in our Church believe sincerely that this matter is settled in Scripture and the SoP and therefore the church would be blessed by issuing certain women the same certificate the General Conference issued Ellen G White as an ordained minister rather than a commissioned minister.

My understanding of the problem is that ordination grants rights or privileges that are recognized worldwide. If each division does its own thing, it would be similar to one state "marrying" two men, and then another state trying to figure out how not to recognize that so-called marriage when dealing with taxes, adoptions, retirement, and inheritance.

Does your understanding have a Biblical foundation, Bob?

When Barnabas took John Mark with him into the work of evangelism he did not have such an approval by the apostle Paul, so they went different ways - and that turned out to be a blessing. If that could be a blessing in the days of the Apostles, would that prohibit the Holy Spirit from providing a blessing to the world if different things is done in different parts of the world. Why not rather search for samples from Scripture rather than the world of sodomy, sin, and gay movements? I have no claims of familiarity with such a world, because my real home is in heaven.

[Johann]

The answer is no i don't think Ellen G. White was prompted by the Gay or Woman's movement in her day. What I am saying is in this time we live I do believe that it is the case. I also believe that the ordination of women is a platform for women to become Conference Presidents and even General Conference President. The reason for it (women's ordination) is not strictly kept in the paremeters of gay and women's rights but it is also a money issue too. You know most of the early leaders of the church were not willing participates to the cause outside there love for God. The positions were not positions that paid money nor were they held as positions of honour, but for the most part were positions of sacrifice. There are many today in the position of Pastors, Elders etc... who want the position for the purpose of Honour not true love for God (not all) but some *this is my opinion not meant to individually judge motives.* Thus we have myriads of pastors who are not converted on the issues of diet, sabbath observance or even the roll of Ellen G. White. But the most frightening thing is that the church has taken the position that only God should have. My original statement was based on the status of the church as it stands. Even the positions of Elder, Pastor, Deacon, are not viewed in their right light because of the blatant stance of the church against itself. Like when Jesus came in the time of the Jewish church who were allowing divorce for any cause because of the hardness of the peoples hearts. Thus women now strive to be in the glorified position of Elder, Pastor, General conference leader etc... And we have only ourselves to blame because the positions have been glorified and made the portals for heaven and enlightenment.

I am really struggling to get your points, Christian.

[Johann]

Bob, I realize that some agree fully with your interpretation, but you even bite yourself in your tail with the above statement. It is only people who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God who believe it is stating the truth when it talks about the priesthood of all believes. This was a part of the Reformation of Martin Luther, who also made quite a point of this.

It is those who reject the Reformation message who reject the priesthood of all believers. So I'd invite you, Bob, to put on Protestant Spectacles so you can see clearly what Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy is telling us today.

Yes, the New Testament uses the term "priesthood of all believers", but it is only the Catholic church which has priests of  the Old Testament order. Consider that! English speaking Seventh-day Adventist have avoided the term "priest" when referring to our pastors/evangelists, just to make this distinction clear, and I believe this includes Ellen G White.

Johann,

I think you need to explain what you mean a little more. We have already covered, I believe, that the NT reference to the priesthood of all believers is a quotation from Ex. 19:6. Since the priesthood of all believers is therefore an OT concept, and since all believers could not serve as priests of the tabernacle in the OT, where is the problem of gleaning lessons from the rebellion of Korah for the current situation?

Nothing wrong with referring to Korah, but that does not justify the OT priesthood is the same as the NT.
Just because I have not responded to a post does not mean that I am in agreement with everything it said.
Just because the Priesthood of all Believers is also found in the OT in connection with the old priesthood, does this mean the NT concept is entirely the same? Did the offerings of the OT not cease with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the real sacrifice?

In my Bible Ex 19:6 states that Israel is to be a nation ruled by priests. Perhaps this is a problem? And why you dislike the idea of being  ruled by female priests?

When reading modern sermons by Roman Catholic priests I understand your concern. They teach that Jesus Christ will never come back to earth in person, but that the Second Coming becomes real when the whole world is ruled from the Vatican through the priests around the world.

Protestants do not make priests their rulers, and they should not be. Pastors are teachers, like prophets. Since when have Adventists dismissed a female prophet?

Another point I think that has been raised is that no one is calling for the ordination of all believers. Shall we ordain all 6 year old believers to the gospel ministry since all believers are priests? If not, are we thereby rejecting the concept of the priesthood of all believers, leaving Protestantism behind, and becoming Roman Catholic? Certainly not.

Therefore, the concept of priesthood of all believers is insufficient justification for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.

To which I agree wholeheartedly. That if far from the intention. And I have no intention of dealing with this question on the level of a 6-year old kid.

[Johann]

I wasn't at the 1995 GC Session when the ordination of women, within divisions that decided to permit it, was voted down, but the vote was taken and the decision was made, and that decision has never been rescinded.

I was there.
Do you really mean what you said, Bob? Perhaps you intended to word it somewhat different?

[Johann]

What these "honest" people are doing now is studying the writings of James White and other pioneers. Some of these people are now indicating there is more "truth" to be found  among the male pastors of antiquity than in the writings of this young female, Ellen, who was really trying to play a role greater than the male pastors. Therefore she cannot be fully trusted, they say.

Johann has raised an interesting point:  In the early days of EGW, the developing SDA church was divided as to whether or not the Bible allowed EGW, as a female, to fill the role in the developing denomination that she claimed.  Those who were opposed took essentially the same position that is taken today by those who are opposed to ordaining females today.  Those who supported EGW in her role, argued essentially the same as those today who approve of ordaining women.  These discussions were well reported in SDA publicaitons such as the REVIEW.

Those who supported EGW in her claimed role essentially won the arguement when EGW was issued the credentials of an ordained minister by the General Conference, although she was not ordained in a public ceremony, or any private ceremony.

The arguements of today on this issue are largely a repeat of arguements from our early history.

Gregory, I believe this is really our primary concern.

[Gregory]

Bob said:

My understanding of the problem is that ordination grants rights or privileges that are recognized worldwide.

On one level, Bob is correct.  The underlying theory is that  ordination qualifies a perosn to work world-wide.  Therefore, when  I was living in Korea, I was quallified to perform the d uties of an ordained minister in Korea.  However, that theory has been modified to some extent.

1)  While an ordained minister is quallified to perform the duties of an ordained minister world-wide, that minister is supposed to do so only with the permission of the local church auathorities.  As a U.S. Army chaplain, if I baptized someone outside of the U.S. Army, I had to get permission from the local Koran leadership.   When I once asked for such, I was granted that permission, but I could   only perform outside of the U.S. Army with their permission.

2) Realisticly, a SDA minister ordained in one Division is not likely to be authorized to regularly perform the duties of an ordained minister, such as be a congregational pastor, in another Division unless that ordained minster meets the local requirements of that Division/Union/Local Conference.  IOW  A local pastor from some Divisions will likely be able to serve as a local pastor in the NAD only if that local pastor meets NAD/Union/Local Confereance requirements to be a local pastor.

I have lived in another Division where the majority of local pastors would not be allowed to serve as local pastors in the NAD.  This is potentially true for people going  in the other direction.  Most NAD pastor would not likely be able to serve as local pastors in some other areas.