Print

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

[Gregory]

In the early days of our church we had a female President of the IA Conference.  Yes, it was for less than one year,  but, she was President and she was female.

We presently have a female General Conference Vice-President.

[christian]

Hi Johann

"The term ordination is not found anywhere in the Bible, so it needs to be defined. . . How, and by whom?"
Certainly agree with you on this one. I can't believe this is such a contentious issue and one that can hinder the spread of the gospel. Who cares?I don't.Women whether ordained or not are also part of the great commission of Christ to spread the message to the whole world. EGW's counsel is ideal, but reality is as much important. Don't you think?

Johann, what gain do women get from being ordained? How is whether women are ordained or not hinder the spread of the gospel? Is this a prelude to women Conference Presidents or General Conference President? Is this a fight for better pay or more respect? In your opinion what is the end game here?

Welcome, Sauliga. Good to see you here. I hope we willl have some enjoyable time together here.

It was a woman who first brought the resurrection message. It was a woman who had the greatest influence on forming our church right from the beginning. It would not surprise me if women will close the work so Jesus can come back.

The greatest gain I can think of at the moment is the knowledge they are following the Spirit of Prophecy and not the great crowd of Adventists who think we do not have to follow her any more. It is ridiculous then to claim they are doing it for greater pay or prestige.

Tell me why you are a vegetarian? Is it only because meat is more expensive? Or do you have any other reason?

I am vegetarian because the meat is so much more expensive. I believe your point is that I am vegetarian because of Ellen G. White, wearing or jewelry etc. However if that is what you are implyng you would not be correct. I can tell you that whatever Ellen White says must be conformed to the Bible and a study of the Bible simply confirms what the Spirit of Prophecy says.

[christian]

In the early days of our church we had a female President of the IA Conference.  Yes, it was for less than one year,  but, she was President and she was female.

We presently have a female General Conference Vice-President.

And I think you should have a female over you and President of your Conference. And you should also put on a skirt and have a baby. Matter fact you should stay home and change diapers and burp the baby you mamby pamby. Look be a man for goodness sake, and be a mouthpeice for men. I can see if you were in the time of swords and arrow and going to war and the men all said "play the man" and fight for your wives and your family you would say "why should I since my wife can fight as well as I."

[Gregory]

And I think you should have a female over you and President of your Conference. And you should also put on a skirt and have a baby. Matter fact you should stay home and change diapers and burp the baby you mamby pamby. Look be a man for goodness sake, and be a mouthpeice for men. I can see if you were in the time of swords and arrow and going to war and the men all said "play the man" and fight for your wives and your family you would say "why should I since my wife can fight as well as I."

I will let you diatribe speak for itself.  To think that my simple comment that in the early days of our denomination we had a female President of the IA Conference produced your response.

However, as many here know:  I am a combat veteran!  I served in the time when women began integrating into the military.  I served in combat with a unit that had female soldiers.  In general terms, with occasional exceptions, our female soldiers were of a higher qualilty than our male soldiers.  Why?  They had to be in order to survive. 

I suppose you may pontificate on women in the military.  I will find your comment much more interesting if you tell us that you have served in combat and with females.  If you can't tell us that, I will suspect tha you do not have the experential background to comment on females in the military.
 

[Johann]

In the early days of our church we had a female President of the IA Conference.  Yes, it was for less than one year,  but, she was President and she was female.

We presently have a female General Conference Vice-President.

And we have a female Union Vice-President in Denmark

and there is a female secretary in the Trans European Division of the General Conference

[Bob Pickle]

Just because there are rebellious teenagers in the world is no evidence this is a rebellion.

If the unions and conferences involved make it crystal clear that they will not ordain a woman until permitted to do so by a GC Session vote, then there certainly is not rebellion against properly constituted church authority going on.

This may be true, Bob, but you expressed an exception yourself, and that is  unless you are convinced the GC vote was made contrary to the will of God as expressed in Scripture and/or the Spirit of Prophecy. It is  my honest belief that it is this conviction which has prompted certain duly elected Church leaders to follow their conviction and conscience, knowing the history of the past how similar arguments were used against the young girl, Ellen Harmon.

Unless someone can provide at least one 19th century reference to that effect, I don't think we should be stating as fact that similar arguments were used against Ellen Harmon.

If the individuals involved cannot articulate a sound Bible and/or SoP basis for violating a GC Session vote, then it is rebellion, pure and simple. The Israelites tried the same sort of rationalizations after God told them they would die in the wilderness to justify their ongoing rebellion. We must not go down that road.

[Johann]

I have referred to it elsewhere that just the other day I had a talk with a person who has been traveling recently to different countries where this person had discovered traces of a new neo-orthodox movement in certain areas. These are individuals who think it is appropriate that the Adventist Church should follow the great majority of fallen Christianity in their views of preventing women to accept the role alongside males who proclaim the gospel.

Since these individuals are honest enough to understand that Ellen White endorsed the ordination of women to certain  offices in the church, they find it convenient to sidetrack Ellen White, claiming the real prophets were James White and his fellow male preachers. Ellen was just trying to cope with them and borrow from them what she needed, and then she used it to further the role of women in the church, something the real males never endorsed.

I wonder if you have met anyone from this movement yet?

I find it interesting that our General Conference president has made a trip to China where women are officially ordained as regular pastors in some of our largest churches. Could this have shown him the importance of their work, and that it is more important now that we are approaching the soon coming of Jesus, than waiting for an endorsement at the next session of the General Conference? At least there have been positive reports of his visit in our church paper.

[christian]

I have referred to it elsewhere that just the other day I had a talk with a person who has been traveling recently to different countries where this person had discovered traces of a new neo-orthodox movement in certain areas. These are individuals who think it is appropriate that the Adventist Church should follow the great majority of fallen Christianity in their views of preventing women to accept the role alongside males who proclaim the gospel.

Since these individuals are honest enough to understand that Ellen White endorsed the ordination of women to certain  offices in the church, they find it convenient to sidetrack Ellen White, claiming the real prophets were James White and his fellow male preachers. Ellen was just trying to cope with them and borrow from them what she needed, and then she used it to further the role of women in the church, something the real males never endorsed.

I wonder if you have met anyone from this movement yet?

I find it interesting that our General Conference president has made a trip to China where women are officially ordained as regular pastors in some of our largest churches. Could this have shown him the importance of their work, and that it is more important now that we are approaching the soon coming of Jesus, than waiting for an endorsement at the next session of the General Conference? At least there have been positive reports of his visit in our church paper.

First of all the church is not beholden to the General Conference President and He is not appointed to be a dictator.  You keep equivocating ordination to the effective work of women as though not doing it will prohibit the Gospel. If men and women would simply perform the equal important jobs God appointed them the Gospel long since would be spread.  I liken your argument about ordination to that of the Gays who see the fact that they cannot carry the name marriage as prohibiting them from cohabitation. Jesus when he was here had twelve disciples and all were male, why do you think that was the case? There are a few instances where women took the place of men and that being because men did not perform the job God intended. I do not think that women ordination is an attempt to fill a position not held by men but rather for gender equality. Men and women were designed for different rolls by God, should we ignore the many many text that make that plain?-----And as far as your Military Combat goes, anyone can carry a gun but that does not make him a hero or an expert on matters of women in combat. I went in the service in 1977 and served till 1983 and most of us were in the service for a job. Looking back on those years I am very proud of the time I spent in the service, but the truth is I enlisted because I wanted to see the world and have a job.----- You continually push for women ordination as though you are helping women when in fact you are trying to blur the lines between men and women, either knowingly or unknowingly.

[Bob Pickle]

Many refer to 1 Tim. 3 without considering how the original Greek of verse 11 is being translated by many scholars, and is shown in a number of Bible translations which show that the same principles that are listed for men, apply to women as well.

Johann,

There are two possible interpretations, neither of which helps the cause of women's ordination: (a) 1 Tim. 3:11 refers to the wives of deacons. (b) 1 Tim. 3:11 refers to deaconesses. I know no one who is opposed to women serving as deaconesses.

Then the word for "women" is rendered as "their wives" by those translators.

The word for husband means "man," and the word for wife means "woman." Often the true meaning of the word can be determined by the presence of a possessive pronoun. Thus "her man" is "her husband," and "his woman" is "his wife." This coincides with Paul's teaching that either spouse belongs to the other, not to himself or herself.

Consider also how some of our pioneers rejected the testimony of the young Ellen Harmon because she was just a girl ....

I'm still waiting for a reference.

Add to that that Ellen White pronounced in 1895 that certain women in our church should be ordained ....

As deaconesses, which I know of no one who is opposed to.

... and that she never issued one iota against the ordination of female ministers in the church.

Why should she if it was never an issue.

How could she, when she herself was classified as an ordained minister?

Apples and oranges. It is the resorting to such arguments that makes the women's ordination side seem like it can't articulate a sound biblical or SoP reason for going contrary to a GC Session vote. In what way does God's ordaining a woman to be a prophet via a vision justify a woman today being ordained by humans to be a local pastor when we aren't supposed to have local pastors, generally speaking, and when no one involved has had a vision?

Then just now it has been revealed that one of the most expressive chauvinist of them all, an expert and scholar classifying the role of women in comparison with that of the male, has showed by his own example that such women are but playthings to gratify the lust of man.

And since Danny Shelton is against eating pork, we should be able to eat pork because of all his shenanigans?

[christian]

And I think you should have a female over you and President of your Conference. And you should also put on a skirt and have a baby. Matter fact you should stay home and change diapers and burp the baby you mamby pamby. Look be a man for goodness sake, and be a mouthpeice for men. I can see if you were in the time of swords and arrow and going to war and the men all said "play the man" and fight for your wives and your family you would say "why should I since my wife can fight as well as I."

I will let you diatribe speak for itself.  To think that my simple comment that in the early days of our denomination we had a female President of the IA Conference produced your response.

However, as many here know:  I am a combat veteran!  I served in the time when women began integrating into the military.  I served in combat with a unit that had female soldiers.  In general terms, with occasional exceptions, our female soldiers were of a higher qualilty than our male soldiers.  Why?  They had to be in order to survive. 

I suppose you may pontificate on women in the military.  I will find your comment much more interesting if you tell us that you have served in combat and with females.  If you can't tell us that, I will suspect tha you do not have the experential background to comment on females in the military.

My response was in no way diatribe to women. The response was meant for you and what I perceive as a lack of understanding of what a mans roll is and what most females want from men, I am talking about real men. You, being a military man and around women should more than most know that women want men to be just that men. God gave women and men differnt rolls to perform, both of equal importance. Do you believe men have differnt rolls than women? Why do you think God made the woman to carry the baby? Don't you think he could have made the man with the ability to have a child too? You think that you care about women more than those who oppose womens ordination? Look I oppose a man having a baby though scientist are working hard to make it so. I believe God gave women a sacred trust the same as men and their roll is essential to the understanding of the character or God.

[Gregory]

I cleary understood that your diatribe ws directed against me.  That was clear.

Your description of women cleary fits some females, but not others.  People are different.  Men are different and so are women different.  The role that you attribute to women does tno fit all.

Why should everyone be forced to fit into a box.

We have some family frilends that have reversed what you call the normal role:  The woman earns her living by charging $3,000 per hour to advise others in regard to her speciality.  She is the power that lies behind major media headlines in business.  AS I write this, she is in London on business.  When she and her husband married, he gave up his occupation as a RN.  He stayes home, runs the household and takes care of their child.  NOTE:  She is very much involved in raising the child, even if not on a daily basis.  The husband has a side business (The child is in school.)  He purchases houses, with the moneythat she earns,l upgrades them and sells them at a profit.  He had total charge of building the home in which they live.

By the way, both are active SDAs.  She does not do business on the Sabbath and is well known for that.  She makes certain hat she is home on Sabbath and in church--they all are.  She is active in the life of the local congregation.

This family system wo rks.  Why should these people be forced into different roles?

[Gregory]

As I said: the women that I served with in combat, as a group were generally better soldiers than the men.  They had to be, in order to survive and make it.

What did they want?   They wanted to be recognized for their skills and the contribution that they made.  The did not want to be forced into a steriotype that dit not fit their personality and circumstances.  They did nto want to ive in the shadow of a male.

You talk about the man being the head.  Have you ever lived in a culture where the male was king?  Do you really know what it is like in a culture where the female walks 6-steps behind the man in public.  I have lived in such a culture--in an Asian country.
1) The male ruled in public.
2) The female ruled the household at home.
3) The man turned his paycheck over to the woman and she returned to him what she had decided he should have an an alloowance to spent that month.
4) The woman invested and/or purchased property without his knowledge and consent.
5)  NOTE:  I am not even getting into the issue of the "Extended family" and gender roles.

NOTE:  Our young soldiers who married these females often had trouble when they mopved to the United States and did nto want to give the women what they expected in their role.  The most successful marriages were those in which the men allowe the women to continue to play the role that they had been trained for in their culture.   We are close friends of one such SDA family.  Both the husband and the wife are highly trained.  They both travel internationally (Mainly between the US and her home country.).  She traines and teaches in her area of expertese.  He provides services to the U.S. government in her home country and in the U.S.
 

[christian]

As I said: the women that I served with in combat, as a group were generally better soldiers than the men.  They had to be, in order to survive and make it.

What did they want?   They wanted to be recognized for their skills and the contribution that they made.  The did not want to be forced into a steriotype that dit not fit their personality and circumstances.  They did nto want to ive in the shadow of a male.

You talk about the man being the head.  Have you ever lived in a culture where the male was king?  Do you really know what it is like in a culture where the female walks 6-steps behind the man in public.  I have lived in such a culture--in an Asian country.
1) The male ruled in public.
2) The female ruled the household at home.
3) The man turned his paycheck over to the woman and she returned to him what she had decided he should have an an alloowance to spent that month.
4) The woman invested and/or purchased property without his knowledge and consent.
5)  NOTE:  I am not even getting into the issue of the "Extended family" and gender roles.

NOTE:  Our young soldiers who married these females often had trouble when they mopved to the United States and did nto want to give the women what they expected in their role.  The most successful marriages were those in which the men allowe the women to continue to play the role that they had been trained for in their culture.   We are close friends of one such SDA family.  Both the husband and the wife are highly trained.  They both travel internationally (Mainly between the US and her home country.).  She traines and teaches in her area of expertese.  He provides services to the U.S. government in her home country and in the U.S.

What are you talking about? I never said anything that would imply that a woman had to walk 6 feet behind a man. I have simply stated that the BIBLE lays out men and women's duty. It is you that seem to indicate in your post that for a woman to do her roll is some kind of position that makes the man king, those are your words and understanding not mine. And I have lived in the Philippineans, Egypt, and seen the abuse that women have to take from men in that type of society. I am in no way shape or form advocating that kinda of culture (which is not biblical) for women or men. That is not the discussion here, at least from my side. I am saying that God set guidelines for men and women in the ministry and it is gender specific for a reason. Please, do not twiste my words to make them some kind of extreme position when I am in no form trying to make it thus. Again, why did God only chose men to be his diciples? Why did God not make men with the ability to carry bear children?