Print

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

[Artiste]

It has been argued that the promoting of Women's Ordination is purely to save women from millennia of subjection and inequality.  It has also been argued that ordination of women in the Protestant churches has been followed by acceptance of homosexuality.

For those who say that this will never happen in the Seventh-day Adventist church, please note that in the popular press, "gender neutrality" is used increasingly in conjunction with acceptance of homosexuality.

Here are a smattering of topics from the internet (and there are many more):

Rutgers Okays ‘Gender-Neutral’ Dorm Rooms to Help Gays Feel Safer"

"Gay Agenda: Gender Neutrality a.k.a. Paganismgender neutrality"

"gender neutrality:
Suppose you are talking to someone (an acquaintance, a workmate, a person at a party) who you are pretty sure is gay.."

Compare the similarity of this Spectrum article with the above:

"Columbia Union Conference Authorizes Ordination Without Regard to Gender"
by Robert Jacobson

"Without regard to gender" sounds very much like "gender neutrality" to me.

[Artiste]

In the Senate, Sen. Gary Hooser (D, Kauai-Niihau) introduced a bill, SB-1062, to permit two unrelated people at least 16 years old to apply for a civil-union license "without regard to gender."

Marriage has evolved into a civil institution through which the state formally recognizes and ennobles individuals’ choices to enter into long-term, committed, intimate relationships and to build households based on mutual support. With the free choice of the two parties and their continuing consent as foundations, marriage laws treat both spouses in a gender-neutral fashion, without regard to gender-role stereotypes.
At least, most of the time. Except in Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C., men may only marry women, and women may only marry men. This requirement is an exception to the gender-neutral approach of contemporary marriage law and to the long-term trend toward legal equality in spouses’ marital roles...
Enabling couples of the same sex to gain equal marriage rights would be consistent with the historical trend toward broadening access.

[Artiste]

As can be seen by the above quotes, the language that Spectrum uses can equally apply to women's rights or gay rights.

Was this by accident or by choice?

[Dedication]

Personally it is such arguments that have turned me against the "don't ordain women" movement.  If we need to resort to those types of arguments to stop the ordination of women then there is something seriously wrong in my opinion.

First I do not think ordaining women is "gender neutrality" any more than a woman being certified as a doctor  is "gender neutrality.
A woman is still A WOMAN no matter what occupation she has.  Just as a man is still a man even if he washes the dishes.

Secondly, being a WOMAN is not a sin.
According to the bible, any sexual relationship outside of the marriage of a man and a woman IS SIN.
So to equate being a woman to being an active homosexual is just very insulting.
So why use such arguments?

Anyone practicing what scripture plainly states as sin, shouldn't be in church leadership, no matter if they are man or woman.   The qualifications for church leadership should be a consecrated life to Lord, and a life that shows the fruits of that relationship.

[Bob Pickle]

I hear you, Ulicia. The problem I see is that the women's ordination question has paved the way for the gay rights agenda in other denominations. And there are pro-WO folk who call themselves Adventists who do see a link between the two causes.

If either of these points is incorrect, I would appreciate enlightenment.

[Artiste]

The article from Adventist News Network on the Columbia Union Conference votes includes this description of the delegates lined up to speak at the microphones:

"Many voiced their belief that all whom the Holy Spirit has clearly called to ministry should be ordained without regard to gender..."

How long before a church entity will be using this phrase to justify voting in rights for homosexuals?  If the gay person "has clearly been called by the Holy Spirit to ministry"...

[Murcielago]

And how long before the use of Ellen White leads to broad justification for putting the Bible aside? I know SDAs who already have. Could that perhaps be the next logical step in the Church if we continue to allow EGW to be used as divine authority? Does that fear justify banning EGW in the Church?

[Artiste]

Does that have something to do with gender issues or women's ordination?

[Artiste]

And how long before the use of Ellen White leads to broad justification for putting the Bible aside? I know SDAs who already have. Could that perhaps be the next logical step in the Church if we continue to allow EGW to be used as divine authority? Does that fear justify banning EGW in the Church?

I don't know of any SDA's who have done that...certainly not a standard Adventist position.  Many more in my part of the world who have done the opposite.

[Bob Pickle]

The difficulty, as C. Raymond Holmes pointed out, is that the arguments against permitting homosexual practices in the church are based on Bible verses written by the apostle Paul (and others), and arguments against permitting women's ordination are based on Bible verses written by the apostle Paul (and others).

So why ignore what Paul wrote about the roles of men and women? Because what he wrote had to do with the culture of those times, or the culture of the cities he was writing to. Since we have a different culture, the logic goes, what Paul wrote does not apply.

So why ignore what Paul wrote about homosexual practices? Because what he wrote had to do with the culture of those times, or the culture of the cities he was writing to. Since we have a different culture in these perverse times, the logic goes, what Paul wrote does not apply.

Some get more specific. Some say that Paul's concern was not about homosexual practices, but about pagan worship practices. Since homosexual practices are not a part of pagan worship today, the logic goes, what he wrote does not apply to us today.

I think some have explained away Paul's concern about the roles of men and women on the basis of pagan worship practices too.

If the present push for WO has anything to do with societal and cultural pressures, then certainly as we have more and more agitation and pressure for gay so-called rights, we can expect more and more agitation and pressure for the same within the church.

[christian]

And how long before the use of Ellen White leads to broad justification for putting the Bible aside? I know SDAs who already have. Could that perhaps be the next logical step in the Church if we continue to allow EGW to be used as divine authority? Does that fear justify banning EGW in the Church?

It would be interesting to know the person's who have put the bible aside for EGW. It has been my experience that the disbelief in EGW eventually leads to the disregard of the bible. No one I know is using Ellen G. White as the divine authority especially on women's ordination.

[Dedication]

The article from Adventist News Network on the Columbia Union Conference votes includes this description of the delegates lined up to speak at the microphones:

"Many voiced their belief that all whom the Holy Spirit has clearly called to ministry should be ordained without regard to gender..."

How long before a church entity will be using this phrase to justify voting in rights for homosexuals?  If the gay person "has clearly been called by the Holy Spirit to ministry"...

I really don't see the connection.
What has gender to do with sin?

Identifying women with homosexuals is like saying.
If we ordain women we have to ordain drug addicts
If we ordain women we have to ordain alcoholics
If we ordain women we have to ordain adulterers

To try to make the understanding clearer maybe saying
If we allow women to teach the Sabbath School lesson we have to allow homosexuals to teach the Sabbath School lesson.

Or if we allow women to teach the children we will have to allow child molesters teach the children.
I mean it's just such a strange (and wrong) way of reasoning.

[christian]

The article from Adventist News Network on the Columbia Union Conference votes includes this description of the delegates lined up to speak at the microphones:

"Many voiced their belief that all whom the Holy Spirit has clearly called to ministry should be ordained without regard to gender..."

How long before a church entity will be using this phrase to justify voting in rights for homosexuals?  If the gay person "has clearly been called by the Holy Spirit to ministry"...

I really don't see the connection.
What has gender to do with sin?

Identifying women with homosexuals is like saying.
If we ordain women we have to ordain drug addicts
If we ordain women we have to ordain alcoholics
If we ordain women we have to ordain adulterers

To try to make the understanding clearer maybe saying
If we allow women to teach the Sabbath School lesson we have to allow homosexuals to teach the Sabbath School lesson.

Or if we allow women to teach the children we will have to allow child molesters teach the children.
I mean it's just such a strange (and wrong) way of reasoning.

  You may not see the correlation but it is definitely there and you will see the results in the future. What you fail to realize is that Homosexuality is not against the law as the other examples you mentioned. The fight is not merely a matter of ordination of women but a power struggle of who will control the church. The institution is a representation of heaven here on earth. I have stated before that the desire of Satan is to so pervert the house of God as to make the prodigal son's return impossible. The stakes are high the church is being corrupted and misrepresented and thrown off task. The sinners desire is no longer to flee the church but rather to change the church into their image. Is Jesus no longer the groom or is he the bride now?

[Dedication]

I hear you, Ulicia. The problem I see is that the women's ordination question has paved the way for the gay rights agenda in other denominations. And there are pro-WO folk who call themselves Adventists who do see a link between the two causes.

If either of these points is incorrect, I would appreciate enlightenment.

Many reasons are given to allow sin in the churches.   
And I agree this is NOT the first time I've run across people bringing up this argument that if we ordain women that somehow we will have to ordain homosexuals.

Whether or not women are recognized as commissioned by God to minister (ordained) or whether they minister in leadership positions for God without official recognition (ordination)  has nothing to do with allowing homosexuals EITHER of those privileges of church leadership.

The problem is that the world seems to have identified the so called gay person as another "gender".   
So they don't think of a homosexual as a MAN but simply as a homosexual, and a lesbian isn't a woman, but a lesbian.
Why  has the world come to that?
Aren't they still men or women?
As far as I'm concerned a homosexual is a MAN who has a sinful propensity, just as an adulterer is a man with a sinful propensity.
And a lesbian is a woman with a sinful propensity, just as promiscuise woman is still a woman with a sinful propensity.
 

I would think allowing ordained men who are  unfaithful to their wives to continue in ministry (just moving them to another conference) would be much more of an argument for allowing homosexuals to be ordained ministers.

[Dedication]

  You may not see the correlation but it is definitely there and you will see the results in the future. What you fail to realize is that Homosexuality is not against the law as the other examples you mentioned. The fight is not merely a matter of ordination of women but a power struggle of who will control the church. The institution is a representation of heaven here on earth. I have stated before that the desire of Satan is to so pervert the house of God as to make the prodigal son's return impossible. The stakes are high the church is being corrupted and misrepresented and thrown off task. The sinners desire is no longer to flee the church but rather to change the church into their image. Is Jesus no longer the groom or is he the bride now?

Neither is adultery against our country's law.  Neither is promiscuity against our country's law.

Whether this is a power struggle between men and women is another topic.

What I am against is equating women with homosexuals.
If people have to resort to that to defend the "men only" stance, then there is something very wrong.