Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

So the question is how can Ellen White have authority if Paul said that women cannot usurp authority over men? I think it has to do with what the word "authority" means. I take what Paul said to have to do with administrative authority, not prophetic authority.

The issue of the ordination of women has to do with what the woman is being ordained to do, not the ordination itself. Should women be set apart for the work of organizing churches, uniting churches, ordaining elders and deacons, and, presumably, baptizing anywhere without having to first get permission?

So, you do not agree with Uriah Smith?

Not sure what you mean. Which point by Uriah Smith were you referring to?

[Bob Pickle]

Church Aukthority:  Many statements have been made in regard to denominational authority. Citations have been made to 9t 26 & 261.  Those citations have actually been silmplistic and fail to reflect the denomilnational position in regard to authority.l  Here is the position that the denomination has actually taken on this subject:

Resolved, that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will ofthe body of that people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception, unless they can be shown to conflict with the word of God and the rights of indilvidual conscience.  Review & Herald, vol. 50 No. 14, p. 106.

Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 2005 Edition, Page 2.

So, that position of the SDA Church is that the GC in session is the highest earthly authority unless:
1) The General Conference is acting outside its proper jurisdiction.  That charge has been made in the statement that the Unions have th autority to decide who can be ordained and who cannot.

Can you cite where those making this argument admit the idea that the GC Session is the highest authority under God on earth? I haven't seen it. The very fact that they make this point to me seems to be a denial of that principle.

If GC Working Policy can specify that ordination candidates must be men, which it does, then it follows that it is within a GC Session's jurisdiction to decide that question.

Or, who is it that has determined that it is the union's jurisdiction to decide who is to be ordained? Who granted the unions that authority? Is it not the GC? And does not the acknowledgement of this point entirely moot the contention that the GC is beyond its jurisdiction in restricting ordination to men?

2) the GC is acting outside of Biblical teaching.  That is charged by those who support female ordination.

But that isn't what the quote from the 1877 session was talking about. "... unless they can be shown to conflict with the word of God ...." Where does only ordaining men (and thus prohibiting women from organizing and uniting churches, and ordaining elders and deacons) ever conflict with the word of God? Please cite chapter and verse.

3) The GC violates the rights ofr individual conscience.  That is alleged by those who voted Sunday to ordain without respect to gender.

How far should we push that language? What if someone feels that out of conscience they must work on Sabbath at a grocery store. Does that then mean that their own supposed views of conscience trump whatever a GC Session decides regarding Sabbath breaking being grounds for church discipline? Perhaps you can think of better examples.

Some folks at La Sierra would probably like to use the same reasoning to neutralize any and all church decisions regarding teaching evolution.

I think the wording you quoted refers more to how an individual lives their own life, not to the actions of a church employee or committee member in his capacity as such. For a union committee to decide to ordain a woman would presently be beyond that committee's proper jurisdiction, conscience or no conscience.

[Bob Pickle]

Perhaps the actions of the 1882 and the 1883 General Conference has something to say about the permanacency of General Conference Session votes.    Perhaps they may tell us that what is is the will of God for us at a specific point in time may not be the will of God for us at a later point in time.  It clearly tells us that votes of a General Conference Session may be re-visited at a later time, such as the next year, or the next session.

Thank you Galion for stimulating me to post informationfrom our past that clearly shows us that if a General Conference meeting in Session were to vote not to ordain females, it would be appropriate to re-consider that vote at the next session for as long as peole wished to re-consider it.  And in that re-consideration, it would be appropriate to overturnt hat previous vote.l;

Would you also agree that if WO was voted by a GC Session, that it could be reconsidered at later session, and that the previous vote could be overturned?

One thing that concerns me is that there is constant pushing to do change things, and then once the changes occur, it is as if the change can never ever be undone. I do not recall if I noticed this in worldly political topics, or in church topics, but it is something I have noticed.

[Johann]

So the question is how can Ellen White have authority if Paul said that women cannot usurp authority over men? I think it has to do with what the word "authority" means. I take what Paul said to have to do with administrative authority, not prophetic authority.

The issue of the ordination of women has to do with what the woman is being ordained to do, not the ordination itself. Should women be set apart for the work of organizing churches, uniting churches, ordaining elders and deacons, and, presumably, baptizing anywhere without having to first get permission?

So, you do not agree with Uriah Smith?

Not sure what you mean. Which point by Uriah Smith were you referring to?

Quote from: Notes and Queries in RH March 19, 1861

[Bob Pickle]

So the question is how can Ellen White have authority if Paul said that women cannot usurp authority over men? I think it has to do with what the word "authority" means. I take what Paul said to have to do with administrative authority, not prophetic authority.

The issue of the ordination of women has to do with what the woman is being ordained to do, not the ordination itself. Should women be set apart for the work of organizing churches, uniting churches, ordaining elders and deacons, and, presumably, baptizing anywhere without having to first get permission?

So, you do not agree with Uriah Smith?

Not sure what you mean. Which point by Uriah Smith were you referring to?

Quote from: Notes and Queries in RH March 19, 1861

You'll have to be more specific. What specific point did Smith make that you are asking me whether I disagree with.

[Gregory]

Would you also agree that if WO was voted by a GC Session, that it could be reconsidered at later session, and that the previous vote could be overturned?

Yes.  However, under denominational policy, to do so would not affect those women who had already been ordained.

However, please see my next post.

[Gregory]

Or, who is it that has determined that it is the union's jurisdiction to decide who is to be ordained? Who granted the unions that authority? Is it not the GC? And does not the acknowledgement of this point entirely moot the contention that the GC is beyond its jurisdiction in restricting ordination to men?

There are  couple of reasons why the qluestion does not become moot.

1) The rights of the Unions to decide who shall be ordained and who shall not be ordained in established in the Union Constitutions, as I understand it.
2) Those Union Constitutions, may be considered to be approved due to their compliance with the GC Model Constitutions and their history in which the GC did not object to them when they were put in place.
3) Once those Constitutions were put in place, they could only be ammended by a vote of the people in meetings called to ammend them.
4) For those who might disagree with # 3, I would point out that in no case has the GC ever attempted to have such a provision of a Union Constitution removed.  IOW, the GC has allowed such to remain.
5) In the United States, the Unions have been established as legal organizations.  Under U.S. law, the operating rules which govern the operation of the Unions rest in the Union Constitutions.  NOTE:  I am well aware that it can be argued as to what authority the U.S. courts would have to intrepret and enforce the Unon Constitutions.  Yet I will point out that the U.S. Courts do become involved in property issue in denominations that split and they have ruled on both sides as  a matter of interest.
6) The GC has a history of allowing Constitutions to differ from the Model Constiltutions.  When I was a mlnister in the Potomac Conference, many years ago, a GC proposal in the form of a change to the Model Constitution came before the Potomac meeting.  The people soundly voted to reject that proposal.  The only recourse that the GC took was to continue to bring the proposal in future meetings, until the people finally did vote that change in.

[Bob Pickle]

Or, who is it that has determined that it is the union's jurisdiction to decide who is to be ordained? Who granted the unions that authority? Is it not the GC? And does not the acknowledgement of this point entirely moot the contention that the GC is beyond its jurisdiction in restricting ordination to men?

There are  couple of reasons why the qluestion does not become moot.

1) The rights of the Unions to decide who shall be ordained and who shall not be ordained in established in the Union Constitutions, as I understand it.
2) Those Union Constitutions, may be considered to be approved due to their compliance with the GC Model Constitutions and their history in which the GC did not object to them when they were put in place.
3) Once those Constitutions were put in place, they could only be ammended by a vote of the people in meetings called to ammend them.
4) For those who might disagree with # 3, I would point out that in no case has the GC ever attempted to have such a provision of a Union Constitution removed.  IOW, the GC has allowed such to remain.
5) In the United States, the Unions have been established as legal organizations.  Under U.S. law, the operating rules which govern the operation of the Unions rest in the Union Constitutions.  NOTE:  I am well aware that it can be argued as to what authority the U.S. courts would have to intrepret and enforce the Unon Constitutions.  Yet I will point out that the U.S. Courts do become involved in property issue in denominations that split and they have ruled on both sides as  a matter of interest.
6) The GC has a history of allowing Constitutions to differ from the Model Constiltutions.  When I was a mlnister in the Potomac Conference, many years ago, a GC proposal in the form of a change to the Model Constitution came before the Potomac meeting.  The people soundly voted to reject that proposal.  The only recourse that the GC took was to continue to bring the proposal in future meetings, until the people finally did vote that change in.

And thus, it would seem, we are at a place in time where human authority in civil courts transcends the authority God gave the church, and we are staged for a repeat of the Kellogg apostasy. When the Battle Creek San's charter expired, Kellogg had a new one made which inserted a little point that he later used to steal the San away from the denomination.

But I really don't buy this line of reasoning.

B 05 Organizational and Operational Principles of Seventh-day Adventist Church Structure

Organizational life and procedures in the Seventh-day Adventist Church are based upon the following principles:

...

2. Organizational status is granted to a constituency as a trust. Organizational status as a local church, local conference/mission, or union conference/mission is not self-generated, automatic, or perpetual. It is the result of a formal decision by an executive committee or a constituency session at higher levels of denominational organization. Organizational membership and status are entrusted to entities that meet certain qualifications such as faithfulness to Seventh-day Adventist doctrines, compliance with denominational practices and policies, demonstration of adequate leadership and financial capacity, and responsiveness to mission challenges and opportunities. Membership and status can be reviewed, revised, amended, or withdrawn by the level of organization that granted it.

B 10 15 Union Conference/Mission—A specific group of local conferences/missions/fields, within a defined geographic area, that has been granted, by a General Conference Session, official status as a Seventh-day Adventist union conference/mission.

Therefore, a union constituency is not completely autonomous. A union constituency has no right to vote an action contrary to the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes unless it can produce a clear cut, unequivocal inspired statement mandating that action.

[Johann]

- - - -

Therefore, a union constituency is not completely autonomous. A union constituency has no right to vote an action contrary to the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes unless it can produce a clear cut, unequivocal inspired statement mandating that action.

I understand that this is just what these unions feel they have, A clear cut unequivocal statement that mandates that action. Has any responsible person from the GC denied this? All I have seen is their appeal for unity.

[Bob Pickle]

- - - -

Therefore, a union constituency is not completely autonomous. A union constituency has no right to vote an action contrary to the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes unless it can produce a clear cut, unequivocal inspired statement mandating that action.

I understand that this is just what these unions feel they have, A clear cut unequivocal statement that mandates that action. Has any responsible person from the GC denied this? All I have seen is their appeal for unity.

No, in actuality they know that they don't have any such statement. If you disagree, then please identify what that statement is and quote it here.

I agree that they feel they have a mandate. But they have no statement that says, "Thou shalt ordain women as gospel ministers that may organize and unite churches, ordain elders and deacons, serve as conference presidents, and baptize and conduct weddings outside their pastoral district without first getting permission."

If they had such a statement, there would be no controversy.

[Johann]

- - - -

Therefore, a union constituency is not completely autonomous. A union constituency has no right to vote an action contrary to the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes unless it can produce a clear cut, unequivocal inspired statement mandating that action.

I understand that this is just what these unions feel they have, A clear cut unequivocal statement that mandates that action. Has any responsible person from the GC denied this? All I have seen is their appeal for unity.

No, in actuality they know that they don't have any such statement. If you disagree, then please identify what that statement is and quote it here.

I agree that they feel they have a mandate. But they have no statement that says, "Thou shalt ordain women as gospel ministers that may organize and unite churches, ordain elders and deacons, serve as conference presidents, and baptize and conduct weddings outside their pastoral district without first getting permission."

If they had such a statement, there would be no controversy.

Who has authorized you to be the authority to define exactly how the wording should be of the required statement? But then it lies in you faulty statement: "Without first getting permission!" Today they can do all of that if they get the permission. Male ordained pastors do not need that to get that permission.

As it functions today, at least in some areas of the world, is that the local conference has granted all licensed ministers in their area, regardless of gender, permission to baptize as long as they are employed by that conference.

There is no record anywhere that the deacon Philip, called any of the Apostles for permission to baptize.

Even the apostle Paul makes it clear that he is foremost a deacon, so why do we make all this fuzz about the distinctive roles that did not exist in the apostolic church?

It appears to me like the ancient British conservative aristocratic class system has entered into our structure and certain people cannot understand real  life cases without interpreting them wearing those ancient glasses.

[Bob Pickle]

- - - -

Therefore, a union constituency is not completely autonomous. A union constituency has no right to vote an action contrary to the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes unless it can produce a clear cut, unequivocal inspired statement mandating that action.

I understand that this is just what these unions feel they have, A clear cut unequivocal statement that mandates that action. Has any responsible person from the GC denied this? All I have seen is their appeal for unity.

No, in actuality they know that they don't have any such statement. If you disagree, then please identify what that statement is and quote it here.

I agree that they feel they have a mandate. But they have no statement that says, "Thou shalt ordain women as gospel ministers that may organize and unite churches, ordain elders and deacons, serve as conference presidents, and baptize and conduct weddings outside their pastoral district without first getting permission."

If they had such a statement, there would be no controversy.

Who has authorized you to be the authority to define exactly how the wording should be of the required statement? But then it lies in you faulty statement: "Without first getting permission!" Today they can do all of that if they get the permission. Male ordained pastors do not need that to get that permission.

I think you misunderstood. Females in certain divisions cannot organize and unite churches, or ordain elders and deacons, or serve as conference presidents, even with permission.

If you want to provide us with a clear, unequivocal, inspired mandate that is worded differently, then go ahead. But it must be (a) clear, (b) unequivocal, and (c) inspired, or we end up with the conclusion that we have a very serious rebellion on our hands.

As it functions today, at least in some areas of the world, is that the local conference has granted all licensed ministers in their area, regardless of gender, permission to baptize as long as they are employed by that conference.

Within their district.

There is no record anywhere that the deacon Philip, called any of the Apostles for permission to baptize.

Irrelevant. Philip baptizing in Acts 8 is before the ordination of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13, which ordination conferred upon them the authority to baptize and organize churches according to the SoP.

Even the apostle Paul makes it clear that he is foremost a deacon, so why do we make all this fuzz about the distinctive roles that did not exist in the apostolic church?

It appears to me like the ancient British conservative aristocratic class system has entered into our structure and certain people cannot understand real  life cases without interpreting them wearing those ancient glasses.

The more other arguments than biblical and SoP are resorted to, the more clearly is it manifested that the step to ordain women represents a radical departure from basing our practices on a clear "Thus saith the Lord."

Just provide for us the clear, unequivocal, inspired mandate, and that will end the discussion.

[Johann]

- - - -

Therefore, a union constituency is not completely autonomous. A union constituency has no right to vote an action contrary to the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes unless it can produce a clear cut, unequivocal inspired statement mandating that action.

I understand that this is just what these unions feel they have, A clear cut unequivocal statement that mandates that action. Has any responsible person from the GC denied this? All I have seen is their appeal for unity.

No, in actuality they know that they don't have any such statement. If you disagree, then please identify what that statement is and quote it here.

I agree that they feel they have a mandate. But they have no statement that says, "Thou shalt ordain women as gospel ministers that may organize and unite churches, ordain elders and deacons, serve as conference presidents, and baptize and conduct weddings outside their pastoral district without first getting permission."

If they had such a statement, there would be no controversy.

Who has authorized you to be the authority to define exactly how the wording should be of the required statement? But then it lies in you faulty statement: "Without first getting permission!" Today they can do all of that if they get the permission. Male ordained pastors do not need that to get that permission.

I think you misunderstood. Females in certain divisions cannot organize and unite churches, or ordain elders and deacons, or serve as conference presidents, even with permission.

Our history shows that a female has served as a conference president. (quote]

If you want to provide us with a clear, unequivocal, inspired mandate that is worded differently, then go ahead. But it must be (a) clear, (b) unequivocal, and (c) inspired, or we end up with the conclusion that we have a very serious rebellion on our hands.

As it functions today, at least in some areas of the world, is that the local conference has granted all licensed ministers in their area, regardless of gender, permission to baptize as long as they are employed by that conference.

Within their district.

There is no record anywhere that the deacon Philip, called any of the Apostles for permission to baptize.

Irrelevant. Philip baptizing in Acts 8 is before the ordination of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13, which ordination conferred upon them the authority to baptize and organize churches according to the SoP. [/quote]you need to clear up your thinking, Bob. Who ordained John the Baptist? So the baptism in Acts 8 was worthless because Paul and Barnabas had not been ordained yet?

Even the apostle Paul makes it clear that he is foremost a deacon, so why do we make all this fuzz about the distinctive roles that did not exist in the apostolic church?

It appears to me like the ancient British conservative aristocratic class system has entered into our structure and certain people cannot understand real  life cases without interpreting them wearing those ancient glasses.

The more other arguments than biblical and SoP are resorted to, the more clearly is it manifested that the step to ordain women represents a radical departure from basing our practices on a clear "Thus saith the Lord."

Just provide for us the clear, unequivocal, inspired mandate, and that will end the discussion.

You find that here below.

[Murcielago]

I am still waiting for someone to show clear and unequivocal proof that Ellen White never did, and doesn't hold any authority in the church, and that she never did, and still does not hold any authority over a man. Until then, you and your arguments hold no credibility. You cannot have a woman in authority, and maintain that women cannot hold authority.

[Artiste]

I am still waiting for someone to show clear and unequivocal proof that Ellen White never did, and doesn't hold any authority in the church, and that she never did, and still does not hold any authority over a man. Until then, you and your arguments hold no credibility. You cannot have a woman in authority, and maintain that women cannot hold authority.

So I take it that you are for women's ordination, assuming that you don't see the proof you want.