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 suggested in some quarters that the current NAD president's wish is that women not only become ordained ministers, but also that some representative women be put in positions of church leadership such as conference presidents as soon as possible.

It seems to me that the NAD church leadership feels that their church is out of step with society in not having token women in leadership positions, just as in business and politics...women as minority tokens even if there may not be fully qualified women to fill these roles.

In this scenario, the church would be more acceptable and more in line with society in general with women in leadership positions.

In the June 29 "appeal for unity" from the GC the following is said:

The world-wide Church recognizes the General Conference in Session as the highest ecclesiastical authority for Seventh-day Adventists. The 19903 and 19954 General Conference Session decisions with respect to granting ministerial ordination to women represent the current voice of the Church in this matter. The actions of certain unions indicate their desire to establish an alternative source of authority for a matter that already carries the authority of the world Church.

So this is seen as a conflict between Seventh-day Adventist church principles and authority and the dissident Unions who would like to ignore those principles.

In an interesting ADvindicate article by Gerry Wagoner, June 9, entitled "Gender roles: cultural competition or consecrated cooperation?" we find the following:

What does the Bible say about male & female roles in the church?
The Scriptures forbid a woman to didasko a man (1 Timothy 2:12). The same Scriptures call for women to didasko younger women (Titus 2). Paul calls on Timothy to commit the gospel truths to other men so that they might didasko others (2 Timothy 2:2). The church of Thyatira is signally rebuked for allowing a “woman Jezebel” to didasko and seduce God’s servants (Revelation 2:20). A bishop or elder must be the husband of one wife and able to didasko (1 Timothy 3:2). Peter and the apostles continually didasko’d in the temple and in every home (Acts 5:42).

So who is right: the breakaway Unions, or the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference leadership?


 

[Gregory]

So who is right: the breakaway Unions, or the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference leadership?

Good question.

There is no easy answer to that question.

[Bob Pickle]

So who is right: the breakaway Unions, or the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference leadership?

Good question.

There is no easy answer to that question.

While it can easily be argued that the question of women's ordination is not an easy question, the same cannot be said about what is the highest ecclesiastical authority within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Thus, the GC leadership on that specific point are unquestionably and indisputably right.

I am more troubled regarding the change the unions are attempting to make regarding how we view the authority of a GC Session than regarding the change the unions are attempting to make regarding how we view women's ordination.

[Johann]

Since Ellen White stated clearly that some women are to be ordained, does the GC have the authority to decide they should not be ordained?

Does the GC have the authority to decide if an ordained minister is to wear a beard or not? If he is to live in a house belonging to the church - a parsonage - or his own home?

[Artiste]

So who is right: the breakaway Unions, or the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference leadership?

Good question.

There is no easy answer to that question.

While it can easily be argued that the question of women's ordination is not an easy question, the same cannot be said about what is the highest ecclesiastical authority within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Thus, the GC leadership on that specific point are unquestionably and indisputably right.

I am more troubled regarding the change the unions are attempting to make regarding how we view the authority of a GC Session than regarding the change the unions are attempting to make regarding how we view women's ordination.

The very troubling thing about the changes that the unions are attempting to make is that most of the Protestant churches who have made the change to women's ordination have then gone on to accept homosexuals, in some cases even as clergy.

There are some interesting discussions regarding the connection between spiritualism and the women's reform movement which began in the 1800's.  (Ellen White said that we should have nothing to do with that reform movement since it was coming from the wrong spirit.)

 

[Gregory]

The very troubling thing about the changes that the unions are attempting to make is that most of the Protestant churches who have made the change to women's ordination have then gone on to accept homosexuals, in some cases even as clergy.

One does not automaticly follow the other. Deal with it as it happens in the SDA Chruch and not on some supposition that it would happen.


For my next comment, keep in mind that my posted position is that one is a homosexuel based upon gender preference and not by action.  LIn addition, my position is that it is not a sin to be a homosexual as one does not choose to be a homosexual.  The sin is in the action as one choses how to act and one can be a homosexual and be celebate.

From the standpoint of the above, the SDA Chuch has allowed homosexual clergy who are celebate.  It has removed from clerical status those who engaged in sexual activity with persons of their samae gender.  That is our history.

[Gregory]

There are some interesting discussions regarding the connection between spiritualism and the women's reform movement which began in the 1800's.  (Ellen White said that we should have nothing to do with that reform movement since it was coming from the wrong spirit.)

 

I think we can understand why EGW would take such a position on somethilng related to spiritua;ism.  Butl, do we relate today the push for female ordination with spiritualism>  Not within the SDA denomination.

Also note that EGW clearly supported a female reform movement that had nothign to do with spiritualism.  You can read about this in 4T274 & 275.

HEr position on the above is understandable.

The point:  Read EGW in context.

[Johann]

The question remains: Should Women Have Any Authority Over Men?

In my pastoral ministry I have had at least a couple of churches with no male members. Several of the female church members were married but their spouses were not members. To what extent could such female church members have authority over their sons? We have many instances where a God-fearing mother has had a permanent influence on her sons without any aid from the father.

Does this apply to "men" only or does EGW use the term for "mankind"?

They will be humble, God-fearing men, not conservative, not policy men; but men who have moral independence and will move forward in the fear of the Lord. They will be kind, noble, courteous; yet they will not be swayed from the right path, but will proclaim the truth in righteousness whether men will hear or whether they will forbear". {5T 263.1}

[Bob Pickle]

Since Ellen White stated clearly that some women are to be ordained, does the GC have the authority to decide they should not be ordained?

Your question is misleading. You should instead have asked:

"Since Ellen White stated clearly that some women are to be ordained as deaconesses, does the GC have the authority to decide they should not be ordained as deaconesses?"

Or:

"Since Ellen White stated clearly that some women are to be ordained as deaconesses, does the GC have the authority to decide they should not be ordained as ministers?"

[Bob Pickle]

The very troubling thing about the changes that the unions are attempting to make is that most of the Protestant churches who have made the change to women's ordination have then gone on to accept homosexuals, in some cases even as clergy.

One does not automaticly follow the other. Deal with it as it happens in the SDA Chruch and not on some supposition that it would happen.

That's impossible if the acceptance of women's ordination involves a departure from our doctrine that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice. It must be dealt with now.

We have had on the table for years a valid question that must be answered: If neutralizing Paul's statements on the roles of men and women is justified by the culture of his times, on what logical basis can the neutralizing of his statements on homosexual practices not also be justified by the culture of his times?

From the standpoint of the above, the SDA Chuch has allowed homosexual clergy who are celebate.  It has removed from clerical status those who engaged in sexual activity with persons of their samae gender.  That is our history.

"The SDA Church." That raises this question: Since unions allegedly have an absolute right to ordain anything they want to, though no WO-proponent really believes that, does a union have a right to ordain a practicing homosexual, particularly if their constitution or bylaws states that they can? This is not a rhetorical question. I want to hear you answer this question.

[Johann]

Since Ellen White stated clearly that some women are to be ordained, does the GC have the authority to decide they should not be ordained?

Your question is misleading. You should instead have asked:

"Since Ellen White stated clearly that some women are to be ordained as deaconesses, does the GC have the authority to decide they should not be ordained as deaconesses?"

Or:

"Since Ellen White stated clearly that some women are to be ordained as deaconesses, does the GC have the authority to decide they should not be ordained as ministers?"

This is your definition of what Ellen White stated. I do not understand it that way, and in all of your attempts you have never succeeded in proving to me that you are right.

[Bob Pickle]

Since Ellen White stated clearly that some women are to be ordained, does the GC have the authority to decide they should not be ordained?

Your question is misleading. You should instead have asked:

"Since Ellen White stated clearly that some women are to be ordained as deaconesses, does the GC have the authority to decide they should not be ordained as deaconesses?"

Or:

"Since Ellen White stated clearly that some women are to be ordained as deaconesses, does the GC have the authority to decide they should not be ordained as ministers?"

This is your definition of what Ellen White stated. I do not understand it that way, and in all of your attempts you have never succeeded in proving to me that you are right.

Maybe the problem is that you don't presently want to be convinced. But I don't see any way that you can pretend that that statement is talking about organizing churches and baptizing rather than about the work of a deaconess. If you disagree, then quote that quote again here, or show us which language within that quote is talking about baptizing and organizing churches.

[Gregory]

Bob said:

Since unions allegedly have an absolute right to ordain anything they want to, though no WO-proponent really believes that, . . .

Bob is correct that no proponent of the ordination of females really beleves what he has stated here.  He is raising a so-called red herring that does not exist as a valid question.  Therefore, I am not going to discuss it.  He has simply errected his "straw man" which he proceeds to destroy.

In a debate one is not required to support/deny a position that is not held by anyone.

Also, one is not required to defend/deny a position that  is one its face pure nonsense.  E.g.  there are a few peole who believe in a "flat earth."  Or, at least they claim such.  That is such nonsense that one does not need to deny it.

In previous posts Bob has raised the issue in regard to the ordination of a dog.  That is sucn nonsence that it does not need to be denied.  The answer is self-evident..

[Bob Pickle]

Bob said:

Since unions allegedly have an absolute right to ordain anything they want to, though no WO-proponent really believes that, . . .

Bob is correct that no proponent of the ordination of females really beleves what he has stated here.  He is raising a so-called red herring that does not exist as a valid question.  Therefore, I am not going to discuss it.  He has simply errected his "straw man" which he proceeds to destroy.

In a debate one is not required to support/deny a position that is not held by anyone.

Also, one is not required to defend/deny a position that  is one its face pure nonsense.  E.g.  there are a few peole who believe in a "flat earth."  Or, at least they claim such.  That is such nonsense that one does not need to deny it.

In previous posts Bob has raised the issue in regard to the ordination of a dog.  That is sucn nonsence that it does not need to be denied.  The answer is self-evident..

As I am pretty sure you well realize, my point is not a red herring.

And, since you don't believe that unions have an absolute right to ordain anything they want to, you thereby concede that they don't have an absolute right to ordain a woman without some sort of Bible, SoP, and/or GC Session authorization to do so.

And that concession agrees with GC WP L 45 & L 50, which state that ordination candidates considered by unions are men, not women.

[Johann]

Since Ellen White stated clearly that some women are to be ordained, does the GC have the authority to decide they should not be ordained?

Your question is misleading. You should instead have asked:

"Since Ellen White stated clearly that some women are to be ordained as deaconesses, does the GC have the authority to decide they should not be ordained as deaconesses?"

Or:

"Since Ellen White stated clearly that some women are to be ordained as deaconesses, does the GC have the authority to decide they should not be ordained as ministers?"

This is your definition of what Ellen White stated. I do not understand it that way, and in all of your attempts you have never succeeded in proving to me that you are right.

Maybe the problem is that you don't presently want to be convinced. But I don't see any way that you can pretend that that statement is talking about organizing churches and baptizing rather than about the work of a deaconess. If you disagree, then quote that quote again here, or show us which language within that quote is talking about baptizing and organizing churches.

To me that seems to be your problem, Bob. I did quote before a place where Ellen White states - now in my words - that it is only immature kids who hang on to such church rules that disregard  kindness and progress in the church.  To this I'd like to quote what Sharon Cress, who for many years was a beloved General Conference Shepherdess International, stated at the CUC session:

"Columbia Union Constituents Overwhelmingly Affirm Women Pastors Through Ordination" report from the special constituency session. Sharon Cress, Potomac Conference’s Women’s Ministries director, said at the meeting, “The General Conference calls for unity in the face of unfairness and this wounds deeply the women who serve this church,” she said. “Some have appealed for unity today to justify continuation of unfairness. I tell you there is no unity today, and there can be no unity as long as we practice unfairness.”