Print

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

[Artiste]

From what I understand the Unions are responsible for ordination of the Pastors.
The issue of ordaining women was removed from the unions and placed in the General Conference jurisdiction.

Personally I don't see the problem that was the topic of this thread.

Since the world church has not voted to ordain women, any ordaining of women that the columbia Union does is not recognized by the world church.   It would only be recognized in the Columbia Union.  As more unions vote for women's ordination (which they are already considering) the sphere of recognition for ordained women would grow, but until the General Conference votes for women ordination, a woman's ordination would be valid only in the unions that support it.

Ulicia, the title of this thread that you have complained about in an earlier post was merely a literary devise to attract attention to the topic and the problem it addresses.

I don't think that the "sphere of recognition for ordained women" will grow since the GC is reportedly considering sanctions for unions who have gone against General Conference authority and the world church.

[SDAminister]

*See explanation below

One of the rights a man has when he is ordained to the gospel ministry is that his call, his ordination, is recognized worldwide within the SDA church. As such, he can go to teach, preach, and minister anywhere in the world and the worldwide church allows and recognizes this as essential. There is no separate or different ordination for those in Ghana from those in Bolivia. Ministers travel, move, work, and live between all the world fields with total spiritual freedom.

Where did you pick up this idea?

If a minister is ordained in Japan and then goes to work in France, the church in France must recognize this ordination.

False. The church in France does not have to do that.

Enter CUC. IF a Union can draw up its own guidelines for ordination separate from the world church, then individuals ordained under these laws would, by current order of the church bylaws, be able to serve anywhere in the world at a later time. And the rest of the world would have to recognize their ordination.

False

But let's suppose that the New Zealand Pacific Union Conference used their new-found "power" to ordain whomever they want AND they ordain homosexuals to the gospel ministry, then all Unions in the world would be compelled to recognize and honor those ordinations, including CUC! Hey, if it's okay to foist their rebellion upon the rest of the church, why not another Union foist a deeper rebellion upon them (would be the thinking)?

False

CUC is opening a Pandora's box with their rebellion.

False

Gay pastors, coming to a church near you, thanks to legal precedents set by the CUC.

False

SDAminister

No wonder they manage to get so many people to sign against WO because of the lies and false information thrown out to the members.

Johann,
Did Gregory, Bob, and others sufficiently explain to you how and what rights ordination confers upon a man within the world church or would you like me to speak more directly to the points you dispute above?

SDAminister

[Bob Pickle]

When we allow our kids to get a driver's license and drive a car are we ignoring the list of kids who have accidents on the highway, and are injured and killed? Because some kids drive in an irresponsible manner should they all be painted with the same brush?

The 19th amendment has not resulted in allowing children, farm animals, or pets to vote (although voter fraud has certainly happened) even though it was predicted.

Stating as fact that certain hypothetical results will take place is very different from suggesting that they could. That is the tactic of dishonest politicians in their campaigns.

Then let's frame the discussion differently. Ordaining women for the reasons commonly given is a radical departure from how we interpret Scripture, and from our doctrine about the Scriptures.

That radical departure opens the door for lots of things down the road, whether or not it ever happens.

But we could just stop with the very serious doctrinal departure re: how we interpret and view the Scriptures.

[Bob Pickle]

From what I understand the Unions are responsible for ordination of the Pastors.
The issue of ordaining women was removed from the unions and placed in the General Conference jurisdiction.

This is incorrect as shown by the last release by the GC. The GC Sessions and/or Executive Committee determines the criteria for baptism and ordination, and the local church decides who meets the criteria for baptism and the union decides who meets the criteria for ordination.

It's pretty standard to think of the GC Sessions determining what our fundamental beliefs are. Local churches do not decide what things are tests of fellowship. They just decide who meets the tests that the GC Sessions have decided upon.

[Dedication]

Still -- the first argument was that since Columbia Union voted to ordain women, any woman ordained is an ordained minister the world over.   Thus, according to that poster,  any Union who choses to ordain homosexuals would mean that homosexual is an ordained minister the world over.   

That is NOT a valid argument since the General Conference has NOT agreed to the ordination of women.
 
Since the world church has not voted to ordain women, any ordaining of women that the Columbia Union does is not recognized by the world church.   Their ordination would not be like GC recognized ordination.   It would only be recognized in the Columbia Union.
It's only as more unions vote for women's ordination (which they are already considering) the sphere of recognition for ordained women would grow, but until the General Conference votes for women ordination, a woman's ordination would be valid only in the unions that support it.

[Dedication]

Ulicia, the title of this thread that you have complained about in an earlier post was merely a literary devise to attract attention to the topic and the problem it addresses.

The title is an outright falsehood.   Many people surf through these forums and don't bother to read all the posts.  They just latch on to the titles and soon all kinds of gossip float around the internet.   
Besides I do find equating women in the same class as those practicing what the Bible calls an abomination, very offensive.
Basically what it's saying is that men, due to their gender are righteous, pure and worthy, while women, due to their gender, are sinful, defiled and unworthy.
It's just not a Christian position.
When people use those arguments to make their point, to me it's a clear sign that they are NOT following the Biblical principles.   Those who see all people as equal before God appear much closer to Biblical principles.    Especially since the male priesthood was done away with at the cross and everyone is now invited to directly come to God through Christ.  There's no more need to go through a priest.   All are invited to go out and preach, teach, and explain the good news of the gospel to everyone.   And when that is done, Jesus will come.

 

[Murcielago]

Still -- the first argument was that since Columbia Union voted to ordain women, any woman ordained is an ordained minister the world over.   Thus, according to that poster,  any Union who choses to ordain homosexuals would mean that homosexual is an ordained minister the world over.   

That is NOT a valid argument since the General Conference has NOT agreed to the ordination of women.
 
Since the world church has not voted to ordain women, any ordaining of women that the Columbia Union does is not recognized by the world church.   Their ordination would not be like GC recognized ordination.   It would only be recognized in the Columbia Union.
It's only as more unions vote for women's ordination (which they are already considering) the sphere of recognition for ordained women would grow, but until the General Conference votes for women ordination, a woman's ordination would be valid only in the unions that support it.

Very good point. That point was also made in the statement put out by the PUC.

[Murcielago]

Ulicia, the title of this thread that you have complained about in an earlier post was merely a literary devise to attract attention to the topic and the problem it addresses.

True. This is a literary device most commonly used and associated with magazines such as The National Inquierer, and others in its class. It carries with it an associated level of credibility.

[Artiste]

Ulicia, the title of this thread that you have complained about in an earlier post was merely a literary devise to attract attention to the topic and the problem it addresses.

True. This is a literary device most commonly used and associated with magazines such as The National Inquierer, and others in its class. It carries with it an associated level of credibility.

I disagree with you, Murcielago.  I have not seen this type of literary device used in tabloids.  The topic title here has an asterisk after it, which means to look below for explanation.  I have not seen this done in tabloids.

Maybe you would like to give us an example of the type of title you think is appropriate at AT in your next topic that you initiate.

[Murcielago]

Ulicia, the title of this thread that you have complained about in an earlier post was merely a literary devise to attract attention to the topic and the problem it addresses.

True. This is a literary device most commonly used and associated with magazines such as The National Inquierer, and others in its class. It carries with it an associated level of credibility.

I disagree with you, Murcielago.  I have not seen this type of literary device used in tabloids.  The topic title here has an asterisk after it, which means to look below for explanation.  I have not seen this done in tabloids.

Maybe you would like to give us an example of the type of title you think is appropriate at AT in your next topic that you initiate.

I wouldn't call it inappropriate for what it is meant to do.

[SDAminister]

Still -- the first argument was that since Columbia Union voted to ordain women, any woman ordained is an ordained minister the world over.   Thus, according to that poster,  any Union who choses to ordain homosexuals would mean that homosexual is an ordained minister the world over.   

That is NOT a valid argument since the General Conference has NOT agreed to the ordination of women.
 
Since the world church has not voted to ordain women, any ordaining of women that the Columbia Union does is not recognized by the world church.   Their ordination would not be like GC recognized ordination.   It would only be recognized in the Columbia Union.
It's only as more unions vote for women's ordination (which they are already considering) the sphere of recognition for ordained women would grow, but until the General Conference votes for women ordination, a woman's ordination would be valid only in the unions that support it.

Ulicia,
Then I suppose you'd consider that turnabout is fair play? That is, that Mark Finley's, Ted Wilson's, and Doug Batchelor's ordination wouldn't be recognized within the CUC? Would their ordinations only be valid in all territories outside of the CUC?

Also, do you suppose that women OR men ordained within the CUC would like to be told that they can't minister anywhere outside of the CUC, not even for a campmeeting or a bible study across the state line into the Atlantic Union Conference?

Do you suppose that those ordained women and their supporters will be satisfied and content with just being able to work within the CUC? Tell us, who is going to pay for these people's salaries? Will any of it come from the common pot of retirement funds? Or, should we set up a separate sustentation fund for those ordained in the CUC?

[Murcielago]

We might recall a valid point made by the PUC stating that nothing changes except within the ordaining union. There are currently women being ordained in California whose ordination is accepted as commissioning in those areas that don't ordain women. Men ordained in other areas are accepted as ordained in CUC. They are accepted across the board at the maximum level authorized within the union.

[Johann]

It is usually treated like a routine that the average person hardly notices, except when there are matters of discipline involved. You will notice it when the list of ordained ministers is voted on, and there you notice that a name is missing. That is because that special committee functioning at every normal session dealing with credentials has discovered a reason why his credentials as an ordained minister should not be renewed.

I have experienced where a conference eliminated a local church leader by dismissing the church from the sisterhood of churches and transferring all of the other members to another church. Thereby the leader was not an Adventist any longer. I am not sure if this was fully according to policy, but sometimes conferences get away with things due to circumstances.

It is something like what just happened in North Germany. The Union president seems to acknowledge that their decision to ordain without regard to gender is seen by some as a disobedience of the GC rule. He claims they were forced to do it because federal law in Germany now demands equal status for men and women employed also by a church. They could do it because the question of ordaining women is not regarded by the GC as a doctrine based on Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy, but rather dictated by culture.

I have been to every session of our Maritime Conference for the last several sessions.   I also served three terms on the Maritime Conference Board of Directors.

I don't remember reviewing the ordination status of any of our ordained ministers.   I do remember doing a yearly salary review of all Conference Employees at our Maritime Conference's Annual Meetings, but nothing to do with their ordination status, etc.

It is also my understanding that even the ordination of local elders is recognized around the world.  If, for example, I were to move and tranfer my membership to a church in Sydney, Australia and they wanted me to elect me as a local elder, they wouldn't need to ordain me again as a local elder.

No matter how you turn it, the ordination is worthless for employment unless the employing conference accepts the ordination and it is reconfirmed at the next conference elections where each pastor's ordination is evaluated by a committee and the proposal by the committee is accepted by a majority of the delegates.

As Gregory has pointed out, ordination is not about employment. Ordination is about a conferral of authority, as Ellen White described when commenting on Acts 13.

OK, so we should not employ our pastors? Would you suggest ordination is just for those who function like local elders and deacons who are not employed by the church? Perhaps not a bad idea. We have had a number of pastors who have not received a salary from the church but lived on other income.

Should we follow Paul by letting the evangelists earn their living by tentmaking? Is this what our discussion is all about?

From all of your reading of working policies, have you found the reason why pastors have to have their credentials renewed at every conference session, but neither local elders nor deacons need to have their ordination approved by any other organization than their own local church?

But the ordination of the local elder and deacon is still valid if he moves to another church, anywhere in the world, provided he is elected to the same position in his new church?

[Artiste]

They could do it because the question of ordaining women is not regarded by the GC as a doctrine based on Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy, but rather dictated by culture.

Are you sure?

[Johann]

They could do it because the question of ordaining women is not regarded by the GC as a doctrine based on Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy, but rather dictated by culture.

Are you sure?

This is what they are saying. By the way, have you found a single instance where the General Conference has issued a statement claiming that the refusal to ordain female pastors is based on Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy?