Print

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

[Gregory]

John Osborn has some interesting, in my opinion, comments to make on female ordination.  My quotation below is a response that he made to another well known poster:

Kevin Paulson,

You are in serious denial about the politics of this situation. This is not a war between theological liberalism and conservatism as you characterize it. The only way people see it that way is from deriving their view of the situation from internet debates rather than the real church. Theological liberals only have a significant presence on internet sites like Spectrum. I'm fairly confident they only compose a tiny fraction of the leaders in CUC represented at this meeting - certainly they are nowhere near 80%. So we're not talking about an existential struggle between liberalism and conservatism - we're mostly talking about a struggle between conservatives and ultra-conservatives; and the anti WO force is only definitely more conservative in the sense of Christian tradition - it could well be argued that the proponents of equality are more conservative both in their fidelity to the spirit of Scripture as well as the spirit of early Adventism. There isn't a single Scripture text condemning women as pastors.

There is a trajectory of Scripture that suggests a movement toward equality, as well as specific instruction regarding female leadership that both sides agree are culturally conditioned - women speaking in church. The issue at stake that you see as a dividing line between those accepting Scriptural authority (women as pastors and women ordination) is at best not addressed in Scripture (ordination is not) and at worst is contradicted by Scripture - New Testament strongly suggests that women were in pastoral roles; these references were obscured by later translations of Scripture apparently influenced by church tradition, the same tradition us conservative Adventists reject. As such, most of the 80% who voted for equality did so not inspite of inspired counsel, but BECAUSE of it.

Even if you're right though there is no way the G.C. has the political capital to force this issue. The idea that the GC is going to force this issue by disbanding the Union is simply delusional. If that was on the table don't you think the threat would have been leveled rather than just speaking about vague "grave consequences." Your support of a top-down authoritarian ecclesiology is far afield from the classical Adventism you claim to espouse - such sentiment would cause our anti-creedal pioneers roll over in their grave. I'm doubtful that the GC even has the official authority you claim they do. You're suggesting that lower levels derive their entire existence from the GC and are merely administrative divisions of the GC designed to enforce GC policy. This is not how I understand church structure. However, even if the GC does have the official authority to do what you suggest, they do not have real political ability to pull this off. There's is no way the GC is going to roll over a decision made by 80% of a constituency. It would be political suicide. I highly doubt Ted Wilson has any intent to pursue the actions you suggest and if he did he would be removed by the many leaders in our church who do not think this issue is worth destroying North American Adventism and the leaders who do not think we should purify the church of 80% of the leadership in what is probably one of our more conservative unions.

[Murcielago]

Very insightful.

[Dedication]

For me it has been interesting to see some  very "conservative" people (not  necessarily referring to anyone on this forum though some have mentioned some of the arguments) writing strongly about the terrible rebellion of Columbia Union Conference.  They write with strong passion that disobeying the GC is disobeying God, and that the GC is the "highest authority" and on and on.

And yet these same people (and now I'm definitely not refering to anyone here as I have not witnessed it here) have in times past wrote many a scathing acusation against things that the GC has put out.   Example-- the Sabbath School Quarterlies are a favorite for many of the conservatives to pick up a phrase and declare the quarterlies to be tools of the "new theology".  Another example was the "Spiritual Formation" issues.   
Now questioning things from the GC is not the issue I'm addressing here.   The point is the sudden "turn".
 
These highly conservatives are  not really all that 100% GC supportive.   But suddenly, now that the president pleaded with the Columbia Division to hold off on their vote for women ordination, and since a GC vote stands against women ordination, these same people lift the GC  up as the very voice of God and NOT to be disobeyed but followed in absolute 100% obedience. 

Ahhh---
 

[Bob Pickle]

1. I think this John Osborn is not the same as the John Osborn of greater fame. Could this one be that one's son?

2. The question is not so much obeying or disobeying the GC. The question is instead obeying or disobeying a GC Session vote. There is a difference between the GC and a GC Session.

But suddenly, now that the president pleaded with the Columbia Division to hold off on their vote for women ordination, and since a GC vote stands against women ordination, these same people lift the GC  up as the very voice of God and NOT to be disobeyed but followed in absolute 100% obedience.

Our church voted a position in I think March regarding the importance of not rebelling against a GC Session vote, and that was long before Ted Wilson spoke at the CUC constituency session. Then on April 29 I addressed this specific point at the MN Conf. constituency session multiple times. It would be a totally different matter if there was a divine mandate to ordain women as local pastors of local churches in the Bible or SoP, but there is no such thing.

[Murcielago]

I believe this is one and the same John Osborne. I knew him during his years of separation from the church. He and Kenny Shelton (now with 3ABN) spoke out quite explosively against the church during the 80s and 90s. Around 10 years ago I spoke in his church in NY, shortly after he came back into fellowship, and considered his move to be very sincere. I also spoke in his brother's church in Sacramento. David as at that time was the head of Ministerial at the NAD. They are both very scholarly men who place immense value on research and study. It does not surprise me at all that John would take this position. The majority of those who take the position affirming WO, are older leaders and scholars of the church, many of whom are considered centrist or conservative.

[Bob Pickle]

The reason I think it isn't THE John Osborn is because of the link he provides at Spectrum: http://www.facebook.com/john.osborn.357

Graduated from homeschool high school in 2006, and Union College in 2011. Will graduate from Andrews in 2013.

There just isn't any way this could be the same John Osborn.

[Murcielago]

The reason I think it isn't THE John Osborn is because of the link he provides at Spectrum: http://www.facebook.com/john.osborn.357

Graduated from homeschool high school in 2006, and Union College in 2011. Will graduate from Andrews in 2013.

There just isn't any way this could be the same John Osborn.

You're right. Good point. Well I must say, this kid is interesting.

[Daryl Fawcett]

As I personally met the other older John Osborn, I wonder what he thinks about this WO issue?