Print

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

[Johann]

Bob, the standard dictionary  of the English language which I am using lists the first meaning of the word "advance" as:  "to accelerate the growth or progress of."

That is how I  used the word.  President Wilson, in my opinoin, may be seen in the future as accelerating the time when in the SDA Church, females are ordained to a clergy position.

I am not going to play word games with you.  I took your comment as an honest one.  I attempted to clairfy my meaning.  If you want to play word games, find someone else to play with.

Yes, the word that I used was the right one to use which, according to a standard dictionary, meant exactly what I intended it to mean.

[SDAminister]

Well, why not? He's to blame for all the ills in the church, right?
I mean, in Folkenburg and Paulsen, two pro-WO presidents, you heard nary a word against them because WO didn't happen under their watch. Or did Dr Running or others send open letters to them too? I think we know the answer to that.
But now, Wilson is catching flak from the pro-WO crowd because he is ..... wait for it..... doing just what they wanted!! The poor guy can't win.
The pro-WO crowd begged and pushed for this worldwide study on ordination 3 years ago. Now, Wilson is administering the study according to plan and yet he is pilloried for doing so!
We're not sure just how disingenuous the pro-WO side can be. But it appears a much larger scale than currently exists will be needed to measure it in the days and years ahead.
SDAminister

 
Folkenburg and Paulsen never a word against them? 
Where have you been?

An Open Letter   

October 30, 2001                                                                                 
Dr. Jan Paulsen, President
 Dear Dr. Paulsen:..................   
David D. Dennis

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT JAN PAULSEN -- The
Ultimate Goal of Ecumenism?
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006
Dear President Paulsen and GC .....
Phil Moore


Well that's just two -- there were more.

 

Dedication, get it right and read what's posted. These two letters have nothing to do with women's ordination! I was referring to liberal, pro-WO people not criticizing the past presidents for not pushing WO more than they did. I wasn't referring to just anybody who might have written an open letter to Paulsen or Folkenburg for any reason at all.

SDAminister

[Bob Pickle]

In my listening to Ted Wilson's speech  I didn't hear anything that would indicate he was against women's ordination.  I didn't listen to every speech so may have missed something.  But in the ones I did listen to he said that was " another issue" and he wasn't going to get into it.

The GC officers stated that they were concerned about unions committing themselves to a particular course of action before the study process is complete. Perhaps Ted Wilson doesn't want to express a personal opinion on the subject for that very reason.

[Bob Pickle]

Bob, the standard dictionary  of the English language which I am using lists the first meaning of the word "advance" as:  "to accelerate the growth or progress of."

That is how I  used the word.

We can certainly use that definition if you'd like. How can we then label changing the roles God ordained in Scripture to be "growth" or "progress"?

Do repeat my earlier question which you have not answered: Do you think that Lucifer in heaven was really seeking the "growth" or "progress" of angel issues? Consider carefully the SoP references I quoted when you reply.

I am not going to play word games with you.

I'm not playing word games. I really want to know how you justify labeling the change of what God ordained in the Bible as being "advance," "growth," and "progress," without also justifying Lucifer's conduct in heaven.

The parallel does seem appropriate, does it not? Lucifer wasn't satisfied with the role God had given him, even though it was the highest possible role amongst the angelic host. And many women today aren't satisfied with the role God has given them, even though their God-given role surpasses all roles men have ever held from creation till now, except for Christ when He lived and died to save us from sin. Women thus have always been entrusted with the most important work on earth, second to Christ.

[Dedication]

Folkenburg and Paulsen never a word against them? 
Where have you been?

Dedication, get it right and read what's posted. These two letters have nothing to do with women's ordination! I was referring to liberal, pro-WO people not criticizing the past presidents for not pushing WO more than they did. I wasn't referring to just anybody who might have written an open letter to Paulsen or Folkenburg for any reason at all.

SDAminister

There was LOTS of "global warming" long before Ted Wilson.
Actually the "rebellion" began right after the 1995 General Conference vote.

Read the following report:

http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-U-Z/Women's-ord-Sligo.pdf

[Dedication]

I'm not playing word games. I really want to know how you justify labeling the change of what God ordained in the Bible as being "advance," "growth," and "progress," without also justifying Lucifer's conduct in heaven.

After Lucifer sinned EVIL advanced and grew and progressed.  That does not justify evil.

Just because something advances or grows or progresses does not indicate whether it is good or evil, it just means its spreading and gaining ground, influence and power.

[Daryl Fawcett]

This was posted over at Maritime, which I thought would also be appropriate to post here:

Dedication, when you make the suggestion in your posts from a few pages back that conservative Adventists are prepared to question the GC as the voice of God when they feel it's at odds with the scripture, but will back up the GC as the voice of God when it's in harmony with scripture, you pay these men and women a compliment. While Christ invests the church with terrible authority to bind and lose, that authority is conditioned on it's rulings agreeing with the divine precepts.

Our culture has trouble coming to grips with something so politically incorrect. Many a North American man feels much more comfortable letting women take the lead. It's the easy route, but not the biblical route. If the Hebrew men in Joshua's day had sent their wives and daughters to possess the promised land what would have happened? It's not an issue of physical strength, it's primarily an issue of moral leadership. In David's day, his army of mighty men weren't mighty merely physically, they were strong moral family leaders. The failure of North American men to lead morally in the families and communities is at the root of American's decline. So, for those who are open to hear, I'd encourage you to keep reading scripture and the SOP on the roles of men and women. This is crucial. Only if we as men fulfill the roles set out for us, can we develop symmetrical characters.

[Dedication]

There was LOTS of "global warming" long before Ted Wilson.
Actually the "rebellion" began right after the 1995 General Conference vote.

Read the following report:

http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-U-Z/Women's-ord-Sligo.pdf

So right after the 1995 vote, the Sligo church ordained several woman.
That sounds like "rebellion".

That was close to 17 years ago.
Was the "rebellion" quelled and only now broke out again.

What make the present "rebellion" worse than the 1995 "rebellion".
In the 1995 they openly went against the GC vote.
In 2012 they voted that they wanted to go against the GC vote.

[Daryl Fawcett]

There's a big difference between the rebellion of one local church or two or three over the rebellion of a whole Union or two or three.

[Gregory]

So right after the 1995 vote, the Sligo church ordained several woman.
That sounds like "rebellion".

Dedication gave the following citation: 
http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-U-Z/Women's-ord-Sligo.pdf

Please read that citation in full. Pay special attention to Part 2.

It is clear from the citation that Dedication provided that the ordinatioin by the Sligo congregation in 1995 was nothing more than an ordination to the office of local Elder.  That Sligo was permitted to do.  Regardless of the truth that some wanted it to be more, it was not more.  Note the comments from the Sligo pastor and those regarding credentials.

The authority to ordain to an SDA clergy position lies with the Unions.  It does not  sit at the local Conference level.  The local congregation does not have tha authority.

Regardless of what some of those participating in the service at Sligo wanted, that service was only that of ordination to the office of local Elder.  As such, it was not rebellion.

The real issue that is faced today is that of the Unions that have voted to ordain without reference to gender.  It is not what happens in a  local church.

[Daryl Fawcett]

So right after the 1995 vote, the Sligo church ordained several woman.
That sounds like "rebellion".

Dedication gave the following citation: 
http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-U-Z/Women's-ord-Sligo.pdf

Please read that citation in full. Pay special attention to Part 2.

It is clear from the citation that Dedication provided that the ordinatioin by the Sligo congregation in 1995 was nothing more than an ordination to the office of local Elder.  That Sligo was permitted to do.  Regardless of the truth that some wanted it to be more, it was not more.  Note the comments from the Sligo pastor and those regarding credentials.

The authority to ordain to an SDA clergy position lies with the Unions.  It does not  sit at the local Conference level.  The local congregation does not have tha authority.

Regardless of what some of those participating in the service at Sligo wanted, that service was only that of ordination to the office of local Elder.  As such, it was not rebellion.

The real issue that is faced today is that of the Unions that have voted to ordain without reference to gender.  It is not what happens in a  local church.

Thank you for clearing that up for us.

[Dedication]

Originally Posted By: Mark

Our culture has trouble coming to grips with something so politically incorrect. Many a North American man feels much more comfortable letting women take the lead. It's the easy route, but not the biblical route. If the Hebrew men in Joshua's day had sent their wives and daughters to possess the promised land what would have happened? It's not an issue of physical strength, it's primarily an issue of moral leadership. In David's day, his army of mighty men weren't mighty merely physically, they were strong moral family leaders. The failure of North American men to lead morally in the families and communities is at the root of American's decline. So, for those who are open to hear, I'd encourage you to keep reading scripture and the SOP on the roles of men and women. This is crucial. Only if we as men fulfill the roles set out for us, can we develop symmetrical characters.

I agree we need men who are true leaders. Men who are truly committed to God!
The church is NOT to become a church of only women and children, we need men who can challenge other men to taste and see that God is good!
We need men who can show other men that religion is for "real men" not just for women and children.

Just like the women are needed to reach the special needs of women, so men are need to reach the special needs of men.  And both can work to minister to the general needs of the congregation.

There should be NO "releasing" of men from their calling to lead.

What I find worrisome here is the idea that if women are moral leaders, then men can't, or won't be moral leaders.
Why is that?
So do you think "ordaining women" means men would no longer answer God's call to the ministry?

Is it a situation of "I won't share my position,  if you become one of the team of leaders I'm out and you can lead the whole show," sort of thing?

Women aren't supposed to replace men, they are to be a recognized addition to the "army of workers" going forth to spread the gospel.

After all -- isn't the ministry supposed to be GOD CALLING PEOPLE to this position? -- aren't ministers supposed to have realized a call from God?

This isn't just a career -- this is a calling from God.
How can men sit back and reject a call from God, just because a woman receives a call from God as well?

[Dedication]

It is clear from the citation that Dedication provided that the ordinatioin by the Sligo congregation in 1995 was nothing more than an ordination to the office of local Elder.  That Sligo was permitted to do.  Regardless of the truth that some wanted it to be more, it was not more.  Note the comments from the Sligo pastor and those regarding credentials.
The authority to ordain to an SDA clergy position lies with the Unions.  It does not  sit at the local Conference level.  The local congregation does not have tha authority.
Regardless of what some of those participating in the service at Sligo wanted, that service was only that of ordination to the office of local Elder.  As such, it was not rebellion.
The real issue that is faced today is that of the Unions that have voted to ordain without reference to gender.  It is not what happens in a  local church.

The ordinations in 1995 were not an "ordaining to church elder"  these women were publically ordained to the gospel ministry.

Legally, of course it wasn't recognized as such by the world wide church.   But to say it wasn't done in rebellion to the vote of the GC is plain ignoring the facts of what was being done.
This wasn't just any church either -- it was the Sligo Church, home to many top leaders in the church.
Of course official ordination certificates could not be issued.  Only congregational ones that didn't mean much.

But if it wasn't rebellion because legally it wasn't recognized by the world church, that would also excuse the present situation and we would have to say it wasn't rebellion either.   
Unions have authority to ordain ONLY within the guidelines set out by the world church.   Those guidelines at present say women can not be ordained to the gospel ministry.   The 1995 vote specifically denies giving individual divisions  the vested authority to ordain without regard to gender.
Thus what the unions did was totally illegal according to world church policies.
The unions do NOT have  authority to ordain women to an SDA clergy position   
Their vote to ordain women meant NOTHING -- they can't issue ordination certificates to women.  The highest  ordination for  women they can give is to be an elder, and they can ONLY give them a "commissioned license" .

Thus, since the unions have no authority to do what they proposed to do,  we would have to say it still isn't "rebellion"?

[Gregory]

Thus, Pastor Torres arranged for the service to
be announced as an affirmation service, as the resolution
called for. When he did, he received strong
criticism for not using the word, “ordain.” So he
agreed to use “ordain” in the sense that the local
church has the authority to use that term for deacons,
deaconesses, and local elders.

Dedication, you tell us that the ordination was not that of a local Elder.  Eler Torres, the Sligo pastor made the above statement on page 7.  He is clear that it was the same as that of a local Elder.  Your statement was incorrect.

Dedication, you tell us that the ordination was to gospil ministry.  You are correct.  However you fail to tell us that it was NOT to the gospil ministry of the SDA Church and you fail to tell us that it was clearly stated that it was to the same level of ordination that the Bible says all members, male and female, are call by God to do.  That was an important point that you left out.  Tell me, are all Seventh-day Adventists recognilzed as SDA Clergy?  No! 

Both the Potomac Conference and the Union Conference failed to give any kind of recognition as ordination to SDA Clergy.  Without that it was only ordination to that of local Eldler.  The women who were ordained were not issued new credentials.  They continued to hold the same Commissioned Credentials, which was clearly stated in your reference.

You neglect to point out that one of the Sligo females refused to participate due to the fact that it was not ordination as SDA Clergy and that was clearly statead in your reference.

The references in your citation, which called it rebellion, generally came from an article in the New York Times.  Such articles should not be considered to be authorative as to calling it rebelliotn.

In actual fact the denomination did not act as to what Sligo did because everything that Sligo did was exactly what they were denominatially authorized to do.  IOW, they did not rebell.  The fact that some wanted them to cross the boundaries is not relevant.  When push came to shove, Sligo did not cross the boundaries.   

As to your statemenet about Unions: 
1)  Some would say that it is not rebellion until a Union actually grants the credentials of an ordained minister to a female.
2)  The vote by the Unions was on the basis that the Unions have the right to decide who to ordain and the General Conference did not have the right to demand that  the Unions wait for a further decison by the General Conference.  People here can argue over whether or not the Unions may be required to wait.  The bottom line is that whether or not this action by the Unions was rebellion will depend upon what you believe on this point.

 

[Bob Pickle]

People here can argue over whether or not the Unions may be required to wait.  The bottom line is that whether or not this action by the Unions was rebellion will depend upon what you believe on this point.

I don't think so. Acts 15 and 9T 260-261 are pretty clear. So is GC and NAD Working Policy. The only wiggle room Acts 15, 9T 260-261, and Working Policy leave is if someone can finally produce the Bible or SoP mandate that we must ordain women to organize churches, baptize, ordain local elders and deacons, and serve as conference and mission presidents.