Agreed.

I suspect we will find out in heaven that He pretty much had a hands off policy in the name of the Great Controversy.

Today in reading the 90 and 95 sessions I found Damsteegt was so worried that the passing of women's ordination (95) would drive people to independent ministries I bout dropped off my chair in laughter.

The very thing he was worried about by passing WO happened without passing WO by the very same people he was concerned about.

It doesn't pay to operate in fear. God just may let the very thing we are afraid of happen anyway, as in this case.

Much of both sessions were fear based, not faith based. I respect where they believed they did have biblical grounds to be against...and that should have been enough. Either the biblical grounds are sufficient or they are not. When we try to create fear, impugn others' motives and slander them, use silly arguments like "my mother said", "Virginia Slims", "semen", "can the church ...ordain... a woman to the headship/leadership office of husband or father", God cannot bless such a movement.

(I tend to think those actions really ticked off a lot of people, not just me.)

Calling Damsteegt worried. Like any good theologian, he was (and is) committed to a sound hermeneutic of the Bible.

Calling the delegates from around the world (including America) fearful for the overwhelming votes in 1990 and 1995, imposes upon them your own judgment. Do you know each one of the 1300 +/- delegates?

Lastly, were you at the 1990 session? I was. I got up at 5 that Thursday to drive out there and listen to the debate. It was interesting to me.

Excellent observations teresa

Yes and I agree Gerry. And it's TED who is in rebellion and against the authority. He is not King.

Perhaps the PUC will have to "woman up" and start their own offshoot church.

How do define 'offshoot'?

How do I define "offshoot"?

Something that branches out from a particular source or origin.


Rejoice always,

G

Woody, Pastor Ted Wilson is only one man who is doing his job to uphold the policies of the World church.

True, Naomi. He is doing his best. Him and Nancy make a good team.

Good! Growth is a desired element!!

Ted has made it his mission to defy what the majority in the church want and vote for.

Interesting. What does Ted let Nancy do?

Woody, don't you ever tire of sarcasm???

Not sarcasm in the slightest Naomi.
Granted I do love sarcasm. But this was legit.

Og says that they work for the church as a team. And since Ted does not want women to be recognized in the church - I was wondering what HE as President - allows her to do for the church.

No sense getting on a merry-go-round with those who choose to misrepresent another's post.

Have a good day Olger and God bless you. :)

What is really curious about the WO issue is that they (Women) can do pretty much all that men can do and we don't have a problem with it. But WOW - don't dare recognize that God is calling them to do what we have them do. Man - that would be too much to expect. ANd after all - why would those women WANT to have us acknowledge the calling they have received.

Does anyone see how stupid it is to with hold acknowledgement of what God is doing in the lifes and work of women?

Great speech by Katherine Marshall in "A Man Called Peter," and I think it hugely applies to the issue of ordaining females. Women can strive for "equality" with men. They might get what they want, but what have they really gained? Isolation and unfulfillment, as they step outside God's plan for them? I think so!

"If that’s because I’m a girl, thank you boys. And now, if you’ll let me, I’d like to talk, as a girl, to the girls here this afternoon. I know if you boys will listen, they’ll listen too. I’m just as sure that the only reason they’ve been just as rude and silly as you’ve been, is because they have the mistaken idea that you wanted them to be.I never thought much about being a girl until two years ago when I learned from a man what a wonderful thing it is to be a woman. Until that Sunday morning, I considered myself lucky to be living in the 20th century; the century of progress and emancipation; the century when, supposedly, we women came into our own. But I’d forgotten that the emancipation of women really began with Christianity.A very young girl received the greatest honor in history. She was chosen to be the mother of the savior of the world. And when her son grew up and began to teach his way of life, he ushered women into a new place in human relations. He accorded her a dignity she had never known before and crowned her with such glory that down through the ages she was revered, protected and loved. Men wanted to think of her as different from themselves, better, made of finer, more delicate clay. It remained for the 20th century, the century of progress, to pull her down from her throne.She wanted equality. For 1900 years, she had not been equal. She had been superior [emphasis hers]. To stand equally with men, naturally she had to step down. Now, being equal with men, she has won all their rights and privileges; the right to get drunk, the right to swear, the right to smoke, the right to work like a man, to think like a man, to act like a man. We’ve won all this, but ought we to feel so triumphant when men no longer feel as romantic about us as they did about our grandmothers; when we’ve lost something sweet and mysterious; something as hard to describe as the haunting, wistful fragrance of violets?Of course, these aren’t my original thoughts. They are the thoughts I heard that Sunday morning. But somehow, some thoughts of my own were born and the conclusion reached that somewhere along the line, we women got off the track.Poets have become immortal by remembering on paper a girl’s smile. But I’ve never read a poem rhapsodizing over a girl’s giggles at a smutty joke or I’ve never heard a man brag that his sweet heart or his wife could drink just as much as he and become just as intoxicated. I’ve never heard a man say that a girl’s mouth was prettier with a cigarette hanging out of it or that her hair smelled divinely of stale tobacco."


submitted by `G

Hmmmm, I think a survey would have to be done to see just how true might be.

The grandma on one side, her husband married her cause that was the only way to get in her pants - not exactly the wisest move for either of them ( or their poor kids, grandkids, you know, the ripple effect ) - then slept around after the marriage.

I can do without that kind of romanticism, but thank you anyway for the offer.

On the other side, well not sure what the circumstances were there, but divorced and remarried...and very little romanticism seen in either of those remarriages either.

Sorry, looks like some serious revisionist thinking going on...not to mention a bit of ignorance as to the writings of EGW.

Nice try, tho.

Next...

Be invisible, except in her "appointed" arena. Kinda funny tho. EGW had no qualms about being in GC conferences and quite highly visible. Good ole James didn't seem to try and keep her in her place either.

I wonder if we just don't know of the other women who were there and participated.

Woody,Teresaq, et al:

My first instinct is to refuse to address such garbage!

However, on second thought, I must make an exception by saying that if you have never met Nancy Wilson (even for a few moments) you have no idea of what a gracious and strong lady that she is. Her dedication is not that of someone who is let or allowed to do anything. Argue all you wish about the issue, personal insults to individuals which I question that you know on a personal level are inexcusable and downright laughable.

Naomi, I share your disappointment that these two individuals are mocking Elder Wilson and his good wife.

So, are you saying that Ted is not in 'control' of his own household. I once had a pastor who was fired because his wife had a drug addiction. The reason the conference gave was that he could not even keep his own household in order since his wife had an addiction. I know for even some of you - this may be hard to believe. But I served on the board. I heard it first hand from the president.

SO I ask you - is not Ted even able to control his own household? Does his wife do as she pleases in the church? Or does Ted have some say as to her church responsibilities?

Thank you Olger ... it is heartbreaking to see such abuse

Woody, when you was married did you control everything which happened in your house? Pastor Ted Wilson is not nor should he be the one to take the hit for this ... it was a decision made prior to him and he has a responsibility to uphold the policies of the World church just as it is the responsibility of the Union Presidents and Conference Presidents to uphole the policies until which time they are officially changed. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things.

Marriage is teamwork ... each partner much have the ability to share in responsibilities within the home, according to their abilities and mutual understanding.

I think it is like that with many if not all of us. How many of us come to think differently of people once we get to know them?

One can only make a good a judgment as the information one has.

It IS what it IS Naomi.

I gave the personal example I had of the conference president coming and firing our pastor solely based on the reason that "he was not controlling his wife". She had an addiction and the pastor/husband was told he needed to control her.

Now from what I have seen of Ted and his desire to control certain confererences and Unions and WOMEN - it would not surprise me that he controls what Mrs. Ted is to do in the church structure.

Abuse -

I'm not interested in that merry-go-round either, but thanks for the invite.

God bless and keep you. :)

I agree with your concept fo marriage and that is the way marriage should be. HOwever - that is not the way the church functions and it is not what Ted is proposing for the church.

Woody, I seriously doubt that you feel I was actually referring to your account of the pastor who was removed. As I do not know all of the facts involved there is no way I can make a statement concerning this issue. Usually there are three sides to every story. I did not see that you mentioned that it was Elder Wilson who came and removed the pastor. If it was Elder Wilson I appologize for overlooking it.

Your following statement is what I was referring:



Sorry, but I have an issue when specific issues concerning the policies of any organization turn into personal insults
(to which this is not the first time he has been openly insulted on this forum ... and some others) to the individual(s) elected to enforce same. True Elder Wilson is a strong personality, but IMO a kind, Godly man ... I have yet to see a weak personality put in charge of even a street cleaning crew ... not that there is anything at all wrong or demeaning about a street cleaning crew!

Further, I have seen nothing of Mrs Wilson to indicate that she is a weak person ... I believe her to be very much her own person.

Who called her weak? Seems this whole offended feelings could have been avoided by not reading into the words what was not stated.

Since quite young I have noticed wives of speakers sitting all goo-goo eyed (I am sure there is a better phrase but I couldn't think of it at the moment)while their husbands spoke to the congregation. It is no different than what is expected of politicians' wives.

I would have been much more impressed then and now, if the wives, those so inclined, were more active participants instead of window dressing.


Sorry. I have probably offended you more by stating my true thoughts.

In our pioneer days wives were encouraged to be active participants I have recently learned. They were not expected to be part of the cheering squad but to be equally involved. Another person has pointed out that husband/wife ministerial/pastoral teams would be beneficial in that the whole church would be served. I believe that to be an excellent idea.

Okay Ms Teresaq(sda) I suppose you are correct, he did not say weak. My bad!! However, by twice indicating that Elder Wilson lets Mrs Wilson do something/anything would indicate that she is weak enough to be controlled; which is laughable. Would a strong person (male or female) permit their spouse to "let" them do something without permission? {don't jump on my use of the word permission as it was added by me not used by anyone that I can recall but certainly appears to be that which is indicated}

Much the same as you saying

It is obvious that we have attended different churches. Most pastors and other leaders wives that I have known have and do work very hard in many areas of the church. Because they sit and listen to their husbands speaking makes them ladies, not window dressing. Not everyone can stand up and preach, not everyone can play or otherwise produce good music, etc



Not to worry you can't offend me further, your true thoughts are yours and you own them. I would be most surprised if you failed to make them known.

I am simply asking that the issue being addressed without personal attacks and insults to anyone.

Thank you teresa. Well stated.

I still don't see that as making the lady particularly "weak".

Some women have no issue with it cause that's just the way it is and they don't care. There could be a variety of reasons.