Sandra Roberts Elected President of SECC

[CoAspen]

Quote:

I doubt that any articles opposing or offering a different view would even be allowed publication. The people and the editors seem to be in a "rule or ruin" mode.

General Question:

My question would be, for any and all, to please tell us how many'church/conference' papers/mags/etc do you read on a monthly basis? How long have you been doing that? Have you been tabulating the numbers of pro's and con's? What are the numbers percentage wise? 1 year, 2..3..4..? Do you read every single one?

Give us the number and then make the claim that no supporting articles for the anti WO side are being published. Until then, to make such a claim is spurious and infalmatory about those in charge of publishing. If none can be found, then the claim needs to be examined for substance.

I, for one, do not read every single publication and do not need to prove the statement wrong, since I did not make one either way, pro or con!

Lets keep the facts straight.....eh

[olger]

Please olger, no more selfies...

Sorry !!!

[olger]

Margaret Gray weighs in:

"I'm concerned about the precedent this sets. First, we know that La Sierra University has been trying to convince everyone that the GC has no authority over them while they are just religious enough to warrant a generous GC subsidy. Now the host conference, at the insistence of LSU people like Fritz Guy and others who disagree with the church's stance on creationism and same-sex marriage convince the conference constituency that in the name of women's equality they too must separate from the GC. This is a serious shot across the bow of church authority and almost seems like a secessionist move. Of course if the GC means nothing, how can a local church be morally held to account to the conference? The GC must respond decisively but they may be too weak or unaware to do so."

[ClubV12]

Considering the turbulent 70's the Church was wise to stop the dialog on womens rights, concerning the political climate of the times. Jesus avoided controversy and conflict when ever He could, the evil was sufficient for the day.

I would guess there is a similiar "ban" on the LGBT issues concerning membership and leadership positions right now. To more or less degree, and thats as it should be. The Church will have to deal with the LGBT group demanding inclusion and suing the Church soon enough. The evil is sufficient for the day.

CoAspen, if you would carefully remove your head from the sand and look around, it would be obvious that print and web publications HEAVILY favor the pro W.O. crowd. I'm still looking for that link I asked you about, a link to a publication opposing W.O. There are plenty in support thereof. As they would have in the 70's when womens lib was all the rage, along with sex, drugs, rock and roll, war protesters, civil rights issue. NOT a good time to invite controversy, the G.C. made the right call.

[Gregory Matthews]

Olger has not been posting pictures of himself.

His photo is on the Internet. It can be found by anyone wishing to view his image.

But, his image is not what you are looking at in this thread.

[CoAspen]

In case you missed it!!!

General Question:

My question would be, for any and all, to please tell us how many'church/conference' papers/mags/etc do you read on a monthly basis? How long have you been doing that? Have you been tabulating the numbers of pro's and con's? What are the numbers percentage wise? 1 year, 2..3..4..? Do you read every single one?

Give us the number and then make the claim that no supporting articles for the anti WO side are being published. Until then, to make such a claim is spurious and infalmatory about those in charge of publishing. If none can be found, then the claim needs to be examined for substance.

I, for one, do not read every single publication and do not need to prove the statement wrong, since I did not make one either way, pro or con!

You make the accusation, Prove it!

[ClubV12]

CoAspen you are suggesting there is some kind of balance in regards to pro vs con W.O. publications and web reports?

Please,,, people aren't so easily deceived as to believe such a ludicrous position. It is obvious to anyone and everyone such publications HEAVILY favor pro W.O.

Has anyone even read ONE article in ONE of our Church publications specifically coming out against W.O.? Anyone?

How many have read articles suggesting support for W.O.?

I rest my case... Though a hundred numbers were posted, some will not believe.

Such articles include subjects like, "Pheobe" and "Junia" as examples of women in ministry rolls. Our publications are literally filled with such articles. I note Tom calls them excellent scholarly work, I disagree. They are rehashing the same things scholars have been arguing about for centuries. They are filled with suggestions, inferences, maybe's, semi conclusions, pointing to something, they are not sure what and speculation. This is hardly what I would consider serious scholarly work. It's the same old arguments with a new ribbon.

New methods of interpretation of scripture? New manuscripts? Science falsely so called! Such work in itself remains controversial. Nothing new here.

[Bravus]

Wasn't Luther and the Reformation all about each individual studying the Bible for him/herself and being convicted? The move to revering only an official, church-sanctioned understanding is interesting on the part of SDAs...

[ClubV12]

No different than what the early Church did Bravus, same model. Paul noted we must obey God rather than man. Meaning whenever mans command, law, rule, conflicts with a known duty of Gods law, you must follow God. There is another principle Paul taught, honor those appointed over you as shepards, which he learned from the Old Testament!

The question of ordination does not rise to an absolute known duty or command of God vs men. If it did, we wouldn't need a study committee. In such a case, you must honor those leaders appointed by our Lord.

Sister Whites counsel on this principal of submission to authority is that what ever idea you may have, how ever right and true it may be, you should put it aside in favor of being in harmony with the brethren.

Those in this rebellion are without excuse. Those claiming they are willing to die for the "cause" would be committing suicide. Delivering their bodies to be burned without love.

The leaders are not being harsh, demanding or dictatorial. They have formed a study committee to address the issue, their simple request is "wait" for that work to be completed.

On the issue of dealing with the rebellion, I believe they should take firm, effective action to literally punish those leading out in it. Moses did. Paul did. Jeremiah did. We see it over and over again in the bible, open rebellion has to be dealt with. Sin needs to be called by it's right name.

SECC and others have dishonored leadership and chosen their own path, their own rules. Therein lies the problem, their actions testify to this being a rebellion based on the law.

[CoAspen]

Rested!! You haven't presented anything!!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

the ONLY qualification for a Conference President is:

"The conference president should be an ordained pastor of experience and good report."

(SDA Church Manual, p. 32)

That's kinda scary. Sounds like any Tom, Dick, or Harriett can be a conference president if he/she has been ordained...

[Tom Wetmore]

Has anyone even read ONE article in ONE of our Church publications specifically coming out against W.O.? Anyone?

Yes. More than one, actually. They are there if you look for them.

You might want to go to the website of Ministry Magazine. Search the archives for articles from past issues. There actually are a number of articles on the anti-WO side. Ministry Magazine is the one significant exception to what I noted previously. It did periodically publish articles on WO when other publications did very little. But it's primary audience is ministers. Here are just two articles against WO. But if you look for yourself you will find more. I think you will see much more balance than you might expect.

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1986/10/women-ministry-without-ordination

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1985/03/should-our-church-ordain-women-no

As is repeatedly pointed out, this issue has been debated since the very beginning of Adventism. Even before the Church was officially organized in 1863 , the Advent Review & Sabbath Herald published articles on the issue of women in ministry.

[Tom Wetmore]

Pam, it is pretty wide open! A lot hinges on the vague and subjective "of experience and good report". If policy is followed for ordination qualifications there are significant minimum standards that come with that. But leadership skills and administrative experience is still not well defined.

The ordination requirement was only added very recently in the model language for Constitutions and Bylaws of conferences. But it is quite likely that a lot of conference Bylaws have not been amended to include it. Even though a part of GC policy, to make any such amendment requires vote of each conference's constituency.

[ClubV12]

Thanks for those links Tom. Articles that deal with why women should NOT be ordained are hard to find. I will read these carefully.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

Has anyone even read ONE article in ONE of our Church publications specifically coming out against W.O.? Anyone?

Yes. More than one, actually. They are there if you look for them.

You might want to go to the website of Ministry Magazine. Search the archives for articles from past issues. There actually are a number of articles on the anti-WO side. Ministry Magazine is the one significant exception to what I noted previously. It did periodically publish articles on WO when other publications did very little. But it's primary audience is ministers. Here are just two articles against WO. But if you look for yourself you will find more. I think you will see much more balance than you might expect.

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1986/10/women-ministry-without-ordination

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1985/03/should-our-church-ordain-women-no

As is repeatedly pointed out, this issue has been debated since the very beginning of Adventism. Even before the Church was officially organized in 1863 , the Advent Review & Sabbath Herald published articles on the issue of women in ministry.

Great, thanks.

I would challenge you to find material like that in our major publications in the last 15-years.

The Review and other magazines have been completely given over to the promotion of female headship since early 1995.

Rejoice always,

G

[Bravus]

So how about you, OG? Will *you* fall in line with the GC's vote, whatever it is?

[olger]

We will see, David.

Keep your feet on the pegs,

g

[ClubV12]

What are the options if one doesn't go along with leadership?

For Unions, Conferences, etc.

1. They can simply ignore the "spirit of the law" and look for "loop holes" to justify their indepandance. That way the can profess to be part of the body, maintain their independance and still draw substantial monies from the ones they oppose. It's brilliant! UNLESS the G.C. decides to withold funding. Which in turn could impact their own funding. This plan will not end well for anybody from a business stand point.

2. They can fully secede! Some areas would have enough funds to pull this off. As I understand it the CONFERENCE is the one who owns the local Churches. Conferences make up a Union. With the support of the Union, they might be able to keep title to the institutions, Churches, schools in the individual Conferences. I'm not clear on how that would work in a court of law, but it's safe to say we would find out!

3. I think the G.C. owns the tradmark, tradename, whatever, so those who secede would have to change their name.

Individually:

Some people have already removed their membership from local Churches. Of course, this has been on going for a hundred years. I would assume that means they are "free loading" on the local Church. Not paying tithe, offerings, light bills, insurance, etc. We have several people in this category in my local Church. "Entitlement" mentality, using the resources of the Church, paying nothing for it. Most people who remove their membership eventually leave and I'm OK with that! Let them go (and take the rest of the dead beats with you). I grow tired of paying the light bill for them.

Many more will join this group if the G.C. refuses to ordain women. Remove their membership, shout, protest, get angry and eventually leave the Church. Some will start a new Church, new name. That happens a lot already.

To me, the more serious issue would be for those who WORK for a Church Institution that either does or doesn't support W.O. and how that might conflict with their own conscience. As has been noted, some have said they would die to fight for W.O. Peter was like that, but when faced with scorn and contempt rather than a good "fight", he folded like a deck of cards. Would Church employees actually QUIT their job over this? Some will. I think that is WAY to extreme, but, I understand. Let each man be convinced in his own heart. If it were me and the G.C. approved W.O., I would have to seriously consider quiting my Church sponsored employment. Paul didn't have this problem, he didn't take any money from the Churches. He was onto something...

I would support the G.C., no matter what, in that I would honor them with respect and look to God to rectify the problem in His own time. I would continue to pay my tithes, offerings, show my respect, not murmur and complain and pray the prayer of Daniel. But again, I'm not an employee!

[ClubV12]

Tom, you should know much more about the legal aspects of a Union or Conference seceding. How would that work in terms of ownership of land and buildings and such?

[olger]

Many of those delegates would have voted for anything in a dress to further the cause. She hasn't been made President as much as she has been made the poster child of the issue du jour.

The poster child aspect will continue as her supporters sweep any potential missteps under the rug. New terminology will be coined. And, since the debate focused on gender and not skills, is there a chance (should things go awry) that the old phrase of "empty suit" will perhaps give way to empty dress?

It's not an enviable position to be in for her.

[CoAspen]

Many of those delegates would have voted for anything in a dress to further the cause. She hasn't been made President as much as she has been made the poster child of the issue du jour.

The poster child aspect will continue as her supporters sweep any potential missteps under the rug. New terminology will be coined. And, since the debate focused on gender and not skills, is there a chance (should things go awry) that the old phrase of "empty suit" will perhaps give way to empty dress?

It's not an enviable position to be in for her.

More sour grapes...eh..one can never have enough!

[ClubV12]

Hebrews 13:17 ESV

"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you."

Or not... maybe that was only an opinion of the author and we are safe to ignore it?

[phkrause]

Here's how the CJB translates that verse: 17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your lives, as people who will have to render an account. So make it a task of joy for them, not one of groaning; for that is of no advantage to you.

I'd say that's pretty interesting!

[Bravus]

Many of those delegates would have voted for anything in a dress to further the cause. She hasn't been made President as much as she has been made the poster child of the issue du jour.

The poster child aspect will continue as her supporters sweep any potential missteps under the rug. New terminology will be coined. And, since the debate focused on gender and not skills, is there a chance (should things go awry) that the old phrase of "empty suit" will perhaps give way to empty dress?

It's not an enviable position to be in for her.

...and if it turns out she's extremely competent and does a fantastic job?

[olger]

That was cultural.