Sandra Roberts Elected President of SECC

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

A bit misleading Gregory, from the article she was an acting President due to the President being called away for a time.

1) The Iowa Conference President was permantly gone, not just for a time.

2) The term "acting president" in common parlance applies to the person who has the full powers of the office but is expected to be replaced at a later time. E.G. The last time the church we attended was without a pastor, we had an Acting Pastor. That person had the full powers of the congregational pastor but served for a limited time until replaced.

Flora Plummer had the full powers of the President of the Iowa Conference and held those until she was replaced by another person.

In regard to her being Acting, I was not misleading.

In regard to the Iowa Conference President, you were misinformed as he was permantly gone.

[Gregory Matthews]

You say that I was misleading as Ms. Plummer was the Acting President.

That is exactly what I said, she was an Acting President.

Here is my quote:

Quote:

It should be noted that in 1900, during the time that EGW was alive, there was a female President of the Iowa Conference.

I wonder why we have no record of EGW objecting to that.

Maybe because she approved of Flora Plummer becoming the Acting Iowa Conference President?

NOTE my last sentence where I called her an Acting President.

[ClubV12]

So noted Gregory, "acting". Also noted "maybe" Ellen White approved. A stretch that alludes, leads people to believe, misleads them to think, that in some way she approves of womens ordination and headship.

We now see fully the "fruit" of these kinds of continual statments, inferrences and examples citing Ellen White as supportive of womens ordination. Disregard for the authority of the G.C. Open rebellion. Unapologetic. The fruit is now ripe, behold the labors of such work.

A lie, by the definition of Sister White is even the truth told in such a way as to deceive or mislead. A wave of the hand, a nod of the head, done to mislead or deceive, are lies.

I have always said and will say again, "I support the authority of the G.C. in all regards." What ever their ultimate decision is on ordination, I will accept it.

I am not "willing to die over this issue" as some have claimed they are. I am not going to quit the Church, as some have said they will. I will not quit paying tithe, as some have already done. I will not post rumors and gossip that will mislead people and drive them to open rebellion over this issue.

[Gregory Matthews]

When I asked a question and used the word "Maybe" I was clearly speculating and no one would reasonably consider it otherwise. That is fair.

[ClubV12]

This issue is so biased toward womens ordination and disrespect for authority of the Church no one would reasonably conclude other than the use of the words like "maybe" in this context are gaurenteed to add fuel to the fire of the rebellion we now see!

I would urge everyone to be carefull going forward. It may well be that the G.C. will NOT approve womens ordination, then what will you do? What will you say? What does it mean of those who have said they are willing to die in support of womens ordination and/or leadership at the highest levels? Will you accept the decision of the G.C. on this issue, or will you continue to insist they change?

Israel wanted a King, and God gave them one. Be careful what you ask for.

[olger]

Given the obvious and oft sounded restrictions urged by the world church, on what biblical grounds does SECC appoint their newest test case? SECC knows exactly how much the world church is offended by their autonomous actions. They simply don't care because they seem convinced that nothing will be done about it.

And if the church is split…what do they care?

[phkrause]

I've looked in many Adventist publications, but for some reason I have not read any word of the World Church being offended! Can we see a few articles out there that actually confirms that opinion? Because at this point its only an opinion!

[ClubV12]

Thats not surprising PK. For some reason our Church literature, by and large, has been exceedingly "pro W.O.". Where as it should be obvious to all that the G.C.'s position has never waivered from, "Let the committee do it's job".

Ted Wilson was certainly offended, and he speaks for the World Church. 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.

[olger]

Thats not surprising PK. For some reason our Church literature, by and large, has been exceedingly "pro W.O.". Where as it should be obvious to all that the G.C.'s position has never waivered from, "Let the committee do it's job".

Ted Wilson was certainly offended, and he speaks for the World Church. 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.

Succinct.

[Jeannieb43]

Thank you, Bravus, for your reply outlining Sandra Roberts' qualifications for the position of president. Very interesting, and very illuminating, I'd say.

[olger]

Roberts has been the executive secretary of SECC since November 2004, and the first woman to be elected as an officer of the conference. Roberts earned a Doctor of Ministry degree, with emphasis in spiritual formation, from the Claremont School of Theology. She holds an ordained/commissioned minister credential from SECC.

[olger]

I've looked in many Adventist publications, but for some reason I have not read any word of the World Church being offended! Can we see a few articles out there that actually confirms that opinion? Because at this point its only an opinion!

Adventist publications originating in America are slanted towards WO.

You may recall, Pete, that prior to the 2010 GC Session, the thirteen division presidents were asked if they wanted WO on the agenda. Nine said no, two said yes, and two were undecided (I believe).

rejoice always!

G

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

I've looked in many Adventist publications, but for some reason I have not read any word of the World Church being offended! Can we see a few articles out there that actually confirms that opinion? Because at this point its only an opinion!

Adventist publications originating in America are slanted towards WO.

You may recall, Pete, that prior to the 2010 GC Session, the thirteen division presidents were asked if they wanted WO on the agenda. Nine said no, two said yes, and two were undecided (I believe).

rejoice always!

G

I'm guessing that we're speaking of the USAs 13 divisions? In that case I find it very hard to accept that our publications are slanted towards WO!! I receive a number of our mags and don't see that at all.

[olger]

The world church has 13 divisions.

[Planey]

Please olger, no more selfies...

[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.

When all else fails...use smear tactics! Sad,very sad....

[Tom Wetmore]

"Temporary" is the correct term, she was never elected, she was in office for a time due to unusual circumstances.

The examples we see, continually, concerning women in leadership rolls typically involve extraordinary circumstances. This is consistent with Sister Whites practical counsel on such matters, not just related to women. Such counsel concerning extraordinary circumstances would apply to a wide range of principles. Like your ox falling in the ditch on Sabbath. EVERY Sabbath? You really need to fix the fence...

It is also consistent with the many and varied biblical examples. I believe it is misleading to then use these extraordinary circumstances as an example of authorization as the norm for any principal.

I think we are losing sight of the forest for thre trees. In other words, we are focusing on a minor technicality of one example while overlooking the substantial presence of women in ministry and Church leadership in the early days of the Adventist Church, during the lifetime of EGW. Which ones of those many women were temporary leaders or ministers for lack of men to do the job? Read the whole article -

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1995/04/the-rise-and-fall-of-adventist-women-in-leadership

As for any idea of unusual or extraordinary circumstances in Scripture, what was the extraordinary circumstance that caused Paul to appoint Phoebe to go teach and lead the believers in Rome? Or the other women that were fellow workers that Paul lists in Romans 16?

[ClubV12]

ASSUMING Phobe is as has been presented by the W.O supporters, she is at best an anomaly, an extraordinary case. So it is with virtually every example of women in the bible.

CoAspen, put up a link to an article from Ministry or a local Conference magazine making a case for why they oppose womens ordination. For that matter, a link to ANY website makeing a case for why women should NOT be ordained! They are very rare, if they exist at all.

We have been and are still being fed a steady diet of examples of women in leadership rolls. Always with the same agenda, support for W.O.

Smear tactics indeed!

The G.C., Ellen White, myself, have never had an issue with womens roll within the Church as it concerns preaching, teaching, evangelism, bible workers and a long list. The issue is "ordination" and standing "Church law".

[Neil D]

Smear tactics indeed! Bibical scenarios "explained" as "extra-ordinary".....Paul says that the ground at the cross is level....doesn't limit that interpretation to JUST salvation. It's limited by women's experience....and you are limited by your sensitivity that a woman is just a sex machine...someone to just be loved and cared for....IOWs, she is to be barefoot and pregnant...and discarded and discounted when she gets to hit menopause. And if she is not discounted or discarded, she has been trained to regurgitate your poisonous theology because at her age, she's economically trapped....no training for outside the home work, only 1/2 your SS income, and possibly a house...if the recession hasn't made the debt more than what it is worth....

Most men know this.....and know that they can keep women under thier economic thumbs, and can present the "good" image of a good wife....What you fear is after 7 years, she will have found out what the reality is, and she will begin to resent it. And you will see little things happen...her own checking account, after she gets that job or starts her own store...when she tastes that little bit of freedom, and samples again your 'freedom'...or is that headship rule...she will grow weary of it...she will undermine your authority....eventually...and hurt you...what will you do? What WILL you do?

A truly free woman who is married, may also divorce you....but more than likely, if you are honest with her, she will stay and work with you....it's hard work....harder than anything you will ever work at...may force you to move off Facebook, and arguments on clubadventist may have to be put on indefinite hold... and the rewards are far better....but you wont see that in your current state....you can't see it.. Oh well,...your lose...

[Bravus]

I would urge everyone to be carefull going forward. It may well be that the G.C. will NOT approve womens ordination, then what will you do? What will you say? What does it mean of those who have said they are willing to die in support of womens ordination and/or leadership at the highest levels? Will you accept the decision of the G.C. on this issue, or will you continue to insist they change?

Israel wanted a King, and God gave them one. Be careful what you ask for.

The same question, of course, applies in the other direction.

Will you, if the GC committee decides women's ordination is Biblical, accept that?

Or will you simply decide that the committee was wrong?

What of most of those with strong beliefs against this issue? Do you really think they will fall in line with the GC's 'authority'? Or will they decide that the GC is apostate?

Appeal to authority is a two-edged sword.

[ClubV12]

Bravus I have repeatedly said I would support the G.C., regardless of their decision. My position has been less about W.O. and more about let the G.C. do it's job.

Those who don't respect the G.C. now are not likely to do so in the future. Those who denigrate the leadership appointed by God to lead His Church are placing themselves in a very dangerous spiritual situation.

[Naomi]

Club

[Tom Wetmore]

ASSUMING Phobe is as has been presented by the W.O supporters, she is at best an anomaly, an extraordinary case. So it is with virtually every example of women in the bible.

CoAspen, put up a link to an article from Ministry or a local Conference magazine making a case for why they oppose womens ordination. For that matter, a link to ANY website makeing a case for why women should NOT be ordained! They are very rare, if they exist at all.

We have been and are still being fed a steady diet of examples of women in leadership rolls. Always with the same agenda, support for W.O....

What you are not accounting for is the fact that until very recently the Church's publications and publishing houses were under an imposed moratorium to publish nothing, pro or con, about WO. That was imposed back in the 70's when the issue began to resurface after many decades of serious decline in women in leadership and ministry. That silencing of the presses clearly favored maintaining the status quo. And the void was filled by independent publishers that were not subject to peer review and significant editorial oversight. Serious study and scholarship on the topic was effectively discouraged until recently. The lifting of that ban and the appointment of official study groups has simply opened the floodgates. What you are seeing is the best scholarship getting published.

[ClubV12]

Thanks for that insight Tom.

What ever the circumstances were or are, the fact remains, the pro W.O. publications, print or web, heavily outweigh the con position.

I look forward to a careful read of the study groups, pro and con, on this issue recently released. I was also encouraged to see that the rhetoric was civil, with both sides presenting a reason for their faith, in good faith.

[Jeannieb43]

What you are not accounting for is the fact that until very recently the Church's publications and publishing houses were under an imposed moratorium to publish nothing, pro or con, about WO. That was imposed back in the 70's when the issue began to resurface after many decades of serious decline in women in leadership and ministry. That silencing of the presses clearly favored maintaining the status quo. And the void was filled by independent publishers that were not subject to peer review and significant editorial oversight. Serious study and scholarship on the topic was effectively discouraged until recently. The lifting of that ban and the appointment of official study groups has simply opened the floodgates. What you are seeing is the best scholarship getting published.

Thanks, Tom, for speaking the truth about the control over our organization's papers. I hope what you say means that now, at least, honest editorial content can once again be shown. We need to have all sides of a question be available to the people.