SooutheasternCalifornia elects female Conference President.

[Gregory Matthews]

Tom Said:

Quote:

This does highlight a concern that has been troubling me of late. It seems to me that those against WO are undermining and even rejecting God's call to EGW by the extraordinary lengths that are taken to distinguish EGW's situation, and explain away her credentials and even some of her direct statements about women being pastors.

In my opinion, the positions that some take against the role of women in pastoral care and nurture strike at the very foundation of the ministry of EGW. If I were to accept some of the positions that people propose, I would have to reject the ministry of EGW.

I have non-SDA clergy tell me that they cannot understand how a church that has a woman as a co-founder can argue some of the positions that are taken against female ordination and pastoral care.

it just does not make sense to them.

[Gregory Matthews]

Also, some statements made against SDA leadership fail to fully consider the complexity of their actual positions.

Take President Wilson, for example. Much is speculated about him and where he is.

Those who so speculate often are ignorant that while he was co-chair of the ACM Committee our first female clergy (plural) became Federal Chaplains!

Even President Wilson's personal convictions and practice are complex and probably seldom understood.

[Gregory Matthews]

I am an ordained SDA minister. In recent years I have held credentials from the Rocky Mountain Conference, the General Conference and the North American Division.

Yet, I have never done some of the things that Fagal mentions as being the function of an SDA minister.

Am I not truly ordained because I have never done some of what Fagal mentions?

[Enabled]

Hello CyberGuy

Sorry you missed the point, you have picked a great illustration of how one can see things differently.

Deborah was God ordained and not by a local congregation.

She rebuked him for failing to be a man and stand up for his

God. She prophesied that a woman would receive the glory, the outcome contrary to the will of the one speaking through her. Please note the woman that got the Glory was not Deborah.

Also note it is God that ordains Prophets not men.

Men ordain pastors according to a God (recorded in his WORD) ordained criteria.

God will work even if he must work through channels not normally of his choosing. Deborah made this very clear.

Thanks for bringing up a good record of his ways.

Happy Sabbath.

[ClubV12]

Gregory, I am dumbfounded at your apparent delusions and lack of fundamental understanding of the issues. In the 1800's as well as now.

The G.C. has appointed a committee to study this issue. It's report is due in 2014. Let them do their work. Because many have decided they will ignore the God given order of the government of this Church they have fallen into deep delusion. However sincere they may be, they are sincerely mistaken.

All of heaven is ordered and run by rules and regulations, these are not burdensome. Like children who are happier with boundaries, so it is with heaven and with this earth. When we fight against those boundaries, the rules and laws and insist on having our own way, right now, we sacrafice harmony, peace, love. We pitt ourselves againt the throne of God, we believe it our duty to fight for Him.

He could call a legion of angels if need be...

I prefer Ellen Whites definition of a lie, over mans definition.

A nod of the head, a wave of the hand, even the truth spoken in such a way as to deceive, these are all lies. Sincerity will not excuse them.

[Enabled]

I believe E.G. Whites source of income was her writings when she did not dedicate them for a specific one of her works to another work.

Her authority to speak for the LORD and his church was from a much higher authority than men could give.

In keeping with order the men of her day gave her papers to present if requested by whomever. Just as a man/woman may received a honorary diploma though they have never attended an institution as recognition of their work in a relative field. So it was I believe with E.G.White, she was never ordained but carried papers that recognized the organized bodies acceptance of her calling by God. Very different from what is being discussed on this thread. As noted by others she never carried out the functions of a Pastor in the general sense.

[Enabled]

I agree with the waiting for God's appointed methods to function.

Samuel appointed a time as Saul raced ahead, mistakes are being made at high levels everywhere and unfortunately the church doesn't accept the methods that immunize her from such paths.

Have a great Sabbath.

[Gregory Matthews]

Clubv12 said:

Quote:

I prefer Ellen Whites definition of a lie, over mans definition.

A nod of the head, a wave of the hand, even the truth spoken in such a way as to deceive, these are all lies. Sincerity will not excuse them.

Isn't that the definition that I gave? Note her use of the phrase ". . .spoken is such a way to deceive,. . ."

That is a human definition and the one that I gave.

A lie always has an intent to deceive. One can be 100% in error and in making a false statement not be telling a lie.

In any case, when you read Ellen White in the English language you should read that language in the sense of the English meanings and not attempt to put some other meaning on her words that simply pulled out of thin air.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Gregory, I am dumbfounded at your apparent delusions and lack of fundamental understanding of the issues. In the 1800's as well as now.

Quote:

A nod of the head, a wave of the hand, even the truth spoken in such a way as to deceive, these are all lies.

So...just exactly, who are you calling a lair?

[olger]

At some point the NAD will have to be restructured to come into compliance and under the authority of the General Conference. That time will come. The root of this problem lays at the door of the leadership of NAD.

TRUE

[ClubV12]

CoAspen wants to know WHO is lieing.

That would be ALL those who post as "fact" issues that have not been fully resolved and remain controversial.

Being sincere when stating what is essentially a lie, does not make it the truth. NOR does it necessarily absolve one and make it OK to lie, as Gregory seems to suggest. That if, somehow, you are sincere enough and really believed the lie you tell, that it's OK.

There is great danger in that concept, Gregory. The prophet counsels us that many well meaning sincerely mistaken people are doing the devils work and they will be lost. The sucide bomber is certainly sincere! Many of those who support W.O. are deeply sincere. SO sincere they believe many of the lies that are posted or that they post themselves. This does not mean it's OK to do so.

God has given each of us sufficient light to understand the truth. When we reject part or in whole some of that light we go into a delusional state. We begin to believe, a lie, sincerely.

Jesus didn't answer as to where His power came from because those asking had already rejected His messenger, John the Baptist. Jesus had nothing more to offer them, no new light to present. They were left in their chosen path of delusion.

BECAUSE many of those in THIS rebellion have rejected the plain light on order and authority, they are likewise left in darkness. Delusion is inevitable, lies will follow.

WHY don't those who so strongly support W.O. refuse to wait for the G.C. study and a ruling on the matter?

NOT because they are "tired of waiting", but because they fear the G.C. will not rule in their favor. Their minds are made up. They will accept nothing less than W.O. No matter what, no matter who gets hurt, no matter what it does to the Church. As one Pastor stated, he was willing to DIE to see W.O. become law. So also the suicide bomber is willing to die for his beliefs. So also will those who have sought to kill Gods children thought they were doing the work of God.

Sincerity, even conscience, cannot be trusted. Truth must be based sqaurely on the word of God and the Testimony, in spite of what we may think, hear, see, smell or how deeply sincere we may be.

Sufficient light on the government of this Church has been given and rejected, we are now in a time of darkness and delusion. The ONLY way out is to let those authorities in office through Gods appointed agencies on earth finish their work. THEN you may pick up you pitch forks, lanterns, tar and feathers and meet in the town square to hang them if you don't like the decision. But please, not before then.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Being sincere when stating what is essentially a lie, does not make it the truth. NOR does it necessarily absolve one and make it OK to lie, as Gregory seems to suggest. That if, somehow, you are sincere enough and really believed the lie you tell, that it's OK.

100% false.

I would never suggest that it is O.K. to lie.

A lie always has a factor of an intent to deceive, that is wrong.

It is not O.K. to make false statements. Those statements are in error.

You have made false statements. But I do not attribute an intent on your part to deceive. You are simply wrong. You may be ignorant. But, without the intent to deceive, you are not telling a lie. You are simply making a false statement.

[ClubV12]

Thank you for clairying your position on that Gregory, I appreciate it. I don't agree 100% with your view point on it, but I appreciate it. Heres a quote that might help bring some deeper understanding to this issue.

"Some will plead that they lived up to the best light that they had, and did not know that they were sinners before God. Therefore they claim that they were guiltless, and have nothing to repent of. But the word of God was plain, and all who had a prayerful anxious desire to understand it might have known what was truth; and for this sin of ignorance God will demand an offering as truly as in the days of Moses,--even the offering of a broken and contrite heart. With the Bible in our hands we ought all to know and practice the truth. But some do not wish to change their faith or course of action, and argue that if they are only honest they will be saved. Such will be in great danger of committing the sin of presumption, of not living up to all the light they have. Critical self-examination, united with a diligent searching of the Scriptures and earnest prayer, is essential, not that some way may be found to evade the cross, but that they may be led into all truth however much self-denial it may cost, and however inconvenient it may be to obey." {ST, July 22, 1880 par. 12}

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Truth must be based sqaurely on the word of God and the Testimony, . . .

Only to the extent to which the Word of God and the Testimony speak to the issue.

Statements on this issue have been posted as to the motives of named individuals. The Word may speak to whether or not those individuals are wrong. But, you will never find a statement in the Word that:

1) President Wilson is motivated by. .. .

2) Pastor X intended to deceive when he/she said . . .

The above statements may be correct and they may be incorrect. In any way, the Word cannot be used as a basis for making such a statement.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

CoAspen wants to know WHO is lieing.

That would be ALL those who post as "fact" issues that have not been fully resolved and remain controversial.

That would be your definition!

lie

noun

an intentionally false statement

lie

noun

untruth, falsehood, fib, fabrication, deception, invention, fiction, piece of fiction, falsification

By your own definition you are a liar, anything controversial, and so would be anyone else.

By your definition, creation is a lie, controversial.

That's the trouble you run into when making up new definitions to suit ones own belief or set up functioning parameters. It is not a very functional way of relating to everyday life or the world around us. It causes large problems with people around you because they do not have your definitions of the everyday language. Communication becomes extremely problematic. Your continued discounting of actual document wording and standard definitions is an example.

[ClubV12]

CoAspen I will go with the prophets definition, thanks for your input.

Gregory, point well taken!!! The word does not address every single item. We work with it's principles in such a case. James White dealt with this using the concept that what is specifically not forbidden and does not run afoul of the law and the Testimony should be considered lawful.

This was in direct relation to setting up the government and corporation of the Church. There were of course many who were opposed to any form of official government recognition of a "Church". Our pioneers found this as a lawful requirement, was good for the advancement of the cause and did not violate the biblical standards.

Surprisingly, some still argue today we should dissolve the government of the Church. Strange that...

[CoAspen]

Quote:

CoAspen I will go with the prophets definition, thanks for your input.

You say that as if EGW used a different dictionary! Your misuse of EGW seems to know no end!

[ClubV12]

I'm just relating a "principle" of what constitutes a lie CoAspen. Ellen White didn't need a dictionary, I believe her insights on this definition were inspired by divine revelation. What IS divine revelation? Any of us can have that, it's doesn't always mean a dream or vision. Living close to God, studying the word, we begin to see differenct facets of the gems of truth, come to a greater understanding of the law.

In this case, "Thou shalt not lie". She expanded our understanding of what it means to violate that commandment. Even an expression, improperly used, that conveys a misleading thought, is breaking the commandment. I thank God for these revelations and see how far short I am of the goal. But I am confident He will finish the work He's started.

I fall, we fall, we get up and move forward, by His grace.

[CyberGuy]

Quote:

Being sincere when stating what is essentially a lie, does not make it the truth. NOR does it necessarily absolve one and make it OK to lie, as Gregory seems to suggest. That if, somehow, you are sincere enough and really believed the lie you tell, that it's OK.

100% false.

I would never suggest that it is O.K. to lie.

A lie always has a factor of an intent to deceive, that is wrong.

It is not O.K. to make false statements. Those statements are in error.

You have made false statements. But I do not attribute an intent on your part to deceive. You are simply wrong. You may be ignorant. But, without the intent to deceive, you are not telling a lie. You are simply making a false statement.

I wonder about that. Remember the story of Rahab and the spies Joshua sent to Jericho. She lied about the spies being in her apartment and saves the spies lives. As a result of that lie she was praised and the life of her family and herself were spared. Also she became the grandmother of Boaz who was the great grandfather of King David and 1000 years later of Jesus Christ.

So Rahabs lie was rewarded.

Remember the commandment says. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Nothing about being honest on 100 percent of everything we say.

Many times the lives of Jews were saved by a lie told by neighbors who were hiding them during World War II from the Nazi SS who were looking for the Jews. Were those people condemned by the law for lying to the Nazi SS and saving the lives of their neighbors who were Jews.

Danish sea captains smuggled Jews out of Denmark and lied to Nazis about their cargo and even had hankercheves that were diped in blood and smother in Cocaine so that when the Nazi dogs would sniff the hankerchiefs their noses would go numb and they could not smell anything for a couple of hours but not harming the dog. Still it was dishonest but it saved lives.

Are they condemned by the law for this.

I think God Judges the intent behind the lie. Not the fact that it was untruthful by itself.

Remember when Christ told the story of David and the Shewbread the high Priest gave David because he was hungry. It was not lawful for the priest to do this but the higher law of feeding a hungry man was at stake.

So saving lives is a higher law in the Case of Rahab and the people who lied to save lives from the Nazis during world war II.

[Green Cochoa]

I saw that the Spirit of the Lord has been dying away from the church. The servants of the Lord have trusted too much to the strength of argument, and have not had that firm reliance upon God which they should have. I saw that the mere argument of the truth will not move souls to take a stand with the remnant; for the truth is unpopular. The servants of God must have the truth in the soul. Said the angel: "They must get it warm from glory, carry it in their bosoms, and pour it out in the warmth and earnestness of the soul to those that hear." A few that are conscientious are ready to decide from the weight of evidence; but it is impossible to move many with a mere theory of the truth. There must be a power to attend the truth, a living testimony to move them. {1T 113.2}

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[ClubV12]

Green I really appreciate that post and need to take it to heart, study it. Powerful truth in that statement.

Cyberguy, you do have a point about lieing, when, where, under what circumstances is it acceptable. I've studied that issue and have come to a similiar conclusion. It's NOT something I generally talk about it. It's an easy concept to misunderstand, difficult to apply, but a needful truth.

It's an excellent example of the path of truth laying very close to the path of error and how difficult it can be to separate the two. Without a heart breaking, truly repent search for His will, His truth, we will be led astray.

Concerning the G.C., I am not blind, I don't agree with everything they, the Union, my Conference does or their policies. Another thing I don't talk about much because it can so easily be misunderstood. As far as possible, without violating a direct biblical principle I honor and obey. And there have been times when thats been extremely difficult to do.

This is a time to stand with the highest leadership in the land, when they are under much pressure and facing such difficult decisions. What they are asking is not grievous, it is not demanding or to difficult. It violates no biblical principle. They are simply asking us to wait for the appointed committee to finish it's work. I see no fault, no reason I should disregard their request. Considering how long this debate has been raging, it is not to much to ask us to wait for the next session in 2015.

THEN depending on the ruling, for or against, I will determine what, if anything I personally need to do. Perhaps I will protest, with pen and voice, in a way that will honor them and still make known my beliefs.

Here is the patience of the Saints may be misapplied to this situation, but it sure has a ring of truth to it.

[CyberGuy]

The problem with this whole issue is politics are being played into this whole thing.

Politics like DO WHAT I TELL YOU AS I AM THE LEADER HERE.

DEFY ME AND I WILL MAKE YOU SUFFER. Suffer how? By not allowing that women to vote or be seated as a delegate etc.

We all know how that played out.

When politics like this are played out and we see how Ted Wilson at times acts like a child more than our GC president it makes it very hard to respect the man as a leader appointed by God. I know as a man he has faults but really sir. Must we stand back and allow a man with an obvious temper be our GC president and sing HAIL TO THE CHEIF. Every time his name is mentioned.

I know I am being sarcastic here. Still a man with a temper who cannot hold his words but instead sticks his foot in his mouth really is going to start losing the respect of the whole church.

His father Neil Wilson was unceremoniously voted out of office. Looks like a repeat coming up someday if these outbursts continue.

[ClubV12]

Well we disagree on the view. You see politics and to some degree that may be true. Never the less, I see a need for order and discipline. I see men trying to do their job as best they can.

Having been a supervisor for a large part of my career, I can appreciate how difficult it is herding cats...

[Neil D]

CoAspen wants to know WHO is lieing.

That would be ALL those who post as "fact" issues that have not been fully resolved and remain controversial.

Being sincere when stating what is essentially a lie, does not make it the truth. NOR does it necessarily absolve one and make it OK to lie, as Gregory seems to suggest. That if, somehow, you are sincere enough and really believed the lie you tell, that it's OK.

When I go thru the Testemonies, I see a lot of references to "humility"...which is a state of being humble....and being humble is

adjective

1. not proud or arrogant; modest: to be humble although successful.

2. having a feeling of insignificance, inferiority, subservience, etc.: In the presence of so many world-famous writers I felt very humble.

3. low in rank, importance, status, quality, etc.; lowly: of humble origin; a humble home.

4. courteously respectful: In my humble opinion you are wrong.

5. low in height, level, etc.; small in size: a humble member of the galaxy.

Now, I don't claim to be humble....heaven knows, I see some stupid posts here and I just mock away...I admit it..I see the end game or the logical conclusion of what someone is saying and I think to myself, "Christ never supported hatred, in any form. His kingdom was of love and equality...."

....Evidence of the biblical equality is shown when you read the 10 commandments, your spouse is never referred to as a servant....IOWs, the Sabbath command is equally applicable to you as it is to your wife....and the bible addresses your wife in the first person singular, just like it does you....Yet, your man servants and maid servants and other females creatures are directly made reference to...but not your wife....because, the Lord speaks as directly to her as He does to you....There is a partnership, not a headship, in your relationship with your wife.....

The reason I talk about this humility, this humbleness, is that we have been talking about women's ordination for over 40 years...we have been refered to so many committees that it became a tactic for the expressed purpose of delaying and waiting for others countries to 'catch up' with our morals...and they just ain't 'catching up'...why? because their cultures are not allowing what is right to flourish. And there are people within our own denomination who are being 'dummied down' and not searching the scriptures with humility and thoroughness...We've studied EGW and her urging the boycotting of the press when it was printing other things other than religious materials...Was it the right thing to do?

I submit to you, in light of the historical context, yes, it was the right thing to do....until the Lord burned the presses...

So, what is the reason that you give to with hold Ordination to women? Because the GC hasn't allowed it yet. So, I ask you, don't you think that 40 years of study is enough? They know the answer and they know the right thing to do....They have the evidence of God's expressed will and it's sanctified by the Word itself...What MORE DO WE NEED? OH, but according to you, the whole world needs to come into compliance before we can start practicing it....Sounds like a lot of hogwash to me...a way to dodge God's expressed will....and I don't think that dodging God's will is something too many people desire to do when they know it to be right...

[ClubV12]

I am NOT focused on the W.O. issue. My concern is whether or not the "rebellion", for lack of a better word, is justified or not. It IS rebellion by the nature of denying the requests of the G.C. asking for people to wait for the appointed committee to finish it's work.

"We are tired of waiting" is not a biblical reason worthy of sustaining disrespect for the leader of our people. Especially considering the short time frame in question compared to the length of time we have waited!

I believe it is clear that IF the G.C. rules against W.O., the rebellion will "explode" because the people have already made up their mind. I will honor and respect the G.C. regardless of their decision.

Will you?

"...a way to dodge God's expressed will." Strange statement from one I see as already dodging Gods will by showing disrespect to His appointed leaders! Who's dodging who, I wonder...