World Church Members Asked to Vote on WO

[Gregory Matthews]

If you would like to vote on whether or not females should be ordained, click on:

http://www.soencouragement.org/ordination/

The following is information about the above group that sponsors the vote:

Quote:

Council for Family (CFR) is a research organization with the intent of "Discovering the Hidden Truth" about family life, marriage, pre-marriage relationships. Also "Discovering the Hidden Truth" behind social dysfunction, family violence, intimate partner abuse, child abuse, sexual abuse, crime, poor industrial performance, etc. CFR is a division of Sounds of Encouragement Association (Est. 1984), a non--profit organization "helping people smile again" and dedicated to the "restoration of healthy family life" in the Bahamas, the Caribbean, and the world. CFR was first started in 1995 with five professionals.

CFR Team: Barrington and Annick Brennen; Dr. Jimmy Kijai, professor of research and statistical methodology at Andrews University, Michigan; Edith Roach, former educator, The Bahamas; Pastor Errol Thomas (Jamaica) former youth leader and trainer of the West Indies; Dr. Elsie Jackson, child and family specialist, Northern Caribbean University, Jamaica; Dr. Grace Kelly, counseling psychologist, educator, Northern Caribbean University, Jamaica ; Dr. Martin Hanna, systematic theologian, Andrews University, Michigan, Rev. Angela Palacious, family life specialist, The Bahamas; Dr. Stephanie Hutcheson, clinical psychologist, The Bahamas

CFR is a division of Sounds of Encouragement Association

[ClubV12]

Those taking the poll are very active in promoting W.O. Most of the respondents are from within the North American Division.

It is reasonable to assume the poll is primarily drawing it's voting base from web sites such Club Adventist. Which clearly far and away supports W.O.

So what does this poll tell us in terms of the World Church support for W.O.? Basically nothing.

I suspect the responding have been reached through web sites such as Club Adventist. Which heavily favors W.O. already. What web site DOESN'T? "Ordination Truth" dot com is one of the few that doesn't, and it doesn't have a forum.

So what conclusions can we draw from this poll? Well, it WILL be used to suggest or imply that the "World Church" favors W.O., this based on flawed data. I don't know how one might go about getting a truly non-biased world wide poll on the issue? I doubt it is possible.

At any rate this reminds me of David numbering the people. Regardless of the "numbers", doctrine is not based on the majority or the minority opinion.

[olger]

To be accurate and objective, each church would have to poll it's members. They could call it a theology audit...

[Neil D]

Those taking the poll are very active in promoting W.O. Most of the respondents are from within the North American Division.

It is reasonable to assume the poll is primarily drawing it's voting base from web sites such Club Adventist. Which clearly far and away supports W.O.

So what does this poll tell us in terms of the World Church support for W.O.? Basically nothing.

I suspect the responding have been reached through web sites such as Club Adventist. Which heavily favors W.O. already. What web site DOESN'T? "Ordination Truth" dot com is one of the few that doesn't, and it doesn't have a forum.

So what conclusions can we draw from this poll? Well, it WILL be used to suggest or imply that the "World Church" favors W.O., this based on flawed data. I don't know how one might go about getting a truly non-biased world wide poll on the issue? I doubt it is possible.

At any rate this reminds me of David numbering the people. Regardless of the "numbers", doctrine is not based on the majority or the minority opinion.

Those taking the poll are very active in promoting anti- W.O. Most of the respondents are from within the North American Division.

It is reasonable to assume the poll is primarily drawing it's voting base from web sites such Club Adventist. Which clearly far and away supports anti-W.O.

So what does this poll tell us in terms of the World Church support for anti-W.O.? Basically nothing.

I suspect the responding have been reached through web sites such as Club Adventist. Which heavily favors anti-W.O. already. What web site DOESN'T? "Ordination Truth" dot com is one of the few that doesn't, and it doesn't have a forum.

So what conclusions can we draw from this poll? Well, it WILL be used to suggest or imply that the "World Church" favors anti-W.O., this based on flawed data. I don't know how one might go about getting a truly non-biased world wide poll on the issue? I doubt it is possible.

At any rate this reminds me of David numbering the people. Regardless of the "numbers", doctrine is not based on the majority or the minority opinion.

[ClubV12]

I have no idea what you mean by "anti-W.O." Neal? Perhaps it is an attempt to bring clairity to my post?

One thing is clear though: Those taking the poll, NAD, the majority on this web site are in favor of W.O. As it concerns NAD, it should be noted the LEADERSHIP of NAD is in favor, as to what the majority of the MEMBERS in NAD feel, we don't know. The above poll won't reveal it, thats for sure!

Sometime ago (a few years or less), when the World Divisions were asked whether or not the W.O. question should go forward at the G.C. session, by far the majority said, "No". In other words, the majority of the World Divisions have no interest in ordaining women. Some responded it would be devastating to their divisions if it were allowed.

[Neil D]

That's because it affected thier culture....God's culture and this world's culture is totally different...Since God is love, God wanted His people to show His culture of Love to His people...

But like the field sown with wheat and weeds, there are some who love the culture of this world rather than the culture of God's Love...

That is your choice, club12...but, I guarentee, you will not profit from it...

[Tom Wetmore]

But Club, most all of the other world Divisions leaders did not make any effort to do a comprehensive survey of their members. They did nothing but state their own personal view as leaders, which is what you seem to be accusing the NAD leadership of doing. Many of the other Divisions really have not surveyed their own membership on the issue. (In fact at the GC Sessions where there was a vote relating to WO, the leadership of some of those divisions insisted that their delegation vote as a block and not vote their own individual conscience. They actually turned and faced their own delegates to see that they all voted together.)

Your post seems to suggest that the NAD leadership is pushing it and speaking for the membership in North America without knowing whether a majority are behind them. I think the constituency votes thus far across the Division do show a strong majority of the NAD membership does support WO. But this is not so new and novel a question that it has never been asked before. It has been significant issue within NAD for 40 years.

The fear of devastating consequences is quite simply speculative. But more probable is the fear that their own women will feel more free to break the bands of suppression that have bound them for so long, that they will now expect a seat at the table. It is a fear that these men will lose control and have to recognize the worth and value of women. Perhaps they fear the vision of Ellen White herself when she said in her time that there should be 20 women engaged in ministry where there was only one (a 20 fold increase!). She said that if that happened we would be amazed at the results. Men fearing that women might outshine them...

[olger]

Not True Tom.

Paul Ratsara has talked with many of his constituents and reflects their convictions along with his own.

[Neil D]

I believe that this man is president to a culture that is totally anti-Christian, let alone SDA. To place the change of WO on this culture would be a burden that the culture itself can not bear. Change comes slowly, over generations...WO would be too much change in light of ancestral worship, in addition tou a patriach society....The man is wise and gentle in nurture....He knows his limitations...

[olger]

So you know Paul? I have met him personally, and talk with him from time to time. And, he is personally opposed to WO.

blessings,

G

[Tom Wetmore]

I said most, not all. And the context of Club's statement was the question put to the Division presidents by Jan Paulsen prior to the last Session. There really was not even sufficient time to do anything other than make a quick off the cuff assessment.

I don't doubt that Paul Ratsara has discussed it with many. But what formal surveys and comprehensive efforts have been taken to put the issue before the people, to study the matter in a serious way, until the last couple of years? North America has been studying and discussing this issue widely for 40 years. Most of the world membership have not even been in the church that long.

We have wandered in the wilderness long enough… Time to not be afraid and cross that river.

[ClubV12]

It's just to sad, I don't think I can continue watching this slow train wreck of W.O. take over the Church.

The "numbers" don't concern me, doctrine should be established according to the order and methods our precious Saviour has authorized. Not by a majority, not by a minority. The process has been derailed in some way. There is healthy debate, even the early Church members didn't always agree. We have gone way past "healthy", this is just tragically sad.

I have faith in the leadership God has appointed. On this site, one of those leaders is Tom. I accept that he is set to watch over me, to counsel and reprove me as may be needful. I want to accept that with a glad heart and a thankful spirit, even if I don't agree! Respect for leadership is dieing to self, putting others before my needs, my pride, my opinion. I thank God He is helping me to see how far short I am of the goal. But my trust is in Him, He WILL finish the work.

[Tom Wetmore]

Slow train wreck is a fair analogy. I have been watching it wobble and get run off the rails for all of those 40 years since the early 70's when it started to build up some steam, again after having been put on a siding for 40 or 50 years after Ellen White died.

The Church has wobbled and wavered on the question of the role of women in the Church from its very beginning. Even a women as God's special messenger was questioned and disputed. But during her lifetime, even before women were allowed to vote in secular society, the Church slowly moved forward in recognizing and allowing women a much greater role in the Church than they were afforded in society and even in the mainline churches from which they had come.

But should we not see that this issue left unresolved will not go away? That it persists, that progress happens each time it comes up, that God himself selected a woman at the inception of the Advent movement to be its cofounder and spiritual leader, all that should gives us some very serious thought.

[CyberGuy]

The GC should vote the way SECC did this year. SECC got a little electronic device that delegates could vote. Press 1 for yes and 2 for no.

When the presidents name came up the delegates would vote. yes or no. Results were electronically transmitted to the computer with the software that interpreted the data. It was fast and secret. So leaders could not see how their delegates voted.

All the devices were returned after the meeting and we shipped them back.

The GC needs to do something like that. That will do away with leaders of area of the church intimidating their members to vote a certain way. It would be truly secret.

[Tom Wetmore]

Electronic voting is being discussed for the Session.

The NAD Year End meeting is using electronic voting.