Today's WO Vote

[Woody]

My prediction:

The GC has determined that there is no theological basis on which to deny WO.

The vote today will be purely political.

There is no way you are going to impose WO on the Africans etc. Even if the GC imposed a quota - the Africans would defy it.

 

The same is on the other side. If you imposed a rule that stated there could be NO WO ... some unions in NAD and Europe etc..... would defy it.

 

The only solution is for each union to decide on their own.

 

This is not a matter of doctrine. This is not a Fundamental Belief.

 

If you want the church fractured .... try the billyclub approach on either extreme and there will be disunity and fracture.

 

So ... what needs to be done is clear.

 

Let it be decided by each region.

 

Now --- on with today's vote ...

[Johann]

The anti-WO think they have won by today's vote. Have they?

[Gregory Matthews]

So, was there a vote yesterday and what was it?

[lazarus]

 The vote will be on this question: should it be handled by Unions?

 

The actual question will be: Is it acceptable for division executive committees....to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry? Yes or no?

 

Note the reference to the Divisions, not the Unions?

 

if the vote is NO we will be where we are now. The Unions that currently ordain will continue to ordain. It will then be left to the GC (Wilson) to make the next move. If he tries to force Unions to comply then all hades will be let loose. GC session 2015 is sure to be a pivitol one.

[Tom Wetmore]

It is quite interesting that those most emphatically pushing for the accept and abide by the vote idea, whatever it is, are most often firmly against WO and/or from areas where there is little or no support. They also are typically most confident of having the numbers at Session to defeat the proposed action to allow others to ordain women, often referencing those past votes as you have here. If one thinks they are going to win, it is rather easy to make such a pronouncement since accepting and abiding is no burden at all. It is less about them having to accept and abide by anything and more about imposing that as a firm directive for those that are on the losing side of things.

[Woody]

Personally ... I do not support the proposal and will actively work to defeat it.

The new proposal gives the power to the presidency actually. Because the president has much control over the Divisions.

I prefer keeping things as they are with the Unions having official say according to the bylaws.

And that way .... there will be a progressive increase in WO and women pastors.

I hate seeing a power shift to the Divisions.

If I have to join hands with the Anti- Crowd on this one I will.

[Johann]

When the president of TED retired Ted Wilson tried to get a new president from a Division that is opposed to WO. The TED board elected another president and his election has now been approved by the GC. So the power of the world president is not unlimited.

[Woody]

The only way He is going to come soon ...

is if ALL of us band together and finish the work.

Excluding women will not assist in that.

[thx4mercy]

is if ALL of us band together and finish the work.

Excluding women will not assist in that.

 

If a woman is not a pastor of a church, it does NOT mean that she is being excluded from helping to finish the work!

[Gregory Matthews]

In some cases that might be true and in other cases it might be false.

[Johann]

The General Conference Sessions in 1990 and 1995 voted down women's ordination. Are those in favor of it going to accept the vote this time? The vote will be on this question: should it be handled by Unions? If the General Conference Session in July 2015 votes No, will those pushing for WO accept the vote? Our brother Wilson said he's willing to accept whatever vote the General Conference Session majority agree on. I second him in this, but the question stands: will those in favor accept a No vote this time?

 

Blessings to y'all.

 

Burt.

Was the ordination of women ever voted down? What was the vote in 1990? The GC has never voted that WO is unbiblical, only that it was not acceptable at that time. It might not be quite clear what was voted down.

[Woody]

Johann .... the church has officially stated that there is no theological basis on which to withhold ordination from women.

Those who say there is .... are in open rebellion against God's church in this the last hour of Earth's history. A sad place to be.

[Tom Wetmore]

You don't need to be ordained to preach the Gospel and to help finish the work.

True. But then why ordain men?

Soon, there will not be money to pay the pastors and church workers. I will see then how many will do the work because they are really called and on fire. Soon the "shaking" will start. At that time all that are genuine are going to stay and remain faithful, no matter what; the shaft will be sifted out. They will abandon the ship when their lifestyle and food are on the line. Our Lord Jesus is coming soon! My heart rejoices just to think about it. Halleluyah!

Not sure what you are trying to say here or how it fits the topic...

[Gregory Matthews]

So, you will pray, but you  will neither share what you intended to communicate, nor will you allow yourself to be used by the Holy Spirit to do what you are praying that the Holy Spirit will do for Tom?

 

Do I understand you correctly?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Here's my interp of Burt's comments:

 

Because of the impending "tribulation," ordination of pastors will be a trivial component of the church.  And the closer one feels the actual tribulation, the less likely one is to see the need for ordination.

 

 

 

Soon, there will not be money to pay the pastors and church workers. I will see then how many will do the work because they are really called and on fire. Soon the "shaking" will start. At that time all that are genuine are going to stay and remain faithful, no matter what; the shaft will be sifted out. They will abandon the ship when their lifestyle and food are on the line. 

 

Not sure where the idea comes from that "soon" the church will have no funds to pay pastors/church workers.  But following my above comments, I suppose the above quote could be construed as saying it won't matter if is men or women who are not paid - rather, the fact that the ones (male and female) who persist in the Lord's work despite the lack of funds, will be the true faithful followers...

 

Or maybe I'm completely off base with my interp...

[Gregory Matthews]

Bert, Tom and I simply asked you to explain what you meant to say.

 

O.K.  You do  not chose to do so .

[Tom Wetmore]

No, you don't understand either. I did not write I don't pray for the Holy Spirit to use me, actually that part is in my daily prayers but I don't need to convince you of this, my Father knows. I wrote in plain English, even it's not my first language, but you guys say you don't understand what I wrote, although you found a way to twist and add to it, but with the Holy Spirit is different. I will pray for you to be impressed by the Holy Spirit, too. That's the best I can do.

So did Pam get the drift of what you were trying to say?

Perhaps you could at least explain how you think we twisted and added to what you said?

I have to say that your apparent evasiveness is not helping your credibility in this conversation. I really doubt it has to do with English not being your mother tongue. Your use of English reflects sufficient fluency to explain yourself.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I do believe I've been insulted... 

[Tom Wetmore]

Seems we all have been. Served up wih great sanctimonious condescension at that.

[Tom Wetmore]

Burt, you write as if none of us quite measure up to your degree of purity in the faith or believe as you do in the return of Christ. That is insulting and really not an acceptable approach to discussions around here. I would suggest you drop the attitude and just engage us as fellow believers with honesty and forthrightness.

[Gregory Matthews]

This is a public forum. Anyone who posts here can expect a robust dialogue. For whatever reason, and I do not intend to imply a specific reason, several who post here write in a manner that one can not be certain as to what they are saying. I simply do not know what they are saying.. Some, I do not say all, when asked as to what they meant refuse to explain. That is their right. They do not have to explain. But, if they do not explain, they leave themselves open to whatever people think that they said and they should not complain if they are misunderstood.

People often stop reading the posts of those who do that on a continual basis.

Bert, I do not understand what you said in some of your posts. You certainly have the right not to explain yourself to me. But, do not be offended if I ask you what you meant to say and you refuse to clarify your intent. also do not expect the Holy Spirit to explain your intent to me if you refuse to do so. Why do you post if you have no interest in people understanding you?

[Gregory Matthews]

Bert, pay heed to what Tom said.  He is correct as to how you present yourself.

[Tom Wetmore]

In the interest of getting back to the actual topic I would like to respond to a couple earlier posts that i believe misrepresent aspects of this whole topic. First this:

The General Conference Sessions in 1990 and 1995 voted down women's ordination. Are those in favor of it going to accept the vote this time? The vote will be on this question: should it be handled by Unions? If the General Conference Session in July 2015 votes No, will those pushing for WO accept the vote? Our brother Wilson said he's willing to accept whatever vote the General Conference Session majority agree on. I second him in this, but the question stands: will those in favor accept a No vote this time?

First of all, the 1990 and 1995 votes were not precisely and definitely "voting down women's ordination." Both times the request was as it will be next summer, whether there will be permitted divergence among the Divisions on the practice of ordaining women to the goes ministry. Will each Division be permitted to decide for its own designated territory on the issue. Neither time, 1990 and 1995, in this matter was there a definitive vote on the theology of the ordination of women to the gospel ministry. Both views for and against were recognized, acknowledged and explained. The reality of each vote was that the majority of the world was not ready. And once again the question next summer will be the same, again prefaced by reports of the divergent conclusions of TOSC that there is no definitive consensus among those tasked to give thorough study to the WO question. Will the world church see fit this time to permit each Divison to decide within its own territory whether to ordain women to the gospel ministry? That is the question.

But I do think it is important to note that there was more support for allowing each Division to decide for its own territory indicated in 1995 than in 1990. And the most recent indications in this whole process, by the Division reports given to TOSC that there is now even more support now. There are also more Divisions that are in full support and ready to ordain women within there territory. In 1990 and 1995 it was mainly a request of NAD, with some support from a couple other Divisions. Now there there are clearly 5 Divisions ready to move forward to ordain women. And a clear majority of the Divsions report a willingness, based on their TOSC reports, to allow each Division to decide for themselves, even if their own Divison is not ready. Only 3 are firmly opposed to WO in any Division.

It is also very interesting that those pushing for WO are promising "all hell will break loose" if they don't get what they want this time. There's nothing we, conservatives, can do to make them happy. If you vote the proposal down, twice, you are bad. If you compromise and allow a principle-based issue to go to a referendum, then you must be sure you are going to win, because you are bad, and even if you say you will accept whatever vote comes down, you must have ulterior motives and still, you are bad.

I am not aware of widespread declarations that "all hell will break loose." And certainly not from those in favor of WO. Sure there may be a few. But realize in the face of more than 40 years of pressing for this change, that has not happened. Those against seem to be more likely to be making such predictions of splitting the church, disunity, and all manner of fearful things happening if the door is opned to WO. But history has shown that such dire predictions are very unlikely. Those fears are unfounded. And it is no surprise that those fearful predictions from those opposed are also combined with the plea to once and for all accept the results of the vote, hoping for of course a denial of WO. Why else would they not!

But in the face of growing support, why should the movement stop? If progress is being made in turning the tide against WO, why give up now? But more to the heart of the matter, for many of us this is not just some novelty or modern trend. It is a matter of conscientious conviction that it is the right thing to do. Should consciences be denied, and stifled?

[Woody]

The church has deemed that the NO-WOs have no theological basis for their belief and I agree.

[aka]

Sigh.... Here's me yearning for July 1, 2015.

 

Then the official vote is known and the aftermath starts.