GC to take over Unions that Ordain Women!

[Gregory Matthews]

No.

[Gerr]

I could be wrong Greg, since I have never attended a GC session, but did not the world church reject WO during the session before the last one?

And are you saying that we're not a democratic church where the will of the majority prevails?  We are not dealing with a 10c issue here.  It seems to me that some people are willing to risk schism for what?  A position?   Haven't we learned the lesson yet about who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?  The war in heaven?

it is one thing to agitate for change, it is another thing to rebel against the will of the body of Christ.  "Love does not insist on its own way."  1 Cor 13.  

[lazarus]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

But in using the word "commissioning" it diminishes the role that women can have.  While you may never be called to be a Conference President, you are assumed to be qualified for that role.  While, solely on the basis of gender, females are assumed to not be qualified to serve as Conference President.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not supporting "commissioned" designation, just point out the incongruity.

Quote

It just may be that our failure to listen to the message that God is giving us will result in God unwinding the tangle of administrative control in a manner that those on the front-lines will have to operate without (or diminished) support for their mission.

There is the potential for considerable disruption in the function of the church in NAD if this is not resolved amicably. This is not just about WO, this is about Emerging church, music, praise dance, clapping, etc.

I remember TW harangue us as delegates at the Columbia Union session. He succeeded in gathering more support FOR Women's Ordination This proposed approach will be counter productive.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gerry, in a democratic society, such as the United States of America, the will of the majority is always limited.  It is not unlimited.

You asked if in that event that an issue did not involve a mandate from God, should not the majority prevail.  I say it potentially should not.  If it does not involve a mandate from God, then it is not important enough for the majority to override the wishes of a few.

Gerry, take a look at our denominational history.  Ellen White encouraged the formation of the Unions because she felt that there was to usurpation of power by the General Conference.   She urged a decentralization in which people working in the area would decide how to conduct the work.

I do not agree with every so-called new effort to do the work that we have been given to do.  But, I believe that God is God and we can allow something to grow to the point where it demonstrates whether it is of God or not of God.   To me, the message from China is clear:   God has ordained women to fully fill a pastoral role.

This does not mean that   women can effectively work in every area of the world.  Local areas can decide how they should be worked to accomplish our God-given mission. 

Gerry, I believe that at this time in our denominational history, EGW, if she were alive, would bring the same message of reproof to us that she did when she called for the establishment of the Unions in order to get some level of decision making power out of the General Conference.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Lazarus said, below:

I was there in SA, at the General Conference Session. as well as in Atlanta, at the previous session.

I remember telling people at SA that the legacy of President Ted just might be that he did more than any other person could have done to bring about the ordination of women into the full ministry of the SDA denomination.

Whether or not this is his intention, I still believe that the above could be the legacy that he will leave when he leaves the office of President.

I remember TW harangue us as delegates at the Columbia Union session. He succeeded in gathering more support FOR Women's Ordination This proposed approach will be counter productive.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gerry asked, below:

Tom, and others, have fully addressed this question better than I can do.  They have included in their assessments other GC Sessions when this subject came up in  one form or another.

I could be wrong Greg, since I have never attended a GC session, but did not the world church reject WO during the session before the last one?

[GayatfootofCross]

 latest  from OP source

http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2016/10/04/adventist-church-norway-formally-responds-general-conference-unity-document

[Gerr]

On 10/4/2016 at 2:17 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

No.

Then the minority's voice prevails?

[Gregory Matthews]

Gerry:  In a democracy, such as the United States. the minority has some rights that the majority cannot abridge.  If you want to say that in such the minority prevails, you can do so.

But, if you do so, your view presents a misunderstanding of our democratic right in the U.S.    In a democracy, such as ours, the majority and the minority, may exercise their rights without abridging the rights of the other.

 

E.G  The minority right of Sabbath keepers does not abridge the rights of the Sunday keepers.

In our situation as it pertains to the ordination of women:   The rights of your minority to ordain women does not abridge the rights of the majority not to ordain women.

Problems occur only when one side attempts to force the other side to do what the one side wants.  E.G. Such as your minority attempting to force your majority to ordain women.   Or, the other way.

Ellen White was clear:  The Unions were established so that people working in a local area did not have to go the General Conference to ask permission.

 

 

 

 

[CyberGuy]

In 2005 the GC voted to allow women to divorce their husbands for spousal abuse such as beating their wives. In the past churches in south America would dis fellowship women who would divorce their husbands for any reason other than adultery. This vote taken by the GC in session and passed was rejected by South American Division and they said they would ignore the vote.

Now the same division is asking for the Unions in North America to be punished for ordaining their women. Yet NOTHING is being done to the South American Diversion for ignoring the vote to NOT disfellowship women who divorce their husbands for beating them.

So why is this. Well South American has more members than the North American Division has and again this is a vote against women and Ted Wilson seems to have it in for the women in our church.

This is hypocrisy in the first order.

[CyberGuy]

 In the work of God no kingly authority is to be exercised by any human being, or by two or three.  The representatives of the Conference, as it has been carried with authority for the last twenty years, shall be no longer justified in saying, "The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we." The men in positions of trust have not been carrying the work wisely. {ChL 26.2}
     The Lord calls for wise men to preside over His work and to be faithful shepherds of His flock.--Manuscript 26, 1903 (April 3, 1903 Re: The Work of the General Conference). {ChL 26.3}

 No Kingly Authority in Seventh-day Adventist Church--God has not set any kingly power in the Seventh-day Adventist Church to control the whole body, or to control any branch of the work.  He has not provided that the burden of leadership shall rest upon a few men.  Responsibilities are distributed among a large number of competent men.--Testimonies, Vol. 8, p. 236. {ChL 49.3}

  It has been a necessity to organize union conferences, that the General Conference shall not exercise dictation over all the separate conferences. The power vested in the [General] Conference is not to be centered in one man, or two men, or six men; there is to be a council of men over the separate divisions. . . . In the work of God no kingly authority is to be exercised by any human being, or by two or three.--Ms 26, 1903, p. 1. ("Regarding the Work of the General Conference," April 3, 1901.)  {4MR 292.2} 

[GayatfootofCross]

7 hours ago, CyberGuy said:

In 2005 the GC voted to allow women to divorce their husbands for spousal abuse such as beating their wives. In the past churches in south America would dis fellowship women who would divorce their husbands for any reason other than adultery. This vote taken by the GC in session and passed was rejected by South American Division and they said they would ignore the vote.

This is hypocrisy in the first order.

So that lil bit about "Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the Church" is thrown out totally?

By a whole incontinent of SDA Christian men?

This was never really about love for others is it in all these? ..  controversial things.

Sounds like our Church and it's Leaders needs to be disfellowshipped going by the scriptures.

 What are we trying to bring people into? The dark ages?

I try not to be surprised anymore by what our church pulls in the Name of GOD.

I really do.

 

# it never ends

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pierrepaul]

8 hours ago, CyberGuy said:

In 2005 the GC voted to allow women to divorce their husbands for spousal abuse such as beating their wives. In the past churches in south America would dis fellowship women who would divorce their husbands for any reason other than adultery. This vote taken by the GC in session and passed was rejected by South American Division and they said they would ignore the vote.

Now the same division is asking for the Unions in North America to be punished for ordaining their women. Yet NOTHING is being done to the South American Diversion for ignoring the vote to NOT disfellowship women who divorce their husbands for beating them.

So why is this. Well South American has more members than the North American Division has and again this is a vote against women and Ted Wilson seems to have it in for the women in our church.

This is hypocrisy in the first order.

Are not decisions about membership and disfellowshipment matters for local congregations?

[Kevin H]

Part of the issue with the General Conference vote and South America;

We have Matthew 19:9: "9 Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.”

Now languages are not my strong point, but I heard this from both my professors at the Seminary in the 1980s and from George Vandeman (on his show and I think he wrote about it in one of his books) but that the word above translated "immorality" was a word that the translators did not know how to translate. So from other Bible passages they picked the idea of adultery. Looks like the translation above (I just googled Jesus on divorce and this text came I don't know what version it is from but it appears that they are trying to get closer to the idea of the Greek in the text)

Elder Vandeman and those I heard talk about this at the seminary went on to say  that modern studies indicate that the word included more than just adultery but that it would also include things such as abuse. Thus the General Conference vote was based on a deeper understanding of what the text means. The South American rejection of this is going with the traditional translation from the word being unknown.

[GayatfootofCross]

But wait there's more ...

http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2016/10/05/breaking-general-conference-proposes-year-grace-unions

[Gregory Matthews]

Gay has posted an article that suggests that there is a proposal that a vote should be taken an Annual Council to give the Unions that have voted to ordain women one year to revoke that decision.

After thinking carefully about this yesterday I have come to the decision that if I were  one of those entitled to vote on this proposal, I would vote against it!

My decision to vote against this proposal would not be based upon either a belief that those Unions should be disciplined or that women should not be ordained.  As many of you know, I believe both that women should be ordained and that at least some, if not all, of the  Unions have the legal right, based upon previously established denominational Constitutional/policy provisions, to determine who should be ordained.  IOW, I believe that at least some, if not all, of the unions have not rebelled against valid denominational requirements.

I would vote not to give a year of grace, in part, because I believe that their may be times in which one must make a decision.  There are some decisions that should not be postponed.  There are times in which all should take a stand and not postpone that taking a stand.  This may just be such a time.  This may be a time in which we members of the SDA denomination call upon our leaders to clearly reveal what kind of government they want.  This may be a time when we ask for our leaders to clearly state the level of which they want our denomination to be centrally governed.  My current thinking is that such a time has come to us as a denomination.

 We as a denomination face a fundamental decision at this point in time of our history, as to the form of our government.  On the one hand we can have a government in which each level of government exists to facilitate putting in place the decisions of higher levels of government.  Or, on the other hand we can have a government in which the people on the frontlines of ministry decide  what is needed to do ministry in their areas.  Each level of denominational leadership above those frontlines exist to support and facilitate those on the front  line.  We are at a point where we need to make this decision as to the purpose of our government.  Our decision, whatever it may be, as to allowing the Unions to decide ordination, will support one or the other type of government.

Some are asking why the original proposal came out strongly for immediate acting to discipline the Unions and  has now been modified to give a year of grace.  The short answer may be that cooler heads have  prevailed.  If this it true, it simply means that the original proposal was irrational and poorly considered.  If this is true, it should not be thought to be fixable by simply granting a year of grace.  If the proposal was fundamentally flawed, postponing it for a year does not fix it.

Over the past several years power has been shown to exist in our denomination by the power to control committees--their agenda, who serves on those committees and the discussion of issues.  It can be expected that those who support the original proposal to discipline the  Unions will during a year of grace will work to put in place a process that will result in those Unions that do not "repent" being strongly disciplined, as was originally proposed.

As others have said: As reported, the original proposal places this denomination on a track to formally breakup.  Is this what we want?  Some may say that this may be required.  Others will respond that there are some issues that we should wait for God to resolve and the issue of the ordination of women is one of those.  IOW, if the ordination of women violates what God wants for us, let God resolve that issue.  Personally, I believe that God is speaking to us in a message from China.  In China, God is demonstrating the blessings that can come from the ordination of women.  Unfortunately all to many of us have a hard time thinking that God could send us any kind of a positive message from a government that is Communist.  Well, God can speak in any time and place.

For these reasons, in part, if I had a chance to vote, I would vote against giving a year of grace.

 

 

[Gerr]

On 10/4/2016 at 5:22 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Gerry, in a democratic society, such as the United States of America, the will of the majority is always limited.  It is not unlimited.

You asked if in that event that an issue did not involve a mandate from God, should not the majority prevail.  I say it potentially should not.  If it does not involve a mandate from God, then it is not important enough for the majority to override the wishes of a few.

Gerry, take a look at our denominational history.  Ellen White encouraged the formation of the Unions because she felt that there was to usurpation of power by the General Conference.   She urged a decentralization in which people working in the area would decide how to conduct the work.

I do not agree with every so-called new effort to do the work that we have been given to do.  But, I believe that God is God and we can allow something to grow to the point where it demonstrates whether it is of God or not of God.   To me, the message from China is clear:   God has ordained women to fully fill a pastoral role.

This does not mean that   women can effectively work in every area of the world.  Local areas can decide how they should be worked to accomplish our God-given mission. 

Gerry, I believe that at this time in our denominational history, EGW, if she were alive, would bring the same message of reproof to us that she did when she called for the establishment of the Unions in order to get some level of decision making power out of the General Conference.

 

I agree that the will of the majority is not absolute. But to what degree is the will of the majority to be limited by the minority?  Take my example in the thread "Hiding the SDAC Sign" - 10 in favor of and 4 against.  What are we to do?  In the Constitution, certain "inalienable rights" are accorded to citizens that cannot be infringed upon even by the US gov't.  What minority rights are protected in a church polity?

Yes, Unions were created to limit the power of the GC, but what did she say about the decisions of the Church when it meets as a world body?

Does the China situation make the rule?  Women are thrust into leadership there because the men are either not available or willing.  Is that the case in the rest of the world?  Even God is willing to settle for something less than the ideal because the first or second options refuse the assignment.  For example, EGW was not God's first choice as His prophetic messenger.  She was the third option.

A certificate of ordination or the lack thereof may affect the usefulness of one in the eyes of men, but I doubt that it limits them in the eyes of heaven.  So in the end, what I see is another case of power struggle for position instead of focusing on service.

[Gerr]

Yes, Greg, I agree the time has come to decide whether the Unions and Conferences are free or not to disregard policies voted on by the Church when meeting as a world body.

[Gregory Matthews]

Well, the so-called official position, as alleged to have been voted at SA limits the ability of God to demonstrate that He can impower women to function in certain roles.

Why do we not let it be demonstrated whether or not God is in charge and they either succeed or they fail?

 

[debbym]

I do not live or walk with God under the authority of any human being.  My church does not dictate the terms of membership.  The Holy Spirit leads people into the truth, and those so lead form a community that the Lord has full authority over.   It is the Lord that is the author and finisher of our faith. As a member to new members i am here to witness to the truth and affirm the truth as it is applied in every aspect of life i am engaged in and encourage this in others.  When those come in who have an agenda to coerce it disrupts the Church and those members who may become are caught up are studied with to expose the wrong principles.  This follows the principles they experienced when they joined.   They are not punished and required to amend.

The enemy of heaven was cast out of every heart in the universe by the revelation of God in Christ.  Not by God exercising physical or police authority.

If we get into dictating in church circles we step into the arena of cult.  This is why there is to be separation of church and state.  Where human authority claims to correctly interpret God's word, and  represent the authority of God and exercise control over the group we have humanity making itself God.  God's government is one of regard for the highest development of character and willing and cheerful giving of service to God and our fellow man in freedom, the freedom in Christ, which is free of self glory.

God was accused of being Like Satan, being controlling and not loving and it was revealed to be a lie.  We do not want to participate in those principles but truly represent the character of God.  We tend to find rest relying on authority and praise those whose are in authority for  our well being.  In matters of traffic police, and Dr.'s licensing agencies this is well and good, but in matters of the conscience, and our relationship to God only God should stand in that position, and those in leadership we do hope they represent The Lord in spiritual leadership.  

We are told the majority of honest believers are outside the membership of the church because if they come in they would be mistreated and wounded and lose their way.  I can see why this is a danger.  A wrong spirit can find expression and God be misrepresented and precious ones needlessly wounded.  So the Lord has them labor for him where they are.

We are not to be lording, but in submission to one another as Christ's principles find expression in our relationships.  This way we continually affirm God's love and the Authority of Love.  The good angels had no idea that God's ways needed improving on, they could not imagine that God was arbitrary as the enemy portrayed.  Indeed God was not, but the enemy projected onto God His own attributes and it will continue to be fully revealed till the day every knee will bow and with one voice the entire human race and angelic Host will proclaim Just and True are all thy ways.

 

[Gerr]

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 2:12 AM, jackson said:

Gerry, neither the majority vote nor the minority vote should prevail, but rather it is the word of God that should prevail. The church is not a democracy. It is more like a "constitutional Republic" with the Bible being our constitution.

The Bible is neither silent nor ambiguous  on this matter as some would have you believe.

I have seen the scriptural references used by both sides and both make a strong case for their position.  It may not be ambiguous to you, but if it were clear and unambiguous, why is it causing so much trouble?  Again, when there is no CLEAR-CUT "Thus says the Lord", what then shall we do?

[Gerr]

20 hours ago, debbym said:

I do not live or walk with God under the authority of any human being.  My church does not dictate the terms of membership.  The Holy Spirit leads people into the truth, and those so lead form a community that the Lord has full authority over.   It is the Lord that is the author and finisher of our faith. As a member to new members i am here to witness to the truth and affirm the truth as it is applied in every aspect of life i am engaged in and encourage this in others.  When those come in who have an agenda to coerce it disrupts the Church and those members who may become are caught up are studied with to expose the wrong principles.  This follows the principles they experienced when they joined.   They are not punished and required to amend.

 

 

I beg to differ, debbym.  The Church DOES dictate the terms of official membership into the SDA Church.  You cannot be a member and not be a Sabbath keeper, for instance. We do have principles to guide us in our decisions, but the Bible has not dealt with every issue that we face today.  So then, when there is not a clear-cut "Thus says the Lord", how then are we to proceed?  We are not individual separate parts, we have an organization.  How does a democratic organization function?

[Kevin H]

45 minutes ago, Gerry Cabalo said:

I have seen the scriptural references used by both sides and both make a strong case for their position.  It may not be ambiguous to you, but if it were clear and unambiguous, why is it causing so much trouble?  Again, when there is no CLEAR-CUT "Thus says the Lord", what then shall we do?

1. Is this one of what Mrs. White said was the landmarks that we are to be united upon?

2. Since both sides make a strong case for their position, then both should be allowed while we study to exist.

3. The job of the General Conference is to give us time to continue to study and to allow both sides to exist and share. As we share eventually one side will become clearer. We are to allow those who support Women's Ordination to allow the women to be ordained and do their jobs. But we need to see that the male and female pastors are distributed so that those who have trouble with women's ordination does not have to drive an unreasonable distance to find a church who's pastor is a male.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gerry:  If the Bible is not clear, it is because God has allowed it and it is likely not of central importance to our faith.

If God has allowed it, and/or it is not of central importance to our faith, we as a denomination out to allow the same difference to exist in both belief and practice.

 

[debbym]

1 hour ago, Gerry Cabalo said:

I beg to differ, debbym.  The Church DOES dictate the terms of official membership into the SDA Church.  You cannot be a member and not be a Sabbath keeper, for instance. We do have principles to guide us in our decisions, but the Bible has not dealt with every issue that we face today.  So then, when there is not a clear-cut "Thus says the Lord", how then are we to proceed?  We are not individual separate parts, we have an organization.  How does a democratic organization function?

this is dictate in the sense of demanding compliance, God draws us to himself, we invite people to join, we do not demand compliance and punish for non compliance.  if a member joins then develops a drinking problem we do not behave as dictators and kick them to the curb.  we do not demand these standards to be complied with.  Sabbath keeping for example has many different styles, we do not remove members if they eat out on Sabbath for example nor do we promote someone who is counting the number of steps they take on Sabbath to avoid working..