GC to take over Unions that Ordain Women!

[Gregory Matthews]

The position on ordination is not a membership issue in the SDA Church.

As to membership:  That right to determine whether or not a person is a SDA member belongs to the congregation.  Two schools of thought exist within the denomination.  One school believes that membership should be restricted to a specified level of spiritual growth and belief.  The second school believes that membership should be allowed once a person has made a commitment to follow Jesus and that growth and belief should come over a period of time as that person is mentored by the congregation. 

[Gail]

What I like about the SDA church is that membership generally is given leeway for individualization in its walk with God. I like that freedom, even to err a bit. After all, we are all growing and learning. I suppose that might lead to some identity crises over the years but we have had that anyway.

I was reading recently about when leadership gave EGW's work infallibility during the early years of the 20th century. This led to some real misunderstanding among the laity and the cultic zealotification we saw decades later on. Mrs White was not around to defend herself because the pioneers were not like that.

To dictate dogma is to enact a creed, and in doing so makes it easy for members not to do their own study, IMHO.

[Gerr]

6 hours ago, Kevin H said:

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.

1.  This is not one of the "pillars" nor even one of the 28!  So how important is this issue for some to dig in their heels at the risk of schism?

2.  Do you know how difficult it is to reverse course from a practice once it has been allowed?  Does it not make more sense to maintain the status quo as maintained by the world church while we wait either for greater light, a decision by the world church in session, or a revelation from above?

3.  It has been studied ad nauseam.  I doubt any more study will change anyone's mind.

[Gerr]

5 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

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.

 

If WO is not a core/pillar issue,  then why are we expending so much time and emotional energy on it at the risk of schism by going against the will of the majority?

[Gerr]

4 hours ago, debbym said:

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..  

You are right that the church cannot force compliance.  However, the church can also discipline or disfellowship members who blatantly disregard certain standards of the church.

[Gerr]

1 hour ago, Gail said:

What I like about the SDA church is that membership generally is given leeway for individualization in its walk with God. I like that freedom, even to err a bit. After all, we are all growing and learning. I suppose that might lead to some identity crises over the years but we have had that anyway.

I was reading recently about when leadership gave EGW's work infallibility during the early years of the 20th century. This led to some real misunderstanding among the laity and the cultic zealotification we saw decades later on. Mrs White was not around to defend herself because the pioneers were not like that.

To dictate dogma is to enact a creed, and in doing so makes it easy for members not to do their own study, IMHO.

Do we accept church membership of people who do not accept or believe the 28 fundamentals?

[Gail]

Why would they want membership if they didn't agree with the 28 fundamentals?

[Gail]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I would be interested to read more about this myself. Do you happen to recall where you were reading about this?

The title is A Search for Identity by George Knight. You can get it free on PDF

[Gregory Matthews]

Gerry asked, below:

Absolutely.   We do it all of the time.

The requirements for membership are spelled out in the 13 statements, not 27. not 28, not 29, as is proposed.  In the beginning, the 27 were never intended to be a creed, or listing of requirements for membership.

NOTE:  If you are not aware, there is a proposed 29th statement making its way up the denominational process.

 

Do we accept church membership of people who do not accept or believe the 28 fundamentals?

[SMAN]

From the General Conference Website

Church Manual - Page 18

 

"A new edition of the Church Manual is published after every General Conference Session. The most recent edition should always be used. This edition incorporates amendments made at the 2015 General Conference Session.

 

       Where to Get Advice

Church officers and leaders, pastors, and members should consult with their conference for advice pertaining to the operating of their congregation or on questions arising from the Church Manual.  If they do not reach mutual understanding, they should consult with their union conference/mission for clarification."

 

This is in line with the recent Spectrum article by George Knight showing the church's history re: church organization and the delegation to the local conferences and unions for determining both local issues and who is ordained there in.

[GayatfootofCross]

..and I thought "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" was enough to be a Christian.

And to be a member .. Understanding the Ten Commandments Law of Love ( including the Sabbath) is our Delight and looking forward to The Advent was to be a Church member!

 

But to be a Simple Man!

 

[GayatfootofCross]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Are you able to share a word or two about what this 29th item is thats being proposed?

I think it's about The GC has to be acknowledged as God's Authority on Earth by every member?

Or is that already in there?

 

[Kevin H]

9 hours ago, Gerry Cabalo said:

1.  This is not one of the "pillars" nor even one of the 28!  So how important is this issue for some to dig in their heels at the risk of schism?

2.  Do you know how difficult it is to reverse course from a practice once it has been allowed?  Does it not make more sense to maintain the status quo as maintained by the world church while we wait either for greater light, a decision by the world church in session, or a revelation from above?

3.  It has been studied ad nauseam.  I doubt any more study will change anyone's mind.

1. On the one hand I agree with this. This is NOT one of the "pillars" and should not be that important. However on the anti-Women's ordination side, they are use to hearing the arguments by the liberal churches. These are people who do not take the Bible seriously. They have arguments that Paul was against women leading out in church, but that was because Paul was a victim of his culture so we are not to follow his advise.  So they are afraid that if we start ordaining women that it would mean that we are no longer following the Bible and they want us to continue to be a Bible believing church. That is why they are willing to risk this.

2. Well, a bit over 100 years ago the church was going to ordain women. The General Conference President supported it but was worried that too many members would not realize that it was Biblical to ordain women and he requested the unions and conferences to maintain the status quo until the church could educate that women being ordained was indeed Biblical. Now the church leaders want to make the ignorance that Elder Daniels wanted to clear up to be official and permanent.  There has been over 100 years of maintaining the status quo which was originally to clear up ignorance.  How long do we have to maintain the status quo especially when the powers that be want to make the ignorance official dogma.

3. On the one hand it has been studied ad nauseam, but they have been following the same old study: namely what do we find in church history. How have the great theologians of church history interpreted these texts. The field that has been ignored in all these studies is what can we learn about the history of the text. The anti-ordination people need to learn that there are some very conservative Biblical arguments for women's ordination. Their head is stuck in the sand of thinking we have two choices, either follow they Bible which is against women's ordination or say that we need to reject that part of the Bible and start ordaining women, and the fear that if we start ignoring the Bible on this one topic it will lead to us ignoring the Bible on other topics. The anti-ordination people have not realized that there are some strong texts in the Bible indicating that it supports Biblical ordination.

[Kevin H]

Let me use this as an illustration about the current situation of the argument.

Lets say we have a group of Christians who love the Bible. Church tradition says that when people die they either go to heaven or hell. These Bible loving Christians have the text from Paul about being absent from the body is being present with the Lord. They have the words of Jesus saying to the thief on the cross "Verily I say unto you today, you shall be with me in paradise" and they have the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Thus they assume that the Bible teaches that you go to heaven or hell at death.

They then hear atheists say "The Bible teaches that you go to heaven or hell when you die, But this is just a stupid pie in the sky idea of ignorant ancient men who did not know science and trying to explain from superstition. There is no heaven, there is no hell. We only have this life here and then we cease to exist after we die so just make the most of your life here, get what you can and do what feels good to you and look out for numeral Uno."

Now some people studying the Bible starts to notice some problems with the idea of people going to heaven or hell right at death, they are starting to see that the Bible teaches death and resurrection and start to suggest that maybe we should give up the idea that people go to heaven or hell at death.

So the Christians in our group who love the Bible now say "Ok, let's study this out" and they look I church history and find one theologian after another who believe that the Bible teaches that you go to heaven or hell at death, and they find atheists denying heaven and hell. And they have Paul talking about being absent from the body and being present with the Lord, and the text "Verily I say to you today, you shall be with me in paradise" and the story of the rich man and Lazarus.  They study this again and find many Christians in church history believing that people go to heaven or hell when they die, many atheists who deny people going to heaven or hell when they die saying that the Bible is just nonsense, and untrue" and the Bible having Paul talking about being absent from the body and being present with the Lord, and the text "Verily I say unto you today, you shall be with me in paradise." and the story of the rich man and Lazarus. They study it over and over again and return to the same points. Many Christians over history believed that people go to heaven or hell at death. Atheists who believe the Bible is nonsense and that people don't go to heaven or hell when they die, and have the Bible passages where Paul talks about being absent from the body and being present with the Lord, read "Verily I say unto you today, you shall be with me in paradise" and the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

Thus the group of Christians say "These people here who are trying to tell us that people don't go to heaven or hell at death are going against the Bible and are following what the atheists are teaching, if we let these people be members of our church they will destroy the Bible and we will no longer be a Bible believing church but we will become atheists. " and they demand that their members don't even question the idea that when you die you go to heaven or hell and that if anyone questions this point they must be severely punished.  

From this illustration you can see how they have studied the topic ad nauseam, but this is the type of study and thinking that has been done on the topic of women's ordination in our church, especially as from the perspective of those who are opposed to women's ordination. Elder A. G. Daniels wanted to postpone women's ordination a short time to first educate our members about the information that they are not seeing in their thoughts on the topic in the past. Elder Wilson wants the church to embrace this ignorance that Elder Daniels wanted to push out with education. I hope this illustration helps make it clearer as to what is going on.

[Gregory Matthews]

The proposed 29th statement of fundamental beliefs pertains to SDA schools and education, as I understand it.

I do not believe that it is in its final form.  So, I cannot tell you how it will read.

Further, as it is  NOT far along in the process, the potential exists for a decision to be made not to propose it.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I am a supporter of SDA education.  My education through grade school and a college degree was 100% SDA.  Since then I have obtained a 2nd graduate degree, military education and other training related to work that I was doing outside of the SDA system, and a 1st graduate degree what was from within the SDA system.

Notwithstanding my firm support for SDA education, I would strongly object to what I think might be a 29th fundamental belief.  Statements as I think might be proposed, I do not believe have any place in being placed at the center of SDA beliefs and practices.  Further, they would, in my opinion, not deal fairly with those members who realistically can not participate in SDA education.  In its present  form, many members cannot reasonably participate.   

 

[GayatfootofCross]

I really like the points made here!

by Sigve Tonstad

 

 

 from the latest Op source ...http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2016/10/09/ordination-between-heaven-and-earth

 

* I believe in women's ordination because the Father is not a male, and the Triune God is not a hierarchy.
* I believe in women's ordination because the person who first saw and proclaimed the Son risen from the dead was a woman.
* I believe in women's ordination because the Spirit is being poured out on all flesh, on sons and daughters, especially on the daughters.
* I believe in women's ordination because of the circle of anointed women in Paul's life and ministry, Phoebe, Prisca, Mary, and Junia, to mention just a few.
* I believe in women's ordination because of the priesthood of all believers.
* I believe in women's ordination because of the promise -- come the day -- when they shall no longer say, every person to his brother and sister, "Know the Lord" because they shall ALL know me.
* I believe in women's ordination because the person wielding the highest teaching authority in my faith community was a woman.
* I believe in women's ordination because I have seen churches saved, lives transformed, and communities blessed by the ordination to ministry of women, given from above. 

[Kevin H]

6 hours ago, jackson said:

Kevin,

it is rather smug of you to imply that those opposed to WO were  ignorant. If too many members believed WO  was not biblical, as you say, then it is just as likely that they were right. What Elder Daniels thought or believed is no evidence for or against WO. What was  and still needed is a plain "thus saith the Lord"  and those in favor of WO do not have such verses unless they wrestle them in such a way as to contradict the writings of Paul

I see an alarmingly willful and sanctimonious attitude exhibited by those in favor of WO. They feel "so right" and others so "biased and ignorant" that they  are even  willing to  go against God's counsel in the SOP when they do not get their way.

.       I have been shown that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but surrendered. - Testimonies For The Church, Vol. III page 492 (1875)  {{PC 422.1-2}

Jackson did you notice that I, myself did not say that, but I was quoting or at least paraphrasing, what from our General Conference leadership from over 100 years ago said to the Atlantic Union and  New York Conference when they were going to start ordaining women.   I was only pointing out church history. It was our leaders approximately 100 years ago who were, if you want to describe them as ""being smug about the status of those who opposed women's ordination." Please register your complaint with the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists from the early 1900s as they are the source that you are upset with and this was their view about 50 some years before I was even born.

[Kevin H]

Well, I don't know. The idea itself was from A. G. Daniels. Since he would often discuss these issues with Mrs. White, while we can not at this time prove that this was her view, neither can we rule it out due to their conversations on these topics, so I'd be careful about calling Elder Daniels smug and condescending, especially if he was reflecting Mrs. White's view of the topic.

Anyway, if it was not for this view of the anti-WO people we would not be having this conversation now as our church would have been ordaining women for over 100 years.

[CyberGuy]

Woman's ordination will happen. It is only a matter of time. Each time the GC has a vote on this issue it gets closer and closer. Vote was over 80 percent to 20 percent against woman's ordination the first time in 1990. 55 percent to 45 percent the last time  in 2015.  I made a chart showing how the vote is getting closer and closer. Shows by 2035 the vote will pass  woman's ordination at the rate the viewpoints on this issue is changing.

[CyberGuy]

Ellen White was for the setting up of the Union Conferences to take power away from the General Conference so they will not dictate to the conferences policies.

A Council of Men--Not Just One Man--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 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. The showing by the past leadership of the conference is not after God's order.  There has been a work done of a character that has not been approved of God.  The result we have before us in the ruins where once stood that large printing plant, [The Review and Herald Office in Battle Creek] with its expensive facilities . . . . {ChL 26.1}
     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}

[CyberGuy]

Already many Adventist in the Pacific Union are starting to pay their tithe directly to the conference operating Budget instead of paying it to the tithe slot. By doing this the people are making sure their dollars are going directly to the local conference work and not a penny going to the upper SDA organizations.

Americans are a free thinking people. Ted Wilson would be wise in considering American History. We do not like dictators. We want a say in how our church operates and we do not take kindly to threats of firing out representatives at the Union So that the General Conference can take over power headed by Ted Wilson. American Adventists will fight with the last weapon they have. Their wallets and their free will offerings.

[pierrepaul]

It's not just Americans, the SdA Church is born of and steeped in a culture of independence, free-thinking and rebellion. The Seventh-day Adventists pioneers often rebelled against the leadership of their previous congregations and churches, which were often Methodist. The Methodists had arisen in rebellion against the established Church of England. The Church of England was the result of Henry VIII's rebellion, and Henry VIII had been encouraged and emboldened by Martin Luther's and Jean Calvin's respective rebellions against Rome. The Roman Catholic Church arguably arose in rebellion against the Eastern bishops who insisted upon equality with the Bishop of Rome. And the Apostolic and early churches themselves were in rebellion against the civil and religious authorities of antiquity. Week after week SdA pastors exhort their membership "don't take my word for it - read the Bible for yourselves". But when people take this advice to heart and read the Bible for themselves, don't be surprised that some will come to conclusions that differ from those of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. And people will not easily abandon contrarian beliefs which came about through personal study.

The 16th Century Catholic Bishops correctly predicted what would happen to ecclesiatic authority once the Bible were to be held up as having greater authority than counsels of bishops. In this respect we are the intellectual heirs of Luther. The SdA hierarchy may attempt to counter our heritage and try to shoehorn this unruly and independent-minded people into a culture of deference to episcopal office on matters of faith, morals and ecclesiology, but the effort is doomed to fail, for this is not who we are.

[GayatfootofCross]

another update

http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2016/10/12/three-takeaways-annual-council-unity-vote

[GayatfootofCross]

a 6 minute video