Core SDA Values

[Gregory Matthews]

Mark Leslie said in the quote below:

Let me state first, that you are welcome here.  We welcome in this forum people with divergent views who engage in discussions with others.  You state your views with force and we may reply to you with force.  Both are O.K.

*  I would challenge your assertion that this is not about women in ministry.  On one level you are correct.  But, there is another level in which some opponents of female ordination wish to restrict women to a very narrow set of ministry.  As an example, while the SDA denomination has voted that females may serve as Local Elders, some opponents of female ordination refuse to accept this.  I am thinking of a well known SDA leader who travels the world and have participated in a number of ordinations of pastors.  He refuses to be on the platform anytime a female is being set apart as a Local Elder.  There are opponents of female ordination who do not believe that a woman, even if not ordained, should preach a sermon.  We have had female General Conference Vide-Presidents, who were not ordained as ordination was not required for their positon.  Some of the opponents of female ordination have do not believe that these women should have served as GC Vice-Presidents.    Currently we allow women who are Commissioned, not ordained, to serve as congregational pastors.  There are many who oppose this. I will suggest to you that there are very clear examples of opponents of female ordination, some who are in leadership positions who want to narrow the role that women play in ministry beyond what it is at this time in the SDA denomination.

*  You may have voted for a female to be an Outreach Leader, but there are those who would say you are wrong.   It is in view of the differences that exist among those who oppose the ordination of females I, or any other, should ask you to clarify your personal position.

You talk about the extra-Biblical concept of female ordination.  There are many of us who believe that the entire concept of ordination, as carried on in the SDA denomination carries with it extra-biblical concepts and practices that have  come down to us from Rome.  The Bible does not talk about ordination of either males or females.  It does talk about the role that women should have and upon which disagreement exists.  In addition, it talks about setting apart for ministry by prayer and the laying on of hands.   In the SDA Church we separate ordination from this.  In fact, we set apart males and females by prayer and the laying on of hands for many ministry situations.   If we are going to talk about women and ordination, we ought to be Biblical enough to talk about the laying on of hands that we do  for men and women in this situations.  Are Deaconess in ministry?  Should be set them apart by prayer and the laying on of hands?  Should we ordain them?  By the way, some congregations ordain Deaconess, others do not.  Probably set apart by prayer and the laying on of hands.

  

This discussion is in the context of womens ordination. I am reponding as such. Those who are opposed to the extra-biblical concept of WO have always, adamantly stated that the issue is not one of whether or not women should be in ministry. This is on the record multitudinous times.

I voted for a woman in the position of outreach leader at our Church, just to be clear.

[Mark Leslie]

On 2/4/2018 at 11:52 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

  I am thinking of a well known SDA leader who travels the world and have participated in a number of ordinations of pastors.  He refuses to be on the platform anytime a female is being set apart as a Local Elder. 

This is still an ordained leadership position in the church. For all practical purposes, its the same as being a pastor. Therefore, I am in agreement with the "well known SDA leader" on this one. This still doesn't preclude a woman as serving the Lord in the work of the Three Angels Message.

[Mark Leslie]

On 2/4/2018 at 11:52 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

  I am thinking of a well known SDA leader who travels the world and have participated in a number of ordinations of pastors.  He refuses to be on the platform anytime a female is being set apart as a Local Elder. 

This is still an ordained leadership position in the church. For all practical purposes, its the same as being a pastor. Therefore, I am in agreement with the "well known SDA leader" on this one. This still doesn't preclude a woman as serving the Lord in the work of the Three Angels Message.

Quote

There are opponents of female ordination who do not believe that a woman, even if not ordained, should preach a sermon. 

I think this is ok, on occasion but it goes to something much deeper. Men are the head, according to the Bible - therefore, they should act as such. If an Elder, they should be discipling the flock. They should do the work of a Bishop. If a woman is all that can be found to fill the role, then we are looking at a situation where a man should be brought up to that point. Until then, no Elder.

I am not sure about this but it always seems that the liberal NAD propagates this stuff. This is a shameful thing.

Quote

Currently we allow women who are Commissioned, not ordained, to serve as congregational pastors.  There are many who oppose this.

Well, just because "we allow" it, doesn't mean it should be. Again, the NAD leads the charge on this stuff as far as I can see, with the much wiser World Wide Church resisting it. Seems to me the WWC is wiser than the NAD.

Quote

You talk about the extra-Biblical concept of female ordination.  There are many of us who believe that the entire concept of ordination, as carried on in the SDA denomination carries with it extra-biblical concepts and practices that have  come down to us from Rome. 

Great! Then why don't proponents of WO drop that battle, and oppose ordination instead? No, there is something else going on here. I stop short of stating that there are people spearheading this movement that are inspired by the adversary because I don't know their hearts. I do know that the adversary would love the Seventh Day Adventist Church to be just as vanilla as every other protestant church, and that's a fact. Proponents of WO have done a lot of underhanded things to push their agenda - and that can be clearly demonstrated. If this WO "movement" for lack of a better term, were from God, the presentation would have been different. Instead, haters - and thats what they are - attack Ted Wilson, and masny others, people who dearly love the Lord and do trickery to move the agenda along. NO - NO!   This is not of God.

Quote

You talk about the extra-Biblical concept of female ordination.  There are many of us who believe that the entire concept of ordination, as carried on in the SDA denomination carries with it extra-biblical concepts and practices that have  come down to us from Rome.

Really the same response as above. But, why would you then want to join with Rome?

The hierarchy would still be the same, whether or not there was such a thing as formal "ordination". Godly men would still look at the Bible and see that, not only is it never alluded to, or even hinted at, but the fact that the opposite is true by statements that the Bible makes, and also by the principles enshrined throughout, even in the Old Testament.

If there is a problem, it isnt that women should be ordained. The problem is with Men who don't offer themselves as a living sacrifice to the Lord of Heaven. If this were done, this would never have been a topic in the first place.

[Tom Wetmore]

There have been numerous numerous attempts by those supporting women's equality in ministry, ministry of all types, to raise the extra-Biblical practice of ordination by dialog and constructive suggestions to rethink our practices and nomenclature surrounding how we formalize recognition of those who serve in the church.  And the meaningless distinction between commissioned and ordained as we practice it has been highlighted numerous times.  But the strong resistance to change has quite frankly side-tracked and paralyzed any thoughtful dialog or effort to reconsider how much Catholic tradition we really do embrace in our own practices of ordination.  

That is why many of us have repeatedly recognized and pointed out that this whole debate really isn't about ordination.  Even the TOSC process prior to the 2015 Session readily reached a consensus on the theology of ordination apart from gender issues.  The bottom line is that it is really all about the role of women in the church. On a practical level, ordination is simply human recognition/acceptance of something.  The simple fact is that opposition is at its heart a refusal to recognize or accept women functioning in the church in one way or another.  That last phrase is so divergent that it discombobulates and derails the whole conversation because among those who oppose women's roles of one sort or another seldom agree among themselves on what they do accept or recognize for women to do in the church, where the boundaries really are.  For some its OK for a woman to do just about everything, but still without ordination.  For others, women are to remain silent and tend to their family only.  And options range across the spectrum in between.  As has been noted, it's OK with some that a woman preach, but then their is always a "but" attached.  But not from the pulpit... But not as a leader... But not ordained to do so.  And there is the incongruous side that a woman can be a prophet, but not a church pastor.  And those who want women to be silent in church seem to have no issue with EGW, a woman of course, who preached more than 10,000 sermons in her life of ministry.  

But support, recognition, and acceptance of women in ministry of all sorts and leadership is in fact growing in the Church.  Despite explosive growth in increased membership in areas of the world that have historically not supported full recognition of women in ministry by ordination, the overall percentage of those supporting WO continues to increase.  This is contrary to the expected mathematical reality given the relative stagnation of growth in the divisions of the church that have historically supported WO. 

[Mark Leslie]

Quote

" There have been numerous numerous attempts by those supporting women's equality in ministry, ministry of all types, to raise the extra-Biblical practice of ordination by dialog and constructive suggestions to rethink our practices and nomenclature surrounding how we formalize recognition of those who serve in the church."

Perhaps, but is merely a backdoor effort to destroy the Biblical concept of male headship in the Church, and ultimately in the home. Although the latter may not (or may) be the intent, it will be the outcome. Satan has tried to destroy the family from the beginning, and he is still working at it. Now he is attacking the remnant Church of Jesus Christ.

Quote

And the meaningless distinction between commissioned and ordained as we practice it has been highlighted numerous times.  But the strong resistance to change has quite frankly side-tracked and paralyzed any thoughtful dialog or effort to reconsider how much Catholic tradition we really do embrace in our own practices of ordination.

Its not based in the Bible. Who cares if its a meaningless distinction?

I praise "resistance to change" if it either unnecessarily causes division of unity, which this does, or if it is clearly not biblical, which it isn't. Not only is this discussion on WO unnecessary, it is extraneous to the mission, it is a fabricated issue by the devil to divide the church. Who brought the issue? Why is it being discussed at all? If WO proponents really care, they would drop it. But they don't, no matter how many souls are destroyed in the process because just like the political environment, there are impressionables who are being effected - the less spiritual are being effected by this argument. I think of the millstone warning Jesus gave when I think of this. As stated in an earlier post, attaching a name "ordination", does not change the Biblical mandate. Whether or not we have a formality or a practice, its still the same. The Bible teaches - in everything - Male headship in the Church and at home, period.

Additionally, no matter how you or anyone else tries to color it, we do not state that women cannot serve the Lord within the constructs, and yes, constraints of the Bible. Such accusations are an emotive attempt to slander and paint people who oppose women's ordination in a negative light, and then attack them for it. It is used as support for an erroneous viewpoint. It is a strawman argument.
 

Quote

 

That is why many of us have repeatedly recognized and pointed out that this whole debate really isn't about ordination.  Even the TOSC process prior to the 2015 Session readily reached a consensus on the theology of ordination apart from gender issues.  The bottom line is that it is really all about the role of women in the church. On a practical level, ordination is simply human recognition/acceptance of something.  The simple fact is that opposition is at its heart a refusal to recognize or accept women functioning in the church in one way or another.  That last phrase is so divergent that it discombobulates and derails the whole conversation because among those who oppose women's roles of one sort or another seldom agree among themselves on what they do accept or recognize for women to do in the church, where the boundaries really are.  For some its OK for a woman to do just about everything, but still without ordination.  For others, women are to remain silent and tend to their family only.  And options range across the spectrum in between.  As has been noted, it's OK with some that a woman preach, but then their is always a "but" attached.  But not from the pulpit... But not as a leader... But not ordained to do so.  And there is the incongruous side that a woman can be a prophet, but not a church pastor.  And those who want women to be silent in church seem to have no issue with EGW, a woman of course, who preached more than 10,000 sermons in her life of ministry.

But support, recognition, and acceptance of women in ministry of all sorts and leadership is in fact growing in the Church.  Despite explosive growth in increased membership in areas of the world that have historically not supported full recognition of women in ministry by ordination, the overall percentage of those supporting WO continues to increase.  This is contrary to the expected mathematical reality given the relative stagnation of growth in the divisions of the church that have historically supported WO.

 

And here is a perfect example of the problem.  Ultimately it is the entire argument that has been foisted on the unwitting since the beginning. Interestingly, there is not a single appeal to the Word of God. Not one.

You are a very articulate and intelligent man. I note that by and large all arguments from WO proponents come from many intelligent men. However, it is mostly based on secular reasoning, but not on a clear "Thus saith the Lord", no, not even in Biblical principle. 

Re-read your post. Where is your Biblical support? Upon what foundation do we rely upon in the Seventh Day Adventist Church?

[Gregory Matthews]

Mark Leslie:  Your statement to the effect that Tom has not posted one single reference to the Word of God is totally false.  He has posted pages of material in a number  of posts.  You have a right to disagree with what he has posted.  At least be both knowledgeable and honest as to your posts.  Perhaps, you are simply ignorant as to what he has posted.  O.K.   then take the time to read and to understand it.

You spend a lot of time attacking the motives of those with whom you disagree.  Your disagreement is O.K. here in Club Adventist.  But, your irrational attacks on the personal motives of individuals with which you have neither a personal relationship nor with which you accurately represent their positions is not welcomed here.

You could clearly join the discussion and make a contribution.  But, you present yourself in a manner of not wanting to make any contribution and simply one who choses to present yourself in a manner that you will be rejected.  Perhaps (?)  that makes you feel good and as being more holy than those you smear.    I do not know.

[Mark Leslie]

Quote

Mark Leslie: Your statement to the effect that Tom has not posted one single reference to the Word of God is totally false.

Re-read the last statement of my previous post. I make clear the reference. Maybe you should read the entire post before accusing.

Quote

You have a right to disagree with what he has posted.  At least be both knowledgeable and honest as to your posts.  Perhaps, you are simply ignorant as to what he has posted.  O.K.   then take the time to read and to understand it.

I am knowledgeable and honest about this issue. Demonstrate otherwise, please.

I have also reviewed what leading people on the support of WO have said. I think I am characterizing it appropriately. Often when the Bible is used, there are facts (Biblical facts) omitted. I believe this is on purpose. Some of these people are scholars, and I am a layman and can see these gross errors. What are we supposed to think? That they don't realize what they are doing? Really? 

I made references to the WO movement as a whole. If you would like me to start pointing out some of the sleight of hand used by its proponents I can. IN a previous post I mentioned this and got no response.

You yourself have posted and made insinuations about the general motives of those dissenting. I also notice you don't do a thing when people slander leaders right here on this board who oppose Women's Ordination, whether those insinuations are direct,  or by inference. I agree that no one should "attack" anyone.  So, I hope you will start being less selective in your reprimands. 

In addition,  I'd like to make an observation. This argument has matured enough that its pretty clear the methodologies and tactics being used to support either side  are sufficient to point them out.  As stated before in my other posts. Much of the means to which the WO movement has forwarded its agenda has been very underhanded.  If you would care to, we can open that discussion. 

Something else that the main thrust of my post was meant to relay. That is that the main argument of pro-WO perspectives is secular. "Its not fair","women are just as able", "ordination is from the pope", etc, etc are not strong supporting arguments from a Biblical standpoint. However, the entire plan as seen from Genesis onward is clearly based on male headship AND responsibility.

I will have a look at some of your friend's posts. Admittedly, I only responded to what he posted in this thread.  Hopefully there is some new information there.

 

[Mark Leslie]

I went back to find the posts that attacked Ted Wilson and others. I see that they were deleted - along with my posts reprimanding them.  Good. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Tom has posted, in this forum, citations to the Biblical arguments made by those who favor the ordination of females.  I do not have a problem with you disagreeing with those positions.  You seemingly are not aware of them.

As to criticism of denominational leadership:  Criticism can be appropriate and may be even when it is wrong.  Other criticism may be inappropriate, even if true.  We clearly allow appropriate criticism here.  In out attempt to be fair, and not accused of treating some people unfairly, we may not always d raw the line in the right place as to what we allow.  Frankly, more often we fail in dealing with   stuff with which we disagree.  IOW, we attempt to be more than fair.

To be frank, when I take you on, in part I do so because I believe you are competent enough to handle it and to respond to me.  If I thought otherwise, I would probably give you more freedom.

In addition, some people may seem to have unrestricted freedom, when in actual fact I and others here soundly disagree with what they post.  What you do not know is that they may have established a relationship with us that is private.  I mean by this that they may contact us privately and ask us to react to something that they wish to publish.  In addition, when we contact them privately, they comply with our requests.

You may not understand this, but running this forum is much more complex than you might think.  We have responsibilities that you may not even have thought of.  I do not know.  There are times  when we struggle with those, determining what they are and how to apply them.   One of the responsibilities is this:  We, in this forum are the face of Adventism, often to a public that known nothing about SDAs other than what they see here.  Probably many of the people posting here do not realize the extent to which this is true.  We who run this forum struggle with that.

 

S

omething else that the main thrust of my post was meant to relay. That is that the main argument of pro-WO perspectives is secular. "Its not fair","women are just as able", "ordination is from the pope", etc, etc are not strong supporting arguments from a Biblical standpoint. However, the entire plan as seen from Genesis onward is clearly based on male headship AND responsibility.

[Mark Leslie]

Quote

As to criticism of denominational leadership: Criticism can be appropriate and may be even when it is wrong.

Maybe. But I didnt see criticism. I saw venom.  The conference president is talked about like he is a piece of trash. That is not "criticism". 

I doubt those that make such statements are very honorable. From that standpoint, its good to know who they are. That way, I can steer clear. "Evil communications corrupt good manners".