Adventist Leaders Set Timetable to Study of the Theology of Ordination

[CGMedley]

On October 10, 2011, church leaders announced a timetable for studying the theology of ordination over the next few years, the latest action following a promise at the 2010 General Conference session to study the issue.

Read more

http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=4877

[Alchemy]

On October 10, 2011, church leaders announced a timetable for studying the theology of ordination over the next few years, the latest action following a promise at the 2010 General Conference session to study the issue.

Read more

http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=4877

Interesting. I would have thought they had already studied it by now!

Does anyone know what the issues of dispute are? What is it that needs to be addressed that hasn't been addressed already?

[ClubV12]

As I understand it,,, the primary issue is that the General Conference speaks for the entire world church. They can't just issue one ruling that covers all those bases. What works in one country simply doesn't work in another. For those looking for a one size fits all decision, a definitive world wide yes or no, pull up a chair. I don't think that will EVER happen. The BEST they could do would be grant their blessing to the Unions or Conference levels and let each State or Country make the call. But thats not a consistent approach and could cause a lot of confusion and make the church look like they are divided. Such division could lead to a genuine split.

I do know in some cases Ellen White specifically counseled some decisions should NOT be made! Some issues should simply be dropped and not pursued at all. The less said, the better, silence is eloquent, that sort of thing. She counseled some leaders to just be quiet on some issues. INCLUDING her own husband, James! Unity of leadership trumps just about everything else, it's that important. If the leaders aren't united, it's better to say nothing at all.

Which I why I suspect this issue will "remain in committee" for many years to come. There is NO WAY your going to have a united WORLD leadership on this issue, never happen. Bulgaria will see it one way, America another and Africa will have yet another opinion on it.

[miz3]

On October 10, 2011, church leaders announced a timetable for studying the theology of ordination over the next few years, the latest action following a promise at the 2010 General Conference session to study the issue.

Read more

http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=4877

And a committee to review the other committees work and digest the whole for review by yet another committee in preparation for any future committees that may want to study this same issue. That way future committees will have a head start at creating yet more committees of study and review.

[doug yowell]

And a committee to review the other committees work and digest the whole for review by yet another committee in preparation for any future committees that may want to study this same issue. That way future committees will have a head start at creating yet more committees of study and review.

Highly unlikely on this issue. NAD and parts of western Europe probably already have their theology settled and need only to formalize it. There's a lot more at stake for them.The committee to the third and fourth generations are generally reserved for those issues that don't seem that important. I find it odd that after 150 years of ordaining the church suddenly sits up and says "Why are we doing this?"

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

And a committee to review the other committees work and digest the whole for review by yet another committee in preparation for any future committees that may want to study this same issue. That way future committees will have a head start at creating yet more committees of study and review.

Highly unlikely on this issue. NAD and parts of western Europe probably already have their theology settled and need only to formalize it. There's a lot more at stake for them.The committee to the third and fourth generations are generally reserved for those issues that don't seem that important. I find it odd that after 150 years of ordaining the church suddenly sits up and says "Why are we doing this?"

I was being sarcastic about the SDA Church's bureaucracy. I was not commenting on the reality.

I agree with you that in truth you are correct. North America and the Trans European Divisions have settled this issue in their own minds. Women's ordination will come to these parts if they can get it.

The dilemma for the GC is how to do this without having such a divided Church that creates cultural barriers to unity. I think they are trying to have it both ways while kicking the can down the road as far as they dare hoping that some magical solution will arise along the way.

North American Division holds the wealth of the SDA Church in its hands. As such it is a powerful weapon. It depends on whether the NA is willing to use such a weapon to get its way on this issue. Can it be done without splitting the SDA Church? Are NA willing to split the Church in order to get their way on this?

For example would the other Divisions/Unions accept the North American President as the Leader ordained so if such were a woman?

Sure within the confines of the NA such a woman would be fine but such an ordained woman would be awkward when dealing with the other parts of the SDA Church outside of NA especially if those parts were staunchly anti-woman's ordination/leader.

[doug yowell]

[North American Division hold the wealth of the SDA Church in its hands. As such it is a powerful weapon. It depends on whether the NA is willing to use such a weapon to get its way on this issue. Can it be done without splitting the SDA Church.

For example would the other Divisions/Unions accept the North American President as the Leader ordained so if such were a woman?

Sure within the confines of the NA such a woman would be fine but such an ordained woman would be awkward when dealing with the other parts of the SDA Church outside of NA especially if those parts were staunchly anti-woman's ordination/leader.

If you were forced to be a prophet, what would you predict is going to happen? An educated guess would suffice.What time is it where you are,anyway?It's 11:30PST and I'm going to bed.----Manana

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

[North American Division hold the wealth of the SDA Church in its hands. As such it is a powerful weapon. It depends on whether the NA is willing to use such a weapon to get its way on this issue. Can it be done without splitting the SDA Church.

For example would the other Divisions/Unions accept the North American President as the Leader ordained so if such were a woman?

Sure within the confines of the NA such a woman would be fine but such an ordained woman would be awkward when dealing with the other parts of the SDA Church outside of NA especially if those parts were staunchly anti-woman's ordination/leader.

If you were forced to be a prophet, what would you predict is going to happen? An educated guess would suffice.What time is it where you are,anyway?It's 11:30PST and I'm going to bed.----Manana

Since I am not a prophet any answer I would give would not necessarily be accurate/true.

I think NA will get their woman's ordination. Whether the SDA Church as a whole will split over it or not, I don't know.

In today's current climate I would say the Church splits over the issue. In the future it might or might not be different. Some of the feelings on both sides of the issue are extremely strong at present and their would be hard feelings if it came today.

I need to go to bed too.

[Alchemy]

As I understand it,,, the primary issue is that the General Conference speaks for the entire world church. They can't just issue one ruling that covers all those bases. What works in one country simply doesn't work in another. For those looking for a one size fits all decision, a definitive world wide yes or no, pull up a chair. I don't think that will EVER happen. The BEST they could do would be grant their blessing to the Unions or Conference levels and let each State or Country make the call. But thats not a consistent approach and could cause a lot of confusion and make the church look like they are divided. Such division could lead to a genuine split.

I do know in some cases Ellen White specifically counseled some decisions should NOT be made! Some issues should simply be dropped and not pursued at all. The less said, the better, silence is eloquent, that sort of thing. She counseled some leaders to just be quiet on some issues. INCLUDING her own husband, James! Unity of leadership trumps just about everything else, it's that important. If the leaders aren't united, it's better to say nothing at all.

Which I why I suspect this issue will "remain in committee" for many years to come. There is NO WAY your going to have a united WORLD leadership on this issue, never happen. Bulgaria will see it one way, America another and Africa will have yet another opinion on it.

But, the GC Sessions have already voted it down at least three times since the GC has existed! Twice in the last 30 years!

As far as dropping this issue, I believe the proponents of women's ordination refuse to drop it even though it's been decisively defeated on every occasion it's been voted on the world level!

I agree completely that it should be dropped for as long as time exists! It should have been dropped after 1995 especially. Voted down at two GC Sessions in 10 years. But, those who want women's ordination only care about themselves. Well, they need to learn it's not about them. They don't seem to care what it does to the church or it's members.

It almost makes me cry.

[Alchemy]

Originally Posted By: miz3

And a committee to review the other committees work and digest the whole for review by yet another committee in preparation for any future committees that may want to study this same issue. That way future committees will have a head start at creating yet more committees of study and review.

Highly unlikely on this issue. NAD and parts of western Europe probably already have their theology settled and need only to formalize it. There's a lot more at stake for them.The committee to the third and fourth generations are generally reserved for those issues that don't seem that important. I find it odd that after 150 years of ordaining the church suddenly sits up and says "Why are we doing this?"

I think we need to remember a little about where we come from. It seems Abraham is the father of three major religions. Jewish, Christianity and Islam. I know Islam came along way after Ishmael, but Islam all the same.

None of them ever accepted women as leaders over men. For thousands of years it was like that and completely supported by their God and writings.

Now, all of a sudden, in the last 150 roughly, we need to keep looking at it over and over again with nothing new to look at! We have to neuter our own writings to accept this fallacy, and it always seems gay rights ride on it's coat tail.

These woman's leadership issue are always wrong accept in extreme situations.

[Alchemy]

Money is never a weapon! Just to think that way shows where there issue is headed. The NAD doesn't have the right or authority to act on it's own. It is part of a body and must perform it's function properly.

Or all it's leaders should be removed and replaced with those who will function properly within the body.

[miz3]

But, the GC Sessions have already voted it down at least three times since the GC has existed! Twice in the last 30 years!

As far as dropping this issue, I believe the proponents of women's ordination refuse to drop it even though it's been decisively defeated on every occasion it's been voted on the world level!

I agree completely that it should be dropped for as long as time exists! It should have been dropped after 1995 especially. Voted down at two GC Sessions in 10 years. But, those who want women's ordination only care about themselves. Well, they need to learn it's not about them. They don't seem to care what it does to the church or it's members.

It almost makes me cry.

You don't care about women. You need to learn that it is not about you and your phony beliefs about woman.

[miz3]

I think we need to remember a little about where we come from. It seems Abraham is the father of three major religions. Jewish, Christianity and Islam. I know Islam came along way after Ishmael, but Islam all the same.

None of them ever accepted women as leaders over men. For thousands of years it was like that and completely supported by their God and writings.

Now, all of a sudden, in the last 150 roughly, we need to keep looking at it over and over again with nothing new to look at! We have to neuter our own writings to accept this fallacy, and it always seems gay rights ride on it's coat tail.

These woman's leadership issue are always wrong accept in extreme situations.

Wrong. There were woman leaders. There are also cultural differences between then and now.

Next God chose Ellen White to LEAD THE SDA CHURCH. She did. Without her leadership the SDA Church would not exist.

Women's leadership in the Church is not wrong. Please cite the texts that state women are to never ever to be leaders in the Church.

[miz3]

Money is never a weapon! Just to think that way shows where there issue is headed. The NAD doesn't have the right or authority to act on it's own. It is part of a body and must perform it's function properly.

Or all it's leaders should be removed and replaced with those who will function properly within the body.

Once again you are too late. Money has always been used by the SDA Church and its leadership as a weapon of power and control.

Who says the NAD doesn't have such a right to act on its own?

Whoever holds the purse holds the power. This has always been true within the SDA Church. Its just a FACT.

You live in an SDA fantasy world.

In reality the SDA Church has always been a Church within which there have been constant power struggles. This is why stress may have been a major factor in the death of James White.

[Guest arnie]

Yes, I agree." All it's leaders should be replaced". . .by women.

[miz3]

Yes, I agree." All it's leaders should be replaced". . .by women.

Talk about the shaking. That would really shake them up.

[Alchemy]

Originally Posted By: Alchemy

Money is never a weapon! Just to think that way shows where there issue is headed. The NAD doesn't have the right or authority to act on it's own. It is part of a body and must perform it's function properly.

Or all it's leaders should be removed and replaced with those who will function properly within the body.

Once again you are too late. Money has always been used by the SDA Church and its leadership as a weapon of power and control.

Who says the NAD doesn't have such a right to act on its own?

Whoever holds the purse holds the power. This has always been true within the SDA Church. Its just a FACT.

You live in an SDA fantasy world.

In reality the SDA Church has always been a Church within which there have been constant power struggles. This is why stress may have been a major factor in the death of James White.

I understand the perception of power attributed to money. But, there isn't any power in money. Neither am I living in a fantasy nor am I too late. Money doesn't have any power.

If we are going to start judging issues and principles based on money and worldly conditions, then men are definitely superior to women because we have more money than women! Men should decide what the woman's role is and dictate that to her.

But, the Bible is clear. Men should love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it.

So no! Money does not have power and the NAD doesn't have the right or authority to act on its own.

[Alchemy]

Originally Posted By: Alchemy

I think we need to remember a little about where we come from. It seems Abraham is the father of three major religions. Jewish, Christianity and Islam. I know Islam came along way after Ishmael, but Islam all the same.

None of them ever accepted women as leaders over men. For thousands of years it was like that and completely supported by their God and writings.

Now, all of a sudden, in the last 150 roughly, we need to keep looking at it over and over again with nothing new to look at! We have to neuter our own writings to accept this fallacy, and it always seems gay rights ride on it's coat tail.

These woman's leadership issue are always wrong accept in extreme situations.

Wrong. There were woman leaders. There are also cultural differences between then and now.

Next God chose Ellen White to LEAD THE SDA CHURCH. She did. Without her leadership the SDA Church would not exist.

Women's leadership in the Church is not wrong. Please cite the texts that state women are to never ever to be leaders in the Church.

Actually I'm right! Even Queen Esther submitted to her uncle in dealing with those wanting to destroy the Israelites. And the cultural differences don't change the fact that women leading over men came from pagan cultures. In the Book of Acts we read about Diana of the Ephesians. Pagan cultures had female Gods and priests. And, as I understand it, that still exists in pagan religions today!

[ClubV12]

Leadership and ordination are two different things.

miz3 says,

"You don't care about women."

I had to laugh at that thought. I don't support lot's of things women, or men, do. Which has nothing to do with whether I "like" or "care" for them or not. Personally I don't think women should be ordained, which is neither here nor there when it comes to how I feel about women in general.

[miz3]

I understand the perception of power attributed to money. But, there isn't any power in money. Neither am I living in a fantasy nor am I too late. Money doesn't have any power.

If we are going to start judging issues and principles based on money and worldly conditions, then men are definitely superior to women because we have more money than women! Men should decide what the woman's role is and dictate that to her.

But, the Bible is clear. Men should love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it.

So no! Money does not have power and the NAD doesn't have the right or authority to act on its own.

To the "real" Christian money does not have any power. However, in the "world" money does indeed have power and is indeed used as an effective weapon.

The SDA Church is no different from any other .org entity in that money is used in various ways to achieve the goals of power, wealth, and corruption of the .org. You are naive if you think otherwise concerning the SDA .org.

The SDA .org uses money the same way as worldly .orgs do. This is FACT. Get used to such FACTS.

Yes, the Bible says that men should love their wives. However the Bible does not say that woman should not be in leadership positions in a entity .org. You need to read the Scripture correctly. If you think differently then show me from Scripture where women are not supposed to be leaders in a .org.

You are naive as to how the .org with its money works. The NAD with all its wealth can do as it pleases when the NAD is in unity on an issue. If the majority in the NAD want women's ordination it will eventually get such a result. The powers at the NAD are not going to go against their constituency especially if that constituency is very set on having women's ordination. If NAD money is withheld then the GC and the other entities of the SDA Church will also dry up. Money is needed to do the work of the .org. That is the reality.

[miz3]

Actually I'm right! Even Queen Esther submitted to her uncle in dealing with those wanting to destroy the Israelites. And the cultural differences don't change the fact that women leading over men came from pagan cultures. In the Book of Acts we read about Diana of the Ephesians. Pagan cultures had female Gods and priests. And, as I understand it, that still exists in pagan religions today!

Actually you are wrong. Queen Esther did not defer to her Uncle because he was a "man"(as in male). She deferred to him because he was her Uncle (adult vs child relationship) and also because she knew her Uncle was right (as in correct).

No where in the Bible does it say that Queen Esther submitted to her Uncle just because her Uncle was a "man" (as in male). This is just a figment of your wild imagination.

Alchemy the reason I think you hate women is not because you are against woman's ordination but because the tone of your posts is so anxious for woman to be "submissive" and because you make these wild interpretations like in the case of Queen Esther. There is nothing in the Queen Esther episode that has anything to do with a "woman submitting to male authority".

Pagan culture if you know anything at all on an elementary level is not based on "female superiority" at all. It is almost exclusively based on "male superiority" at the expense of women who pagans regard even to this day as nothing more than slaves and/or chattel. In fact it is in these pagan cultures that women meet their most degrading experiences.

It has been Christianity that has elevated woman to a position of dignity and authority that cannot be found anywhere in pagan societies such as the one you cited from the Book of Acts.

You have a very warped view of reality and of God's Truth on this subject.

[ClubV12]

The bible does not say women should be ordained.

Quoting the lovely miz3,

"If you think differently then show me from Scripture..."

"You have a very warped view of reality and of God's Truth on this subject.... Actually you are wrong.... This just a figment of you wild imagination.... You make these wild interpretations.... if you know anything at all."

Just a guess, does that feel offensive and rude to anyone else?

[monty]

I see an extreme paradox that you of all people should ask readers if they feel a post is "offensive and rude" :-)

[ClubV12]

It's a question that needs to be asked more often, stick around, you'll start to figure it out after awhile. It's like have that really loud obnoxious Uncle over for the Holidays. You soon weary of hearing the same old over blown everyone else is an idiot speech.

[monty]

"stick around, you'll start to figure it out after awhile"......I'm trying, I'm trying (They answered him, You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?" And they cast him out.") I'm soooo glad for individuals such as yourself to clarify and teach the rest of us!