When Church leaders fail us...

[Kevin H]

Jackson, I won't copy your long post here. However, the discussion is just how much the 1901 vote gave to the unions. The argument in your post is that since women had not been ordained is proof that the 1901 vote did not give them that authority and that these other votes are looking for that authority but has not been granted.

But on the other hand, there is the fact that when we look at the history and what was happening is that the Unions after the 1901 vote did decide to ordain women. The General Conference recognized that they had the right to ordain women. The only reason why women were not ordained then is because the General Conference requested them to postpone the action until they could teach the members that women's ordination was indeed Biblical.

As Elder Wilson said nothing had changed.

The two arguments thus stand as what Elder Wilson is standing on "Unions had not ordained women back then, therefore they must not have been given the right to ordain women."  and the part that church historians have been on covering in their research is that the Unions did choose to ordain women back them thus the General Conference back them did see them has having the right to ordain women, but there was a gentleman's agreement to hold off on the ordination of women until the General Conference did something. And the current General Conference is not keeping up with their end of the agreement, thus in breech of contract freeing the Unions to continue to do what they were going to do after 1901.

 

[Kevin H]

But John Loughborough, a personal friend of Mrs. White would ordain people to take over his work as he raised up churches on the frontier and he would ordain whoever was best whether it was a man or a woman. They became the pastors of the frontier churches and would have the full ecclesiastical authority. 

Tell me, why do we find among Mrs. White's personal friends people who like John Loughborough and A. G. Daniels who supported women being ordained in our church. In their many discussions did they always forget to ask Mrs. White about it?

[Kevin H]

Dr. Brian Strayer a church historian at Andrews found the documentation.  

[joeb]

I've read most, but not all of this thread and here's what I see going on here....

I see the same strategies being used by the same people that the socialist media uses in politics.  In politics it's: we don't like what you say and do so we are going to riot, beat people up, etc... and then blame the other side because "they attract violence", while completely glossing over their own responsibility for their actions.  It's called "projection" because it is accusing those with whom you have differences of being the ones doing what in actuality is your own doing.

On this thread it's "you give us what we want or we are going to split from the church", and then say the GC is evil for a possible split happening in the church because you didn't get your way.  We're going to leave over women's ordination but it's all fault of the GC and those who oppose us.  Once again we have "projection", the blaming of everybody else for your own actions and accusing the other side of what you yourselves are doing. 

The principle is exactly the same as what is going on with the socialists in politics.  Looks to me like exactly the same group doing the same thing in both instances.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I guess I missed where folks said they would leave the church if they didn't get their own way... 

[joeb]

20 minutes ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

I guess I missed where folks said they would leave the church if they didn't get their own way... 

Read Stan's opening post.  It's new church or new leaders.  What is that but a threat to leave if WO doesn't happen like he wants it to?  One of TW's posts was very similar.  The only people on this site threatening leaving or church disruption if they don't get their way are the pro WO people. 

 

[CoAspen]

Nope, not leaving and still a supporter of WO.

So , will you attend or be a member of a Female ordained Ministered church?

[phkrause]

24 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

Nope, not leaving and still a supporter of WO.

So , will you attend or be a member of a Female ordained Ministered church?

Exactly!! Its just amazing that all we can do is give out labels as to who is this and who is that!!!!

[debbym]

15 hours ago, joeb said:

I've read most, but not all of this thread and here's what I see going on here....

I see the same strategies being used by the same people that the socialist media uses in politics.  In politics it's: we don't like what you say and do so we are going to riot, beat people up, etc... and then blame the other side because "they attract violence", while completely glossing over their own responsibility for their actions.  It's called "projection" because it is accusing those with whom you have differences of being the ones doing what in actuality is your own doing.

On this thread it's "you give us what we want or we are going to split from the church", and then say the GC is evil for a possible split happening in the church because you didn't get your way.  We're going to leave over women's ordination but it's all fault of the GC and those who oppose us.  Once again we have "projection", the blaming of everybody else for your own actions and accusing the other side of what you yourselves are doing. 

The principle is exactly the same as what is going on with the socialists in politics.  Looks to me like exactly the same group doing the same thing in both instances.

I believe it is the young people who are leaving... and they were never really quite here.  They are making up their mind, and a church that is not relevant, and closing doors on them for preparing to serve how they experience the Holy Spirit leading them....  they will go and serve the Lord where he leads.  and it is not just the WO issue that we are losing them over, although that is one.

EG White speaks of the masses who remain outside of the sda church because of the unconverted in the church, who feel they are great Christians. They  are so offensive and misrepresenting of Christ that the children of God outside of the church would not survive if they joined the church.

[Kevin H]

Our church has gone through rough times before. 1888, the race issues through out the 20th century, the 1919 Bible Conference and the horrible 1922 General Conference where members rebelled and had a coup throwing out or demoting those who were hand picked and trained by the prophet, rejecting her message and setting up an image to Babylon (what we have been suffering from that mistake is playing a big role in the current issue).  But despite all of this our church did not break apart. If we could weather these storms we can weather this situation. Elder Wilson is wrong. The word of God will not go away. Either he will come to understand and change or else he will retire and it may take a little longer than we would like (Hey, we are still suffering from the choices of 1922) but the truth will not go away and will eventually be accepted.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

44 minutes ago, jackson said:

Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support.  {GC88 595.1}

that's true

But is Women's Ordination supposed to be a *doctrine*??  It's certainly not so in my mind — but maybe it is in other people's minds...

[debbym]

when Church leaders fail me, i am reminded of the weakness of all humanity.  It is humbling to be reminded that I too in my humanity may inadvertently deeply fail others.

I am thankful that when one person fails another person, or when one leader fails their sheep that this one is not the only option God has for bringing about His will.

And i consider their failure is an opportunity for me to show the patience and wisdom I can claim in Jesus' name, and hunker down closer to God and pray for them, and do not let go of the blessings of God, and become controlling or angry, or fearful.  It is time for me to humble myself and realize that i too can be tempted, and I need to consider my own weakness and vulnerability.

 

[LifeHiscost]

On 11/20/2016 at 8:04 PM, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

 

I will say, though, that Asherah and other goddesses and gods are more than happy when someone gives them a "nod" as being worshipped in Christian churches.  It's a move towards hysteria and confusion, which well serves their oneupmanship of the God of Heaven.

…31The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.” 32“Right, Teacher, the scribe replied. “You have stated correctly that God is One and there is no other but Him, 33and to love Him with all your heart and with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself, which is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”…. Mark 12

Since there is no other God but the Creator God, it would stand to reason that any other are false and putting ones' life in Jesus' hands will give one all the safety they need.

11“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for You created all things; by Your will they exist, and came to be.”.... Revelation 4

15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.… Colossians 1

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[Kevin H]

On ‎11‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 10:05 PM, jackson said:

 

 

On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 6:59 PM, jackson said:

Kevin,

If you are going to make a doctrinal case for WO , it must be founded on Biblical authority.

What John Loughborough, or any other person, may have thought or did regarding WO is no evidence for or against it.

 

i rarely if ever, see a scripture in support of WO; and when one is presented it invariably is a vague one that contradicts plainer ones to the contrary .

 

 

I fully agree that in making a doctrinal case for WO it must be founded on Biblical authority. However, You have a comment on church history:  "Myron my statement was in response to the query as to why  the SDA Church would have a female prophet but no female ministers/pastors. I noted that only God chooses prophets. Jesus has given the church the responsibility in choosing pastors. . Secondly, prophets may also be pastors, but the biblical qualifications for pastor can only be met by men. When  I said prophets don't have ecclesiastical authority i was referring to the authorized duties mentioned below and highlighted in yellow. I never stated nor imp[lied that prophets had no doctrinal authority. But interestingly enough, many in our church refuse to accept Mrs. White's authority on doctrinal matters. " So I was trying to deal issues in this quote looking at church history.  As your know our pioneers were very focused on the Bible. And if we find some, especially within Mrs. White's inner circle, it would be wise to at least question why these people would believe that Women's Ordination would be Biblical.

 

[Kevin H]

On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 7:03 PM, jackson said:

(continued from last post)

Still other proponents of WO suggest that extra-Biblical sources such as historical accounts and scholarly commentaries on the meaning of certain words are indispensable for a proper interpretation of certain Biblical texts. But again, counsel says:

 

The word of God is infallible; accept it as it reads;. ...  {RH, February 11, 1896 par. 12}

 

     The truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men, who, with a pretense of great wisdom, teach that the Scriptures have a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not apparent in the language employed. These men are false teachers. It was to such a class that Jesus declared: "Ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God." Mark 12:24.

 

The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. Christ has given the promise: "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." John 7:17. {GC 598.3} 

 

As in earlier ages, the special truths for this time are found, not with the ecclesiastical authorities, but with men and women who are not too learned or too wise to believe the word of God.  {COL 79.1}

 

Again, there are still others who say that the movement for WO is spirit driven, and it is the Holy Spirit that is leading Adventist men and women to call for the ordination of women to become leaders of the flock. But what does inspired counsel proclaim?

 

"The Spirit was not given–nor can it ever be bestowed–to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state that the word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.  GC iv. (1911)

 

Even the work of the Holy Spirit upon the heart is to be tested by the Word of God. The Spirit which inspired the Scriptures, always leads to the Scriptures.--General Conference Daily Bulletin, April 13, 1891.  {1SM 43.2}

 

Then there is the argument that learned men have studied this issue deeply  and have written scholarly papers in favor of WO. But inspired counsel notes that:  

 

One sentence of Scripture is of more value than ten thousand of man’s ideas or arguments (7T p. 71).

 

If one wants to make a case for WO please cite Biblical authority because inspired counsel again warns:

 

Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support.  {GC88 595.1}

Jackson; you do not find me quoting people like Chuck Swindall. He has written some popular books on say King David. But what he does is reads the texts and makes speculation on what it could mean and makes superficial homilies which are useful and many people benefit from what he says. But he is not doing exegesis, or very little. You don't see me going through what the great thought leaders in Christianity have said about the text over the years.

The people that we appeal to are of a different breed. These are people who study the language and history and culture so that we can get to a clear reading of the text. We all bring ideas to the text.  We all have presuppositions, prejudices, ideas from our culture and ignorance of their culture that color our reading of the texts. The great thought leaders over the years have only been able to read the text and read into it their ideas. In Mrs. White's day the door to exegesis was only starting to be unlocked. The people she was warning about were those scholars who were either trying to read modernism into the text and trying to see the Bible as purely human and non-historical. Or else they were people wanting to push the ideas of Fundamentalism and futurism (Darby, the Scholfield Bible) on to the Bible.

Mrs. White said (and I'll try to write it as I remember it, maybe someone can find the exact words) but it went like: While a knowledge of the history and geography is necessary to understand the Bible, even without this knowledge you can still see the message of salvation."

The ones you are worried about for being used by those of us who support WO are those who have been taking what we were only starting to learn in the mid 1800s and through the 1900s to understand the history, culture and geography, literary structures, linguistic studies etc. to dig deep to get not to symbols or speculation but to try to learn a clear and accurate meaning of the text. These are people who have come to the conclusion that the Bible does not teach the dead going to heaven or hell at death (even if as individuals belong to churches who believe this and have a reflection of their church in their life and belief) but when it comes to what the Bible says they see that the Bible says that the dead are reposing in sheol until the resurrection. They see that Paul does not see the law as done away with and that he is not against the Sabbath but always kept the Sabbath and always ate kosher.

As Mrs. White said, while the story of salvation is clear in scripture for everyone, we still need to know things such as the history and culture and geography to really understand the text.

The people who are critical of that study tend to want to use what Mrs. White describes as Spiritualism to interpret the scriptures.  Reading the text but interpreting the words according to our experience, our existence, an existentialism foundation as the final word on what scriptures mean where we end up worshiping our feelings and what we feel the text means is what it means. I'm sorry but she does not see that as a plain reading of scripture.   

[CoAspen]

Kevin I have enjoyed your posts on Bible interpretation and also WO. My question after all this many years of discussion within and without the church and everywhere else is; How did we come to the point of putting God in between the covers of the Bible Box? 

[Gregory Matthews]

CoAspen, while some people will probably understand your question, I suspect that some may not.  For them, you might want to clarify.

 

[CoAspen]

Outside the box=thinking differently

Inside the box=never deviate from current thought

Bible box=Keeping all revelations of God and any thought process confined to that box. In other words, that is the only place we place we can find him....our construct.

[Gail]

You mean the Adventist hermeneutics Bible box?

[debbym]

Gail,

When we confine God to our understanding of the bible, and believe we have it all figured out.... and something occurs outside of that framework and our faith crunches...  we are in for a major growth spurt.   When we are  able to turn to God and His word and find our God is still prepared, a present help in time of trouble,  and has made provision and His promises to us can stretch to whatever  new demands that happen... then we are in for some great exercise of faith.

when we think we have it figured out, and event or demand of faith finds still us confined to what we have known and we find it is not enough...  we  may lose faith, and walk away from the bible.

for example, God's righteousness exceeded the righteousness of the pharisees. they had the law they had it all figured it out, they had the Scripture God box, but God was greater then they understood, and God's rigorousness was so much higher then they could even imagine..  So Jesus taught the sermon on the mount and people got out of the bible box that day.

[Gail]

Totally agree!

I was thinking the other day of the early pioneers. There was no SDA denomination. Everyone studied along with Miller and the adventists and went back to their own churches to worship. The only box they had to start from was what they learned up until then. The little groups dug and mined for truth. Some positions came quickly while others slowly. But they were indeed a people of the book. 

Whenever people come up with a creed I feel it limits God. I see it more as a, "This is what we know so far." That leaves the topics more open-ended.

[joeb]

As I've read this thread my uneasiness has grown and grown as I see the tactics used by the WO side of the argument. But, after
reading the post where a false equivalency is made between 22 consecutive verses in 1Timothy chapters 2 and 3, and a couple of
widely scattered verses used by Sunday-keeping Protestants to justify keeping Sunday over Saturday I came to a point of needing
to completely refute the sophistry being used.

It is claimed that we need to understand the “historical context” of what Paul said about men being the only ones to hold the
offices of ecclesiatical authority in the church. It's claimed that this “historical context” completely negates a block of 22
consecutive verses in length to the point to accept this block of scripture as it is written is to reject solid Biblical analysis.
What. Utter. Sophistry.

Paul himself gave both the historical and Biblical context to what he had to say on this subject in verses 12-14 of chapter 2.
He referred the reader back to Eve's behavior in the garden of Eden, and what God said to her as a result of what she did: her
desire was to be to her husband and her husband was to rule over her. That is the true historical context of what Paul has to say
and he was led by the Holy Spirit to give it centuries before the socialist agenda was ever thought of by human beings.

This makes clear the agenda and that the rebellion here is not against the church, per se, but against God Himself. He is the
one who set up the relationship between men and women, both before and after sin entered our world. God said, after sin
entered the world, the man was to rule over the woman, to be the head and the woman to be the follower. That is not a construct
made up by sinful human beings it is a consequence brought about by sin. It is plainly a curse put upon Eve for abusing her
pre-sin co-headship with Adam and leading Him into sin through his love for her. It was implanted into the psychology of the
race by God's own command. His word brought it about and made it the reality of the human race because the only attributes Eve
could pass on to her posterity were the attributes she had after she sinned. The same is true of Adam. True, what God ordained for
our benefit has been perverted and misused because of sin just like everything else God has given us, but the fact remains that
to rebel against the order set up by God is to rebel against God Himself.

I have been on the fence about WO as I have seen it as a tempest in a teapot the entire time it's been being agitated for, but the
use of such sophistry as I have seen on this thread has made me plant my feet firmly on the side of God on this issue. When
someone starts using sophistry in attempts to “win” a debate I know from where that side is getting its motivation and agenda.
There is only one ultimate source of sophistry and he is the father of all lies.

The devil knows he cannot defeat a church planted solidly upon scripture and obedience to God's commands so he uses every tool
at his disposal to create wedges between the church and God, for then he has the advantage over that church and he can lead it
wherever he desires.

Accepting his reasoning is fatal to real spirituality for his spirituality is a counterfeit of what God designed spirituality to accomplish
within the human race.

 

[joeb]

debbym,

Your post has some very subtle, but dangerous, errors mixed with some truth. True, young people are leaving the church. They have
been since I young, and they were doing it before I was born. Why are they leaving the church though is the question, and they are
not leaving it because the church isn't accepting socialism as fast as you would like it to.

The young people are leaving because they don't see Biblical sanctification in the lives of the older church members. They
don't see the living Christ and fidelity to truth displayed in the hearts and lives of the members. They see confusion,
idolatry, hypocrisy, a people who are rapidly abandoning the Bible in favor of socialism, and so they ask themselves, “what is
it I can get here that the world doesn't offer?” and the answer is, “nothing”.

All of my wife's grandchildren have left the church. They all point to one thing, actually a person, as the reason for it.
Their greatgrandmother, with whom they lived for several years, would rather lie than tell the truth, stabs people in the back,
teaches her greatgrandchildren how to get away with disobeying their parents, plays mind games constantly, displays more
favoritism than anyone else I've ever seen in my lifetime, which includes my own abusive father, indulges in character
assassination on a regular basis, abused her disabled son in ways that absolutely humiliated him, etc....

These kids aren't leaving the church because they think the church is wrong about the Bible. They are leaving because their
greatgrandmother who portrays herself as a great Christian is as evil a person as I've ever known. They point directly at her and
say, if that is Christianity, I do not want to be a Christian. This greatgrandmother thinks sanctification is a myth. She
doesn't believe it is necessary to enter heaven, or even to be a Christian. And she is not alone in this belief. It has gained
widespread acceptance within Christianity as a whole and in the SDA church. It is this error that is fatal to the Christian life,
and the honor of God, that is destroying the church and causing widespread disaffection in its young people.

Thinking that we can replace sanctification with socialism is a major error. No political agenda will ever change hearts the way
the new birth experience and the continual life of sanctification does. It is that which is missing in the church. It is that, and
that alone, that drives the young people out of the church.

Women's ordination? It's only the socialist activists who are highly incensed over this issue. In fact, I know of no woman who
has rejected socialism who accepts WO. Accepting the world's agenda, which is what socialism is, is placing the church on very
unstable ground, for accepting the idea that we must be “culturally relevant” to keep the kids in the church is to place
the church on the shifting sands of human opinion.

In the Old Testament the Hebrew word translated into English as “truth” about 80-90% of the time it is used, and also as true,
truly, established, right, etc... means, according to Strong's Concordance, stability. Thus the idea behind truth is that it is
stable. It doesn't change. We know truth will always be the same thing. It's something we can ground ourselves on and latch
ourselves to. Jesus said he was the Rock and those who didn't follow Him built their houses(lives) upon shifting sand. We know
from this parable of His that He is the ultimate in stability. He changes not. What He said in the entire Bible is still true today
and will still be true for all of our tomorrows. Truth is stability. It doesn't change according to the whims of public political opinion.

It is the acceptance of sin in the camp that drives young people away. It's the idea that it is unloving to call sin by it's
rightful name and demand that it be put away. What is unloving is to allow sin to remain and do its baleful work while our young
people see it daily, and then reject Christianity because it isn't being lived in its fullness. That is what is really
unloving. Why should the young have to leave because people want to live sinful lives and see no need of change? The sophistry of
sanctification being nothing more than a doubtful option, legalism, or self-righteousness is what is the destroyer.

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

3 hours ago, joeb said:

they ask themselves, “what is it I can get here [in the church] that the world doesn't offer?” and the answer is, “nothing”

that is one of the saddest, truest statements I've read in a long time....

[CoAspen]

Pam, could you explain a little more? This time I am the one not sure of what you are saying!